Datasets:

faridariai

/

smallTest

like 0

situation in guinea (debate) the next item is the council statement on the situation in guinea. president-in-office of the council. - mr president, we move from one item to the next. this is a very serious and important subject which the honourable members have raised and chosen to put on the agenda. on monday, 28 september, more than 100 people were killed in conakry, guinea, when members of the guinean security forces shot into crowds of demonstrators. guinean citizens had gathered in a stadium in the capital to demonstrate against the presumed intention of the guinean military interim leader, captain moussa dadis camara, to run for president. the final death toll is still unknown, as the soldiers also collected the bodies rather than allow them to be counted at public morgues. at this stage, we do not know the real dimension of these tragic events. the number of injured people is said to be at least 1 200, and eye witnesses have reported that soldiers raped women on the streets of conakry. during the violent repression, several opposition leaders were wounded and temporarily arrested. the number of protestors still under detention is also unknown; the houses of opposition leaders were ransacked and shops looted by uniformed men. in a tv statement the following day, captain camara expressed his condolences with the families of those killed and visited some of the injured. he proclaimed two days of national mourning and pledged to investigate the violence. he distanced himself from the killings by saying that he was not in control of the elements of the military responsible for the atrocities. the european union immediately and forcefully condemned these brutal and shocking events. a presidency declaration, a statement by high representative solana and a statement by eu commissioner de gucht were issued the following day. we will have to insist on the liberation of the arrested prisoners and a thorough investigation of the events. the violence in guinea received worldwide condemnation. the un security council was briefed last wednesday on the situation in the country. the african union condemned the events and decided to prepare a report on possible measures to be taken. the economic community of west african states (ecowas) called for a full international inquiry into the matter. parliament, as you know, condemned the unconstitutional change of power, and in its resolution of 15 january 2009, called for respect for human rights and a rapid return to constitutional order. the eu decided to open consultations under article 96 of the cotonou agreement, and eu development aid - apart from humanitarian aid and support for democratic transition - was frozen. we have not been alone. our international partners have acted in line with us. the african union and ecowas decided to suspend guinea until it established a democratically elected parliament or government. an international contact group on guinea co-chaired by the african union and ecowas, and with participation by the european union, was put into place. in march, the military junta agreed with the opposition to have elections before the end of 2009, which gave reasonable hope for a peaceful and democratic transition. captain camara gave his assurances that none of the coup leaders would stand for political office. a national transitional council was to guide the transition process and prepare the necessary modification of the constitution in order to help elections. what can we do, then, to prevent further violence, and how can we help the people of guinea in their legitimate desire for democracy, the rule of law, peace and development? well, there are three main areas of action. first of all, we should maintain and reinforce political pressure on the regime in conakry, notably in the context of the international group. captain camara's decision not to run could allow calm to return. the nomination of the president of burkina faso, mr blaise compaor, as facilitator in the crisis on behalf of ecowas and the international contact group, is a very positive sign, and the european union has welcomed this appointment via the presidency. we hope that his mediation will contribute to a secure, peaceful and lasting solution to the situation in guinea. secondly, the option of targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for violence could be further explored. we will need to coordinate this approach with the african union and other international and bilateral partners. the upcoming eu-african ministerial troika in addis ababa and the meeting on guinea on 12 october in abuja will be important in this respect. thirdly, we should continue to provide humanitarian aid to the civilian population and support the democratic transition process. the latter will nevertheless depend on the credible willingness of the transitional authorities of guinea to re-engage in a peaceful and constructive dialogue with a clear commitment to refraining from further violence and to respecting the human rights and political freedoms of its citizens. we will spare no efforts to help the people of guinea in this critical moment and we are determined to support a return to civilian, constitutional and democratic government through free and transparent elections. we encourage all stakeholders in guinea to refrain from violence and to make a peaceful and democratic transition. mr president, mrs malmstrm, the crisis in guinea is, in my opinion, symptomatic of a wider problem which occurs, unfortunately, in many african countries. that problem is the weakness of democratic institutions and the underdevelopment and sometimes even the lack of mechanisms characteristic of mature civil societies. this is important for europe not only because we are bound to our values - it is also important for purely pragmatic reasons. we discuss the effectiveness of development cooperation fairly often. this is not unusual, because we are the largest donor of this aid, and we must be interested in its effective use. however, we do have to face the fact that we will not achieve progress in effectiveness if the countries which make use of this development cooperation are not in a position to give minimum guarantees on the good use of this aid. yet it so happens that it is hard to build such guarantees without democracy and civil society. yesterday, mr camara accused france of humiliating africans by breaking off relations with guinea. this is not true. france has not humiliated africans. it is mr camara himself who has humiliated his compatriots and africans. he has humiliated them, because he has allowed killings, he has allowed rapes. the reaction of france and the french government was justified and proper, and our position should be equally resolute and severe. it is a paradox, but the situation is fairly simple. we cannot fail to react to the brutal action which has been seen in guinea. we must demand a halt to the use of violence. with mrs malmstrm, i think the mission of the president of burkina faso is a very good thing, and i wish him success. let us hope that it will be effective. we should also support the african union, which has announced the imposition of sanctions if civilian rule is not restored. we know about the commitment of sweden to the process of building democracy. we know that just this is a real priority of the presidency in the area of development policy. we know, too, that the swedish government has both experience and a record of success in this area. i want, therefore, to hope and believe that this commitment, in a case so difficult and extreme as guinea, will be effective and will produce good fruit. mr president, the worrying developments concerning the political situation and security in guinea require a firm response by the european union. indeed, as you know, on 28 september 2009, troops under the guinean government carried out the bloody repression of a peaceful demonstration uniting all of the opposition parties, causing 157 deaths and injuring more than a thousand people, some of whom suffered particularly vile instances of rape and mutilation. the republic of guinea is a country that has experienced only two dictatorial regimes since its independence in 1958. it is time for this infernal spiral to come to an end. the european union, its member states and its institutions had already condemned moussa dadis camara's coup d'tat on 28 december 2008. as is procedure, the council then applied article 96 of the cotonou agreement to establish a road map with the guinean authorities, to be used as a framework for democratic transition. this list of measures included, in particular, the organisation of free and transparent elections within a year and the commitment that members of the cndd, notably moussa dadis camara, would not stand in these elections. captain camara's decision to postpone the organisation of elections until spring 2010 and his refusal to raise the issue of whether he would stand for the guinean presidency were a sign of what was to come, with the current escalation. thus, the demonstration that was bloodily repressed on 28 september was aimed precisely at calling on the junta to honour its commitments. the reaction of the government in office in conakry shows its true intentions quite clearly: to eliminate all forms of democratic opposition in order to remain in power. in response, the international community has unanimously condemned these violent actions and the guinean regime. outraged by these massacres, our parliament's committee on fisheries recently refused, quite rightly, to vote for the fisheries agreement between the european union and guinea. today, and in light of the latest events, the european parliament would like to know the decisions the council intends to take to address this situation. first of all, does the council intend to push for the creation of an international commission of inquiry on the events of 28 september? how does the council intend to act to ensure that the cndd respects its commitments, namely to organise free and transparent elections as soon as possible, without the participation of moussa dadis camara or another member of the cndd? with regard to article 96 of the cotonou agreement, what measures does the council intend to take against the guinean junta? finally, what concrete commitments has the council made to support the different initiatives run by ecowas, the african union and the international contact group on guinea? mr president, mrs malmstrm, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, i wish to extend every sympathy to the conakry victims on behalf of both the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe and the 30 african parliamentarians in the acp-eu liberal democrat network whom we met last week to discuss, among other things, the situation in guinea, together with the chairman of guinea's liberal party, a party which, unfortunately, has been directly affected by the violence. as for what needs to be done, with regard to certain areas already mentioned by the swedish presidency, our requests are as follows: firstly, that together with our african union partners, we demand the release of the prisoners and political leaders still being detained. secondly, we must demand that free and democratic elections are held, without the participation of members of the national council for democracy and development. thirdly, i call for targeted sanctions to be adopted without too much pussyfooting around, since we must, in any case, send out a very clear message, in view of the atrocities which have been committed. fourthly, we too wish to raise the issue of the fisheries agreement: we in the alde group voted against it in the committee on fisheries, thereby helping secure the majority necessary to block the agreement, as far as possible. we believe that this is another important decision that the council must take. the fifth point is that we must establish targeted programmes to assist the victims, especially the women who were raped and who certainly need special dedicated help. lastly, there is the question of justice. for us, it is vital to have not only an international commission of inquiry, but also the full involvement of the international criminal court. we believe that if there is a lesson to be learnt from the conakry victims, it is to confirm once again that justice must be done and that people who commit crimes of this nature in africa or anywhere else cannot get off scot-free. presidents, ministers, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot remain silent in the face of the tragic events which took place last week in guinea. the violence that was used against the opponents and, in particular, women, is utterly appalling and unacceptable. i wish to express my support for the victims as well as their families, some of whom are still waiting for the return of their loved ones' remains, which were taken away by the junta in order to cover up the traces of a true massacre. in addition to the current measures being initiated by the council and the commission, the parliamentary situation today allows us to react to these violent acts and to send out a strong message to the guinean government by rejecting the report on the fisheries partnership agreement with guinea, which we will vote on during the next plenary session. the committee on development already unanimously rejected, in september, this fisheries agreement between the european union and guinea, expressing doubts over the use of the funds allocated by the european union. aside from the fact that it seems inappropriate to allocate funds on the basis of fish catches made by european boats without taking into account either fishery resources or the effects on the local population, the recent events make us fear that these funds will be used for military purposes against the guinean population. ladies and gentlemen, the european parliament cannot endorse the fisheries agreements with guinea while the victims' wounds are still fresh. doing so would send out the wrong message to the guinean government. it would be a scandal which i cannot bring myself to endorse. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, like many other new meps here, i was struck by the attention given to human rights in the debates held in this house, and particularly in those of our president buzek. i subscribe to this completely because, if i am here, if i headed a list during the european elections in france, it is above all because i am a campaigner for associations and, specifically, a human rights campaigner. as such, i cannot be indifferent to the events in guinea, as these were human rights campaigners, and more generally representatives of civil society, who were arrested, raped, in the case of women, and massacred on 28 september: more than 150 people were killed and more than 1 250 people were injured - as you said, minister - in a single day. the repression continued in the days that followed and is still continuing, despite the fact that these people - as has also been said - came peacefully to remind mr camara of his own commitments. there is no doubt, according to the witness statements flooding in, that, contrary to the declarations made by the captain, these violent acts were carried out by forces close to the government. the situation there is confused, but having regrouped within the guinean national council of civil society organisations, civil society organisations are appealing to the international community for help. in the last few months, this national council has set an example in these countries of africa by organising a major process for the guinean people on the basis of the commitments made by mr camara. the news reaching us from guinea is alarming. we cannot just make do with speeches here, in the european parliament. this debate is taking place at our request, at the request of the group of the european united left - nordic green left, but we must go further. we call for the explicit condemnation of the repression of the demonstration. you have talked to us about targeted sanctions, minister. could you tell us more about this? on the matter of calling an immediate halt to persecution, of releasing all those arrested and of establishing an international commission of inquiry on these events, i believed, minister, that we were moving in the right direction. however, could you give us some more information about this too? you also told us that all aid had been frozen, except for humanitarian and food aid. to us, that seems a minimum, but in practical terms, how can we support the transition to democracy? mr president, we want a resolution to be voted on in the next strasbourg part-session so that the european parliament does not just limit itself to speeches, but acts by taking a decision, as it was able to do last january. i will say it once again: this is a matter of urgency. the organisations on the ground are warning us of the risk of ethnic conflict. we must not wait for a new rwanda before we react; human rights must be defended in africa just as they must be defended everywhere else in the world. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mrs malmstrm described the situation in guinea perfectly. for several weeks, guinea has been the scene of violent clashes during which free citizens demonstrating in the streets in the name of their political beliefs have been subjected to unprecedented violence. the guinean government is persecuting and killing anyone whose political beliefs differ from those of their leaders, thereby depriving the people of any kind of freedom which, as we well know, is obviously an inviolable right for every human being. the umpteenth massacre is taking place and is in danger of turning into genocide if we do not urgently adopt immediate, tangible measures. last week, the acp-eu joint parliamentary assembly, of which i am vice-chairman, decided to adopt a resolution condemning the use of force by the guinean authorities and demanding that the local government immediately complies with the rule of law and upholds fundamental rights. following the deaths of 157 people in street clashes, and the attempts of moussa dadis camara to cover this up, members of the opposition turned to the international community in the hope of receiving help and greater protection. on 5 october, however, captain camara opposed the presence of a foreign peacekeeping force in the country, rejecting any kind of foreign interference in internal affairs. i therefore feel that in addition to expressing our condemnation, we need to respond by taking immediate, concrete action, as my fellow member mr rinaldi just said. in the face of violations and denials of the right to life - with women and children paying the price once again - we cannot fail to act and demand a return to the rule of law. therefore, by calling upon you, my fellow members and representatives of the institutions, i hope that we can reach unanimous agreement - and i stress unanimous - to adopt immediate measures enabling the people of guinea to re-establish fundamental and inalienable rights, such as democracy and freedom, in their country. naturally, i also wish to personally express my support for all the families affected by these tragic events. (sv) mr president, mrs malmstrm, ladies and gentlemen, i am a member of the committee on fisheries and i visited guinea myself last december, so i have followed this matter very closely. first of all, i find it remarkable that the european union is maintaining its fisheries agreement with guinea, as the agreement was entered into with the previous regime two weeks before the coup. we have, in fact, stuck to an agreement that we entered into with a lawful regime, but now there is a military dictatorship. we have stuck to this all year. yesterday, the us secretary of state, hillary clinton, openly urged moussa dadis camara and his regime to step down. i can only agree with this minimum demand and would also like to point out that it would be a disgrace for the european parliament if, in two weeks' time, we were to vote in favour of a fisheries agreement with guinea that would provide this regime with more than eur 1 million at the end of november. the fisheries agreement relates to tuna fishing for 25 european boats. i believe that these boats will quite clearly have to look for other waters to fish in, because the eu cannot do business with dictatorships that slaughter their own people openly on the streets. the argument put to the committee on development and the committee on fisheries by the commission that the money from the fisheries agreement will benefit the people is completely wrong. it reflects the commission's evaluation of the previous agreement. we have no idea where the money from these fisheries agreements will end up. they related to the previous regime. i hardly think it likely that the present regime will use the money better. i wonder, therefore, what the council is intending to do about the fisheries agreement. does the eu intend to join with the us and demand that the regime steps down? (ro) i also would like to say that i regard the acts of violence committed in guinea as absolutely appalling. i see that two hours ago, the french foreign minister stated that dadis camara is assumed to have been involved in the decision to carry out the massacre, which is an extremely serious state of affairs. the source of the tensions, quite apart from the acts of violence which are appalling, undoubtedly lies in the fact that dadis camara wishes to become guinea's leader permanently and is reluctant to keep his promise not to have any involvement whatsoever in the country's political life. i believe, too, that the international pressure exerted in connection with this must be very clear. on the other hand, i welcome that the president of burkina faso, blaise compaor, who has a great deal of experience in conducting negotiations and mediation in african conflicts, has been appointed as a mediator in this case. i believe that he must be supported by our diplomatic efforts. mr president, i must correct mrs joly when she said that the committee on fisheries voted unanimously to reject this proposed partnership agreement with guinea. in fact, it voted by just one vote to do so. quite astonishingly, the ppe group voted solidly to retain the agreement. this is an agreement which puts some hundreds of thousands of euros into the hands of this regime in order that we can take tuna from the coast. like many of these agreements, it is a shabby deal at the best of times and, in the present circumstances, it is utterly unacceptable. the minister mentioned possible sanctions to be taken against guinea. will she now add this to her list and give us an undertaking that she will fight to try and ensure that this partnership agreement is suspended? mr president, as a human rights lawyer with almost a quarter of a century of experience internationally and at home in hungary, i take every opportunity to emphasise the need for the european union to defend human rights, preferably across the world. but it is extremely important to do it in a credible way and, in order to do so, we have to defend human rights within our borders as well, within the european union system. as i have mentioned to you several times during the last three months, mrs kinga gncz, a member of the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs in this parliament, used to be a member of a government which we call in hungary the 'eye-shooter' government, who were shooting at people on the streets of budapest on 23 october 2006. ever since then, there has been a human rights crisis in hungary, and this european union does not do anything about it. we have a vice-chair of the committee on civil liberties who was a member of the government at that time. until we look seriously into this matter, nobody will think that anything we do in the human rights fields is credible. president-in-office of the council. - mr president, again my thanks to the european parliament for putting this on the agenda. it is a very serious subject and, as i hope you understood from my introduction, we share your concerns about the horrible breach of human rights that has happened in conakry. there are concerns and worries about people still being detained, and we have asked for a complete investigation of what has happened and the release of the prisoners. i think we can say that the european union has been extremely clear. the events have been condemned by mr solana, mr de gucht, the presidency and now, as i know, also by a declaration of the acp group in the european parliament. it is very good that the european union is unanimous, concrete and concise in its condemnation of these horrible events. we are also acting in very close cooperation with other actors in this, so that the international community can condemn and act in a very coherent way. that is the only way we can really exercise pressure. we have the international contact group. there has been the appointment of the mediator, the president of burkina faso, which is very good, and he is a member of the contact group. together with the contact group, of which the eu and the us are members, we have - in answer to your question, mrs lvin - called for captain camara's resignation. the whole world community has asked for that to happen. we are also open to answering other questions and to discuss sanctions. we think it will have more effect if we do it together with the international community. there are different options on how you can target individuals and so on in this, and we need, in the coming days, to further discuss with international actors how we can coordinate those sanctions in order for them to have the maximum effect: with the african union, with the contact group, with the us, etc. we have also, as i said, opened consultations under article 96 of the cotonou agreement, and we have frozen all eu development aid, apart from the humanitarian aid and the assistance to the democratic transition. on fisheries - whether that can be part of it or not - i hear very clearly what you say. i can only encourage you to continue the discussions with the commission. it is the commission which is responsible for eu fishery policy. we are also discussing this with the commission, and i am sorry they are not here right now. but you can be assured that we will keep on working with the international community to continue with the pressure and to push for a full investigation and, hopefully, also one day for free and fair elections in guinea. my thanks to you and to the members for this debate. thank you very much, mrs malmstrm. you have had so much patience spending the whole afternoon and part of the evening here. one can see that not so long ago, you were a member of this house and so you like this environment very much! the debate is closed.

12. eu consumer policy strategy 2007-2013 ( - before the vote on amendment 3: rapporteur. - mr president, in amendment 3 i have been told that there is some confusion over the french text. the words 'as appropriate' have not been properly translated into french. i would just like to ask if this could be checked afterwards by experts. that will be done.

one-minute speeches on matters of political importance the next item is one-minute speeches on matters of political importance. (fr) mr president, an administrator's post in the european parliament information office in luxembourg has been vacant for more than two years. i should like to know the outcome of advertising the post; why was there one candidate whose application file was incomplete; and what was missing from the file? why have we had no information on this matter? i should also like to know what the administration intends to do about filling this post that has been vacant for so long? (es) mr president, many thanks for your words at the beginning of this plenary to the family of the murdered guardia civil officer, the spanish armed forces and, of course, the spanish people. thank you, mr president. i believe that the only way to defeat eta and the terrorists is for us to remain united against terrorism. i think that all european democrats should show their unity and support for the governments of spain and france in this collective task and we should put to one side the absurd divisions of the recent past. let us show we are all united against terrorism. (sl) on 28 april a plane belonging to macedonian airline mat, en route to egypt with 76 passengers on board, was forced to land in istanbul because the greek authorities refused to allow it to cross greek airspace. in february, the greek authorities had refused to grant mat a permit for charter flights to corfu, citing as grounds the airline's name, mat (macedonian airlines). the aim of the european common aviation area agreement signed in june 2006 was to create an expanded common aviation area with neighbouring states, including the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. under the treaty, the greek authorities are obliged to grant mat's request. the greek blockade of mat flights constitutes a breach of the law applicable, of the eu treaties, and of international law on air traffic. citing the airline's name as grounds for this decision is also contrary to common european values. i should be interested to learn what action the european institutions and the commission propose to take to put an end to this discriminatory practice, which is contrary to free movement of persons, goods and services, and is directed against states that are applying for european union membership. (hu) mr president, in the eastern central european region we are also having to deal with communism's harmful legacy for the environment. in no way can this be considered a purely domestic issue; it is a common european problem that affects us all. when the regime change came about, our countries, including romania, were unprepared as regards environmental protection strategies. i support the report by mr hartmut nassauer of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats (ppe-de group) on protection of the environment through criminal law, and i want to see those who cause serious environmental harm being held liable for it under criminal law by tightening and ensuring compliance with european union legislation. cyanide technology must be banned in roia montan (verespatak). the destruction of forests in the szekler land and other regions of romania is also harming the environment. the motorway that is under construction in transylvania could likewise cause serious environmental damage. construction work on the bystroye canal in ukraine continues. in bulgaria a new nuclear power station is being built after this member state was forced to shut down the kozloduy plant. we should be paying greater attention to these issues. (de) mr president, in the debate on the lisbon treaty in germany, some left-wing groups are alleging, and invoking the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in support of their allegation, that the treaty would reintroduce the death penalty, so that - as they claim - people could be executed for the purpose of quelling an uprising. this is essentially an outrageous slur on the ehrc, which represents the inalienable core of the european value system and hence the symbol of a europe which is committed to peace, freedom and the rule of law. i am appalled that people are being exposed to this kind of scaremongering about the ehrc, to which the eu is to accede under the terms of the treaty of lisbon. i also protest vehemently against the statements made by some adherents of the left equating the reform treaty with hitler's enabling act of 1933. these are not only utterly absurd; they also amount to a monstrous trivialisation of german fascism. that goes beyond the bounds of decency and morality. mr president, britain is one of seven countries proposing legislation to adopt a council framework decision for common rules on the enforcement of legal decisions rendered in absentia. it will mean that a british citizen can be tried, convicted and sentenced in a foreign country without their presence in a court of law, and then removed to that country for imprisonment. they will find themselves in a position not of defending themselves in a trial, but of proving themselves innocent after a conviction. whilst there is a provision for retrials, not all eu member states recognise retrials under their legal systems. this will further destroy the principle of habeas corpus and the freedom from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment traditionally enjoyed by british citizens and fundamental to english law and freedoms. everything that was good about britain is gradually being destroyed by membership of this malignant organisation known as the european union. (bg) mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, the actions of bulgarian authorities over the past several weeks clearly indicate once again that they have no intention nor any will whatsoever to deal with the main problem our country faces: to reform the judicial system and home affairs. instead of protecting the lives and rights of citizens, the president, the prime minister, the prosecurot's office, the ministry of interior and the sofia mayor have merged into a symbiotic entity and are using the levers of power solely for political recketeering of those who disagree with them. what is worse, most of the media in bulgaria, which ought to be the staunchest safeguards ensuring the irreversibility of the democratic path of development of our country, have entered into a bond, through financial interest, with the criminal element, and with the powers that be, and have become their vehement protectors and accomplices. anyone who disagrees with the official line has their voice muffled and is deprived of access to the public stage. unfortunately, all our efforts to raise these issues and discuss them in bulgaria have met with vehement resistance by the corrupt authorities, which is why we have been forced to seek the involvement of the european court of justice in order to save statehood in our country. (el) mr president, i should like to say something about the very critical and deeply worrying situation in lebanon. in parliament we have been watching the situation and have on many occasions debated the consequences of a prolonged crisis caused by the breakdown in the operation of institutions, the inability to elect a president of the republic, the economic impasse resulting from occupation of the commercial and administrative centre, and fear of terrorist attacks. this situation has culminated in all kinds of violence at the hands of hezbollah because of the government's decision to ban the former's uncontrolled telecommunications network from operating. mr president, let me remind you that a delicate national consultation is under way in qatar. we must try however we can to encourage this national dialogue, which needs to be conducted with due regard to the general interests of the citizens of lebanon and their desire for prosperity, security and national independence. let us take advantage of all the opportunities offered to us by our association agreement with the country. mr president, i would invite you to join with me, on behalf of the european parliament, in sending good wishes for success to all the troops from the european union member states serving in chad. that high-risk eu mission, sanctioned by the united nations, will have 4 000 member state troops on the ground, seeking to protect and assist the 430 000 refugees and internally displaced people currently living in 42 camps. it includes many hundreds of irish troops who are following in the proud tradition of the irish army's peacekeeping and humanitarian role. this mission is an example of what we in europe can do now, and indeed an indication of what we could do even more effectively and in a more timely fashion as soon as we can implement the humanitarian aid, the petersberg tasks and the common foreign and defence policy provisions of the lisbon treaty. i would urge you, mr president, to convey our good wishes to the troops on the ground. mr president, i rise on the situation of the roma minority and citizens from new member states in italy. in recent days there have been police raids on roma communities in rome. 118 of those detained have been ordered to be expelled immediately and the new mayor has said that he will expel 20 000 people. there have been arson attacks on roma camps in the suburbs of naples, with the mob preventing fire services getting in to extinguish the fires. hundreds of immigrant families have fled for their lives and there are reports of a number of children missing. my colleague, viktria mohcsi, has been in rome. she has sent worrying reports and i hope she will have an opportunity to respond to the council's statement tomorrow. we know attacks in many of our member states on immigrant communities are a problem, but the level of violence in italy is unusual. the osce has accused italy of stigmatising migrants and it seems to me that the nature of the recent election campaign has led to a culture of impunity for those carrying out these attacks. even commissioner frattini, who was the first to lecture the new member states on the integration of ethnic minorities, is now questioning the schengen agreements. this issue is of europe-wide concern. it goes to the heart of the reasons for founding the european union and i would urge the commission and the council urgently to discuss the matter to see what can be done to help. (pl) mr president, at the lima summit pro-abortion amendments to the resolution on poverty and social exclusion were tabled by a member of the european parliament. this is an issue beyond the decision-making powers of the european union institutions. such matters are decided by national law. during the deliberations of the committee on social affairs, exchange programmes, the environment, education and culture, in a separate vote for representatives of the parliaments of the two continents, the representatives of the european parliament rejected the amendment, which meant that the committee did not adopt it. neither parliament found it worthy of adoption. between the deliberations of the committee and the plenary proceedings, the voting procedure was changed to a joint vote of representatives of both parliaments. the amendments were then adopted thanks to the votes of the latin-american parliamentarians. acceptance of this practice would mean that each of us could introduce into international documents, on behalf of the european union, provisions that exceed the eu's mandate and engage its responsibility. i protest against such practices. - (cs) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i think that the relevant bodies and institutions of the community need to deal urgently with a serious phenomenon of the emergence of nationalist paramilitary groups in some member states, specifically the czech republic and hungary. as you know, so-called national guards have been formed in these countries and are tolerated by the state authorities. the aim of these extreme right-wing organisations is to support nationalism and racism, and intimidate non-nationals and anyone with left-wing opinions. this was clearly demonstrated in prague a few days ago. while the hungarian guard concentrates mainly on destroying relations between hungarians and neighbouring nations, the czech guard, while also bigoted, is now becoming an instrument for intimidation not just of the left but of all democratic-minded citizens. these organisations, which are incompatible with the idea of a europe based on friendship between nations, are all the more dangerous as they recruit into their ranks both former and present members of the military forces of these countries. i would like to make you aware of these facts as a matter of urgency. (de) mr president, the conference of presidents recently decided to curb the influence of the intergroups. our meetings can henceforth take place in strasbourg on thursdays only. on that day, human rights experts, for example, cannot attend intergroup meetings, because they are on the speakers' list for debates on matters of urgent importance. moreover, most members set off for their constituencies on thursday afternoons, and many have to travel for several hours before they reach home. while i fully understand the need to devote sufficient time to legislative work, the intergroups are indispensable. we have voluntarily joined forces to examine issues that there is not enough time to deal with in committee, such as tibet, the family and child protection, the fourth world, the baltic region or animal welfare. we are visible, we are audible, and we are responsible for many of the initiatives that emanate from the european parliament. now these most active of meps are being singled out, muzzled, stopped in their tracks and presented with a fait accompli in the form of a decision that they must no longer meet on tuesdays or wednesdays. please ensure, mr president, that this unwise decision is reversed. i do not wish to comment on the decision, but i have to say that the president of parliament is not as powerful as you seem to assume. nevertheless, i shall, of course, look into the matter. (hu) thank you, mr president. in the vatican last week the pope welcomed members of the hungarian conference of catholic bishops. at this audience, the head of the catholic church expressed appreciation for the activities of the hungarian church and criticised the secular state, which he said penalises families; he condemned the law allowing unmarried couples to register as legal partnerships on the grounds that it legalises cohabitation by unmarried couples and gives civic rights to gay partnerships. he asserted that this law not only runs counter to church doctrines, but also violates the hungarian constitution. in secular europe the member states do not intervene in religious matters and the church does not put ideological pressure on the state. the lisbon treaty guarantees fundamental human rights, including freedom of religion, and establishes institutional relations between the eu and the churches. cooperation can only be based on reciprocity, however, and for this reason we strongly urge the commission president, mr barroso, to act on the basis of the mandate he has been given and initiate a dialogue with the catholic church to protect secular europe and european values. thank you very much. mr president, i would like to continue the topic raised by my colleague, thomas mann, about moving intergroup meetings to thursday afternoons. if the point is to help meps to concentrate more on plenaries, i really doubt it. in a way it is our job to be mdchen fr alles, to divide our time between different activities, and such a step also cannot prevent most meps leaving thursday afternoon, because they have to catch their planes to reach their homes, to meet their voters the next day, friday. and i am afraid that in this way the intergroups will unfortunately be placed between the hammer of plenaries and the anvil of constituencies. i think it would deal a crippling blow to their vibrant activities. maybe the best way is to trust intergroups to find the most practical and flexible modus vivendi by themselves, and i am encouraged by your response to thomas mann, mr president. (fr) mr president, commissioner, it is somewhat worrying that the commission should have to be reminded of its responsibility for the fair implementation of european policies within each national territory. the fact is that the french government has singled out the region of auvergne and withdrawn responsibility for the management of european social fund resources there from local employment plans. the government's position is incomprehensible. the bodies concerned have an excellent administrative track record and this partisan decision jeopardises structures that have been working for years to integrate the poorest people in society. the european commission needs to remind the french government of its duties to be consistent and to respect the rules on implementation of european funding. we cannot have agreements with the european union being applied in a divisive, partisan manner in different parts of the same country. mr president, the opening of negotiations on a new eu partnership and cooperation agreement with the russian federation has experienced certain setbacks, owing to the behaviour of some member states, that many might perceive as obstructionist. i am glad the eu council presidency, the commission and lithuania have reached a consensus that enables us to renew the old agreement, which expired last year. in delaying negotiations with russia we are sawing off the branch on which we are sitting. there are several topics, from the environment and energy to visa regimes, immigration, cross-border projects and unresolved issues relating to georgia and moldova, that require a comprehensive political agreement on common objectives and measures. i trust that the commission will use its mandate in the negotiations to the best interests of all the member states. (hu) thank you for the opportunity to speak, mr president. ladies and gentlemen, the forthcoming russia-european union summit in siberia may open up new opportunities. one potentially important outcome of the meeting will be the bilateral treaty, which could define relations between the two parties in the long term. energy issues must be given a key place in this agreement, while at the same time keeping sight of the principle of reciprocity. a major prerequisite for building reciprocity is ratification of the energy charter treaty by russia. this treaty creates transparent relationships in the energy market, contributes to security of supply, and stimulates investment. all of these are issues of vital importance for russia too. after all, if capital investment in development is neglected, russia could find itself suddenly unable to meet its commitments. ratification of the energy charter treaty by the kremlin is therefore in both parties' interests. the success of the forthcoming summit will depend on whether the member states are able to step out of the shadow of short-term considerations and speak with one voice in order to protect the common interest. thank you very much, mr president. (fr) mr president, you did indicate earlier that you were not all-powerful: nonetheless, i am sure you are powerful enough to implement decisions by the conference of presidents. on 24 april this year the conference of presidents decided, quite rightly, to ask the quaestors to reconsider their decision of 26 september 2007, allocating facilities on the premises of the european parliament for the european business and parliament scheme. during our last part-session we adopted the stubb/friedrich report on lobbyists. quite frankly, for representatives of employers' organisations to set up shop within a parliamentary institution would seem to me to be a case of combining two things that should be separate and skewing our relations with the social partners - a step entirely alien to our parliamentary tradition in the european union. furthermore, i do not understand why - following that decision by the conference of presidents - we have received invitations on your behalf from mr vidal-quadras, vice-president of parliament, to a launching ceremony for the european business and parliament scheme on 3 june. i hope, mr president, that you will bring your full authority to bear to restore order here and ensure that the decision by the conference of presidents is respected. (bg) mr. president, colleagues, the next monitoring report on bulgaria is coming up. as a deputy chair of the regional development committee and as a member of the movement for rights and liberties, a party which is part of the ruling majority, i have been following closely the implementation of the agreement on bulgaria's accession to the eu. i am positive that in the past month the government of our country has once again rendered an unbiased analysis of problem areas and has declared its determination to deal with them. an indicative fact is that in order to improve the absorption of european funds, a new deputy prime minister post was created, to oversee and coordinate operational programmes. this will improve communications with the european commission and she will monitor the accurate and proper fulfilment of commitments made. structural changes are underway to streamline the functioning of administrations within ministries and state agencies. there have been changes of ministers in the government, the legal framework of home affairs and security is being amended, top officials are being replaced. the new minister of interior is taking measures to combat corruption and crime. bulgaria is proceeding on its way to cohesion with the member states and i am confident that european institutions will make an objective assessment of our country's efforts. (lt) i will take this opportunity to speak about the eu diplomatic mission in belarus. quite recently a european commission office was opened in minsk. a total of 14 member states have their diplomatic missions in the belarusian capital. two more eu countries - the netherlands and finland - are covering belarus from other eu countries. however, as many as 11 member states are covering belarus from moscow. a few examples of these are austria, belgium, greece, denmark, spain and also, regretfully, the country currently holding the eu presidency, slovenia. in my opinion, the wrong signal is being sent to the people of belarus, especially when they are struggling to resist the designs of the regime to sacrifice belarus to russia. i believe it is time to urge all the member states to start covering belarus from their own territory, not from moscow. that concludes this item.

2. tibet - plans to make chinese the main language of instruction the next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on tibet - plans to make chinese the main language of instruction. madam president, in october, we witnessed the peaceful protests of thousands of tibetans against the chinese authorities' plans to change education policy. the current bilingual model, which allows ethnic minorities to study in their own national languages alongside chinese, is to be replaced by one in which chinese is to be the basic language of instruction. the secretary of the chinese communist party in qinghai province, qiang wei, said in a press article that standard mandarin will be the main language of instruction in primary schools by 2015. due to the need for tibetans and representatives of other ethnic groups to function effectively in the chinese labour market, they should be able to study chinese, but not at the cost of not being able to have an appropriate education in their own language. it should be remembered that the rights that the tibetans are fighting for derive from article 4 of the chinese constitution and article 10 of the regional national autonomy law. the tibetans are therefore asking for the rights already granted to them to be respected, and parliament should emphatically support them in their attempts to preserve their own culture, a basic element of which is language. i think that the words of dokru choedaka, a campaigner for the tibetan language, ring true for all of us when he says that schools and language are the fabric of national identity. author. - madam president, culture and cultural expressions underpin people's values and identity. in the words of aristotle, it is not about outward appearance but about inward significance. culture, when used as a tool to impose values and to wash out diversity and freedom of expression, is like a weapon. it is therefore a very troubling development that mandarin chinese has been introduced as the main language of education and official documents for tibetans. if china intends to wash out the tibetan culture this way, it is acting against its own stated intentions of harmonious relations among the countless cultures, ethnicities and identities the country knows. the chinese authorities should also allow access to tibet by foreign media without the need for special permits and allow uncensored communications and access to information - also on the internet - throughout the entire country. not only economic development but also cultural diversity and respect for human rights contribute equally to wealth. the eu should consistently prioritise human rights, especially for ethnic and cultural minorities, in its relations with china. madam president, the large european countries really are devoting a great deal of attention to improving economic, investment and business relations with china. this means that parliament has an even greater role to play in speaking openly about human rights and about the fact that they are being broken. i think that today, parliament must place a very strong emphasis on the rights of people living in tibet to their own language, to unhindered contact with the outside world via the internet - we are living in the 21st century, after all - and to be able to talk to foreign journalists, because the ban on foreign correspondents visiting the region is lamentable. finally, i would like to say that imposing the state language on tibet is something i find deeply disturbing. madam president, article 4 of the constitution of the people's republic of china guarantees all citizens and nationalities the right to use and develop their own spoken and written language. given this, we are very justifiably concerned about the news which we recently received that the status of the tibetan language as a language of instruction might be being weakened. i know that there are protests in this huge country against the fact that the forms of the chinese language spoken in shanghai and canton are disappearing in the same way, and this is another cause for concern. it is important that the people's republic of china should acknowledge that the preservation of tibetan culture is crucially dependent on its language, and that the tibetan language should be kept as the first language of instruction and also used in universities. of course, genuine bilingualism is an important objective. it needs to be recognised that it is only sensible that the tibetans also study chinese, but making it the first language of instruction is bound to be problematic, as it will mean that tibetan culture will suffer. it is also important that china at long last ratifies the international covenant on civil and political rights that it signed years ago, because that would do more to guarantee the protection of ethnic and religious minorities and the preservation of their languages and cultures. madam president, when we rise to speak in the european parliament, we can use our native language. the chinese government is planning to withdraw this fundamental right from the tibetans, threatening them with a loss of identity. thousands of tibetans have campaigned against the possible end to bilingual policy in peaceful protests in schools and universities. on 27 october, i received a petition in front of the european parliament building in brussels from tibetan schoolchildren seeking our solidarity. china's ambassador, mr song, yesterday emphasised that bilingual education in tibet was an important measure to support tibetan culture. while i have heard what he has to say, i am not sure i believe him. after all, he has not denied the numerous media reports indicating that mandarin chinese is to be the main language used in educational institutions in the quinghai region. cantonese and shanghainese are also to be replaced by mandarin throughout the education system and even on the radio, this despite the fact that the government claims that mandarin is only spoken by half of the chinese population. article 4 of the constitution and article 10 of the law on regional autonomy emphasise the freedom of all ethnic groups to develop their own written and spoken language. commissioner lewandowski, i would urge you to ensure that this worrying development is raised during dialogue between the eu and china. please send a group of experts to the region on a fact-finding mission to establish where the threat to the bilingual system lies. the tibetan language can be supplemented by chinese, but certainly not replaced by it. madam president, nobody can complain today about a lack of knowledge or information about what is happening in tibet, yet despite this, we still make almost no attempts to stop the chinese destroying the tibetans as individual people and as a whole nation, together with their wonderful culture and beautiful, authentic religiousness. today, we are talking about the destruction of the tibetan language and its replacement with mandarin. after all, many of us in this chamber and many of our ancestors have very often paid a high price fighting for their national languages against the will of an invader or dictator, because we knew that the loss of our language is the loss of the last hope that one day we will be able to be ourselves in our own country. thanks, too, to these experiences, which have been the fate of many europeans, we must demand that those who negotiate with china on our behalf, talking about the development of technology, investments, trade and so on, do not avoid the subject of the habitual violation of human rights in china. in negotiations with the chinese government on human rights, and here i join all those who have made appeals before me, i ask that the issue of human rights is not relegated to the background, irrespective of whether we are currently in an economic crisis or not. on behalf of the alde group. - madam president, throughout the history of estonia, we have struggled to maintain the language of the indigenous people. after restoring our independence in 1991, we finally enjoyed the liberty to speak our language and treasure our culture and identity. it pains me to see the people of tibet repressed and their language, identity, culture and religion condemned to extinction. the people's republic of china (prc) is using the same method of achieving marginalisation of tibetans that the soviet union used on estonians. the sinicisation of tibet, just like the russification of estonia during the soviet occupation, is being carried out by relocating non-indigenous people to the established territory of the indigenous people. as long as the han chinese population of tibet is increasing, the tibetans have every right to feel intimidated. the intention of the chinese authorities to introduce mandarin chinese as the primary language of instruction in schools violates the rights of the indigenous people of tibet. i would like to see that violation brought up and resolved as a priority item within eu policy towards the prc. madam president, i am opposed to this resolution. my group has allowed me to speak against it, despite the fact that most of my colleagues do not share my opinion. as has been pointed out, the chinese ambassador has responded to the criticism expressed. it may be that his letter does not answer every question, but why is it that we are first looking to pass a resolution rather than seeking dialogue? can we really take ourselves seriously if we first adopt a resolution and then say, as the previous speaker put it - now let us send someone on a fact-finding mission to find out how bilingualism is under threat. i do not believe it is plausible to speak of the death of the tibetan language. it is not within the remit of this parliament to decide how much hungarian is taught in schools in slovakia or romania, but yet it feels entitled to decide whether maths should be taught in tibetan or another language. i do not know whether this is wise. finally, i believe it is a mistake to link the question of language policy with the dalai lama, even though the two issues are quite separate. i do not believe that by taking such a step, we will be helping to ensure that people are not prevented from using their own language. (pl) madam president, language is the most important attribute of identity and the main tool of social communication. today's debate on the attempts by the government of the people's republic of china to introduce chinese as the only mandatory language in the teaching system in tibet is an attack on the culture of that nation. up to now, tibetan has been the official language in tibet and in those regions in china where tibetans are the main ethnic group. for tibetans, its use and development are one of the most important ways in which they exercise their de facto autonomy. the need to understand chinese as well is understandable for those who are going to look for work outside of tibet, but an appropriate and adequate solution seems to be the introduction of chinese as a subject to be taught, and not the replacement of tibetan with chinese as the language of instruction. for this reason, we should express our opposition to the attempt to take the tibetans' basic tool of communication away from them. by taking away from tibetans the ability to learn their own language, the chinese are slowly but surely breaking down tibet's autonomy and bringing about the loss of its cultural heritage. madam president, i would like to ask our fellow member a question, if he accepts it. why, in this context, is the position of the chinese ambassador on this matter more relevant than our desire to talk about what is happening in tibet? if i have understood correctly, the reason is that he believes that we must heed what the chinese embassy says rather than what our own convictions tell us. (de) (the speaker is answering a blue card question from cristian dan preda in accordance with rule 149(8)). madam president, i am much obliged to my fellow member for asking this question, as it gives me the opportunity to repeat what i said before. i did not say that you should believe the chinese ambassador. what i said was that we would be well advised to take our job seriously and to seek dialogue, and then to discuss a resolution. it makes no sense to suggest that we should adopt a resolution now and then send experts to china to find out whether, and where exactly, bilingualism is under threat. i believe that if we want to do something about the effectiveness of human rights, then we do not need simply to express pious intentions, but must also engage with the issue in order to avoid damaging an already difficult situation. (hu) madam president, i am pleased to support the joint motion for a resolution, since it clearly expresses principles which i, as the representative of an indigenous national minority, share entirely. i therefore support the principle that a) the oppression of minority languages fundamentally infringes on the right to freedom of citizens belonging to that minority; that b) instruction in the mother tongue is the most suitable for learning; and that c) local authorities and communities should be given legal competence to make decisions about the language used in teaching. i would like to call the attention of all members who support the motion to the fact that, unfortunately, these principles are not fully respected in certain eu member states, either. evidence of this is the slovak language law and the romanian education law currently in force, which allow for instruction in certain subjects only in the state language. i could name a few more eu countries. i will not do this now. i am a committed supporter of monitoring infringements of rights outside the european union, but at the same time, i think it is important that practices disadvantageous to national minorities within the territory of the eu are not passed over in silence. (cs) madam president, in my speech, i would like to mention the wish expressed by the people's republic of china for harmonious relations between all 56 of the ethnic minorities living within its territory. in relation to this, i firmly believe that it is necessary to support the preservation of tibetan, which is one of the four oldest and most original asian languages, and which is one of the fundamental roots of tibetan identity, culture and religion, and which, together with tibetan culture as a whole, also represents an irreplaceable part of world cultural heritage, bearing witness to an historically rich civilisation. i trust that china will consistently apply article 4 of the constitution of the people's republic of china, and article 10 of the act on autonomous national regions, which guarantee the freedom of all nations to use and develop their own spoken and written languages. i firmly believe that every ethnic minority has the right to retain its own language and literature. a fair bilingual education system will contribute towards better cooperation and understanding, especially if tibetans learn chinese and han chinese people living in tibetan areas are, at the same time, encouraged to learn tibetan. as the submitted joint draft resolution includes all of the points i have mentioned, i have decided to support it. (sk) madam president, china is a great power in economic and military terms, and the chinese administration in its behaviour towards its citizens has long given the impression that cultural, social and democratic principles as they are recognised around the world will be selectively applied in china and only insofar as they suit the administration in terms of controlling the country. i do not believe that our indignation will change the chinese government's determination to implement its own education policy in the country. despite this, i think it is necessary to deliver a serious warning to our chinese partners that the tibetan people have the right to retain their identity and their language, and that the mother tongue has an irreplaceable role in the education of children. china should do the same in tibet as slovakia does for its hungarian minority, with hungarian minority children able to study in hungarian from nursery school through to primary school and secondary school. on the other hand, i would like to point out to mr sgor that slovak children in hungary have to learn in hungarian from nursery school through to primary school and secondary school, and that they have slovak only as a foreign language. (hu) madam president, as a representative of the jobbik movement for a better hungary, i welcome and support the european parliament's motion for a resolution against the plans by the people's republic of china to make chinese the official language in tibetan schools. although the chinese occupiers guaranteed tibet's autonomy, they are progressively excluding the tibetan language from education and official fora. china's poor human rights record also raises the risk of conflicts developing in tibet because of the forcible introduction of the chinese language. tibetans must be guaranteed the right to be educated in their own language and to deal with official matters in the tibetan language. their fundamental human rights must be guaranteed, including the right of assembly and the civil right to demonstrate. sadly, we need not go far to find similar cases, since crude attempts at assimilation are a real and current problem in europe, too. we only need to think of the way romania treats transylvanian hungarians or csng hungarians, or of the exclusionary, discriminatory slovak language law. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i believe that the tibetans must be allowed the right to speak in their native language, tibetan. it is a right that we all have. otherwise, they will lose their cultural identity. on account of the situation in tibet, i believe that bilingualism, in other words, learning tibetan and chinese, is the appropriate solution. after all, bilingualism promotes the development of children in many different ways and is certainly to be supported. (pl) madam president, the tibetan language is part of the long history of a nation which has fought for years to preserve its own culture, and it is an element that closely binds the community together. for this reason, maintaining and preserving bilingualism at all levels of teaching in schools in tibet is the only and best solution. the chinese government is a signatory to the un declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, thereby committing itself to observe the fundamental rights of national minorities on its territory. all of china's actions aimed at banning the use of tibetan in schools should be condemned by the international community. i believe that steps should be taken that will allow the observance of the fundamental rights of the tibetans in china to be more effectively monitored. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the abrogation of the bilingual system in tibet is an illiberal act that runs counter to respect for the cultural identity of a minority and respect for human rights. trade agreements or business contracts with china cannot act as trade goods to distract europe's attention away from the serious discrimination from which the tibetan people still suffer. the tibetans have the right to continue to be and to feel like a people, at least, and to do so they must be free to nurture their own traditions, history and language: in short, to keep their own identity, an essential part of which is language identity. the plan to eradicate tibetan culture, which has not yet been brought to a successful conclusion under the symbol of the hammer and sickle in decades of persecution against the tibetan people and monks, cannot now be artfully completed by eliminating the tibetan language and imposing chinese. member of the commission. - madam president, we are discussing an issue which exists in almost all countries where minorities live - namely, the preservation of a language, culture, and equal access to education. that is about reconfirming our values, mr btikofer. before addressing the issue of tibet, allow me a quick word on our bilateral relations with china. our strategic partnership is strong, which permits us to tackle all issues, including the most sensitive ones. we have constructed an impressive framework of high-level interactions where we regularly address the global challenges that our citizens are facing without, however, neglecting the issues where our views may differ. the overall situation in tibet is one of those where we differ. the moves to institute chinese as the main language of instruction in tibetan areas raise complex and sensitive issues. china needs to strike the right balance so as to allow the effective instruction and preservation of the tibetan language, as a living language for maintaining education in the tibetan language and as the mother tongue in tibetan areas while, at the same time, teaching chinese in parallel to give tibetan students decent chances of future employment. the remoteness of tibetan areas does not make this task any easier. we sincerely hope that china will ensure that tibetan is used as the main language of instruction in schools in tibetan areas and ensure the protection of minority languages in the other parts of china in the same way. seeking the view of experts and avoiding discrimination and the influence of ideology are good recipes for the way forward. the eu is ready to share its expertise, should china so decide. we hope - and here is my direct response - to have a frank discussion with the chinese authorities on this very issue at the next round of the eu-china human rights dialogue. it is most important that china should allow open public consultation in order to allow those affected by any changes to language policy to freely express their opinions, which would have to be taken into account. we have followed also with deep concern reports of the detention of several tibetan students and teachers who peacefully demonstrated in protest against the government's education reform plan. we urge china to release the detainees and to enter into discussions with tibetan civil society on the merits of the proposed reform. as a final point, i would like to recall the eu's long-standing position with regard to tibet. the preservation of tibet's unique culture, language, religion and traditions and the need to achieve a system of meaningful autonomy for tibet, within the chinese constitution, remains a top priority for the eu. these are issues that we are persistently trying to address in the framework of our political dialogue with china. the debate is closed. the vote will take place shortly. written statements (rule 149) despite the consistent involvement and commitment of many world leaders, institutions and ngos in calling on the chinese authorities to avoid the use of violence against the tibetan people, these pleas unfortunately seem to fall on deaf ears, thus compromising international relations. the european parliament has, for many years, demonstrated its support for and solidarity with tibet, a country that has always struggled against the oppressive and discriminatory policies of the chinese authorities, which have threatened the territorial and cultural independence of the tibetan people for years. beijing's latest act of oppression was the decision to introduce chinese as the compulsory official language in tibet, even though the people speak tibetan and consider mandarin to be a foreign language. cultural genocide is going on as we speak, because this decision expresses the clear intention to wipe out this people, not only geographically but also culturally, by preventing younger generations from learning about their own culture and, first and foremost, their linguistic heritage. faced with china's inflexible and rigid attitude to tibet, i would like to call on the european parliament to maintain a position of intransigence with regard to the severe violations of human rights and minority rights committed by the chinese authorities and to ensure that the people of tibet know we are behind them and ready to help. in adopting this resolution, the european parliament, the voice of european citizens and democracy, is sending a clear message to the chinese authorities: that eradicating and subjugating one culture to benefit another is an act that is not worthy of any truly great and modern country. the tibetan people have a wholly legitimate request: that their history and language should be respected. tibetan culture is not the only one threatened by this unreasonable decision - cantonese and other languages will also fall victim to the policy of standardisation. given that the chinese constitution specifically recognises each citizen's right to express him/herself in his/her chosen language, how can the political authorities justify this legal u-turn? the european union's motto clearly sums up the message that we have a duty to pass on to the chinese authorities through this resolution: united in diversity.

i declare resumed the session of the european parliament adjourned on thursday 27 october 2005. i would like now to make a statement at the opening of this plenary sitting on the attacks in amman. ladies and gentlemen, as you know, on 9 november, the terrorists struck again, demonstrating their full horrific capabilities, this time in jordan. on behalf of all of us - on behalf of the european parliament - i immediately expressed the emotion we felt as a result of this attack to the jordanian authorities and i asked them to communicate our condolences to the families of the victims. we will have the opportunity to debate the phenomenon of terrorism and the most effective way to tackle it at the meetings that we will hold on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the barcelona declaration. terrorism today is a problem that not only affects europe. terrorist attacks also take place in casablanca and in jordan. it therefore threatens both flanks of the mediterranean and they must tackle it in a joint fashion. this issue will certainly be on the agenda and will figure in the debates that we will hold in rabat on 20 and 21 november, at the extraordinary meeting of the apem, and also in barcelona, on the 27th and 28th, at the summit of heads of state or government. at this point, however, i believe that we must make it very clear that, for us, these barbarous acts demonstrate the extent to which the attacks are not aimed at people with different religions or skin colours; this has nothing to do with the lethal strategy of the terrorists. it is urgent that europe should cooperate in order to make progress with the 'alliance of civilisations', that will enable us to avoid the 'clash of civilisations'. for all of these reasons, i would ask you to stand and observe a minute's silence in memory of the victims of the attacks in amman. the final version of the draft agenda for the present part-session and the november ii part-session as drawn up by the conference of presidents at its meeting of 10 november pursuant to rules 130 and 131 of the rules of procedure has been distributed. a slight amendment has been proposed. the council has asked me to reverse the order of the two items scheduled for wednesday morning. the proposal is that we first hold the debate on the situation in iraq, in the presence of lord bach, and then the joint debate on climate change. this change to the agenda would allow mrs beckett, the minister responsible for this issue, to be present in the house. the next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance. mr president, i should like to express my concern at the comments recently made by the eu commissioner for trade, peter mandelson, regarding the negotiations taking place under the auspices of the world trade organisation. i believe that one of these comments, which he made during a meeting of the foreign affairs ministers of the eu member states held in luxembourg on 18 october 2005, had a particularly ominous ring to it. amongst other things, commissioner mandelson said at this meeting that the european union must make concessions to other countries during the wto negotiations, since on balance the european union would gain more from exporting industrial goods than it would lose from reducing protection for agriculture. what this may mean is that the commissioner wishes to sacrifice the interests of eu agriculture during the december summit in hong kong, in favour of nebulous gains in other fields. i believe that the commissioner has clearly overstepped his authority with this comment. if his ideas were put into practice, around 1.2 million jobs could be lost in the eu in the agricultural and related sectors. i would call on the president of the european parliament to bring these concerns to the attention of mr barroso, the president of the european commission. thank you very much, mr kumiuk. i shall do so the very next time i have the opportunity to speak to him. - mr president, i should like to refer briefly to the recent riots by young people in the french suburbs, a matter which i believe concerns every european country. we saw children of 10 to 20 years old turning in blind rage on their fellow citizens and against the material symbols of a society which we believe to be organised and prosperous. so is it right for us to dismiss these children as social outcasts and to hand them over to just any sort of repression? children are the future of our societies and it is only logical to wonder why these young people are being abandoned. basically, this is creating confusion as to what the prospects of europe should be from now on. we all have an obligation to give everyone the chance to live in dignity. we should safeguard, especially for children, access to education and employment and to humane living conditions in which our governments do not intervene to punish but to assist development. i would like to point out that it is the twenty-year anniversary of the infamous disaster at the chernobyl nuclear power plant on 26 april next year. that was a devastating catastrophe for the region and an immeasurable threat for europe as well as the lives and health of europeans. tens of thousands of young people in the former soviet union participated in rescue operations aimed at eliminating any harmful effects on the environment as soon as possible. among them were citizens of lithuania, latvia and estonia. today these are independent states and member states of the european union. i would like to urge the governments of those three states to pay greater attention to the victims of the chernobyl accident, many of whom are dying, suffering from disease and facing other numerous problems. speaking of the new neighbourhood policy, i invite you, mr president, to address the governments of ukraine, russia, moldova and belarus, urging them to develop special programmes for the victims of chernobyl, that is, those people who contributed significantly to ensuring the safety of europe. - on 7 november, a 100-tonne metal structure supporting a concrete structure collapsed, killing six portuguese workers and one worker from galicia. this workplace accident took place in the south of spain, during the construction of a flyover of the mediterranean motorway. in portugal, in my region of oporto district, this tragedy was felt very deeply. it has left families without their father, husband or son, the man who guaranteed a livelihood for the family at a time of high unemployment in northern portugal. i should therefore like to ask you, mr president, to ensure that expressions of sympathy and solidarity with the families are backed by suitable financial support. furthermore, steps must be taken to improve safety at work, an issue that is as important in spain as it is in other eu countries, so that tragedies of this nature can be prevented in the future. mr president, i shall speak about the same matter that was addressed just now by our fellow member, mr sifunakis, but i shall do so a slightly different way. we obviously do not have the same view on the events taking place in france, but the extraordinary thing is that it is not possible to talk about them in this parliament. if these events were taking place in latin america, africa or asia, resolutions would be drafted in their regard. since these events began, 9 000 fires have been started intentionally: buses and bus depots, schools, crches, nursery schools, libraries, sports centres, youth clubs, health centres, social centres and even churches are all being set alight. police officers are being attacked, but so too are the fire fighters who risk their lives, bus drivers, underground train drivers, not to mention the two innocent lives that have been lost, respectable french citizens who were lynched in front of their families. meanwhile, the european parliament is refusing to let us talk about the matter. such a 'rule of silence' is unprecedented in an assembly calling itself a parliamentary assembly and in which it is possible for points of view, although quite different and quite conflicting, freely to be expressed, as they are expressed on the subject of other countries throughout the world. - mr president, one of the darkest sides in europe is the question of paedophilia. it has spread throughout europe. what goes on via the internet is disgusting. there is a legislative vacuum, in my country at least, and material can circulate freely on the internet from one person to another. a few days ago, twenty people were arrested for trading in hard core paedophilic material - children of two, four, five and six years old, bestiality and such abject things - and not one of them was named. they were not allowed to be named on television. we protect them under the banner of individual rights. what individual rights can a person have who commits sodomy on a child of three or four or five? when a thief is arrested, all his details are made public immediately. a paedophile is arrested and is protected by the principle of the protection of individual rights. we cannot turn a blind eye: we experienced it here in belgium and now we are experiencing it in greece. it is time we protected children from paedophiles. mr president, i wrote to you at the end of last week to inform you of the recent events with regard to human rights violations in tunisia, but my letter is already out of date: one undoubtedly has to be prepared for anything and everything to happen in that country. on the eve of the opening of the world summit on the information society, political activists who supported key social and political figures campaigning for the fundamental right of expression and currently on hunger strike, have been violently beaten. among them was mokhtar trifi, the chairman of the tunisian human rights league, with whom you are acquainted and who attended our most recent part-session. last saturday, a journalist working for the newspaper was stabbed after he had published details of the violations of rights in tunisia. this is therefore a tragic situation, and i believe that, even if our ad hoc delegation is completely up to speed with the situation and is preparing to support both the alternative summit and civil society in tunisia, we perhaps also ought to make the council sit up and take note of the situation in tunisia, by specifically calling for the council urgently to gather together an association council enabling us to assess the agreement that links us to this country which, without a shadow of a doubt, is more and more disappointing each day. mr president, russia's announcement of its decision to ban the import of meat and certain meat products from poland as of 10 november, and to ban the import of plant products as of 14 november, is a source of great concern for polish farmers and food producers. poland is a leading producer of meat, in particular pork, and it is experiencing major problems in terms of grain surpluses. the russian market is extremely large, and its loss will place many farms at risk of bankruptcy. since poland joined the european union, polish farmers have endured almost nothing but losses. it is no longer so profitable for them to grow crops such as cereals, fruits, vegetables, potatoes and industrial crops, and they have been told they will have to reduce the acreage under cultivation and the price of sugar beet. polish farmers have put up with a great deal, but they are no longer in a position to put up with delays or injustice on the part of the eu where the russian blockade is concerned. the fundamental question that must be asked at this point is whether the eu is intended to benefit everyone, or only a chosen few. if the former is the case, then i would like to ask what measures will be taken to protect polish agriculture, which is an integral part of the agricultural market in the eu as a whole. mr president, i should like to thank you for visiting the scottish parliament last week. your words were much appreciated. however, there is an issue that many of my scottish constituents are growing increasingly concerned about and that is the situation of the victims of the pakistan earthquake. already 80 000 people are dead and 3 million people are homeless. the who is concerned about health and outbreaks of diarrhoea and, with winter approaching, there is the additional concern of how people will keep warm. the un needs usd 550 million to be able to do a decent job and it has just usd 135 million. although the eu has given eur 93.6 million as an aid package, we need to do more. i hope this house will back me in calling for more action to be taken to help the survivors of the pakistan earthquake to rebuild their lives. time is pressing. we need urgent action before more people die due to the onset of winter. thank you very much, mrs stihler. i have sent two letters to the pakistani authorities in relation to the issues you have mentioned. mr president, i would like to inform the house, and for that matter the commission, that the new ambassador of the united states of america to the european union, mr boyden gray, is a lawyer with a special interest in public finance. he has been fully briefed about the level of fraud and corruption here and is now fully acquainted with much of the detail published last month in . at a time when public accountability - and not just concerning financial management - is a big issue on both sides of the atlantic, his arrival here and his appointment are to be much applauded. while i am on my feet, i should also like to point out that not a single word on eu fraud and corruption published last month has yet been challenged or refuted. in its october session, parliament discussed eva klamt's report on the eu approach to managing economic migration. parliament voted to reject an amendment motion committing the european parliament to the view that measures dealing with economic migration cannot be adopted until all citizens of the european union have been guaranteed equal rights in respect of free movement. for citizens of the new member states this means that the european labour market will be more accessible to migrants from third countries, who will enjoy a more favourable position than the citizens of new member states. this parliamentary decision has met with a particularly negative response in the new member states. all available studies indicate that labour markets have not been flooded with workers from the new member states, and that the economic effects have all been on the positive side. nevertheless, instead of shortening the transition periods, parliament has taken a decision that i consider to be extremely disturbing, since it exacerbates discrimination against citizens of the new member states. mr president, i am very concerned about the fate of mr labouani, who was recently arrested in damascus upon disembarking from the flight that had brought him back from a trip to europe and the united states. mr labouani is a symbolic figure in syria. he had been imprisoned following the 'damascus spring' in 2001. he served his full sentence, namely three years in prison. he had denounced the corruption taking place in relation to procurement procedures for the mobile telephone sector. he founded a liberal, secular party. i purposely said secular, for the opposition today in syria often allies itself with the muslim brotherhood. i saw mr labouani three weeks ago, when his flight was leaving for washington. i shared my concerns with him at that time about his freedom of speech and expression. he replied that he was not afraid because he had right on his side. then, as soon as he returned, he was arrested. out of consideration for this kind of democratic opposition in syria, i should therefore like our parliament to stand behind mr labouani and you, mr president, to write a letter, for example to the syrian authorities, in order to draw attention to our concern and our disagreement. thank you very much, mrs de keyser. we shall do so as soon as we can examine the facts you refer to. mr president, there are states or quasi-states defined as 'non-democracies' or dictatorships with regimes unauthorised by the people's free will. therefore, they are illegally imposed by usurpers of fundamental human rights. one could call these regimes 'illegal' when considered in the light of values shared by free nations in democracies. nevertheless, we agree that a law passed by a dictator is still called a law. a court which is subordinated to the will of usurpers is still called a court. despite being written by a bloody hand, a penal or procedural code is still called a code. even dictatorships are already referred to and treated as democracies of a special sort, sometimes being referred to as 'real democracies', although they are different from the formal ones. we know of the consequences of the great european tyrannies of the last century. nowadays, tyrannies also exist in cuba, iran and belarus. in the latter country, a neighbour of russia, the moves made by an increasingly authoritarian state against its citizens are still defined as being made in a court of law. mr president, the history of europe since world war ii has been marked by singular events that have underpinned european unity, and that today form part of the moral and political foundations upon which the european union is based. these include the letter sent by the polish bishops to their german counterparts in autumn 1965, in which the former addressed the german people, through the roman catholic bishops of germany, with the famous sentence, 'we forgive and we ask for forgiveness'. it took real moral courage to write this sentence 20 years after the war, when the suffering that poland had experienced under nazi occupation was still fresh in people's minds. the letter helped bring about the reconciliation between poland and germany, and it was one of the factors that led to the conclusion of the historic treaty on the border between the two countries, which was signed five years later by willy brandt in warsaw. speaking before the house today, i should like to pay homage to the polish bishops. i should also like to commemorate the author of the letter, the archbishop of wrocaw bolesaw kominek, who was a silesian, a polish patriot and a great european. mr president, the head of the european commission, mr barroso, has offered france immediate assistance to the tune of eur 50 million to help repair the damage caused by the riots in the country, which have gone on for many days now. the money is to be earmarked for the creation of new jobs. while i believe that president barroso means well, i find it regrettable that neither poland nor slovakia has ever received such extraordinary sums of money for job creation, despite having the highest levels of unemployment in the european union. mr barroso has announced that france could ultimately receive an extra eur 1 billion for this purpose. should poland and slovakia, or the other new eu member states, organise riots on a similar scale in order to ensure that they receive comparable funding for job creation? the other possibility, of course, is that this is yet another example of the way in which the european union is divided into a first-class and better-off europe, which receives more subsidies, and a second-class and worse-off europe, which receives fewer. the way i see it, president barroso is effectively encouraging poland, slovakia, hungary and the baltic states to instigate such riots as a way of gaining additional funding from brussels. mr president, the burning cars in france have acted like a torch, revealing the presence of discrimination and social exclusion. and our hopes of reaching a swift, immediate solution to the complex social and societal problem that has triggered this lawless behaviour in the ghettoised suburbs of french cities have also turned to ashes along with those thousands of burnt-out vehicles. those who merely bemoan the material losses are testifying to their complete failure to understand what is happening and to see the relationship between cause and effect here. rationally thinking citizens will be prompted to ask many questions, not only as a result of any threat to their material safety. they would be right to feel that the social equilibrium has been undermined, and that any communication or movement betweeen the different sections of society and ethnic groups has ceased. moreover, this is far from being a question of law and order or an issue of public safety, and this is why it cannot be remedied using the customary instruments of law and order. the crisis is the result of bad decisions made as part of a bad policy. third-generation immigrants, squeezed to the fringes of society, do not feel at home in their new homeland, they have no jobs and no goals to aspire to; they cannot see a future for themselves. mr president, 'those who die are lucky': those are the words of a palestinian woman i met in gaza last week who has worked for 20 years for peace and for women's rights in that area. her hope has been shattered by israel's continued intransigence in refusing to allow the economic development of gaza by the free flow of people and goods into egypt from the gaza strip via the rafah crossing and the refusal to allow the development of an airport or a port. half the population of gaza is under 25 years of age and there is 60% unemployment in the area. israel must be persuaded by europe that frustrating the economic development of gaza is counterproductive for israel's own security; it should also, in my view, be counterproductive for israel's trade relations with europe. the imprisoning of gaza's population behind walls and barbed wire fences must end immediately if a political and security disaster for the palestinian people is to be averted. the situation is grim and it is urgent. i would urge you to impress on the commission and the council that israel must be persuaded to end its veto on the development of the gaza strip. in its accession treaty, the slovak republic made a commitment to decommissioning - and i stress the word 'decommissioning' - two reactors of the v1 nuclear power plant at jaslovske bohunice. this will lead to a 19% drop in electricity production for the slovak economy which will affect other sectors of the economy as well. to help slovakia in coping with this demanding task, the european union promised to provide adequate financial assistance. for the 2007-2013 budget period, the commission proposed a contribution of eur 237 million. decommissioning costs were calculated on the basis of data from 2000, according to which the actual costs were expected to reach eur 750 million. the eur 237 million proposed by the commission, in addition to the eur 180 million that has already been paid, represents less than one third of the actual costs. i would urge my esteemed colleagues to consider this matter carefully and to lend their support in voting for the sum of eur 400 million proposed by the committee on industry, research and energy. mr president, there is an urgent need to guarantee constitutional rights to 18 305 citizens of the former yugoslavia, who were unlawfully erased from the register of the inhabitants of the newly independent slovenia in 1992. i wish to report on the most unusual case of one of those 'erased' people, mr ali berisha, a roma from kosovo, who came to slovenia as a young man in 1985, and until 1991, was legally employed and had permanent residence there. when he lost his rights of domicile in slovenia, he settled in germany, where he lived and worked for 12 years. he married and had four children. owing to regularisation of the situation, the german authorities recently deported him to kosovo, a country he left 20 years ago. the family returned to slovenia, from where the parents and four children are to be deported to germany on 18 november. i call on the slovenian government to restrain from executing the deportation decree on the berisha family until such time as the slovenian court of justice has ruled on the complaint. mr president, i rise in relation to the seventh framework research programme currently being considered by the institutions. research is, of course, an area where it makes sense for all our member states to pool their resources: to have a common programme is much more effective. part of the programme relates to public health. that has come under pressure from those who argue that it does not meet the priorities of economic competitiveness as defined in the lisbon agenda. i should like to refute that argument and call on all those who are considering this programme to refute it. health research is not only worthwhile in its own right. it is also worthwhile in relation to its economic merits, especially research on respiratory health, which is currently lacking from the programme. respiratory health problems are europe's second biggest killer, accounting for one in four deaths. that costs our health systems eur 102 million per year and is the major cause of absenteeism from work. we must make sure that area of research forms part of the programme. mr president, my country, flanders, too, has been the scene of terror on the streets over the past few weeks, with gangs of north african immigrants giving full vent to their hatred towards our western society and taking it out on public and private property. whilst the violence was more limited in its extent than in france, where several people were killed, the politically correct left still prevents us from using the term riffraff or scum - in french - and would prefer to shoot the messenger than address the problem in an environment without any taboos. those problems are first and foremost rooted in an immigration policy that has gone off the rails, in the formation of ghettos, the refusal to assimilate and an aggressive islamic fundamentalism in the suburbs. certain media, however, prefer to describe the scum who tipped fuel over a disabled lady in order to set fire to her only as rascals. innocent rascals apparently, are also the scoundrels who, in noisy-le-grand, pulled two women out of their car and dragged them through the streets by the hair. no doubt it was also disadvantaged young people who kicked jean-jacques lechenadec to death, but the policeman who protected citizens and property from looters risks being put in prison. those whom mr sarkozy rightly describes as scum, however, can count on subsidies and red-carpet treatment. i take pity on europe and france. - on 15 may, a general election was held in ethiopia. one of the reasons why people cast their votes was that they trusted the international observers, which included the eu. since election day, massacres have taken place - on 8 june, for example - and yet the ethiopian prime minister has been received by the g8 and took part in the africa commission. recently, on 1 november, there was dreadful violence and repression in ethiopia and all opposition leaders were arrested. at this very moment, there are tens of thousands of people in jail and dozens have died. even so, the ethiopian prime minister has been received in germany. mr president, on 13 july, parliament adopted a very clear resolution on the situation in ethiopia. i call on you to write to the ethiopian government and european governments, drawing their attention to the fact that it is impossible to conduct 'business as usual' with a country that is under repression and in which elected opposition leaders are incarcerated. mr president, the european commission has written to the swedish government and asked it to intervene in the work of the supreme court. the basic principle behind a democracy is the distribution of power. it is constitutionally impossible for the swedish government to intervene in the work of the supreme court. i think that this is a serious attack on our constitutional principle. it would therefore be helpful if parliament could explain to the commission that it too must follow the ground rules in each country. the supreme court is the highest independent body in sweden. we have no constitutional court or other possible ways of monitoring government power. if the commission now calls on our government to influence the supreme court, this would damage our constitution and the ways in which our country and our democracy operate. it would be unfortunate if such a request were made again. mr president, i want to raise the irish ferries shipping company's plans to replace over 500 employees with low-paid slave labour provided by agency workers, many from outside the european union. this practice of social dumping is wholly unacceptable and the european union has a responsibility to protect the rights of all workers, including seafarers who work european waters. the wage rates and secondary benefits afforded to seafarers must be in line with those applicable in the relevant member states. irish ferries must honour its agreements with workers and trade unions in the company. there is no case for breaking these agreements. we need a european ferries directive to ensure that irish ferries and other companies like it cannot ride roughshod over the rights of workers present and future. this parliament must actively oppose the 'race to the bottom' approach to employment and working conditions which is now rife within the european union. mr president, evictions are a very emotive issue in ireland given our long and painful history, so it is with some regret that we have seen the question come to the fore again in recent times, particularly last week on the streets of dublin. this poster reads 'stop mandelson's evictions' and it represents the voice of 5000 farmers last week. a colleague spoke about it earlier. there is a real fear that what is happening at the wto will mean the death knell for many farmers, not just in ireland, but throughout the european union. i have three messages for the commission at wto level. any deal on agriculture cannot come at any price: it must be balanced and fair. where there is increased market access we must be sensitive to some products; if the markets are to be destabilised we have to bring in mechanisms to control that destabilisation. and i would suggest that the eu should only import food produced under the standards it demands of its own producers, and not accept lower standards in relation to animal welfare, food safety and the environment. mr president, thank you very much for the speaking time i have been given, but are you aware that, since 1999, five bulgarian nurses and a palestinian doctor have been held in prison in libya? they were sentenced to death in 2004 because 400 libyan children and teenagers had been contaminated by the aids virus in benghazi hospital. everyone knows that neither the bulgarian nurses nor the palestinian doctor were responsible for this contamination but, in spite of everything, they were taken hostage and since may 2004, have been sentenced to death. they will learn tomorrow whether or not their appeals have been accepted. we have often brought up this issue within the european parliament but we really need to participate in any possible moves to free these people, who are victims of a policy that is completely beyond their and our understanding, in the same way that we need to try to help the libyan children who have been contaminated. mr president, last week was the 16th anniversary of the end of the division of germany. this year is the 31st anniversary of the division of cyprus; almost half of cyprus is occupied by turkey. until 16 years ago, germany was divided by russian communism. today cyprus is divided by turkish fascism, and turkish occupation is continuously being strengthened. recently, after threatening un observers, the turkish forces extended their grip into the un buffer zone in the region east of nicosia. i managed to lower the turkish flag from a new military post being built in that area and brought it here today in order to remind my fellow meps, once again, that an eu member state is occupied by a candidate country and yet the eu seems strangely able to tolerate this absurd situation. i wish to hand this flag to you, mr president, and request that you send it to the turkish premier telling him that our patience has run out and that he must, without further delay or excuses, get his occupation troops off cypriot european union soil. thank you, mr matsakis, but you will understand that i am not going to send the flag to the turkish prime minister. you may do so directly if you wish. mr president, this house frequently and properly raises its voice in support of the victims of terrorism. i invite it to do so again. after decades of ira- and other terrorism in northern ireland, we have hundreds of unsolved murders, many of whose perpetrators have fled the jurisdiction. now, in a quite appalling legislative move, the british government, in delivery of a sordid deal with the ira, is proposing to afford amnesty and sanctuary to those on-the-run terrorists. the rights of their victims to have justice is to be shamelessly denied, while a farcical process is put in place whereby the terrorists need not even attend court, will not be required to serve a single day in jail and will never be permitted to be questioned again about their abominable crimes. this legislation is a gross affront to justice and the human rights of victims; it is a stomach-churning illustration of how low governments can stoop when they set about appeasing terrorism. i call on this house and the justice commissioner to speak out against this wretched legislation. during the last year, the population in some new eu states has decreased to an alarming extent, most of all in lithuania, latvia and estonia as a result of emigration to the old eu states. the free movement of persons is one of the fundamental accomplishments of the eu. however, new eu states are painfully losing their most gifted and well-educated people to older and much richer states. in lithuania, the education of a student costs on average eur 7 000 and of a medical student as much as eur 26 000 and of a pilot eur 60 000. naturally, attracting specialists from the new countries is less expensive and more convenient than training them locally. but this seems more like poorer countries making charitable contributions to prosperous ones. prohibitions and restrictions will not help. we need to develop a system for the registration of young specialists working permanently in other eu states and establish fair 'rules of the game'. we need a special fund to alleviate the painful consequences of 'brain drain' in the name of solidarity, the essence of the european union. that concludes the one-minute speeches. the next item is the report by mihael brejc, on behalf of the committee on employment and social affairs, on the social dimension of globalisation (2005/2061(ini)) (a6-0308/2005). . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank the rapporteur, mr brejc, for his report, which is of key importance. debates on globalisation and its impact are high on the agenda, both in the european union and on a global scale. the report contains a great many proposals, which the commission intends to examine in detail. i should, however, like to make a few preliminary remarks on a number of the report's demands and proposals. i am delighted that parliament has lent its support to the initiatives the commission has proposed and developed with a view to strengthening the social dimension of globalisation. the commission has adopted a proactive approach in order to help ensure that the benefits of globalisation are shared more widely, and to reverse its negative effects. the european commission backed the talks held by the world commission on the social dimension of globalisation, which was established by the international labour organisation. the communication of 18 may 2004 contains the european commission's original proposals, and expresses clear support for the implementation of the world commission's final report. since that time, these proposals have gained wide support, especially among the members of the european council, the council of ministers, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. your report and motion for a resolution contain a great deal of information that is of crucial importance for the commission. if the social dimension of globalisation is to be promoted in the european union and elsewhere, joined-up measures that will command widespread support are needed. the commission welcomes the outcome of the un summit held in september. i would remind the house that the commission played a part in the preparations for this summit, in particular by acting as a coordinator at eu level, and by making use of its contacts within the un and the un's specialised agencies, such as the international labour organisation. the un summit's final declaration makes express reference to fair globalisation and decent work on the basis of fundamental social rights. as well as laying down principles, the declaration also stresses that the promotion of decent work and fair globalisation should be incorporated into development strategies at global and national levels. this un backing is of crucial importance for the european union's external actions in all areas, whether in terms of enhancing our cooperation with the international labour organisation and other international organisations, or in terms of bilateral cooperation with other regions and countries. mr president, thank you very much. i should like to begin by saying that i much appreciated commissioner pidla's speech in this chamber today. the greatest challenge we face in our common future is that of how we in europe can help make globalisation a real opportunity for social progress in the developing countries. i have just returned home from china, and let me tell you all that the chinese are very concerned about the future of europe. i told those to whom i was talking in china that i too was very concerned. i am concerned if we cannot stand united and work with the aim of making a contribution to the world that can maintain a balance. i am concerned if we cannot stand united in the world in order to fight for social justice and social progress in the developing countries. i am, moreover, concerned on behalf of india, africa and china and on behalf of all the developing countries if we cannot stand together in order to keep to this objective, for if we cannot maintain the objective of greater social progress and justice, the whole world, including europe, will lose out. it is therefore crucial to strengthen basic workers' rights, as agreed by the world commission on the social dimension of globalisation. as draftsman of the committee on foreign affairs, i entirely support this conclusion, and i know that my colleague mr christensen, who acted as pse shadow rapporteur in the committee on employment and social affairs, also supports this conclusion. i have focused on three main issues in my speech. firstly, we cannot promote greater flexibility without providing our workers and children and women with greater social protection in exchange. secondly, europe must not compete in terms of social dumping. europe must compete in terms of the best and not the worst. nor should europe export social dumping. thirdly, europe must have a role as the world's social conscience in relation to development, the environment and employees' rights. that is something i also know we agree with mr christensen about. tomorrow, i shall report on the views taken of the social growth programme of the socialist group in the european parliament. . madam president, commissioner, we ought to thank the european commission for having taken on the challenge of the social dimension of globalisation. i should, however, like the european institutions and the national authorities also to give some thought of their own to the matter, using the actual conditions in the member states as a starting point. the social dimension of globalisation requires us to adapt the structures of society to the commitments made, but without for all that sacrificing what underpins society. to begin with, i should like to address the social dimension of globalisation from the perspective of citizenship. nothing cripples citizenship more than the feeling of inferiority generated by the daily onslaughts of poverty, subordination and dependency. consequently, all our efforts should be aimed at ensuring that all those men and women who are today excluded from progress because of unfettered globalisation can hold on to, or regain, their dignity. my second remark relates to one of the greatest challenges of globalisation: poverty. last month, on 17 october, we commemorated the international day for the eradication of poverty. we said that, in order to combat poverty, we needed to enter into a close partnership with the poorest people. unfortunately, the european commission has not yet heard these calls. that is why i pray that the european and national institutions might take the contributions of the poorest families and citizens seriously. these people are the real experts when it comes to understanding the social dimension of globalisation. my third point relates to the contribution of women to this debate. the lisbon strategy anticipates that at least 60% of women will participate in the labour market in 2010. i am convinced that this objective has already been achieved. all that is required is for recognition to be given to all of the work done by women that is not officially recognised at present by the national and european authorities. what do we really know about the commitment made by women in leading intergenerational support networks and in being the driving force behind other forms of informal work? society as a whole benefits from this. i encourage the services of the european commission together with the member states to recognise the work done by women that is not yet officially recognised, and to do so irrespective of the social status of these women. this also forms part of the responses to the social challenge of globalisation. madam president, thank you for giving me the floor. i should like to begin by saying thank you to the rapporteur, mr brejc, for his work on the report on the social dimension of globalisation and for cooperating with us so constructively in this connection. globalisation has given many people in the world considerable advantages. it is just that the advantages are not distributed equally across all countries and all groups in society. this is something about which the eu clearly has a duty to do something. i am therefore pleased that the report focuses on, and gives rise to a debate about, the social aspect of globalisation. we all have a responsibility for finding new answers to the challenges. we must ensure that the people of europe do not associate globalisation only with companies transferring their operations abroad, dreadful conditions of work and mass redundancies. globalisation must, on the contrary, be associated with more and better jobs, more opportunities and increased prosperity for all. we must do away with the harmful consequences of globalisation and ensure that the positive aspects of globalisation are more evenly distributed. it is precisely in this area that the eu can play an important role. it must ensure that it creates good conditions for people in the eu so that they can cope successfully with international competition. it must not only focus on the market economy and the free play of market forces. it must also invest in people. if everyone is to be in a position to cope successfully with global competition, the fact is that more and better education is needed, together with an active labour market policy. lifelong learning and the development of people's skills are necessary if everyone is to be able to give a good account of themselves in the face of global competition. the second answer to the challenges of globalisation is that the eu must increase and promote the use of the social dialogue in both the eu and the rest of the world. close cooperation between the two sides of industry can facilitate restructuring, just as increased information can reduce the fear of globalisation. in the rest of the world, the social dialogue will mean that labour market conditions are improved, for the eu also has an obligation to bring about social progress throughout the world. it is not only in the eu that globalisation must benefit people. in this connection, i should also like to thank my colleague, mr rasmussen, who has done some constructive work in drafting the opinion of the committee on foreign affairs so that the report also focuses on the eu's external policies. . madam president, i believe that bringing a social dimension to globalisation is one of the fundamental problems posed by this process. i am delighted that the commissioner, on behalf of the european commission, has expressed a similar view, and i hope that this view is also shared by the council of ministers, even though the seats reserved for the council are empty, as i see they are. in our opinion, it is crucial for the european parliament to pursue this matter, and thanks are due to the rapporteur for the motion for a resolution he has tabled. although there are many different aspects to this issue, i should like to highlight two that i believe are particularly important. firstly, the significance attached to the social dimension of globalisation depends to a large, if not decisive, extent on the emergence and consolidation of a civil society in every country. this is especially true in the case of those countries that are making insufficient progress in democratic and economic terms. the european union should support civil society building in all the countries with which it cooperates, and particularly in developing countries. the second issue i should like to highlight is the role the european union must play in monitoring globalisation and promoting its social dimension. globalisation is inevitable, and it is a necessary, not to say indispensable, process. at the same time, however, we are all aware of the significant social risks it poses. globalisation therefore needs to be controlled in such a way as to ensure that any negative effects are kept to a minimum. this may well be the very foundation upon which the social dimension of globalisation is based, and i believe that the european union can and should play a key role in this respect. . madam president, this report touches on many issues of social policy, and it is to be hoped that the business sector will take these fine principles on board far more than it has previously and will actually put them into practice. if it does not, the mocking proverb according to which 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' would no doubt have to be recast in a version for the eu, which would read: 'the road to neo-capitalist globalisation is paved with the eu's fine words on social policy'. the report is still far too vague about the correlation between poverty, business and the destruction of the environment; to take an example, the international energy agency's 'world energy outlook 2005' paints a frightening picture of worldwide co2 emissions increasing by 52% between now and 2030. there is a clear trade-off between the destruction of the environment and the reduction of poverty, and it is above all the poorest who suffer from it. one of the functions of policy is to set clear boundaries for business; multinational conglomerates must accept much more responsibility for society and the environment, and the triple bottom line approach is one example of how they can do so. the public can be guided towards more responsible ways of being consumers, and eco-label is one way in which this can be done. consumers have the right to be told whether a product was manufactured fairly and in line with ilo standards or if exploitation was involved. let me say something else about the wto. i am perturbed by the excessive respect in which that organisation is held. many politicians' attitudes towards it suggest that they see it as some sort of force of nature. the wto must become more democratic. elected institutions must redefine its objectives and monitor its activities. this is another area in which the eu must bring much more influence to bear. . - we are all aware that the process of neoliberal globalisation is serving to exacerbate economic and social inequality and to widen the gulf between rich and poor. it is also exacerbating environmental imbalances, both between different countries and within individual countries, as demonstrated by the un's figures and reports. high levels of unemployment, inequalities in the distribution of wealth, poverty and social exclusion are also causing rising social tension, something to which we in the eu are not immune. it is therefore not enough simply to observe the current situation; what is needed is a clean break from the political, economic, monetary and international trade policies that have led to this situation, both at world level and at eu level, in order that the strategic objectives for sustainable development can be met and living standards throughout the world can be raised. the proposals for amendments that we have tabled are aimed at stressing the importance of changing some of these policies, as a matter of urgency, in such a way that the social dimension is given due prominence. practical measures must urgently be taken to combat financial speculation in the world's capital markets, for example, by taxing the movement of capital and stock market capital gains. this will serve to reduce the volatility of the capital markets and the risk of financial crisis, to boost investment and wealth creation in the real economy, and, in so doing, to promote social inclusion and ensure respect for human rights. it is moreover vitally important that the lisbon strategy and the stability and growth pact be replaced with a european strategy of real solidarity and sustainable development, aimed at promoting equal rights and social protection for all, eradicating poverty and social exclusion, solving problems of precarious work, and strengthening the social rights of workers, the unemployed, the elderly and children. universal access to high quality public services, in areas such as water supply, health, education and housing, is of fundamental importance. accordingly, the eu, within the framework of the world trade organisation and gatt, must not give precedence to liberalising services. - madam president, the concept of globalisation is not new, it was not introduced recently. it started from rome as ecumenism, last century the communists tried to impose it as internationalisation and, today, globalisation is the answer of capitalism. i should like to ask anyone in europe - the tradesman in cologne, the artisan in marseille, the farmer in greece: are they happy with the results of globalisation? the only people who are happy are the chinese with 12% growth. what do we get out of it? what is going well in europe? countries with a strong economy, such as germany, are now in deficit. what do we get out of it? unemployment is increasing and we cannot get it under control. what do we get out of it? everything comes from china. is it not true that everything comes from china? is it not true that we are trying, now that the horse has bolted, to find a way to stop the whole of china coming here? this is the reality. the third countries took our factories and we get their inhabitants. that is why we have these incidents in france, with those whom mr sarkozi called 'scum'; and of course i disagree with the term used by the french minister for home affairs. however, these people do not have work, because the factory where they worked left for north africa or the balkans. so globalisation does not benefit us europeans, but we are so clever. we took our currency and revalued it against the dollar by 50%. how can we do anything with the euro so high? how will we be able to address globalisation? how can we safeguard viable pensions? do you know what the average pension is in greece? it is equal to an mep's per diem. the eur 270 which we get here today is more than a greek farmer gets in a month. can we safeguard a viable european pension? can we safeguard work for all europeans? can we safeguard cotton, which is in warehouses in greece, which europe does not take so that it can take cotton from third countries? can we safeguard spanish oil, which europe does not take so that it can take oil from tunisia? this is the reality. what globalisation are we talking about? what are the results? i repeat, what does europe get out of it? what are we safeguarding for european citizens? we have played the game of the united states of america so that big business can reap the benefits. the only ones who are happy are carrefour and lidl, and how so? by exploiting people. i went to lidl here in strasbourg and bought a few things. i bought the same things in my own country three times more expensive. the same product, the same name, the same quantity. how can small retailers survive? how can artisans survive? that is why we are moving towards a shrinking economy, towards a problem which we will have to face. beware; i do not know if this heedless enlargement of europe will be its downfall, but its biggest problem will be the economy. globalisation will seriously damage the future of europe. . madam president, i wish to thank the rapporteur for his work. all too often, when we talk about globalisation, our comments and concerns centre solely on trade, rather than on the social aspects of globalisation. in fact, the european union can play a very significant role in disseminating best practices through what we have achieved in the union itself. despite the faults that exist within the european system, there are also many good and positive things. i wish to give just one example of this. two weeks ago i was in nairobi. in one of the slums there i visited a school which has 1 690 students and 22 teachers. the principal of that school was earning the equivalent of eur 150 per month. the only reason there were so many children going to the school was because they were given food donated by the european union and the world food programme. they were being encouraged to learn but were also being fed. i am reminded of the saying 'give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, but teach a man to fish and you feed him for life'. one of the most important aspects of the social aspect of globalisation is education, because no matter how many trade issues you deal with or how many preferential trade deals you give to developing countries, the people in those countries will never be able to climb out of the pit of poverty to which so many of them are consigned unless they are given proper access to education and healthcare and an understanding of how systems operate. our role, our duty and our responsibility, be it in world trade or in the united nations, or even within our own development aid actions, should be to ensure, first and foremost, that when we speak about globalisation we place people at the centre of the debate. it is not just about trading blocs. it is not just about economic returns. it is about ensuring that the world itself is a better place for future generations. that can only be achieved if we invest in the people themselves. madam president, this report states that the european union can make a significant contribution to the process of globalisation by developing its social model and promoting it internationally. yet, with 20 million unemployed people in europe, what social model are you talking about? the lisbon process, which is a failure? the debt of those member states that are on the verge of bankruptcy? social precarity, crushing taxation and the new type of poverty of europe's fourth world? do you believe that all of this might constitute a social model that we can export? if you want to have an accurate view of the social dimension of globalisation, i invite you to go and be a tourist in the 300 french towns that, for the last 18 days, have been the scenes of social uprisings, ethnic riots and anti-french hatred, with burning cars and destroyed schools, creches, gymnasiums and hospitals, and all this without mentioning the systematic and widespread attacks on fire fighters and law enforcement officers. you will thus assess the tangible and visible consequences of the extreme ultraliberal, ultra-internationalist and ultra-immigrationist economic policy carried out for the past 25 years by the european institutions and the member states, with france at the helm. your social model of integration is, in fact, an out-and-out model of disintegration: economic and industrial disintegration, social disintegration, cultural disintegration and institutional disintegration. in addition to businesses relocating to countries with low social costs linked to production, the populations of poor countries are relocating to countries with high levels of social protection. widespread social dumping brought about by globalisation is just what is needed economically to bring about social decline. your economic globalisation is, in fact, globalisation of social dumping and of migration. foreign populations are entering europe en masse, while businesses are leaving europe en masse. today we have to tolerate not only the rioters in our suburbs, but also the economic looters plundering our industries, combined with the political and institutional bandits pillaging our national identities, our national units, our sovereignties and our values of civilisation. enforced economic and migratory globalisation will end up imposing on the people of europe a multi-community and multi-ethnic society, positive discrimination, obligatory racial mixing and a level of social protection equal to that of communist china. that model is clearly not ours, and it is crucial today to defuse that ticking timebomb. i should first like to extend my apologies to you for my late arrival which was caused by a delayed flight and traffic jams in strasbourg. the report being discussed today includes an account of measures relating to the social dimension of globalisation. the report also constitutes a first response of the commission and of the european parliament to the dimensions of globalisation and, of course, to the report of the world commission on the social dimension of globalisation, set up by the international labour organisation (ilo). there are a number of definitions of globalisation. the basic idea behind globalisation is the progressive integration of economies and societies. it is driven by new technologies, new economic relations and national foreign policies of various entities, ranging from governments to civil societies. globalisation is a process which does not carry an ideological content, neither that of the left or of the right, neither that of the liberals or the greens. it is a process which entails positive and negative consequences. for that reason we may consider it from various viewpoints, the economic, financial, technological, environmental and so on. the social dimensions of globalisation constitute the subject matter of this report. the commission communication emphasises the social dimension of bilateral and regional relations within europe which encompass bilateral and regional agreements, political dialogue at the regional level, the european union neighbourhood policy, respect for human rights and democratisation in the third countries, migration development and so on. i would also like to mention the millennium development goals (mdgs) which, amongst other things, place emphasis on the cooperation policy, on ensuring that the trade policy fully underpins social progress giving developing countries access to the markets of developed countries, and on the support for a specific initiative for social progress and the transposition of good practices. in my report, i have tried to place particular stress on the following: we have to strengthen the factors of globalisation which act in a positive manner and we have to create conditions for a reduction in the negative impact of globalisation. the member states of the eu can set the good practices they have developed as an example for other parts of the world to follow and should endeavour to make the revised lisbon strategy a success. we have to promote a climate which supports enterprise, investment and social progress. we need, however, a more flexible labour market, less bureaucracy and greater personal responsibility. to maintain the competitiveness of the european economy and social progress, we need large investments in human resources and for this reason i welcome the efforts of the commission in that direction. the european parliament has to support the so-called core labour standards and the ilo's decent work agenda. we have to seek to attain observer status for the ilo at the world trade organisation with a view to improving the quality of interinstitutional dialogue. we should stress the significance of a united front within international institutions, develop corporate social responsibility and urge enterprises to use appropriate measures and good practices. in this context, i would like to mention the oecd guidelines for multinational enterprises. we should also highlight the important role of educational institutions and the media in the process of keeping the public well informed about the impact of globalisation. furthermore, i note with interest the idea for a parliamentary group to be set up to oversee the coherence and consistency between global economic, social and environmental policies and to provide a holistic overview of the most important international organisations. the consultation on the commission communication and my report has provided a fruitful ground for a number of amendments, none of which concern the social dimension of globalisation. while i would like to urge you to restrict this consultation to the social dimensions of globalisation only, i do understand my colleagues who would like to highlight other aspects in this context. as a result, we have received amendments concerning the common agricultural policy, environmental aspects, oil and gas trading and so on. some of the amendments are far-removed from reality and would be better placed in the dustbin of the history of socialism than in the context of the modern welfare state and i cannot, therefore, lend them my support. i would like to use this opportunity to thank the commission for drafting an excellent communication and extend my gratitude to all my colleagues who have made an important contribution in shaping the report of the european parliament on the social dimensions of globalisation. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i am glad to be able to speak directly after the rapporteur. there is no doubt that globalisation results in increased economic output, as well as reducing costs and the differences between corporate cultures. that is the good thing about it. it does, though, also lead to far keener competition, which can entail serious job losses and be a source of serious anxiety for workers. mr christensen is quite right to say that the benefits of globalisation are not equally distributed, but it does bring progress, and the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats is in favour of using that progress and getting to grips with solving structural problems. if we want to look forwards and compete - as we must - then there must be reforms, but we must, at the same time, find innovative ways of responding to social challenges. in june, my colleague mr brejc put together an excellent report, which was even-handed enough, concentrated on the essentials and came up with crystal-clear solutions, but its 17 compact paragraphs were suddenly inflated into 39 by the desire of certain members on the left of this house to introduce a whole new dimension into it, which they believed to be necessary. i have to say that i do not agree with them! in the twinkling of an eye, they make effective institutions into instruments of regulation; one can almost feel the bureaucrats breathing down one's neck. they urge the commission to monitor the compatibility of fisheries partnership agreements with the millennium development goals, and stress the importance of such issues as the threat of eco-destruction and the loss of biodiversity. if the subject were 'the ecological dimension of globalisation', then that would be all well and good and we could talk about it, but the report is about 'the social dimension of globalisation'. there are times when one has to concentrate on the matter in hand if one is not to end up in considerable difficulties. it is grotesque that demands should be made for such things as measures to deter businesses from relocating in order to obtain eu subsidies. where a business is to be based is not decided at short notice and with payments from brussels in mind; it is a long-term process involving major financial transactions and long-term decision-making by management. let us cut through the tangled growth of repetitious verbiage, irrelevant matter and high-flown ideological posturing; what the own-initiative report called for was in fact perfectly clear, namely extensive investment in human capital, improvements in countries' educational systems, the promotion of professional expertise - which is more urgently needed than ever - and the creation of high-quality jobs in line with the lisbon strategy. what, then, of the ilo? i agree with the rapporteur, and with some of those who have already spoken, that the ilo must concentrate more on humane working conditions. we must carry on struggling to prevent social exclusion, to do away with child labour and to win the war on poverty. what the ilo needs is observer status within the wto, and we would welcome an institutional multi-stakeholder forum on corporate social responsibility. small and medium-sized enterprises need to be better inter-connected if they are to be enabled to actively participate in a globalised economy and if new jobs are to be created, and the social partners need to be involved in all decision-making processes if the social dimension is to be strengthened. madam president, i am grateful to my friend mr mann for demonstrating that we are back in step once again. the wto's sixth ministerial conference is due to be held in hong kong this december, and it will be yet another of the kind at which there will be no discussion of a ban on child labour, or of the abolition of forced labour, not to mention freedom of association or the right to set up trade unions. the examples i have just given are core labour standards, and there can be no fair trade without them. the commission communication that we are discussing today sets out the things that the community can do to make the globalisation process fairer for everyone, and, with that in mind, i would like to draw the house's attention to a negotiating mandate for the 1999 wto ministerial conference in seattle, which expressed the eu's desire for a conference at ministerial level on the subjects of trade, employment and core labour standards. at that time, the commission - and it is the members of the commission that i would like to remind of this - undertook to hold such a conference in 2001. if you, members of the commission, want to take action, then i suggest that you make a start by doing what you undertook to do years ago. i expect of you no other than this, that you hold this conference at long last, for fair trade is more live an issue than ever, if - as you now should - you take the social dimension of globalisation seriously. - madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mr brejc's approach to a topic with extremely sensitive ramifications - the social implications of globalisation - is a particularly effective one. this is a matter of great topical interest and was also the subject of a lively debate during the recent informal meeting of heads of state or government held on 28 october at hampton court. globalisation is a complex process, a source of both opportunities and challenges, and therefore needs to be managed in such a way as to deliver all its benefits while simultaneously minimising its concomitant social and economic imbalances. here, the union has a positive contribution to make by promoting its development model at international level. i therefore agree with the rapporteur's proposal to relaunch and reinforce the lisbon strategy, which stresses the interdependence of the economic, social and environmental dimensions. i also agree with him on the vital importance of investing in human resources, professional training and research and innovation, which are all vectors for development focused on social justice. however, that is not enough by itself. as recent events in the french suburbs have shown, even the union's most industrialised countries have serious social imbalances, which leave whole swathes of the population feeling marginalised. good global governance is not enough to solve these problems; the demands of the country also need to be better understood. to survive and prosper, a globalised economy needs a more solid foundation; it must promote more extensive and more inclusive social action and must be compatible with local requirements. this is why we need to think globally and act locally. in my view, the keyword is ''. the european model, therefore, needs an overhaul which, without compromising the important social progress achieved in the 20th century, will help it to get closer to the people and thereby respond more effectively to the demands of a constantly-changing society and of an economy now operating on a global scale. europe must look to the future with courage and cannot afford to fail the test of globalisation. - madam president, the process of so-called globalisation highlights the barbarity of capitalist development and the imperialist imposition of the choices of big business, with painful consequences on the working classes, grass-roots society and the environment. globalisation is the central ideology of the urban and opportunistic ideological movements of various hues, but with a common ambition to try and camouflage capitalism and its class structure. the communication by the european commission on the social dimension of globalisation analyses the phenomena from the point of view of the interests of big business and tries to obscure the real reasons for modern problems. at the same time, for the new economic and social reality which is being shaped, it proposes as a strategy at regional and international level the alleged need to accept and reform the imperialist unions. capitalist restructurings are the answer of the european union, with the promotion of competitiveness as their main feature. the lisbon strategy and the success of its updated expression are the basic parameter of the commission's choices and proposals in the contribution of the european union to the process of globalisation. an evaluation of all the data shows that the term 'globalisation' is a misnomer. it covers the nature of and the crisis in the system. the era we live in is not an era of globalisation; it is an era of imperialism. the working classes and the workers in general reject the reactionary process and the course of so-called globalisation and are fighting for radical changes and grass-roots prosperity. madam president, this report has been prepared at a time when the residents of the european union member states are harbouring ever-increasing concerns about the processes caused by or imputed to globalisation. the fact that the challenges relating to european union development are often perceived by the public as a globalisation process is very worrying and is yet another key argument that calls for us to formulate appropriate policies in order to endow the processes of globalisation with a social dimension. the process of globalisation, as is rightly emphasised in the report, also brings with it significant positive benefits, but equally the positive results of globalisation, which, objectively, is essential throughout the world, may not be achieved if attention is not paid in good time to social aspects. the outcome of the globalisation process will depend on the capacity of its participants to adapt in rapidly changing circumstances, and for this reason support should be given to the importance of implementing the lisbon strategy, as the report stresses on several occasions, so that the european union may be able to derive maximum benefit from the globalisation process and to win public acceptance of that process in the member states. in my opinion, however, the report has here departed from the current reality in the european union. the endless debates about the reform of the common agricultural policy demonstrate that at the moment the european union can only agree on a budget structure that meets 19th century needs. we are witnesses to the struggles here in the european parliament on the services directive. we know the importance that this directive has for the european union's lisbon strategy: it is one of the strategy's cornerstones. therefore, in my view, it is actually here, in the extent of our willingness, that the greatest threats of globalisation lie hidden, since public opinion in an increasing number of european union member states is not ready for the challenges of competition even within the european union itself. madam president, globalisation is irreversible. fortunately, however, it also represents a great opportunity for people from all continents, countries and regions. one need only look at the booming chinese economy to see proof of this. in the same way that socialism was needed to take the edge off 19th century capitalism, however, the globalisation of today needs a social dimension, without which it will be nothing but a wasted opportunity for humanity. at a time when the eu must speak out with one voice in favour of globalisation with a human face, it is painfully obvious that the eu itself lacks integration, a common foreign policy, a strong budget and a services directive capable of boosting the economies of the new member states. workers have no freedom of movement within the eu, unlike capital, and the common agricultural policy is unjust. all the more praise and recognition is therefore due to the rapporteur, who has temporarily overlooked the unjust division into old member states and new member states, instead advocating a fair division of goods on a global scale. the european social model, as set out in the lisbon strategy, should become our calling card and our leading export. the accumulation of goods has now reached such levels that the most important task facing the world is the decision to divide these goods up fairly, while ensuring that everyone can live and work in dignity. the outsourcing of human rights and workers' rights must follow on the heels of the outsourcing of capital. we should set up institutions that support the work of the wto and that endeavour to bring a social dimension to globalisation, such as the council for human development mentioned in the report. madam president, i first want to thank my colleague, mr brejc, for his work on this report and for his efforts to direct it towards the really important issues. i must say, however, that, if there are no changes to it, it will be difficult to support the report in the form it has been drawn up following the committee's reading of it. in its present form, the report states that globalisation leads to gulfs and imbalances between countries and within societies. that is emphatically not the case. if there is anything at all that globalisation has provided, it is well-being and prosperity for the poor parts of the world. we see today how poverty has been combated in large parts of asia. we see how people in taiwan, china, india and ever more other countries are slowly obtaining progressively more dignity and increased prosperity. globalisation has helped do away with poverty of a kind that, for centuries, characterised large parts of the world in which we now see wealth and well-being increasing, as well as respect for the individual. it is important to state that, directly contrary to what is stated in the report, it is, in actual fact, precisely in those parts of the world not reached by globalisation that we have stagnation and poverty, for example in those parts of africa and asia in which free and open trade are not practised and in which people are excluded from globalisation. it is the lack of globalisation and participation in the global economy that produces indigent people, poor living conditions and undignified working environments. it is also easy to see that this is the case, for where do we find the worst working environments and the worst social conditions? it is not in developing countries, but in those countries that belong to the lost world and that are excluded from the global economy. it may also be worth asking whether we should be better off if the poor parts of the world were not being developed. would we be better off if the chinese or indian economy had not been developed? for a number of different reasons, the answer to that question is of course 'no', partly because it is good that life is progressively improving in these countries and partly because these same countries constitute our growing markets. europe is a continent that, to the very highest degree, thrives on globalisation. our well-being, prosperity and high wages depend on our having companies that can operate and develop throughout the world by offering high-quality products and services. if we try to put a stop to globalisation, we ourselves are affected. if we try to impose our rules on other countries, they, for their part, are then hit. it is free trade that, both historically and in the present time, creates increasing well-being and respect for people. that is the basis on which we must proceed when making policy. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank our fellow member, mr brejc, for his report. it is timely, with only a few weeks to go until the opening of the wto ministerial meeting in hong kong. the form of globalisation that we know today has always been presented to us as a positive phenomenon that creates wealth. it certainly has its winners but - to plagiarise the former prime minister of france - globalisation is a new aristocracy of money and power, which today accumulates profits and relegates a majority of losers to the sidelines. we are not only noticing an increase in the inequalities in north-south relations, but we are also discovering that these inequalities are reflected today in south-south relations and within the very heart of a western society in which the gap between the richest and the poorest has become dramatically more pronounced over the last few years. the pursuit of social globalisation has the effect of endangering social rights and creating disgraceful working practices and dangerous imbalances. this new situation forces us no longer to view the world with the same detachment. we have to take note of the fact that this process of liberal, non-transparent and unfettered globalisation is of concern to our fellow citizens. yet, who can hold it against them if they are afraid for their jobs, their future, their democracy and the environment of the planet on which they live? no one. for what have we done to respond to these legitimate anxieties? if i were to take the most recent example, that of the last un summit in new york, the results were disappointing. they were disappointing in terms both of the concrete commitments made towards the poorest countries and of the reform of the international institutions. europe has to act in a coherent and credible fashion. doing so at multilateral level is exemplary behaviour. that is why incorporating strict social and environmental standards into the rules of trade and checking that these standards are upheld in the bilateral agreements we sign, are priorities. europe also has to act as an example internally. to do that, it has to improve its model, put in place a system of upwards social harmonisation, put a stop to the dismantling of public services and reject a market europe. europe provides an opportunity and a hope. it has to be the main actor in a different form of globalisation. madam president, commissioner, while i do agree with many of the views expressed in the report by our slovene member mr brejc, i am not with him every step of the way. you say that the lisbon agenda will, in bringing together the social components, enable us to meet the challenges of globalisation. it will do no such thing! the year is 2005; the period is halfway through. we have conducted a mid-term review, and expressed the criticism that these methods will not work on their own. to a large degree, globalisation has helped to create wealth, but - and this i say to mr hkmark - it has, equally, contributed to greater poverty, more exclusion, and to more social division, which does not, indeed, add up to equality and justice for all. secondly, we should have more to say about the gothenbourg summit, for that is where the economic, social and ecological triad - to which i would like to see the protection of consumers added - was set in stone, for that, in fact, is our fundamental concern. trade must, by definition, be free, but liberalisation alone will not move us forward, for we need environmental, labour and social standards, and it is only if we include these and take them on board that we really do have a chance of making trade fair across the globe. that is a world away from your approach, and it is for that reason that hong kong will, unfortunately, be a repeat of what we have seen before. if we get fixated on trade and take no account of the other social components, we will get nowhere. i think we would stand a chance if we were to enforce the global standards that already exist and limit imports into the european union to those goods manufactured in accordance with them. to do so would help us and reverse the trend. madam president, we live in a global environment and many of our political problems are tackled within a multilateral framework. this is clearly, therefore, the structure we should use in addressing global problems such as poverty. i welcome - as most people do - the recent initiative by the g8 to implement further the process of debt relief for the third world. this is only right and proper, as debt relief is presently crippling many countries in the third world. the highly indebted poor countries initiative achieved moderate success in tackling debt relief for the 42 poorest countries in the world, but this was only an initial effort by the developed world to tackle the problem of debt relief itself. the european union is the largest contributor of development aid in the world and therefore must continue to show real leadership when it comes to addressing humanitarian and development aid problems in the world. i also believe that the wto is the best structure to open up competition in the industrial services and trading sectors. it is in all our interests that a multilateral framework be put in place to govern the trading relations of the 150 different members of the wto at this time. it is therefore evident that tough decisions will have to be taken if a deal is to be reached in time for the hong kong ministerial round next month. i do not want to see a repeat of the cancun round of wto talks, which was a lost opportunity and, indeed, set progress back in this regard by at least two years. - madam president, globalisation is an indisputable reality and an ongoing process. congratulations to the commission because it contributed to the setting up and the work of the committee which drafted the report of the world commission on the social dimension of globalisation and because it expressed the intention of making an efficient contribution to the monitoring of its work. the commission communication for the report of the world commission covers a broad spectrum of issues relating to the internal and external policies of the european union, when it operates at global level. the rapporteur of the committee on employment and social affairs, mr brejc, deserves our praise because, in commenting on this communication, he has produced a basic report which has turned into an extended list of wishes and admonitions in order to highlight the basic objective of the two previous texts. the objective, of course, is the fairer distribution of the benefits of globalisation between the peoples of this planet and better forecasts of the costs which are often connected with sudden global changes. this broad wish list, both in the communication and in the commission's report, must be incorporated by the member states on a daily basis, both in their legislative and in their executive work. it rightly emphasises that the entire spectrum of education in developing countries is the basic means for creating quality jobs which will safeguard a better life for people in their country of birth, because another issue, apart from poverty, child labour and overworking by women, is the concern being expressed about the brain drain from developing countries, especially in the health professions. let us, as european institutions, help to create the means of overseeing the multilateral system of the global economy and addressing cohesion and consistency between global economic, social and environmental policies. we here also take a positive view of the global action of social organisations in order to promote honest social governance and, more importantly, in connection with the guidelines of the oecd for multinational companies, which the commission supports. the global area has a familiar name in greek; it is called 'ecumene', a word from which the term ecology, care of the environment, is derived in numerous languages. however, its main, original meaning is the concept of the space populated by man and it reminds us of our obligation to link globalisation with compliance with the universal declaration of human rights and the need for the basic labour rules of the international labour organisation to be mandatory. we have five years in the european union to achieve the lisbon strategy, to make europe the first power in the knowledge economy, with respect for the environment and promoting a new social model which we can propose globally. madam president, business people like to talk about a win-win situation, a situation where everyone stands to gain. for millions of people in europe and throughout the world, though, globalisation is not one. some benefit, while others suffer its adverse effects - a win-lose situation, in other words. although critics may question this, i think that we must try to turn globalisation into a win-win situation. mr brejc's report contains a number of interesting proposals in order to achieve this. i endorse his appeal to use eu funds to alleviate the adverse effects of globalisation. it should be clear what is meant by this. we must not pump funds around needlessly and must not keep alive at all costs those industries that are doomed to fail anyway. instead, we should free up funds to ensure that people who lose their jobs through globalisation are given the opportunity to find a job in another sector. it follows that the funds should be used to create new opportunities, rather than to needlessly prolong the suffering of insolvent sectors. in so far as that is what it is intended to do, i am pleased with the commission's proposal to set up a globalisation fund. this need not necessarily involve new funds. we could examine how existing funds could be redirected in order to get this globalisation fund off the ground. clearly, something must be done. if we do nothing for the people who lose their jobs through globalisation, they will end up in a lose-lose situation. i am indebted to mr brejc for this report, which i think will galvanise us into action. we should put our money where our mouth is. madam president, globalisation is here to stay and it is here to bring benefits. it is the role of legislators not to resist globalisation but to make sure its benefits reach as widely and deeply as possible. in this respect we should acknowledge and welcome the proactive role of the commission in supporting the un conclusions. i share with mr kuakowski the regret that the presidency of the council does not, apparently, regard this debate today as important enough to command the presence of a minister. the social dimension of globalisation is highly important, because globalisation brings with it change and all change is a challenge. our role is surely to help our society equip itself and adapt to meet that challenge much more strongly. as mr crowley said so eloquently this evening, this is all about people. the original brejc report addressed the subject sensitively and sensibly. sadly, as so often in the employment and social affairs committee, it now embodies amendments that are less sensitive and certainly less sensible. that is why we have to trouble the house to vote tomorrow to get closer to the original report and delete most of those amendments, except of course my own! we cannot support the sudden suggestion to make csr - corporate social responsibility - compulsory. we cannot support calls for exporting the eu social model as a condition of opening up world trade. we cannot support calls for increasing the eu budget. the ppe-de group has therefore put forward a number of amendments to remove these and other muddled messages. i very much hope that the house will support those revisions. if it does not, the uk conservative delegation would agree with mr hkmark, as well as many other colleagues, and reluctantly vote to reject this report as it stands. we want to get back to a report about the social dimension, not just the socialist dimension. - i am sorry for my colleague, however he is going to hear more about the socialist dimension, because that is what we want to see, that the people become the centre of attention. in malta, my fellow workers are going through disastrous changes. everyday they face a lack of work, and now, all of a sudden, we had the news that a factory employing eight hundred and fifty people to produce jeans is going to leave to start manufacturing outside the european union. this means that in a small country like ours, with the thrust of a knife, suddenly we have 0.5% of our workforce losing their jobs in one single day. about two years ago these people had read in brochures that, if we entered the european union, god willing, we would solve all the problems related to the challenge of globalisation, they promised them what they used to call a 'new spring'. maybe we were not so popular because we used to tell them the truth, that we had to work everyday in order to be competitive. now that we are members of the eu, though, we have to see that we put people before profits, that persons come before directives. some would say that this cannot be done because of our rules; in that case, commissioner, we have to change the rules. . ladies and gentlemen, this debate has brought home how complex and multifaceted the issue of globalisation is, and how difficult it is to find clear-cut solutions to this problem. i believe that the debate has also provided clear confirmation of something that we had in fact all suspected, namely that globalisation has been underway for a relatively long time, or in other words at least 300-400 years. it is also apparent that this process will continue apace, and that an interconnected world whose inhabitants are in close contact with each other has become a part of our lives. there is therefore an urgent need to give globalisation a human face and a social dimension. there is also no getting away from the fact that it is impossible to find a straightforward solution or a single initiative that could solve the entire problem. nevertheless, i believe that it is crucially important that the european union has decided to turn its attention to the social dimension of globalisation, and to promote it in close cooperation with the united nations and, in particular, the international labour organisation. this approach is capable of delivering results, and i believe that it is very much the right one to take, even though the results may only be incomplete in certain cases. it was with great interest that i listened to this debate, and i will also be very interested to follow developments regarding the report that has been drafted and the structure of the amendments that will be adopted. - the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. globalisation - the expanding network of relationships and increasing interdependence among the peoples of the modern world - is having the effect of bringing the world ever closer together due to the rapid development of technology, transport, telecommunications and computer science. people say that the world is getting smaller, and that it will soon become one village, although others believe it would be truer to say that a very narrow section of the social elite of the world are growing closer to each other, while the majority are increasingly excluded from opportunities. it is debatable whether what we are seeing is globalisation or an increasing divide between richer and poorer sections of society on a global scale. globalisation can be turned to both good use and bad. however, a detailed analysis of economic processes reveals that the poorest peoples of the world are those who are excluded from the process of globalisation, while countries that claim their share in the international division of labour have seen an increase in their national income. given that two of the most populous countries of the world, china and india, are among the latter, globalisation has in fact helped the majority of the world's poor to achieve a higher standard of living. all indications suggest that isolation from globalisation brings greater risks in terms of poverty effects than if a country participates in globalisation. globalisation must benefit everyone. for this to happen, strong international institutions are needed to ensure sustainable development. what is needed in europe and throughout the world is to establish clear roles linked to clear deadlines. the external and internal policies of the eu, its social model and its development at international level could also serve to other regions of the world as a model of ethical globalisation with a positive impact. the next item is the oral question to the commission (o-0083/2005 b6-0333/2005) by mr chichester and mrs barsi-pataky, on behalf of the committee on industry, research and energy, on the digital switchover. . mr president, the committee on industry, research and energy of the european parliament has been following very closely the process of switching from terrestrial analogue broadcasting to digital broadcasting in europe. as a vitally important resource, the frequency spectrum must be utilised efficiently. europe must not lag behind in this regard. in other words, if we want to achieve the lisbon goals and be a part of the innovation in this area too, then we must not lag behind with the switchover. we therefore support the fact that the commission has proposed 2012 as the target year for switching off analogue broadcasting throughout europe. the european parliament therefore calls upon the member states to give their full support to this schedule, while at the same time aiming to keep the transitional period of 'simulcasting' as short as possible. the digital switchover will be a success if it is carried out in a coordinated manner. we therefore propose that the commission establish a european digital working party - perhaps within the existing structures - with a view to ensuring that the switchover takes place in as coordinated a manner as possible. we propose that this working party have the task of monitoring the progress of member states and coordinating their objectives and regulations. it should initiate discussion and consultation between member states and market players. the european parliament believes that the digital switchover will bring tangible benefits if the additional frequency spectrum released as a result of the change in technology is reallocated on a flexible basis and at european level. we need to make a timely start as regards working on the question of how to make the best use of the frequency spectrum dividend. in this context i am also referring to the potential it offers for new pan-european services, as in the case of the transport sector, to mention only one of many examples. the aforementioned working party would provide an appropriate framework for this. in order to ensure that the switchover has the desired results, it is impossible to overstate the need for technological neutrality and interoperability, which is one of the pillars of european innovation in this field. we also call upon member states to ensure that the switchover process and reallocation of the spectrum dividend are impartial, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. the european parliament believes that the transition will be a success if european citizens have access to the most advanced technology for receiving digital broadcasts, for example technology comprising a multimedia home platform or an open embedded panel interface (epi). this will help prevent vertical bottlenecks. in order to ensure access to these technologies for all european citizens, it may be necessary to subsidise them at national level, in accordance with community law. we must ensure that a digital divide is not allowed to develop between different regions of europe. indeed, we must ensure that the opposite is the case. we call upon the commission to publish and present models of best practice with regard to financing aspects. the switchover will not only bring economic dividends, but also better and more sophisticated services for european citizens if the social and cultural challenges relating to it are met. for instance, public service platforms could be the standard-bearers of the digital switchover. we propose that the common position we need to agree on at the regional radiocommunication conference in 2006 (rrc06) should include a provision making the transitional period for third countries as short as possible. the european parliament is confident that the december meeting of the council will take parliament's views into consideration in arriving at a decision on the tasks that lie ahead. . ladies and gentlemen, the commission has undertaken to accelerate the transition to digital broadcasting at eu level, and to structure this process in such a way that there is no distortion of competition. the aim is to switch off analogue signals by the beginning of 2012 at the latest, and to ensure that the spectrum released by this switch-off is used in such a way that society will derive the maximum possible benefits. furthermore, the commission aims to ensure that society can begin to use this spectrum for hybrid television and telecommunications services, or for services that are unrelated to radio or television broadcasting. the transition to digital broadcasting is gathering pace in the european union. spain recently brought forward the date for switching off analogue terrestrial television signals by two years, from 2012 to 2010, while germany has brought it forward by three years, from 2010 to 2007. ten member states have set a date of 2010 or earlier for switch-off, whereas a further 10 have set a date of 2012. five member states, as well as bulgaria and romania, have not yet decided on a date for switch-off, and poland, ireland and bulgaria have now indicated that they may find it difficult to achieve switch-off in 2012. on the basis of this information, the commission expects that transition in the european union as a whole should be well underway by the beginning of 2010, and that the overwhelming majority of member states should have switched off analogue terrestrial television signals by 2012. with regard to the prevention of interference from analogue systems based outside europe, the commission is in favour of reaching an international agreement to abolish legal protection for use of the analogue broadcasting spectrum by 2015. such prompt action should encourage countries that do not belong to the european union either to switch off their analogue systems or, at the very least, to re-open negotiations with neighbouring eu member states in order to keep interference with digital systems to a minimum. the international community's future approach to planning should ensure that new broadcasting and non-broadcasting services can operate in the same bands. from the outset, the commission has called for maximum technical flexibility, and for consideration to be given to the possibility of making part of any spectrum dividend available on a pan-european basis for future innovative services. europe lends its full backing to research and development through its ist framework programmes, which fund research into new supporting technologies that will facilitate the implementation of convergence services. to cite but one example of a newly implemented service, the community has funded a number of research and development projects on interactive television. the latter has been used as a basis for providing e-government information services to italian citizens. furthermore, the development of digital radio came about thanks to a consortium set up under the aegis of an eu research programme. digital radio signals can now broadcast in all analogue spectrum bands, and several digital stations can be broadcast in hi-fi quality in the same spectrum that was previously used for one analogue station. if i may, i should like to comment briefly on the motion for a resolution. the commission welcomes the fact that parliament is in favour of accelerating the transition and setting the beginning of 2012 as the date by which analogue broadcasts should have been switched off in all member states, as proposed by the commission. in view of the fact that you are adopting this resolution today, i cannot now respond directly to all the issues dealt with in detail in this extensive document. the european commission will give careful consideration to the scope of its competence with regard to policy formulation on new and innovative services that will be operated in the spectrum bands originally used for analogue services. at present, the majority of highly innovative services in this field are still at the research and development stage, and as such are supported through the commission's research programmes. in the long term, there will be a considerable need for assessments of the technical and commercial viability of these services. spectrum-related issues will be a major focus of the commission's work in this field. such issues will also be the subject of thorough debate with the member states as part of the ongoing work of the communications committee, its sub-groups for radio and television broadcasting, the radio spectrum committee and the radio spectrum policy group. problems relating to vertical integration and significant market power are dealt with under the regulatory framework. the wholesale market for the transmission of radio and television signals has been translated into a list of relevant markets, and appropriate regulatory measures are being taken to address smp problems. the commission is currently drafting a communication on the interoperability of interactive television, which it intends to adopt by the end of the year. within the framework of its decisions on state subsidies, the commission also issues guidelines on certain aspects of the funding of the transition to digital broadcasting. eu legislation makes a clear distinction between the regulation of electronic transmissions and the regulation of their content. parliament believes that this clear distinction should be maintained, and the commission considers this approach to be extremely helpful. . mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i hope you will allow me, in the short time that is available to me, to draw your attention to two aspects of this digital switchover, starting with the open standards, to which, obviously, mrs barsi-pataky has already made reference. i would remind the commissioner that the commission itself decided, in march, that the national governments should foot the bill for pilot projects, for example, but also for the purchase of set-top boxes for individual consumers. i wonder if you should not make this more specific in the sense that you need to indicate that such financial support, or subsidy, is only possible for set-top boxes with a so-called open standard, mainly to avoid two things. the object should be to avoid putting consumers to great expense twice and also to avoid one or other industrial partner deliberately engineering bottlenecks, because if one thing is clear, commissioner, it is that this new way of watching television digitally will push up the cost for the consumer. that is why it is crucial that we agree on a basic package of channels that are accessible to everyone both now and in future. i take it that you share our view that providers must, in future, be required to offer their customers the basic channels of the national stations. what is known as must-carry should not get in the way of the digital switchover; on the contrary, it is, in our eyes, a guarantee for maximum distribution. secondly, with regard to pluralism and diversity, there is, as you referred to a moment ago, the risk that the switchover to digital technology will result in the new markets being controlled by dominant players. that is why, in the draft resolution adopted by the committee on industry, research and energy, we explicitly ask you to ensure that the new digital market will not fall within the exclusive control of one or other multinational. the text reads as follows: 'the majority, or an appropriate part, of the new broadcasting possibilities and broadcasters should not come under the exclusive control or decisive influence of multinational media undertakings'. this should become one of the commission's priorities in this whole process of change. there is no need for me to make the link to the directive on television without frontiers, as we will be discussing this either by the end of this year or the beginning of next. in that area too, it is important to ensure that the national markets do not get into the hands of one dominant player to a disproportionate, and therefore unhealthy, degree. in that debate, commissioner pidla, the commission must side with the consumer. i truly hope that you will not resort to the argument of subsidiarity all too easily in order to avoid your responsibility, because that argument is, to my mind, a totally inappropriate one to use. . mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group endorses this own-initiative motion, and also the question to the commission, to which a clear answer has been given, and i hope that this common strategy will enable us to make headway. i have been a member of this house for quite some time and can remember many attempts being made at this. i also recall the problems to which mr belet has just referred. technological neutrality is a very important term where competition is concerned. we had this sort of problem several years ago, when we realised and addressed that the importance of frequency interference with analog broadcasting, could even, to some extent, hamper our development. i believe we must give a great deal of attention to ensuring that it does not do so. along with our group, though, i think it very important that the point again be made that we have to succeed in informing the consumers, the public in the european union, in a transparent, frank and fair manner, and in good time, for it is they who are meant, in due course, to buy and use this technology, and it is their fears that need to be allayed and their resistance that has to be overcome. if you go, as i do from time to time, into the relevant shops, you can see what the manufacturers have on offer, for the digital television sets are there already. the customers have a look at them; they watch a digital-format dvd and enthuse about the picture quality, and then they see an analog tv programme on the same screen and are astonished at how great the difference is. i believe that, if the public are told about the benefits and are given details of when this changeover is to take place, and if the industry aims for market penetration by charging fair prices for these devices, i am optimistic that we will, by 2010, have caught up with our competitors in this field in other parts of the world. what i do see as important, though, is that we make sure that we do not miss the boat when taking our people into the digital era. quite apart from that, let me say how grateful i am for the customary warm, close and good cooperation with mrs barsi-pataky. - mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the debate concerns an official sector which relates directly to the lisbon objectives. europe must bridge the gap which separates it from its competitors. the commission proposal for a common target date has precisely this objective. nonetheless, i see the following dimensions or problems: the first dimension, the cross-border dimension, was also highlighted by the commissioner. given that digital switchover in our neighbouring countries affects european digital integration, due to frequency coordination problems, my question is: what measures does the commission intend to take and what agreements does it intend to conclude in order to help neighbouring countries, so that they too can make the digital switchover? similarly, within the framework of accession negotiations with candidate countries, will the intention of these countries to proceed with the necessary measures, agreements and commitments be examined? the second dimension is the geographical dimension. the choice of technology, the cost of installation and operation and the implementation timetable also depend to a large degree on the geography of a country. for example, coverage of mountain and island areas entails more difficulties than coverage of plains. consequently, does the commission consider that there is a need to promote digital cohesion actions in order to bridge the so-called digital divide? my final question is: can we justify subsidising specific technologies, such as set-top boxes, rather than other available technologies? does this not contradict the principle of technological neutrality? commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it hardly pays for us to doubt these benefits, but do not let us forget the problems. something i wish to address is the tangle of problems relating to public institutions. what will happen in our schools and hospitals? what will happen in old people's homes? in some places thousands of televisions or digiboxes may have to be replaced. moreover, the social sector is one where resources are never enough. my country will have moved into the digital age by 2007. that is a considerable advantage. in some countries these large public institutions are finding it hard to face up to this situation. it is unthinkable that the sick or elderly would have to give up their televisions as a source of entertainment, even though they might not always need new digital services. schools, too, are in difficulties. if schools are not so progressive as to have broadband, via which they can receive digital services, then they are going to have problems. in other words, by that time all schools would have to be digitalised. technological development is normally seen as an economic benefit and not a social or cultural one, something i have a problem with. our society has changed. if we look at schoolchildren, their world of play is quite different from what we ever did. if, on the other hand, we consider young people, they are certainly interactive, but with the world, and not necessarily with their neighbours. consequently, our knowledge-based economy may become an economy of incomprehension, because of us, not because of young people or children. mr president, here in this house, we have a lot to say about issues relating to technology. what we are talking about now, though, is broadcasting. broadcasting is not just technology; it is fundamental to three areas in our society that should be important to us: culture, social cohesion and the development of democracy. that is why it is not enough to talk only about technology. technology is very important; being the engine of the digital revolution in broadcasting, it is also the engine for the creation of urgently-needed jobs with good prospects. it is for that reason, though, that broadcasting is both a cultural and an economic asset. i appeal to the commission, as a matter of urgency, to take broadcasting's ambivalence and duality more seriously than it has done in its previous papers and communications. it is for that reason that i welcome the resolution from the committee on industry, research and energy and very much hope that we will, in future, be able to develop cooperation between it and the committee for culture and education. the resolution is a very good basis on which to do that, and i urge the commission to take it seriously if it really does want to accomplish the changeover in the next few years. there is a pressing need for policy goals setting out how this is to be done, not only in terms of the technology involved, but also of cultural, social and democratic cooperation. if you really do want to empower the member states to do that, then issues of subsidies and of european competition law need to be resolved as a matter of urgency. it will be apparent to the house that we take this resolution very seriously, and we urge the commission, for the public's sake, to do likewise. mr president, commissioner, i would like, in this debate, to stress what i consider to be important and what has not yet been said: the european commission must lead the research and development activities of the new innovative services, so that we can place europe in a position of technological leadership on a pan-european scale. that is why i believe it is so important that we establish political objectives that clearly define the guarantees, so that the services we are talking about can become as widespread as possible, but, above all, for the benefit of the citizens, of the consumers and also, of course, economic development. it is therefore important to maintain the date of 2012 for the changeover from analogue to digital, so that europe is not left behind, because our competitors have set much earlier dates: the united states, 2009, south korea, 2010, and japan, 2011. this requires that we coordinate our efforts so that the countries are genuinely committed. as you have pointed out quite rightly, my country, spain, has brought the date forward, as have certain others, but we must all continue to work in the same direction, because, the longer the transitional period lasts, the more harm will be done to the television broadcasters, the receiver industry, the manufacturing and marketing industry, the distribution sector and, above all, the citizens themselves. i would finally like to stress that, if the conversion is to be a success, it is very important for the commission and the member states to ensure two things in particular: on the one hand, that the significant digital divide in our society is closed, and on the other, that there should be no monopolies, because, if there are any, this transformation will not be possible. mr president, my household is a fairly typical european household: we have a tv set in the sitting room, one in the kitchen, one in our bedroom and one for the grandchildren when they visit. we subscribe to sky digital by satellite, which costs around gbp 40 - eur 60 - a month, and we pay our tv licence for the bbc public service channels. even though there are hundreds of digital channels, we will be able to view only one digital channel at a time on all these sets because we have only one viewing card. at the moment, while my wife watches 'extreme makeover' and our grandchildren view the cartoon channel on digital, i can still get the news on one of the five analogue channels. after the switchover - which is only two or three years away now in the uk - we will be stuck with only one channel at a time unless we pay for extra decryption boxes and cards. to cover all the interests in a typical household, this could require up to four or five cards. the cost could be gbp 200 - eur 300 - a month; gbp 2 000 - eur 3 000 - a year over and above the licence fee. it is essential that the commission ensure that the digital service providers, such as sky, allow multiple-channel choice in each household at reasonable cost and that they do not make the multiple choice that digital can offer so absurdly expensive that it cannot be availed of. i therefore ask the commissioner: what will you do about the availability and cost of multiple channels in each household? what will you do to ensure monopoly positions are not unreasonably exploited and what will you do to mitigate the cost of even a single set changeover from analogue to digital for the less well off and the socially vulnerable? - mr president, commissioner, digital television offers a series of benefits to viewers: improved picture quality, better sound, better reception of the picture through mobile and portable devices and interactive services. at the same time, digital television improves access for people with special needs, such as people with impaired hearing or vision, by providing auxiliary services such as better subtitling, sound commentary and sign commentary. that is why it is imperative to make the switchover to digital television by no later than 2012, so that we do not fall behind our main competitors, the united states of america and japan, countries which intend to stop analogue broadcasting in 2009 and 2011 respectively. however, apart from this, the switchover to digital television and the concomitant cessation of analogue broadcasting will also result in the freeing of analogue frequencies, which can then be used for new, innovative services. the freeing of frequencies must be accompanied by policies which aim to increase pluralism, especially cultural diversity, in the retransmission of european and independent productions. our objective must be television programmes which will highlight in a qualitative manner the educational, cultural and informative mission of television. mr president, i very much welcome this initiative by parliament and by our colleagues in the committee on industry, research and energy. i asked to make a short statement at the end because last friday i was invited to participate in a conference held by the british regulator ofcom under the auspices of the presidency. one of the major issues on the agenda of that conference was spectrum regulation and management, particularly in the context of the so-called digital dividend - in the phraseology that some will have used this evening - which relates to the releasing of high-quality radio frequency spectrum as a result of the switchover to digital television. parliament needs to pay far more attention to the issue of how radio spectrum will be allocated and managed across the european union, because it is clearly important that we have some alignment of goals there. member states are already making decisions about how that digital dividend should be spent. some people, including the last speaker, have talked about the fact that there will be a unique conjunction of events, in that the same pieces of spectrum will become available in every european country. in the interests of creating a more active market for digital content and breaking away from some of the artificial constraints that we have at the moment in relation to national boundaries for digital content, there are certainly opportunities that we must take, but in order to do so we need to generate ideas that will encourage member states to take advantage of them. we are not seeing many such ideas bubbling up so far. i think there is a lot of work for this parliament to do. i therefore welcome mrs barsi-pataky's initiative in the committee on industry, but i hope you will agree that this is just the beginning. first of all we must disseminate the importance of digital switchover; secondly, we must sensitise our colleagues to its fundamental economic importance and, thirdly, we must start to tackle politically the issue of how we deal with spectrum allocation and the digital dividend. ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank you for the debate. the word 'revolution' cropped up during it, and quite rightly so in my opinion, since the transition to digital broadcasting is a revolution of sorts, and any major technical transition on a similar scale has widespread consequences. the development of human civilisation has after all been closely tied to developments in the field of information processing. traditional forms of information were followed by the written word, which in turn was followed by the mass dissemination of information. the latest stage in the process, and the one we have currently reached, is the electronic dissemination of information, but we are already moving towards the next steps, one of which will unquestionably be artificial intelligence. each of these radical changes has had or will have a wide range of consequences, and you approached this possibility from a great many angles during the debate. there are two points i should like to highlight. firstly, the approach adopted by the commission is based on the scope of its competences. the aim is therefore to find a technical and organisational solution to the problem at hand, rather than to deal with the issue of content. it is generally acknowledged that this solution will increase opportunities and improve quality, and it is also likely that it will cut costs. i expect, and indeed take it as read, that the various stages of this debate will continue until 2012. we place a great value on this process, since it is impossible to take up a position or to find a flexible solution for a change of this magnitude without genuine democratic debate. for all that, i believe that the keynote phrase which the commission has used and which i used in my introductory speech will continue to hold true, namely ensuring that the spectrum released by the switch-off of analogue transmissions is used in such a way that society derives the maximum possible benefits. pursuant to rule 108(5) of the rules of procedure, i have received one motion for a resolution at the end of this debate(1). the debate is closed. the vote on this motion for a resolution will take place on wednesday. the next item is the commission statement on 'secret detention centres' in europe. mr president, following allegations, reported in certain influential newspapers, of the existence of clandestine jails run by the cia in some european union member states and also in some accession candidate countries, the commission would like to point out that a significant number of member states and candidate countries have issued public statements categorically denying the accusations. there has not, so far, been any confirmation or legal proof of such allegations. this type of situation - and here we need to be perfectly clear - would, if it proved to be true, constitute a serious breach of the european union's principles, not to mention the laws, including the criminal laws, of member states, which prohibit events and situations of the type described. the commission would like to point out that, under article 6 of the treaty on european union, the union was founded - and operates - on democratic principles and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as the rule of law, of course. these principles are also universally shared by the national legislations of the member states, whose criminal laws forbid the violation of fundamental and human rights. it is therefore obvious that the member states are required to comply with these principles; however, they are also bound to respect international legal obligations, especially those arising under the european convention on human rights and fundamental freedoms and under the convention for the prevention of torture. it is also clear - as we are all aware - that when a candidate country completes its accession process, the state concerned, in order to qualify for eu membership, must have achieved a level of institutional stability which guarantees total respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and the safeguarding of all fundamental freedoms. this principle was established by the copenhagen european council as far back as 1993, and therefore constitutes one of the pillars of the so-called copenhagen in view of these principles, we obviously consider it vital that member states and candidate countries investigate the grounds for these press allegations in an appropriate manner, using all legal means available. the commission welcomes the recent decision of the committee on legal affairs and the council of europe parliamentary assembly to examine the allegation that secret jails exist in europe, and we have asked the council of europe parliamentary assembly to keep us informed of future developments in this extremely serious and sensitive matter. the commission will continue to monitor these allegations closely. we shall do this at the level of member states as regards compliance with european legislation, and at an international level, with particular reference to any initiatives the us authorities may decide to take in relation to this whole matter. i can conclude by giving my personal assurance and that of the commission that parliament will be kept informed and engaged in dialogue at all times in relation to developments on this issue. . - ladies and gentlemen, mr frattini, i very much appreciated your speech and in particular your assurances to the chamber that no eu country is involved in this outrage. you will understand, however, that we shall not feel safe until we are certain that no eu country is involved in the disgraceful decision to host detention centres in which detainees are subject to inhuman acts of cruelty and torture. let there be no doubt: we all stand shoulder to shoulder with countries that have suffered directly from violent acts of terrorism, such as the united states, spain, the united kingdom, or any other. we share the determination to combat international terrorism, but feel that every step must be taken in respect of human rights and the primacy of the rule of law. contrary to what some people might think, this is not a sign of our weakness, but rather of our resoluteness. it lends international legitimacy to the fight against terrorism, by setting out clearly what separates us from the terrorists, namely respect for human life and for people's fundamental rights. mr frattini referred to the international axis, to which all eu countries are committed. the international rules in the various conventions are clear on the circumstances of detention, and on the obligation to give prisoners a fair trial, in front of a competent, impartial and independent court. it is disturbing that almost four years after the un first requested access to the guantanamo prison to investigate human rights, this continues to be refused by the us authorities or subject to unacceptable conditions, as reiterated by mr rumsfeld a few days ago. once again, as we saw with regard to the echelon report, there is a difference between the behaviour of the us administration and the senate. mr frattini rightly praised the council and the initiative of the committee on legal affairs. at this point, i should like to highlight two us senate initiatives that i wholeheartedly welcome. the first is that of senator john mccain, which strengthens prisoners' rights, and the second was proposed by senator john kerry, to launch an investigation into the revelations of secret prisons in which torture is apparently permitted, something that we condemn in the strongest terms. . mr president, mr frattini, a few national newspapers have, in actual fact, addressed this problem including, in particular, 'the washington post', which recently announced in its columns that secret prisons, run by the cia, were allegedly located on eu territory and, more precisely, in eastern europe. the newspaper did not name the countries concerned, for security reasons, but let us note that an investigation led by the human rights watch organisation indicated that, in 2002, a number of 'ghost' prisoners were in fact detained by the cia. let us recall that the us congress has also published a report referring to dubious practices employed by the united states when transferring prisoners to third countries with a view to having recourse to acts of torture during interrogations. moreover, we are extremely concerned by the recent allegations indicating that the bush administration wants the us congress to exempt the cia from the ban on all forms of abuse of detainees. we need these revelations to be placed under an intense spotlight. as you have said, it is not acceptable, in fact, to have areas of lawlessness in europe and in the world. hence we, in this chamber, have always opposed the use of a legal vacuum in relation to the treatment inflicted on the guantanamo bay prisoners. under no circumstances can we therefore allow such prisons to exist in europe. if the allegations are proven, then what is going on needs to be stopped immediately. if they are not proven, then the evidence needs to be gathered in order to silence the rumours. we therefore call on the commission to carry out an investigation into these allegations as, i might add, you recently pledged to do in front of the press, mr frattini. the results of this investigation must, as i think you will agree, be presented to the members of the european parliament. what measures does the commission intend to adopt in order to ensure that the european convention on human rights, the european convention for the prevention of torture and the european charter of fundamental rights, and in particular article 4 thereof, are properly upheld throughout the territory of the european union? the best way to combat the fanatics and the terrorists, as we have already said - and it is not a useless exercise to repeat this - is indeed to pit our values of freedom and of the protection of fundamental rights against them. . mr president, as human rights watch recalled a year ago, disappearances were a trademark abuse of latin american military dictatorships in their dirty war on alleged subversion. now they have become a united states tactic in pursuit of al-qa'ida. illegal detention without charge or trial in guantanamo bay or iraq is bad enough, but secret detention, where people are kept incommunicado with no access to lawyers and at the mercy of mistreatment or torture, is the blackest of black holes. we see the us congress now seeking to bar claims for habeas corpus and president bush and his henchmen trying to stifle the mccain amendment which would ban inhuman treatment of us detainees. in those circumstances, if a credible newspaper and a credible human rights ngo allege that secret war-on-terror jails exist in eastern europe, and specifically in poland and romania, what do we do? we all agree that it would be devastating to the eu's reputation and credibility if those allegations were found to be true. articles 6 and 7 of the eu treaty stipulate the need to respect human rights and the rule of law. commissioner frattini says there is no evidence, but what has he done to try and find out? when the allegations came out ten days ago, we were told that member states would be informally questioned, that technical experts from the relevant directorate would be in contact with their counterparts in the 25 member states, plus 4 candidate countries. then we learned that such an examination did not amount to an investigation. i am not impugning the good faith of the polish and romanian governments, but we know that secret intelligence services sometimes have their own agenda. i am left with a sense of unease and residual doubt when respected organisations have made allegations, but we cannot honestly say they have been thoroughly investigated. all our mechanisms in the eu for ensuring that human rights standards are respected are frankly inadequate: no peer review, no monitoring, no enforcement. the weakness of your commission, mr frattini, was brought out in your remarks. the precedents are not encouraging. the eu failed to establish a common stance, let alone any joint initiatives, to press the us to release our own citizens from guantanamo bay. the us went around eastern and south eastern europe penalising countries with loss of military aid if they refused to sign opt-outs from the international criminal court for us personnel. the eu did not offer to pay the difference. i want you to insist that this matter be put on the agenda of the next general affairs council and of the summit in december. this matter needs to be taken up at a political level in order to ensure that the legal guarantees that the eu is meant to offer are fully respected. . mr president, i believe that we have done well to instigate this debate, because what mr frattini has told us is slightly different from what was initially announced and because you will at least recognise that, if such mysteriously named places - black sites, salt mines containing 'ghost prisoners', etc. - do actually exist, then article 6 of the treaty and the treaty itself would be given short shrift. the debate is a first step. i believe that you will be called on to take further steps as regards this issue. why? because this is an extremely important issue. it is a question of people who have allegedly been detained, without first having been tried, for an unspecified length of time and without any appeal whatsoever, and who are therefore in all likelihood subjected to torture and inhumane and degrading treatment. we therefore have potential violations here of articles 3, 5 and 6 of the european convention on human rights, as well as potential violations of the european convention for the prevention of torture and the international pact on civil and political rights. the latest news is that two countries, one belonging to the european union and the other in the process of joining the eu, are cited as having housed such centres. i say 'having' housed, since these countries are today denying these acts of which they are accused and because the reports in question date back to 2002 and 2003. what they are denying is taking place today could therefore be compatible with the facts presented in the reports, and particularly in the report by the human rights watch, but the fact of recognising that the potential existence of such centres can constitute a violation of the treaty on the european union and article 6 thereof calls for you to do more than just issue statements, commissioner. you say that you are leaving the matter in the hands of the member states. you say that you are going to examine closely the investigation expedited by the council of europe; i will tell you, by the way, that the european parliament's subcommittee on human rights has already decided to invite mr marty as soon as his work has been handed over. you say that you are waiting to see what the united states itself decides on this issue and you have expressed your desire for investigations to be carried out at a technical level. i, for my part, believe that all that is far from adequate. quite simply, commissioner, you must expedite an investigation in order to shed light on this situation, which is detrimental to the foundations of the european union and to its credibility on the international stage. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, vice-president frattini reminds me - and this is not intended as an insult - of those famous monkeys which see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. he has spoken, however, although he did not even have the courage to say that what is really at issue are not hidden jails in general, but genuine torture chambers made available to the cia and the united states by some european countries. commissioner frattini, you are denying the obvious. you are denying something that even reliable us sources have admitted. we want you to conduct an investigation, but if there is no desire to find the evidence, the evidence will never be found. commissioner, you are perhaps unaware that in milan, on 17 february 2003, abu omar, the former imam of the mosque in via jenner, was kidnapped, and that the magistrates in milan, having found incontrovertible proof that the cia was directly responsible, have requested the extradition of 22 us intelligence agents. what stand did the commission take when faced with this evidence? what did it actually do, in the light of this breach of sovereign rights, to force the us authorities to comply with the conventions on human rights and torture? the commission did nothing. in the light of this experience, i am not optimistic about the results of any future action that the european commission is likely to take. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, it may well be the case that the issue we are debating also concerns my own country, poland. the polish government has issued an official statement denying that there are any prisons of this kind in poland. it says a lot that the statement makes no direct reference to the past, however. further investigation is therefore needed into the matter. the former minister for national defence has denied reports that al-qaeda terrorists are being held in special prisons in our country, but he did so during a radio interview in a manner once favoured by the soviet news agency tass. anything denied by the latter was effectively confirmed as true. at the same time, however, i would call on the members of the house to keep a sense of proportion during this debate. the war against terror is essential and we must be unyielding and resolute in fighting it, but it must be guided by public opinion. there are two extremes that i firmly believe we must avoid. the first of these is the attitude that the end justifies the means, and that even democratic values and human rights should be sacrificed in the fight against international terrorism. this must not be allowed to happen. yet we must also ensure that the western world and the values we uphold are not left in a state of paralysis. i believe that these two extremes should be eschewed, and it would be regrettable if either were to gain ascendancy in the european parliament or in any eu institution. i believe that this chamber is the right place to say loud and clear, without hesitation, that the war on terror will be fought hard and ruthlessly, but that it will be guided by public opinion. in this way it will gain a public mandate and public legitimacy in the free west. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, in my view a complex and multi-faceted problem such as terrorism cannot be tackled with a single, one-dimensional strategy. citizens of a sovereign state or states have a legitimate right to live in peace, devoting their lives to their work, to their families and to their freely-chosen lifestyle. wars have been - and still are - critical periods in the life of society; they upset all the normal benchmarks, but they involve precise military positions, clearly-delineated battlefields, a visible enemy and rules of engagement. terrorism, on the other hand, does not follow the rules of official war, does not only involve the military and does not operate on the battlefield. it uses underhand tactics to strike the innocent at home, when and where they are least expecting it, with no specific aim, no social purpose and no values. it is obvious that everyone must respect the rules, laws and sovereignty of the state. it is undeniable that we all need to uphold not only the most elementary human rights but also the principles underlying all civil society and all relationships between nations. however, before levelling accusations at what are undoubtedly democratic countries, we must firstly have full knowledge of the facts and circumstances. we also need to think of the families of the defenceless victims of terrorism in recent years, and of the millions of citizens who are still living under the threat of attack. we cannot use kid gloves to fight terrorism, but nor can we throw accusations at democratic countries solely on the basis of conjecture. faced with a choice between terrorism and democracy, i believe we would all choose democracy. mr president, we should allow the courts to do their job without looking for grounds to ascribe blame to countries which certainly do not deserve it. i agree with the position of commissioner frattini and hope that, here in parliament, we shall only make decisions in this matter once we can be sure we are acting democratically. - mr president, the cia keeps a network of secret detention centres throughout the world. at the same time, the united states have accepted the use of a 'renditions' policy, in order to take people, even european citizens, for interrogation at locations of which we are ignorant. the president of the usa is today threatening to veto the bill adopted by the american senate in order to impose what was - until a few years ago at least - the obvious; in other words, the fact that international law must be applied to persons arrested by the united states anywhere in the world. all this in 2005, by a large country, by a country with a long democratic tradition, by a country which insists every year in publishing a report on human rights and lambasting other states around the world for violating them. the policy of the usa affects us all, irrespective of whether these centres are located on european territory. the terrorist argument of double standards in european societies is something they pray for so that they can enlist new terrorists, so that they can undermine our policy. shall we allow them to do so? what were inconceivable questions before the discovery of the us detention centres must be asked. one of these questions is: are there today member states of the european union or candidate countries which keep such centres? secondly, are there today member states of the european union or candidate countries which send their detainees to us detention centres? where do they supposedly wash their hands, while using this network for their detainees? this must be answered. thirdly, have the usa sent people snatched from europe to these detention centres? in fighting terrorism, the objective is not to sanctify any means. let us europeans not create a european-inspired frankenstein which we cannot control and let us not allow any other country to do the same. mr president, commissioner, all of this information is overly detailed and convincing, and you too speak in such a convincing manner that it is almost tempting not to believe you. the commitment you have made here to investigate this situation is therefore laudable, but it does not reassure us. we expect the commission and the council to act firmly and not to be content with nothing more than fine words or denials by politicians expressed at cocktail parties. we expect genuine action and investigation. commissioner, on the orders of the public prosecutor, the police on the island of mallorca are investigating the illegal transportation of prisoners; it has taken great efforts to do so, but nevertheless, all of the police investigations are moving in exactly the same direction as previous journalistic investigations. and all without any support from the united states. i would ask you to demand similar investigations by all of the countries which may allegedly be involved in this situation. i would insist, political denials using vague words about the present, that say nothing about the past and which are simply intended to evade responsibility, are not enough. we want a genuine investigation and a commitment to a police and judicial investigation that provides evidence to prove that there is no truth to these allegations.p it is extremely repugnant to us to see this from a country that has been our ally for a very long time. to see it on european soil, to see centuries of civilisation and moral progress in the fight against crime, or, in this case, against terrorism, renounced is profoundly repugnant to us. furthermore, commissioner - and another speaker said this a moment ago - i entirely agree: countries must be innocent until proven guilty. but the fact that they are innocent until proven guilty does not mean that you are not required to investigate. the very credibility of the european union as an area of freedom, security and justice is at stake. since that is your responsibility, you cannot rely on explanations given by others. you must take the appropriate measures and also demand that the council do so. mr president, for a secret service, the cia is in the news an awful lot. germany and italy are up in arms about reports of its alleged abduction of radical imams in both countries and, as my fellow member said a moment ago, an enquiry has just been launched in spain into the transit of suspects via majorca. it is a matter of rumour in europe that there are also secret camps, where detainees, deprived of their rights, are kept. in the first case, the european countries involved are infuriated, but in the second case, they are partly to blame. you have said as much; you have said that this is in contravention of human rights and of the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, but i am very curious as to what you will actually do about it. when the council of europe mounts an enquiry, your response to that is just to ask to be kept informed. that strikes me as a very narrow interpretation. the european union, as a community of values, cannot afford to look away now, and i want you to take an active part. i want you to check not only with governments, but also with ngos and the press whether certain statements are true. i want you to talk to members of parliament, and i want to hear you say that, if those statements are true, there has been a contravention of article 6, at which point an article 7 procedure is supposed to kick into effect. i want to hear you say that article 7 is applicable, if the statements are true, that is! this is not, however, a merely institutional issue. this is not simply something the commission has to do, although i do think that it should play a far more active role. it is also, and above all, a political issue. a few moments ago, a polish member of this house rightly said that such matters should also be discussed at national level, and i think that we should all go back to our sister parties at national level, for this is something that must be broached with them too. we should not simply place the responsibility with the commission, but we should, via our own sister parties, ensure that these things are checked to find out whether or not they are true. mr president, it is not only dictatorships threatened with extinction that keep people detained in an unacceptable manner. since the use of the guantanamo bay military base as a prison where non-americans can be kept without trial and without support from a lawyer, we know that human rights are violated to that extent by nato's most powerful member state too. in europe, we expect virtually everyone to reject such practices, even if this involves people whom we think are a threat to our lives in peace and democracy. if secret prisons are located in one of the current or future eu member states, or in states that benefit from our neighbourhood policy, then that is a stain on the european claims of democratic rule of law and protection of human rights. it is therefore necessary that the commission and council make every effort to put an end to the possible existence of such prisons. commissioner frattini now reports that the member states involved flatly deny their part of the responsibility. he then goes on to refer to the council of europe that is already taking care of this matter. if such prisons exist, it has always been the intention to keep their existence secret for ever. their denial is the first instrument to protect this secrecy. this denial does not convince me or certainly those who have drawn your attention to this. the european union must check out for itself whether there is an american network of secret prisons and whether some of them are located in europe. i can endorse the procedural points mentioned by mrs buitenweg. instead of simply denying their existence, we must get to the bottom of this matter. mr president, mr czarnecki and commissioner frattini have already referred to the fact that the polish government has denied allegations that camps exist in poland. i cannot vouch for the accuracy of this statement myself, of course, since i have not scoured the forests around where the suspect plane is reported to have landed in poland. even if a cia-owned boeing had in fact landed there in 2003, however, it would not constitute any kind of proof that such camps existed or still exist in my country. we do not know what reason the plane had for landing. it may have been to refuel, to carry out repairs of some sort, or maybe to take someone on board. we do know, however, that this boeing also landed in the czech republic and sweden in 2003, and, more recently, in palma on the island of majorca. yet no one is accusing these countries of housing such camps, or voicing suspicions along these lines. one can only ask whether this is because it is mistakenly assumed that there is no such thing as freedom of the media in poland, and that journalists would not immediately have been hot on the trail of such a sensation. logically speaking, i would be astonished if the americans had decided to use an eu member state for this purpose, thus forcing the country in question to violate the treaties and eu legislation, instead of using american military bases or countries where freedom of the media really is non-existent or limited. examples of such countries include egypt and thailand. one possibility is that we are participating, at our own behest, in the deliberate sending up of a trial balloon to gauge the reactions of the new eu member states, by putting the strength of the transatlantic alliance to the test. another possibility is that someone is keen to point out new targets for al-qaeda terrorist attacks, and to ensure that these attacks are carried out against poland and romania. i therefore believe that we should exercise great caution and avoid reading too much into the facts, as certain people have done. in so doing they not only contrive to ensure that europe's real problems are pushed to one side, but also place the polish people at real risk of terrorist attacks. i am delighted that there is a possibility that the council of europe will carry out a thorough investigation into this problem, and the sooner this happens the better. in response to mrs buitenweg's suggestion, i should like to make it known that i would be more than happy to invite the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs to poland in order for them to investigate the matter for themselves. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am afraid that the denials referred to by vice-president frattini in relation to the countries involved are extremely formal and unconvincing. in the top-secret cia documents, which virtually the entire european press is currently discussing, the clandestine jails in poland and romania, referred to in the and , even have a name - 'black sites'. they are a sort of no-man's land, beyond the law and beyond the right of habeas corpus. if proven, these allegations are serious and present us with a difficult problem - the need to find the delicate balance between protecting citizens' rights and combating terrorism. i should like to underline a contradiction - the fact that shortly, in the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, parliament will tackle the issue of data retention and will again attempt, with a great sense of responsibility, to find common legal and political ground to reconcile rights and emergency situations. we need to protect the rights of citizens and to use all available means to combat terrorism, at the very time when we discover that european countries have become the cia's own back yard. mr frattini, what is really serious is that we do not even have the right to be surprised. two years ago, as the current legal investigations - of which you are well aware - have shown, community and non-community citizens were kidnapped in european countries by the us secret services. once again, however, we appear to be turning a blind eye. we have noted your final comment, namely that if the episodes we are discussing today were proven, they would constitute serious violations of articles 6 and 7 of the treaty on european union. that, i believe, is an important statement and one we would ask you to develop further, by launching an exhaustive and in-depth investigation into the events we have been discussing this evening. mr president, contrary to our polish friend's opinion, there are not, in europe, two legal doctrines as to whether the end justifies the means. the law is unambiguous and binding. terror may not be fought with terror. there is nothing problematic or uncertain about this issue. deprivation of freedom, abduction, enforced transportation, torture, abusive treatment, solitary confinement, and disregard of the presumption of innocence are crimes and themselves constitute acts of terrorism. that is not europe's way. you refer to comments in magazines, and say you have no evidence. i can assure, you, commissioner, that this is but the first of very many debates until such time as this matter has been settled, and settled beyond doubt. there you have them: the numbers of the flights, the airports involved, the flight times, the companies and firms that operated the flights, the destinations to which they flew; you have statements from detainees, evidence from a dozen international organisations, investigations by the cia itself, albeit into the breach of secrecy rather than into the crimes themselves. the austrian military authorities are conducting investigations into cia aircraft's flights through austrian airspace, and enquiries by the justice authorities in spain, italy and germany are also underway. i call on you to wake up, perform the duties of your office and take responsibility. mr president, last friday condoleezza rice, the us secretary of state, ordered the highest level enquiry into the leaks to the washington post and human rights watch. clearly the united states government believes there is some veracity in these allegations. today the commissioner has, on the one hand, told us that the copenhagen criteria might have been breached by romania and that article 6 may be being breached by poland, but we already knew that. the commissioner has come here today and told us that there is no evidence of these breaches. well, both poland and romania issued official government-level denials last week, so we knew that. we asked the commission to investigate the leak that the united states itself is concerned about - the highest level leak to the most credible of sources. newspaper and other bodies are repeating these allegations. these are not radical newspapers or non-credible organisations. mr lambrinidis said we already knew that the cia operated black sites and torture centres in other parts of the world. we want to know if it is happening in the european union. we want to know if it is happening in the candidate countries. as you said, commissioner, it is the most serious breach of treaty obligations. you are not investigating it. we need an investigation which brings credibility to this house so that we can leave this debate knowing whether this is true or false. mr president, we as europeans must clarify whether cia detention centres exist in europe, how many there are and where they are located, etc. as a citizen of the balearic islands i have a special interest in this. the end does not justify the means. we must defend our values. we may be fighting terrorism, but we cannot do so with arms that are not democratic. we understand why us organisations and institutions, including the cia, are being closely protected, especially in eastern europe, where so much hope for change has been pinned on the united states. however, not placing limits on the means we employ makes for a terrible contradiction, since democracy and transparency are fundamental to the maintenance of law and order and to democracy itself. human rights are applicable to all human beings, including terrorists and suspected terrorists. i therefore call on the commissioner to investigate this issue. - mr president, some time ago, information led to the discovery of the huge barbarity of torture chambers at the abu graib prison in iraq and at guantanamo prison in cuba. today reports, although not yet confirmed, have nonetheless not been denied by the american authorities. i am worried that, in the name of combating international terrorism, we are on the brink of a new middle ages. we are on the brink of a direct threat to democratic culture in europe and, more importantly, the european governments and european institutions cannot remain impassive. i wish to highlight in particular the direct reaction of the legal affairs committee of the parliamentary assembly of the council of europe. unfortunately, we did not see this direct reaction by the council of europe on the part of the european commission. today, the guarantees and statements made by the competent commissioner, mr frattini, were not in my opinion at all reassuring. what needs to be undertaken by the european commission and by mr barroso, by mr frattini and by mrs ferrero-waldner, as the competent commissioner for transatlantic relations, is an investigation in all directions, in order to ascertain where, by whom, how and when these black places were created. the european union has a political and moral obligation to cooperate with the american congress. we already know about the initiatives by senators john mackein and john kerry in this direction. the same initiatives must also be taken by the european parliament. the promotion of transatlantic relations is inseparably bound up with respect for democratic values and the principles of international law. this is a message which needs to be sent clearly to the american leadership. mr president, on 2 november an article by dana priest positing the existence of secret cia prisons in eastern europe was published in the . i should like to make two points in this respect. such 'secret cia prisons' operate outside of any judicial system. i refer not only to that implemented by international institutions, but also to the us courts, civil and military alike. this alone constitutes a violation of the fundamental democratic and liberal values upon which america, the european union and the transatlantic alliance are founded. there is a great deal of public opposition to secret cia prisons and the interrogation methods used in detention centres for suspected terrorists. this attitude is shared by many republican politicians in the usa, as evidenced by senator john mccain's recent initiative to abolish the use of torture or methods akin to torture in such centres. my second point relates to the possibility that secret cia detention centres are located in eu member states or in countries that will join the eu in the near future. this state of affairs undermines the fundamental principles of the eu treaties. the european union has every right to demand that its member states, including my own country, poland, take these accusations seriously, that they look into the matter again and that they investigate all the circumstances surrounding the landing in poland of a cia-owned boeing carrying prisoners. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank those who have spoken and to say that everyone here is in agreement with a principle which i personally underlined in my introduction. there is unanimity on the basic principle of the european union, namely total respect for the life and dignity of every individual. therefore, everyone here in parliament agrees with the view that, if the allegations prove to be true, we shall be faced - as i have already said, but it is worth repeating - with a serious breach of the treaty on european union, a violation which, if it were confirmed and proven, could lead, as you all know, to the application of serious political sanctions against a member state of the european union. that is only the start, however, because it is obvious that, in addition to the serious violation - and i have drawn attention to article 7 of the treaty - there is also a second consideration: if these allegations proved to be true, they would constitute criminal activity. someone mentioned this fact, a large number of you emphasised it and i am fully in agreement. it is therefore clear that the national legislatures of the member states have the duty to investigate situations of this type. in italy, as everyone is aware, an investigation is in progress into certain serious allegations of unlawful acts committed in italy by cia agents, which, if proven, would constitute a serious crime. ladies and gentlemen, the problem is that legal means must be used if they give us every opportunity to achieve the result that we, both commission and parliament, are seeking. let us therefore look at what actions the commission has taken, is taking and will take in the future. many of you asked this question and i may have failed to cover this point adequately in my introduction. i believe the most appropriate way to describe it would be as a political action involving continuous requests to member states and accession candidates. i am referring to possible actions such as debate and discussion with ngos, which obviously have information they supplied to the media and which they could certainly provide to the commission as well; also dialogue with other institutions that hold further items of evidence and with bodies able to supply information to the european commission; and, finally, intense and continuous discussion with the authorities. i refer, in particular, to the united states congress and senate, which have decided to conduct investigations, the results of which could be passed on to the european commission. ladies and gentlemen, i am not someone who minces words and i would ask you to forgive what is perhaps an excess of frankness. however, i believe that the indignation we all rightly feel at these serious crimes - these absolutely disgraceful situations - will not suffice to alter the rules of the treaties. when some members refer to an 'investigation', they are not just referring to the approach the commission is intending to adopt - and will adopt - namely to conduct a political enquiry. they are also thinking of inspections, the taking of evidence and the obtaining of documents, even where such documents are not spontaneously volunteered. even if parliament voted that the commission should exercise such investigative powers, it would be unable to do so, because the treaties do not give it that authority. when we use the word 'investigation', we need to understand what we are talking about. do we have the power to question the interior ministers of the candidate countries and member states referred to? no, we do not. do we have the power to obtain classified cia documents if they are not handed over? no, we do not. do we have the powers of the council of europe? no, we do not have those powers. that would require a change in the treaties. i should be very happy if the european constitution had already come into force, because it gives the european commission wider powers than those it currently possesses. when someone here referred to the powers of national courts, they may have imagined that i have powers identical to those of a public prosecutor or examining magistrate in one of the member states. however, there is no comparison between the power of a national judge and that of the european commission. we may not like it, but those are the rules of the treaties and, therefore, when we talk of an 'investigation' we need to use the word in its legal sense and, above all, within the meaning defined in the treaties. to sum up: i intend to use all powers of political investigation, because these are permitted under the treaties. we are allowed to ask the question, but if a member state replies that it has never had clandestine jails in its territory, i shall need to have proof, as in the case of abu ghraib - photographs, evidence and testimonies. at present, we do not have these items. i am not saying we may not have them in future, but i do not have the authority to summon anyone, or to order the interrogation of someone who refuses to testify, because these powers are vested in other bodies. i am talking, therefore, about a political investigation, an action aimed at obtaining information and collecting evidence, where it exists. important information may also be obtained from members of parliament, of course, because these are political actions. they are not legal actions; they are actions which, if the allegations are proven, could lead to political sanctions. that is what complying with the rules means - and it is something i have always done, even when i may not have liked it. in this particular case, i do not like having limited powers, but these are the powers vested in me under the treaties, and they are the political powers of investigation which i intend to use. colleagues, i have to draw your attention to the fact that we have among us observers from both romania and bulgaria, and they are very welcome. since romania has been mentioned frequently during this debate, one of the observers wished to take the floor. i pointed out that this could not happen, but he has passed a note to me expressing his concern about some of the attacks made upon romania and stating that the romanian authorities would welcome any inquiry into the allegations made in the . i state that for the record. i do not want to set a precedent, but the observers are among us and they obviously have strong feelings about these matters. the debate is closed. the next item is the commission statement on banana import arrangements. . mr president, i should like to thank you for this opportunity to share with you our current thinking on the new import regime for bananas. needless to say, we are very disappointed at the second arbitration award issued on 22 october 2005. the current import regime for bananas was agreed at doha in 2001. on this basis we obtained a waiver from our wto obligations for granting a preference to our acp partners. it was also agreed at the time that we would move to a tariff-only system not later than 1 january 2006. for this purpose we opened negotiations with our main trading partners for modifying the concessions in our schedule on bananas and went through arbitration as foreseen in the annex to the doha waiver. the relevant benchmark set out in the annex to the doha waiver is whether the rebinding of our tariff on bananas maintains market access for most-favoured-nation suppliers. following a first negative award on 1 august 2005, the arbitrator determined in a second award issued on 27 october that the european community had failed to rectify the matter with its proposal for a new most-favoured-nation tariff rate at eur 187 per tonne. this was a very disappointing result. our calculations were done in an objective and transparent manner and were supported by thorough economic and legal analysis. the aim has always been to ensure a neutral modification of the import regime with a most-favoured-nation tariff that provides equivalent market access conditions to let in american suppliers - as the current quota regime does - and keeps an equivalent level of acp preference. throughout this process we had consultations with our trading partners but there were no common positions from their side that could have been the basis for a negotiated solution. where does that leave us now? the arbitrator's award does not indicate what could be an appropriate tariff level. in deciding on the import regime for bananas there are a number of considerations that need to be taken into account: most importantly, our responsibility to all the different stakeholders. we have considered the interests of community producers and the management of the common market organisation for bananas with a view to its future reform. we have our commitments towards the acp partners in the cotonou agreement to maintain their tariff preferences. in the light of all the above, we need to move to a tariff-only system from 1 january 2006 and we must move quickly as our operators need legal certainty. at the same time, i am fully aware of our responsibilities towards all stakeholders, which we take very seriously. the commission will therefore be making a proposal very shortly on the level of the tariff starting from 1 january 2006. . mr president, commissioner, i have been draftsman of the opinion of the committee on development for successive reforms of the com in bananas, and i have spoken in all the debates we have held, on 13 april 2000, on 13 december of that same year and on 4 september 2003, to mention just the most recent. before leaving his post, commissioner lamy informed us, on 21 april 2004, that he intended to propose a tariff of eur 230 per tonne of bananas imported. since then, since the new commission took office, both you and your colleagues and the commissioner for trade have sought to reach an agreement. you must acknowledge, commissioner, that what you have said tonight does not shed much light on the direction you intend to take. you must clearly take the decision to apply a tariff from 1 january and we shall see how high it is. nevertheless, you are very well aware - the commission is very well aware - that that decision guarantees you a new dispute with the producer countries of the 'dollar area' within the wto almost immediately if that tariff exceeds their expectations. in other words, we shall gain a few months of time at the expense of creating certain risks for the acp group of countries and new uncertainties for our european producers. in the end, provided that nothing unexpected emerges from the imminent hong kong summit, the commission will have to seek a negotiated solution with the latin american banana-producing countries. the legitimate question i would like to ask is why the commission expressly gave up the search for that agreement during the months of march, april and may, when there is reliable evidence that, via various diplomatic channels, the latin american producers sought an agreement, though of a transitional nature, on a temporary extension of the system in force which would provide a margin for the negotiation of a more stable and lasting solution. commissioner, i believe that the commission did not pay any attention to these wishes because, at that time, it was confident that the arbitration within the world trade organisation could agree to the establishment of a tariff of eur 230. that was our first setback. then a new tariff of eur 187 was proposed, with identical results. you have confirmed here today that you are very disappointed by the result of the second arbitration of 27 october. at that time, the comments of certain officials, and your own comments, commissioner, showed the same perplexity and disappointment that you have expressed today. you said then that it was necessary to prevent the banana dispute from being included on the hong kong agenda. i believe that this is another mistake, commissioner. all it needed was for a country such as honduras, which may be many good things, but is hardly an all-powerful giant of a country, to ask that the banana dispute be included on the agenda of the hong kong summit, in order to achieve what the commission wanted to prevent at all costs. you may feel reassured to know, commissioner, that, during this final stage of the negotiation, with so much disappointment and bad news in terms of our interests, you have not been alone. you have been accompanied by certain national governments, such as that of my own country, and the governments of certain banana-producing regions. you have also had the understanding of certain representatives of the european banana producers, who appear to be resigned to awaiting a solution, which you have mentioned in your speech, involving a magic formula such as the one achieved in the so-called 'madeira agreements', which for the moment just has the air of a portuguese , which, as you know, commissioner, is more a song of nostalgia and sadness than one of hope. . commissioner, i would like to point out a few aspects to you. you showed how disappointed you are, which is no surprise after a second negative arbitration decision. that is no pleasure, but i can tell you after looking at the website that the story of bananas is a never-ending one; so you should not be too disappointed. i am sure this issue will be with us for many more years to come and even if this is resolved, another one will come up. that seems to be inherent in the case of bananas. maybe you could be a little more precise and explain the timeframe for action. there is not a lot of time left, but i would like to know what timeframe you have in mind. secondly, what are the different scenarios you are evaluating? for the committee on international trade, it would be more than relevant to know what you have in mind. finally, as my colleague said, i wonder whether this is not going to overshadow hong kong. i would like to know how you are going to make a situation that is not easy in any case - given that sugar and many other difficult issues are on the agenda - look a little more positive. . mr president, commissioner, this debate provides evidence of how important socio-environmental criteria are in the argument about international trade, and how important it is that the commission should bring these quality criteria into the wto negotiations. the same can, i might add, be said of sugar, which is a good example, although here in europe - with the possible exception of our peripheral areas - we produce hardly any bananas. the situation is, then, better than it was at the time the soviet union disintegrated and germany was united. when the central and eastern european states acceded to the european union, west germany's former suppliers - the producers of dollar bananas - thought they could now supply the rest of the eu. 'with this common market organisation', they thought to themselves, 'which was not there before, there will now be free trade in bananas, and we will be able to offload our dollar bananas throughout the eu's territory, and let the others look after themselves.' this house, at the time, debated this in depth. in those days, the commission was on our side, and we worked out a proper market organisation, which is now becoming the subject of recurrent debate. it is not the case that the dollar bananas have done anything like cede any of the market and that the americans are doing less business; the very opposite has happened, and their share has increased dramatically. if, though, we had not introduced these criteria and had no quotas, the acp countries, with their so-called small bananas, would have been out of business ages ago, and hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of small banana farmers would have lost their livelihoods. they are not yet exactly out of danger, but at least we have, by holding this debate, made our contribution. what i would welcome from you - and i am also thinking of sugar here - is that this debate should go forward in the european union, and that, instead of liberalisation being simply proposed as a quantative solution while policy and social and environmental concerns are disregarded, the commission, as an advocate for these quality criteria, should speak up clearly and ensure that social, labour, and environmental concerns should be brought to bear on global trade relationships and be taken into account in them. that is most particularly the case where the use of quotas is concerned. , . mr president, bananas are not only produced in plantations run by powerful international undertakings that employ large numbers of badly paid workers; more and more small farmers are growing them too. since the 1980s, cooperatives of small farmers in the developing world and non-commercial import organisations in europe have struck up good working relations. over half the bananas eaten in switzerland originate from imports based on fair trade. the key factor is not the country of origin, but the method of production that protects man and the environment. in contrast to switzerland, the success of fair trade in the eu is hindered by a tradition of quotas and levies. this means that it is difficult to import bananas from countries other than those in africa, the caribbean or the pacific ocean, or, to put it another way, those countries that were colonies of the member states up to half a century ago, unless they fall within the scope of import licences held by a number of big undertakings in europe and america. i have a question i would like to put to the commission. will it, after this arbitration, create room for a transition to the swiss model or will volume restrictions only be replaced by higher import tariffs, which means that little will change, if anything? in that case, the latin american countries will regard europe as being in breach of its agreements. . here we go again. another eu import tariff scheme has come unstuck: recently sugar, now bananas, and all for pan-eu harmony. this scheme is hampered by the origins of member states, many of whose former colonies produce bananas and whom they now rightly wish to assist. although complex, the three-tariff system helped, with the c quota reserved for acp countries to export up to 750 000 tonnes annually to the eu at zero rate. hence the problem: because non-eu countries, especially latin america, now want parity. i suggest two solutions. we can go to tariff only, as proposed for 2006. in october 2004, eur 230 per tonne was suggested, but that was too low for acp and too high for dollar countries. however a common tariff is set up, it will disadvantage acp countries, causing loss of production and unemployment. already the windward isles report that 24 000 small producers have dropped to 7 000 under dollar-country pressure. in many acp countries bananas grow in terrain unsuitable for other crops, so unemployment grows massively. will these people migrate, some to europe adding to our 20 million unemployed, or will they take to crops like cocaine that will grow on the former banana plantations? i suggest an alternative solution based on the repeated statements that we are supposed to be in an eu which retains its individual member state status. mr barroso recently claimed that regulations might be cut. combine the two: ditch the banana import scheme and make individual member states sort themselves out with their own arrangements. after all, we are all grown-up democracies. eu countries would buy on the open market or support their former colonies just as they wish, without repercussions on the world market. the uk operated commonwealth preference up to 1972 without great problems. if that sounds a little nostalgic, well, why not? we owe these former colonies. what is wrong with a little humanity in trying to maintain employment in the third world? rather that than the arid scratchings of the bureaucratic brussels pen-pusher. mr president, the 2001 agreement with the united states and the latin american countries, to which the commissioner referred earlier, and which we thought could put an end to the banana war, now brings with it a radical change to the community import regime from january 2006, a change that the european sector will have to face in a situation of great uncertainty. in 1993, the union decided to establish its own import regime and a common organisation of the market for bananas that is completely different to the common organisation of the market that governs the rest of the fruit and vegetable sector. the union therefore gave the banana sector special treatment, almost favourable treatment, and this is even more justified today, because this fruit is only grown in the european union's outermost regions. i would remind you that, because of their island and outlying status, these regions are treated differently, and this is necessary, above all, if we want to continue to maintain their agricultural activity. given that my government, the spanish government, has forgotten this - as has the government of the canary islands it would appear - i will point out that bananas play an essential economic and social role and the new import regime could jeopardise the survival of community production if the european union does not have sufficient funds in the future to compensate for a drastic reduction in prices as a result of the possible establishment of too low a border tariff. the essence of the problem is ultimately an accounting adjustment on which the future of the banana sector in the european union depends. the lower the tariff, the greater the financial effort required to compensate european producers will be. but that effort has a maximum limit and that maximum limit should determine the european union's room for manoeuvre in terms of giving in to international pressures in international negotiations. the union has already sacrificed a significant proportion of its agricultural production for the sake of opening up to international trade, a sacrifice which unfortunately always impacts on the same people, on the producers, and which benefits just a few, in a very small number of third countries. in the case of bananas, moreover, the big multinationals would benefit, while local producers will hardly notice the change. - commissioner, firstly let me say it is regrettable that the commission chose the path of litigation rather than that of negotiation, which would probably have provided a much more practical solution and might have produced a more satisfactory result. the reality - as others have said - is that, for instance in the windward islands, bananas provide employment for over a third of the working population and account for 50 to 70% of export earnings. it would be extremely serious if that were to be jeopardised. as you suggested, commissioner, preferences for countries such the windward islands harm no one and are not aimed at damaging the trade of latin american exporters or of any other exporters. the best approach would be to find ways of postponing the single tariff, and to negotiate and agree to a fair solution that allows all suppliers to continue to trade. arbitration has obviously been a failure, but the commission must try to ensure that the trade can continue until such time as you, in conjunction with the development and trade commissioners, can find a viable way of ensuring that other sources of income can be found for poor farmers in the windward islands so that they continue to have a future. finally, i fear that bananas and sugar will be well and truly on the agenda in hong kong as far as the acp countries are concerned. mr president, i would like to thank the commissioner for agriculture for what she has said. i would like to point out that banana production in the european union is currently significant, that thousands of european union families living in the outermost regions live from it and that, if banana production were to disappear, we would be abandoning some of europe's islands to their fate, despite the fact that, although they are far away, they are as european as the place from which i am speaking at this moment. secondly, i believe that we must bear in mind that the panels of the world trade organisation cannot choose arbitrarily. according to the principles of the charter of the world trade organisation, an equivalent tariff must be sought, and that equivalent tariff is not arbitrary; it must provide us with at least the same level of protection that we enjoyed previously. i do not know to what extent the commission is considering this factor. thirdly, time is running out. 1 january is just around the corner and i very much fear that, as a result of the 'trial and error' procedure being employed by the panels of the world trade organisation, we will not have a tariff on 1 january. should we not consider the possibility that, at least during the transitional period, the regime in force could be maintained? can the commission negotiate in any way with the third countries to suspend or interrupt the negotiation, with a view to reaching a reasonable solution? i am finally going to make a comment on the things my compatriots from the spanish peoples' party have said. until last year, the peoples' party was in power in spain and until a few months ago, before its expulsion by the head of the government, it was in power in the canary islands. the question i wanted to ask is whether, until that time, the peoples' party had been doing anything differently to the current governments of spain and the canary islands. in any event, commissioner, i hope that you will defend the interests of these hundreds of thousands of european citizens whose ability to maintain their living conditions depend on you. . mr president, when i look back in time i find that the issue of bananas has always stirred emotions. 1992 was the first time i really heard about this discussion, which has lasted for so many years. we have not yet actually finalised this issue. addressing some of the remarks made here today, firstly, it was a priority for me when we started these discussions immediately after i came into office last november to reach a negotiated conclusion on this issue. yet it soon turned out that even within the latin american countries there is no common agreement, so it was not possible to reach a negotiated conclusion on the issue in january. we tried over and over again to see whether it was possible. i will not go into details about the various big companies in the latin american countries that hold completely opposite views on how this is will end, but do not believe those who say that negotiation possibilities have not been explored. it is quite right that honduras has put bananas on the agenda for the hong kong ministerial conference. i can only say that we will do our utmost to ensure that this issue does not unduly disturb the whole process. to this end, we are counting on our approach being reasonable, on our continued preparedness to discuss with our partners and on the support of the acp countries. regarding sugar, which has also been mentioned, it is my intention to try to reach a political compromise in the council at the meeting before the hong kong meeting, so that this will not be an issue. as regards the timeframe and the different scenarios, there is currently a proposal on the table before the council for moving to a tariff-only system and this will be the basis for further discussions. at this stage i cannot go into details, because this is issue will be dealt with and negotiated with the council before i put all the figures and ideas on the table in parliament. of course our target is to get fair trade on this banana issue. the fact is that at the end of the day it is the consumers who decide what is going to be on the supermarket shelves, so those who have a huge interest in this issue should use any opportunity to encourage consumers to make their choice. as a number of speakers have mentioned, it is clear that we have to find a balance on this very delicate issue. in deciding on the import regime for bananas there are a number of considerations that need to be taken into account and, most importantly, as i said previously, our responsibility to all the different stakeholders. we also have to consider the interests of community producers and the management of the common market organisation for bananas with a view to the reform that we will hopefully achieve with the council during the second half of 2006. i can only assure those of you who have an interest in this difficult, long-lasting issue that we will do our utmost to arrive at a positive outcome so that the tariff-only system enters into force on 1 january 2006. the debate is closed. the next item is the oral question to the commission on the 'reasons for the poor implementation of the occupational pensions directive by member states', by ieke van den burg and othmar karas, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs (o-0094/2005 b6-0338/2005). . mr president, i would like to say a few words on our reasons for raising this oral question. as we explained in the text, many member states have not implemented this directive. discussions are taking place between the commission, the services concerned and the member state representatives, and in the context of ceiops. however, parliament as co-legislator should also claim to have a role in interpretations if there really are problems with the directive. this is why we asked you to come here to discuss this with us, commissioner. reading between the lines, you will also note our concern that member states are not taking implementation of the directive seriously. we also urge you to make an important issue of the pensions directive - because it is a separate issue specifically concerning financial markets and social policy - particularly where respect for national, social and labour laws are at stake and where host country rules, rather than the country of origin principle, are prevalent. we are eager to be involved closely in the outcome of the implementation and the possible interpretations. we raised two other issues: the involvement of ceiops and the state of affairs regarding the prudential rules, as well as possible additional quantitative rules added by member states, but i will not go into details on those. a very important point for me, not just as spokesperson for the pse group, but also as a dutch delegate, is my concern over developments in occupational pension schemes due not only to financial market developments but also to regulatory developments: there is a trend to move from defined benefit to defined contribution systems. this is a very fast-growing development in the uk and ireland, where in particular new participants in schemes are not given a defined benefit system. that is not possible in the netherlands because we have collective systems and obligatory systems in most cases, and we are very attached to them. i do not agree that a shift from defined benefits to defined contribution is a necessary development, let alone a desirable one, because the quality of pension schemes is a major asset of the european social model. the first pillar in the netherlands would be incomplete and insufficient without a second pillar of such high quality. it is also important that this tradition give the best overall results. therefore, these blurred borders are also a concern for us and we would invite you to clarify your interpretation of these developments and how you will debate this issue further with us. . mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as mrs van den burg has already said, we are concerned - concerned about the lack of seriousness with which this directive has been transposed since it was adopted two years ago. there are two sides to this directive: one has to do with the internal market, which the directive makes stronger for all service providers in the field of occupational retirement provision, and the other has to do with social security for workers, with more dialogue between employers and workers when occupational retirement schemes are set up and in the course of their further development. boarding the airliner this morning, i was handed a magazine. the headline on the cover stated that there would, in future, be no getting away from occupational retirement provision. as you, commissioner, will have seen from having read the new german government's working agreement, two substantial paragraphs of which are devoted to securing the old age pension system, this has become no less important an issue in the years since the directive was drafted and adopted. there is still not enough risk capital in the european union; in the usa, as we are well aware, it is the pension funds that do most to create it. the internal market and the financial services sector still offer potential. the pension funds - the businesses that deal with occupational pension provision - do not yet enjoy a complete single internal market. much is at present being said about the european lifestyle model and the european social model. occupational retirement provision, which involves more of the market at the same time as social security - is an essential precondition for workers' mobility and flexibility, as well as for the securing of our systems of provision for old age and of securing a comfortable old age in a society in which people live for longer and longer. what this directive also makes clear is that there is an imbalance in powers and responsibilities, an imbalance between single market competence and social security systems. this is something that the directive attempts to rectify, but it is also the very reason why we are putting this question, for it is the member states that are empowered to transpose this directive and to take account of those aspects that we have addressed but that are not set down in law; they are also responsible for doing so. from your speeches and from the facts, we know that, to date, only six member states have notified their transposition measures; six more have done so in part and 13 are unaccounted for. as things stood on 23 september 2005, 13 states had not done what they were supposed to do. that, commissioner, is why we are asking you what action you propose taking if, by the end of the year, not all the member states have transposed this directive. what is it that makes it so difficult for them to do that? unless i am misinformed, there were meetings of the member states and the commission in october 2004 and april 2005, at which it became evident that its provisions relating to social security and labour law were the source of the most problems. we have to face up to the tension between these two; the one must not be an excuse for a blockade by the other, whether in the single market or in the necessary security measures that we have addressed in our directive, and so we also ask you what conclusions you draw from this, whether you believe that more measures will be needed and what effect the disparities in tax legislation have on the transposition of this directive. . mr president, the member states that have not or that have only partially communicated implementing measures to the commission will be subject to infringement proceedings for non-notification under article 226 ec. it should be emphasised that such infringement procedures concern only the communication of national measures and do not refer to the quality of the implementation. once complete notifications have been received, the commission will examine the national implementing measures, which might at a later stage lead to infringement proceedings due to incorrect implementation of the directive. the directive does not confer any comitology powers on the commission. it is not a 'lamfalussy' directive. therefore, no mandates are given to the committee of european insurance and occupational pensions supervisors - ceiops - nor will any implementing measures be adopted by the commission. as there is no practical experience with the directive yet, it is too early to take a position on the need for comitology and, therefore, on the role ceiops could take in this. however, ceiops has an important role to play in the context of article 21(2) of the directive and supervisors have the duty 'to collaborate closely with a view to facilitating supervision of the operations of institutions for occupational retirement provision'. in that respect, ceiops' occupational pensions committee is currently drafting a multilateral cooperation protocol, such as already exists for insurance. a draft is out now for a second open consultation with stakeholders. it is expected to be adopted by the ceiops members' meeting in february 2006. in the past two years, the commission has organised two meetings with member states in order to help them implement the directive. to that end, the discussions focused on issues identified by member states, the commission and other stakeholders as a potential source of difficulty for the transposition and which may give rise to a diverging interpretation by the member states. on the basis of those meetings, the commission has concluded that although some articles appear to cause problems, that is not the case for all member states. hence it is difficult to define any particularly problematic provisions. this is not surprising, since member states' pension structures and arrangements differ significantly. nonetheless, there is reason to believe that the implementation of article 20 - cross-border activities - causes problems for many member states. however, it is too early to assess whether the origin of those problems lies in the formulation of the legislative proposal as adopted by the european parliament and the council, or just in different interpretations in the various member states. in 2006, a first meeting will be organised to discuss further some of the issues which have been identified as problematic and essential during the examination of the national implementing measures. the in-depth analysis of the national measures transposing the directive has not yet begun. at this stage the work focuses on the quality of the partial or full notifications. an indication as to the extent to which member states have adopted additional quantitative investment rules and elements that might jeopardise the proper functioning of the directive can only be provided once most member states have notified. as the commission expects a large number of member states to communicate their legislation to the commission before the end of this year, such an indication can only be provided in the course of 2006. a number of defined benefit pension schemes took advantage of the 1990s bull market to reduce the level of contributions or even take contribution holidays instead of building up their financial reserves. when the inevitable market downturn occurred, some of these reserves were found to be insufficient. in response, sponsoring undertakings and member states' supervisory authorities employed different solutions: increased contributions, top-up payments, reduced indexation of pension rights, changes in the pension schemes' rules and the closure of schemes to new entrants. irrespective of the remedies applied, all stakeholders again realised that a pension fund involves a long-term commitment to employees and pensioners. this recognition has only been reinforced by other developments, including the application of ias 19 for sponsoring undertakings and stricter rules for the supervisory valuation of technical provisions. sponsoring undertakings have realised the need to achieve improved cost control and more stable earnings in order to match their pension promises. a shift from traditionally defined benefit final pay schemes to pension schemes whose cost can be more easily controlled can indeed be observed. however, there is clear evidence that this shift has not been solely towards purely individual defined contribution schemes. hybrid schemes combining defined benefit and defined contribution elements are also available. the rationale behind all these changes is better cost control and more stability in earnings for the sponsoring undertaking. there is a trend towards some blurring of the borderline between the three pension pillars, not just between the occupational second pillar and the individual third pillar, but also between the second pillar and the statutory first pillar. this is not a problem, as the pillar structure is only a general classification system, and schemes where assets are allocated to individuals are to be found in all three pillars. this is not the case in every member state, as pensions reflect specific cultural and historical situations. thus, although the basic differences between the first, second and third pillars will remain, the solutions envisaged may be equivalent. different choices have been made in the 25 member states as to the existence, level and funding of state schemes, occupational schemes and individual arrangements. there is not one eu-wide answer to the challenges of the ageing society. appropriate solutions must be adapted to member states' different pension systems. therefore, the final responsibility lies with member states. the commission could be of help to member states by ensuring that the european regulatory framework for financial services supports the emergence of secure market-driven responses to retirement financing. bottlenecks must be removed so that assets earmarked for retirement can be managed as efficiently as possible, thus allowing europeans to enjoy the highest possible payouts and annuities on retirement. the directive fulfils this objective. in the second half of next year, the commission will present a white paper in the field of ucits, which also play a role in the pension arena. other initiatives that aim at improving european pension provision include the recently adopted proposal for a directive on improving the portability of supplementary pension rights, and the ongoing infringement cases in the field of equal tax treatment of pension contributions. . mr president, commissioner, that was a highly technical description of something that is going nowhere. that there is such dragging of heels when it comes to the transposition of the directive on occupational retirement schemes is not only disappointing but also - or so i believe - negligent. occupational pension schemes are burgeoning within the european union, and the directive itself offers nation states enough scope to be able to organise them properly. the population statistics are changing dramatically, and many states are, for ideological reasons, progressively withdrawing from retirement and healthcare provision, the idea being that private provision should step into the gap. if pensions are to be secured in future, other areas of capital-building retirement provision will have to be promoted and managed with vigour. if occupational pension schemes are to be a stable means of making additional provision for old age, there must be a guarantee of the risks to employees being reduced in real terms, for they already risk losing their jobs and must not also risk their own voluntary contributions, and the contributions made by the companies they work for, being put in jeopardy. that is why there must be an explicit separation guaranteed between the businesses and the institution for occupational retirement provision, so that, for example, the entitlements acquired are not lost in the event of the business going bust or the employee changing job of his or her own accord. a single market for occupational retirement provision organised on a european scale would mean more mobility for workers, and that is precisely what they want. alongside the decoupling of the risk of job loss from the risk of employees' claims on the amassed capital in the event of the business going into administration, there must be minimum standards for occupational pension institutions, which must involve explicit information rights for both the supervisory authorities and the employees. both those entitled to benefits and those actually in receipt of them must be entitled to receive information on the way in which their scheme's capital is invested or on the state of the stock market. employees should also, if possible, have a right to be consulted by their companies when the choice of these institutions is made. if the objectives named in recitals 18 to 23 are achieved, that not only puts the workers in a more secure position, but is also what modern stock market supervision in the community requires. now, commissioner, is the time for action, and action is what we are used to getting from you. . mr president, we all agree with the commissioner that increasing the uptake of pensions is of paramount importance, especially in relation to voluntary pensions, whether by virtue of this directive or through any other means. however, incentives to take up pensions, as he has quite rightly said, remains a competence of the member states as these may be linked with the tax and benefits systems. i am not proposing that there should be any change to that. nevertheless, it is important to share best practice. could the commission therefore indicate whether it is already monitoring incentives or has plans to do so? can it envisage a mechanism through which best practices can be shared and encouraged? in the context of cross-border provisions, which we want to encourage in order to achieve a better and more vibrant pensions market, public confidence in all regulators and underlying guarantees - and not just in those of one's own state - is very important. it is also important, especially for schemes relating to the self-employed, that it is understood that the information provided by the different countries should be comparable. article 9 of the directive requires that members be given sufficient information on risks. article 10 requires that the annual accounts should give a true, fair and comprehensive view. other articles provide that members should have access to those accounts. however, this raises the question of what constitutes sufficient information, and whether account will be taken of the differences between prevailing practices in member states, or at least whether potential investors will be alerted to the differences that may exist in areas in which they are not comparing like with like. clearly it is also important for the solution found to this not to result in a multiplication of regulation and for ceiops to take that into account in any forthcoming protocols. . mr president, perhaps the commissioner could explain what he means by a 'tird' pillar. it sounds rather unsavoury to me. is not the real problem of the implementation of the directive on occupational pension schemes that there is no political will for its implementation? in western europe there is a serious demographic problem as the population grows ever older, with the birth rate continuing to fall in the leading industrial countries of the european union. there is a major pensions crisis, which national governments are simply failing to address. in the case of final-salary schemes, as indeed with public service pensions, the concept is that young people pay for the old; that one generation supports the next. it is not only the demographics that are against the old economies of western europe, but also the so-called social model. this much prized social model seems to consist of 40% youth unemployment, welfare dependency and the break-up of the traditional family. thanks to the economic absurdities of this place, as well as of national government, we cannot rely on the generational support system any longer. indeed, in the united kingdom, it is politically even worse: there are over gbp 800 billion of unfunded public service pensions, with recruitment in the public sector out of control. pension funds in the private sector have been taxed since 1977, taking over gbp 5.5 billion every year out of ordinary people's savings, whilst politicians enjoy privileged pensions at the expense of the hard-pressed taxpayer. indeed, if public companies now fail to show pension liabilities in their accounts, the director would face prison, yet national government finance ministers flout the rules daily. in my own constituency there is a company called ballast nedam which has simply abandoned its pensioners in a most disgraceful way and set up a new company to avoid its responsibilities. this is quite against the directive, which has failed to be implemented. is it not interesting how keen governments are to standardise car heaters, windscreen wipers and spirit bottles but, when real people need help, as usual the european union is found wanting? - mr president, commissioner, first the operating framework and the advantages of occupational pension funds must be clarified. they are financial market institutions and cannot be connected to or it cannot be implied that they can gradually acquire such scope that they can even partially replace the social security systems. the social security systems must continue to guarantee general coverage of workers and they are public systems; in other words, if the insurance fund cannot pay pension benefits and liabilities, the state must meet their financial liabilities. by contrast, if occupational pension funds are unable to meet their liabilities, there is no financial intervention or guarantee by the state. however, i clearly support the fact that these funds are useful as credit institutions which undertake to guarantee auxiliary pensions, insofar as they are decided within the framework of collective agreements. of course, it must be emphasised that they only provide a retirement income in the case of workers, creating a degree of discrimination against those who do not have stable employment or who work part time. it should also be emphasised that these credit institutions, these funds, only have the facility for cross-border cooperation with countries in the present eurozone. on the basis of these characteristics and the development of the application of the legislation to the member states, it is advisable for the directive to be promoted in all the member states, but to become more flexible. what we want is to integrate the directive into national law and, most importantly, for it to be accepted by the social partners, by employers and employees. in this direction, it does not seem to make sense to use averages in order to ascertain the breadth of coverage of the workforce by the funds in question or the capitalisation of these funds and their accumulated reserves as a percentage of gdp or per insured. on the contrary, highlighting the factors which contributed to the development of the institution in specific individual countries, where the confidence of the workforce attains an average of 45%, also appears to be of exceptional importance. the parameters which contribute to the serious disparity in the application of this directive in the various member states need to be abolished. the debate is closed.

control of the budgetary implementation of the instrument for pre-accession assistance (short presentation) the next item is a short presentation of the report by mrs kratsa-tsagaropoulou, on behalf of the committee on budgetary control, on control of the budgetary implementation of the instrument for pre-accession assistance (ipa) in 2007. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to reiterate that the instrument for pre-accession assistance is the union's new financing instrument for granting pre-accession assistance for the period 2007-2013 and replaces the previous programmes for candidate and potential candidate countries, namely the phare, cards, ispa and other programmes. the new instrument includes five components which cover the priorities defined in accordance with the needs of the beneficiary country, namely transition assistance and institution building, cross-border cooperation, regional development, human resources development and rural development. this report by parliament is the first examination of the application of this new instrument and has a twofold objective: firstly, to bring the project financed more closely into line with pre-accession priorities, especially for the environment, gender equality, nuclear safety and increased employment; secondly, to avoid the mistakes of the past, such as those belatedly identified in the application of the phare, sapard and ispa programmes in bulgaria and romania. we believe that this can be better achieved if parliament closely monitors the application of the new instrument from the outset, which is why we called for this own-initiative report. parliament expresses its satisfaction in this motion for a resolution at the high implementation rate of ipa commitments in 2007 and its regret at the considerable delays both in approving the relevant regulations and implementing the programmes which started in 2008. we would also point out that the objective of parliamentary control of pre-accession assistance is not only to examine if the funds available were used legitimately, but also to evaluate if they were actually allocated to accession priorities and if the desired results were achieved. we call in our report for a better balance between projects earmarked for meeting political criteria and projects earmarked for bringing the country into line with the community acquis and we call for horizontal and regional programmes to be strengthened. we also call for particular emphasis to be placed on combating corruption, organised crime and unemployment, especially unemployment among young people. we call for more funds to strengthen women's rights and equal opportunities in general. we also call for cross-border cooperation to be strengthened, in order to promote reconciliation and good neighbourly relations between beneficiary countries and between them and the member states of the european union to a greater degree. to close, we consider that the instrument for pre-accession assistance is a rational and flexible mechanism for optimising financial assistance to candidate and potential candidate countries. however, in order to get the maximum return, it needs to remain firmly in line with accession priorities and the social and political conditions peculiar to each country. for this reason, parliament hopes to play a fundamental role in the application and adaptation of this instrument. member of the commission. - mr president, on behalf of the commission i would like to thank parliament for giving us the opportunity to comment on the report on the control of budgetary implementation of the instrument for pre-accession assistance (ipa) for 2007, and to extend our thanks to the rapporteur, mrs kratsa-tsagaropoulou, for the very valuable report that she initiated and prepared. we can, overall, concur with the findings and recommendations of the report, which are fully in line with the views of the commission on how best to use financial assistance for the western balkans and for turkey. the commission acknowledges the late launch of ipa 2007 programmes because of the late adoption of the legal framework for ipa. i can assure you, however, that the commission made all efforts to limit the delay of implementation on the ground, and that preparation of management structures and detailed project design were pushed ahead all through 2008. within this framework the commission will ensure that the impact of ipa will become visible in the beneficiary countries. allow me to elaborate on some of the issues raised in the report. as regards the balance between political criteria and transposition of the acquis communautaire, the commission has already increased the allocations for projects in the area of the political criteria in ipa 2008 in all countries, and will continue to do so gradually. however, in the face of the current financial crisis, we will also need to strike an appropriate balance in the 2009 and 2010 programmes between continued support for political reforms and financial assistance to help the countries mitigate the consequences of the economic downturn. in this regard the report rightly identifies the challenges generated by the financial crisis and the need for an ec response. to that end, the commission has put together an ipa crisis response package of about eur 250 million at the end of 2008 with the aim of leveraging some eur 600 million in loans from international financial institutions. measures will focus on support to private sector smes, energy efficiency investments, and support to investments and infrastructure under national ipa programmes in close coordination with international financial institutions. the commission also fully concurs with the need to establish the decentralised management system as a step to promoting ownership and responsibility of candidate countries and potential candidates. guidance and assistance is being given to them in order for these countries to build the required public management structures and public financial control systems. according to the principles of ipa, environmental protection, good governance, civil society development, gender equality and non-discrimination are all cross-cutting issues and are an integral part of project design. civil society organisations are now more actively involved in the development and the initiation of projects. in 2008 the commission launched the civil society facility as a tool for promoting civil society development and advancement of regional cooperation, for which an indicative budget of eur 130 million is earmarked for 2008-2010. the commission also shares the rapporteur's views as regards the importance of education, regional and cross-border cooperation and gender equality, to name but a few issues. the services of the commission have fully taken on board the recommendations of parliament and we look forward to reviewing progress with you during our regular rendezvous where we have the opportunity to discuss the financial assistance strategies and their implementation. this will allow the further enhancement of the ongoing dialogue between our respective institutions. the item is closed. the vote will take place on wednesday 22 april 2009.

2009 budget: parliament's estimates (debate) the next item is the report by mr lewandowski, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009. rapporteur. - (pl) mr president, in assessing the european parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009 we have taken account of the special circumstances and challenges facing us in the coming year. all of us here agree on what those challenges are: parliament needs to be adapted to its increased powers after the expected entry into force of the lisbon treaty; elections are in the offing, and the election campaign has to be funded; new rules on meps' remuneration are to be adopted, as well as - let us hope - transparent rules governing the employment and remuneration of parliamentary assistants. not every challenge of the year to come has been quantified and taken into account in the expenditure estimates. in cases of uncertainty, the obvious answer is a budget reserve, and this was precisely what we discussed at our meeting with parliament's bureau, referred to in our budgetary jargon as the 'preconciliation' meeting. i am pleased to be able to tell you that the atmosphere at the meeting was good and that many of our proposals were accepted. specifically, the 65 new posts planned were integrated into the estimates, with some of the money placed in reserve. also, a 'lisbon reserve' was created to take account of the findings of the ad-hoc working group now assessing the impact of the lisbon treaty on parliament's new needs. the budget committee considered the demands of the political groups and recognised the need to strengthen the support staff, but subject to the principles of budget discipline, i.e. reemployment must take precedence over the creation of new posts. with regard to buildings and buildings policy, we await presentation of a long-term strategy in may, especially as the sums allocated and held in reserve for the time being, together with carry-forwards from the current year, are considerable. we found in the budget an appropriation of eur 3.4 million for the removal of asbestos from the sdm building in strasbourg. in view of the rather unfavourable publicity surrounding the conflict with the strasbourg municipal authorities and the sensitivity of the issue, the matter requires clarification, and there are amendments to that end. they go so far as to demand a reserve to cover the necessary measures. i shall not go here into other issues involving a heavy financial burden, namely computerisation of the visitors' centre and additional services for meps. what should be stressed above all is the fact that we are still below the ceiling of 20% of the overall administrative expenditure of the european institutions. this figure of 20% is not an end in itself but a sensible self-imposed limit that increases our credibility when we call for budgetary discipline on the part of other institutions. i hope the expenditure estimates will prove to be close to parliament's final budget. i hope that we shall maintain the climate of trust that is to a considerable extent the personal achievement of secretary-general rmer. tomorrow's vote should go smoothly, as only four amendments have been tabled. finally, i would like to thank all those who have helped to make the pilot procedure - which was thought likely to prove troublesome - run smoothly so far. i hope it will continue to do so until the final adoption of parliament's budget. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that only four amendments to the lewandowski report have been tabled is ample evidence of the rapporteur's outstanding preparatory work and his sterling efforts to arrive at an understanding with the political groups. perhaps it also demonstrates the purpose of what is known as the pilot process, in which we seek to take a first step this year towards a successful system of cooperation between the bureau and the committee on budgets, based on a division of responsibilities and preceded by very intensive discussions with both the bureau and the parliamentary administration in order to eliminate the sort of misunderstanding and even incomprehension we have frequently experienced. apart from anything else, we need to adopt a common approach. it is also important, particularly at a time when the implementation of the reform treaty is under discussion, to re-emphasise that parliament remains firmly committed to budgetary discipline and that it will not exceed the limit of 20% of heading 5 as long as the present situation continues. it is likewise important to re-emphasise that it amounts to a virtual cultural revolution, and at least represents a good start, when the bureau itself decides, as it has now done, to put the appropriations for certain new posts into the budgetary reserve and not simply to rubber-stamp an administrative proposal here and there but to engage in a more detailed substantive discussion of what lies behind the budget. that will also facilitate the work of the committee on budgets and make it easier for the committee and the bureau to engage with each other. at first reading we must, of course, discuss in far greater detail the question of reallocating funds for the purpose of strengthening the committees and the political groups so that we can successfully perform the tasks assigned to us by the reform treaty. to put it very plainly, i expect - not least on the basis of plenary decisions and of our preliminary talks with the bureau - that this week, either today or on wednesday, the bureau really will take the essential decisions on the questions of the assistants' regime, the assistants' statute and on the other outstanding matters. there have been clear plenary decisions on these matters, and the bureau need only implement them in order to respond fittingly to the internal and public debate. on behalf of the pse group. - (nl) how much longer is at least one in ten of the meps' assistants going to be working here without any social security protection, in a maze of different kinds of contracts that is totally unclear and gives rise to a suspicion of fraud? whenever the socialist group in the european parliament attempts to give the members' assistants a proper contract, with all the usual social security guarantees, the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats tries to stand in the way of such a statute for assistants. the word 'statute' really is taboo for the ppe-de. this time the word 'statute' is to be replaced by 'regime'. that is not just a play on words. this parliament should set an example with working conditions, but it is hopelessly behind what have long been perfectly normal standards. without a uniform statute, our colleagues will never be given the protection to which they are normally entitled. this one point, a statute for assistants, is therefore important, and the amendment aimed at scrapping it would be a blot on the otherwise excellent report by mr lewandowski. i agree with his comments and those by mr bge. the budget is still within the limits, despite the wider responsibilities parliament is given under the new treaty. certainly more clarity is needed, firstly on the allocation of staff and secondly on the removal of asbestos from the european parliament buildings. clarity on those points must be an express requirement if the amounts we wish to place in reserve for that purpose are to be released. mr president, the parliament's budget is not adopted until october, but with mr lewandowski's report we are in principle supporting the proposed budget for 2009 adopted by the bureau in april, and in particular the dialogue on the details of the proposal, which is being carried out as a pilot project this year. i think that the initial experiences show that it is useful to have such a dialogue. it means that the budget will be reviewed in detail by those who are politically responsible, and that the committee on budgets is properly involved. this is good. the dialogue has focused very strongly on the staff requirements in connection with parliament's new tasks arising from the treaty of lisbon, not least the matter of ensuring that needs are met through possible reshuffles before we start talking about increasing the number of staff. we have of course seen large increases in staff numbers with the expansion of the eu, and we must now have a period of consolidation while we review the staff requirements carefully. we have also agreed to prepare a long-term strategic plan for buildings and their maintenance before the end of this month. again, it is necessary to consider future policy in this area. the asbestos case shows that details are of interest. we are surprised that funding has been set aside for the removal of asbestos from the sdm building, as when parliament purchased the building, we were told that there was no asbestos! the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe thus supports the proposal put forward by the socialist group in the european parliament to put the money in reserve. last, but not least, i would also like to underline the need for us to adopt a regime for the assistants, as discussed with parliament's secretary-general, harald rmer. it must not go wrong this time. we must sort this matter out. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) mr president, the motion for a european parliament resolution on parliament's estimates of revenue and expenditure for the financial year 2009 tabled by mr lewandowski, together with the preliminary draft budget, reconciles the achievement of parliament's tasks in that year - the tasks imposed by the entry into force of the lisbon treaty, the european parliament elections, the new members' statute, buildings policy, the improvement of services for meps, energy saving, and so on - with further budget savings. what has always been said about the eu budget as a whole - that you cannot do more for less money - has now proved possible. the know-how and enormous experience of mr lewandowski and the rest of us, plus excellent cooperation with the bureau, has worked a miracle. my group will be voting in favour of the motion for a resolution. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - mr president, on 21 april the bureau adopted preliminary draft estimates totalling over eur 1.5 billion for the cost of the european parliament. 2009 will see the impact of the lisbon treaty - if indeed it is ratified by all member states. we were told that the lisbon treaty - in fact, the european constitution by another name - was just a tidying-up exercise which would simplify the workings of parliament. but eur 2 million is being asked for by officials to cover the additional costs that will be created by the treaty and 65 new jobs will be required in parliament alone to help political groups understand it. this is all being approved before the treaty is ratified in britain and before the people of ireland have had their say in a referendum. of course, parliament has already decided that it will ignore the decision of the irish people if they vote 'no', and, in order to encourage the irish to vote 'yes', the eu has promised ireland another eur 332 million in funding. let us hope that the irish do not hold their freedom so cheap. but as that great englishman, ken dodd, once remarked, every cloud has a silver lining, plus vat. the report notes that there is an additional need for more money for the visitors' centre. i have always thought that the more visitors that come to parliament and see the great talking shop and legislative sausage-machine in action, the more they will turn against it. if every european citizen could see the chaotic and shambolic way in which legislation is voted on in this parliament, then there would be a party like the uk independence party in every eu member state. that, at least, would be money well spent. (el) mr president, i think we have made a very good start on the parliamentary budget for 2009. it is a realistic and politically astute start because it should not be forgotten that 2009 is an election year. i believe the plan we are discussing today has three plus points that allow us to talk of a good start. the first is discipline. contrary to what we hear from the eurosceptics, this is the third successive year that the european parliament has kept below the 20% administrative cost limit. parliament has disproved extreme european views by functioning in a disciplined, rational manner. secondly, human resources reflect for the first time our increased need for co-decision under the new treaty. we have an organisational structure that is transparent and clear-cut. the third positive aspect is the buildings policy. i think we should be generous here. when it comes to removing asbestos, we should be aware that we cannot put a cost on safety; price is irrelevant. we must therefore be generous and act wisely. every one of us here as well as our fellow civil servants must work in an environment where health and safety in the workplace are guaranteed. of course, this is only the start; we are not ready yet and first reading will take place in the autumn. i think the excellent cooperation between the committee on budgets and the presidency on these matters should continue. we expect the presidency to stay in direct contact with us in order to give the forthcoming stages of first and second reading a truly sound basis. (sk) i would like to congratulate the rapporteur on this excellent report. this budget is specific in the way that it has to take several important new realities into consideration: ratification of the lisbon treaty, european parliament elections, and introduction of the new status for members of the european parliament and, i believe, for assistants, too. however, we must also consider and set effective parameters for a property policy, including maintenance and environmental protection costs. in order to make the right decisions we need a long-term strategy in this area, which we will be able to consider as early as next month. our main task is to prepare good legislation. the proposed knowledge management system, interpreting and translation services, and the library analytical service will ensure higher quality services and save resources. that is another reason why we should have all the necessary analyses available to us before the first reading of the budget, so that we can prove to our citizens that we are using their money in a responsible way. (nl) just like many other people, i also think there should be a statute for meps' assistants as soon as possible. it could save us a lot of trouble in the future. i should like to say something about the buildings. when we bought several buildings in strasbourg some years ago, whether or not they contained asbestos was very important. an expert inspection was carried out and revealed that there was asbestos in the buildings - that was true of all buildings built at that time - but it was definitely not dangerous. we bought the buildings on that basis. there was never any suggestion that we would have to remove the asbestos as quickly as possible. i therefore think that the administration is on the wrong track in asking for that now, because if it has to be done, strasbourg council should pay for it. whilst there is uncertainty on that point, i do not think we should start removing asbestos from the buildings at parliament's expense. we need to clarify the position with strasbourg city council first, because they must pay for it. (pl) mr president, i wish to make three points. first, if the treaty of lisbon is ratified by all member states, 2009 will be the first year in which parliament will operate on the basis of that treaty. not only will the european parliament have greater powers, it will also be obliged to consult the parliaments of the member states with respect to proposed legislation. that will certainly mean a considerable increase in operating costs, with the employment of more staff, greater expenditure on expert opinions and consultation, etc. second, the year 2009 will see new elections to parliament, and especially the introduction of the new members' statute, which will undoubtedly involve a considerable increase in parliament's expenditure. third and last, experts estimate that the average annual inflation rate in the eu in 2009 will be around 4%, which will result in an appreciable increase in parliament's administrative costs. i trust all these factors will be taken into account in preparing the final draft of the european parliament's budget. (lv) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, with regard to the european parliament's 2009 budget estimate, first of all i would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the fact that his rigorous approach to budget expenditure has been proved right and the european parliament's total level of expenditure next year will not exceed 20% of total eu administrative expenditure. thus, regardless of the changes to the european parliament's work expected in 2009 - pursuant to the lisbon treaty, this will include a growing volume of legislative work, a change in the system of remuneration for meps, as well as a public information campaign in connection with the european parliament elections - the total amount of expenditure will remain within the bounds previously set. within the context of the 2009 budget we should also properly evaluate the return on individual ambitious projects. firstly, there is talk about the european parliament's web tv project. in order to assess the usefulness of this and similar projects, we ought to aggregate data on the popularity of the european parliament's web tv and find out how many viewers are in fact attracted through these multi-million investments. in relation to the european parliament's communication policy and the expected public information campaign, greater weight should be placed on decentralised communication through parliament's information offices in the member states. communication with citizens of the various member states takes place more effectively by this means than when it is centralised. thank you for your attention. (fr) mr president, once again in this budget debate thanks must go to mr lewandowski for his very well balanced report. and once again i would remind you what an important year 2009 will be for european democracy: with both a new parliament and a new commission taking office, it will be a key year in terms of our institutions' communication with the public. however, in order that members of the public should feel interested in, and affected by, european issues and should turn out en masse to vote, communication emanating from the different institutions will have to be consistent and clear. with that in mind and in the interests of greater efficiency, close cooperation among the three main institutions that are engaged in communication - either directly or on a decentralised basis through their representations in the member states - is of the utmost importance with elections just a year away. such is the thinking behind amendment 2 to mr lewandowski's report, which my group has tabled. our aim is to be more citizen-friendly and that is a matter of real concern to all of us here in this house. (fi) mr president, i wish to thank the rapporteur, mr lewandowski, for doing an excellent job, and i would like to focus attention on a few points. firstly, i would like to say something about the regime for assistants. i am in favour of what the rapporteur has proposed. he states here that this is an important issue and it must ultimately be resolved as a result of this report. now i want to turn to the issue of the asbestos problem which has been discussed here. before any financing is granted it needs to be established who is responsible and how much money will actually be needed. there also needs to be a clear plan as to how to proceed. it is quite obvious that we cannot work in a building where, incredibly, we find there is asbestos after we have bought it. i would also like to draw your attention to the fact that there has been talk about an engineered materials arresting system (emas) for a long time now, although there are no clear plans regarding it. i also hope that the majority in parliament have clearly decided that the administration should draft a proposal that we invest in more environmentally friendly vehicles for everyday use here in parliament, but there are no plans yet for this either. (fi) mr president, i approve of mr lewandowski's report in principle, but we are abstaining because parliament's budget will not be voted on in its final form until the autumn and parliament's first draft budget is unsatisfactory. our experience shows that by the autumn it will be clearer and so we cannot as yet adopt a position on the final wording, which will not be presented until then. on a positive note i would like to draw attention to the statement by secretary general rmer, who said that travel expenses during the next parliamentary term will be paid entirely on the basis of genuine costs, and that no interim or temporary solutions will apply. i agree with the criticism made by mr mulder regarding the strasbourg building programme: in our view it will be a swindle if we have to carry out renovations due to asbestos. rapporteur. - (pl) mr president, in the first place, transparency in the rules governing the remuneration of parliamentary assistants that were are trying to achieve ought not to be an area for haggling and conflict among the political groups: it is the joint responsibility of parliament as a whole, which will be asking next year for a renewed vote of confidence. secondly, the climate of trust between us and the bureau will be all the better, the more frequently and more fully we are informed in advance of undertakings with financial implications. thirdly, the purpose of our work on the budget is precisely to prepare for the most likely scenario in the coming year. where there is uncertainty, the answer is a budget reserve, and that applies also to uncertainty with respect to the lisbon treaty and its impact. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow, 20 may 2008. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - (fr) the purpose of the report before us today is for our institution to state its position on the estimated budget for the european parliament for 2009. it will be a crucial year: a year in which parliament will be renewed; a year that will also see significant changes in the statutes for meps and their assistants; and, above all, the first year in which the lisbon treaty will be in force, giving our institution extra responsibility and the extra work that goes with it. i wish to support the draft estimates that the bureau has submitted. taking account of the increased financial requirements parliament will face, these draft estimates keep us below the threshold of 20% of expenditure under heading 5. our administration must pursue its rationalisation drive with a view to further optimising our efficiency, notably through staff redeployment. i would add that an impact analysis is being carried out of the needs that will be generated when the simplified treaty comes into force, and that adjustment of the estimates will be possible until the first-reading vote on the budget in the autumn.

parliament's priorities for the un human rights council (geneva, 1-26 march 2010) (continuation of debate) the next item is the council and commission statements on parliament's priorities for the un human rights council (geneva, 1-26 march 2010). (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the 13th session of the un human rights council is an extremely important occasion. i would simply like to mention one or two cases that are not addressed very often. specifically on the subject of prisons, but not those for terrorists, i would like to point out the truly inhumane conditions of the prisons in rwanda and in libya, where totally innocent people held in detention are sentenced to death. furthermore, i would like to mention the issue of the sahrawi people, which has remained unresolved for so long now, and i would also like to mention the rights of climate refugees who are driven from their countries by dramatic forms of climate change. these are all factors that must be taken into account, precisely because they are also the foundations of our society. (de) mr president, for its 60th birthday in 2005, the united nations gave itself two new structures. the first was the peacebuilding commission and the second was the human rights council. while the peacebuilding commission carries out its work fairly effectively and has largely met expectations, the same cannot be said, with the best will in the world, about the human rights council. it has been said here - and expressed in the resolution - that a reform is sorely needed. the work of the human rights council is too one-sided - my fellow members have mentioned this - for example, israel is discussed from a one-sided perspective. to be honest, i am not happy that the only major issue that the presidency has highlighted here is the goldstone report, which is certainly worth discussing, but it is not the main issue. if mr howitt says that the election of iran - if successful - would be a death blow to the human rights council, then i would like to know what that means. i would like a uniform position to be taken on this by our member states and also by the european external action service because i believe that, if things continue in this way, we will need to seriously consider putting the focus of our human rights work in the united nations back onto the third committee, which at least has universal representation and greater legitimacy. (nl) you know it, we know it, the un human rights council is one big farce. this council is being held to ransom by the organisation of the islamic conference, which is made up of countries which protect each other and which seek to provoke the fine state of israel and to falsely accuse it. mr president, this so-called human rights council opposes everything that human rights are about, in particular, freedom of expression. it is outrageous and despicable that this parliament should take this terrible council seriously. mr president, if this house really does believe in human rights, then it should condemn the steady stream of resolutions which seek to strangle freedom of expression, as well as flagrant human rights violations committed by the countries which make up the human rights council. mr president, in addition to saudi arabia, pakistan, indonesia and egypt, who are amongst the gravest violators of human rights in the world, now iran, too, wants to become a member of the human rights council. well then, we just need north korea to join the club and we will have pretty much all the rogue states happily sitting alongside each other. mr president, for my party, one thing is clear: the un human rights council is a dreadful body and one that cannot be taken seriously. this house must distance itself immediately and directly from the human rights council and absolutely refuse any dialogue with this bunch of villains. (ro) i wish to begin by reminding you that, when it was created as a unique body dedicated to human rights as part of the united nations system, the human rights council inspired hope, namely, the hope of increasing protection for fundamental rights at a global level. the introduction of the universal periodic review mechanism, which is the most important innovation in relation to the now defunct un commission on human rights, was intended to resolve the relevant problems, the excessive politicisation and selective approach in handling cases of serious human rights violations. this mechanism is vital so that the human rights council can fulfil its mandate in whatever way possible. however, it must be emphasised that the old demons have not disappeared entirely and excessive politicisation continues to affect the work of this body. on the other hand, we must say that the universal periodic review mechanism is not sufficient to ensure effective protection for human rights. when the council does not react with sufficient alacrity, as happened in the case of guinea, to let me give you just a single example, this has extremely serious consequences. this can make the perpetrators of human rights violations simply feel that they have nothing to worry about. this council's credibility depends therefore on its ability to take firm, rapid action when serious human rights violations occur. in this respect, it is important for the european union to promote the creation of mechanisms at human rights council level specifically designed to respond to crises such as those, if we take current examples, in afghanistan, guinea conakry, iran, yemen or iraq. i believe that it is in the european parliament's interest for this body, the human rights council, to be as powerful and effective as possible, because i would say that we need a credible partner in the dialogue on human rights. (ro) i would like to talk about the situation in the gaza strip which, as you know, is a constant source of concern in terms of respect for human rights, especially after the deterioration in circumstances as a result of the clashes last winter. i do not believe that we can measure who has suffered more in this conflict. military actions by both sides have meant that mainly civilians suffer, unfortunately. however, in the context of the situation on the ground, it is extremely difficult to differentiate between soldiers and civilians among palestinians. on the other hand, the rocket attacks launched by hamas have terrorised israeli civilians. i visited the area during the conflict and saw the problems and fears facing both sides. i believe that any attempt to pin the blame for the events which have occurred on just one side is at variance with the reality. the bloody clashes in the gaza strip and the tragic humanitarian consequences are a painful plea for concentrated action in all the hot spots around the globe, in particular, against the causes responsible for making defenceless civilians suffer, and for more extensive and effective involvement by international organisations, with a view to giving impetus to the dialogue for peace. this is an area where the european union has not only the necessary capacity and credibility, but also the duty to take more robust action globally. mr president, one parliamentary priority is also to address an alarming situation where the human rights council's activities have resulted in extreme politicisation. it is therefore of utmost importance that the eu member delegations should stand up for the establishment of criteria for becoming a member of the human rights council. that applies especially to minimum requirements of cooperation with special procedures, and resisting the use of 'no action' motions which have prevented the adoption of resolutions on certain states who are keen to avoid criticisms of their human rights policies. i would like to refer to two other parliamentary priorities. firstly, belarus. contrary to expectations, the human rights situation has not improved, but is worsening. i would like today to stress mr milinkevich's message. the eu has now got real leverage to put pressure on lukashenko's regime to make him bring about genuine improvement as a condition for further eu economic aid and cooperation. secondly, i would like to call for support for last week's public address by the 18 russian human rights activists, including sakharov prize winner kovalev, who are extremely worried about a further clampdown on independent satellite information in the russian language, which the kremlin has achieved through applying pressure. it is really damaging to the values of the eu to praise human rights advocates like kovalev and, at the same time, to surrender to mr putin's claims that broadcasting alternative information in the russian language by european satellites is something hostile. (ro) i would like to draw your attention during today's debate to the case of israeli soldier ghilad shalit, who was kidnapped in kerem shalom in june 2006, aged just 19. last week, i was part of the official european parliament delegation in israel and one of the meetings was with ghilad shalit's father, noam shalit. in spite of articles 13, 23 and 126 of the geneva convention on the rights of prisoners of war, ghilad, who also holds french citizenship, has not had his rights respected in terms of receiving visits from his family and the international red cross, receiving humane treatment and having the exact location where he is being held prisoner disclosed. i must emphasise that even article 77 of the goldstone commission report, which is otherwise critical of israel, recommends that ghilad shalit should enjoy the rights guaranteed by the geneva convention. on the other hand, israel respects the rights of prisoners. (hu) at the march session of the united nations human rights council, the european union must unequivocally state that the international community cannot keep silent about human rights violations, not only those occurring in developing countries but also the contraventions that may be observed in developed countries. the declaration on the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, adopted by the un general assembly on 18 december 1992, is equally binding on developing and developed countries, including eu member states. the first paragraph of the declaration's second article states that persons belonging to national minorities have the right to use their own language, in private and in public, without interference or any form of discrimination. at present, this article is often honoured in the breach in eu member states as well. the eu can only be credible if it finds a solution that deals with human rights contraventions within european union territories in a way that sets an example for the whole world. (el) mr president, the next two years will be crucial in crystallising the role of the un in the human rights sector because, as you know, the intergovernmental review of the human rights council will be published in 2011. there is a danger, during this period, that the countries to which my fellow members referred and which do not set particular store by this sector, will try to limit the role of the un. i should like to add the following to what has already been said: firstly, as the european union is - and i trust that it will continue to be - one of the most important factors in terms of the defence of human rights, one of our priorities must be for us to speak internationally with one voice and, where possible, to avoid discord. secondly, we need to step up our cooperation with the united states of america in the defence of human rights. thirdly, and lastly, the european parliament must - and can - carefully monitor the specific procedures that will follow in terms of the universal periodic examination of the council, so that there is a real and substantial contribution on our part to the promotion of human rights in all the member states of the united nations. (fr) mr president, mrs georgieva, mr lpez garrido, i would like to draw your attention to point 13 of this resolution on iran's candidacy in the united nations human rights council. on 15 february, iran was subjected to a universal periodic review, which reviews the situation regarding the protection and promotion of human rights in the country. the iranian regime asserted that respect for human rights is guaranteed there. i would like to underline various facts regarding these assertions by the current regime. only yesterday in parliament, mrs radjavi gave us an overview of the arbitrary arrests and acts of torture inflicted on iranian women and opponents of the regime. we also deplore the political conditions prisoners must endure, and camp ashraf has become the symbol of non-respect for human rights. my parliamentary colleagues provided several eyewitness accounts during the january part-session. today, we cannot accept iran becoming a member of the highest authority for the defence of human rights. consequently, i wonder what message we are going to send out to other states that genuinely respect human rights. europe must speak with one voice, demonstrating its consistency, and, as baroness ashton said in her statements, let us say that, at this stage, iran's candidacy is inconceivable. (sv) mr president, as regards our group's joint resolution on the un human rights council i am particularly pleased about paragraphs 6 and 25, in which we repeat the eu's strong support for country-specific resolutions. in those cases where human rights are systematically abused, country-specific resolutions are an incredibly important instrument, both in the human rights council and in the un general assembly. in many cases where the government of a country has long failed to participate in dialogue or programmes to improve the situation in question, country-specific resolutions represent the only remaining action that the international community can take against these crimes. it is not about naming and shaming, as some critics believe; neither is it the case that we in europe enjoy poking our noses into other countries' internal affairs. it is quite simply a matter of signalling that we will not accept a regime's systematic abuses and oppression of its own people. it is about showing that we side with liberty, not with oppression. that is why it is important that the eu camp continues to defend the existence of country-specific resolutions within the un system. mr president, the countries of the european union should put their own houses in order before pointing their fingers at others. many european union members prosecute and imprison people for non-violent freedom of speech. in particular, they seek to make any opposition to immigration a criminal offence. book-burning is alive and well. political parties are banned, as in belgium, or their ban is sought on invented evidence, as in germany, or a backdoor ban is sought, as in the united kingdom, where my own party has been banned, by a court order sought by the government, from accepting new members for an indefinite period. it is not enough for countries to call themselves democratic: they must also respect freedom of speech, they must respect freedom of association and they must respect freedom of elections. mr president, i am grateful for the speeches by members regarding this absolutely essential and crucial issue, which, as i said in my first speech, is one of the core elements of the european union: defending human rights. in this respect, we believe that participation in the united nations human rights council, including support for the existence of the council, is a position that must be upheld by the european union. the european union has always advocated that a human rights council should be established to replace the former commission, as i said before. furthermore, it has believed that it should be an instrument that can adequately deal with human rights situations worldwide, situations which require the united nations and its members to take action, adopt a position or make the corresponding declaration. in fact, the presidency of the european union, the presidency of the council, has always systematically taken part in the discussions at the various part-sessions of the human rights council on behalf of the european union, and this will continue to be the case. the presidency of the council of the union will take part in the next part-session of the human rights council on behalf of the council of the union. naturally, this is perfectly compatible with the declarations and positions of each of the member states of the union and of the european commission, as another institution of the union. i therefore would like to say that we are in favour of the existence of this body, and in favour of drawing on all of its potential, which, in some cases, is achieved, and in other cases is not: obviously, there are certain situations in which, as a result of the votes that take place, the european union and its member states do not achieve all their objectives. there are really positive cases, for example, the position on somalia: there are violations of human rights in that region. there are other cases in which the objectives have not been achieved, but the positives always outweigh the negatives. i would like to say that we are going to talk about some of the cases of countries that have been mentioned in the various speeches. i do wish to talk about the case of iran, because there have been repeated allusions to the subject of iran's candidacy. as you know, declarations have constantly been made on this subject. here in front of me, i have three declarations made this year alone by the union's high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, catherine ashton, regarding the situation in iran, condemning and expressing her concern about cases of human rights violations and executions that have taken place in iran. regarding the question of the candidacy, we first have to say that this is a matter that is currently still one of national competence (the position regarding candidacies of countries to join the human rights council). in any case, the matter of the human rights situation in iran and the human rights violations, and therefore the question as to whether or not iran's candidacy for the human rights council will be accepted, must be managed carefully in order not to cause the opposite of the desired effect. we therefore understand that the european union, here, must try to have the most coordinated position possible (which is what is happening at the moment), while respecting national competence and, as i said, exercising caution. in short, mr president, we consider the human rights council to be a place where we must defend the european union's position, and we think it is the right place to do so. furthermore, our commitment to it has always been to ensure that it does not cause the universal movement defending human rights to take steps backwards, to regress, especially in terms of humanity's achievement, which is considering human rights to be a universal value, a universal value that should be defended over and above borders, traditions and diversity, because it is something that is linked to the very essence of human beings. member of the commission. - mr president, thank you very much to all members of parliament for the recommendations they have conveyed. we will make sure that we share these with the high representative. let me make four points in response to specific questions and comments. first, on iran and the candidacy of iran: i very much support the view expressed by the spanish presidency. i can only stress that each and every elected member of the council is expected to display in practice the highest commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights. on the very sad case of the loss of human life in cuba, the death of mr orlando zapata, i would like to express the condolences of the commission to his family and strongly condemn the continuous imprisonment of more than 200 political dissidents in cuba as well as other expressions of disrespect for fundamental human rights. the commission calls upon cuba to change its policy and to live up to its obligations under international law. we will continue to address the human rights issue in the dialogue with cuba, with the authorities there, and we will use this dialogue as a vehicle to press the issue of human rights. on the calls by many for the eu to speak with one voice on human rights issues, the commission is very strongly in support. the fourth point, on gaza: i think it would be more appropriate to take up this point in the next discussion on the goldstone report. i have received six motions for resolutions to wind up the debate in accordance with rule 110(4) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. written statements (rule 149) i have many reservations about the unhcr's overall credibility. in any case, i hope that the presence of a delegation from the subcommittee on human rights at the next session of the council will provide the european institutions with an opportunity to raise the urgent issue of christianophobia. we are well aware that we do not need to turn back the clock to find serious cases of anti-christian persecution: we are not in fact talking about the past, but about the present, and unfortunately, in all likelihood, also about the future, because, every day, from every corner of the globe, we receive worrying, tragic news of christian believers being attacked, discriminated against and killed. we also know that the issue is a sensitive one, and that although it has not been addressed properly up to now, this has happened not only because of the diplomatic balance that the participants have to maintain in meetings such as the unhcr, but obviously also because of the anti-christian policy pursued by countries which, whilst they are not exactly enemies of christianity, do at least traditionally tolerate anti-christian acts. it follows that the eu and this house, on an occasion illuminated by the spotlight of world politics, should promote within the international community a new approach to the issue of christianophobia, so that it is universally and immediately recognised as a serious violation of human rights and of religious freedom, and so that the community takes action to halt its worrying spread. in writing. - i support this resolution which calls, inter alia, on the high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy and the member states to work towards a strong eu common position on the follow-up to the goldstone report and demands the implementation of its recommendations and accountability for all violations of international law, including alleged war crimes, and urges all sides to conduct investigations that meet international standards of independence, impartiality, transparency, promptness and effectiveness, in line with united nations general assembly resolution a/64/l.11. it further stresses that respect for international human rights law and international humanitarian law by all parties and under all circumstances is an essential precondition for achieving a just and lasting peace in the middle east. the resolution also calls on the eu high representative and member states to actively monitor the implementation of recommendations included in the goldstone report by means of consultation of eu external missions and ngos in the field and calls for the recommendations and related observations to be included in eu dialogues with all parties, as well as eu positions in multilateral fora.

results of the informal summit of heads of state and government (lisbon, 18-19 october 2007) (debate) the next item is the statements by the council and the commission on the results of the informal summit of heads of state and government in lisbon. may i give a warm welcome to the president of the eu council and prime minister of portugal, jos scrates. a very warm welcome this morning to the european parliament! an equally warm welcome, of course, to the president of the european commission, jos manuel duro barroso, and thank you to him for his work at the european summit. ladies and gentlemen, before we begin the debate i should like - and i do not wish to jump ahead at all - to thank the portuguese presidency sincerely for its enormous input and for the success achieved on thursday night at around 1 a.m. when it approved the treaty on european union and the treaty on the functioning of the european union. this is a great result for the european union and a great result for us all. on behalf of the european parliament, i should like to add that without the european parliament, we would not be where we are today. this is also a great result for us all because the treaty was and is the top priority for the european parliament if we are to come out ahead and be victorious in this treaty. with these congratulations to the portuguese presidency, and also to the commission - and i see commissioner wallstrm here, who has also made a significant contribution, next to the president of the commission - it gives me great joy now to hand over to the president of the eu council, jos scrates. a warm welcome to the european parliament! mr president, president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to dedicate my first words today to the memory of a friend of mine. in memory of mep fausto correia, who died a few days ago. he died young. his death is of course a great loss not only to the european parliament but also to the portuguese socialist party. fausto correia was a man of fine political and human qualities. you all had the opportunity to get to know him. he was an intelligent politician, open and always committed to noble european ideals. but i would like to lay special emphasis here on his human qualities of generosity, companionship and tolerance. indeed, it is our human qualities that give meaning to our political life. his passing is a personal loss to me, the loss of an old friend, with whom i shared many moments of my life, and i will miss him very much. ladies and gentlemen, when i presented the programme of the portuguese presidency to this plenary three months ago, i stated very clearly what would be the main challenge - the top priority - of the portuguese presidency: to draw up and reach an agreement on the new treaty, putting an end to the six years of impasse in the institutional debate in which the european union was immersed. today, therefore, it is with great satisfaction that i address the house to present the agreement reached by the intergovernmental conference on 18 october. this agreement was the basis for the new treaty of lisbon. the treaty will be signed on 13 december in the city whose name it will bear. the portuguese presidency began with the task of transforming the mandate that we inherited from the german presidency - which as i have said before was of exemplary clarity and precision - but to transform that mandate into a new treaty. that was our mission. the agreement we have reached confirms that the method and timetable we set out at the start of our presidency were right. it was necessary - as i told you here at the start of the presidency - to make the most of the june council to endeavour to complete the treaty not in december, as some advocated, but in october, at the informal council, and we were right. the truth is that we held the fastest intergovernmental conference in the history of the european union on a treaty revision. we began on 23 july and completed it on 18 october. when the history of this treaty is written we will understand better the importance of that political decision, of not leaving until the end of the year the task that we were able to complete earlier. europe needed a quick agreement and that is what it got. europe needed a sign of confidence and that is what it got. europe needed to turn towards the future and that is what it has done. we worked speedily with all the member states which, without exception, showed a constructive spirit and a will to overcome the remaining difficulties. this enabled us to present a full text of the treaty on 3 october, and brought us much closer to our goal. the issues that remained for the lisbon summit were limited, though obviously politically sensitive. in this context, our strategy was to try to reach an agreement on the first day of the summit. this seemed to us not only possible but also highly desirable as it would send a strong signal to europe. the signal that the eu is capable of taking rapid decisions, even decisions that everyone acknowledges are difficult. moreover, it was very important that we should be able to resolve these institutional issues on the first day of the informal council and, on the second day, right after that decision, to discuss globalisation and how europe should tackle global issues. in lisbon it was therefore possible to reach agreement on the following issues, enabling us to finalise the agreement on the treaty: first the ioannina clause, and in the agreement a solution was reached at two levels: a declaration relating to the system for decision-making in the council by a qualified majority that clarifies the actual ioannina safeguard mechanism; in addition a protocol that determines how this mechanism for consensus in the european council may be amended or revoked. as i have had the opportunity to say before, the ioannina issue, as i saw it in the agreement at the last council, required this clause to be mandatory by law, but not to be in the treaty. the solution that we adopted, a declaration plus a protocol guaranteeing that the decision on ioannina can be amended only by consensus, seemed to us to be the solution that was most true to the spirit of the last agreement. thus we provided guarantees on the ioannina compromise without undermining the integrity of the process of qualified-majority decision-making. there was also a need to resolve a political issue regarding the number of advocates-general in the court of justice. a declaration was agreed to the effect that the council would approve any request from the court of justice for the number of advocates-general to be increased by three (eleven instead of eight). in that case, poland will have a permanent advocate-general and no longer take part in the rotation system, while the existing rotation system will involve the rotation of five advocates-general instead of the current three. as for the appointment of the high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy, we agreed on a declaration to the effect that the european parliament should take part in the appointment process even in the first stage, from january 2009, through appropriate contacts. the conference also approved a declaration clarifying the delimitation of competences between the union and the member states as provided for in the treaties. finally, the issue of the composition of the european parliament. as you know, article 9a of the treaty on european union has been amended to state that the number of meps shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty, plus the president, i.e. 751, maintaining degressive proportionality. two declarations were attached to that amendment: one stating that the additional seat in the european parliament will be attributed to italy; the other guaranteeing that the european council will give its political agreement on the composition of the european parliament, based on the proposal from parliament itself. the council therefore accepted the criteria put forward by parliament and went ahead with what it considered an acceptable adjustment, with a view to adapting the current framework during the 2009-2014 period. apart from the issues that i have mentioned, the concern of the portuguese presidency was also to build into the treaty those rules and exception clauses that were in the mandate, naturally respecting the positions of the member states that wanted to obtain them, but always concerned to avoid detracting from the community decision-making process and the overall coherence of the treaty. thus we have a new treaty. it is a new treaty and a good treaty. a treaty that resolves the crisis of the past and puts europe in a position to set its eyes on the future. a treaty with significant advances, some of which i would like to highlight, if i may. this treaty adopts, without alteration, the enlargement of the european parliament's participation in the legislative process, as well as the innovations in the budgetary process, thereby enhancing the union's democratic legitimacy; this treaty improves the decision-making process, specifically by extending qualified-majority voting to the area of freedom, security and justice; again in the area of freedom, security and justice, this treaty enshrines the necessary legal bases for the development of more effective immigration and asylum policies, as well as police and judicial cooperation in the fight against terrorism and organised crime that strengthens security for our citizens; this treaty clearly lists the areas in which the member states have transferred powers to the eu; this treaty strengthens the supervisory role of the national parliaments. however, among all the advances contained in this treaty, there is one point that i would like to highlight in particular: this treaty explicitly gives legally binding force to the charter of fundamental rights, due to be proclaimed by the european union's three institutions on 12 december. in addition is the eu's accession to the european convention on human rights and the fact that a solution has been found to the issue of the legal framework of european citizenship, as requested, moreover, by the representatives of parliament. regarding external relations, the new institutional framework created by the treaty - notably the addition of the post of high representative and vice-president of the european commission for foreign affairs - is a reflection of europe's foreign policy ambitions, that will allow europe to play a more prominent role on the international stage and give it the means to cooperate effectively with our partners. ladies and gentlemen, the negotiations were tough and demanding, but europe succeeded. europe succeeded and achieved the crucial objective of having a treaty that asserts european values and strengthens europe as a global economic player, and of putting in place more effective institutional conditions to enable europe to play its role. europe therefore emerges stronger from this summit. stronger to face global issues. stronger to take up its role in the world. stronger because it has sent a signal of confidence to our economy and to european citizens. the lisbon treaty now demonstrates that europe is ready, confident and self-assured. the lisbon treaty has once again made europe ready for a new era. allow me to thank the european parliament and its president, hans-gert pttering and its representatives at the intergovernmental conference - elmar brok (ppe-de), enrique barn-crespo (pse) and andrew duff (alde). on behalf of the portuguese presidency i would like to thank you for your excellent collaboration in our work, your constructive suggestions, but mainly for your constant commitment to europe reaching an agreement and to its reaching agreement quickly. (loud applause) i would also like to thank the european commission, especially the president of the commission, to whom the presidency is hugely indebted over these months for his valued assistance in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. thank you very much, mr president. (applause) however, i must also express my deep gratitude to the general secretariat of the council, especially its legal services and its director-general, jean-claude piris. on behalf of the presidency, i would like to thank them for their hard work, skill and dedication. they did an absolutely magnificent job. i would also like to thank all the representatives of the member states who took part, at various levels, in the intergovernmental conference. the presidency will not forget the spirit of cooperation, commitment and openness that everyone displayed in seeking the best solutions. ladies and gentlemen, allow me now to give very personal thanks. i would like to thank the foreign affairs minister, sitting next to me, lus amado, the secretary of state, lobo antunes, and all the portuguese diplomats who gave their best during this period to ensure that it would be remembered, without doubt, as one of the great achievements of the eu presidency. ladies and gentlemen, having achieved the goal of finalising the lisbon treaty, the heads of state or government were able to devote the morning of day two to debating the external dimension of the lisbon agenda and how europe should respond to the challenges of globalisation. it was an excellent debate, featuring the valued contribution of the president of the european parliament. it was also a debate looking to the future. the president of the european commission presented an important contribution to the discussion, based on the communication on 'the european interest: succeeding in the age of globalisation'. this document was highly praised by the heads of state or government. the main points covered in the debate were the financial markets in the light of the recent turmoil, and climate change in view of the bali conference. among the various conclusions that could be drawn from the debate, i would like to highlight one: the idea that pervaded the debate on that friday morning, that europe is now equipped - and even duty-bound in some areas - to lead the globalisation process; be it in the reciprocal opening-up of markets, improving environmental, social, financial and intellectual property standards, or strengthening strategic cooperation with our international partners. ladies and gentlemen, allow me to say one last thing before i finish. it is true that 18 october ended with an agreement on the lisbon treaty, but that day also began with another important agreement that i would like to tell you about here: the agreement between the european social partners on the new challenges for the labour market. this was also an important agreement. through this agreement, the social partners set an example of constructive engagement, responsibility and social dialogue. a good example of attention to the need for dialogue, of the need for reform in a globalised and constantly changing world. ladies and gentlemen, allow me to end on a personal note. in political life it is rare that we have the opportunity to serve our country and serve europe at a critical moment. i feel honoured to have had that opportunity. i would like to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for the support from all the benches that i have always had in this house. however, our work is not finished. we have much to do. for my part i would like to assure you that the presidency will continue to work with the same commitment, energy and conviction that we began with and to work for a stronger europe and a better world. (loud applause) many thanks, president-in-office, for your report and for your work. ladies and gentlemen, you have heard about the composition of the european parliament and the report by the president-in-office did not discuss the voting rights of the president of the european parliament. i shall therefore emphasise here once again that this was not about the european council either. the president of the european parliament will, if he agrees, make use of his rights, of course. no-one can take that away from him and the european council has not taken it away from him either. i should like to state this here for the record. i should now like to ask the president of the european commission, jos manuel duro barroso, to be kind enough to speak to us. president of the commission. - (pt) mr president, president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, the lisbon summit was a summit of a united europe of solidarity. the eu has emerged from a period of six years of discussing institutional issues and from the divisions caused by those debates. we have reached agreement on the lisbon treaty. first of all i would like to pay a sincere tribute to the work of the portuguese presidency, and especially to the determined leadership of prime minister jos scrates. i would also like to extend these compliments to all of his team, whose skill and dedication i witnessed almost on a daily basis. it is also right to acknowledge the remarkable work of the german presidency, especially of chancellor angela merkel when she succeeded in defining a mandate, a clear and precise mandate that was the basis for the intergovernmental conference. however, it is also true that without the determination and competence of the portuguese presidency we would not now be celebrating the fact that we have transformed a mandate into a treaty. allow me to say that it is of special significance that the treaty will be signed on 13 december in lisbon at the jeronimo monastery, precisely where the treaty of accession of portugal to the european community was signed. twenty years after portugal's accession to the european community, portugal seems to be repaying europe for everything it has done for portugal by helping europe to overcome this impasse. prime minister, portugal has every reason to feel proud of its work, of the work of the portuguese presidency in concluding the treaty of lisbon. let me also salute the european parliament for its commitment during the igc. throughout this process the european parliament showed a strong political will to resolve the institutional issue, being determined to reinforce european democracy. i wish in particular to pay tribute to the role of president pttering and the delegation of the european parliament - mr brok, mr barn crespo and mr duff - and to thank them for the constructive relationship they had with the commission. this was, indeed, exemplary cooperation, and i think we both made a contribution to very important advances in the new treaty, namely the issues of citizenship. the treaty of lisbon is the first treaty of the enlarged union. it is the first time in the history of european integration that states which were once divided by a totalitarian curtain together negotiated and reached agreement on a common european treaty. it is appropriate that we all remember today the importance of the berlin declaration, which celebrated not only the 50th anniversary of the treaty of rome but also the emergence of a free and re-united europe. let me recall today some of the predictions we have heard during the last two years. in 2005, after the two negative referenda, we heard some people saying that the european union of 25 or 27 would never agree on a treaty, whatever its content. there were far too many different national interests to allow the union to reach a consensus, some sceptics said. in 2007, critics said that member states would never agree on a mandate. then they said that a mandate from the june european council would never be respected. on my way to lisbon last week i was still hearing some critics saying that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach an agreement and that delegations had even booked hotels until sunday morning - maybe expecting to benefit from the very nice weather in lisbon and portugal. the fact is that 27 member states reached a consensus, respected the mandate and agreed on a treaty - and all of this on the thursday night, after dinner. the success of lisbon tells us that the european union is, indeed, tougher than it looks, with a strong ability to recover from setbacks. i am proud to say that the european union today is alive and delivering. the commission is happy with the results of the igc. the two non-negotiable conditions set by the commission were fully respected. on the one hand, the lisbon treaty has clearly advanced from the current status quo. i always said that the commission could not accept a solution less ambitious than the nice treaty. in fact we wanted as much progress as possible. on the other hand, we fought hard to keep the competence of the commission intact, and to keep the community method at the centre of the european union. there were, let us be honest, certain attempts to reduce and to weaken the competence of the commission. let me be clear, there is no european integration without strong european institutions, and i believe this treaty will reinforce the european institutions, not weaken them, because if you want the european union to have an increased capacity to act, you need strong, effective, democratic and accountable european institutions. the treaty of lisbon will reinforce the democratic nature of the european union. first, thanks to the efforts of the european parliament, there is now a clear definition of what european citizenship means. second, the reform treaty also gives legal force to the charter of fundamental rights, which will be a central part of the system of checks and balances in our union of law. together with president pttering and prime minister socrates, we will proclaim the charter in the european parliament before the signature of the reform treaty. the solemn dignity of the charter will thus be properly recognised here in strasbourg. third, the european parliament will have a greater role in the legislative process of the union. the fourth democratic advance introduced by the reformed treaty regards the rights of national parliaments, which will reinforce the principles of accountability and subsidiarity. however, the central feature of the democratic nature of the union remains the european parliament. one of the things i most enjoy when i am in strasbourg is to listen to the many political leaders and political figures from all over the world addressing this plenary on their aspirations for democracy, and their strong beliefs in freedom and individual rights. that really is one of the vocations of the european parliament - to be the house for the voices of freedom in this world. it is something that should make all europeans proud. when you hear those voices, you also realise what we have achieved in europe, because once we also had people in european cities, marching for the same democratic rights. we should be very proud to live on a continent where, thanks to the european union, we can enjoy fundamental rights, and we will say that together when we approve the reform treaty and the charter of fundamental rights. the european union faces many challenges, both internal and external. our citizens want results. the treaty of lisbon will turn a new page in our ability to deliver, and will reinforce our capacity to act. in particular, the treaty will introduce substantial advances in the area of justice and home affairs. the reform treaty will also reinforce the european union's cohesion in external affairs. i personally attached the highest importance to one of the most important innovations in this treaty, which is, precisely, the creation of a high representative of the european union for foreign policy who will at the same time be vice-president of the commission. this is a great opportunity for the european union to act in a coherent and united manner in the world. our internal prosperity, our freedom and our security depend on the capacity of the european union to act decisively at the global level. with the reform treaty, europe will have the conditions and instruments to shape globalisation and not to hide from globalisation. we should not miss this opportunity. i know that some committed europeans are not happy with the number of opt-outs. the commission and i would obviously have preferred to avoid those opt-outs and specific arrangements. however, diversity is a central feature of the european union, and sometimes it requires political and institutional compromises. i would prefer to have specific opt-outs for specific countries than to be forced to lower the overall level of ambition of our treaty and our europe. the crucial point is that despite our diversity, we remain united regarding fundamental goals, fundamental values and fundamental principles. we have many tasks ahead: economic reform, growth and jobs, the reinforcement of social cohesion, our focus on innovation, our proposals on energy and climate change, and our programme for justice, freedom and security. we need to keep proving that we are not engaged in institutional navel-gazing and show that we are dealing with the real issues facing europe. a great signal also came from the social partners on the very day of the beginning of our summit, when the social partners at european level agreed on an analysis of the labour market in europe, and in general terms welcomed the concept of flexicurity. this showed that the social partners also want to work with us in this proactive attitude towards globalisation. regarding lisbon, we also made progress on the second day of our summit. we discussed the great issue for the european union in the 21st century, which is to promote the european interest in the age of globalisation. our discussion was the natural complement to concluding the reform treaty. the message was clear: after concluding the negotiations on the institutions, let us put those discussions behind us and face the real issues that are of most concern to our citizens, where they want to see us delivering concrete results. we had a very positive debate. the paper presented by the commission, based on the concept of the european interest, was fully endorsed, and the decision was taken to work on a declaration on globalisation for the december european council, to show that tackling globalisation is a common thread in much of the european union's work today. the heads of state and government welcomed the concept of the fifth freedom: freedom of circulation of researchers and ideas, which is a cornerstone of our response to globalisation. that is particularly important, as we are engaged in crucial debates about galileo and preparing to implement the european institute of technology. i truly welcome the spirit in which that debate was held. it was clear that we now need to reinforce the external dimension of the lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. it was clear that, without further commitment from the member states on issues regarding education, innovation, research and technology, we would not succeed. i think it is also fair to say that all member states recognise the need for a european-level approach and that we need more action at european level if we really want to succeed in the age of globalisation. this commission has argued all along that institutional reform is important, but that we also need delivery of results, side-by-side. as the commission said in 2005 and 2006, that twin-track approach was the way out of the institutional stalemate. in lisbon we achieved the strategic objective: we agreed on a reform treaty. now it is crucially important to achieve a further goal, which is the ratification of the lisbon treaty before the european elections in 2009. i believe there is, indeed, a new political confidence in europe. the last polls demonstrate the highest support for the european union since 1994. the political climate is right to move ahead. the igc and the lisbon informal council demonstrated that, when european institutions and member states cooperate, we are able to solve what seem to be even the most complicated and most challenging problems. it is my wish that the spirit of lisbon which brought us a consensus on the eu treaty will inspire the european union in the year to come towards a successful ratification process. we need it for a strong european union that delivers results for its citizens. many thanks, commission president. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (fr) mr president, president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is primarily my own satisfaction and that of my group that i would like to express. satisfaction at the result obtained last thursday in lisbon, and satisfaction at the road angela merkel set out on and mr scrates continues to travel. by equipping itself with the institutional tools it needs to function, europe is finally acquiring the means to meet the major challenges of the 21st century. that was our wish. for this reason, we have supported this text since the start of its preparation, though as you know, most of us would have preferred a still more ambitious text. this treaty is arousing criticism here and there. personally i welcome the agreement reached in lisbon, as it signals the start of a new european dynamic. simplified treaty, reform or reforming treaty, modified or modifying treaty, the name matters little. what matters is not the box itself but what is in the box. this treaty will be officially signed in lisbon on 13 december. that is an excellent date. the number 13 has always brought me luck. look at my date of birth; i was born on the 13th, so it is excellent. it will then have to be ratified by all the member states before the 2009 european elections. some have already made it known that the process will begin the day after the signature in lisbon, and i am delighted about this. to the heads of state or government of the european union i would just like to say that it is important for this treaty to be the basis of a european project founded on the true membership of its citizens. the eu institutions and member states must try to achieve this by explaining, then by explaining and finally by explaining some more. what does this mean? it means giving substance to the provisions of the treaty that affect the democratic life of the union. the citizens' initiative and the involvement of the national parliaments mean that information will have to be provided about the content of the charter of fundamental rights, which enshrines the essential rights of european citizens. however, it also means providing better information to our citizens about who the elected representatives in this parliament are - there will be 751 of them in 2009 - and what they do. it means explaining how qualified majority voting, which will become the rule, will enable europe to act in new areas such as judicial and police cooperation, environmental protection, economic policy and immigration. it also means explaining to our partners on the international stage that a high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy, who will also be vice-president of the european commission from 1 january 2009, will be the primary contact, along with the president of the council, who will be elected for two and a half years and will facilitate cohesion and consensus within the european union so it can finally speak with one voice. if the treaty of lisbon promises that the european union will be more democratic, more transparent, more effective and more capable of acting as a single political entity on the international stage, it is to its citizens that this needs to be explained first of all. thanks to this treaty, europe will finally be able to move from discussion to action. it will be able to begin far-reaching and necessary reforms to effectively combat crime and terrorist threats. it will also be able to affirm its role as a world leader in the fight against climate change. ladies and gentlemen, when dealing with our international partners on such important challenges, we cannot allow ourselves to get caught up in unproductive divisions any longer. the journey that began in berlin, that has stopped over in lisbon and will pass through ljubljana and paris, is heading in the right direction because it is finally laying foundations for consistent european policies; policies that should aim primarily for the protection, well-being and prosperity of citizens who are demanding even more of europe, as our polish friends who turned out en masse to vote have shown us. for them and for all the others, let us live up to expectations. on behalf of the pse group. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by thanking mr scrates and mr amado. they have had a difficult task, a very difficult task. on behalf of the socialist group in the european parliament, i would say to them that they have completed this task most excellently. congratulations, prime minister! (applause) europe is facing major challenges - not only from now on, but for many years already. for years now we have constantly been debating the same problems. the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger and bigger - within the european union and throughout the world, between our continent and other continents. social justice at home and social justice throughout the world is one of the major challenges for the eu. the states that belong to the united nations and are island states have been crying out for help in the united nations for years. several of these states know that if climate change continues as it is and sea levels rise, they will be no more within the foreseeable future. there is nothing theoretical about climate change, but there is something practical that demands immediate action by the european union. we are facing challenges. you have rightly embraced one of these challenges in your presidency: the challenge on the african continent. as super-rich europeans, we cannot look on as this continent dies, either from civil wars or from aids. the portuguese presidency was therefore well advised to focus on africa. we - as europeans, as states and as parliament - are being asked to face up to this issue and have been asked to do so, ladies and gentlemen, not just for a few years now, but for a very long time. since 2001, however, the european union has primarily concerned itself not with these challenges, but with constitutional issues. this has taken far too long! it is good that this is now over, that the constitutional framework is finally in place so that we can now take on the political challenges on this basis. the great success of the past weekend is that we are now finally able to concentrate on what needs to be done politically and on what the people expect from us. therefore, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, there were some encouraging signs last weekend. the summit with the social partners is a step in the right direction. capital and labour must be able to speak to one another again on an equal footing. for us socialists, this is one element of this new draft constitution - it should not be called this, and i must say that it has lagged far behind the constitution - that social justice is practised here in europe through greater co-determination on the part of the european parliament. nothing can be done in terms of a qualified majority without us socialists, without the left in europe. i would therefore say that this treaty will help europe's legislation to become more social, based on the aims you have agreed with the social partners at this summit. with future majority decisions, this finally gives us the opportunity - in agricultural policy as well, by the way - to tackle the reforms that we have long been reminding everyone about. these reforms are also necessary because anyone who wants to appear credible at the world trade round - at the doha round - and in bali will at some point have to say: yes, we need a reform of eu policy on subsidies. this, too, is becoming possible with this treaty. there are challenges that we must face. the president of the united states is talking about a third world war and we are talking about whether the president of the european parliament does or does not have voting rights! this is the kind of disproportionality that needs to be brought to an end in europe. the draft treaty will also be able to stop this. i believe we have taken a great step forward with this treaty. europe is becoming more democratic, europe is becoming more transparent and the institutions are becoming more effective. we in the socialist group in the european parliament have to concede that we have not achieved everything we would have liked, and to those who are now screaming again that this is now in fact the constitution - i read in some british newspapers that a few of our fellow members are asserting that this is essentially the constitution - i must unfortunately say that they have neither read the constitution, nor have they read this treaty. this treaty lags far behind the constitution. however, it is clearly more than nice! therefore, progress is not always made in the direction we would like. sometimes it takes more time. one thing can be said, however: what is now on the table is better suited in terms of democratic policy, social policy and in terms of the institutions to giving us the capability and making us fit to effectively tackle the worldwide social challenges that are facing us. the socialist group in the european parliament is able to approve this treaty, as are all my group's delegations, and this was the result of our debate yesterday. (applause) on behalf of the alde group. - mr president, it is fitting that the reform treaty should be signed in the city which caesar once named 'felicitas julia', because it has overcome years of attack, siege, even last-minute subterfuge, to emerge bloodied and bruised, yet more or less intact, as the blueprint for a more democratic and transparent european union. so felicitas, jose. may your name, like caesar's, forever be associated with the historic changes you wrought in lisbon - changes like normalising codecision, ending the tyranny of council vetoes, placing energy, and justice and home affairs, under democratic scrutiny: these changes give our union the capacity to confront the challenges of globalisation. (laughter) it is a pity that the treaty is not simpler to digest, but - after being butchered by the ballpoint pens of civil servants from 27 member states - what would you expect? your famous poet fernando pessoa once wrote: 'no intelligent idea can gain general acceptance unless some stupidity is mixed in with it'. well, in this case, the culprit was national interest, which watered down, or rendered indecipherable, policies and practices that are in all of our interests. some of the national horse trading you engaged in made it look like comedy descending into farce: deciding that austrian universities can break the law for another five years while the policemen look the other way, or creating two classes of european citizen: those with fundamental rights and those without. or suggesting that the president of the european parliament should forsake his right to vote; or, indeed, that council has the right to determine parliament's rules of procedure. but the real tragedy is this: we saw not a single national leader return home flying the flag for europe. instead, they crowed about the opt-outs and the derogations and the exclusions which disfigure the text before us today. how do you guys expect to convince the people if you sound so unconvinced yourselves? if the poverty of aspiration implicit in a minimalist treaty is reflected in your poverty of enthusiasm? look, it is your right to act as you choose, but it is also your responsibility. the only thing this parliament need regret amongst the many successes is the process. the codes of transparency and democracy which drove the constitutional convention were a good deal preferable to secretive summits, and backroom deals in the wee small hours of thursday morning. issues of such importance should not be decided in such a kamikaze manner. (applause) nonetheless, again: congratulations. i propose a toast, with my glass half full: two cheers for the lisbon treaty. let us hope its advances move us forward faster, and convert cynicism into renewed belief. (applause) on behalf of the uen group. - (ga) mr president, the union's leaders are to be congratulated for reaching agreement on the new eu treaty. decisions will be easier to take within the eu institutions at eu level. that is exactly what the new treaty will do. the eu works well when parliament, the commission, and the council are all pulling together in the new spirit. mr president, whilst others may say what happened at the lisbon summit was shocking, i am of the firm belief that the elected representatives that are the governments of the peoples of the member states of the european union are entitled to defend what they see as the rights of their people within that union. i think that when we look at the overall example that has been given with this lisbon summit, we can see positives from it: we can see movement forward being made and, most importantly of all, an opportunity for a new zone and a new area of the development of the european union to come into play, in particular with those areas where codecision now reigns on issues of environment, globalisation, research, education and the necessity of the response of the european institutions to an ever-increasing speed of change within the world. but there are also difficulties - and some colleagues have referred to them - in the area of justice and home affairs, for instance, where ireland had to look for a specific opt-in and opt-out with regard to certain areas. that does not mean that we are against more cooperation and coordination. in fact, our role within europol and within eurojust in dealing with drug trafficking and tackling cross-border crime has been ahead of most. we are working with eight other countries in the maritime organisation analysis centre to combat cocaine trafficking. but i think the one and most important issue, when we speak about democracy and ratifying this treaty, is that the ratification process is another step towards informing the people and public of europe of what we can do. unfortunately, in only one country - my own country, ireland - will there be a referendum. i would appeal to colleagues when we speak about the future development of europe not to make the same mistake that president prodi made when he was president of commission by saying that this is only the first step towards a further treaty and further treaties which will bring about change, because the people who vote in the referendum ask the question: what is the point in voting on this treaty if we have to vote again on another one at some future date? allow us, where we have to connect democratically with the people, to tell them exactly what is in this treaty and, most importantly of all, let this be a welcome to small and medium-sized countries of what can be achieved by defending their interests and rights. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the group of the greens/european free alliance has always been a staunch supporter of the compelling need for a european constitution, of a brief, strong text, an expression of european democracy and of the cohesion of its peoples. we supported the constitutional treaty - albeit with its enormous defects - and today we hope that this confused thing, we cannot call it a simplified treaty because frankly that is a joke, which today you have presented to us, is ratified so that we can proceed, mr crowley, to the next stage. we will not join in the glorification of this result, which contains only backward steps compared with the constitutional treaty. fortunately, prime minister scrates, the igc was short. i do not know, had it been longer, what other masterpieces of clarity the council and its legal and diplomatic service would have given us. therefore, mercifully it was short. what matters to us today is to denounce those responsible for this situation, which we consider highly unsatisfactory: first of all, the european convention and its president, who systematically refused to include in time on the agenda the breakdown of the dogma of the veto on amendments to the treaty and today is paying the price with the systematic dismantling of his work and oblivion. no one, including prime minister scrates, has recalled the work of the convention, here; the pro-european advocates of not having referendums, who find themselves today empty-handed, with less democracy, more nationalism and more confusion. the british government and the british media system, which with all of its airs of pragmatism and reliability, in reality have shamefully given in to the howls of murdoch's tabloids and - after helping to make the charter of fundamental rights and the constitutional treaty much, much worse than what it could have been - have managed today to persuade public opinion that to have fewer rights, less protection, less transparency and less democracy is a great victory. this parliament and the commission, which have decided to remain silent for two years pending a miraculous initiative from mrs merkel, the european council and the governments who have decided to snatch away the process of reform of the treaties from public opinion and national parliaments and to play the card of entanglement and confusion to save what could be saved. president, ratifications have now started, a process during which the greens will not lie to public opinion. this text contains positive elements, but it is full of traps and spanners in the works. we will work so that the ratification and application of the new treaty do not leave aside the fact that the path towards a truly free, open and democratic europe is not over and that this is only a small stage, and is not even that glorious. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (fr) mr president, president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, general de gaulle said of valry giscard d'estaing: 'his problem is the people'. this statement would apply rather well to the european council today. once again, at the summit, the 27 member states showed themselves to be very adept at horse-trading. the prvert-style inventory of concessions granted to all the recalcitrant member states deserves a mention. this is the cost of getting everyone to agree, from the descendents of the eu's founding fathers to the most inveterate euro sceptics. in the end, only two or three things seem untouchable, and in the european council nobody has thought of touching them. for example, the restrictive framework that the european union's economic and social policies must fit into: an open market economy with free competition, the issue of credit by the european central bank, the orientations of the stability pact, strict respect for freedom of movement of capital, the gradual removal of everything investors consider a barrier to trade, and the concentration of key powers in the institutions, which are inaccessible to citizens, national parliaments and even governments themselves, particularly in smaller countries, and indeed the dimensions assumed by military aspects in the european union's foreign policy. these are 'red lines', as they say in english, which must not be crossed according to the eu's ruling circles. the problem is that it is precisely at these issues that most of the questions and criticisms from our people are directed, and it is the persistent absence of answers to these questions, the repeated refusal to hear these criticisms, that is fuelling the crisis of confidence that the european union is suffering from among our fellow citizens. furthermore, if the members of the european council had opened the windows of their meeting room on 18 october, they would have been able to measure the strength of this disaffection in person, as expressed on the streets of lisbon by the largest demonstration seen in portugal in the last 20 years, and i think that neither mr scrates nor mr barroso will contradict me on this point. the ultimate challenge for the european union - we read in the commission communication at the lisbon summit - is to explain to citizens what the european union represents for europeans. always explaining, never taking account. always communicating, never having open debates and therefore, with greater reason, not having referendums. yes, the european council's problem is the people, but without the people there would be no future for a great european ambition. surely this question really deserves to be discussed openly one day? that is what i am asking you. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - mr president, this is not the first time that i have heard the president of the commission and heads of state come to this chamber after a summit in the ancient city of lisbon, proclaiming the whole thing to be a fantastic success and an example of how successful the european union is. yes, you remember, mr barroso, don't you? the lisbon agenda. here i was, seven years ago, being told that, because of that weekend meeting in lisbon, we were about to become the most high-technology economy in the world with full employment and high growth rates. well, as we know, we are 75% of the way through and the thing has crashed in ruins. i would not, if i were you, be too complacent about the summit you had in lisbon last week either because, for once, the national parliaments will have their say. this, of course, is unusual because, generally, national parliaments do not have much to do any more, as the eu institutions have usurped them. however, the national parliaments will have their say and there is a real chance that we will get more referendums than just in ireland. of course that is the one thing that you people do not want, isn't it? you loathe democracy so much now that you actually call it populism. you treated the french and dutch referendums with contempt and you refused to take no for an answer. you are the euronationalists, dangerous people who will stop at nothing. what that summit in lisbon represented was a giant deceit and an attempt to impose upon the peoples of europe a constitution just by dropping that word and repackaging it, when it actually has all the same proposals. it is absolutely disgraceful that you are doing this, but i have hope and faith that in westminster, the mother of parliaments for once will do her job and the british people will get a referendum. we have heard enough from the political classes of europe. it is time that in britain and in many other countries of europe we heard what the people have to say. you cannot push on with this project without the support of the people. let the people speak. on behalf of the its group. - (fr) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, two and a half years after the french and the dutch rejected the european constitution, in lisbon on 19 october the european council adopted the simplified reform treaty, which is a very bad name for it since it has been made more complex and only marginally 'reforms' the rejected constitution. in short, they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes and convince us that this text has nothing in common with the previous one, to avoid facing up to the people of europe with a referendum. you seem to be saying that this is too serious a matter to be entrusted to the people. well, we think the exact opposite. insofar as this is a cut-and-paste of the european constitution, it deserves to be put to a referendum on ratification in each country, starting with france and the netherlands. only a referendum can cancel what another referendum has decided. today, without trying to be party political, i am launching a big petition in my own country to try to make the french president who initiated the european mini-treaty do a u-turn and offer a referendum. this is about the future of our respective nations, their sovereignty, independence, identity and freedom. we cannot, for example, give responsibility for representing us abroad to a high representative, any more than we can watch our seat on the united nations security council being challenged in the name of the legal personality of the european union. or allow our judicial and legislative corpus to be dismantled by judges in luxembourg. the parties to such a denial of democracy would carry a heavy burden of responsibility before history. (sk) at the meeting of the heads of state and government last week, a treaty was agreed that should adapt the european institutions to a new situation and improve the existing treaties. since the present structure of the european union is vastly different from what it was in 1957, we have to adopt a new european document; we need clear new rules. i fully support this process. in order to be trustworthy, the european union must guarantee human rights and fundamental liberties to its citizens. these values are mentioned several times in the preamble and in the articles of the treaty, and the union is founded precisely on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy and equality. i regret very much that although in article 3 of the new treaty we profess to act strictly in accordance with the principles of the united nations charter protecting human rights, in the same breath we refuse to include the charter of fundamental rights of the european union in the treaty. i am generalising on purpose because i do not wish to point the finger at individual member states that refuse to express their opinion on this important issue. the charter of fundamental rights is absent from the treaty and i regret this. does the charter not endorse human rights, enshrined in constitutional traditions and common to all member states? i believe that the members of this parliament currently play a very important role in the process of reforming the treaty; they defend the opinions of the people of europe and they should act as a catalyst for consensus in areas such as human rights. congratulations to you, mr socrates and mr barroso. european parliament representative at the intergovernmental conference. - (de) mr president, president-in-office, commission president, ladies and gentlemen, the german presidency has succeeded in drawing up a mandate and the portuguese presidency in achieving acceptance of it and implementing it. for this you have my thanks. because of the discussions of recent days about a number of minor matters it has been forgotten that this treaty is a breakthrough in democracy and the capacity to act, because the european parliament now has 95% of legislation in a codecision procedure, because the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure has been removed and full rights are available in the budget sector and in the agricultural sector, the european parliament has something to say on third country treaties and on ratifications, the european parliament elects the commission president and without the european parliament, the commission and the high representatives do not take up office. it is the case that democracy and the capacity to act have been created with the removal of the third pillar and that with the new decision-making methods in the council for the expansion of codecision, the capacity to act has been improved. codecision and qualified majority decision-making are now the rule in legal terms. this is a reversal of matters, which is of great significance. the charter of fundamental rights and legal personality are there and furthermore the united kingdom's red lines have been preserved in their entirety because in these areas there are opt-outs in legal and internal policy. we still have to clarify certain matters: the issues associated with article 24. we must fight to ensure that the transition from one treaty to the next is not misused by the council with regard to the allocation of posts, such as those of the high representatives, for instance. we are merely able to state that there are 751 members of the european parliament and i see no post where there is a difference in voting rights within this text. furthermore, i must state that we really do have to ensure now that this text is implemented, that we translate the constitution into reality in the way we understand this treaty. mr president, allow me to make one comment. in 1994 i was appointed for the first time on behalf of this house - for which i should like say thank you - to the westendorp group. this was my fourth intergovernmental conference. when we started, we had nothing to say as parliament. i should like at this point to thank mrs guigou, mr tsatsos, mr hnsch and mr mndez de vigo, as well as my two fellow members from the intergovernmental conference, for their great cooperation over these last 13 years. recognition, too, for this continuity in the work to extend parliament's competence. european parliament representative at the intergovernmental conference. - (pt) congratulations; the president has lived up to his surname, working with passion and reason for the success of the summit. enrique barn crespo, european parliament representative at the intergovernmental conference - (es) president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, i can testify as someone who was present at the end of the intergovernmental conference - i think that it is the first time that the president and the three representatives have been admitted to the conference - and i can say that the portuguese presidency has listened to the european parliament: firstly by restoring citizenship, something that appeared to be impossible until mid-september, and secondly, by giving proper treatment to the charter of fundamental rights, which also seemed impossible, and also by recognising the substantial extension of majority voting. it is not only the european parliament that has gained things, it is europe, and we have helped. the president-in-office started his speech by talking about ioannina. i challenge him that we should explain to the people of europe what the protocol is on the ioannina declaration, and what has surprised me most is that governments have not fought very hard in the council to stop the introduction of the luxembourg compromise into the treaty, which would mean destroying it. more or less the same applies - and i am addressing the president of the commission - to the subject of the high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. you are going to have to work very hard on that, because parliament is going to defend its rights in order to ensure that there is an intelligent solution when the treaty enters into force, which i hope will be the case, given that there will be a series of very interesting posts to allocate and, of course, we want to monitor this process democratically. to conclude, mr president, prime minister scrates said that the treaty of lisbon has been born. it is still a very small child, and i hope that in december everyone signs that they want it to grow, and, above all, that everyone acts with mutual loyalty and solidarity so that this lisbon treaty becomes a reality. many thanks, mr barn crespo, for recognising this task as well as the many other tasks beforehand. european parliament representative at the intergovernmental conference. - mr president, for 26 countries, the treaty is certainly a great step forward towards european unity and certainly rivals the treaty of maastricht in importance. of course, the treaty lacks the simplicity of its late, lamented predecessor, but it preserves all the principal reforms. abroad and inside the union, people will soon see a more effective, efficient and democratic union. but in one country this is not so. the british still seem intimidated by the success of the eu and have sought, at the igc, to reduce the scope and force of common policies in the area of fundamental rights, freedom, security and justice, and in the common foreign security and defence policies. why such a strategy of non-cooperation is thought to serve the interests of the british people is not clear. nor do mr farage or the conservative party provide a preferable or alternative solution. it is my desire and trust that this strange, idiosyncratic british policy will prove to be as short-lived as possible. thank you very much, mr duff, for your great engagement in your responsibilities. (pt) president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, the best way of celebrating the important result achieved last weekend, thanks to the mandate negotiated during the german presidency and the effective commitment of the portuguese presidency, that i would especially like to commend, is to make effective use of the new institutional instruments and achieve better results. recently, european citizens have repeatedly been told, quite rightly, that we needed a new institutional framework to adapt the europe of nice to the europe of enlargement. it is now time to prove that this reorganised europe is capable of fulfilling its new mission. fifty years after the signing of the treaty of rome the threat hanging over europe is no longer that of war or perpetual walls of woe. the new challenge is to face the global world in which there are ever more people consuming and producing, where borders are disappearing and no european country is really a world player. we have to face the fears of globalisation and the technology revolution and prove that europe, strengthened by the new treaty, is capable of discovering new paths and creating new wealth. yet this is also an opportunity to devise new solutions to the new problems. with six, twelve or even fifteen members it was easier to promote closer ties between citizens and the community structures, but today it is the toughest of challenges. as the eu enlarges, the centre of power is also becoming more distant from the citizen. this adverse effect can be seen, inter alia, in the end of the rotating presidencies of the council or the abandonment of the principle of one commissioner per member state. we have to counter this adverse effect and parliament has a decisive role in this task, to attain more transparency and less bureaucracy, more development and less unnecessary legislation, more cooperation with national parliaments and less distance from citizens, more cohesion and less inequality. freed from the doubts about our internal organisation, let us be a symbol of courage and let us take up the challenges of modern times. today we should celebrate our capacity to unite. (pt) mr president, president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, satisfaction, happiness, success, victory, are words that have been used here today, and rightly so, about the informal council in lisbon. indeed, the agreement on the new treaty was announced before midnight on 18 october. it was a historic moment. firstly because of the results achieved, but also because it was done so quickly. after a little more than 12 months of intense work and negotiation it was possible to achieve the required consensus on the first day of the summit. what is more, on the same day an agreement was signed with the european union's social partners, employers and trade unions, to modernise the labour market, an important step for the new cycle of the lisbon strategy. the portuguese presidency is to be congratulated. it achieved its top priority with acknowledged skill: to give europe a new treaty, which was a great victory. europe has emerged from a six-year impasse and can now concentrate on what is really important to citizens because, as jean monnet said, we cannot stop when the whole world around us is on the move, and the speed at which the world turns makes no allowance for a slow european response. the treaty will be signed on 13 december, and the ratification process will follow, which should be swift and problem-free. as a portuguese national i want to say how pleased i am because, once again, the name of lisbon is indelibly linked to a decisive moment in european integration. thank you prime minister scrates. you deserve thanks from portugal and also from europe for your determination and commitment. europe is out of the impasse. thank you very much, prime minister. (da) mr president, fortunately the lisbon summit ended well. some excellent preparatory work was carried out by the german presidency, and the portuguese presidency completed it in a professional manner. unfortunately, i must point out that national interests have again played a role. this is definitely not appropriate for european cooperation. we must now have special powers to discuss the content instead of the process. however, we have unfortunately seen depressing tendencies that suggest that we would rather discuss the process rather than the content. however, if we are ultimately to discuss the process then i would like to state clearly that we do not need referendums to ratify the treaty. referendums are simply not the solution. let the representative democracy do its work! it is not because i am afraid of a no vote - far from it! rather it is because it is completely wrong to separate eu issues from national parliamentary elections. the eu is and will remain a completely integral part of national policy. referendums are used to fire shots at a government in office. they enable the other political parties to avoid being assessed on their eu policies. however, all political parties will of course be assessed on their eu policies, and this will happen when we go to the polls in the national elections. however, it imposes two requirements: a requirement that we, the electorate, allow eu policy to be decisive in our choice of national politicians, and a requirement that the political parties must of course not use referendums to avoid responsibility for the european community. therefore, efforts to ensure that it is the content and not the process that is given the highest priority will hopefully be successful. (pl) president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, i am very pleased that the treaty reform process is coming to a close. this is not so that the proposed changes to my convictions as regards integration can be put into full effect - at times they are very remote from that. the reason i am pleased is rather that lately we have been devoting too much time and political energy to institutions. i am convinced that the eu's success is not the result of the institutional set-up or the mechanics of power. this success is the result of political will and a common vision of the future. i hope that once ratification is concluded there will be nothing to stop us from engaging in a europe of results, from taking more responsibility for global security, from having a more active impact on neighbouring countries, and finally from discussing eu enlargement, from winning in terms of competition, investments and growth. despite what has been being said over the past seven years, institutional changes are neither a complete nor a satisfactory response to these problems. (de) mr president, from europe's many upheavals, peasants wars and revolutions, we are all familiar with the romantic story of the fugitive being hidden in a cart-load of dung to be taken over the border and escape richelieu's bloodhounds and the king's guards. if, at the end, he is successful, he does not look very nice, nor does he smell very nice, but once he has washed, then it can be said: he is alive! the constitution has fared similarly. governments have buried it in a tangled mass of illegible, indecipherable texts of opt-outs, clauses, footnotes, resolutions, minutes, and they have taken the constitution beyond the limits under cover of this dunghill. the tragedy of it is simply that they sought shelter in this constitutional treasure not from the king's guards, but from the watchful eyes of citizens. i have been digging in this tangled mass of texts. yes, i have actually found all the main achievements of the constitution on which i myself have been working for more than 10 years and i could well be fortunate. this situation nevertheless makes me very apprehensive. in addition, of course, as is simply the case with such adventures, whenever anyone helped the fugitive, they ripped off part of the treasure. i have therefore also found the hands of a few governments in this dung hill. one has secured another opt-out for itself and therefore filched a part of the charter of fundamental rights, a part of parliament's rights, a part of data protection, etc. the treasure arrives damaged, but generally speaking it does arrive. we have gained a piece of europe, we have saved a piece of europe's future, not with our citizens, but without our citizens, not with the parliaments, but without the parliaments, and this is a great danger. we have gained a piece of europe, but we have not resolved the crisis of confidence among europe's citizens. there is therefore an enormous challenge ahead of this house: to regain the confidence of europe's citizens. (pt) mr president, we regret that the lisbon summit took over the essence of the content of the so-called european constitution, previously rejected in the french and dutch referendums, simultaneously attempting to dodge the necessary democratic debate and public consultation by means of referendums. apart from being a deep insult to democracy and the sovereign will expressed, this demonstrates your fear of citizens' votes on a treaty that represents a qualitative leap in the advance of neoliberalism, federalism and militarism, increasingly eroding the economic and social achievements of workers and the poor. however, the struggle will continue, as more than 200 000 people made clear at the impressive demonstration in lisbon promoted by the cgpt also on 18 october. it was the largest in the past 20 years, and the presidents of the council and the commission, both portuguese, are symbolically it ignoring here. that also goes on record in the history of this treaty. (cs) mr president, after the failure of the constitution it seemed that the principle of democratic decision-making had once again gained the upper hand within the eu, at least for a while. we were wrong to think that. very quickly the same constitution has returned to the table under a different title. its authors do not even bother concealing the fact that it is the original constitution in a slightly modified form with the intention of ignoring the people's democratic will in a referendum. the treaty, which reinforces the role of non-elected officials of the eu, thereby reinforcing the democracy deficit, is creating, among other things, 105 legislative and non-legislative competences of the eu. in 68 cases it replaces the right of national veto with majority decision-making. it subverts the national competences in the area of foreign policy. it hands decision-making in the eu to the big member states, notably germany, at the expense of the small countries. a simple comparison shows that it is almost exactly identical to the constitution for a european federal state rejected by the french people and buried by the dutch. the impertinence with which it has been returned on the table with the straight face of a poker player and now under a new orwellian title is astounding. a new type of utopian nationalism won in lisbon: pan-european and eu nationalism; nationalism without any real national, cultural and historic foundations, rooted only in the long office corridors in brussels. berlaymont patriotism has claimed victory. those of us who represent countries that lived for nearly half a century under the communist totalitarian regime are not easily surprised by anything. we have been accustomed to the insolence of power and contempt for the people's will. not even in the cmea, however, have we experienced such overt deception as today's deception by the eu of the people of the member states. at least in the cmea similar attempts were hidden behind the party politburos; but that is a thing of the past. the citizens want to decide themselves whether they will hand over their sovereign rights to a european super-state without a democratic or historical framework. that is why i want to see a referendum. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, under the reform treaty, which i reject, there are winners and losers. the reservations of poland and italy regarding the new distribution of seats in parliament were resolved, except that poland is winning other more important battles: it obtained the opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, it will have an advocate-general at the court of justice and it benefits under the ioannina mechanism. even austria won a victory by being allowed to restrict access by foreign students to the country's universities. romano prodi, before entering the meeting, announced that he would fight not to lose italy's parity. he ended up losing parity with france but restoring parity with the uk, boasting of the promise secured to reconsider the distribution of seats based on citizenship after 2014. however, we had already obtained this at the last plenary in brussels. what was accepted by the indolent prodi administration were just a few crumbs from the table, as a result of which around three million europeans with italian citizenship are considered to be less european than the pakistanis, indians and kenyans who have the good fortune to work and live in the uk, or the cameroonians in france, who, although non-community nationals, are counted for the distribution of seats. we could not have expected anything better from the italian government, supported by a boorishly communist left and by a deceitful and hypocritical centre-left. as you can see, we have other reasons for not considering the europe of these treaties as ours and for hoping that we will soon be celebrating the de profundis of the ridiculous prodi government. (cs) ladies and gentlemen, after a detailed reading of the lisbon treaty it is clear that the heads of state are presenting fundamental changes to the eu documents. the reform treaty literally re-writes the eu treaties and the founding treaties of the european communities. i would like to highlight the fact that the changes do not just concern the influence of individual states on eu processes, but also the fundamental principles themselves, on which the eu was established 50 years ago. the reform treaty transfers the principle of free competition from the main body of the treaty to the protocols that are to be annexed to the treaty. i consider that a red flag for all democratically-minded citizens. ladies and gentlemen, if the eu project is to be credible, the reform treaty has to be put to a referendum in the member states. politicians should set aside their arrogance and comfortable situation. they have to explain the decision taken in lisbon to the citizens and win them over to it. otherwise the gap between the citizens and the political elite will continue to grow. not only this will jeopardise prosperity; it will also deepen the democratic deficit of the eu as a whole. mr president, i am grateful to the prime minister for his statement this morning and, whilst i note the decisions of the heads of government, the british people and the british conservative party have been consistent in their concerns about the constitution and the very similar reform treaty. the british prime minister has said that the reform treaty is not the constitution. his fellow leaders have disagreed. he told us that britain's so-called 'red lines' have been secured. like most british people i really do not understand or believe our prime minister on this matter. the issue is one of trust. our prime minister gave a commitment to hold a referendum - a commitment in an election manifesto two years ago. a referendum on this treaty is, therefore, not only politically necessary but also a moral imperative. the irish prime minister said at the weekend about possible referenda: 'why not let your people have a say? i think it's a bit upsetting to see so many countries running away from giving their people an opportunity'. a few days ago, gordon brown said that this treaty will mark the end of eu institutional reform for the next decade. however, over the past 15 years we have had four treaties dealing with reform, and i doubt whether the urge to have further institutional change can be resisted. the so-called 'ratchet clause', for example, would allow further national vetoes to be abolished. on the other hand, the conservative vision for europe focuses on the three key areas of global competitiveness, global climate change and global poverty. i congratulate president barroso in particular for his determination, in any event, to pursue those aims. however, they can be tackled with political will and do not require this treaty. we should remind ourselves of what the laeken declaration said. it said the union needs to become more democratic, more transparent and more efficient, but it called also for us to engage the citizens more and not just to communicate our decisions to them. the question today is: does the treaty respond to laeken? laeken asked the right questions. have we given the right answers? mr president, i would like to say to the president-in-office of the council: what a wonderful summit. i never doubted that you would make it, but it is one thing not to doubt and another to do it, and you did it. congratulations. i do not know if colleagues know: it is a bit of a landmark in history. on the first day, we got a new treaty of the real world. i know that all the maximalists here do not think it is the most beautiful treaty they have got, but the real world is not the most beautiful world you can get. so what you need is an effective treaty, a treaty of clear values - and you have got it. on the second day, friends, we got a direction - on the first day a treaty, on the second day a direction - which deals with what people would like us to do: the real world. what you said on the second day was that we want a europe leading globalisation to be more human, to be more inclusive and to base it on our social coherent values. what you said was that the lisbon process is not only a process for a few, but the guideline for the external direction of the european union, which says that it is not only about being the world's strongest economic power, it is also by understanding that the world will only be more cohesive by basing it on a social market economy. that is what i want to underline to you today. i want to thank the presidency, not only for the first day but also for the second day, because the conclusion of the second day was that this european union is not about market societies. it is about social market economies, which means that we are frontrunners in uniting social issues with economic competitiveness. well done, president-in-office - and friend, if i can say that - because that leads me to my third and last message. let us give the portuguese presidency its last summit in december: not only where a portuguese presidency will formally sign the treaty, but also where we confirm the lisbon process in a well-done way. so let us go. let us move. that is what people expect of us. - (fr) mr president, the european union is going to have a new treaty. obviously there are some regrets that can be expressed: regrets about the abandonment in the text of the symbols of the european union; regrets about the opt-outs won by some countries, particularly on the charter; and finally regrets about the complexity of the treaty, for which i am requesting a consolidated text so that europe's citizens can try to find their way around it. that would be good. all the same, this treaty will give us the means to revive europe, provided that we want to do so. with this text, the european union will gain the tools it needs to continue its integration, to expand and to deepen its common policies. on energy, climate change, immigration policy, the fight against terrorism, economic coordination, foreign and defence policy and development policy, europe can now move forward. it will simply be a question of political will. nobody will now be able to use the excuse that the institutional means of action are lacking. now, everybody will have to face up to their responsibilities, and in saying that, besides our institutions, i am thinking in particular of the member states. that is good news for europe and i hope it will be good news for its citizens. (pl) mr president, contrary to the gloom-laden forecasts and baseless criticism of poland during recent debates in this house, especially by the leader of the socialist group in the european parliament, the lisbon summit turned out to be a diplomatic compromise. both the eu and the polish authorities perceived the potential to reach an agreement. the eu side showed an appreciation of poland's importance and potential by increasing the number of advocates general in the court of justice, and also by retaining the ioannina clause. we must hope that the compromise reached at the summit is only an introduction to consultation with the peoples of europe. the draft eu reform treaty is, in the end, too important a document to be smuggled through in the secrecy of political meeting rooms. let us not forget that the previous version of this treaty died in two member states' referendums. failure to allow the public to have their say once more on the future of the eu would not only be a breach of one of the eu's fundamental values but would also provide clear evidence that those in government fear the voice of their own electorate. let the dictators of democracy allow the public themselves to express their will as regards the future vision of the eu. mr president, i represent scotland. my party, the snp, forms the new government in scotland, and i believe it will prove to be more constructive towards participation in the european union than uk governments have been. i accept the need to reform the treaties and to create more open, democratic, efficient and accountable governance. in principle, i support an extension of qmv and codecision with the european parliament, but the very diversity which mr barroso quite rightly referred to will always mean that national interests will be promoted. we should not lose touch with our local communities by trampling over their interests, or appearing so to do. for scotland, there is a very real fear that the entrenchment of the common fisheries policy, as an exclusive competence within the treaties, can only obstruct the absolute root-and-branch reform of fisheries management that i believe to be necessary. unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the uk government did not raise this issue at the summit. yet again, scotland's key interests have been ignored by a uk government. (nl) mr president, the constitution is dead. long live the constitution! how else to describe the events in lisbon? we all agree that this reform treaty is a mere clone of the constitution rejected by the french and dutch; one that, as valry giscard d'estaing said, is even less readable than the original. after all, referendums are to be avoided at all costs, we are told. there is indeed one major difference from 2005. this time the french, dutch and other european peoples are not being given the chance to express their opinions. an illustration of this disdain for democracy can be found in the statements of commissioner wallstrm, who always has so much to say about bridging the gap between europe and the citizen. she is urging the national parliaments to ratify this text as quickly as possible. yet genuine respect for democracy requires that the citizens of all eu member states be able to express their opinions on the treaty, a text which, in numerous respects, erodes the sovereignty of the nation-states even more than is already the case. those responsible should not complain if this fear of citizens again goes against official europe in the subsequent european elections. (de) mr president, gentlemen, you certainly do not have it easy at the moment! in the countries in which referendums were promised, the treaty is portrayed, as in the united kingdom or in my home country, austria, as just a minor detail, an extension of something. in other countries, like germany, the talk is of a total reorganisation of the community and of a historic breakthrough. which is now true? i think we should remind ourselves again on this occasion of the words and very clear sayings of the former president of west germany, roman herzog, who was after all chairman of the convention responsible for drafting the charter of fundamental rights and who said that democracy is being eroded by the eu constitution. we now have it in a modified form in the reform treaty. if you do not want it to be eroded, if you do not want democracy to be choked, please have the political decency at least to allow referendums, as there have been in the past - for the last eu constitutional treaty - even in spain and luxembourg. (nl) mr president, president of the commission, president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, looking at the changes the reform treaty makes in such fields as migration, agriculture, and police and justice, and at the decisions regarding the high representative for the common foreign and security policy, the charter of fundamental rights, the euro area and the social market economy - which becomes an objective for the first time - and also regarding intergovernmental solidarity on energy, it is apparent to me that this treaty builds on the results of the convention and the june summit, and gives us more clout and a great deal more democracy as political institutions. from now on, the union will be better equipped to provide the answers people expect of it, both internally and externally. in the latter respect, i should like to congratulate the council presidency on its setting of the agenda. president-in-office, by letting your summit not only decide on the treaty, but also exchange ideas about the problem of our generation - globalisation - you have sent out an important signal. when all is said and done, it is not the institutions - institutional navel-gazing - but their policies that are important. this brings me to a question to the president of the commission. do you think that genuinely bold policymaking is possible in the period from now until the final ratification of the treaty, or does ratification make you fear that you cannot offend people and that you must confine yourselves to 'cautious' matters? in other words, can the europe of specific projects continue in 2008? finally, two more brief questions to the council. president-in-office, have you asked the heads of state or government for a personal political commitment to bringing ratification to a successful conclusion in their respective countries? i very much hope so. secondly, when will a coordinated text of these treaties appear? after all, a treaty that includes the objectives of transparency and simplification must be readable, if only out of respect for the people. thank you, mr president, and thank you in anticipation to the president-in-office and the commission president for their answers to my questions. (de) mr president, we have the lisbon strategy and hopefully we are now to have the lisbon treaty too, and both will move europe forward. this parliament, particularly the committee on constitutional affairs, has been fighting and working for a new european treaty for seven years. admittedly we have not got the constitution, but we do say that this reform treaty represents progress in every respect. there is no single item on which we have fallen behind compared with nice. everything is moving forward and bringing us further into the union of 27. we also need to say this to the citizens outside. the winners in the new treaty are the people of europe. there are diverse forms of direct and indirect participation in european policy and we are in a position to solve the major problems referred to here faster and more effectively. the winners are also the citizens' chambers in europe, the national parliaments and this european citizens' chamber, this parliament. democracy is not therefore being eroded - as has just been said, and which is complete nonsense - but it is the completion of european democracy, which we can actually achieve with this treaty. this has now been the fourth agreement. i hope it will be the last time that the member states have to get together for this. every power must now be invested in ratification. i hope that no country says no. it is perhaps the last chance for this treaty. every no would lead to isolation, if not to that country's self-exclusion. we hope this will not be the case. every power should flow into ratification so that we have this treaty by 2009. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, there used to be a very witty and cynical slogan written on a wall in the milan metro that said, 'the future is not what it once was', a bit like the weather or food. we live in a time when the younger generations are no longer convinced that the future will be better, as their parents once thought. indeed we often hear people saying that 'europe is not what it once was'. a sovereignist, nationalist, anti-european way of thinking is emerging and developing on our continent. we have heard some examples of it in this chamber this morning. i believe that the lisbon result is important, although more for the speed with which it was decided, which sends out a positive signal to public opinion, rather than its content, since there are still too many opt-outs and clauses, and it is still too complicated. however, parliament, the commission and the council now have another 18 months in which to restore public opinion following this crisis period. all of us, or at least the majority of us in this chamber, believe that europe is the solution to globalisation concerns, and not the cause, and that we are stronger if we tackle immigration, climate change, innovation and research together. this is what most meps in here think. we now have 18 months in which to convince the 500 million citizens who live in europe of this before the european elections. - (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the lisbon summit obtained a single result: distancing europe's citizens from the european union while making more room for lobbyists and technocratic powers. the vision that we are fighting for - that of a europe of the peoples, of the regions - is further and further away. even in our parliament, where are the corsicans, the people of the valle d'aosta, the basques, where are the breton separatists, the alsatians? on the distribution of seats, it is a disgrace that our country, represented by its indignant premier, mr prodi, should lose out to france. yet this was not enough for the evanescent mr prodi, who seemed like alice in wonderland in lisbon, totally lost and misinformed. thanks to mr prodi, italy was excluded from the declaration, from the joint declaration with which france, germany and the uk quite rightly asked europe to take steps to avoid a repetition of the financial turbulence resulting from the us sub-prime crisis. according to statements made to the press about the global financial crisis, mr prodi said that he could not see the point of europe's position on lending. the former goldman sachs consultant and ex-president of the commission may act like a former consultant of a multinational bank at times, but he does not intend to worry about the momentous consequences for italian families - including those in the north - who are burdened by costs and who cannot make ends meet. (the president cut off the speaker) (es) mr president, president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, the spokesperson for my group, mr daul, said that the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats is satisfied, and this is because we have got out of an impasse, but we are not happy. this is due to the not very pro-european atmosphere among the governments, which contrasts with the polls that president barroso referred to concerning the will of the european people, and also because the lisbon treaty ultimately includes many made-to-measure elements for governments that want more and more for themselves and less and less for europe. president-in-office of the council, you referred - and i would like to congratulate you on the agreement that has been reached, because i would like to stress that i think that the agreement is important for getting us out of the impasse - you referred to three issues that i would like to highlight. firstly, i think that it is very important to have a formal proclamation in this house of the charter of fundamental rights. this was not done in nice, it was done in secret. let us now do it formally, because the charter of fundamental rights, with or without opt-outs, is the dna of the european people. secondly, mr president, i am concerned about the distribution of seats in the european parliament, because what you have adopted violates a principle that is in the treaty, which is degressive proportionality. is it going to come to parliament? we will see what we do, but you are well aware that what you have adopted does not provide degressive proportionality. finally, the high representative. i think you have reached a good agreement, but i think that the president of the council, the high representative and the president of the commission form a package, which we will have to discuss in parliament. in summary, mr president, i think that it was paul valry, who was a great poet and, perhaps therefore a great european, who wrote that a poem is never finished, only abandoned. the construction of europe never finishes. in this case we have, in the interests of consensus, abandoned some of the advances of the constitutional treaty, but we will be here to keep fighting for them. we will also have supported them in a sentence of the preamble which, ironically, was rescued from the flames: an ever closer union between the peoples of europe. that is our objective, mr president. (nl) mr president, the netherlands also shared the sense of relief on saturday morning about the agreement reached, and for this, too, i believe thanks are due to the president-in-office of the council. the new treaty enables the european union to progress. the union will become more decisive and democratic. the european union is back on its feet. it can now concentrate fully on its substantive task; back to work with an agenda ranging from the further development of the social europe to a better-coordinated foreign policy. this is also the best way to bring europe closer to its citizens. my country, the netherlands, has seen a great deal of discussion about the nature of the treaty that has now been adopted and about its differences from the constitutional treaty the country rejected in a referendum. the conclusion was that the differences are such that a second referendum is not necessary. the new treaty lacks the constitutional nature of the original constitution; and so we, too, have no need for a further referendum. thus it will just be a case of normal parliamentary ratification. the reforms that have been decided on have our wholehearted support, as they make substantial progress - particularly concerning the rights of the european parliament - without fundamentally altering the balance between the member states and the european institutions. a larger union needs different, more wide-ranging rules. hopefully, all member states will now drive ratification forward, so that we can all get going with the new rules in 2009, in order to take forward the substantive role of the union in all areas in which our citizens have expectations of us. (pl) mr president, i would like to begin by adding my own voice to the words of profound gratitude for the portuguese presidency. considerable success has been achieved. the european union needed a way out of the sense of defeat and failure, it needed a political dimension, and thanks to the portuguese presidency, it has one. i also consider it to be of exceptional importance that the charter of fundamental rights is an element of those decisions, and i would like to add here that the charter of fundamental rights is the compass, the instrumentarium, of europe. i cannot even imagine how a country that wishes to be part of the european union could at the same time dissociate itself from that which constitutes its moral, philosophical and political foundation. critical words were spoken by my colleague mr duff regarding the position of the british government, which demanded an opt-out. i am in a better position. the polish government, which asked for an opt-out as the result of a decision taken by the polish people, is leaving power. i would like to express the profound hope that following the political change-over that has taken place in my country, and out of loyalty to the polish tradition of solidarity, poland will observe the charter of fundamental rights in full. poland will accede to the charter of fundamental rights in full, without any opt-out. (fr) mr president, as spokesperson for the majority french party, the ump, i congratulate the portuguese presidency and i am delighted with this agreement on the text of the treaty. it gives the enlarged europe the rules it needs to function effectively and democratically. as co-rapporteur on the new composition of the european parliament, i am also pleased about the council's agreement with the motion for a resolution voted for by parliament on 11 october. the council has thereby approved the definition we gave for degressive proportionality, the translation of this principle into figures, the use of eurostat figures to evaluate the populations to be taken into account and the desire to find a more stable system after 2009. the council's agreement is more than a 100% agreement; it is a 101% agreement, since the council adds a seat to be given to italy, without explaining why. this leads me to make two comments. the first comment is, as you said, mr president, that all the members of parliament will keep the right to vote - even the president, and even the 73rd italian - contrary to a persistent rumour spread by some of the press. my second comment is that the 73rd seat granted to italy departs from the principle of degressive proportionality written into the treaty, proposed by parliament and accepted by the council. we must therefore make sure that the decision to apply article 9 a is unassailable before the european court of justice and for this reason the rapporteurs will be proposing a revised draft to parliament taking into account the european council's wishes. sincere thanks to you, too, for the report on the distribution of seats, as well as to mr severin. you have done great work here and we have been with you 99% of the way. . - (fr) mr president, 'nothing is possible without men; nothing is lasting without institutions'. so said jean monnet, and it applies very well to our situation. is the treaty perfect, then? of course not! jean monnet has an answer for this too. on the treaty of rome, he wrote that he did not ask himself whether the treaty could have been better as it corresponded to all that was possible at the time and to the wisdom of the age. 1957-2007. are we taking the risk of starting again? no, of course not. there will be no third treaty. one crisis is enough. two is too many. jean monnet again has the answer: 'i have always thought that europe would be made through crises and that it would be the sum of the solutions to those crises.' that is what the treaty is. however, obviously not everyone agrees, since our british friends are so keen on opting out. i live on a peninsula, so i understand island mentalities. however, jean monnet experienced this in 1951 with coal and steel. they were not interested, it was offered to them, and then they came on board. remember tony blair. he signed the social protocol of the maastricht treaty. we are sure to find a british colleague to sign the charter of fundamental rights one of these days. let us be patient, and remember the chinese diplomat who once said that he admired the wise slowness of the construction of europe. let us go on. of course, i would like to finish by congratulating the portuguese presidency, and as i am a french mep, i am proud of my portuguese president and the circumstances that mean we now seem to have two for the price of one! (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, at one blow the european union has disengaged itself from its constitutional impasse. the new european union will be more capable of action, more democratic and more transparent and it will be in a position to discharge its duties more successfully both at home and throughout the world. this is good, and congratulations to the portuguese presidency in this regard. if i mention with pride that the german council presidency was there at the beginning of the road to lisbon, i hope you will not mind my saying so, as a german. not all the problems have been solved yet. the absurd episode surrounding the 751st seat mandate and the president's voting rights made this clear. there should be no question at all of the council not being authorised to remove an elected member's right to vote - irrespective of position. i am grateful that both the president as well as parliament's representatives at the intergovernmental conference have quickly and palpably made this clear. nevertheless, there is a problem here. it concerns parliament's composition, which remains unclear as from 2014. i am convinced that it will involve finding a system that defines and governs parliament's composition according to objective criteria, irrespective of political caprice. it cannot be true that the council effectively distributes parliament's seats as if it were lord of the manor. we have to strive towards this until 2014. one important advance has not perhaps been recognised sufficiently to date: the strengthening of the principle of subsidiarity. this is a very important step in involving national parliaments in responsibility for european legislation as far as subsidiarity is concerned. subsidiarity and the demand for it strengthen the community and do not weaken it, commission president. we shall also be striving for this in the future. i can merely ask the national parliaments to make thorough use of these new opportunities! (applause) mr president, i, too, welcome this agreement, which, despite a few oddities like the extra seat for italy, is a good package that deserves ratification and will make the european union function better, while also improving its democratic accountability. let me dwell for my remaining minute on the second aspect. mr kirkhope asked just now whether we have answered the questions posed at laeken about making the eu more democratically accountable and closer to its citizens. i would say that we have certainly moved in that direction. let us remember one thing: once this treaty comes into force, no european legislation can be adopted without, firstly, prior examination by every national parliament, secondly, the approval of the council of ministers composed of national ministers accountable to those very same national parliaments and, thirdly, approval by this european parliament, with its members directly chosen by citizens specifically to deal with european issues at european level. that is a level of accountability that exists in no other international structure. look at the world trade organisation. look at the imf. look at the world bank. look at the oecd. you name it, nothing above the level of the nation state has that level of democratic accountability. those who are really worried about democratic accountability in international structures should focus on those institutions and organisations. we should be proud of what we are achieving in our democratic european union. (pl) mr president, we do indeed have a new treaty, and this alone is cause for satisfaction. there is, however, something else that is more important - that the treaty is a good one. it is a good treaty, because it responds to the challenges that europe is facing today. moreover, it also fulfils the aims that were stated as an obligation in the laeken declaration six years ago. in line with those aims, the treaty arranges and simplifies both the institutional framework and the legal system of the union. it democratises the european union, among other things by reinforcing the legislative role of our parliament. it brings the union closer to its citizens, and one way in which it does this is through the citizens' initiative. the question is, will the union, as a result of the treaty, have greater significance in the world and act more effectively? this, however, does not depend only on the institutions introduced or modified by the treaty; it depends primarily on the political will of the leaders of the member states. should this will be lacking, all the institutional reform will have counted for nothing. in order that the treaty does not remain a moribund law, a moribund document, i would like to appeal for a community of political will at the time of its signing and after its ratification. mr president, the text of the reform treaty agreed at the lisbon summit is clear progress, a step forward in the history of european integration - i would like to call it european unification. therefore, it should be greeted with satisfaction. nonetheless, however important this step might be, it is not the last one. in the short term it is crucial to see the treaty ratified by all the 27 member states. it should now be clear to everybody that there was no plan b and there is no plan c. after ratification we must continue, in the medium and long term, with the necessary reforms and policies until a complete reconciliation between europe's history and geography is achieved within the framework of european transnational democracy. in this moment of relief, it is also crucial to get rid of any democratic hypocrisy and demagogy and admit that, in this complex world, political management requires - more than ever - a professional competence which could not be the subject of referendums. we must ask the people to decide, by 'yes' or 'no', on principles and fundamentals, not on sophisticated technicalities and complicated compromises. for the rest, we must observe the principle of the non-imperative mandate. on the other hand, we must also admit that the progress we are celebrating today was achieved at the expense of transparency and sincerity. the gap between peoples and us, the political leaders, after lisbon remains at least as big as before. until we close this gap, we should keep the bottles of champagne unopened. (cs) mr president, as a former member of the convention on the future of europe, as the only national parliamentarian involved in the negotiations and as a convinced opponent of the constitution since the very beginning i am glad to say that in lisbon common sense has prevailed, at least to some extent. the very concept of a european constitution was erroneous from the beginning. i am glad that it has been abandoned and i am glad that my country was among those who contributed to this. the eu is not a state, it will never be one and therefore it cannot have a constitution. it has to be built on an intergovernmental treaty, whereby the member states, the national states, remain the corner stones of the whole process of european integration. with regards to the content, each of us likes and dislikes certain aspects of it. on the one hand, i am personally delighted with the reinforcement of the role of the national parliaments and the national executives through the so-called flexibility clause. what i do not like, on the other hand, is a reduction of the national right of veto. however, being a realist i am aware that we have reached the limits of what is possible. what i see as important, nonetheless, is the fact that for the very first time in history of the eu an artificial concept elaborated at the green table had to some extent to be reworked after being tested against reality. this leads me to hope that the eu will continue in the future to demonstrate that it can move away from certain concepts that prove to be unfit, such as, in my opinion, the 50-year-old obsolete federalist model. it leads me to hope that the eu will be able to move towards a genuine, flexible, decentralised intergovernmental organisation capable of coping with the challenges of the 21st century. mr president, i trust, however, that parliament will not succumb to the temptation to revive the already dead constitutional idea, because it would merely illustrate that it is an ivory tower. (pl) mr president, i did not think the last week would end so successfully. firstly, at the lisbon summit we adopted a new reform treaty, which is an enormous success, and i warmly congratulate prime minister jos scrates, president barroso and indeed all of us. it went off without any attempts to veto it or any additional battles over its final form. in my view that means that the european union has emerged from its institutional crisis. secondly, there is good news from my country, where the removal from power in recent days of an anti-european and far-right government is an undeniable success. the position of the polish people is confirmation of what i have said many times - most poles support european integration; poles want poland to be a partner, not an opponent, of the european union. such events undeniably instil optimism about the future of our common european project. i believe that the european union is ready to meet the challenges of the future and, as mr scrates correctly observed, the european union is now a stronger and more internally cohesive structure, as well as being a decidedly more powerful partner in negotiations in international global relations. the positions of the president-in-office of the council and the high representative for the common foreign and security policy are a potent weapon which, if competently deployed, may positively strengthen the image of the european union. one of the most important achievements of this agreement, moreover, is that the charter of fundamental rights has acquired a legally binding character. i hope that the new polish government will withdraw the decision to exclude polish citizens from the provisions of chapter iv of the charter, entitled solidarity. this chapter contains provisions relating to employee and trade union rights that are particularly dear to the polish and european left. mr president, i would like to congratulate the portuguese presidency on an excellent result under the circumstances. but there is one thing we need to keep in mind: the fundamental objective of the convention on the future of europe is still to be accomplished, that is, to overcome the gap between institutions and european citizens. we now have the means to apply our common european policies. what we need is political will and determination. everything now centres on implementation, and there are two principles on which our implementation of this lisbon treaty should be based: firstly, subsidiarity. defining the competences of the eu is clearly a very encouraging achievement, linked with the increased role and responsibility of the national parliaments, because our citizens should perceive that the european community will address the problems of the community efficiently and, at the same time, abstain from intervening in their lives where it is not necessary. the second principle concerns solidarity, which is a core value of the european community. agreeing on degressive proportionality in forming the future european parliament is a clear expression of that solidarity, and i am grateful for it. another very important test of this solidarity will be creating the common foreign policy on energy security, as proposed last month by the european parliament, including a special high representative on energy serving under the new high representative for foreign affairs. lastly, i would quote one fine expression of solidarity when president barroso told his russian counterpart last may in samara that, in the eu's understanding of solidarity, poland and estonia are as important as germany and portugal. (pl) mr president, following the lisbon summit, the discussion of the european treaty may be considered to be closed, as we now have one supreme aim - to ratify the treaty as quickly and as efficiently as possible. parliament does have a role to play here: please bear in mind that we have greater importance under the treaty than we had before. there are three points to consider: the description of the role and tasks of the high representative for the common foreign and security policy and the matter of his election, this being a joint decision with the european council from 1 january 2009. we need to prepare for this joint decision in several areas, primarily security and the administration of justice. thirdly, we must hold a political debate to finalise the principles by which the president of the european council will act, with particular reference to his relations with the european parliament. the most important thing, though, is ratification, and it depends to a large extent on us members of the european parliament. it will take place in different ways in each country. we must find ways of persuading citizens that this is a success not just for the union, not just for politicians, but above all for them. this is our main task - ratification. thanks and congratulations. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to thank you for the excellent debate we have had on the summit and the lisbon treaty. firstly, say what you like about this new treaty, but one thing no one can deny is that europe is stronger as a result of this treaty. this treaty affirms european values, the good values that were always the foundation of the european integration project. this treaty boosts the european economy and creates the conditions for europe better to play its role in the world. as many have observed, this is a treaty that makes the european institutions and the political workings of europe more democratic. this treaty equips the european union of 27 for more effective decision-making. those who like democracy also like democracy to be appreciated as a method that allows effective decision-making, and all those who follow european political life understand that europe needed more effective decision-making. finally, i would like to say to anyone who has doubts about the treaty and europe's capability, please wake up to reality; the world has already reached its conclusion on the treaty. europe has become stronger, better able to respond to global challenges, better able to respond to strategic challenges, and since lisbon the world has been looking to europe in the hope that it will once again take up its role in the world. no, this treaty means progress for us. other people have already said it about europe: no, do not doubt; wake up, we are stronger. europe is more confident since the lisbon agreement and europe is now in a position to take a stance on the future; it can move from the defensive to the offensive. graham watson was kind enough to mention pessoa in his speech. i would like to thank him very much for this personal kindness, as pessoa is one of our great poets and i would like to quote pessoa again: he once spoke about 'a nostalgia for the future'. i too, as a european, am nostalgic for the future and i am nostalgic for the time when europe discussed the future, showed leadership, and i am nostalgic for those days and i believe that this treaty provides the conditions to enable europe to do that. if you will allow me, mr president, i would like to clarify two things: the first is about the president of parliament, to tell members that it never entered anybody's head that the council might propose that the president of parliament should lose the right to vote. the president will of course retain that right; i do not know how this mistaken idea arose, but what the council decided is that this parliament will have 751 members (750 plus the president). next i would like to say that the ioannina clause has been resolved, as i always said it would be. ioannina must be legally binding, but should not be in the treaty, and the solution we came up with of a declaration plus a protocol is fully in line with the mandate we were given. i too would like to praise the previous presidency, as i have always done and always do in the same way. throughout the whole process of this treaty there were two decisive moments. the first came last october when angela merkel decided to make the treaty the main issue of her presidency and of future presidencies. this move required political courage and was a political risk. at the time no one thought it had much chance of success. i call this a decisive moment because europe needed to get back to politics and also to get back to courage and political risk. the other decisive moment, as i said earlier, was when we decided, taking the opportunity of the last council, to reach agreement in october rather than leave it for december. finally, mr president, i would like to finish by saying that certainly many people, and many people in europe, who never believed in europe are as dissatisfied with this treaty as they would be with any other treaty. however, perhaps there are some who would like a different treaty and with them it is worth having a dialogue, to tell them that at this point the alternative was either to have this treaty or to remain in a state of institutional crisis. i think that all who realise that a politician has to deal with reality rather than with fantasy will support what was decided in lisbon. as for ratification, i would like to be clear that it is the business of each country. however, what i cannot accept as a democrat is for those who argue for national referendums to do so by trying to diminish representative democracy, challenging the legitimacy of parliamentary ratification. (applause) i am a democrat and europe is democratic, and being democrats we leave each country free to decide the best method of ratification. finally, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, yes, i am very proud, yes i am very satisfied, yes, i feel very honoured to have been part, along with many others, of a historic and decisive moment, the moment in which the lisbon treaty was born, because it means that europe will move forward. (loud applause) president-in-office, i should also like to say a sincere word of thanks specifically to the minister of foreign affairs, lus amado, to manuel lobo antunes, as well as to ambassador mendona e moura and the legal service coordinated by jean-claude pires. president of the commission. - mr president, ms thyssen asked a specific question: can we make progress between now and the final ratification? as i said, it is by delivering results to european citizens that we can help to create the right political environment to facilitate ratification. it would be a mistake to slow down our delivery, and it would be against the twin-track strategy central to the commission, which stated that we should at the same time solve the political institutional matters and deliver concrete results to our citizens. on the contrary, this commission, and i am sure also this parliament, should be active - and we could be even more active together - in promoting a european citizens' agenda. the second issue concerned communication and democracy. communicating about a treaty and explaining it to our public is primarily the responsibility of the national authorities. however, it is also a task for the european institutions. i agree with what mr queir said about the importance of the role of the european parliament in this matter. we in the commission are ready to assume our responsibility in close cooperation with member states and the european parliament. i agree with the points made about subsidiarity by mr kelam and mr nassauer. it is very important to highlight the added value, in terms of democracy, of this treaty. it makes europe more democratic and more accountable and places a stronger emphasis on subsidiarity. subsidiarity is a way to reinforce europe and the european institutions, not to weaken those institutions, because by working close to the citizens they get more legitimacy and can take better decisions. i also believe that it is right in our communication, as mr corbett highlighted, to explain the new democratic dimension. we in the european union are proud to have this kind of democratic system. we can always make it better, but there is no other place in the world where there is such democratic participation at transnational level as the european union. we should also, in communication terms, make clear our reinforced capacity to act on behalf of the citizens in areas relevant to their concerns, like climate protection, energy and migration. those are concrete concerns for our citizens and we are addressing those concerns. in communication terms, we should also highlight the reinforced capacity to act in the international scene. finally, i want to highlight one point that was made clear by mr poignant and i thank him for highlighting the importance of jean monnet. it is true that this is not a perfect treaty, but sometimes people say we are giving up the values and the commitment of the founding fathers. that is not true. we are doing what jean monnet and many others have said, which is to build pas pas - step by step - this common project, and we have to do it by conceding now that we have to commit to our citizens, and that we have to fulfil concrete tasks and deliver concrete results. the lisbon summit, in concentrating on the treaty and the institutions and, on the second day, showing the way to globalisation, and the way we can together reinforce our capacity to act so that we can meet the challenge of globalisation, has indeed set the agenda for the future of europe. it was therefore a great success, and the portuguese presidency, the member states, the european parliament and the commission should really celebrate this fact and look to the future with renewed confidence. (applause) many thanks, commission president. this debate has shown that we can believe in the future of our continent of europe. we shall be even more committed in working towards it. many thanks. the debate is closed. written declarations (article 142) in writing. - (fr) my first words will be to congratulate the leaders of the member states for the historic agreement they entered into in lisbon, which brings to an end many years of institutional uncertainty. i welcome the relentless work of daring, wisdom and pragmatism of the french president nicolas sarkozy, and angela merkel's excellent german presidency in the first half of 2007 of which put the institutional agenda on the rails. i would like to include in these congratulations recognition of the excellent and immense work accomplished by chairman valry giscard d'estaing. this agreement picks up the major political advances of the old text: a stable presidency for the european union, a person responsible for european diplomacy, and a new voting mechanism with the extension of qualified majority voting, while strengthening the powers of the european parliament. i am sorry that the symbols of the european union (the flag, anthem and motto) have been abandoned. this treaty also takes account of the messages delivered by the french and dutch people who rejected the old treaty, in that it does not retain the character of a constitution, which the original text had, and it does not set in stone in the treaties of the european union a collection of european public policies that instead come under the current functioning of european democracy. in writing. - (hu) i consider it to be a major step that the politicians who were present in lisbon, conscious of their responsibility and setting aside their historical grievances, have reached agreement on a treaty that has taken six long years to produce, and which will determine the future face of europe and establish a framework enabling it to function efficiently. it is important that the process of ratifying this document, due to be signed on 13 december this year, also goes without a hitch in the member states. it is vital that the european parliament should continue to pledge its support for the reform treaty, and here again we draw member states' attention to the importance of the ratification process. hungary has always firmly supported the constitutional process and believed that sooner or later the member states would find a common voice and succeed in moving the process of european integration forward. as a member of the european parliament's committee on foreign affairs, i believe it is important to emphasise that the document that has been adopted can contribute positively to making european union foreign policy more effective, and can also enhance its effectiveness in the international diplomatic arena. it is not only in the realm of foreign policy, however, that the reform treaty may be expected to bring about change, but also on numerous other issues that are vital for the efficient functioning of the eu. for example, it opens up the possibility that the new european parliament and european commission that will be constituted in 2009 will be able to commence operations on a more efficient, more transparent and more democratic basis. this joint success first and foremost required the political will to take joint action, so let us now rejoice in the treaty, but in the interests of ensuring the success of the process we must not stop here; we must continue in our joint efforts to ensure that the ratification process is brought to a successful conclusion. in order to reach agreement on the reform treaty, too many gifts were handed out behind closed doors in lisbon: italy receives an extra seat in the european parliament and bulgaria the cyrillic 'evro', poland can continue to block the decision-making process for a number of years to come, and austria can exclude german students from its universities. this horse trading is medieval and runs counter to our endeavours towards greater transparency in the union. nevertheless, we can be pleased that at long last, following years of debate, we have reached an agreement full stop, as this treaty is an improvement on the current situation. it is not the most elegant of agreements, but it does ensure more democracy in europe. it gives the european parliament and national parliaments more influence, enabling european citizens to exert more direct influence on policy. it meets the need for common energy and foreign policies. rigorous enforcement of the copenhagen criteria is a necessity, and finally more democratic accountability is also afforded by the introduction of the 'orange card', which gives national parliaments the opportunity of contesting european legislation on grounds of subsidiarity. the truth about the reform treaty is the same as that about the european constitution. these deeds transform the international organisation that is the european community, as well as the union between its members that is the european union, into a continental superstate. they also effect a recognition of this superstate (by accession to the european convention on human rights of 1950, the parties to which may only be states). they open up a new path for the creation of a single european law without the involvement of the member states (through interpretation of the charter of fundamental rights by the european court of justice). one could spend a long time listing examples of equivalent significance. in view of this situation, we come up against the issue of guarantees of the rights of the peoples of europe in the new superstate, since it has so far been the member states that constituted these guarantees for their peoples. this problem has not been addressed at all in the reform treaty. since the rights of peoples are none other than human rights raised to the level of community life, because of the project to establish a superstate we are facing a human rights crisis in europe. we must therefore reject the reform treaty and set about doing some fundamental work on a system to guarantee the rights of peoples under the conditions of european integration. if we do not do this, europe will be threatened by another explosion of totalitarianism.

protection of the communities' financial interests - fight against fraud - annual reports 2005 and 2006 (debate) the next item is the report by mr musotto, on behalf of the committee on budgetary control, on protection of the communities' financial interests - fight against fraud - annual reports 2005 and 2006. rapporteur. - (it) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to begin by thanking mr kallas for his valuable cooperation with parliament during its work. i am likewise grateful to olaf, in the person of the director, franz-hermann brner, for its unstinting support and for the vital work it does, which is far from easy. finally, i would thank all my colleagues for their helpful contributions, as well as all the national bodies and institutions that have cooperated with us in this arduous task, especially - if i may - the italian guardia di finanza, whose approach in this field has been highly professional. protection of the communities' financial interests is a subject of capital importance which affects us directly as states and as citizens; it must therefore be tackled with all due rigour and determination. today's resolution is intended as a practical response to the alarming phenomenon of community fraud. the data gathered. (the president interrupted the speaker to reprimand some members who were causing a disturbance) thank you, mr president. we are talking about transparency and there is also a need for common courtesy. today's resolution is intended as a practical response to the alarming phenomenon of community fraud. the data gathered are worrying: in the areas of own resources, agricultural expenditure and structural actions, irregularities notified in 2006 totalled eur 1 143 million, compared to eur 1 024 million in the previous year. the statistics reveal an ever-increasing number of irregularities. i would however point out that a large number of irregularities does not necessarily imply a high level of fraud; it may also demonstrate that the supervisory arrangements in place are effective and that there is close cooperation between the member states and the commission. in its annual report for 2006, the commission rightly emphasised the importance of such cooperation for prevention purposes and for recovery work. so far, the statistics have relied on very diverse national structures with different administrative, judicial, supervisory and inspection systems. in particular, we consider it unacceptable that spain and germany have not been forwarding information on irregularities to the commission in electronic form, despite an obligation on all member states to do so. the community rules and the obligations arising from the fight against fraud must be implemented in the same way by all countries. to this end, closer cooperation between member states and the commission is vital to protect the community's financial interests, which must be perceived as common interests going beyond those of individual states. greater synergy is required between the supervisory authorities and local administrations in terms of coordinating and exchanging information. keeping the organisation and disbursement of funds at central level necessitates complex implementation arrangements and increases distances between the financial authorities and the final beneficiaries. simplification of the rules is another fundamental point touched upon in the report. the 2000-2006 programming period in fact proved that overly complicated rules contributed to the irregularities detected. finally, despite a slight improvement in recovery activity, recovery is still a problem which causes immense damage to the community budget. in particular, a period of 39 months between the time when an irregularity is committed and the time when it is notified to the commission is unacceptable, as such a delay makes recovery more difficult if not impossible. vice-president of the commission. - mr president, mr musotto's report covers two years of efforts to improve the protection of the financial interests of the european union. a sound system of financial management needs to focus on expenditure and the control and fighting of irregularities, and especially those committed with fraudulent intent. the report contains many of the same preoccupations as the discharge report, with the protection of financial interests being viewed, of course, as a core element of sound financial management, but the focus is different. i would like to warmly thank the rapporteur, mr musotto, for a very focused report, which concentrates on the main issues and makes many calls on the commission to strengthen efforts. allow me to comment on four of them. firstly, the role of member states: the report makes use of the wealth of figures and statistics on irregularities by member states, and their financial impact. it does not hesitate to point out that some member states perform better than others. i would stress once again that a high number of irregularities does not necessarily mean a high level of fraud, but it can be a good indicator of effective and thorough controls. when i presented the commission report in july, i emphasised the need for member states to ensure a correct, complete and timely communication of data on irregularities. a good flow of information between the member states and the commission is essential for effective recovery and joint action against fraudsters. many of them are doing this, but for some there is still room for improvement. the commission, with the support of the european parliament, will not shy away from reminding them of their responsibility. i fully agree with the invitation expressed in the report for the council to take up the annual reports and consider them at ministerial level. the eu's financial management system is complex, because responsibility is shared with the member states. the increased focus on the national declarations, placing responsibility for spending with the member states, should go hand in hand with cooperation over tackling irregularities and fighting fraud. i very much welcome the report's focus on systemic and general issues rather than on individual cases, for which, as you know, olaf is independent in its investigations. the commission fully agrees with the european parliament on the need to analyse in greater depth the structures existing in member states in charge of combating irregularities, to support them and facilitate cooperation and the exchange of information. this will be taken up in the 2008 report. this year's commission report highlights the topics of risk analysis and risk management, exclusion databases and early-warning/whistleblower tools. in addition, the report examines the steps taken by member states to improve recovery of amounts not collected or wrongly paid, as well as the mechanisms under national law for recovery by offsetting. the report also contains information on amounts recovered and the financial corrections, in particular when a payment has not been made in conformity with community rules. the role of organised crime, such as the mafia, in undermining the eu's financial interests is a subject close to the heart of the rapporteur. olaf has contributed to the organised crime threat assessment (octa) produced by europol. i am happy to report that i have asked both bodies to continue to cooperate on the matter. value added tax and customs fraud is where the big money is. sadly, it is an area where cooperation with member states is often difficult. i will be very brief, and refer to what i will say on the newton dunn report, and thank the european parliament for its ongoing support in underlining the useful role that cooperation at eu level can bring in this area. my fourth and last comment will be on the revision of the olaf regulation. the commission tabled a proposal in this regard in may 2006. i remain convinced that it raises the main important issues relating to the effective functioning of the anti-fraud office, namely the flow of information, procedural rights and the complaints mechanism, the role of the supervisory committee and, more generally, governance and accountability. i very much hope that we can enter into interinstitutional discussions on finding solutions in the very near future and make progress on these important points. the musotto report reiterates the desire to group together anti-fraud legislation. from a political viewpoint i fully support this, but technically it will be a challenging task. the commission will be ready to forward the requested analysis to the european parliament by may this year. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on regional development. - (cs) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a report on the protection of the financial interests of the eu with the somewhat equivocal subheading: 'fight against fraud'. the actual focus of the report is not fraud as such, but rather irregularities. while fraud presupposes malicious intent, an irregularity can result from negligence or incorrect accounting procedures. in delicate areas such as financial relations within the eu such terminology, should be used circumspectly. as the rapporteur for the committee on regional development, i regret the increase in the number of irregularities detected in projects financed from structural funds. this reflects negatively on some member states and their internal control mechanisms. difficulties on the part of these countries should not, however, become a reason to re-evaluate the existing system of decentralised controls governing the use of structural funds. the responsibility is evident; it is individual and as such it also has to be enforceable. attaining an appropriate level in financial control mechanisms in individual member states is the first necessary step. the following step is to ensure the recovery of sums unduly paid. a possible approach to this could be the suspension of regular payments to those member states procrastinating over returning amounts paid under irregular circumstances. the existence of imperfect control mechanisms has the potential to undermine confidence in the structural funds system and could cast a negative light on the eu as a whole. furthermore, we need controls with greater openness and transparency. i would therefore like to express my support for the european transparency initiative, according to which information on beneficiaries of assistance from structural funds would be published. as we are talking about managing public funds, certain demands should be placed on the beneficiaries of such assistance. a prerequisite of a better assessment of control systems is closer collaboration with the court of auditors, which has to date been lacking. whilst it is true that reports from the court of auditors make for tedious reading for the european institutions, this should be all the more reason to devote more attention to them, and is certainly preferable to burying one's head in the sand and avoiding responsibility. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on agriculture and rural development. - (fi) mr president, francesco musotto has produced an excellent report on the annual reports of the european anti-fraud office 2005-2006, and i want to express my sincerest thanks for that. the number of irregularities notified by the member states rose in 2006 to the equivalent of eur 1 143 million. of this, the european agricultural guidance and guarantee fund accounts for an amount of eur 87 million. although this is just 0.17% of the total for agricultural expenditure, eur 49.7 billion, it nonetheless has to be viewed seriously. approximately a third of these irregularities were cases of direct fraud. with the new regulation the member states will be able to recover unjustified payments of aid more easily than before. that is why the committee on agriculture and rural development and the committee on budgetary control consider it regrettable that the level of recovery of this aid remains low. the commission should speed up the recovery process and if necessary apply corrective measures. both committees also assure the commission of their full support in rigorously applying the option of suspension of payments if the commission does not have absolute guarantees that the member state which is the beneficiary of funds has a reliable management and control system. (applause) on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (de) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the epp-ed group is responsible for the report on the fight against fraud for the first time and we are very grateful to mr musotto for making olaf's work and the cooperation with the member states the focus of his report. he had to work very hard, having to contend with 630 pages of statistical material from 2005 and 2006 on the fight against fraud. his review reveals a very mixed picture and i believe that we really need to take action here. uncovering irregularities does not appear to be a very important issue for the member states. this is apparent from the fact that, yet again, the council is absent from this very important debate, despite the fact that as the second arm of the budgetary authority, it should be concerned about what is happening to the taxpayers' money, which it is responsible for managing and disbursing. the rapporteur proposes taking formal steps against germany and spain for their violations of eu law. spain is only providing paper information about irregularities. moreover, this information is extremely sketchy, as is apparent from the 18th structural funds report. germany is a very specific case. it takes longer to provide the information than the other member states, and it is the only country which does not disclose names. how can olaf do its job without names? the fraudsters are hiding behind data protection here, for the fact is, mr bezina, that between 15% and 20% of the irregularities have some kind of fraudulent background. germany is also putting obstacles in the way of olaf's investigative work at local level, notably in cases of customs offences and export refunds. we are calling on the commission to report on every member state and its willingness or lack of willingness to cooperate, and to do so by the time the next olaf report is due. from our group's perspective, the forthcoming reform of olaf's legal basis must be utilised, first and foremost, to improve the working conditions in olaf's cooperation with the member states. i would like to express my warm thanks to olaf itself and to the staff who are working in a very difficult area. i think that the outcomes really do stand up to scrutiny. however, i am also convinced that these outcomes could be improved through better cooperation with the member states. on behalf of the pse group. - (hu) mr president, mr vice-president, ladies and gentlemen, the european parliament considers protection of the european union's financial interests to be one of its most important tasks since, like all parliaments, it has the right and the duty to monitor expenditure. moreover, the view that eu funds are inadequately looked after is increasingly widespread in europe, so we also have a political debt to the public, to our constituents and to our taxpayers in this regard. we put this legislative and political obligation into practice primarily by means of the discharge procedure, but in addition to this we have been producing regular reports on the protection of eu financial interests and the fight against fraud. our aim in doing so is not to create a sensation or cause a scandal, but to expose the situation objectively and resolve any problems. i would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my fellow member, mr musotto, for this excellent report, and to express my gratitude to the commission vice-president, mr kallas, and olaf director-general, mr brner, for the constructive cooperation they have demonstrated in this area too. despite the fact that these high-level reports are greeted with much appreciation year on year, we in the european institutions sometimes feel as if we are tilting at windmills, since the findings of the reports encounter resistance on the part of the council, with the result that the commission has not been able to put the necessary measures in place for years. we believe that the weakest link is the attitude of member states, since in some member states - our fellow member mrs grssle spoke just now about germany in this connection - there is a failure to recognise how very important it is to ensure that eu funds are spent in accordance with the rules, that expenditures are subject to scrutiny, and that any amounts unduly paid are recovered. we consider it particularly lamentable that vat fraud in the form of 'carousel' transactions is becoming increasingly widespread throughout europe, to the extent that we have no global figures on the amount involved, although some estimates suggest that it may be around 35-40% of the eu budget. it is time to take resolute action in this regard too, both in the interests of managing european affairs and in the interests of public opinion. thank you very much. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) mr president, as i take the floor on behalf of the union for europe of the nations group regarding protection of the communities' financial interests, i should like to draw attention to the following issues. firstly, there has been a significant increase in the sums affected by irregularities in the area of own resources, eur 328 million in 2005 and eur 353 million in 2006, compared with eur 212 million in 2004. i should also mention the increase in irregularities in the area of structural actions: eur 703 million in 2006 compared with eur 601 million in 2005. secondly, there has been a marked reduction in the sums affected by irregularities in the area of agriculture. in 2006 the figure was eur 82 million, compared with eur 102 million in 2005. this reduction is worthy of particular note because very often expenditure on agriculture involves huge numbers of beneficiaries - farmers - who often have to cope on their own with the complicated procedure of accounting for the funding received. thirdly, i would like to highlight the statement in the report that some of the main reasons for the emergence of irregularities in budgetary expenditure are the complicated programming principles and ineffective monitoring and control methods. fourthly, the call for greater transparency when awarding resources should also be noted. an important feature of this transparency is a commitment by the member states to publish information on projects and beneficiaries of resources originating in all community funds. mr president, the commissioner said the same thing: the report does indeed overlap with the discharge procedure. in this sense, too, this debate is a warm-up act for the hearing next week with commissioners pidla and hbner. we know the figures for reported irregularities. they do not tell the whole story, of course, but they do tell us a lot about the problems reported in the policy areas of own resources, agriculture and the structural funds. the report mentions a total of eur 1.1 billion worth of reported irregularities and the trend is upward. we are back to the level of 2002, following better figures in 2003, 2004 and 2005. agriculture is doing relatively well. the problem sectors are clearly own resources and the structural funds: own resources accounted for eur 325 million of reported irregularities and the structural funds accounted for eur 700 million. within the structural funds, five member states accounted for 84% of the reported irregularities. anyone who is interested can read which countries they are in mr musotto's report. it really is quite remarkable. it also has to be remembered that in the period before 2006, another eur 1 billion of resources had yet to be recovered and that the court of auditors says that 12% of the structural funds in 2006 could not be paid out. this is the context in which the present discharge procedure is taking place and it is a cause of great concern to us. we will come back to this. as far as own resources are concerned, the problem of cigarette fraud is being tackled properly. we had the agreement with philip morris. there is a new agreement with japan tobacco, which should deliver a lot of money and will also bring about a reduction in smuggling. the main problem area in own resources is the vat 'carrousel' transactions. the figures are quoted: enormous amounts are involved, running into billions of euros. an investigation by the british house of lords highlights this further. i am pleased that parliament is tackling this. the committee on economic and monetary affairs has already organised a hearing and the committee on budgetary control will do the same on 4 or 5 may. i hope that i, as rapporteur, will be able to produce as good a report on the vat carrousels as my report on cigarette fraud. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - mr president, this report is a long catalogue of failure. it graphically illustrates how the amount of fraud, described as 'irregularities', is steadily rising and that attempts to deal with it are failing. it openly admits that fraud in 2006 in the areas of own resources - agricultural expenditure and member states' structural actions - totalled eur 1 143 million. it was eur 922 million in 2003, so in just four years fraud has risen by over eur 200 million. i would remind everyone in this institution that these are not meaningless sums of money, but taxpayers' money. the eu is funded by its citizens, including hard-pressed taxpayers in the uk. they deserve better than this for their money. governments of all member states should be saying 'enough' already, and these appalling figures provide all the more reason why the government of my country should honour its manifesto commitment to give the british people a referendum on the lisbon treaty. (de) mr president, it is no secret that the european union has been battling for years to get its finances under control. we fund major companies which then relocate from one member state to another, while small and medium-sized enterprises go away empty-handed. indeed, the eu often does not appear to know who it is actually funding and who is pulling its strings. in my view, a register of lobbyists is long overdue. the numerous irregularities also leave a bitter aftertaste, especially when they have a direct connection to the eu's institutions. in this context, freezing the eu funding for bulgaria until the cases of corruption have been cleared up sends out an important signal. there is also the fact that some member states apparently have little interest in recovering funds that have been paid out incorrectly. if cases from the 1990s are only now being closed, then obviously things are moving far too slowly in the eu. (fi) mr president, i want to thank the rapporteur, mr musotto. he has done a very thorough and excellent job. this report is crucially important, and the fight against fraud is something over which the confidence of the public is either won or lost. i think there are three very important problems contained in this report which need to be put right. first of all, it is intolerable that some countries do not even provide information on agricultural expenditure. germany and spain are prime examples of this, and germany does not even provide details of the individuals and companies which the european anti-fraud office would definitely need in order to be able to address these matters. this is obviously something we cannot allow: all member states must obey the rules. if a few big countries set a bad example, the situation does not look very good. the second issue is that notification of irregularities can take up to 39 months - more than three years. that is far too long and does not inspire trust in the notion that the member states are acting with sufficient vigilance. the third issue, which is very interesting and important, is that specialised and organised crime is also occurring in this area. this is now so serious that all measures need to be taken to cut this sort of crime. this is a very important report and every effort needs to be made to improve the situation in order to gain public confidence. (applause) (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to express my sincere congratulations to the rapporteur. it is not an easy task, coming in new to such a comprehensive dossier, and i think we can be proud that mr musotto has done such a magnificent job. i think we can say this with confidence today, given that there are no amendments to this report for tomorrow. that, too, is a tribute to the rapporteur. secondly, it is apparently of no interest whatsoever to one of the budgetary authorities to find out what is happening to the taxpayers' money. once again, the council is shirking its responsibility. whenever we talk about how european taxpayers' money is being spent and try to seek solutions to difficult issues, the council simply absents itself. however, we have seen - and this brings me to the issue of what will happen with the discharges in our committee - that for years in the field of agricultural policy, where we have been resolute in our action and developed systems to control direct payments, irregularities have decreased. in structural policy, on the other hand, where nothing has been done and where we have sat back and watched events unfold for years, the figures have gone up and up. this has been apparent for years, and has repeatedly featured in the fraud reports for years. commissioner kallas will see in the 2006 discharge that this is a problem and we will expect him to take action and not just sit back and watch. that is why i would like you, commissioner, to say this to those member states which behave as if the rules that we have all devised do not apply to them, and this is also what the rapporteur says, with the full support of all the previous speakers: we want you to say, 'okay, we will put 10% of your funding on ice. it will form a reserve, and you can have the money once you have taken appropriate action'. that is a very practical demand from parliament. it is not a plan of action; it is practical action. this is what we expect from the commission, and then we will be very satisfied. once again, congratulations to the rapporteur. mr president, like the other speakers, i would like to congratulate the rapporteur on what is a very important report. i am prompted to take part in this debate because of the focus on agriculture. other speakers have said that there has been an improvement in terms of the controls and inspections, particularly when it comes to money given to farmers, and there is now the transparency initiative to publish what farmers are getting. one of the difficulties for those in the farming community is that they believe very often they are guilty until proven innocent. obviously, none of us can or will condone fraud, and because there is fraud in the eu budget there is a very poor public perception of the european union and how it accounts for the money collected. if the public understood the european budget better, they might clamour a little louder for us to be harder on fraud. it is important to stress the difference between fraud and irregularities, of which many are discovered, because they are very different. we cannot punish ourselves for irregularities, but we should punish fraud against the community budget. this is an issue involving the member states - as the last speaker said - because all the member states signed up to the european union in good faith and have pooled resources in certain policies, and it is up to us to ensure that the money we have pooled is well spent and that there is no fraud against the public purse. member states which are light on fraud, and take a light-touch approach, need to be punished in some way, but it is very important that member states that perform well in this area are not penalised. it is therefore important for the commission to take action at member state level. i shall finish by reiterating the very important point that, on the farming side, there is now a very strong feeling among those who farm that they are sometimes guilty until proven innocent. that is unacceptable, and we therefore need to be careful to get the balance right. - (nl) mr president, thank you for allowing me to speak again. anyone who follows me in my political office and my statements knows that i am a critical politician and that i am also highly critical of the european union but that i am still very strongly pro-european. i cannot therefore ignore the words of mr clark, who has meanwhile left the room. like all eurosceptics, mr clark uses half truths, complete lies and lots of oversimplifications on a frequent basis. he talked in his speech, for instance, of several million euros worth of fraud, while the report clearly states that we are dealing with irregularities. he invariably substitutes 'fraud' for the word 'irregularities'. that is crass, because that is not what it says in the report. secondly, he talks as if every disaster that befalls us comes from the european union. i would just like to ask mr clark to read the report of the british house of lords on vat carrousels. then he will see that his own authorities have not managed to put a stop to this vat fraud. we are talking about gbp 3.5 to 4.5 billion of fraud a year. that is more than gbp 10 million a day! that is significantly more . (the president cut off the speaker) (ro) congratulations on mr. musotto's report. i consider that many irregularities from 2003-2006 would have the support of changing the rule of presentation of the framework programme 6, for instance, as compared to framework 5. in framework 5, the b party was anonymous and any reference to the country and to the person behind the project was penalized. in frameworks 6 and 7, the anonymity disappeared. in framework 8 is it possible to no longer resort to this system of advanced submission of projects? (de) mr president, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak again. i would like to thank mr bsch, not only for his praise of our rapporteur, but also for his fairness and help. mr bsch has been dealing with the fraud report for many years. now we have this honour, and i think it is a great sign of strength in the committee on budgetary control that we are in agreement here. we have focused our full attention on the member states. the commission should also take with it the message that we want to help to bring this lack of clarity to an end. if we look at the figures on the recovery of funds, we see that we are dealing with a very wide range of opinions. that is why we are having this discussion as part of the current discharge procedure. consequently, i really must ask the commission to have the courage to say if it does not know certain things, so that we can help. i think that if we tackle the issue together, then together, we will be successful. once again, very many thanks to mr bsch. vice-president of the commission. - mr president, i would like to thank the honourable members for their comments on this report. we consider the report to be very focused and constructive. i have just two remarks on an issue raised by very many of you - namely, what is irregularity, what is fraud, and how should one approach recovery? i can say that we have had one preliminary meeting with the relevant people at the court of auditors, and tried to harmonise the understanding of what is what. that will probably also help in all our future debates on discharge, and of course all the three reports - including the next one - are all very closely interrelated. secondly, i have raised this issue with the council presidency, and asked it to consider this parliamentary report during its proceedings, by which i mean to discuss this document within the framework of ecofin. i hope it will do that. we will definitely, after the vote on this report, when it becomes an official document, also try to initiate this discussion in the council, including at the level of the relevant subcommittees. rapporteur. - (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, allow me firstly to thank all my colleagues for their kind words, and especially mr bsch whose earlier work laid the foundations for my own report. i should like to emphasise a few points, the main one being the meeting of minds with commissioner kallas, particularly as concerns the nature of the regulatory mechanisms governing the disbursement of funds. the commission has made an undertaking here. one important aspect underscored by mr kallas is that the more difficulties and complications there are, the harder it becomes to understand the rules and the easier it becomes for organised crime above all and for all forms of unlawful activity to move into these grey areas. therefore simplification and, even more, a closing of the gap between those disbursing the sums of money and the beneficiaries is another means of achieving clarity, transparency and ease of understanding of the whole system. the problem of recovery is a very real one. the procedures are too lengthy, and the capacity to punish those who defraud the european community must be ensured by some kind of security or guarantee, to be applied through the banks. it is essential to devise methods of ensuring disbursement and, especially, of making it possible to recover these sums and hence assisting, improving and facilitating the speed of recovery. i believe that, thanks to the cooperation, good will and political commitment of all of my colleagues, we have done a crucial job of work. there can be no doubt that this cooperation, this willingness and desire to stamp out a phenomenon that does enormous damage to the european community is motivated solely by political concerns. of course, the absence of the council has not made matters any easier; the presence of a representative would have enabled us to find out what the council thinks. but parliament is absolutely united and unanimous on these principles, and we therefore believe that we have done something positive which gives us hope for the future. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on 19 february 2008. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - (hu) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, congratulations on this report, which highlights not only the successes of the recent past, but also some lamentable shortcomings and long-standing debts. for me this report is very topical because in hungary a decision has been made to establish a national anti-counterfeiting body. this body will primarily have a coordinating function linking the hungarian patent office, other government agencies and actors in the economy, including functions connected with european union-related data services. we need to prepare ourselves for a long and futile battle. knowledge - whether protected or in the public domain - is becoming increasingly widely accessible. a car on display in one room can be copied in the space of 5 minutes in the room next door. the result will not be any worse, just cheaper: it is up to us to decide whether to go ahead and buy the more expensive item anyway. we have to decide whether we are willing to pay for the intellectual achievement, the innovation, even if we have the option of choosing the secondary product or service that has no value added. to do this requires considerable awareness and commitment. we cannot expect individual citizens to recognise these connections and make decisions based on values if our legislators or governments are unable to do so. it is particularly important to reduce the number of irregularities relating to use of eu funds to below the tolerable error rate: fraud of this sort makes the european union as a whole look ridiculous when it involves eu funds being used in a manner that contradicts the declared aims of the eu.

18. the eu policy coherence for development and the 'official development assistance plus concept' ( before the vote on paragraph 34: madam president, i propose that after the words 'introduction of an international financial transaction tax', three words be added: 'at global level'. it seems to me this will make more sense. thank you very much.

international financial reporting standards and the governance of the international accounting standards board (debate) the next item is the report by alexander radwan, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on international financial reporting standards (ifrs) and the governance of the international accounting standards board (iasb). rapporteur. - (de) madam president, the subject matter of the report before us would seem, at first glance, to be highly technical. it concerns so-called accounting standards in the european union and worldwide, particularly for small and medium-sized companies. it may very well be the type of subject that is discussed now in the european parliament and then takes several years to begin to affect the economy and ordinary people. at that stage the cry will go up that nobody knows where these standards come from or who is responsible for them. nor will anyone know why they have to be applied. the objective is to achieve a single set of global accounting standards, particularly for public limited companies. we support that objective. the argument we hear advanced for it is that we need 'high quality standards', and this house considers itself the only forum empowered to set those high quality standards. however, in these times of turbulence on the financial markets, it is astonishing to hear the same people who previously argued for the principle of 'fair value' now questioning that principle and asking, too, whether a 'market to market' approach still makes sense if we no longer have a market. the very people who let the genie out of the bottle are the ones now asking whether we are on the right track. the only people responsible for these standards are the people sitting in the offices of this private organisation in london, who are undoubtedly influenced in making their standards by the desire to keep themselves in a job. my report, on which we are to vote today, therefore concerns not just the impact on small and medium-sized companies, but also the fundamental question of who makes rules for whom, and who supervises the application of the rules. the first issue to address is that of governance: how transparent is this organisation? in other words, how transparent is its funding? there are certainly hidden interests here. the members of this committee, who are demanding transparency and always try to portray the market as transparent, should make at least a modicum of effort to comply themselves with the transparency requirements they lay down for the market! my impression so far is that this organisation fights with every means at its disposal to avoid transparency in any form. who takes the decisions about financing and the choice of personnel for specific posts? why are individuals appointed? is it about regional balance? is it about inter-sector balance? the current project concerns ifrs for small and medium-sized companies, so it is fair to ask who represents small and medium-sized companies. who knows about small and medium-sized companies? and another thing: why are ifrs for small and medium-sized companies actually on the agenda right now? who sets the agenda? commissioner mccreevy and sir david tweedie have also been asked many times, over a number of years, why we are actually doing this. several years down the line we now know why we are discussing ifrs for small and medium-sized companies in europe: it is because of requests from south africa and brazil. what a marvellous answer! we know quite well that the focus of all this is not south africa or brazil, but rather the european market, where there will be a lot of money to be made if smes are required to introduce something like this. so these are the issues at stake in the matter of governance - and some initial, positive steps have been taken. but all the bodies that are to be set up in the future will be assessed according to whether the people who belong to this supervisory organisation and have to answer questions about it at political level - and they could include a member of the commission - will also have the power to shape new developments. it is not enough for them simply to be notified of proposals. one of our aims is convergence. we must take care, however, that the interpretation of convergence does not slip from europe's grasp, to be replaced by the sec's interpretation. in europe today we are sufficiently familiar with the way the us stock exchange is supervised. we should not be so nave as to leave the business of supervision to the americans. what we want is therefore what we have already called for: ifrs as europe understands them and not as this board dictates. small and medium-sized companies are the ones affected here, and i have to say, without mincing my words, that the ideas on the table today are too complicated and too difficult. i would also warn against taking the voluntary approach. i am wearing my bavarian national costume today and a good old bavarian term comes to mind here: it is 'hinterfotzig' and it means something like 'through the back door'. we know very well - despite all the denials and the acquiescence - that ifrs for small and medium-sized companies will be introduced to the european market through the back door, via a small number of member states. we will then hear the same voices calling for a single set of standards, and they will proceed to foist their standards on the market - standards which are too complex, which nobody understands and nobody wants - purely because there is a market opportunity. what we have here is a case of a minority trying to impose its will on a majority at global level, and it is unacceptable! member of the commission. - madam president, i would like to thank the committee on economic and monetary affairs and in particular the rapporteur, mr radwan, for the considerable work that has gone into this comprehensive report. it raises important issues for the future development of european and indeed global capital markets. in this brief intervention i cannot address all the issues raised in the report. let me therefore focus on three points. one, governance issues; secondly the eu's input to the international accounting standards board, the iasb; and thirdly the project to develop an accounting standard for small and medium-sized enterprises. on iasb governance, your report rightly highlights the fact that our shared objective is to develop high-quality global accounting standards. the eu's decision to require listed companies to use international accounting standards was a bold and visionary step towards this objective. a single set of globally accepted accounting standards would provide significant benefits for our companies, our capital markets and our economy. we must continuously strive to ensure that international accounting standards remain relevant in the face of changing economic circumstances and that they represent the interests of all stakeholders in a balanced manner. to ensure that these conditions can continue to be met, progress should be made as a matter of priority in three areas. firstly, the accountability of the international accounting standards committee foundation (iascf), needs to be enhanced, in particular towards public authorities. the latter should play an active role in the selection and appointment of trustees. in this respect, the proposal that i, together with my counterparts in the us sec, the japanese fsa and the international organisation of securities commissions, made last november goes in the direction advocated by your report. secondly, we need to look at how the iasb's agenda-setting process can be improved. in particular, the process through which priorities are set needs to be made more open and more transparent. thirdly, the iasb's due process should be enhanced, mainly by ensuring that standards are subject to a full impact assessment before they are adopted. your report makes constructive suggestions about these and related points. the forthcoming review of the iascf's constitution provides the opportunity to implement the necessary reforms. the committee will pursue them in consultation with this house, the member states and our international partners. now, turning to the eu's input to the iasb. your report argues that the eu needs to strengthen its capacity to make its views on accounting matters heard at the international level. i agree. in particular we should seek means to ensure that the views of european stakeholders, especially proactive input to the iasb's agenda-setting process, can be put to the iasb in a more timely and coherent manner. i see this as an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary process. we should build on the european financial reporting advisory group and i am ready to pursue this as a matter of urgency, including the possibility of using funding from the community budget to support such a structure. i must, however, sound a clear and unambiguous warning. this structure will in no circumstances become an embryonic european standard-setter, nor can there be any question of developing european interpretations of international accounting standards. europe must and will remain part of the movement towards a single set of globally accepted accounting standards. anything else would damage the international competitiveness of our companies and our capital market. turning now to the iasb's project to develop an accounting standard for smes, let me begin by stating that the commission currently has no legal basis to endorse this standard. moreover, we have never made any commitment to take over whatever standard the iasb produces. we would only do so if we were genuinely convinced that the iasb produces a standard that meets the interests of european users. the iasb has not yet finalised its project. however, at this stage the commission's views are clear. the current exposure draft published by the iasb remains too complex to provide a satisfactory accounting framework for european smes, especially for smaller companies. our focus remains the simplification of the regulatory environment for smes, including in the accounting area. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on legal affairs. - (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the ias system makes sense for big listed companies that operate worldwide. that is why, during parliament's last term, we decided, on the legal affairs committee's proposal, to adopt the ias regulation. the ultimate aim - as alexander radwan has said - was indeed to achieve convergence, at least with the usa and if possible worldwide. the system makes no sense in the case of small and medium-sized companies because, as a rule, they have no need of international financial markets, no need of wall street and the rest. for that reason alone, the necessity of developing ifrs for small and medium-sized companies is highly questionable. on top of that - and i think commissioner mccreevy was entirely right here - the current proposal is for nothing more than a slimmed-down version of what are, by any measure, extremely complicated international standards, entirely unsuited to the structure of small and medium-sized companies in europe. they are particularly ill-suited to family companies, which have been run by their owners for several generations; which have already written off property belonging to them; and in which the application of fair-value rules would simply encourage greed and, in the end, could very well jeopardise the companies' chances of survival. on the other hand, we must be realistic. ultimately, the question of accounting standards for smes in europe will not be exempt from some form of pressure for harmonisation. our demand is for comparability, at least within the single market. so i think it is important that we should seriously consider how to develop european alternatives to the proposals from london, with the aim of achieving greater standardisation in this area too - but standardisation that is sensible and appropriate for smes and geared to the long term, rather than short-term valuation. i have one further point to make about the ias bodies. there is a real problem here, as alexander radwan has outlined. there may be a certain geographical balance but there is no balance in terms of economic weight. europe is by far the largest bloc, the largest region in which the ias rules apply. that is why we must have a commensurate say, and we simply cannot be compared with somewhere like australia. australia carries the same weight as a middle-sized eu country or, indeed, a big region like north rhine-westphalia. the balance needs to be improved in this respect. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (nl) madam president, first of all my compliments to mr radwan on getting this thorough report completed. it was under discussion up to the very last minute. in its final form it is a report that is clear, but sometimes critical too. the rapporteur is convinced that the iasb's democratic accountability has to be improved and i am glad to see the iasb taking this criticism on board. the chairman of the trustees, mr gerrit zalm, indicated recently in the european parliament that he was open to suggestions and ready to put forward proposals on adapting the structure. the iasb is working on ifrs standards for small and medium enterprises. i agree with the rapporteur that ifrs are too complex and too expensive for smes. i also believe that encouraging the voluntary use of ifrs by smes would carry the risk of them being introduced into europe by the back door. in my view there has to be differentiation according to company size. it is a good thing to have big multinationals, banks and insurance companies which operate worldwide producing their annual accounts to a single standard. but small and medium-sized enterprises in europe should have their own standard. the iasb has achieved much in respect of internationally listed companies and accounting standards for them. if smes are now saying that cost and effort can be just as well managed using more than one standard, we cannot have a single standard being imposed from the top down. it is also very important that the interests of investors and of transparency should be considered too. policy is there to facilitate, to ensure that there is sound, transparent and cost-effective information on business performance. i think the proven benefits of ifrs can also benefit european equity markets, certainly if the americans exchange their us gaap system for ifrs. comparability here can be very beneficial to international investors and stakeholders. the idea behind ifrs thus deserves to be supported by the european parliament. on behalf of the pse group. - (fr) thank you, commissioner, for managing to come to strasbourg. thank you also to the rapporteur, in your bavarian costume. i think we worked very well together, and the way in which it was possible for various people's amendments to be incorporated in your report is proof of that. first of all, i should like to make three points about accounting standards. it seems to me that, in terms of the governance and operation of the body responsible for setting these accounting standards, we are in an unusual situation. there are many forms of standardisation. not all of them have such a strong impact on financial stability, or on the issues, in terms of power and governance, as accounting standards have. what is happening today is an important event, a passage to adulthood. when these accounting standards were formulated, perhaps by auditors who worked amongst themselves, they basically prepared the ground very well. nowadays these accounting standards are international. they are used and applied by everyone and so the question of governance is crucial. how does the body responsible for setting these accounting standards fit in with international governance, in relation to democratic bodies, bodies that legitimately represent state power, and the european union in particular? the second point we need to look at in regard to governance is of course the balance between those bodies. what is the geographical balance, what is the balance in the representation not just of those who draw up the standards, but also of those who will have to use them? the third point is financing. how are these bodies to be financed? might the idea of a levy on businesses, which would be coordinated by regulatory bodies, be worthwhile? could they be financed by government, by the european community? we hope that the commissioner will be making some strong proposals on that point. the fourth question in regard to those bodies is the programme. is it right for them to develop the concept of fair value when we know the effects that can have on financial stability? is it right for this body to develop an sme programme that europe does not need? is it right that, on this issue of standards for smes - just because, as our rapporteur has said, south africa or australia might need them - the commissioner did not make sure that europe had a say in those bodies. it is absolutely essential, as a first step, that europe should make sure it is there to represent the strength of all the member states and the voice of europeans, in the iasb, the iascf and ifric. commissioner, that is your responsibility. we are expecting strong proposals from you on that point. on behalf of the alde group. - madam president, ifrss are being adapted by more and more countries, so their value and importance is growing. this brings with it a need to strengthen accountability and transparency of the iasb, which may not have been so obvious at its inception. i welcome moves in that direction, but i regret that some parts of this report present criticism in a negative way, rather than acknowledging changes that are under way and pointing the way forward. so several of my amendments aim to be more forward-looking, highlighting the advantages and benefits, alongside the need for further adaptation, both to the standards themselves and the iasb that oversees them. however, unnecessary politicisation of technical issues must be avoided. ifrss are an important tool for advancing comparability across borders and reducing burdensome requirements for companies reporting under different regimes, but it would be useful if presentation of financial statements lent itself more easily to other comparison purposes. however, it may well be the case that tools such as xbrl tagging can develop that. i have to thank ms van den burg for organising an interesting presentation on that subject last week. the sme proposals cause concern in several quarters. to me they look more like a tool for medium entities, perhaps on their way to full public reporting, so they may merit their own separate consideration in that light or on a voluntary basis. but - as you have said, commissioner - as yet they are far too complex for the majority of ordinary smes. madam president, i commend my colleague mr radwan for a very well written report. i hope the bavarian national dress he is wearing here this morning is not indicative of a change in political direction. the adoption of the ifrss in january 2005 has brought great benefits to the european union by making accountancy requirements simpler across borders and financial statements easier to compare across countries, competitors and industries, enhancing the work of regulatory oversight, banking and capital markets. international financial reporting standards are now being used or are being adopted in more than a hundred countries, including australia, south africa and others. i support the calls for increased transparency, effectiveness and accountability over the iasb. the report points to the fact that 17 months had passed before the iasb appointed a new chairperson. this cannot be acceptable. the iasb is a private, self-regulatory body which has been given the role of rule-maker and it is only right that we demand increased accountability and oversight because of that. we should also be careful about calling for the establishment of extra eu structures to deal with the interpretation and application of ifrs standards. why is it needed? what will it do? on the subject of eu-us convergence, there has been great progress made in this area and in the eu-us accounting road map. last year, the us president, the president-in-office of the european council and the president of the european commission signed a joint eu-us statement which undertook to promote and to seek to ensure conditions for the us generally accepted accounting principles and the ifrss to be recognised in both jurisdictions. this is very welcome. with regard to the application of the ifrss to smes, smes are small and smaller. i feel it might be better to make it optional so as to ensure flexibility, rather than prevent its application outright. (nl) madam president, i must echo the compliments paid to mr radwan, not least because his report has enabled us to have a very interesting debate on the conflicts between legislation and self-regulation, especially at world level. i appreciate that our aspirations place us in a quandary. on the one hand we want these international standards, applicable worldwide, but on the other hand we insist on our authority as co-legislator to judge the substance of those standards and to discharge our duty as co-legislator responsibly. i think the european parliament has shown latterly that it does that. to my mind the key lies in timely consultation, in a balanced consideration of the interests of all stakeholders, including third-party interests of employees, local authorities, suppliers and so on (because adequate financial reporting benefits more than just money providers alone), and a sound assessment of the consequences. the commission has a weighty responsibility here. and in the immediate future these things must be done on behalf of small and medium-sized enterprises. we can make this a really worthwhile project for the eu. lastly, i have two comments which are also relevant to another report which we shall be voting on in our next part-session, mr lehne's report on a simplified business environment for companies. here too i have taken the line that rules are not just for companies, money providers and the accountants who earn their living from them, but also for employees and other groups. so we must not meddle with the quality of the rules. i have advocated that the rules should in any event be applied to delisted companies and off-balance activities. i hope you will agree that there is also work for the iasb to do in that area. i will end by repeating my heartfelt endorsement of the xbrl standard. as you are aware, the us sec is about to take a decision making this mandatory. i urge you to think about how europe should respond to this, and encourage you to draw up a roadmap for europe accordingly. madam president, there are issues with the transparency and governance of the international accounting standards board (iasb), but it has accepted this criticism and acknowledged the need to change. steps have been taken and more are planned: publication of feedback statements, explaining the reasoning behind its decisions, pushing cost-benefit analyses and enlargement and more active involvement of the board of trustees. it bent over backwards to communicate with parliament. mr radwan's report is much improved from earlier versions and i believe the positive amendments from the ppe-de and alde groups will further improve the text today. i would like to thank the rapporteur because, although we have had our differences, he was willing to compromise in certain areas on this governance aspect. unfortunately, i am unable to agree with him on the issue of international financial reporting standards for smes. the iasb was asked to draw up a simplified version for smes. mr radwan's report declines to acknowledge that this could also be useful in the european union. in fact, with the proposal still only at the drafting stage, the report proclaims that it will definitely not benefit eu companies. yet we have been told repeatedly that it will be optional and is designed for those growing smes which aim to become public listed companies. small enterprises with no aspirations beyond their local markets need not take it up. an opinion survey last september found that a clear majority of european smes, including german smes, considered the benefits outweighed any disadvantages and would improve financial reporting. the efforts of the iasb to develop global accounting standards of a high quality are a major and welcome contribution to the european and world economies and, frankly, i think we should be applauding them. (es) madam president, the requirement since 2005 for publicly traded companies to use the ifrs (international financial reporting standards) for their consolidated financial statements has been a wide-ranging and hugely influential political initiative. about 100 countries are using the standards and their globalisation has provided comparability and transparency, thereby increasing the confidence of operators, creating a more level playing field and strengthening market discipline. the proposal contains two great challenges relating to governance. on the one hand, the private entity, which has been setting worldwide voluntary standards since 1973 on a corporate and professional basis, now finds itself in a position of huge responsibility entailing a change in its nature, procedures and composition in order that it can become a transparent, controllable institution, with a legitimacy reflecting its new role. it is necessary to recognise and coordinate the activities of all the public and private interests concerned and at the same time to secure the organisation's financing and independence in the setting of standards. furthermore, the organisation must be integrated into international governance. it is also necessary to strengthen european accounting governance by adopting a more proactive and integrated approach to the preparation, approval, implementation and assessment of standards. it is vital to improve the conceptual framework of standards, and to bear in mind that they are neither neutral nor academic and can produce both winners and losers. likewise it is important to assess their effects and ensure their compatibility with european strategy, to learn from financial upheavals and to regulate the accounting standards of administrative concessions in a balanced way. the financial accounting arrangements for smes will need to be simple and be linked to their exploitation of the internal and global market. these matters are covered by mr radwan's report, which has achieved broad consensus and comes at a very opportune moment in terms of the upcoming review at the end of 2009, envisaging the creation of a supervisory body and altering the composition of the standards advisory council before next year. (de) madam president, commissioner, mr radwan, ladies and gentlemen, i warmly welcome this report and this debate because i think we are probing some really sensitive issues, and we are doing so on a genuinely cross-party basis. several points emerge very clearly from what has been said. firstly, we need a single set of standards for public limited companies, but we do not want to lump all companies together. secondly, while we are not rejecting specific rules tailored to smes, the framework for those rules must be established by us, by the european union. thirdly, the measures currently proposed are too complex and too expensive, they are of no use to smes and for those reasons we must reject them. fourthly, we are still awaiting satisfactory answers to the questions of who makes what rules for whom, and who supervises the process. there is no democratic legitimacy; there is no differentiation of approach; no account has been taken of the justifiable wishes of smes; and the system of democratic supervision is inadequate. fifthly, in taking a stance on this issue or trying to answer these questions, it is often forgotten that two-thirds of the workforce are employed in the private sector in family-owned companies, and the majority of those family-owned companies are smes that do not seek finance from the capital markets. this is a point we need to remember when we are confronted with proposals that would treat all companies alike. thank you for this worthwhile debate! madam president, paragraph 30 of our motion for a resolution points out that financial statements do not simply serve the needs of investors but also other stakeholders. as we also draw attention to the need for eu law changes in paragraph 41, i rise to remind the commissioner that this parliament has voted that any changes to the fourth and seventh company law directives should include a requirement for social and environmental reporting by companies. i draw to his attention such requirements in south africa, in france's law on new economic regulations, as well as the recommendations of the prince of wales's accounting for sustainability project from my own country, the uk. in the mean time, and in addition, i would like to ask the commissioner, following the 2001 commission recommendation on environmental issues in our new accounts, whether the commission could issue a similar recommendation on social issues in accounts. i would also like to ask the commissioner to press the international accounting standards board to include social and environmental aspects in its planned publication of a management commentary. the commission may or may not want to call this corporate social responsibility, but perhaps today we can all agree to call it accounting for responsible companies. (es) madam president, the recent financial crises have shown the importance of high-quality accounting standards for the proper functioning of the markets. this being the case, it seems to me that another lesson of the crisis is that there is a certain asymmetry between the stated importance of accounting standards and the nature and operation of the private entities responsible for setting, producing and interpreting those standards. mr radwan's report is therefore correct to point out that the first matter to be dealt with is that of governance. in my view he has put forward intelligent and realistic proposals about the need for the institutions representing the union to be more proactive in this process of setting standards which are to be incorporated into the community legal order, also concerning the internal operating rules of those private entities. greater transparency, safeguards to prevent conflicts of interest and broader geographical representation are some of the proposals which mr radwan has put forward. the second aspect dealt with in the report is the matter of small and medium-sized undertakings. we have emphasised here in the house the need to reconcile two objectives: simplification and reduced cost of accounting procedures for smes and the provision of adequate information for market players. the last point covered by mr radwan - and one with which i concur - is the need for global standards in a global environment. therefore it is extremely important to reach agreements with the other major world financial markets, notably the united states. this calls for greater dynamism and a more significant role for the european institutions, including this parliament and all those listening today. (de) madam president, i can entirely endorse what our colleague has just said. the underlying premise here - and mr radwan pinpoints it in his report - is that an institution without a political mandate should nonetheless lay down a relatively large body of measures affecting the economy, some of which are binding. it is not enough to call for improved governance, or better framework conditions; political bodies also need to become more involved in this matter than they have been in the past. what we are doing here in parliament constitutes a step in the right direction, but further steps must be taken. there is also another aspect to consider. what is done here at the level of a regional organisation - in this case the european union - should also be mirrored in the global context. so it is not a simply a matter of seeking to apply these rules to our region of the world alone. (lt) madam president, as my colleague has already mentioned, this report deals with who is responsible for what in the accountability process. parliament's role is quite significant, and i believe that we should have this function too. however, i would like to express some doubt regarding the consideration of every technical detail and establishing standards. i do not find the description of the method of assessment and evaluation of realisable and non-realisable assets completely acceptable. that is why i doubt we should interfere, whether this is good or a bad method. we should wait for the experts to carry out the assessment. meanwhile, the review of the standard of non-realisable assets and consultations on this issue has already started. only then should we make our decision. i therefore suggest that we do not support the proposal in article 30(e) or that in article 42. madam president, could i have assurances from commissioner mccreevy that the single set of global accounting standards - with the consequent drive for increased standardisation of procedures - will in no way increase the justification, or even the requirement, for an eu common consolidated corporation tax base? member of the commission. - madam president, i would like to thank members for their comments. it was certainly a very wide-ranging debate with diversity of views on many of the issues and we have taken note of them. i would like to emphasise again that high-quality international accounting standards are crucial for the effective functioning of both the european and global capital markets. the process through which these standards are developed should therefore be subject to robust governance. it should be characterised by a high level of transparency and it should ensure a balanced consideration of stakeholder interests. the iascf and the iasb have over recent years implemented significant reforms of their internal procedures but i cannot deny that further improvements are necessary. moreover, i recognise that we in europe should better organise ourselves to guide and provide input to the iasb standard-setting process. in short, even if the iasb's governance and due process were perfect, international accounting standards will only meet the needs of european stakeholders if their views are presented in a coherent, a convincing and a timely manner. nearly all speakers referred to the question of ifrss for smes and i repeat again that there is no legal basis for its endorsement in europe at present. if we were to do so, it would need codecision with the european parliament. can i just repeat, as i have said many times about ifrss for smes, when the iasb was going about this particular work i made it quite clear in a number of speeches that they should not assume that there was going to be automatic endorsement from the eu for this particular project. we would only recommend it if it was simple and effective and met the needs of smes. they were told that when they were doing their work. their first exposure draft has been presented. i then took the opportunity of telling them that it did not meet those criteria and in the present state of affairs i could not possibly even consider recommending it for smes because it was neither simple nor effective. that remains my position but, in line with what others have said and mr purvis in particular, it would probably be a good thing if there was a simple effective ifrs for smes - but only on that particular basis. the idea is a good one. i do not want to knock the idea at all, but i am not going to endorse now or in the future anything for smes that is just more complex and which no one understands. it is not needed. i take this opportunity of repeating again in parliament what i have said on many occasions about this. ms van den burg mentioned the question of xbrl. we are working with the securities regulator to get consensus on the technical standards for business data and as a result of this dialogue the commission may take further measures aiming at interoperability of regulatory information systems. xbrl could allow investors to take full advantage of ifrs. any steps towards requiring the use of xbrl in the european union should be subject to a thorough impact analysis, including the economic assessment of costs and benefits. i have also discussed the matter with the sec chairman, mr chris cox, during my recent visit to the united states and i support keeping this agenda point in our regulatory dialogue with the us authorities for the future. these standards will need to be internationally accepted, technologically independent and interoperable. it is a very exciting development and i know ms van den burg has recently had exposure to all this. i took the same opportunity myself some months ago - getting experts to show me how it actually works. i think it is something that is quite revolutionary and something to be welcomed, but we will not do anything about it just yet until we have done other work. mr mitchell made an interesting point. i think the importance of what he said was that we do not want the iasb to come and say 'an eu body or any other body'. we want to be an internationally accepted body - because this goal is well worth pursuing - and it needs to be an independent body. i think that should be taken as read, but with proper input from the various stakeholders. may i remind everybody in the european union that it was the eu which gave the iasb such importance. we were the largest jurisdiction to say as from 2005 that the ifrs would become the rule for listed companies. it was some years ago that this decision was made, together with the european parliament, and that in itself gave greater importance to the iasb and to the process. i would say - and i have said this repeatedly to the iasb also - that road testing - you can call it impact analysis - should be done before standards are adopted, particularly by the iasb, and with input from the eu and other bodies as well. we should not be waiting until the standards are endorsed by the iasb. we had the job here of either agreeing to them or rejecting them. we do not have the role of changing them. i think that they should be road tested enough beforehand to see if there are going to be problems, rather than finding out about serious problems after the whole iasb process has been gone through. we made this point repeatedly to the iasb. hopefully, i think the new governance structures have been appreciated by most of us. i accept that more work needs to be done in this particular area but that will lead to fewer problems in the future. hopefully we will arrive some day at a situation where these things will be more or less automatic and not cause any great headaches for anybody because all the work will have been done previously. we will not have difficulties then. rapporteur. - (de) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for this debate, in which the main thrust of the report has certainly received support and alternatives have been outlined in various areas. i should like to pick up on two things. there is one point on which i am sure we all agree, and it has been made repeatedly today by speakers who fully support this general development, namely that the ifrs organisation has now taken some action, for example on governance issues, as a result of the pressure applied by this house - by the european parliament - and by the european union. there are times when we need to be quite blunt - and i am aware that some of my female colleagues have criticised me in that regard - because certain individuals who have appeared before this house in recent years have occasionally given the unmistakable impression that the european parliament is of little interest to them. how little progress there has been is clear from the proposal on governance, where it is suggested that the future supervisory bodies may take advice only from persons they have appointed. all i can say is that anyone required in future to report to a parliament on how he or she voted on a particular point should make sure that a share of responsibility and a say in policy-making is part of the package. that is the first point. how little commitment there is on the matter of impact assessments is clear from current discussions, in which the ifrs organisation is still refusing to conduct them. turning to the question of standards for smes, i have something to say to all those who believe we should introduce them on a voluntary basis. inspired here by john purvis - john, this is for you - i intend to quote an independent commentator. peter holgate, a partner in pricewaterhousecoopers, writing in the german edition of the financial times, said the following: 'i don't take the european position all that seriously. even if they end up not endorsing it, various countries could adopt it in their national generally accepted accounting principles. if a few major players do that you have it brought in by a different door even if the ec doesn't want to play ball.' at the end of the day, this means you have to assume that, once a few states have adopted these standards, you will have them imposed on a compulsory basis throughout the european union. such is the strategy of this organisation. pricewaterhousecoopers has already indicated that they see this as a business model. that is why we need our own european set of standards for smes: we can build on the ifrs if that is appropriate but if it is not, then we will develop our own standards. it is the commission's responsibility to ensure that we do not have standards foisted on us through the back door, which nobody wants but which would then become generally binding. the debate is closed. the vote will take place today at 12 noon. written statements (rule 142) (the sitting was suspended at 11.55 a.m. and resumed at 12 noon)

i declare resumed the session of the european parliament adjourned on thursday 1 december 2005. ladies and gentlemen, i believe that this is a good opportunity for the president to make a statement on the death penalty. i say that this is a good opportunity because, as you know, on 10 december - two days ago - we celebrated the anniversary of the declaration of human rights. these rights include one fundamental right: the right to life. regrettably, however, a few days beforehand, in the united states, the execution took place of the 1 000th person since the death sentence was restored in 1976. the magic of round figures - 1 000 - and the fact that this coincides with the anniversary of the declaration of human rights make this situation particularly meaningful. it was not just in the united states that an execution took place, however. somebody was executed in singapore as well, on the same day. this is a good time to recall that the european union campaigns against the death penalty, because it considers it contrary to our values. the abolition of the death penalty is a condition for the accession of any country to the european union. fortunately, progress is being made with the abolition of the death sentence in the world: in 1977, 16 countries had abolished the death penalty and now that figure stands at 84. in 76 countries, however, the death sentence remains, and, in 24 countries, although it is effectively abolished, since there have been no executions for 10 years, it remains on the statute books. although the number of countries applying the death penalty has fallen, the number of executions has risen dramatically. according to amnesty international, in 2004, 7 400 people were sentenced to death and in 25 countries almost 3 800 people were executed. we should therefore not just focus on the figure of 1 000 in the united states, and we should retain a global view of what is happening in the world as a whole: 3 800 people executed during 2004. nevertheless, 95% of these executions, almost all of them, took place in china, in iran, in vietnam and in the united states. the united states is therefore the only democratic country that still applies the death penalty in a significant manner; 3 400 people are awaiting execution in its prisons. one significant fact is that 120 people sentenced to death have been released before execution because their innocence has been proven. that is the situation. there is, however, a glimmer of hope, because united states society is turning against the death penalty, as well as popular juries, and the supreme court has abolished it in the case of minors and the mentally disabled. it has been abolished in twelve states; in 20 others, executions no longer take place. unfortunately, however, china is the country that holds the record in terms of executions. it appears that there are around 6 000 executions per year, though amnesty international puts the figure at 3 400. i wished to remind you of this situation, because i believe that we parliamentarians must work to convince our counterparts in all countries that the death penalty must be abolished, because for us europeans life is an inalienable right and nobody can be deprived of that right regardless of the crimes of which they are guilty. that is what inalienable means: it does not depend on anybody's responsibility, but on their very existence and essence as human beings. thank you very much for your attention. the final version of the draft agenda, as drawn up by the conference of presidents at its meeting of thursday 8 december 2005 pursuant to rules 130 and 131 of the rules of procedure has been distributed. mr president, i have a request to make in relation to the agenda for wednesday. it has to do with the statements made by president ahmadinejad of iran. i believe that the statements made by the president of iran over recent days to be something on which either you, as president of this house, or the president of the council should take up a position. i find it unacceptable that a head of state should come out with utterances, in more or less plain and frank language, questioning the right of a state, and of a whole people, to exist, and going so far as to incite a breach of the peace in the region and the opening of the door to violence in it. let me tell the house, on behalf of my group - and i do think that the applause shows that i am, perhaps exceptionally, speaking on behalf of all members here - that anyone who argues along the lines adopted by the president of iran with regard to israel is offending against the fundamental laws and rules of the international community, and i think that a multinational parliament such as our own should repudiate what they say in the most forthright terms. that is what we expect the council to do on behalf of the council of heads of state and of government! mr president, it might have been lost in translation that what mr schulz was asking for was that the council presidency, in its wednesday statement, should take a view on this issue and make it perfectly clear where the council stands on it. alright, i shall therefore communicate mr martin schulz's request to the presidency of the council so that it can be incorporated into its statement, but we are not formally altering any item on the agenda. the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe has made a request calling for the title of the debate 'detention of monks and closure of a monastery in tibet' to be replaced with 'the human rights situation in tibet and hong kong'. mr president, i would be pleased to justify the request very briefly. my group had sought a motion on hong kong in view of the recent statements there by the government of the territory, which suggest that there is not to be any movement towards universal suffrage. i think the house will be aware of the extremely large demonstration that took place in hong kong ten days ago - the hong kong people demonstrating in favour of universal suffrage and full democracy. this house has always supported them in the past and it seems to me a good opportunity to use this occasion to do so again. mr president, we want to endorse this request, for, if we are talking in terms of matters of urgency, this very definitely is one, a fact reinforced by the demonstrations to which mr watson has referred. we see it as the fly in the ointment that developments in hong kong are not going the way we would wish or the way that the government of the people's republic of china did, to some degree, promise that they would. our support for a justifiable cause is not something intended to be detrimental to china or to the people's republic, but rather something that we want to do for the people of hong kong as they attempt to build democracy. china needs to understand that this attempt to build democracy in hong kong would also bring great benefits to china itself. with this in mind, we endorse this request. the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe is also asking that the title of the debate on 'ethiopia', as it appears in the debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, be replaced with 'ethiopia and new border conflicts'. mr president, my group should like to propose changing the title to: 'ethiopia and new border conflicts'. as the house is aware, the problems in this region relate not only to ethiopia but also very much to other border conflicts in the area, and it seemed to us that we might extend the scope of the resolution to take account of that. (1) the next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance. i shall give priority to those members who have not yet spoken. - allow me to express my delight that the andrei sakharov prize for freedom of thought has been awarded to the 'damas de blanco', a movement of cuban women peacefully striving for domestic and foreign support for the proclamation of a general pardon in cuba. i have personally received detailed information on the activities of the mothers and wives of political prisoners from mrs gisela snchez verdecia, the wife of cuban prisoner antonio daz snchez, whom i have symbolically adopted together with my colleagues, meps peter astn and milan gao. this heroic woman is fighting for her husband, who is serving a twenty-year sentence and is in a critical state of health as a consequence of inhumane treatment. i would like to express my deep solidarity with this group of cuban women in their valiant fight for the liberation of all political prisoners. i hope that the european parliament will not rely exclusively on the sakharov prize as a means for raising awareness of cuba's failure to uphold the declaration of human rights. i urge parliament to continue pressing for an early return of democracy to cuba. mr president, the uk presidency has presented its proposals broken down into figures for the financial perspective 2007-2013. we feared the worst. we were not wrong. following nine months of work by the temporary committee on the financial perspective, the european parliament had reached a satisfactory compromise, enabling europe to be guaranteed an ambitious and coherent future. in contrast, mr blair is proposing drastic cuts and jeopardising the european union project. he is attacking the structural funds, rural development, youth and culture, and is making the funding of the globalisation adjustment fund downright precarious. we must reach a mature position, for the sake of european integration. let us put a stop to national self-interest and to the anachronistic benefits enjoyed by certain member states. the united kingdom must re-evaluate its contribution to the budget by doing more than just implementing a cosmetic measure. europe is a joint project, not a trading floor. let us also use the borrowing options available to us to provide ourselves with the resources to succeed. the european project and the solidarity we require with our new partners depend on our doing so. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, a cement carrier, the , sank on 2 december off the port of la spezia, in the poets' gulf, which is a magnificent gulf in the mediterranean. the crew was rescued, and the seadarq system indicated that around 90 000 litres of hydrocarbons had leaked out. the safety operation will cost at least eur 2 million and work will continue for some months. the rescue services' efforts and the professionalism shown were both excellent but, nonetheless, the urgent need for stricter controls has been highlighted since this ship was a rust bucket, which was registered with the ukraine register of shipping and sailing with its documents in order. the possibility of carrying out a post-incident technical investigation to ascertain the causes of the incident and those responsible should therefore be reviewed, and this case should also be considered within the erika ii policy package, so that it can genuinely be said that those responsible for carrying out the checks will themselves be checked. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, even though the report on the request for defence of immunity and privileges of my colleague, mr gollnisch, will be debated shortly, i take the liberty of bringing up a particularly topical point. last week, the french prime minister, mr de villepin, stated with strength and conviction that it was not up to the legislator to establish historical truth. he said that there was no official history in france. a few days later, the head of state, mr chirac, made similar remarks by saying: 'in the republic, there is no official history. it is not up to the law to write history; that is a matter for historians'. what, then, are the french political and judicial authorities accusing mr gollnisch of? of having said exactly the same thing a few months beforehand, namely that it was up to historians to study the issues relating to the second world war, whatever the views of some of my french fellow members, who set themselves up as the thought police, going so far as to exert unacceptable political pressure so that mr gollnisch's request for defence of immunity will be rejected. in these conditions, ladies and gentlemen, i urge you not to plumb the depths of absurdity by adopting this report. - mr president, i wish to draw your attention to an episode which took place last week in miami in the united states and on which i believe that, as a chamber, we need to take a stand. a 44-year-old american with a history of psychiatric illnesses was flying with his wife from miami to orlando. suddenly, for reasons as yet unknown, he felt the need to leave the aeroplane. he ran off the aeroplane and was followed by a policeman, who shouted at him to stop. when the passenger failed to comply with his orders, he was executed in cold blood in the embarkation area. eye witnesses say that they heard up to six shots. this is the second execution which has taken place within a few months, following the unfortunate incident involving the brazilian national in london. we therefore need to ask ourselves if this is the society that we wish to create, where the authorities shoot first and ask questions later. we are creating an unhealthy climate of fear for citizens which will result in unfortunate developments in the future. i therefore believe that, as a chamber, we need to condemn such action and do our best to ensure that any legislation passed by this plenary is in favour of the citizen and not in favour of the use of violence. mr president, the 'women in white', who have been awarded the sakharov prize, as has been pointed out here this afternoon, have not been able to use the tickets that the european parliament has made available to them so that they could come to pick up the prize on wednesday, because they have not been authorised by the cuban government, which is a flagrant violation of these people's rights and ignores, mr president, the majority will of this parliament. mr president, the only way these people can be here on wednesday is if they can catch tonight's flight. i would ask you to do everything you possibly can to make this possible. their only crime has been courageously and peacefully to defend the rights of their relatives and i therefore believe, mr president, that we, as representatives of the european parliament, should make every effort to ensure that they can be here and collect the sakharov prize on wednesday. mr salafranca, you may rest assured that the presidency and all the bodies of parliament have done everything they can to put pressure on the cuban authorities and ensure that this permission is granted. minutes before entering the chamber, i spoke once again to the recently appointed cuban ambassador to the european union, who has presented his letters of credence this morning to the presidency-in-office of the council, and i hope to be able to speak to the cuban foreign minister this afternoon. i cannot guarantee any result, but i would like you to rest assured that the presidency has made every possible effort to ensure that the winners of the sakharov prize can come here to receive it. mr president, the tasks that the eu has set itself include in particular the promotion of harmonised, balanced and sustainable development throughout the community and the achievement of a high level of employment and social welfare, better quality of life and greater economic and social cohesion, together with increased solidarity between member states. anyone reading this list could be forgiven for thinking that we will soon live to see another heaven on earth. yet the above-mentioned guiding principles bear no relation to the actual state of affairs, especially given the substantial cuts that have been made to the budget. this is particularly true as regards the situation in poland, where unemployment stands at 20% and polish people have lost their jobs as a result of the removal of obstacles to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital. such unemployment leads to poverty, hunger and despair, which are made all the worse by proposals to extend the transition periods. such musings are truly paradoxical in the run-up to christmas, particularly in view of the fact that christian values are being rejected, along with the knowledge of the truth that sets us free. i hope that this truth will be fulfilled, and that this christmas and new year will be filled with hope and love. mr president, at this time of looming budget crises and an increasingly depressing outlook for the hong kong talks, i would like to bring to the attention of the house an eu success story. the internet domain name '.eu' has been available for businesses across europe to register for since only 7 december and there have already been 100 000 applications from across our european continent. to my mind, this demonstrates an interest in a european designation for our companies and i look forward to many more applications when citizens can individually register in spring next year. as a proud scot, i would like to see a specific scottish presence in cyberspace and i believe your own country, mr president, has shown us the way with the 'puntcat' designation, which you so recently achieved for catalonia. i would like to lend my support to the '.sco' campaign, as a wider presence for scottish language and culture in cyberspace could only be helpful for us. i look forward to us joining you in cyberspace, if not geographically. mr president, i recently monitored the presidential election in kazakhstan with a group of senior british politicians and academics. i have some experience in these matters, having monitored the election in indonesia last year, which was probably the most complicated election the world had ever seen. the british group came to the conclusion that the elections in kazakhstan were free and without coercion. several other groups from belgium, france, the cis, the usa and indonesia came to the same conclusion. the spokesman of one of the opposition candidates said after the election that the opposition had blown it by concentrating on personalities rather than policies. we completely disagreed with the conclusions of the osce monitoring group, which produced an expensive, dismissive and academically pompous report condemning the election process. the osce also contradicted the previous statement of the members of this house following last year's parliamentary election, which concluded that the kazakh electorate is now sophisticated and beyond coercion or intimidation. i believe the osce report was influenced by its internal bureaucracy on the future chairmanship of the organisation. bureaucrats should not attempt to play politics, nor try to dictate who the chairman should be. it will bring the osce into disrepute, a state of affairs not desired by this house. i would now call on this house to have an inquiry into the workings of the osce. mr president, on my own behalf and on behalf of mrs madeira and mr pittella, i would call upon mr blair, represented on the council's bench, to put right the insult to our intelligence and to european democratic values of the discrimination in his financial proposal against the regions of the algarve, basilicata, asturias, murcia, ceuta and melilla compared to three german , three greek regions and an austrian region, which are suffering the same statistical effect, but which are being given better treatment. on 20 december, in brussels, we will speak to you once again. let us hope that, by then, this shameful and unacceptable discrimination has not materialised and that we will be able to congratulate him. - on 30 november, the commission unveiled its proposals for fishing quotas and attendant measures for 2006, within the framework of the common fisheries policy, to be adopted by the end of the year. the commission announced the objective of introducing, as far as possible, a gradual approach to the recovery of fish stocks that allows fishermen to pursue their activities. the commission's proposals for reducing the fishing effort do not, however, include any assessment of the economic and social costs to fishermen. the fisheries sector, particularly in portugal, has already been severely hit by, among other factors, the increase in fuel prices. i therefore call for community-level measures to be implemented in order to safeguard the future of the sector, not least because this is a common policy for supporting the income of fishermen, in particular those involved in small-scale coastal fishing. mr president, work began several days ago on the construction of the northern gas pipeline. this pipeline will harm the economic interests of the baltic states and the central european countries, including poland, yet despite protests it will bypass these countries. instead, it will link russia and germany directly, thus putting the energy security of one third of the eu at risk. the construction of this gas pipeline could cause an environmental disaster in the baltic region. stockpiles of german chemical weapons were dumped in the baltic sea after world war ii, and these could be disturbed during work on the pipeline. the poisonous chemicals would pollute the waters of the baltic. even the conclusion of the agreement on this pipeline was nothing short of scandalous. according to media reports, gerhard schrder will head the company's board of directors, with matthias warning taking the role of company chairman. until 1990, mr warning was an officer in the stasi, east germany's secret police, and it was during this period that he allegedly got to know vladimir putin, who was a kgb agent at the time. the fact that a former chancellor is to be involved in a company whose interests he defended so vociferously is suspicious in the extreme. i propose that a parliamentary committee should be appointed to investigate the issues surrounding the construction of this gas pipeline, as well as the threat that it poses to the environment and to the energy security of many eu member states. you are aware of the procedures in place for calling formally for the creation of such a committee. if you wish to do so, you know how. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i want to take this opportunity today to say something about the debate that the commission has instigated - a term that i use deliberately - on the austrian ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. paragraph 27 of the austrian federal law on the protection of animals stipulates that no wild animal species may be kept by circuses, variety shows and similar forms of entertainment or used by them in performances. far from congratulating austria on doing something positive and taking the lead in this area, the commission's response was to send the austrian government an admonitory letter, in which it threatened to overturn the ban on circuses keeping wild animals - imposed not only by austria but also applying to some degree in other eu member states - on the grounds that the ban on performances by wild animals went against the free movement of services. one would have thought that the protection of animals was meant to be a value that was in the general interest and that this would be an argument justifying a restriction on the free movement of services. traditional circuses are not meant to be founded upon the use of animals; there are highly celebrated circuses that manage to draw the crowds without performances by wild animals. priority must be given to the protection and well-being of animals, whether we are talking in terms of the keeping of wild animals by circuses or the conditions under which animals are transported, which defy description. - portugal has been devastated by company relocations, which have raised unemployment to alarming levels, a phenomenon that affects women in particular. on this occasion, the us multinational has just announced the closure of one of its units, the linh cable-making factory, which had employed 1 200 people and is now pressuring the remaining 300 to take redundancy. this is happening at a time when , a multinational corporation, was making a profit on its operations in portugal, and an overall profit of millions of euro. mr president, i should therefore like to call on the council and the commission, once again, to show solidarity with these workers and to take urgently-needed steps to prevent unemployment from becoming any worse and to put a stop to these brutal relocations of multinationals in various eu countries, not least in portugal. mr president, italian colleagues will know that, a few days, ago, the international football player marc zoro had to leave the football pitch because of persistent racist abuse. this is something within the beautiful game, the european game, which is making the game ugly. every day we see incidents across all our member states of racist abuse: some of it organised, some of it isolated. there is no country in the european union which is exempt from this phenomenon. uefa and meps are determined to stamp it out. we have practical measures, working with the media, to stamp out this cancer from the game. recently, italian television played some of its matches in black and white rather than in colour to make the point to italian society and to all of european society that we must not tolerate racism in football. we have the world cup next year: let us send a unified message from this house that we will not tolerate the beautiful game becoming ugly. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, given that it will soon be christmas, it is only right and proper to wish all the members of this house the very best. i wish you every good fortune, and i hope that a spirit of honesty and truth will guide us in our policy-making. faced as we are today with the british presidency's proposals, which quite clearly operate against the basic interests of the 10 new member states, we have no choice but to ask ourselves a searching question. how can it have been possible for one of the richest countries in this european union, a union which is still being developed, to have devised a system whereby the poorer countries have to give money to the richer ones, and whereby development programmes are designed in such a way as to ensure that poor countries foot the bill? poland spent 150 billion in order to come into line with eu requirements before accession, and i must therefore register my protest in the name of honesty, truth and cohesion. the european union cannot develop further without solidarity. ladies and gentlemen, i should like to make an appeal to the union's institutions, be they the commission, parliament or the council, because the italian court of appeal - which is, accordingly, a high judicial authority in italy - has just considered, in a judgment issued following an act of aggression by an italian towards some young colombian girls, that the term 'dirty nigger' did not constitute a racist insult, but merely a generic show of hostility. it is pointless telling you that those words are particularly alarming. my colleague who spoke before me brought up the issue of football terraces. for his part, the italian minister for institutional reform, mr roberto calderoli, believes that immigrants should return to their desert to speak to the camels, and to the jungle to dance with the monkeys - and this from a minister who sits on the european union's council of ministers! there are, i am afraid to say, a large number of verbal , and we must not tolerate them. something else is taking place here: a judicial institution is clearly underestimating a racist offence. i believe that this is extremely serious as far as our history is concerned. i should therefore like a reaction from our institutions. mr president, early yesterday morning i was present at the unprecedented fire near hemel hempstead. it is perhaps worth recording that not a single fatality was reported as a result of this extraordinary incident. i would hope that the commission might find itself in a position to liaise with the british authorities when it comes to investigating what might have been the cause, so that any wisdom that emerges could be shared throughout our 25 member states. let me, on behalf of my constituents, send my thanks to the emergency services - firemen, the police and ambulance crews - and indeed to local residents, who behaved, as you might imagine, with tremendous courage and dignity. those british people who queued up at petrol stations, fearing that there might be a shortage of petrol, behaved with rather less dignity. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, italy has been at the centre of today's debate; in the wake of the zoro case, it is not considered an offence to say 'dirty nigger'. the political responsibilities in all of this are clear. a footballer even came on to the pitch exalting fascist symbols. i believe that all this comes down to a clear responsibility on the part of the political authorities, which increasingly tend to criminalise immigration. by way of example, i should like to mention a very serious incident that took place only two days ago: in italy, a moroccan citizen, who was suspected of being a dangerous terrorist and had been subjected to two trials and acquitted both times, was expelled from italian soil because he was judged to be a threat to national security. i believe that this is a serious matter, insofar as we have no precise details about where this moroccan citizen ended up; it would appear that he is now being held in a moroccan prison in which human rights are notoriously overlooked. i believe that the member states must not be party to acts of torture carried out in non-eu countries. mr president, i wish to make some remarks concerning the enlargement of the wto. in november 2005, the russian state-owned pipeline company transneft terminated the long-term transport agreement with the kazakhstan company kazmunaigaz, as it is now negotiating the acquisition of the shares of a lithuanian oil refinery and a long-term contract for oil transit, which appears in contradiction with russia's expansionist plans. russia recently placed a ban on imports of plant products from lithuania and now from poland. both are being openly punished for their support of ukraine. the notorious yukos case shows the lack of rule of law, an independent judiciary, guarantees for private business and predictability of trade. then there is the expropriation of the lifelong savings of ordinary lithuanian people by moscow in 1990. these facts challenge any credibility russia has in international finance and business matters. the eu might feel that russia is not yet mature enough to be a member of the wto. mr president, i simply wished to point out that, four weeks ago, we spoke in this house about the bulgarian nurses and the palestinian doctor imprisoned in libya. since then, the judgment they were awaiting has been pushed back to 31 january. since then, we have learned that, in 2005, as part of the fight against aids, the european union sent more than eur 1 million for the children who had been contaminated in benghazi hospital. since then, we have learned that libya is awaiting even more money before it makes a gesture. since then, no authorisation has been given to go and visit these women and this man in prison in libya. since then - and this is my final point - four weeks have gone by in the lives of this man and these women who have been accused and tortured and who, for seven years, have been waiting to be treated fairly, in accordance with their human rights. mr president, for as long as they remain imprisoned, we must go on pointing this out. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, almost 18 months have passed since the last elections to the european parliament. enough time has therefore gone by for us to have formed opinions on the way parliament operates, and on the role and significance of the european union. although we have no problems passing resolutions supporting democracy and human rights in third countries, i regret to say that unfortunately we are not capable of enforcing our own rights as effectively. one of the european union's fundamental principles is partnership, and yet this is the principle that is most frequently overlooked. the principle of consultation was also violated during the recent scrutiny of the planned sugar market reform. decisions were taken on this matter while the committee on agriculture and rural development was still drafting parliament's opinion. a large part of the responsibility for this dismissive treatment of parliament and its members lies with the main groups in the house. these latter are so embroiled in petty squabbles that they are blind to the fact that parliament's importance is waning. a situation has arisen in which the work carried out by members from small or new member states is increasingly meaningless. members from these countries find it enormously difficult to get their names onto the list of speakers, and their proposals and amendments are more often than not rejected, either by the leading delegations within the house or by the european commission. this gives rise to some fundamental questions, such as where we are heading and what the point of our work is. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, for the last few days, dumbfounded european citizens have been following accusations about the cia's secret detention centres in europe, about the kidnapping of terrorist suspects, about secret flights by american aeroplanes and about torture chambers. the illegal action of a major state such as the united states of america on an independent continent such as europe and the violation of human rights are an insult to europe, which gave birth to democracy and secured freedom, the presumption of innocence and security three centuries ago with the declaration of human rights. it is, at the same time, ironic that these discoveries coincide with the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. the century we are living in has a great many achievements to show. nonetheless, this is the first time that two of the most important rights - security and freedom - have clashed in the international arena to such an extent and intensity, crushing human rights between them. someone once said that democracy is when someone knocks on your door at dawn and you know it is the milkman. the european parliament, the institution that represents european citizens, has at the very least an obligation to raise itself up to its full height and safeguard the feeling of freedom and security of the citizens of europe. forgive me for interrupting you, but the time scheduled for these speeches has run out. mr president, on a point of order, may i suggest that you extend the time available for this one-minute speech? yes, i believe it is right to do that, but we have already done so: we have already extended it for half an hour; we can extend it further, if necessary, but we have already, rather than half an hour, extended it for three quarters of an hour in fact. twelve more people wish to speak and i cannot carry on giving the floor to members who have spoken during previous sittings. i would ask for your understanding. we must move on to the next item on the agenda. members who have not been able to speak will have priority next time. mr president, i do not propose to prolong this issue, but i believe that the rules you are implementing in relation to these one-minute speeches are undermining their effectiveness and importance to individual members of this house, many of whom, because they come from small delegations, have little or no opportunity to put on record constituents' current concerns. i am one of those who most often use the one-minute interventions, with good reason. i do not have other members from my delegation to stand up on my behalf, as larger delegations do. i feel, therefore, that there is unfairness in the way this matter is being addressed. i will write to you about my concerns on this, but i believe in the importance of the one-minute interventions. it was a new arrangement, introduced in the last parliamentary term - indeed, i was one of those who proposed it - in order to ensure that this house could be relevant to the day-to-day concerns of citizens. often this parliament is not, because of the long lead-in time for issues to be debated in this house. i would appreciate it if you would be open to amending the way in which this matter is being handled. mr de rossa, i am prepared to change the rules we have established. i would like to remind you that i sent a letter to all of you some time ago now, explaining how i intended to manage this difficult point in our proceedings. i did not receive any objections, but we can review the rules at any time, that is to say, if you feel there is any way to improve them, please believe me that i will be delighted to listen. i have not given you the floor today, mr de rossa, because you have been lucky enough to speak during the two previous sittings, as you are very well aware, and i have taken the view that i should give priority to members who have spoken previously. the next item is the report by diana wallis, on behalf of the committee on legal affairs, on the request for defence of the immunity and privileges of bruno gollnisch (2005/2072(imm)) (a6-0376/2005). . mr president, i use this time as rapporteur to report to the house the decision of the committee on legal affairs. i make no secret that this was a difficult case for the committee. it was one where our colleague, mr gollnisch, came to us to ask us, as a parliament, to give him the benefit of this parliament's immunity. i should also like to thank him for his courtesy and cooperation with the committee's inquiries. mr gollnisch has found himself prosecuted under french law - the law of his home member state - for words he used at a press conference which, it is alleged, form something like holocaust denial. the committee considered this matter over several meetings and finally came to the decision, by a large and persuasive majority, that it would not be appropriate in this case to give him the benefit of this house's immunity. the committee felt that the circumstances in which he had used the words complained of by the french prosecutor were not circumstances where it could be said fairly and squarely that he was only exercising his mandate as a member of this house or carrying out his duties as a member of this house. that being the case, it was not within the remit of the committee to enquire any further, and the committee made its decision on that basis. therefore, we decline to give mr gollnisch the benefit of parliamentary immunity of this house, and that is the committee's recommendation to the presidency and to the house. . whether or not mr gollnisch holds on to his immunity is a delicate subject. i decided not to shirk my responsibilities in order to tell mr gollnisch, publicly and quite frankly, why i will not defend his immunity. there is a strong temptation to express an opinion about the content of the remarks attributed to the member. there is a strong temptation to want only to remember the martyrdom of the jewish people, by dismissing the only debate worth having, that of the conditions governing the application of parliamentary immunity. there is a strong temptation to reject the defence of mr gollnisch's immunity by regarding him solely as the representative of an ideology which nearly all of this assembly rejects and in opposition to which the european project was conceived on the basis of the european idea. conversely, there may well be a strong temptation to call for this defence of immunity as part of a corporatist reflex to make sure that no remarks can be held against any one of us. i call on you not to give in to these temptations and not to transform a technical debate into a debate belonging to historians. our assembly is not a court. mrs wallis' report is balanced. she reminds us that immunity is not designed to protect members of the european parliament, but to protect the integrity of the european parliament, through its representatives, and to give them the independence with which to carry out their tasks. there is no doubt that, in lyon, in the heart of the university where he teaches, far from his constituency in north-east france, mr gollnisch was not speaking as a member of the european parliament. mr gollnisch lives dangerously, constantly on the razor's edge. this form of political life is, in reality, peculiar to the extreme right-wing in france and germany. mr gollnisch is far too cultivated and intelligent not to have realised that his remarks were in danger of being condemned by french law. if he must rush headlong into a legal tussle in order to remain faithful to what he believes is right, then it is advisable that he does not drag our parliamentary institution into the matter by involving it in a debate in which it does not belong. the request for defence of immunity, which was put together with your consent, mr gollnisch, is halfway between a call for help with no legal basis, given that this procedure does not in any way threaten to prevent you from carrying out your duties, and, as i see it, a baffling attempt to shirk your responsibilities, just as though you were at last overcome with panic at the thought of what you knowingly triggered off and clearly no longer control. i feel no hatred for you, any more than i wish to support you, as a member of the european parliament, in this ordeal that you knowingly brought about. it is down to you, on your own, to accept the consequences. it is not perhaps too late for you to change and to make peace with france, europe and our painful past. i hope that you succeed in doing this. the european parliament cannot do it for you . . mr president, let me start by expressing profuse thanks to our rapporteur, mrs wallis. there are various members of the legal affairs committee who deal with immunity cases, but i believe that this case was a particularly difficult and delicate one, which demanded very careful consideration on the committee's part; nor do i believe, if i read the signs rightly, that this was particularly easy for her personally. we, the socialist group in the european parliament, supported the rapporteur's conclusions. we too believe that the immunity conferred by membership of this house should not apply in this case. i would also like to add a personal observation. what was once the mauthausen concentration camp is situated on my home patch, which is also my electoral district. if you still have any doubts about whether these concentration camps actually existed, i am more than willing to invite you to join me on a visit to it. you will find people who survived it still living in the area; where i come from is also home to people who helped the few who managed to escape from it; one woman who did so is being honoured here today. i would like these remarks to be taken as honouring her memory. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the report by mrs wallis on mr gollnisch's request for defence of immunity is, both in its form and its content, truly scandalous. it is scandalous because the legal rules and the settled case-law of our rules of procedure and of the committee on legal affairs have never before been so warped and violated. it is scandalous because the matter presented before the committee on legal affairs was the subject of unprecedented politicisation and political pressure on the part of mr gollnisch's political opponents. it has taken no less than four draft reports, all differing each time in their conclusions and reasoning, to come up with the report presented before us today in plenary, which is not, i might add, the report of which the members of the committee on legal affairs had voted in favour, as the reasons behind the decision proposed by mrs wallis have subsequently been amended. the argument put forward by the report in support of the decision not to defend mr gollnisch's immunity and privileges is that he was not using his freedom of expression in carrying out his duties when he spoke at the press conference held in his political premises in lyon on 11 october 2004. what hypocrisy and what lies! the written invitation to mr gollnisch's press conference mentioned, next to his name, his status as a member of the european parliament. the majority of the press reports referred to his status as a member of the european parliament. moreover, the subjects successively addressed by mr gollnisch were connected with europe, whether they were the issue of turkey's joining europe, the ratification process of the european constitutional treaty or, furthermore, the so-called rousso report mainly related to certain academics' political opinions on the history of the second world war in europe. the settled case-law of the committee on legal affairs in relation to opinions voiced by members of the european parliament tends, in this case, towards the systematic protection of immunity. far more serious precedents involving prosecutions for libel, slander, uprisings against the police or even contempt of court have resulted in the immunity of a member of the european parliament being upheld. yet, this has not been the case for our colleague mr gollnisch, thus undermining the independence and the freedom of expression of all members. make no mistake: if this report were to be adopted in plenary, the freedom of expression of all members of the european parliament would be restricted and subject to the discretion of others; a new interpretation of the waiver of immunity for opinions voiced by members in the course of their duties would be adopted; and europe's oh so precious democracy and fundamental values would lose their hauteur. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am delighted that it should at last be possible for us to voice our opinions on mr gollnisch's immunity, as this series of postponements of our vote has lasted too long. we have spent long enough evaluating the facts. i will not repeat in this house these facts exactly as they stand, but i want to emphasise that it is entirely right to support mrs wallis' report, which proposes waiving mr gollnisch's immunity for several reasons. the first, and by no means least important, reason is that mr gollnisch did not make the incriminating remarks as a member of the european parliament. the immunity enjoyed by all members of the european parliament is designed to protect their freedom of expression in the exercise of their duties. in this case, mr gollnisch was not exercising his parliamentary duties. immunity does not equal irresponsibility, just as freedom of expression cannot be used to justify intolerable behaviour. the second reason is that, in the case in point, the values of the european union that we, as members of the european parliament, are supposed to defend, have been scorned. far - very far - from these humanist values, mr gollnisch, who is a good pupil of mr le pen, tried to rival his master in the provocation stakes with the remarks he made at that press conference. we must therefore strongly condemn these remarks. finally, the third and final reason is that, in the arguments put forward by mr gollnisch, there is no indication whatsoever of being unable to accept the consequences of his remarks, mr gollnisch claims to be a victim of petty political proceedings designed to remove him from the political scene. that is a bit rich when viewed in the light of the extremely shocking remarks he made in, i am convinced, full knowledge of the blows he was dealing to our democracy. mr president, article 7 states that i cannot speak in the debate. i do not intend to speak in the debate, but article 7 allows me nonetheless to correct an inaccurate allegation. the third subparagraph of article 7(8) allows me to speak on the basis of article 145, and article 145 gives me three minutes in which to make a personal statement. if you will allow me, mr president, and without my speaking in the debate, the outcome of which is, in any case, a foregone conclusion, i should like, as provided for by article 7, to speak for three minutes on the basis of article 145 in order to voice my opinion on accusations directed at me personally. consequently, i am not speaking with reference to the content of the debate, but simply with reference to allegations made about me by some of the speakers. mrs bachelot believed she could say - and this is a widespread opinion - that i had spoken in the heart of the university. that is totally incorrect. the remarks for which i have been criticised were made at a press conference organised in the context of my political duties, during which, as another speaker, mrs schenardi, said, i answered journalists' questions, a point that is not seriously disputed. if i do not have the right to give these kinds of answers, then journalists should not have the right to ask questions about the history of the second world war. that seems quite clear to me, and i did not say those words as an academic even though the academic authorities, by order of the french government, tried to undermine my presumption of innocence and were condemned for doing so by the council of state, our highest court. secondly, mrs berger suggested that i had denied the fact that the concentration camps, and particularly the mauthausen camp, ever existed. mrs berger, i have never denied the fact that the concentration camps existed, and certainly not the mauthausen camp. the existence of the gas chambers at mauthausen was denied by mr lanzmann, the director of the film 'shoah', and not by myself who, on the contrary, said loud and clear that they existed. i believe that these two clarifications are, mr president, extremely important. as for any possible recantations and procrastinations by the commission, i personally played no part whatsoever in this affair. i will point out, as my colleague said, that the president of the french republic, mr chirac, recently asserted that there could be no official historical truth. i question how it is that i can be criticised for remarks that have just been repeated by the head of state, the head of the judiciary, and how it is that i can have the legal proceedings against me justified on the basis of a communist law, the gayssot law, which mr toubon described as a stalinist law when it was adopted. it will be interesting to see what mr toubon has to say on the subject of my immunity. that is all i had to say to this assembly. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. the next item is the recommendation for second reading on the council common position for adopting a directive of the european parliament and of the council on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing directive 91/157/eec (5694/5/2005 - c6-0268/2005 - 2003/0282(cod)) - committee on the environment, public health and food safety. rapporteur: joahnnes blokland (a6-0335/2005). . - mr president, the report on batteries and accumulators has been adopted by a large majority in the committee on the environment, public health and food safety. this committee is of the opinion that the 41 amendments to this report have changed the council's common position for the better. we in the committee are yet to agree on one key aspect, though, namely the reduction in the use of the heavy metals mercury, cadmium and lead in some batteries. this house adopted a clear stance in this area at first reading, after which apparently, objections were raised, or should i say, after which the battery producers engaged in some serious lobbying. in order to reach agreement after all, i tabled an amended proposal, namely amendment 42, which is a watered-down version of the amendment adopted at first reading. i would like to make three points in connection with the restriction of the ban on heavy metals. first of all, amendment 42 confines the cadmium ban to portable batteries; the ban does not, therefore, apply to any industrial batteries whatever. the exception made for industrial batteries at first reading proved insufficient for industry, because it believes that an unacceptable number of these batteries would end up in the risk zone. for the sake of clarity, my amendment 42 takes industrial batteries out of the risk zone completely. secondly, thanks to amendment 42, the ban on lead is also restricted to portable batteries, which means that industrial lead accumulators also completely fall outside of the scope of the ban. thirdly, a number of categories of portable batteries are exempt from the ban on lead. this applies to button cells, and batteries for hearing aids are no longer at risk either. we have thereby taken on board the comments made by the foundation for the deaf and hard of hearing. fourthly, since the cadmium ban on portable tools has been suspended for four years, this will give us plenty of time to make the complete switch to li-ion- and nimh batteries as alternatives to nicd batteries. these alternatives have been widely available for nearly 10 years. i have noticed that both the socialist group in the european parliament and the group of the greens/european free alliance have tabled a similar amendment to article 4, the gist of which i can endorse. finally, i should like to turn to three other areas, namely definitions, producer responsibility and batteries integrated in appliances. with regard to definitions, i take the view that these should be included in an article and not in a recital. that is why i am opposed to amendments 46, 48 and 50. the council's common position remains vague in some aspects of the definition of portable batteries. the phrase 'portable' is subjective and the committee on the environment would therefore prefer a definition that sets a clear limit. amendment 12 specifies a maximum weight of 1 kg for portable batteries. moreover, amendment 12 makes the link with consumer applications as defined in the directive on electronic waste. in order to avoid both a loophole and an overlap in the definitions, the committee on the environment has proposed in amendment 13 a mirror definition of portable batteries by way of defining industrial batteries. the committee on the environment is of the opinion that amendments 12 and 13 afford most clarity about those definitions. as for producer responsibility, i have to say that this is a guiding principle for various other directives as well as for the battery directive. in this respect, i agree with the council's common position. in amendment 44, though, the suggestion of shared responsibility is mooted. this leads, in practice, to much confusion and its implementation is very complex. i take the view that we must uphold producer responsibility and am therefore opposed to amendment 44. amendments 18 and 40 ban the integration of batteries and introduce the requirement that batteries should be easy to remove. this appears to be a good thing on the face of it, but i gather that many applications will get into difficulty as a result, especially if the battery outlives the appliance. moreover, this provision is superfluous, since the directive on electronic waste already stipulates that batteries should always be removed before electrical appliances are collected. on behalf of the committee on the environment, public health and food safety, i would advise the plenary, while giving due consideration to the remarks i have made, to endorse the amendments to the report tomorrow. . mr president, i would like to thank the european parliament, the committee on the environment, public health and food safety and in particular, the rapporteur, mr blokland, for this report. today, the existing community legislation on batteries only covers a small part of all the portable batteries sold annually in the european union. this has hindered the setting-up of efficient national collection and recycling schemes. consequently, many batteries placed on the community market today still risk ending up in the environment, in incineration or in landfills. to address that problem, the commission presented a new legislative proposal for batteries in 2003 that would extend the scope of existing community legislation from batteries containing certain dangerous substances to all batteries placed on the community market. in its proposal, the commission introduced the concept of a 'closed-loop system', on the basis of which all batteries would have to be collected and recycled and their metals re-introduced into the economic cycle. at the same time, the proposal aimed to contribute to a proper functioning of the internal market for batteries and create a level playing field of all economic operators involved. at first reading, the european parliament did not embrace this concept of a closed loop. instead, parliament preferred to have a ban on certain heavy metals used in batteries. the council also considered that the proposed closed-loop system would be difficult to achieve in practice and favoured a ban on the use of cadmium in portable batteries. the commission has accepted the overall package of the common position as a well-balanced package, on the condition that the level of environmental protection should not be lowered compared to the policy measures contained in the commission's original proposal. even though the commission has embraced the common position as it stands, there are several issues that could benefit from further improvements, in particular regarding the definitions of different battery types and the collection targets. however, the commission remains convinced that the dual legal basis in the common position is the right approach and will not give rise to problems foreseen by some in parliament. i am confident that the rest of the codecision process will allow a further fine-tuning of the right mix of policy measures, which are needed to protect our environment from battery pollution in the most eco-efficient way. . mr president, my group welcomes the batteries directive as an important first attempt to take these potentially environmentally damaging substances out of the waste stream. starting first with the collection targets, my group doubts whether there is any point in pretending that many member states can go further than the collection rate set out in the council common position. let us be frank about this: as the commission impact assessment states, only six member states currently have a national system of collecting small batteries for recycling - austria, belgium, france, germany, holland and sweden. austria has achieved 40% collection after 14 years. the common position calls for a collection rate of 25% after 6 years and 40% after 10 years. in the context of what we know about the countries that do collect batteries, that seems reasonable. the report now calls for higher targets: 40% after 6 years and 50% after 12 years. from the point of view of member states which, for whatever reason, have never given battery recycling a high priority, these totals are unrealistic and, if set, will simply not be reached. this is neither the time nor the place for gesture politics. delaying the directive by wrangling over unrealistic targets does nobody any good. secondly, the rapporteur is moving his amendment 42, calling for bans on lead and cadmium in power tool batteries. we believe that any such moves need to comply in the first instance with the common approach to impact assessment, recently agreed between the commission, council and parliament. in this instance, parliament, at my instigation, asked outside experts to draw up an impact assessment, but this was itself limited in its scope. we need a full assessment of the social, environmental and economic impact of any such bans before we agree to introduce them. until we have that full assessment, it would be irresponsible to follow the rapporteur's lead, because we would be law-making in the dark. finally, as far as the legal base is concerned, we support the proposal that the directive should be based on articles 175 and 95. we believe that basing this directive on article 175 alone would run the risk of distorting the market, because individual countries could strengthen the prohibitions contained in it. i am confident that this directive represents a major change of direction and of public habits for many european countries. we should have turned to specific battery collection long ago. i hope we can now put this proposal into operation as soon as possible. mr president, because our shadow rapporteur, mr jrgensen, cannot be in the chamber today, it is i who have the pleasure of speaking on behalf of the socialist group in the european parliament. i wish to begin by thanking mr blokland for his very constructive work. he has tabled many amendments supported by our group. battery use is increasing more and more, and it is therefore that much more pressing a matter to react now in order to ensure that the most environmentally friendly technology is used and that those batteries that are most dangerous to the environment are banned and phased out. that is why we are well disposed to the proposal before us, even though we believe that the level of ambition should be higher than that proposed by the council. the use of the heavy metals mercury, cadmium and lead in batteries must be limited as far as possible. parliament must therefore tighten up the council proposal now before us. cadmium, mercury and lead are already banned in materials and vehicle parts marketed after 1 july 2003, as well as in new electrical and electronic equipment etc marketed after 1 july 2006. it is therefore quite natural that we should now go further in banning the use of cadmium in batteries. it is particularly important that the exemption relating to cadmium in batteries and accumulators used in hand tools be changed into a ban after a four-year transitional period. there are sound alternatives to using cadmium in such tools. i have one here in my hand , and - as i hope everyone can hear - it works splendidly. you only have to take a closer look at it in order not to swallow what the lobbyists in the corridors are trying to delude you into believing. there are practical alternatives, produced by quite a few manufacturers. these include not only tools for private use but also heavy-duty tools for professional use. be in no doubt about this. you only have to go onto the manufacturers' own websites to see for yourselves. why should we release a whole lot of cadmium unnecessarily? why should we not demand that the most environmentally friendly alternatives be used? a ban on the use of cadmium in the batteries for these tools would produce great environmental benefits. moreover, it is important for european competitiveness that when the time is ripe - as it really is now - we boost the development of new technology through legislation on environmentally friendly technology. we also think that the collection targets proposed by the council have been set too low. we wish to raise these, and we think, just like the rapporteur, that it is the legal base constituted by article 175 that has to apply in this draft legislation because the legislation is aimed precisely and solely at bringing about a better environment. . mr president, i would like to concentrate on the three core aspects of this directive, those being its legal basis, the ban on cadmium, and the collection targets. this directive has as its priority objective the reduction and avoidance of waste batteries, but we cannot overlook the fact that it is also an example of product-oriented legislation for the internal market. the fact that it has article 175 as its sole legal basis could result in varying standards and hence in distortions of competition and of the market. it is for that reason that the liberals support articles 95 and 175 as a dual legal basis, and in so doing we are doing as the legal affairs committee has recommended. in both the committee on the environment, public health and food safety and the council, a ban on cadmium and mercury was adopted only in relation to portable batteries. our group is not in favour of there being any further bans on marketing or of the ban on cadmium being extended to, for example, tools without cables or medical equipment. the example of power tools is always being quoted, and i will say now, particularly for the benefit of mr schlyter and also mrs westlund, that there are of course alternatives to nickel-cadmium available for those, but every kind of technology has its advantages and disadvantages. in the case of rechargeable batteries and accumulators, which amount in any case to only a very small quantity of waste, we have to consider other characteristics as well, such as energy efficiency, useful life and, of course, the price that the consumer has to pay for them. the presence of an alternative on the market does not necessarily mean that it is an adequate substitute. the actual amount of cadmium that we in europe absorb through our environment is considerably below the level regarded by the who as harmful to health, and it is worth noting that only about one per cent of it comes from batteries. let me conclude by considering the collection targets. the council is not aiming very high with its targets of 25% after six years and 45% after ten, but it has to be said that the 40% and 60% respectively on which we agreed in the committee are not realistic; the quotas in some member states are under 10%. in germany, over ten years of all-out effort have enabled us to achieve 35%. it follows that it is important that we review the collection targets in six years' time and, in so doing, learn from the experience and best practice in the member states. finally, i would like to emphasise that all stakeholders bear a responsibility for this; while we must not dump the costs of collection on the retail trade, we do have to oblige traders to collect! mr president, thank you, mr blokland, for trying to improve this proposal. it is about an environmental issue, and article 175 is the natural legal base. it is also about consumers and the confidence they can have in the products they buy. i therefore want to see amendment 38 on guaranteed capacity labelling applied to all batteries. i have these two items with me today. on this one , it was impossible to see from the packaging how long the batteries would last. it was, however, possible to do so on this one . this screwdriver contains nickel cadmium, while this one ( contains nickel metal hydride. this blue one only manages to put in this many screws , with each screw representing ten screws. the red nickel metal hydride screwdriver managed to put in all these screws - more than twice as many. that is not, however, something one could have known when buying this one. this is a case of consumers' being sold poor and old-fashioned technology by companies that are at present duping them. when products are not labelled, consumers are duped even more. i am not the only one to have carried out this test. swedish consumer organisations have looked at nickel metal hydride batteries after 500 chargings. what, then, we are concerned with here are lifespan and economy, its being apparent that these batteries last on average more than twice as long after 500 chargings. why should europe lag behind in terms of technology transfer? what kind of export market are we to have with poor, old-fashioned technology? it is time to dump nickel cadmium and time to vote in favour of amendment 54. the industry says that nickel cadmium batteries are necessary in these types of machine. the best machine on the market is capable of being used for a maximum of 18 minutes and 20 seconds as opposed to 2 minutes and 45 seconds. it is new battery technology that benefits the consumer and is good for the environment. in contrast, old technology makes things worse for consumers and the environment. seventy-five per cent of all refined cadmium is, in actual fact, used in batteries. this is a small portion of the total amount of cadmium. other use of cadmium is not, however, intentional. it is a side effect that we must deal with and eliminate in other ways. what we are concerned with at present is batteries, and cadmium in batteries needs to be got rid of. . mr president, the process of storing and releasing energy requires the presence of many metals and toxic compounds that play a part in the functioning of batteries and accumulators. batteries constitute a particularly hazardous category of municipal waste, since many of their components have an adverse impact on both the environment and human health. the binning of billions of spent batteries, which then end up in municipal landfills and in groundwater, represents a particular threat when they contain cadmium, lead or mercury. battery collection schemes have been a success in several member states thanks to diverse and long-standing endeavours. poland is starting from a much less advantageous position where such collections are concerned, however, as it is less advanced in terms of technology and information provision. this situation is aggravated by the fact that manufacturers and distributors prefer to pay a product fee rather than to take steps to collect and recycle batteries. thanks to the efforts of environmentalists, containers for spent batteries can now be found in many institutions, and even more progress has been made with the collection of accumulators. the amendments to the directive ensure that any negative impact of batteries and accumulators on the environment is kept to a minimum, as well as prohibiting the use of cadmium and mercury. at the same time, however, some of the changes could make accumulator manufacturers in the eu much less competitive than manufacturers outside europe who do not have to comply with such restrictive regulations. this will mean not only lower-quality batteries and accumulators, but also lower prices. the end result of this could be a threat to the environment and to the health of users, in particular young children. -the primary aim of this directive is to minimise the negative impact of batteries and accumulators and their waste, in order to help protect the environment and improve the quality of the environment. i would like to thank the rapporteur for raising this issue and for producing the report. the primary emphasis of the directive should be on the stimulation and development of research for suitable substitutes, not on the restrictive prohibition of batteries containing dangerous substances, such as lead, nickel, cadmium, or zinc. our decision must be based on scientific knowledge, and we should carefully consider the consequences before taking it. it is not sensible to rely on mass as the sole indicator of restriction, and simply to ignore the issue of battery use. we need to know what constitutes the greatest risk: using a hazardous battery or removing it from circulation. as an example of this, consider the batteries used in aircraft safety lighting or lift safety systems, both of which would be prohibited under the current proposals. we should focus our attention on collecting all used batteries and on raising public awareness. we must improve the current figures for used battery collection in eu member states, which are truly alarming. our best contribution to the protection of the environment would be to make people realise that batteries are not ordinary waste. finally, i would like to voice an opinion on the issue of legal basis. of course, it is necessary to protect the environment, but reliance on article 175 as the sole legal basis may lead to unfair competition through the application of different legal standards in different member states. in my view a dual legal basis would combine both objectives: the protection of the environment and the free and unrestricted movement of goods. these days our lives are surrounded by accumulators and batteries. as our energy and even renewable energy consumption increases and our mobility requirements escalate, we use an increasing number of accumulators and batteries. obviously, this is not the problem - the problem is that these materials and technologies often have complex components and often contain toxic substances, as well, which we do not collect or dispose of safely after use. with our current waste material technologies, these substances, when burned or disposed of, will sooner or later find their way into our bodies, accumulate and cause severe diseases. many countries, including my own, have only started to collect these materials recently, and thus the collection targets proposed by the commission and council seem to be realistic. it is another question whether distributors ought to have an obligation to collect, as well, or whether compulsory collection should be restricted to manufacturers only. the latter has proved to be a successful system for the other recyclable materials in our country, but this may obviously be a matter of different waste management practices in each member state. however, collection is not sufficient - these materials must be recycled, a requirement that involves considerable technology advancement and significant research and development. the current practice of a few member states in this respect is strongly questionable. my country has not yet managed to set up any accumulator-processing plants, and our accumulators are disposed of in slovenia and italy, while hungary purchases large amounts of lead for its battery and accumulator manufacturing industry. i do not think that this is sustainable, either, and each member state should have its own facilities not only for collection, but also for disposal. and our task is to encourage technology development and promote the replacement of dangerous substances. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the european parliament has wanted the ban on cadmium and the restriction on the use of this heavy material since 1988. with each piece of legislation, such as those relating to end-of-life vehicles or to electric and electronic products, our parliament has highlighted one basic principle: the use of cadmium must be prohibited, and this product must only remain in those instances where there is no alternative. ever since the beginning, that has been the substitution principle, the principle underpinning the draft reach directive, which mobilised us some time ago. like other sectors, the reach directive excludes batteries, on the grounds that a suitable directive must precisely enable us to gauge the work done by parliament. i therefore strongly urge us to apply the substitution principle to batteries containing cadmium. mr blokland explained at length the difficulties he had in winning acceptance for an ambitious point of view, and his willingness to make compromises must be welcomed. we support it. nevertheless, it seems to me that it should be possible for our parliament to accept a basic principle. if a technology exists on the market that can offer an alternative to nickel-cadmium batteries or to batteries containing cadmium - be they, for that matter, what are known as portable batteries or industrial batteries - then we must ban cadmium. mr blokland tried to list what was already available on the market. there are emerging technologies, particularly nickel-zinc technology for industrial batteries. i therefore call on you to accept amendment 4, tabled by the socialist group in the european parliament, which proposes that, in the event of an alternative technology for industrial batteries appearing on the market, a revision of the directive be got under way. this seems to me to be the absolute minimum requirement if we are to remain faithful to our environmental ambition and, above all, to the desire to promote technological innovation in the european union. - dividing batteries into three categories, as proposed in the common position, seems to me a sensible compromise. taking into account the fact that some cadmium batteries cannot be replaced at the present time, it would be inadvisable to impose a blanket ban, since some success has been achieved in collecting and recycling certain of them in recent times, particularly industrial versions. it would be rational, however, to impose a complete ban on portable batteries as it is highly likely that they will end up in landfills. as for the minimum targets for collecting spent batteries and accumulators, for which the target of 25% after six years seems an achievable goal, it strikes me as a sensible suggestion that in the enlarged european union the feasibility of the second, ten-year target be tested in the meantime. this would be done on the basis of actual experiences going back several years in the 25 countries, among which there are now marked differences in the systems of collection and recycling. to this end we would need to set up a system of verification. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank mr blokland, and to underline the enormous significance that a directive on batteries and accumulators and spent batteries and accumulators holds for environmental protection. there are many instances of metals similar to those used in batteries and accumulators being found during tests carried out on people living in environmentally sensitive areas and on the water sources in such areas. by analysing the origin of these metals, it is possible to state conclusively that some of them come from batteries and accumulators that have been deposited in rubbish dumps. discarded batteries and accumulators take a very long time to decompose. several problems arise in this connection, such as the following. people underestimate the need to collect batteries, and so they must be made more aware of it. legal and financial measures must be put in place to promote the collection of batteries, and we must foster a culture in which the public acquires the habit of doing so. issues relating to organisational matters and to the disposal of these pollutants are further problems. a number of issues that have been raised will only be resolved over time, provided that battery collection schemes continue to be publicised and that improvements continue to be made to collection and disposal systems. in particular, technical progress must be promoted in the field of battery production, in order to ensure that batteries are safe. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mr blokland deserves our warm thanks for this good, thorough and careful report for second reading. the basic problem with batteries and accumulators has nothing to do with the energy they produce, but rather with the materials that they contain - cadmium, lead and mercury. it is a matter of general knowledge that these components are toxic and do the environment no good at all. as i see it, the first priority is recycling rather than management; the next is that they be replaced by less toxic contents wherever this is technically possible. this alteration now further renders harmless, reduces and, to some degree, prohibits these materials and their percentages by weight in batteries of whatever kind. this i regard as the great benefit of this directive. it has to be admitted that the collection quotas are very high, and the demands made on industry, the general public and the trade very considerable. this is a challenge, and it is one that i regard in an extremely positive light; it will involve putting into practice a learning programme that will get our fellow human beings treating the environment better and becoming more aware of it. even if it proves impossible to achieve the high quotas everywhere and always, the requirement is evidence of how the european union leads the world in its awareness of the environment and in the way it treats it. the debate as to whether it makes more sense to define collection targets in terms of weight or number of items strikes me as purely academic. i have no objection to the joint legal basis using articles 95 and 175 of the treaties, or to the council's common position. looking at the big picture, the fundamental question that presents itself to my mind is whether the promotion of research and of modern technologies will, over the coming years, enable us to replace many of our conventional batteries with such alternatives as fuel cells. if it does, then this directive, like the materials we have problems with, will have a limited lifespan. mr president, i very much welcome this legislation which, i think, will help clean up our environment. however, i also want to comment on the three key issues that colleagues have commented on, the first of which concerns prohibitions and in particular compromise amendment 42. the problem i have is that it still involves the idea of an automatic ban on nickel cadmium batteries after four years; the commission is not asked to carry out an impact assessment to see what we should do. i do not agree with an automatic ban. if we are going to ban things, then we should do so in full knowledge. we should also do things that are proportionate: there is cadmium in our atmosphere but less than 1% is caused by batteries - much more comes from pesticides and other uses - so we must have legislation that is proportionate to what we are trying to achieve. we need a study on this issue before we move to any further legislation. i will support the common position. as regards the targets, i agree with what speakers have said about realistic targets. there is no point pretending we can automatically run to big leaps forward when in fact only a handful of countries collect batteries at all. we need to get targets down to a level that countries can meet at some point in the future and work out how to get there. someone pointed out that, after 9 years, belgium has reached a level of 56% and austria, after 14 years, still lies somewhere at around 40%. finally on the legal base issue, i shall be supporting the rapporteur and the socialist group on a legal base, but we have to bang heads together on this issue of articles 175 and 95 because we have kept coming up against this issue in environmental legislation over the past few months. we should be looking at this and having the legal experts from the three institutions talking about the legal base. we do not want to see legislation on the environment that undermines higher standards in those member states that choose to have them. - mr president, a simple ban on nickel-cadmium accumulators seems appealing to me at first glance, but a more in-depth analysis prompts me to recommend real derogations in terms of the industrial use of these accumulators. in particular, these accumulators are used in the security and transport sectors - in aeroplanes and trains, for example. these accumulators are much sought-after for their operational reliability in critical conditions, which makes it difficult to introduce alternative products. the rules are already very strict. the risks connected to the end of life of this type of accumulator are controlled, not least by means of the producers taking responsibility for the collection and recycling of their accumulators. ladies and gentlemen, i draw your attention to the definitions adopted by the committee on the environment, public health and food safety, which give precedence to the physical characteristics of the battery over the way in which it is used. certain batteries would therefore, in all likelihood, become de facto casualties of the ban, such as those used in breathing apparatus systems employed in toxic atmospheres, lamps for individual or collective use in the mining sector, and so on. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should first of all like to thank mr blokland for his very interesting report. it is obvious that a society without batteries has become unthinkable, and as some members have already pointed out, the use of batteries is on the increase: worldwide, there is an annual increase of 9%. if we consider the use that consumers like ourselves make of electronics on a daily basis, there is plenty of reason to get all member states to step up their efforts so as to reduce future environmental risks to a minimum. clearly, the present directive of 1991 leads to insufficient results in this field, precisely because it does not contain any firm targets for collection and recycling. moreover, the results are very difficult to compare in the different member states. i certainly do not want to keep from you the frequently quoted success story of my own region, flanders, where the government has, in tandem with this very sector, made huge efforts to set up an efficient collection system, as a result of which no less than 60% of batteries are in fact collected. the key to this success is shared responsibility. without a well-developed, dense network of collection points, collection targets are unachievable. as i have already said, i would like to put the case for higher collection percentages, and our committee has, in fact, approved my amendment to that effect. secondly, i should like to urge all parties involved to take on their share of responsibility. i have tabled a fresh amendment to that effect. finally, i should like to appeal for legal certainty for the sector, as regards the use of cadmium in both batteries and power tools, for which i propose a transitional period of four years. i hope that many members will be able to endorse this package. mr president, i would like to start by extending warm thanks to the rapporteur, mr blokland, for the work he has done. important though the protection of the environment is - as one who concerns myself with environmental policy, i have set it as my declared objective - we must find a way of balancing the environment against legitimate business interests. my particular concern today is with the ban on nickel-cadmium batteries in power tools. to ban them outright, whether now or after a transitional period of four years - which is what the rapporteur proposes - would be going too far. as a substitute for that, i prefer to back the common position and mr krahmer's amendment 45, which make provision for a review of the derogation from the ban for nickel-cadmium batteries in power tools after four and seven and a half years respectively. it would then be considered whether equivalent alternatives existed and whether a ban on nickel-cadmium batteries was reasonable and justified - which, as things stand at the moment, it is not. while there are already, in many areas, technological alternatives to nickel-cadmium on the market, nickel-metal hybrids being one example, these alternatives cannot as yet be regarded as equivalent to nickel-cadmium, as demonstrated, , by various differences, for example the fact that the lifetime of nickel-cadmium batteries is longer than that of their nickel-metal hybrid counterparts, and they are less susceptible to faults and defects. nickel-cadmium batteries can be charged up more quickly and discharge themselves much more slowly when out of use. it is also worthy of note that nickel-metal hybrid batteries do not function when the temperature falls below 10 celsius. it is the desire for a consolidated market position that motivates manufacturers to develop more and more new technologies, but a ban at the present time or in four years' time would be counterproductive, for they would have to change over their production methods to handle a type of technology that is not yet fully developed, while the research and development sector would not be able to come up with financial resources that this would demand. a ban would therefore do nothing to foster innovation in the field of new technologies nor, consequently, anything to benefit the environment either, and we surely cannot want that. i will close by expressing my support for articles 95 and 175 as a dual legal basis. mr president, i should like to congratulate the rapporteur. i believe that the persistent shortcomings in terms of collection are due to the lack of ambition that we sometimes demonstrate. if it is possible to collect batteries in some member states, then what is stopping the others from increasing their efforts? mrs jackson quoted some figures. she forgot about luxembourg. in 2001, the country boasted an 89.5% recycling rate. the text submitted to us for adoption refers to a minimum recycling objective per inhabitant per year of 160 grams; in 2004, this proportion stood at 245 grams per inhabitant in luxembourg. these are the results of a large number of information campaigns and of a great deal of work in the field of prevention and awareness-raising, organised by the luxembourg government and by the town councils and supported by the retail sector, which actively participates in the collection efforts. mr president, this is indeed proof that collection with a view to recycling is possible, and i do not see why what has been achieved in luxembourg could not be achieved in other countries. as for replacing cadmium, i believe that parliament's final objective should be the substitution principle, although an adjustment period is necessary. . mr president, i will focus now only the amendments relating to three key issues in this file: firstly, the legal basis; secondly, the definitions of 'portable' and 'industrial' battery types and, thirdly, collection targets. firstly, on the legal basis, the preamble and recital 1 - amendments 1 and 2: the commission continues to support the concept of a dual legal basis for this directive as the correct one. this dual legal basis reflects the dual objective of the proposed directive. indeed, the directive aims at achieving both a high level of environmental protection and contributing to the proper functioning of the internal market. moreover, it should be noted that the proposed directive specifies that each individual article has only one legal basis. indeed, the articles laying down provisions for the environmental protection are based on article 175 of the ec treaty. the articles laying down provisions related to the proper functioning of the internal market - namely articles 4, 5 and 18 of the proposed directive - are based on article 95 of the treaty. consequently, this dual legal basis cannot lead to any legal incompatibilities of procedures. secondly, on the definition of the different battery types - articles 3(3) and (6) and recitals 8 and 9, amendments 5, 6, 12 and 13: the definitions of 'portable' batteries and 'industrial' batteries are important since they determine the scope of the cadmium ban and the type of collection requirements. therefore, the commission is of the opinion that definitions should meet the following criteria: they should be clear, they should be workable in practice for the member states to implement in a harmonised way, and any overlaps or gaps should be avoided. taking into account the above, the commission supports the first two parts of amendment 12, in particular the introduction of the weight limit for defining portable batteries. however, the commission does not support the other changes proposed to the definitions of the different battery types - amendment 12, third part, and amendment 13. the commission welcomes the deletion of the non-exhaustive list of examples in the recitals, which considerably improves the drafting of the legislative act. thirdly, i turn to the collection targets - article 9(2) and (4) and amendments 26 to 28. the commission believes that setting collection targets in the proposed directive is necessary: firstly to ensure a minimum level of environmental protection in all member states and secondly to monitor the efficiency of the national battery-collection schemes. it is important that the collection targets are ambitious in environmental terms, but they should also be achievable, realistic and cost-efficient. the commission's extended impact assessment carefully analysed this issue and came to the conclusion that the collection target of 160 grams or 40% would be the most cost-efficient target, which corresponds with part of amendment 26. the appropriateness of an increase in the target in the longer term will be carefully reviewed, as foreseen in article 20(2)(b) of the proposed directive. in this review, the commission will take account of technical progress and practical experience gained in member states. the commission thus in principle supports amendment 26 but reserves its opinion on amendment 56. the commission supports the amendment which deletes the possibility for member states to derogate from the proposed collection targets - the 'transitional arrangements'. the commission had proposed this possibility since, in its initial proposal, the collection targets were based on weight per inhabitant. since the collection targets are now based on sales, it is no longer necessary to provide for this possibility of transitional arrangements. since the proposed directive already foresees a review of the long-term targets in article 20(2)(b), the commission does not see the need for a specific review obligation to increase the targets by a specific date. i will give a voting list to the secretariat, indicating which amendments are and are not acceptable to the commission. i should like to point out that the commission reserves its opinion on the additional 18 amendments tabled before the plenary, since more time is needed to fully assess the environmental, economic and social impacts thereof. i believe that the european parliament and the council can now start moving towards agreement on this file. i look forward to an early conclusion of the codecision process so that the directive can be implemented by the member states and we can achieve a high level of environmental protection in this area. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. in some member states, such as hungary, the collection of spent batteries and accumulators may be a newly introduced activity, but at the same time, it is also a long-term environmental protection investment. in order to enable the implementation of the law, collection targets must remain realistic both in terms of time and quantity. excessively ambitious targets (such as 50-60%) would lead to stipulations that cannot be implemented. switzerland's consumer culture needed 12 years to reach the 60% level. in our country, where carbon-zinc batteries still have a 40-50% market share due to poor consumer purchasing power, distributors would be unable to finance, and consumers would be unable to pay the cost of a too vigorously enforced collection. this would not only lead to the liquidation of enterprises and job losses, but it would also boost the already thriving black market battery import, which presents an increasing environmental risk. this means that a law that cannot be complied with would achieve the opposite of its objective. what we need is regulations - even with a potential review within five years - that can ensure the achievement of environmental targets in the long term, and the preservation of jobs in the affected industry and distribution sectors for the next five or ten years. the next item is the report (a6-0334/2005) by mrs kauppi, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council amending directive 2004/39/ec on markets in financial instruments, as regards certain deadlines [com(2005)0253 - c6-0191/2005 - 2005/0111(cod)]. . mr president, i would like to start by thanking piia-noora kauppi and the committee on economic and monetary affairs for the efficiency and speed shown on this dossier. this proposal is an essential complement to the markets in financial instruments directive - known as 'mifid', which is most probably the most important piece of eu legislation recently adopted in the field of european securities law. the proposal is a simple one, namely to postpone the date of entry into force of the directive, with half of this extra time for industry to prepare, the other half for member state transposition. this proposal responds to a justified and legitimate request expressed by the industry and supported by all member states and securities regulators. it is clear that additional time is needed to put in place the necessary arrangements so that the mifid will work from the start. the commission proposed, in june 2005, the extension of the transposition deadline for member states for six months and we added a further six months' deadline for the industry to apply the directive in practice. a series of improvements and clarifications concerning the various deadlines have been made, during negotiations in the european parliament and the council, to the text proposed by the commission, and cooperation has been excellent between the three institutions. the european parliament and council propose that the extension becomes nine plus nine months, instead of six plus six. the commission can go along with this, particularly because the technical implementing measures for the mifid are essential for the effective application of this directive. these technical rules are complex and will not be adopted before may 2006. member states and investment firms need to have the complete picture of the new framework, including the technical implementing details, before they can effectively apply them. let me stress that adoption of the 'mifid extension' directive is a matter of urgency and we need a single reading. if the eu institutions are not able to conclude this debate quickly, or if a second reading is needed, the mifid will enter into force in april next year and no one will be ready. there will be a lot of uncertainty because of the legal void that will be created, since the old isd regime will be abrogated and the new regime will enter into force without the new mifid having been transposed. we will have new rules without the necessary technical implementing details - not a good formula! this codecision proposal is about extending the date of entry of mifid, not about the wider question of the powers of the council and the european parliament in the comitology procedures. this house knows my views on the comitology issue and how important it is to resolve these matters as soon as possible in a balanced and fair way. discussions are under way in the council and i understand the european parliament is working on its negotiating position. i welcomed this and i hope we can arrive at a good outcome as early as possible next year. so, with the greatest respect, and in full understanding of parliament's overall position, i consider that the amendments put forward on comitology and on the sunset clause are neither necessary nor appropriate in the context of this proposal. and, as a matter of legal conformity, they do not explain any article of the text. the european parliament's requests for additional co-legislator powers are known. they are already recorded in the capital requirements directive recently adopted. the broad substance of amendment 2 is already included in the original mifid, and amendment 4 merely advances the date for the expiry of the commission's delegated powers by 29 days. so i would urge you to consider again these amendments, which the commission would prefer ideally to be withdrawn before the vote. i understand that the council would also prefer this outcome. the commission believes that a solution for this matter can only be found through a revision of the comitology decision. as a result of parliament's justified persistence, the council has taken up work on the revision of this decision through a 'friends of the presidency' group. progress is being made and i reiterate my invitation to parliament to set out clearly its expectations and proposals for the ongoing discussions. that said, the commission will not stand in the way of an adoption at first reading of this proposed directive. should parliament maintain its amendments on comitology, the commission will accept them in the interests of ensuring a smooth transposition and implementation of the mifid. the commission, from its side, will assist wherever it can to ensure that a real sense of urgency is given to this matter. the commission has long recognised the need for a solution to be found and i believe the conditions are now ripe for this. i look forward to hearing your comments. . commissioner, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to start by conveying to the house the apologies of the rapporteur, mrs kauppi, who regrets her inability, due to travel problems, to be here on time for the debate on her own report. that does not mean that she has washed her hands of it, far from it; she has done a fine job of work, and i would like to thank her warmly for it. what is this about? in the first part of his speech, the commissioner, in effect, presented the draft report - thus demonstrating that rational explanations find parliament with an open mind and ready to listen - and went on, in the second part, to point out that we both have a problem with comitology. i am glad that he concluded by saying that he is on our side if we adopt it as proposed - and i can tell him that we will. where issues of this house's fundamental rights, of democratic fundamental rights, and of right of codecision are concerned, it is good when commission and parliament pull together, especially in their dealing with the council. the same can be said about the comitology procedure and the sunset clause. my colleague mr radwan will go into that in greater detail. so what is mifid - the markets in financial instruments directive - all about? not everyone understands it. firstly, it is intended to amend a parliament and council directive on markets in financial instruments. secondly, it has to do with extending the deadlines for transposition. why do we want to extend them? the reason is that the directive results in considerable changes for the participants in the market and for the national authorities, since transposition is dependent on the necessary technical measures being worked out and put into effect, the former of which is, unfortunately, only now being done, and the package of measures to implement the 17 provisions is due to be adopted only in 2006. the fact is that the implementing measures to be taken at level 2 are being delayed, and they will actually only be completed at a time when mifid ought already to have entered into force. what makes us favour the extension of the transposition deadlines is the fact that we are dealing here with what is termed the lamfalussy procedure, and that the process has to be completed by means of comitology. so what do we do now? what we do now is to extend, and for this reason, the transposition deadline, also keeping the old isd directive in force until mifid becomes effective, in other words until 1 november 2007. it follows that the changes we are making to the directive on markets in financial instruments are of form rather than of substance. the effect of these transposition deadlines is to prevent a legal vacuum. alongside these outward adaptations to reality, though, we are also altering the comitology procedure within mifid. why is this so? i have to tell the commissioner that i find his first objection incomprehensible. we are doing this because we want to adopt, in precisely the same form, the provisions on comitology that we agreed with the council for the 'basel ii' directive on capital adequacy, which can be summed up in the word 'sunset clause'. what that gives us is legal certainty, along with clarity about what we want. the proposals we have received to date do not take account of this house's legislative prerogatives, and it is right and proper that any agreement reached by us be extended to cover other directives dealing with the same subject matter. i therefore ask all the members of this house, in the plenary vote tomorrow, to stick with the committee's resolution, for it will enable us not only to achieve a practical solution but also to strengthen this house's hand. . mr president, commissioner, there has already been frequent reference in this debate to the lamfalussy procedure. one ought really to be grateful to the british presidency, for the tenacity with which the british, whose country is regarded as the cradle of democracy - something to which mr karas has already alluded - have fought over a point already agreed on in the 'basel ii' directive by the commission, the council and parliament is astounding. if, though, you want to reinforce parliament's rights and campaign for that, you cannot but be grateful that every further action of this kind makes this house even more firmly united in the conviction that this is something about which we cannot give way. the issue is that of how we handle the lamfalussy procedure in future. there is also the question as to how seriously the council is taking this. had the british presidency made even an attempt at doing something - perhaps with the aid of the 'friends of the presidency' - about sorting out the new inter-institutional agreement, and expended less energy on getting this through as it stood, we would be a good deal further ahead today. what i have to say to the commission is this: we inserted a date into the 'basel ii' directive; that date was 1 april 2008, and until then this house will be backing the lamfalussy procedure and comitology. we want to support it even after that date, but we do need agreement by then. let me say, for the benefit of all those whom the news has not yet reached, that we will incorporate this sunset clause in all subsequent directives. when new proposals come from the commission, we will not allow ourselves to be limited to considering only whether or not individual dates should be changed, but will instead claim the right to consider any directive that gets as far as this house in its entirety. we hope that the commission will exert appropriate influence on the council - indeed, we rely on it doing so. i am looking particularly to the austrian presidency to secure us a solution that at last does justice to all the institutions and enable us to get back to doing our work properly. . mr president, commissioner, with this report, we are in the first phase of the european parliament's return to this investment services directive, which has since been renamed the mifid directive. there is a procedural issue here: you are aware of the conditions in which the european parliament accepted the lamfalussy process. there is a fundamental question: in what conditions will the principles we enacted at level 1 be upheld by the measures being prepared at level 2? something tells me that, for the first time, the european parliament, as a result of having examined the level 2 measures contained in this directive, will have the opportunity to exercise its rights in full, hence the importance that we give, in this text, to pointing out the conditions in which the european parliament can, through the sunset clause and the right of call back, intervene again following the implementation of the level 2 measures. i believe that we are right to examine these measures because, when we observe the manner in which the debate has unfolded, there is clearly, following the european parliament's adoption of the measures, a legal 'creativity' that requires us to be vigilant. as regards the timetable, in fact, we observe that what was initially just a deadline has become a transposition deadline and an enforcement deadline. in other areas, i believe that the overall balance in this directive between transparency and opening up to competition is a sufficiently serious matter for parliament to use all the resources necessary to examine, in credible conditions, the proposals that will be made at level 2 by the commission. it is for this reason, commissioner, that i hope to be able to take advantage of your spirit of openness towards this parliament and of your willingness to engage in dialogue with it so that i might, at the time when this directive - which is a directive aimed at changing the timetable - is adopted, fully reassert parliament's rights in a procedure in which, quite frankly, parliament's intervention has always focused on the principles and has never led to an extension of the deadlines, although we can quite imagine the difficulties involved in the other levels intervening on such a complex issue. well, quite frankly, commissioner, i can put your mind at ease: parliament will indeed vote in favour of the proposed amendments, and i am delighted that you can, in these conditions, support them. . the document under consideration is very important not only for the european financial market, but also for the european parliament itself for two reasons. first, with this document parliament makes it clear that it is able to respond promptly to the reasoned requests of market participants to review the terms of the coming into effect of the directive. second, which is equally important, parliament asserts the possibilities and the rights to waive certain provisions of the directive should it become evident that the chosen strategy does not meet the needs of the market. the directive is an umbrella instrument. in a way, it summarises all the achievements in the market and enforces its regulation; however, increased attention should perhaps be paid to the drafting of this specialised legislation. therefore, i would like to support the submitted proposal, but let me point out, on the other hand, that the present consideration has revealed significant flaws in the process of adoption of legal documents governing financial markets. we need to review the strategy for drafting these legal acts of the financial market: currently we frequently focus on technical details, while the real question here is about the process by which financial legal acts are approved. a number of options have been proposed, and yet none of them are adequate. consider, for example, the changing of the deadline for the enforcement of a certain provision of the law even before it becomes operational. this means that during the preparatory stage market possibilities and needs were not properly considered. i would like to address the commissioner on this point. he has been promising to reduce legal burden on the market, but i believe that this legal burden would abate provided we worked closer with market participants. we would then need fewer amendments to directives before they come into effect. mr president, the june list supports the proposal concerning the internal market's four freedoms. the free movement of capital is fundamental to an efficient internal market. if all this is to operate satisfactorily, common regulations are required. these must be designed simply and must not undermine the possibility of institutional competition between the member states. it is a good thing that the deadlines in this report should be extended, as this will facilitate the preparations in the run-up to the regulations' entering into force. we shall therefore vote in favour of the report. parliament's proposed changes state, however, that the european parliament has requested that parliament and the council be given an equal role in supervising the way in which the commission exercises its powers to implement the changes. parliament is again trying to increase its own power at the expense of the member states. the commission must not be some kind of federal government, and it should in the first place be supervised by the member states. as it is important that an acceptable compromise be reached with the council, it is unfortunate that parliament should have chosen in this way to put an intra-institutional power struggle into the mix. we shall therefore vote against amendments 1, 2, 4 and 11. mr president, as has already been said, the mifid (markets in financial instruments directive), previously known as the isd (investment services directive), is a major legislative programme for the internal capital market. the aim is to introduce a level playing field for different kinds of investment services, with top priority given to enhancing transparency before and after, to consumer protection and to the promotion of keen prices at maximum liquidity. in europe, those instruments will allow us to make a huge stride in the direction of a better investment climate, which is desperately needed at the moment. the complexity of the directive requires careful consultation with the different market operators, much of which work is done by supervisors under the watchful eye of the cesr (committee of european securities regulators). the european commission, with its limited manpower, cannot do this on its own. i am a big fan of this careful approach and of this considerable role for the supervisors. they are our main allies in the service of the public interest and in preventing us from being guided by a handful of large market operators or national markets that serve their own interests, which, sadly, was what did sometimes happen at the time when the groundwork for this dossier was being done. the european parliament has struck a balance between the different interests and must now ensure that this balance is kept. this means that we must be able to continue to play our role. that is why we demand that an important right in the context of checking comitology, namely the right of revocation, be upheld. the commission has indicated on a number of occasions that it will support us in this, and so has the council, albeit somewhat reluctantly, except that this point in the treaty was not corrected in the course of the debate that was held on the subject. now that things have ground to a halt, there is no reason why that point should be put on ice as well. since the lamfalussy procedure increasingly applies to financial market dossiers, parliament's right of revocation should, as a matter of urgency, be regulated structurally. this is not a prestige project or prestige fight. it really is about remaining involved in what we laid down in broad lines at level 1 and seeing them reflected at the implementation stage that we have delegated. . mr president, i want to thank all members for their observations. it is clear that we all want mifid to enter into force under the best possible conditions, and an extension of the transposition and implementation deadlines is necessary and justified. while the commission considers that the amendments relating to comitology are legally inappropriate in this context, the commission will accept them to allow an adoption of this proposal in a single reading. i understand that this issue will come back and that you will continue to include these amendments in future proposals. i attach high importance to finding a solution and in no way do i want the sense of urgency to be lost. i will therefore continue to take an open approach to the amendments. they are an important political signal of the strongly felt and legitimate requests of this house. however, flagging a problem politically is not enough: we need to solve it. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on tuesday at 12 noon. the next item is the report (a6-0382/2005) by mrs fourtou, on behalf of the committee on petitions, on the alleged abuse of the valencian land law known as the lrau and its effect on european citizens (petitions 609/2003, 732/2003, 985/2002, 1112/2002, 107/2004 and others) [2004/2208(ini)]. . mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over many years, the mild climate, the beautiful countryside, the low prices and the warmth and friendliness of the locals have encouraged thousands of europeans to buy property in the spanish region of valencia. in response to soaring demand and in order to discourage speculation, the autonomous government of valencia adopted a land development law called the (lrau) in 1994. the european parliament has since received thousands of petitions against the application of precisely that law. the petitioners are complaining about improper encroachment, as they see it, on their property rights by urban amenity and land development projects. the criticisms relate both to the substance - legal, economic and environmental legitimacy of such projects - and to the form - poor information, lack of transparency, excessively short deadlines for lodging challenges and proposals, and too low a level of compensation. they feel powerless in the face of a situation that is highly complex, since it should be remembered that legal and political responsibility in this area is shared between the spanish government as regards land law, the autonomous community of valencia as regards local legislation concerning planning rules, and the municipalities which, on the basis of both spanish and regional legislation, implement the programmes which they deem legitimate. in order to familiarise itself with the situation on the ground, the committee on petitions sent two delegations, one in 2004 and one in 2005, to gather information from the various parties involved. as rapporteur, i was in the second delegation, and i was very impressed by the number of petitioners and found not only what they said but also their trust in europe's response very moving. i also valued the attention paid to us by the valencian authorities and their willingness to cooperate. the community of valencia is aware of the problems, and is currently in the process of drafting a new law, called the (luv), which will address the complaints raised by the petitioners. in a spirit of openness, the valencian government has also invited the european parliament to put forward any suggestions it considers necessary. europe is often criticised for being remote from its citizens, and this is a good opportunity to show the opposite: the european parliament, via its committee on petitions, is listening to the citizens. the problem, however, is that we cannot overstep our authority because we absolutely cannot give the citizens false hopes that will inevitably be dashed. with regard to the facts and community competence, we therefore call on the european commission to continue to ensure that the tendering procedure is followed and to monitor any breaches of the environmental directives. it already started to respond to our calls on 21 march, by opening infringement proceedings against the kingdom of spain for failure to comply with the directive on public procurement. we have insisted to the regional government and to the municipalities that they should provide everyone affected by the lrau with assistance enabling them to plan a possible process of rectification and compensation. we are calling for the environmental issues so crucial to the future of europe to be taken into account in all projects. i would like to thank my fellow members who have shown such enthusiasm for this subject and who have improved my initial report, but i would remind them that we can only act within the bounds of our community competences and that we have little room for manuvre. our response depends, and has depended, on our temperaments and on our commitments. some tend to do a great deal, others not enough; i myself have tried to strike a happy medium, and it is in that spirit that the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe will table some amendments intended purely to refocus our efforts. i am tempted to tell the european citizens affected by the lrau that we have heard them, that we are appalled by the situation and that we are here not to judge, but to try to bring pressure to bear to ensure that they are all listened to and respected, and that, in the end, a fair and balanced solution will be found. i hope that this report will be successful, that the situation will ultimately be made fair for everyone and that the committee on petitions will once again be able to show that we are an important link in the chain of the relationship between the citizens and the european parliament. . mr president, the rapporteur, mrs fourtou, and her fellow members of the committee on petitions have worked very hard on this report, an initiative from this house in response to thousands of petitions received by the committee. i would like to thank all those involved for their work and valuable contributions to this difficult and delicate debate. this is indeed of concern to many eu citizens, as shown by the number of petitions received. two fact-finding missions were sent to valencia, which gave the committee members an opportunity to meet with representatives of all those concerned and to have a first-hand experience of the situation on the ground. you know better than anyone else the issues at stake. mrs fourtou's report touches upon a number of important topics which have attracted the political attention of this house. the commission, within the limits of its competences, has looked into this matter mainly from an internal market perspective. in concrete terms we have analysed the public procurement dimension of the spanish law. i shall concentrate on that. the commission takes the view that the approval of integrated action programmes under the valencia land planning law involves the award of public work and service contracts. early in this process the commission considered that the valencia land planning law raised questions with respect to eu public procurement legislation. contracts were awarded without transparency or publication of notices in the eu official journal. there were no objective selection or award criteria, no appropriate price clauses, and no equality of opportunity for all those interested in the business opportunity. the commission therefore decided to launch infringement proceedings against spain on this issue and sent a letter of formal notice on 21 march 2005. since then, we have been working together with the relevant authorities to correct the defects that were detected with the application of the existing law. however, the draft new law that was submitted to my services does not correct all problems identified. in addition, the practical situation has not changed. public authorities continue to award public contracts without following appropriate tendering procedures. in view of this lack of progress, in a few days i plan to send a letter to the competent authorities in spain asking them to take appropriate measures to remedy the situation. reconciling planning requirements and procurement laws can be highly complex. however, this must not be an excuse for not applying the eu procurement rules. these rules bring benefits for public authorities, by increasing competition for public contracts and lowering the price of works, supplies and services. therefore, you can count on my commitment to ensure that eu public procurement rules are respected, both in the letter and the practice, of whatever legislation is approved in the future. mrs fourtou's report also raised a number of other issues of concern, but as they fall outside the scope of community competence, the commission is not in a position to address them. . - mr president, as a member of the second european parliament delegation which visited the spanish authorities in madrid and the regional and local authorities in the autonomous region of valencia in june 2005 and met with groups of petitioners, i am obliged to state publicly that all the key players demonstrated an excellent willingness to cooperate with the meps and confirmed their understanding and concern for the legitimate, but not for the illegal claims of the citizens. the rapporteur, mrs fourtou, has achieved a feat in drafting her report on behalf of the committee on petitions and has made masterly use of all her subtractive powers in order to retain the most fundamental elements which it makes sense to put forward in a report which the house is called to vote on, by adhering to the rules of procedure and her legal obligations and not exceeding them. unfortunately, when the fourtou report was voted on in the committee on petitions, amendments were slipped into the text which touch on the principle of subsidiarity, together with complaints not accompanied by the relevant proof. we therefore support the amendments by the rapporteur and her group deleting a number of details. these amendments restore the dignity of the non-legislative text which, of course, has no repercussions. moreover, we too are trying in turn with our series of amendments to improve the unacceptably didactic and overbearing tone, especially of paragraphs 6 and 11, which are insulting to a member state. the amendment to paragraph 11 in particular highlights the more general problem of excessive urbanisation of the shores of the mediterranean in general and stresses the general nature of environmental protection. as for recital , our amendment corrects the vague tone of the text and recalls the infringement proceedings already exercised in accordance with article 226 of the treaty and european legislation, as you mentioned commissioner, and this is why we call on everyone voting in favour of the report to vote in favour of these amendments. as to whether the honourable members will vote in favour of the report, that is up to them. . mr president, i wish to begin by apologising for the absence of mr cashman, who is unable to take part in this debate this evening because of travel problems. he would have been leading for the pse group in this debate otherwise. this report is extremely important for a number of reasons, because it seeks to demonstrate to the citizens of valencia that this european parliament is not only a law-making body - which of course it is - but also a voice of the people of europe when their rights are threatened. i also wish to say that the pse group will not accept amendments to this report which seek to weaken it. the report is already a compromise report and is not as strong as i certainly would like it to be. it is intolerable that residents of parts of valencia face the fact that their property has been and may be expropriated by the local state with the consequent enrichment of developers. it is particularly important to insist on the application of directives which come under a commission remit other than the internal market. i refer specifically to the 2001 directive which deals with strategic environmental impact assessments and the 2000 directive which deals with the prudent use and protection of water resources - all of which are the subject of this complaint. indeed, it is also important that we should seek ways to press the valencian government to put a moratorium on new projects, pending the implementation of a satisfactory new law which meets the full requirements of the european union. it is also essential that citizens have the right of redress and that they are not kept in the dark as to proposals relating to their property, either when they are buying property or when they are in possession of it. it is not appropriate that any citizens should be unilaterally dispossessed of the property that they enjoy. let me refer to another issue. i am sure my colleague would not object to my drawing commissioner mccreevy's attention to the fact that last friday 100 000 people in ireland marched to express their anger at the bolkestein directive for which he currently has responsibility. as he is in the chamber tonight, i want him to appreciate that serious statement of concern by european citizens. . mr president, i congratulate my colleague mrs fourtou on her balanced report. we in the alde group will support our own amendments, of course, but not other amendments that seek to weaken this report further. this is about citizens' rights. more importantly, perhaps, this is a right that goes to the centre of the european union. freedom of movement in the european union has been a real success story, and when our citizens choose to exercise that right by living in - and often retiring to - another member state, they deserve our protection and support. many of them make the biggest financial investment they will ever make in their lives by purchasing real property. that is what happened to citizens in one region of one member state. they have come to us in their thousands to explain that something has gone disastrously wrong. the value of their property is being wiped out by a development control law that does not seem to be working. we have produced, i believe, a balanced report that will continue to put pressure on the authorities in valencia. there are three elements that we need to achieve. we need to make sure that you, commissioner, continue to enforce eu law where you can; we need to make sure that those citizens who have come to us can benefit from some form of compensation or redress mechanism - and for that we must continue to exert pressure on the spanish authorities. i must also ask you this, commissioner: we ask our citizens to move and live elsewhere, and we do not want to see this kind of scenario again. so, without interfering in member states' land law - which is their own affair - can we please look for some sort of advice, guidance and information for our fellow citizens who buy property in another member state? we do not want to see this again. we do not want to nanny our citizens, but we want to support them when they exercise the right to freedom of movement that is so precious to all of us. . mr president, we are dealing with a profoundly european issue, a question of rights: we cannot apply european legislation without dealing with the land-planning scandal in the mediterranean. we cannot even apply the treaty in relation to human rights, neither can we apply the directives on public contracts, the framework directive on water, the strategic environmental assessment directive, without dealing with what the president of the higher council of colleges of architects this very morning described as the land-planning horror: he said that the mediterranean coast is bursting at the seams, that the territory is suffering from great overcrowding and an irreversible impact that will leave an excessively serious ecological mark. we must put an end to this horror as soon as possible, which is violating people's rights: thousands and thousands of people - the great majority are valencians - are suffering as a result of this situation. a sustainable environment is not compatible with this model. i believe that europe must respond firmly and quickly to these infringements of european directives. to this end, amongst all of us we have produced a report, thanks to two years of exemplary work by the committee on petitions, which unanimously adopted this report. now, certain people who voted in favour in the committee on petitions want to spoil this report irreversibly. i do not believe that that is a very honest way to behave. i believe that the environmental interests of the citizens are more important than the interests of bricks and mortar, which want to cover the entire mediterranean coast. . mr president, while we sympathise greatly with the citizens who find themselves in this invidious position, we in ukip believe that the situation in valencia over land grab is one which should have been dealt with by bilateral agreements between spain and the individual countries concerned. instead, i suspect the european parliament is once again using a sledgehammer to miss the nut. town planning is a field that needs to remain at local level in order for the needs of local areas to fall on understanding ears. a centralised policy would compound, not ameliorate, the problem. we have seen that time and time again with so-called european projects. let me remind you of a few examples. firstly, we have the common fisheries policy, with its seriously damaging quota system. hailed as an environmental project, it has done near irreparable damage to fish stocks. a huge proportion of fish processing plants in the united kingdom have been forced to close and local fishing economies have been devastated. and how can we talk about disasters without mentioning the cap, which created wine lakes and butter mountains and is now giving commissioner mandelson as much of a headache as it is the farmers in the developing world? in essence, chirac, by protecting the little french farmer, is holding the world to ransom. instead of stabilising the prices of primary product markets, the eu is harming the very people it says it wishes to help. the situation facing those non-spanish nationals in valencia, including many uk citizens, should be dealt with on a government-to-government basis. i lament the fact that the british government has failed to reach a bilateral agreement with spain on this issue. instead, we see the eu octopus bureaucracy once again using private misfortune to plunder the sovereignty of member states. . mr president, i should like to start by expressing my wholehearted thanks to all those who played a part in this success story, the final chapter of which should be the adoption of the report. above all, i am delighted that the petitioners placed their trust in the european union and in the committee on petitions, which i have the honour of chairing. i am also very glad that the ombudsman for the region of valencia offered his assistance during the drafting of the report and during our successful search for a solution to this issue. furthermore, i am delighted that the work carried out by the members of our mission, which visited the region in june, was so productive. this mission was led by mr cashman, the vice-chairman of the committee on petitions, and also included mrs fourtou, whom i should like to thank for having drafted the report. other members included mrs panayotopoulos-cassiotou, whom i should also like to thank, and the head of our committee's secretariat. the considerable amount of work that was carried out has borne fruit in the shape of this report. the petitions, which were initially submitted by charles svoboda on behalf of the valencia-based campaign, and by mr and mrs schuckall and mrs perret, were subsequently signed by over 10 000 people. to begin with, one could have been forgiven for asking whether the petitions merited further scrutiny, but it soon became apparent that they did. the reason for this was not only because the principles of environmental protection and the rules for awarding public tenders had been violated, but above all because a fundamental human right had been infringed. by this i mean the right to property, and moreover the right to property of people whose circumstances were frequently very modest, and who wanted nothing more than to spend the rest of their lives in the small homes they had built for themselves. the conversations we held with the petitioners, both during the fact-finding mission and during our meetings, revealed to us the full extent of the tragedy facing these individuals, who had had so much of their property taken away from them. the experiences of these people, who had discovered that they had been stripped of part of their possessions without their knowledge, and that their fundamental rights had been grossly violated, were truly appalling. our committee adopted the fourtou report unanimously, with only one abstention. this report was the outcome of a compromise, and of debates within the committee on the amendments. i therefore believe that this report should now be adopted by the house without any amendments that could distort its meaning. since it has already been adopted unanimously once, i would be very glad if the house were also to adopt it. ladies and gentlemen, our aim is that valencia should adopt a new law. it has already promised to do so, which is a testimony to the effectiveness of parliament's work and that of its committee. this law should take due account of human rights and of the rules on environmentally-related public tenders. compensation for the injured parties is a further issue that needs addressing. we are therefore calling on the valencian government to keep detailed records on each individual case, and, where necessary, to offer appropriate compensation. i hope that commissioner mccreevy, who is here on behalf of the european commission, will do his best to ensure that no further injustices take place, and that past wrongs are redressed. mr president, i must naturally begin by thanking mrs fourtou for producing this report, a report - as we have said - which has been the subject of much debate and work; let us not forget that this report as has also been said here has been given exceptional treatment in the committee on petitions: two parliamentary delegations have visited the valencian country to discuss and deal with this issue. i believe, however, that this issue is being brought to an end today and also that, by means of this report, the socialist land-planning model that existed in the valencian country, which the socialists implemented when they were in government, is going to be called into question. such are the consequences. i am therefore pleased that, as mr libicki said, from now on, as a result of this new report, which i imagine the european parliament will approve, this parliament is going to applaud, amongst other things, the initiative that the current valencian government should negotiate and draw up a new law that replaces the previous socialist law. in particular, i would like to stress that this new law, which will be drawn up and applied, will contain, amongst others, two fundamental points: firstly, that this new law will be approved in accordance with competences in the field of land-planning which fall exclusively to the valencian government, and, secondly, that the report also approves a series of recommendations so that the rule of law can deal with any complaints which, in application of the former lrau, may have arisen or which may arise. in other words, all the rights of the citizens who have complained to this committee on petitions are now going to be safeguarded. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am sure that the proper solution will come with the disappearance of the lrau created by the previous socialist government, and i am convinced that the proper solution will be found through the application of the new law that the people's party government of the valencian country intends to create. mr president, i would like firstly to thank mrs fourtou for the work she has done in the committee. she has taken an open approach and we have been able to discuss many compromise amendments, and we also know that she has had a difficult job to do, because this is an issue in relation to which you cannot imagine the number of different interests at play and hence the pressure we face. i would like to make it clear that, firstly, thousands of european citizens have lived in the valencian country for decades, millions visit us every year and that these people are happy to live in our community and are happy with the high-quality services which they generally receive in their daily lives. we are therefore talking about a welcoming country. the majority of people there and those who want to come feel that it is a fortunate thing to be able to share their lives with us. it should also be noted that the majority can resolve their problems properly before the courts and be dealt with by certain local authorities in many places. but many people's problems are not resolved, and we are currently faced with huge numbers of people whose problems persist. i am therefore dismayed about the fact that, over the last three years, complaints about land-planning abuses have increased very considerably. as a european citizen, born and resident in the valencian country, i sincerely regret that we need to hold this debate, but we must remember that, if this is the case, it is due to the fact that the complaints presented in this parliament have been from thousands of european citizens who feel themselves to be victims of land-planning abuses. i wish to state clearly that we are facing an exceptional situation in spain and in the rest of europe, which, we should remember, has led to formal protests by seventeen european union ambassadors. other spanish regions have laws similar to the lrau; the head of the autonomous secretariat for land-planning and the environment came here to say that that law was very good. despite having similar laws, they have clearly never had a problem of this scale. i would therefore like to say to you that it is right that we should deal with the citizens' concerns, i believe that the authorities wanted the delegation that went there to make proposals, and i believe that that is what the committee has done. i believe that we must demand respect for the citizens in the face of economic groups with immense power, and against which the citizens often have little defence. i believe that we have the power to make a contribution to what mr iturgaiz suggested: not to have to repeat this debate and to be able to put an end to this situation. if we do not promote these solutions now, it is clear that in the future, unfortunately, we will have to face this problem all over again. as i said, as a citizen of the valencian country, i want these problems to be resolved and for the incompetence of a regional government not to spoil our image, as is happening in the eyes of many european citizens, because our community does not deserve that. mr president, please allow me first of all to congratulate the rapporteur, mrs fourtou, on the work she has done, while regretting that that work was then altered during the final process of approving certain amendments, thus undermining what was originally a reasonable report. in the end, what we are being presented with today, ladies and gentlemen, is a mixture of irresponsible populism on the part of members who wish to satisfy their fellow citizens resident in spain at any cost and on the part of spanish members who have decided to play local or regional politics in the european parliament - from one side and from the other: you have just seen a demonstration of this. that combination of two kinds of irresponsible populism leads to aberrations such as those which may be voted for here if this text is not modified. it is sad to see the european parliament turned into a regional legislator, entirely distorting the principle of subsidiarity and telling an autonomous community what it must do, how it must do it, how it must legislate, when it can grant planning permission and under what conditions. i understand and agree with the criticisms of this law, unquestionably, and i naturally agree with the criticisms of its application by the valencian government - of the law and of its application. the european parliament, however, ladies and gentlemen, is not the sanctuary of lourdes, to which people can resort when all hope has run out everywhere else. this is a serious institution and all that is achieved by bringing a resolution of this kind here is to create a false image to the citizens, since resolutions are approved that will be entirely sterile, because it is in the valencian parliament that this issue will be resolved, and this creates a reputation which in no way enhances the work of this house nor increases the respect that we are asking the citizens to feel for our work. i therefore entirely agree with the criticisms of the land-planning situation in valencia: the criticisms of the law and the criticisms of the government. dealing with it in this house is like protesting here about delays on the london underground. i do not believe that the european parliament is the proper place to do this and what we are doing, by approving a document like this, is distorting the institutional system itself. mr president, i am not intending with my speech to express any sort of disrespect to the autonomy of the valencian country. in any case, i believe that its autonomy is insufficient considering the real need of this area of the catalan countries. having said this, i believe that it is necessary to introduce a requirement for a common european vision regarding territorial planning and environment protection. it is my assumption that real estate speculators take advantage of the feeble nature of valencian autonomy. this is a breeding ground for large-scale corruption. a consensus is necessary in the eu in order to avoid policies that threaten rational european planning and the environment. states, regions and autonomous communities should play a role in the definition of this consensus. the failure to move towards this goal will cause areas such as the valencian country and the balearic islands, where construction is the main economic activity, to see their whole territories jeopardised. it is already a major anomaly that the building sector is the main profitable activity in our part of the world. not putting an end to this will mean that certain business groups will become richer, bringing about massive social, environmental and economic troubles in the near future. mr president, commissioner, let me say at the very outset that this matter was the subject of a report, as long ago as may 2004, by the committee on petitions, in which grave violations of human rights and infringements of community law were illustrated by reference to actual cases. in june of this year, a delegation from this house went on an information-gathering trip to valencia, where they interviewed various parties, members of the public, and residents in the region, as well as representatives of the regional governments and of the constitutional court. we must bear in mind the fact that current land law in spain accords landowners 90% of the building rights and that it is a peculiar characteristic of the law under consideration - the law on the expropriation of land - that it compels owners to hand over 10% of their land, without compensation, to any local body with a plan to develop it. we must also be aware that many owners have sustained real detriment as a result of these development processes, and that some planned developments have had devastating effects on the environment and the ecological balance of many coastal areas and especially on the future prospects for water supply, which is something else about which the european union is concerned. i am, then, very glad to learn that the region of valencia has revised this law and has already produced a new one to replace it. we must take care to ensure that the law includes, above all, an unambiguous definition of what is meant by 'public interest', in order to obviate, beyond all doubt, the overwhelming likelihood of the 'public interest' defence for expropriations being deployed to benefit private rather than public interests. there must also be binding criteria for the calculation of compensation for expropriations, and these must be founded upon standards and principles recognised in the case law of the ecj and the european court of human rights. this is, however, a special case, and this house must be careful not to raise the public's hopes too high, since they may, in the event, prove impossible to fulfil. mr president, i would like to make two preliminary points before getting into the issue in question. firstly, the complaints we are discussing here are directed at a legitimate law, approved by a regional parliament in accordance with its competences and not invalidated by the constitutional court. secondly, the judgments that we are issuing in no sense relate to illegal acts: spain is a country with guarantees, with an open legal system, which culminates in the european courts, and it falls to them to make moral judgments according the clear principle of criminal law of i understand the considerations that mr guardans has expressed and i would not have tolerated an encroachment of the competences either of the regional parliament or of the national parliament or the spanish courts. it does fall to this parliament and mrs fourtou has done this with unrivalled elegance to deal with the citizens' petitions and to make recommendations; recommendations, incidentally, that the current government of the valencian country have taken up with great generosity and intelligence. what this parliament cannot do is try to take over the job of land-planning that is the responsibility of the regional authorities, which is the impression i got from the speech - in english i believe - by my compatriot joan i mar. secondly, a moratorium cannot be established either, because that falls to the regional parliament. thirdly, this parliament cannot establish compensation: an administrative authority cannot pay compensation without a judicial judgment or an administrative resolution without being guilty of the misappropriation of funds. finally, this parliament is not the place, as mr guardans has said quite rightly - and i address this to mr calabuig - for a political trial. mr calabuig has not said that the law that we are discussing was decided upon by the socialist majority to which he belongs, and not by the majority to which i belong. secondly, he has not said that he is the author of an amendment that states that the petitions focus on the last three years, a period during which mr camps' government has been in power; the petitions come from a long time before that and his politically-inspired intention is for the regional government to be blamed, because it is that government - so far with little success, by the way, and long may that continue - that he wants to bring down. in this regard i agree with mr guardans: it is not proper, it is not morally correct, to use this parliament to blacken the name of a community, of a legitimately elected parliament and of a government supported by the citizens. . mr president, i wish to thank members for their comments. the sheer number of people who have supported the petitions covered by mrs fourtou's report demonstrates that the application of the lrau law in valencia is raising problems. as i indicated at the beginning of this debate, most of the problems encountered fall outside the scope of community law. while the commission understands the concerns raised, it is not in a position to provide a solution. where problems of compatibility with community law are identified, the commission will not fail to act and will take the necessary steps aimed at rectifying the situation. this is the case for public procurement aspects of the lrau law. we have identified a number of problems in this area, and infringement proceedings against spain were opened. we are pursuing these procedures with a view to ensuring a correct application of community procurement legislation. colleagues in various departments of the commission have looked at the report covering areas such as environmental policy, justice and home affairs, consumer policy and regional policy. it would be wrong to raise expectations that, in these areas, the enforcement of community law will offer the petitioners a solution to the problems they have encountered. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. for more than two years, the european parliament has received tens of thousands of petitions from european citizens, including many dutch people, about the misuse of a law on urbanisation projects (lrau) in the valencia region. that law entitles project developers to take land from house owners illegitimately, with the latter receiving very little, or no, compensation, only to be expected to cough up again for the construction of roads, sewage and street lights. fortunately, parliament has addressed this problem and will, tomorrow, be voting on the report on it by the liberal member mrs fourtou. in so doing, it will be urging valencia to improve the law - a process that was set in motion after a visit by a european inquiry committee - and to set up a procedure for assessing the situation of house owners on a case-by-case basis, including compensatory measures. i have, on previous occasions, spoken with dutch people in the region and i am pleased that the urgency of the situation is finally being recognised. it is a good thing that valencia has, at europe's request, started to review the law, but those words will now also need to be translated into action to prevent more owners from being treated unfairly. the right to property is a fundamental right. property owners in valencia have had their property and land confiscated on a massive scale and built on by often unscrupulous property developers and local authorities, acting with the connivance of the valencian authorities under the terms of the lrau. petitions to the european parliament and two fact-finding missions attest to this fact. this is totally unacceptable in a free society. there should be a moratorium on all current and planned urbanisation projects in the region until new legislation which fully respects property rights is adopted by the valencian parliament. for those that have lost land and property to development by valencian authorities a new law should establish as a matter of urgency a legal administrative structure with the power to review development plans and to assess proper compensation for victims. property owners who have lost out through collusion between property developers and the local authorities in valencia must be properly compensated. while i welcome the valencian authorities reviewing the policy of land appropriation, there is still a need for justice for citizens who have already lost land and property. the next item is the recommendation for second reading (a6-0343/2005), on behalf of the committee on industry, research and industry, on the council common position for adopting a directive of the european parliament and of the council on energy end-use efficiency and energy services and repealing council directive 93/76/eec (10721/3/2005 - c6-0298/2005 - 2003/0300(cod)) (rapporteur: mrs rothe). . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, i am glad that we will, tomorrow, be adopting the directive on energy end-use efficiency and energy services. that is not a matter of doubt now that the compromises reached with the council seem certain to be supported by all the groups in this house. i would like to extend the warmest of thanks to all the shadow rapporteurs and to those who assisted us, cooperation with all of whom was excellent and certainly made an essential contribution to our achieving a result. while this result is less than what the commission proposed and certainly far less than what parliament sought at first reading, i do assert that it is a credible one. it requires the member states, over a period of nine years, to make energy savings of at least 9%, which is less than the 11.5% that parliament was asking for. it is also the case that these targets - contrary to what both the commission and parliament wanted - are not binding. even so, i think we were right not to let this stand in the way of an agreement. although we have not been able to agree on binding targets, the directive does contain specific requirements for action at the national level. with effect from mid-2007, the member states will be required to draw up, on a regular basis, that is to say initially every four years and thereafter every three, energy efficiency action plans, which they must then send to brussels. these action plans shall contain the member states' planned measures to achieve the targets, which might well include projects to renovate buildings, the promotion of energy-efficient equipment or of energy audits, car-free days and major educational and information campaigns. these action plans are to lay particular stress on the public sector, to which the directive gives an exemplary role. the intended result of this directive is the establishment, by means of indicators and benchmarks, of new energy efficiency standards throughout europe. there is enormous potential for us to make savings, and it really is high time that we made better use of it. between 20% and 30% of our present energy consumption could be cut without our sustaining any economic losses whatever; that amount is equivalent to the energy consumed by six member states, namely austria, belgium, denmark, finland, greece and the netherlands taken together. at a time when energy prices are high, it is incomprehensible that better use is not being made of this potential, and another remarkable thing about this is that it was very difficult to achieve this result, with a number of member states being unwilling to go any further. this directive can and must usher in a real drive for energy efficiency. where demand for energy is concerned, there is considerable ground for us to make up. while there are some member states - denmark is one of them - that have exemplary energy saving policies with binding targets, there are others that will have to start virtually from square one. the directive also aims to create a real market for energy services, which would be offered by distributors and vendors of energy as well as by independent service providers. the new european legislation will also have the important effect of affording consumers greater transparency, with, for example, energy meters tailored as closely as possible to the individual's needs, and a regular account of consumption that makes it possible to compare one's own consumption with that of a control group. commissioner piebalgs deserves a great deal of congratulation for declaring energy efficiency to be his priority. this directive is a vitally important element in any strategy to that end. what matters now is that it be transposed and implemented, and i hope that the commission will cast a critical eye over the member states to ensure that this really is done in a satisfactory manner. . mr president, i agree with the rapporteur on the importance of this directive. for me, it is an umbrella directive for all that is being done and should be done on energy efficiency. parliament made significant progress on this directive at first reading. now, at second reading, the rapporteur, mrs rothe, and the shadow rapporteurs have continued to improve the proposals. they have further developed a number of essential elements in the common position and have successfully negotiated a package of compromise amendments which will reshape and improve the proposal even further. regarding the question of targets, i, like most of you, regret that a compromise has only been possible without binding targets, but the final version of the amendments introduces a number of binding measures, which strongly compensates for the loss of binding targets. while the targets are now indicative, member states must still commit to adopting and aiming to achieve national energy savings targets, and to taking cost-effective measures designed to achieve these targets. moreover, impacts of the measures taken to meet the targets will be quantified using a harmonised measurement system. member states will also have to plan their measures and report their results in national energy efficiency action plans. these will be assessed by the commission, and for the commission, this is an acceptable construction. we would like to assure parliament that the mandate given to the commission to develop a system of benchmarks, top-down indicators and bottom-up measurements, will be used wisely and effectively. for the public sector, there is no separate target in the compromise, but a number of binding measures. member states must publish mandatory public procurement guidelines for energy efficiency improvement. furthermore, they must select and use a number of public procurement requirements. while the commission would have preferred a separate public sector target, we feel that these elements, and the requirement to include the public sector in the national action plans, will compensate for the lack of a separate target. article 13 on metering and informative billing of energy consumption has also been improved compared to the common position. the reporting requirements for member states and the commission in article 14 have been strengthened and these, together with the measurement system, will make member states' achievements quantifiable and visible. although this activity will put an increased burden on the commission, we welcome the challenge. i can promise parliament an adequate internal allocation of resources for this task. to conclude, i have on earlier occasions said that energy efficiency is one of the main priorities of this commission. that will remain so throughout our mandate period. this new directive is expected to be a valuable tool for achieving that goal. i would like to thank parliament for that and assure it that the tool will be used as effectively as possible. last but not least, i would like to thank the rapporteur, mrs rothe, and the shadow rapporteurs for their commitment, their very constructive cooperation and hard work in reaching an agreement at second reading. . mr president, at this point in time it is necessary for the european union to take immediate measures to improve energy efficiency. we must therefore take pleasure from the fact that we have been able to reach an agreement amongst the institutions which has the majority support of this house. within this context, i would like to congratulate our rapporteur, mrs mechtild rothe, on her magnificent work and the other shadow rapporteurs on their constructive attitude throughout the procedure. this directive is intended to promote the development of an energy services market which, although it is already in existence, is not sufficiently well known to the final customers. we are presenting options that do not require additional investments, such as energy savings contracts, the amount of which is paid with the equivalent of the energy bill saved following the alterations. this directive also attempts to influence the consumer habits of the citizens. in this respect, it is the appropriate approach to take in order to provide them with detailed information about their real consumption and savings potential, if certain measures are taken, such as the use of intelligent meters. in relation to the public sector, we must stress the exemplary role that the member states must play by including energy efficiency criteria for public contracts. over the first nine years they will draw up three energy efficiency action plans, which will detail the measures taken and the future objectives. mr president, i would like to end by reiterating that our group is entirely satisfied with this agreement, since we believe that realistic objectives, accompanied by economically viable and technically possible measures, are the ideal formula for achieving positive results. . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i wish to congratulate my colleague, mrs mechtild rothe, on an excellent report. she has done much excellent work and we in our group strongly support her. europe, which actually invests in energy use efficiency, is once again an example for other continents to follow. we are setting an example to the rest of the world, because serious and effective measures need to be taken, with climate change threatening us all. the target 1% per annum in additional savings will be tough. in my country, for example, it will be thought impossible as a goal to be achieved every year unless the initial energy-effective situation we already have is taken into consideration. it is obviously unfair that some of the energy savings work that has already been actively carried out should be ignored just because it has been carried out too early, so to speak. it is therefore reasonable not to punish those who have already invested in efficiency before leaving it too late. moreover, in my country we already refer to guidelines for energy-efficient public procurement and buildings. fortunately, then, the kyoto negotiations may be continued on the basis of the outcome of the montreal summit. may we work effectively in negotiations, as they will not succeed just with the help of technology: people, leaders and politicians will also be needed. . mr president, my group is supporting the second reading compromise with the council because it represents a step in the right direction, even though it does not go quite as far as we would have liked. in particular we were disappointed that the target for energy-efficiency savings has been set at only 9% over 9 years, instead of the 11.5% proposed by parliament at first reading. we would also have liked the targets to be binding, but it is good that the compromise at least lays down certain mandatory actions, including public procurement requirements and the introduction of energy-efficiency action plans, which will be used to measure member states' progress towards the energy-saving targets. i would like to say a particular word about the metering and billing proposals in article 13. these are essential because they establish the fundamental principle that consumers have a right to information about how much energy they are using. it is only when people have such knowledge that they can start to adapt their behaviour and choose energy-saving options. i am very pleased that the compromise text requires electricity and gas customers to be provided with individual meters that accurately reflect their actual energy consumption and give information on the time of use. the text also includes a requirement for information on energy use and cost to be provided with customers' bills and crucially it requires billing to be provided on the basis of actual consumption, not estimated consumption, and to be frequent enough to enable people to work out for themselves how to be more energy efficient. now that bills will have to be based on actual consumption, utility companies will no longer be able to issue estimated bill after estimated bill, which has led to widespread debt problems. i believe this directive marks the start of a new era in which across europe we will all become much wiser about the way we use energy and i hope the house will support the compromise wholeheartedly. i thank the rapporteur, mrs rothe, very much indeed for all the work she has put in to get this agreement. . mr president, of all europe's energy sources, energy efficiency is the most important, and the fastest and cheapest way to achieve our kyoto targets; not only that, but it also gives us a chance to invest in europe and create jobs, rather than handing over money to foreign countries or to the arab world in return for oil and gas. this directive not only brings the day closer when we can develop this potential, but also complements the opening-up of europe's gas and electricity markets. alongside competition in the production and sale of electricity and gas, this directive will make for more vigorous competition in relation to investments in energy-saving technologies, in what are called 'negawatts'. particularly to small and medium-sized enterprises, this market is potentially worth billions. what is good about this directive? one good thing in it is the concept of national action plans, the first of which has to be submitted by june 2007, after which the commission will have six months in which to suggest any improvements that it thinks necessary. after three years, an assessment or evaluation will be carried out, and the next plan will then be drawn up, which will incorporate the lessons learned, not only from the successes and failures of one national plan, but those learned from the successes and failures of 25 or 27 of them. that means that we, in europe, can really get serious about saving energy. we should not, however, harbour any illusions about this: when debate turns to energy efficiency, it is often the case that people invoke a general consensus - one that i, however, do not believe actually exists. the real reason why the big energy companies, like rwe and e.on, fought this directive tooth and nail behind the scenes in the commission, in this house and in the council, right up to the very end, is that the prospect of a market in the saving of energy terrifies them. it is for that reason that these companies, aided by their sympathisers in parliaments and governments, have seen to it that none of the targets are binding. while i do regret this, i have not yet given up hope that all of them - particularly, in future, the members of the national parliaments - are capable of learning and will imitate the danish model: a binding 1.7% is what we need in the other countries too. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the energy issue is a global issue. for europe, that means guaranteeing security of supply, an area in which we are too dependent on third countries. we need to address the massive increase in costs, which will have repercussions on the union's economy, and to reduce the environmental impact and greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of meeting the kyoto targets. to do this, concerted efforts at european level can no longer be put off, and the first line of defence is to focus on energy saving and energy efficiency. the directive is not as forceful as we might have hoped; the compromise is far from being perfect and there are no binding targets, only indicative ones. the target of 1% per year over nine years is far short of the recognised potential savings, which exceed 30%. the public sector will not have more stringent requirements, as parliament had requested. the transport sector is only marginally affected by the directive. nevertheless, the decision to endorse the compromise reflects more general thinking. the directive can create incentives aimed at immediately reducing energy demand. it has been accepted that there is a need for more transparent energy billing systems, which can help users to adopt an energy-saving approach. the information contained in the energy efficiency action plan can act as an incentive to make the member states behave properly, particularly if the review system can guarantee that the results will be evaluated on the basis of bottom-up calculation models. the hope is that the directive might contribute to creating a real energy services market, guaranteeing equal opportunities and quality in terms of services through the use of targeted incentives. a decisive political decision in favour of technologies that increase energy efficiency is crucial to give fresh impetus to innovation and european competitiveness, that is to say, to make this directive an effective instrument for fulfilling the lisbon strategy. what we are talking about is a means of investing resources to create new jobs, instead of continuing to pay out to the large oil companies. i take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, mrs rothe, and all of the shadow rapporteurs for this successful outcome. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i think it is terrific that we have achieved a compromise that has improved the situation as it was. while it is true to say that energy efficiency is a most important instrument for solving europe's energy problem, it is not the only means to that end. finding the right ways in which to do this is something that needs to be worked at, and that has been achieved outstandingly well in the compromise reached between first and second readings. for that i wish to extend warm thanks to mrs rothe. this compromise has managed to take a more realistic view of things, to take differences seriously and to refrain from imposing the same targets on everyone. it is very important that we should take seriously the differences in the member states, the options and differences in the various areas, fields and markets, and so i am very glad that the benchmark approach has been adopted and that the commission has been mandated to further develop it in order to take the various motivations into account. there is a need for incentives to foster transparency, and a need for less cumbersome bureaucracy, since data for many areas is already available, along with market-oriented thinking, since the suppliers of energy-efficient equipment would then have a sales pitch and a vested interest in the markets for energy-efficient products in the individual states becoming more like each other rather than drifting further apart. the ability to compare sales figures in each market segment with those of the previous year would then equip them with a readily usable instrument. the energy efficiency sector affords us a massive opportunity to work towards what is, in principle, a shared goal. we can now try to move this process forward in another way, and perhaps even faster, in that we rely on the self-interest of the parties involved, treating each as individuals rather than adopting a 'one size fits all' approach. it is for that reason that i hope we can end up achieving better results than we might have done with requirements imposed by a central authority. firstly i would like to congratulate our rapporteur for the excellent work. it is no mean achievement to work out around fifty compromises with the council and the five different factions of parliament. in view of the forward-looking and very positive results, i would like to indicate that this draft is only the first step in enhancing energy consumption efficiency. this is something that we should not forget when we start addressing the financing issues of the implementation. in hungary there are 800 000 prefabricated flats, where heating constitutes 54% of the household running costs. the individual modernisation of these flats is an absolute necessity if we want to improve energy efficiency. this would cost in excess of 40 000 euros per flat, with a payback period of 25 years. in view of the low financing capacity of the population and local governments, the hungarian state has started a large scale, long term refurbishment project of prefabricated flats. basically this means that the state advances the funds required for the modernisation work to the consumers, and the population repays them from their energy savings. we spent 15 million euros on this project in 2004, and 32 million euros in 2005. it will be very important to remember, when we work on the 2007-2013 budget of the european union, that in order to reach the important energy efficiency targets stipulated in the currently debated draft, more than half a million, mostly modest households will need financial assistance from the european union in hungary only. thank you for your attention, on their behalf, too. - climate change poses a threat both to the people of the world and to the environment. at the same time europe is becoming increasingly dependent on imported fossil fuels, and this has a serious impact on its energy security. for this reason the european union is wrestling with two major challenges in the area of energy: how to reduce its dependence on imports, and how to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in line with the commitments of the kyoto protocol as well as after its expiry. in both cases we can make use of the as yet unexploited possibility of efficient energy use. in formulating the directive on energy end-use efficiency we had the choice of two approaches. the first approach would have involved opting for slightly more ambitious indicative targets, and the second for less ambitious, very realistically attainable binding targets. i take the view, however, that the current proposal contains a combination of the two approaches - indicative as well as very realistic targets. i would like them to be a little more ambitious. it makes sense to me that we should set ourselves binding targets. i also believe that targets set higher for the public sector would set a good example for the private sector. i am well aware, however, that current european reality has a somewhat bitter aftertaste - we are neither able or skilful enough to reach agreements, and we have no support for our work. we must therefore be especially careful to define the targets in such a way that they can be fulfilled. only in this case can the directive encourage individual countries and people to implement appropriate measures. people's confidence in the rationality contained in the substance of europe's legal system must be improved, while the directive must also serve to improve the reputation of the european union. the proposal that member states draw up three reports on efficient energy use, and that the fulfilment of commitments be closely monitored, will require more work and impose a greater administrative burden. yet it is only this kind of approach that is responsible, serious and able to produce appropriate results. commissioner, i welcome the goal that you have chosen as the most important in this term, and i support the directive on energy end-use efficiency. i believe that this very directive is a prime example of how joint european action can yield added value, and not simply in financial terms. transparent operations, continuous exchange of information and the formulation of good practices in this field throughout europe are indeed essential if the targets are to be met. . mr president, over the past few months energy issues have grabbed the headlines. we have seen the debate on the north european gas pipeline. we have also had headlines on the transit agreement between ukraine and russia concerning gas supplies. there has been an accident at a depot storing oil products near london. these issues usually grab the headlines. energy efficiency is now attracting attention but has not yet made the front page. however, there are indirect indications that the policies the european parliament and the member states are pursuing are producing results. i shall mention just two examples that are encouraging. firstly, china has started to use the target approach: it aims to decrease its energy intensity by 20% by 2010. that is not a huge step, but it is the same target-based approach. it is ambitious, but perhaps it could be even more ambitious. secondly, i am encouraged by the reaction of the opec countries on the oil price forecast for the near future. they forecast strong growth in consumption in the united states and china. they have avoided mentioning europe. so, from their point of view, europe is doing reasonably well. however, we must not be complacent. this directive is really necessary. i would also like to make a few comments on what has been said. i am really grateful to both representatives from the new member states, mrs herczog and mr jordan cizelj, because the biggest difficulty we had in the council was with the new member states. that was paradoxical because the issue had been seen as perhaps an obstacle to growth. in fact, it is the opposite: it gives a chance for growth. i will continue to explain to the new member states that they do not in fact need to consume a lot of energy per capita, and can even now gain the benefits. i agree with mr reul that this is a huge opportunity, and we should use it. i agree with mr guidoni that perhaps we could be more ambitious in the air transport sector, but it is there in the directive, and this will also provide an opportunity to deal with energy efficiency in that sector. concerning the danish example, i believe that, in this directive, all other member states will follow because the suspicion will not be there. i think that industry will discover that its profits will not decrease because of energy efficiency being in place - indeed, perhaps the opposite, as it provides new chances for growth in that sector as well. i believe that metering and billing are important because transparency will make a real difference to the consumer. we need to change not only the approach of the supplier but that of the consumer. that could be done through clear, transparent and correct information. only then will the consumer start to change. the directive also takes into account the initial situation on energy efficiency. we will not punish the countries that started earlier. they could use this for achieving the target. but at the same time, i think that, with the development of new technologies, there will be a huge opportunity for energy savings and energy efficiency even in the most progressive countries. the strange thing is that the country that had been supporting mandatory targets was denmark - from which, in other circumstances, we could have expected bigger opposition - and the countries that have done most in terms of end-use potential said that they had no particular difficulties with mandatory targets. so, by doing, you learn something. i think that the energy services market is extremely important. it gives opportunities not only for energy efficiency, but for employment and growth in the union. with this recommendation amending the text of the common position, we are very close to finalising the legislative process on the energy end-use efficiency and energy services proposal. i am pleased to confirm that the commission can accept the outcome of the compromise between parliament and the council. i would like to invite parliament now to support the compromise package which reflects important changes that the rapporteur, together with the shadow rapporteurs, has achieved during a long and difficult process. although, given the challenge to parliament and also the council, it was not so long, it was a very difficult compromise. but, at the end of the day, there were very fruitful negotiations, and i think the proposal, as it stands now, is perhaps even better than the initial proposal. i would again like to thank the rapporteurs for this achievement. now we need to deliver from the commission side and also from the member states' side. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on tuesday. the next item is the report by pier luigi bersani, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on taxation of undertakings in the european union: a common consolidated corporate tax base (2005/2120(ini)) (a6-0386/2005). mr president, ladies and gentlemen, a very important and positive discussion on this report took place in committee, and for this i should like first of all to thank all my colleagues. the reasons for suggesting the introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax base for businesses operating in various eu countries concern the removal of the obstacles hindering the completion of the internal market, and are inspired by the lisbon strategy. there are two reasons in particular. the first relates to the need to simplify and reduce the management and administrative costs for businesses, which are today faced with 25 different tax bases. as a consequence of this measure, they will instead be able to pay their tax burden more easily, and will also receive encouragement to invest and to work in a european, and not exclusively national, dimension. the second reason relates to transparency, because harmonisation of the tax bases will make any kind of opportunistic behaviour more difficult, insofar as a common tax base - while in no way interfering in the tax rates set by the various member states - will at last make the various tax rates fully understandable and comparable. these two reasons, which are fully acknowledged by experts and company representatives whose opinions we sought while drafting the report, have convinced a very large number of the committee's members. this is, however, a very difficult undertaking from both a political and a technical point of view. the political difficulties are due to the fact that a certain number of countries - albeit a smaller number than a few years ago - express difficulties with, and opposition to, tackling taxation matters, even though, in this instance, it is not a matter of tax rates. the main technical difficulties lie in identifying a common base of indicators with the aim of progressing to a common tax base. the commission has already been working along these lines for some time and has set up the technical groups. with this report, we want to show our appreciation for the work done by the commission, by giving it encouragement, by spurring it on and by providing a number of suggestions. the purpose and commitment of the committee's members has been to encourage parliament to voice its opinion loud and clear, something that i hope is possible, even though this will obviously entail some sacrifices and self-control from the political groups. fiscal matters are very problematic. it is no secret that the positions of the various groups and the various member states are very far apart. that is why in committee we drew up some possible compromise ideas that might focus attention on the core aspect of the issue, that is to say the common consolidated corporate tax base, without entering into the broader area of tax competition or convergence, which remains open and which has not been addressed here. this approach has enabled us to draft a practical report and to provide a number of useful and specific suggestions. the report calls for a regulation to be drafted and points out the subject-matter that should be included. it also provides for the possible use of enhanced cooperation in the event of a unanimous agreement not being reached, and suggests a gradual approach to the introduction of the - initially optional - common tax base, with a medium-term assessment to consider the practicality of making it compulsory at a later date. the subject we are presenting therefore has clear boundaries, but it is nonetheless an important subject that i hope can involve a large majority of parliament. for this reason, and even though i can also see a number of my own opinions in certain of the additional amendments tabled, i believe that it is crucial, both in this debate and in the vote in parliament, to maintain the profile of the report - a balance achieved in committee - which i believe is invaluable to the success of this initiative. . mr president, i am pleased to contribute to this debate on company taxation. i read with great interest the report from the committee on economic and monetary affairs and i participated in an extremely interesting hearing which the committee held recently on the subject. i am particularly pleased that the draft report is so supportive of the current commission company taxation policy and i should like to congratulate the rapporteur, mr bersani, on this thorough piece of work. the draft report includes an excellent summary of the current situation as regards the taxation of companies in the internal market. its conclusions are very similar to those of the commission. the main objective of a common consolidated corporate tax base is to remove the remaining tax obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market. these obstacles were catalogued by the commission in its company tax report in 2001, and the commission's response was to promote the introduction in the longer term of a comprehensive solution: a common consolidated corporate tax base. this project has recently been given additional support during the review of the lisbon strategy. to achieve the lisbon goals - growth, jobs, competitiveness and investment - and to promote administrative simplification and cost reductions, we need appropriate tax policies. in my opinion, the common consolidated corporate tax base will go a long way in providing the eu with the tools it needs to progress. in october the commission adopted a communication that outlined the base on which taxation and customs policies could contribute to the lisbon strategy. one such measure is to present a community legislative measure for the common consolidated corporate tax base by 2008. i know that it is an ambitious timetable, but i understand that you are proposing an even more ambitious one for 2007. i am pleased that mr bersani's report is so supportive of some of the more radical elements of the common consolidated corporate tax base, such as consolidation and the sharing of the consolidated tax base between individual member states. i am equally pleased that the report supports the commission's position that the new tax base should be optional for companies and that the report avoids the trap of becoming involved in tax rates. our current work is directed at the tax base and does not touch upon the tax rate. as you know, not all member states are currently enthusiastic supporters of the common consolidated corporate tax base. our aim, however, is to have a proposal for all 25 member states, so your report will be an important additional tool for the commission to use in future debate on the subject as we attempt to persuade the current dissenters. . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i will start by thanking mr bersani for his cooperation in drawing up the report. what has come into being really is a compromise, and that is something i want to emphasise, since there are of course other opinions represented in our group, and i can tell the commissioner that resistance to this policy at european level comes not only from the member states but also from among the ranks of our group, that of the european people's party. there is resistance not only to the single tax base for businesses, but also to the idea of a single corporation tax in europe, which keeps on resurfacing in this particular debate. so where do i, speaking as the shadow rapporteur for the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats, think there will be particular problems? i believe that if you start by talking about the tax base, it is virtually inevitable that you will end up next discussing the member states' tax rates, and that is something we will have nothing to do with. if we are to harmonise the tax base, we must be aware of the fact that we are, by so doing, obliged to make a deep incursion into the nation states' tax-raising competences, and we want nothing to do with that either. if a tax base for european enterprises is to be created, it has to be borne in mind that businesses - dax companies, for example - are even now operating in accordance with international accounting standards, and that is something that we have to accept. if, commissioner, we are to make tax policy at the european level, we have to be aware of the fact that that is not far removed from competence in tax policy as described in the european communities treaty. that is something that needs to be borne in mind. finally, the fact that the european court of justice is due, tomorrow, to hand down a judgment in the case of marks [amp] spencer, cannot do other than emphasise the obvious truth that the case law of the court of justice in luxembourg is now extending ever wider the influence of brussels. that is something else of which this debate should take account, and i want to stress that we would be mistaken to allow the european union's common system of law to become a community founded on laws made by judges - something that i, for one, would regard as unacceptable. . mr president, commissioner kovcs, ladies and gentlemen, taxes on undertakings in the union affect the operation of the internal market, the competitiveness of european companies and tax relations amongst the member states. it is crucial to the launch of the lisbon strategy and the achievement of its growth and employment objectives. the application of twenty-five different taxes on companies creates obstacles to cross-border activities, reduces the efficiency of companies, over-burdening them with greater costs, and causes many fiscal problems for the member states, as well as greater complexity in the fight against fraud and tax evasion, dealing with double taxation and relations between groups with a presence in different member states. the diverse nature of the existing regulations prevents the economic coordination of the states in this field, encourages companies to seek to profit through fiscal optimisation practices, which may affect equal conditions in terms of competition amongst companies, and creates legal uncertainties, which is leading to increasing recourse to the legal system. i would like to congratulate the rapporteur, mr bersani, on having dealt with all of these aspects in his report with balance and rigour, achieving a significant degree of consensus within the committee on economic and monetary affairs. the creation of a legal framework that establishes a common consolidated tax base for community undertakings is an essential instrument for dealing with the problems raised. it will provide transparency with a view to carrying out homogenous comparisons between states and promoting their coordination in the field of tax in accordance with the approved integrated guidelines for relaunching the lisbon strategy. the report is ambitious. its aim is the first fiscal harmonisation in the field of direct taxation, calls upon the commission to present a legislative proposal between now and 2007 and tries to put an end to the damaging lack of legislative progress in this field. achieving a common tax base has great value in itself, quite apart from being essential to further progress. for all of these reasons, we support the report fully and we believe parliament's broad support to be a very positive thing so that there can be no doubt about our will to make progress on this historic milestone. . lately, we have increasingly been paying attention to tax policy, despite it being more of a national policy issue. unfortunately, such discussions are limited to the examination of individual taxes and not the assessment of the aggregate impact of each tax type upon the economy. the purpose of the profits tax is to promote supply, or, as it is often put, entrepreneurship. these characteristics vary from country to country and depend on a number of factors, such as traditions, education and historical experience. thus, it is obvious that different degrees of effort are needed to promote entrepreneurship in different countries, and, therefore, different rates of tax on profits must be applied. my group will not approve the amendments proposing, in one way or another, to achieve the equalisation of rates of tax on profits. nevertheless, we support the proposals in the report of mr bersani to develop a common tax base calculation and enforcement procedure. we believe that the introduction of the common tax base will, first of all, allow greater exploitation of the single market advantages, and, secondly, will enable the talents of businessmen to be manifested not only in their countries, but also in the entire european union. this will also contribute to the development of an entrepreneurial tradition and make it easier to meet the challenges of globalisation. what causes the concern then? there are two issues that are of concern and should probably be further considered in our legislative activities. first, ways to prevent unfair competition, where small enterprises use the wider tax base of their home countries, while larger enterprises operating in several countries will be able to opt for the most favourable tax base among those countries. second, how to distribute tax revenues on profits between individual countries when an enterprise operates in several countries and uses a uniform profit tax calculation. . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i see the arrival, as a topic on our order of business, of the topic of the europe-wide harmonisation of business taxation. the co-existence side by side within the eu, of 25 different tax systems, with marked differences not only in terms of the tax rates levied, but also of the manner in which profit is calculated, has, over the past ten years, led to one result above all others, in that the share of business tax in the funding of public budgets is on the way down, and a growing proportion of the tax burden is placed on the person who earns ordinary wages for working for someone else, or on the consumer, the latter of which is the worst possible solution in terms of its impact on society and on economic growth. it is in this way that big multinationals in particular are given every opportunity to minimise their tax burden. transfer pricing and the shifting of losses are just two of their favourite ways of making sure that profits appear in the accounts at the precise place where the taxman is least inclined to stick his hand in. quite apart from this sort of fiscal dumping, the co-existence of tax systems has prompted a competitive approach to cutting tax rates. the average corporation tax rate, for example, fell by a total of 15 percentage points across the old eu from the end of the 1980s onwards. one demonstration of the fact that these cuts are not by any means nominal is to be found in a long-term study by the university of mannheim, according to which the amount of tax effectively paid by the 50 biggest european conglomerates fell from 36% in 1988 to a mere 31% in 2000, which means that billions of euros in public revenue have been given away and wasted. bizarrely enough, the european leader of the tax dumping pack - particularly where company taxes are concerned - is neither an eastern european state nor ireland, but the federal republic of germany, supposedly a high-tax country, where a tax reform forced through by the former schrder government - which justified its action by reference to fiscal competition across europe - brought corporation tax yield to an utter standstill. only the harmonisation of taxes across europe can put a stop to this lunacy, which sees companies making enormous profits while taking less and less of a part in funding the community as a whole and people on average and low incomes - and, via taxes on consumption, even pensioners and the unemployed - ending up having to make good the shortfall. i do not, however, believe that it is enough to harmonise the tax base. what we need, as a matter of urgency, is a europe-wide minimum tax rate for company profits of at least 40%, and on a broad tax base. tax dumping is omnipresent, and this is the only way to stop it in its tracks. . mr president, one of the principles of good taxation is certainty, both of the bases of assessment and the tax rate. yet the only certainty about the proposals to harmonise the base for company tax is that they create uncertainty. if the negotiations follow the pattern of development of the european company statute, for instance, it will be decades before we have a settled position. continuing changes in tax rates and tax rules and the prospect of future changes are bad for business. in this report, as in early commission reports on this subject, it is accepted as a matter of faith that the single market must be pursued without question, with the elusive level playing field as the means to achieve it. if we are to harmonise the base for corporate tax, why insist that tax rates should not be harmonised too? it does not make sense. like mr konrad, i suspect that uniform rates are on the future agenda, despite the denials. there is much to be gained from simplifying tax rules in the individual member states, particularly the older ones, but this has to be a matter for those member states. if the member states see a need for cross-border cooperation on tax matters, this too should be their concern and not that of the commission or the european court of justice. my recommendation is leave it alone. then the countries that prosper and attract investment will be those with the lowest tax rates and those with the simplest and least bureaucratic methods of assessment and collection. if taxation is to be made more business friendly, this will be at the initiative of the individual member states and driven by market forces. i fear that coercion by the european union is the wrong way to achieve tax reform. mr president, it is quite clear to me that the commission's proposal is indisputably an assault upon taxation as an exclusive competence of member states. a common tax base would inexorably lead to common tax rates. by the stealth of this proposal, it is clear that brussels aspires to replace the nation state as the deciding authority on company taxation. national control of corporation tax has been a key weapon in the arsenal of many countries in fighting for international investment. estonia, with its growth economy, well illustrates the point, as does the experience of the republic of ireland. thus, harmonisation of tax would rob member states of the right to adjust their tax regimes to suit their own needs and would bestow across europe yet another stultifying one-size-fits-all suppression of national initiative. for economic growth, independence and freedom of action are essential with more, not less, national flexibility. for example, corporation tax in my area of northern ireland should be radically reduced as a means of stimulating investment, thereby moving us away from over-dependence on the public sector. mr president, commissioner, the subject of our debate today is a single base for taxation, something that is, in principle, surely to be welcomed, certainly from the point of view of small and medium-sized businesses and particularly in terms of making life in a single internal market easier for them. we cannot always draw a strict distinction between the tax base on the one hand and the tax rate on the other, as the tax base has undoubted effects on the classification of taxes and on the internal balances, and that is something that certainly has to be borne in mind when considering the commission's next steps. we do not want some sort of approximation of the various tax systems introduced through the back door, and i think the commission has a vested interest in that not happening if it is to make headway with the member states. finally, i want to say - and i am speaking on behalf of my group when i say this - that we are, without doubt, in favour of fiscal competition. you need only imagine what would happen if we were to lock the 25 european finance ministers in a room and let them out only when the white smoke had appeared and they had agreed on tax harmonisation; if we were to do that, we would be turning europe into a high-tax region, and that is not what we want. before i sit down, there is just one other point i would like to make, and it is in the form of a question, namely: how do we arrive at a single tax base? the answer invariably given to that is that we should draw on the international accounting systems. i do not propose to address the question of whether these systems are good or bad or of how they are implemented, but it is, in any case, a process on which european policy-making has scarcely any influence. it is all the more extraordinary that politicians should recommend this system as a guide to how to bring in a single tax base. if this were to be done - and i warn this house, the council, and the commission against it - it would mean that policy-makers would have capitulated and surrendered essential competences in this area, and that cannot be the road down which we go. mr president, commissioner, i welcome the commission's proposal and the proposal in the bersani report for the introduction of a common base for company tax. it leads to more transparency, which benefits our economy and employment. it has to be said, though, the marks [amp] spencer dossier, to which reference has already been made, will, whether we like it or not, very quickly lead to the debate turning to tax harmonisation. i would therefore like to draw members' attention to the amendments that i, together with some forty fellow members, have tabled, not with a view to harmonising taxes, but in order to introduce a minimum company tax rate. this amendment allows for fiscal competition between the member states, but one that is fair, not least to enterprises. it ensures that sufficient funds are raised to finance our social model and that sufficient funds are left for the government to finance such things as corporate infrastructure. i would, in this connection, like to quote the hungarian social affairs minister, kinga gncz, who takes the view that ever-lower taxes do not fit in the european social model and imperil the social protection funds. despite the short-term benefits that they bring, it is possible that they will soon cause us to run out of the funds needed to guarantee prosperity and to implement the social model, and this is something we want to avoid. we already have minimum capital gains tax, and we want minimum corporate tax tomorrow. mr president, commissioner, i would like to begin by clarifying what we are talking about, because, on the basis of a speech by commissioner mccreevy, it seems to me that his ideas do not coincide with those of mr kovcs, within the commission itself, and of course do not coincide with those of this parliament, not even with regard to the subject of the discussion. what we are talking about now is establishing common rules for defining the tax base. we are not talking about harmonising or approximating tax rates, which will remain in the hands of the member states. having clarified that, why am i in favour of consolidating the tax base and why do i approve and applaud the report by mr bersani? firstly, because i believe in an internal market that works. and in order for an internal market to work, companies that operate throughout the market, multinational companies, cannot be subject to twenty-five different rules when it comes to defining what is taxable income and what is deductible spending. secondly, because i am in favour of the european citizen, and the european citizen who wishes to invest his or her savings in a company will be able to judge the assets of companies with more clarity if they are all defined according to the same rules. thirdly, because i do not like tax fraud, and i believe that by consolidating the tax base we will be able to eliminate transfer pricing and the location of company operations in those countries that are most permissive in terms of not taking account of an item of spending or being able to deduct an operation. finally, because if we say here that we advocate fiscal competition amongst the member states, competition will be cleaner, more transparent and, if i may say so, more brutal, if the different states apply different rates - the rates they want to apply - to homogenous realities. because that will be the only way to calculate it i would like to end with a warning, mr president: if we do not do it, as we have done in the case of the code of conduct, the court of justice will do it, to the shame of this parliament. mr president, i hope that parliament, when it votes on mr bersani's excellent report, will give you its strong support for the discussions before you, commissioner, be it in the council or within the college of commissioners itself. i am aware of how much progress we have made since this matter has been up for discussion and i know that you are considering enhanced cooperation procedures. let us hope that we will not be forced to go down that route. but we think that your approach to this subject and your desire to make real progress are very positive signs. my second comment would be that taxation can influence the internal market, and all those here who spend their whole time telling us to make the internal market work better should concern themselves with the fact that excessive tax competition can have a fundamental impact, particularly in terms of cross-border effects, on the operation of the internal market. in a way, this report presents us with a paradox: i hope that we can reach agreement on the bersani report, but it nevertheless conceals some differences of opinion. whether you support tax competition or harmonisation of tax rates, we all need this harmonisation of the tax bases. so, let us take this first step together, in the knowledge that - as we saw during the expert hearings - there is still much to be done regarding tax rates and that thinking in terms of a range does not completely rule out any competition. it simply enables us to create healthy, viable conditions for the internal market, in line with the objectives of the lisbon strategy. mr president, in large measure i am pleased to support mr bersani's report. he has been very helpful in agreeing compromises with us in the ppe-de group. i will, however, support a couple of group amendments to delete the last clause of recital i - regarding unfair tax competition - and paragraph 2, also regarding tax competition. this proposal has nothing to do with harmonising tax rates. i want there to be competition between member states in terms of rates of tax. however, i believe that a common base for corporate tax will be in the interests of competition between member states and to the benefit of enterprises in the european single market. only with a common tax base will it be possible to compare the relative fiscal advantage of locating or investing in a particular member state rather than another. it will put pressure on member states to provide an attractive tax environment for our businesses and to be efficient and careful in their public spending and budgeting. some finance ministers might complain that it could limit their ability to provide particular incentives, for example for research and development. i would consider these to be consistent with a common tax base so long as they are fully transparent. they would be no different from varying general rates of corporate tax and should be permitted within clear and simple rules. i would ask the commissioner to confirm that such clear and transparent tax incentives would still be permitted under any proposals he brings forward. with that clear understanding, i am pleased to support and congratulate mr bersani on his report. mr president, one consequence of the lack of a single strategy for tax is that the standard of the state's welfare provision at the heart of europe can no longer be maintained, and this is becoming more and more the prime cause for jobs being moved elsewhere and lost to us. harmonising the regulations in trade and tax law relating to the calculation of profits must now be given high priority. nowadays, even tax experts can get no overview of what businesses that operate across national borders are actually doing. the tax bases must be harmonised; the business tax systems must not only be harmonised but must also become transparent and comparable, and fiscal giveaways and special enterprise zones, which have lost any connection with fiscal competition, must become things of the past. the council can no longer look on from the political grandstand while we cope with the unhealthy distortions of competition that result, to an ever-increasing extent, from its fiscal policies. one could just about cope with what ireland is doing, but ireland multiplied ten- or twelve-fold would be too much; who, commissioner, is to foot the bill for this - the workers? mr president, there is a misunderstanding in this chamber if it is believed that it is high tax rates that provide social protection. that is not the case. it is growing investment, new jobs and high and increasing tax income that creates social protection. the european country that has some of the highest corporation tax rates of all, germany, receives less tax income in relation to the national economy than, for example, slovakia, which has a low rate of corporation tax but a flat tax rate. it is not the countries with the low tax rates - which obtain new investment and new jobs - that threaten social protection. i believe that, in a europe in which we have 20 million unemployed, there is reason to be self-critical about the way in which our policy has operated. the fact of the matter is that a tax system that is clear, transparent and predictable creates good basic conditions for investment and new jobs. we see this in countries that have the highest growth rates in the european economy. having a common tax base and a common method for calculating tax does not mean harmonising taxes. on the contrary, it is good that each country be able to choose the level of corporation tax that best suits that country's basic conditions. it is good that we should have competition. transparency is also very much to be desired, so that we see which countries in reality have the high tax rates and which the low ones. it is not the case that some of the new member states are dumping their tax, as the former german chancellor, gerhard schrder, said they were. on the contrary, it is those countries that have lots of loopholes and variable and unpredictable tax systems that make things difficult for small enterprises and that prevent new investment. i therefore support this report and congratulate mr bersani on a good piece of work. mr president, as the last of the speakers of the socialist group in the european parliament, i should obviously like to join in congratulating mr bersani on his report, but i should also like to thank a number of shadow rapporteurs and members of the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe and of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats for the way in which they have handled this issue. i should also like to join mr garca-margallo y marfil in saying that i am pleased that it is commissioner kovcs who will be handling this dossier, rather than his fellow-commissioner mr mccreevy, who paid us a recent visit. direct taxes, as we have noticed in this debate, are a subject that stirs up huge emotions and controversy, and it has always been very difficult for this house to reach common positions in that area, not least in the previous part-session. even so, i have a feeling that we will succeed this time and i hope that commissioner kovcs, will also succeed in reaching agreement with the council or at any rate with a large number of member states. i am pleased that common sense will prevail over ideological sabre rattling. common sense also obliges me to consider the modest role that the european union plays in this. i want to dissociate myself completely from the comment that was made earlier, among others of the kind, about brussels taking power away from the member states. i think it is quite simply necessary in this area to guarantee an internal market and a level playing field and to ensure that these are not disrupted, along with the simplicity and certainty that will allow enterprises to operate in the european union. it is not without reason that the call for this common consolidated foundation originates from the entrepreneurial ; it comes, without exception, from companies, including unice and the round table. this has nothing to do with seizing power at european level. it is simply about accommodating the wishes of industry. i think it is important to consider what the win-win situation can be. if everyone is clear what foundations we are working from, then enterprises will have a smaller administrative burden and governments will not need to compete for rates indiscriminately. many of the new countries enjoy low tax rates, while also basing them very broadly. i therefore think that the solution to this process of harmonising the tax base lies in bringing rates much closer together than they are at present, and we need that kind of transparency. the discussion as to what will happen subsequently, also about possible minimum rates or forks or whatever, will not be held until later. for now, it is crucial to make this first step, and i can tell commissioner kovcs that he can count on our support. mr president, first of all let me say that it seems there is no more a case for harmonising corporate tax rates or bases than there is for harmonising property taxes, wealth taxes or capital gains tax. firstly, a common consolidated tax base cuts across national sovereignty and subsidiarity. secondly, the commission maintains that it is not trying to harmonise tax rates, but how is it possible to separate the issue of tax base from the issue of tax rate? would the harmonisation of the base not lead to a harmonisation of the rate? some colleagues may have confused harmonisation of the tax base with the harmonisation of company accounts and requirements for transparency between companies and their accounts. this is erroneous. accounts can, of course, be harmonised, but harmonised accounts can then be adjusted for tax purposes in member states and that is an issue for member states. thirdly, the european commission's proposal for corporate tax harmonisation is based on the assumption that harmful tax competition results in a shift in taxation away from taxes on mobile capital and towards taxes on comparatively immobile labour and that this development is harmful for employment and ordinary eu citizens. this assumption is open to question in my view. whilst there has been a downward trend in corporate tax rates in some member states, this has been accompanied by both a widening of corporate tax bases and an improvement in the underlying company profitability. in my own country, for example, the lower tax rate has meant a multiplication of the tax take. we went up from eur 385 million in 1996 to a eur 5 707 million take in 2004. finally, let us not forget that the lisbon agenda is about making the eu the most competitive economy in the world by 2015. paving the way for minimum tax rates or corporate tax plans will not prevent companies from looking outside the eu for more competitive rates. -it is widely accepted that the current state of the eu economy is in part due to the fundamental problem of a lack of competitiveness in comparison with advanced countries such as the united states. tax competition has a considerable effect on the state of the european economy, and this is currently reflected most noticeably in the low economic growth recorded by some of the older and larger member states, as against the more rapid growth of the majority of new member states that are implementing vigorous structural reforms, including tax reforms. the lack of political will for implementing structural reforms is often brushed over by accusing new member states of tax dumping and then claiming a need to address any imbalance by harmonising direct taxes. this debate on corporate tax base harmonisation is a consequence of such efforts. the argument that tax base harmonisation will have no impact on tax rates and therefore no direct impact on tax competition is not entirely correct. the tax base and tax rate are to some extent interrelated, depending on the breadth of the harmonised tax base and the scope of exclusions and deductibles. for instance, taking the present german model as the basis, slovakia would be forced under current circumstances to increase its tax rate in order to maintain current tax inflows. on the other hand, i understand the argument that tax base harmonisation should lead to greater transparency among the individual systems in the european union, providing for simpler comparison between individual countries. a reduction in transaction costs for businesses and in the number of court disputes would also constitute considerable advantages. commissioner, i believe that the european commission should consider carefully all of these arguments in respect of the tax base harmonisation proposal in order to maintain an appropriate degree of tax competition between member states as a necessary prerequisite for increasing the overall competitiveness of the european union. . mr president, i have listened to the house's debate with great interest and i am impressed not only by its knowledge but also by its enthusiasm for and interest in the subject. as i said earlier, i am pleased that the draft report is so supportive of commission policy on the common consolidated corporate tax base. i should like to comment on the proposed amendments. mr konrad's proposals do not pose any problem for the commission, so we support them. however, the commission does not support the amendments that deal with a possible minimum tax rate and the common consolidated corporate tax base as an instrument for bringing tax rates more closely together. the commission has no intention of limiting fair competition and harmonising the tax base. it just wants to increase the transparency of the tax burden. tax rates should remain within the competence of the member states. if we were to favour a minimum rate, i suspect we would lose valuable support from both member states and business, which will, after all, be the major beneficiaries of a common consolidated corporate tax base. as they benefit, so will consumers through the general economic benefits. i appreciate the amendment concerning research and development and acknowledge that this is an important subject. nevertheless, it is not an amendment that the commission would welcome, as the fiscal treatment of research and development is just one of the issues that we will be discussing as part of our work. i believe it would be wrong to highlight it in this way. i will say no more at this stage. i welcome the european parliament's interest in the subject and i look forward to learning the outcome of the vote on the report. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on tuesday at 12 noon. the next item is the report (a6-0366/2005) by mrs roure, on behalf of the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, on the proposal for a decision of the european parliament and the council on the european year of equal opportunities for all (2007) - towards a just society [com(2005)0225 - c6-0178/2005 - 2005/0107(cod)]. . mr president, the european union can be proud of its achievements in the field of non-discrimination, which place it amongst the most advanced regions in the world in this respect. in 2000, we adopted two key directives: one which outlaws racial discrimination, and another that bans direct and indirect discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. however, legislation alone is not enough to counter discrimination effectively. many member states are falling behind with their transposition schedules, and where national legislation complies with the european directives, it is unfamiliar to the general public and not properly implemented. the commission has therefore proposed, inter alia, to declare 2007 the european year of equal opportunities for all. it is intended to make the public aware of the benefits of a just society that offers everybody the same opportunities, irrespective of sex, ethnic or racial origin, religion or belief, capacity, age or sexual orientation. it will highlight the benefits of diversity as a source of social and economic vitality, which europe must acknowledge and make use of. this diversity enriches the social fabric of europe and is a vital component of its economic prosperity. the discussions and activities during the year will be organised around three main topics. firstly, the right to equality and protection against discrimination. a key element will be to make the general public aware of the fact that equal treatment does not necessarily mean identical treatment, but that, sometimes, different treatment is required in different situations. secondly, recognition of the positive contribution that everybody, whatever their personal characteristics, makes to society. the aim will be to make the public aware of the rewards and advantages accruing in europe through diversity. thirdly, better representation in society of disadvantaged groups: a debate will be initiated on ways to rectify the under-representation and under-participation of certain groups in society. fourthly, respect and tolerance and among the various communities that make up european society. civil society and the social partners will be fully involved in implementing the european year. one of the key principles of implementing the year will be that activities will be decentralised at member state level. to get this message across effectively, the year must be implemented as closely as possible to the citizens. finally, it must be ensured that, during the year and in all the member states, equal importance is attached to all the grounds for discrimination set out under article 13 of the treaty, namely discrimination based on sex, ethnic or racial origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age or sexual orientation. . mr president, there are no institutional barriers separating one group from another, and there is nothing to prevent anyone from demonstrating their worth and being rewarded for it. specific systems, in the form of examinations and competitions leading to qualifications, have been set up to assess the aptitude of each individual. access to the highest offices is, in principle, open to all, without distinction. however, although people are equal in the eyes of the law, they are not always equal in reality. at the very least, we do not seem to have achieved equality of opportunity. despite a few examples of spectacular social advancement, cited with particular smugness given that they are such exceptional cases, people do not have equal chances of success, and a society that does not allow all its members to demonstrate their capabilities harbours the seeds of serious frustrations and tensions. neither effectiveness nor justice benefit from this state of affairs. if that is indeed the situation, around two centuries after the publication of the declaration on the rights of man, we need to understand why. should we conclude that we have no prospect of success? are our democratic principles merely a mirage, an ideal that recedes as fast as we can approach it? we refuse to accept this. it is true that inequalities tend to mount up. the children of poor families are, on average, less likely to reach a high level of education. people with a poor level of education are less likely to achieve a high social standing or to have a well-paid career. the number of women in high-level positions, of whatever kind, is still very limited, if not infinitesimal. power still remains, in general, the privilege of men. disabled people still do not have the right to a proper place in our societies. homosexuals still suffer discrimination far too often, and some still consider this to be a normal state of affairs. many men, women and children are left by the wayside because of their skin colour or ethnic origin. do we have the right to put up with this situation? do we have the right to conclude that nothing can be done to bring reality closer to the democratic ideal? the obstacles may seem huge, an inherent part of society itself. but denying their existence will not help us to overcome them. we need to face the facts and condemn them. for example, discrimination often forces people into unskilled labour and insecure jobs that almost always provide poor pay and therefore a poor standard of living. people suffering such discrimination find it very difficult to access decent accommodation and healthcare. they have virtually no chance of promotion via continuing vocational training, and they have few leisure opportunities. under such conditions, their children's education is mortgaged right from the start. they are deprived of the material conditions, relationships and emotional environment that they need in order to plan their lives. and there is a considerable risk that they will end up in the same situation as their parents. in short, one disadvantage engenders another. someone who suffers from one aspect of the effects of social inequality is at serious risk of suffering from other aspects. although we can intuitively recognise this phenomenon of the accumulation of disadvantages, it has not yet been extensively studied. i would therefore like to call on the council and the commission to make a firm commitment to combat all forms of discrimination in all countries of the union, particularly as part of the year of equal opportunities for all. we want you to make a firm commitment, commissioner. we listened to what you had to say just now. we were happy with it, but you will understand that we will be keeping a close eye on how it is put into practice, and i will conclude by reminding you that, on 28 august 1963, in washington, in his famous speech 'i have a dream', martin luther king evocatively expressed the hope, the dream of a world of freedom and justice for all. 'i have a dream', he said, 'that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character'. let us have a common dream that, by the end of the decade, we will finally have a union without discrimination, a union that gives every child a chance. let us have a common dream, commissioner. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to start by thanking mrs roure for her work on this report. the european union has made a commitment to promoting basic rights and equal opportunities for all. we have some of the most comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in the world. but ask yourself this: are our fellow citizens aware of the european anti-discrimination directives? do they know that all the member states are obliged to transpose those directives into their national legislation? unfortunately, i think the answer is no. that is why the initiative of launching the european year of equal opportunities for all is a very constructive one. a media event on this scale is an effective method of increasing awareness and providing information. equality of opportunity is a policy involving specific measures that aim to help the disadvantaged by establishing fair access to rights, goods and services. for equality to become a reality, we need to combat all types of discrimination. every day, men and women suffer discrimination when they try to access jobs and services, particularly due to their sex, their origin or their religion. that is unacceptable, and we cannot continue to tolerate such practices. the activities that the eu will support in 2007 and the awareness and demonstration campaigns are a step in the right direction. it is also vital to have a real political will for this, and all the member states must join forces, without exception. full implementation of our anti-discrimination legislation therefore remains a top priority. it is distressing to see that certain member states have been condemned for not having correctly transposed the european directives in this field. tomorrow, parliament must send a strong message to our fellow citizens by adopting this report by a large majority. the fight against discrimination is not just fought by the left or by the right. it is fought by men and women of conviction with a common objective: fighting for respect for human rights and, more specifically, against discrimination of all kinds. the key message of the european parliament in response to the proposal of the commission is to fight against all forms of discrimination, and this is why i am particularly pleased to congratulate mrs martine roure on this report. i would like to emphasise that the equality of opportunities - as the first human right formulated by the european union - is a horizontal area stretching across all sectors. therefore the enforcement of equal opportunities cannot be of utmost priority for parliament only, but also for the eu, and for all government bodies of the member states. i particularly welcome that president borrell has set up the high-level committee on equal opportunities, and i am proud to work as one of its members. i would like to call attention to a recently published important work of the committee, which mentions the benefits arising from applying the principles of diversity when a workplace interviews and employs its workforce. workplaces that implement such a policy, companies that take into account cultural diversity are more competitive in the long term, and in some cases also experience increased efficiency in the short or medium term. therefore equal opportunities are not an obstacle to the increase of economic competitiveness, but act as a strengthening factor. i would also like to stress the individual responsibility of member states in preparing for the year of equal opportunities, and would like to propose a number of initiatives myself. i have organised the first public parliamentary hearing in hungary, which will take place next week, when participating citizens will talk about their personal experiences to illustrate the discrimination they have suffered. a blind girl who has not been admitted to university because of her blindness, and a young roma man will talk about their lives. i would like to make this customary in hungary, and to introduce in my country the personal hearings that we experience here. . mr president, firstly i would like to thank the rapporteur for all the good work she has done: it was not an easy task. the year of equal opportunities for all is very welcome because fundamental rights are the close to the hearts of the european citizens and they must be made a reality for all citizens. against this backdrop there are two issues i would like to raise. first, there is the budget. i think that everybody in this room will agree that it is embarrassingly insufficient - eur 15 million for fundamental rights! if i compare that to the money we spend on a lot of other things that are less valuable than fundamental rights, i have to say it gives me stomach pains. the second issue is decentralised implementation. that is very good, but i am rather worried about the possibility of cherry-picking by the member states. i am not entirely reassured by all the warm words we have heard in recent years about fundamental rights, because the reality is different and the commissioner himself mentioned that some member states are still lagging behind in the implementation of anti-discrimination legislation. there is still a hierarchy of discrimination and i think that with this programme for the year of equal opportunities for all we should not be encouraging this. i would like to ask the commissioner to commit the commission here and now, publicly and on the record, to ensuring that member states will use the funds available for this year to target all forms of discrimination equally. this is not to say anything about the way the money is distributed, but we want certain - let us say - more 'awkward' groups that are currently suffering discrimination - homosexuals, certain reglious groups or the roma, for example - to have equal access to this programme with all the other groups that are suffering discrimination. i am looking forward to a positive answer. . mr president, i too would like to thank the rapporteur for her work, and i appreciate the need for maximum preparation time if the year of equal opportunities is going to have any meaningful impact. that constricted timing has meant that there are one or two areas, as my colleague has just indicated, where we might have liked to tighten things up a little more but have not been able to. we all hope that the year will provide an incentive to those member states that are being particularly tardy on implementing the article 13 directives to make progress. those directives reflect the more positive dimension of the european union and people need to be aware of their rights. as we have seen on issues such as the working time directive, people all too often do not realise that they have rights, let alone that they can enforce them. i agree with mrs roure that equal opportunities are an important factor in social inclusion and that we need to combat bigotry and prejudice at all levels, whether that is on the street or in government, as it prevents so many people from reaching their potential and prevents society benefiting from their talents. i also echo the comments made about the money being totally inadequate. when you think about the amount that we, as political parties, spend on our election campaigns to try and persuade people of something different, it is going to take more than the money in the current budget to persuade people that others in their society have rights which should be recognised as well. . mr president, i too would like to commend the rapporteur for her work in this very important area and to lend my voice to support the call for designation of 2007 as the european year of equal opportunities for all. we must commit ourselves not just to the concept of equality of opportunity, but equally and crucially to the attainment of equality of outcome. all people should be entitled to their full social, economic and cultural equality. this, of course, encompasses the equality of all people, irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, age, marital or family status, sexual orientation, disability, socio-economic status or indeed political or religious affiliations. if we are serious about the attainment of equality, we must, on an ongoing basis, not only guarantee equality of opportunity across those categories, but we must be in a position to measure accurately and adequately outcomes as against each of those categories. we all know that societal inequality is not a natural phenomenon; it is the direct result of power inequalities, and so to address inequality itself, we have to address issues of power in our society, we have to challenge the way things are. i think 2007 as the year of equal opportunities for all can become a platform for just that. i also think that the very fact that this initiative is being suggested is an explicit recognition that we have failed so far in our journey towards equality. in my own country of ireland, we are still coming to terms with the legacy of british rule and the continuing partition of our country, along with decades of discrimination in the electoral process, in housing, employment and policing. celtic tiger ireland should be a success story for all the irish people, and yet we remain one of the most unequal societies not just in the eu but in fact globally. the roure report's focus on both migrants and women is commendable and particularly relevant again to my home country. the european year must be about much more than raising awareness simply about discrimination. equality legislation alone will not succeed in tackling the deep-rooted inequalities that exist without the political will of politicians, of policymakers and others to grasp the nettle and comprehensively tackle discrimination. to that end, may i finish by echoing mrs roure's call for both the commission and the council to put their money where their mouth is as regards tackling inequality across the union. 2007 is a very important year for the issues to be resolved in the area of equal opportunities and the implementation of equal opportunities throughout the european union. equality of opportunity forms the basis of the common european system of values, and its implementation will promote the enforcement of basic human rights. this report, which is being prepared with a codecision procedure, addresses all areas of implementation - from the creation of the legislation framework to the definition of financial means - including possibilities of participation of member states and civil organisations. my honourable colleague martine roure has done a considerable amount of work. the most important thing is to apply the regulations already approved and accepted, and to make sure that those affected are aware of the laws enacted in their interest. therefore we need action, not words. it is not sufficient to implement the principle of equal opportunities at community level - we must make sure that everybody is aware of the fact that all citizens, regardless of their sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or views, disability, age and sexual orientation, are entitled to equal opportunities and equal treatment. continuous information, education, cooperation with civil organisations and european citizens are important. we need campaigns that win over public opinion, and lively social dialogue. a social europe is inconceivable without the protection of vulnerable social strata and groups that are most exposed to discrimination. discrimination or exclusion has a hundred faces: it can be based on race, ethnic origin, religion, age group, sex, physical and mental disabilities. everybody plays a role in the implementation of equal opportunities, from government bodies to national authorities, from the civil society to individual european citizens. solidarity is the most appropriate and the most expedient approach to the fight for equal opportunities. we are all responsible to ensure that every person has equal opportunities to achieve their potential in any area of life. in my amendments i also emphasised that we must make every effort to implement equality, not only at community and individual levels, but also at regional, national and local levels. i propose that the report be accepted. mr president, like other speakers, i agree with the commissioner that the eu must have one of the most advanced legislative frameworks to combat discrimination. therefore, i appreciate that parliament's amendments to the commission proposal enforce the demand that the european year of equal opportunities for all should speed up the transposition process of the two anti-discrimination directives, for which i thank the rapporteur, mrs roure. i have to say, with regret, that my country, latvia, is among those states that are delaying transposition. new member states have to be subject to infringement proceedings for violations of community law in the same way as the old member states. in that context, ngos have a vital role to play in raising awareness. the commission should ensure that especially ngos representing the groups that suffer discrimination are involved at all stages of the work in connection with the european year. i hope that the commissioner will also agree with this. . mr president, first of all i would like to express my thanks to the honourable members for the support voiced in this debate. i would like to underline that the commission shares your commitment to fighting forms of discrimination in member states. the commission is prepared to urge all member states to allocate the financial resources accordingly. generally speaking, the commission accepts all the amendments proposed by parliament. i will not go through them individually, but will concentrate on the key issues. we support the amendments aimed at reinforcing the involvement of civil society and the implementation of the european year of equal opportunities for all. this will be a key factor in its success. we can accept the increased references to gender mainstreaming. we are fully in agreement with the fact that, during the year, member states should attach equal importance to all the grounds for discrimination set out under article 13 of the treaty, namely discrimination based on sex, ethnic or racial origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. it is acceptable to set up a simplified system for administrative management of the funds at national level, as proposed. we agree to the increase in the budget from eur 13.6 million to eur 15 million. to sum up, the commission can accept all the amendments proposed. i conclude by warmly thanking the rapporteur, mrs roure, whose commitment to non-discrimination issues was instrumental in bringing the negotiations with the member states to a successful conclusion. these went very quickly and were very rewarding. the text, which is submitted for your final approval, reinforces the commission's initial position and gives us the means to take action in favour of diversity throughout the european union. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on tuesday at 12 noon.

statement by the president ladies and gentlemen, the conference of presidents has asked me to deliver a brief statement about tomorrow, the european day of languages. i shall gladly do so, but please bear with me, because this statement is written in several languages, which makes it a daunting task for me too. i ask you to take note of this statement. on 26 september 2008 we are celebrating the european day of languages. in that framework, the european union, together with the european council, is supporting a series of european initiatives aimed at promoting the valuation of languages and cultures and at highlighting to the european public the importance of learning languages. (de) the linguistic diversity of europe is an essential element of our intellectual heritage and is one of our cultural treasures. in the course of european unification, linguistic diversity has gradually become less of a barrier and more of an opportunity. this is why the latest communication from the commission on multilingualism rightly describes our linguistic diversity as a trump card. (fr) multilingualism and promoting linguistic diversity are cornerstones of our day-to-day activities in the european parliament. our motto is 'no legislative work without translation'. (it) translation and interpreting of our work as representatives of the peoples of europe play a vital part in ensuring its legitimacy and transparency and bringing our parliament ever closer to european citizens. (es) in that context it should be noted that the european parliament is the only international organisation which has a website and web television in 23 different languages. (pl) a european union that is united in diversity need have no concerns about its future. (de) thank you for your attention, ladies and gentlemen. (applause) mr president, i have a point of order. if you have the information to tell us that it is safe to go back to strasbourg, why can you not make a statement now before we leave this plenary and risk going back to a building that some of us think is still unsafe? mrs lynne, all the information given to me indicates that the building in strasbourg is every bit as safe as this building here in brussels.

formal sitting - czech republic - mr president of the czech republic, i would like to offer you a warm welcome to the european parliament. president of the czech republic. - (cs) i would like first of all to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the european parliament, which is one of the key institutions of the european union. although i have been here several times before i have never had the chance to address a plenary session. i therefore appreciate the chance to do so today. the elected representatives of 27 countries with their broad spectrum of political opinions and views constitute a unique audience, just as the european union itself has been a unique and essentially revolutionary experiment for over half a century, attempting to improve decision making in europe through transferring a significant part of the decision-making process from individual states to pan-european institutions. i have travelled here to see you from prague, the capital city of the czech republic, the historic heart of czech statehood and an important place in the development of european ideas, european culture and european civilisation. i have come here as the representative of the czech state, which in its various forms has always been part of european history, a country which has often played a direct and significant role in the making of european history and which wishes to continue doing so. the last time a czech president addressed you from this place was nine years ago. he was my predecessor in the role, vclav havel, and it was four years before our accession to the eu. some weeks ago, the czech premier, mirek topolnek, also spoke here, this time as the leader of the country holding the presidency of the council of the eu. in his speech he focused on specific topics arising from the priorities of the czech presidency and the problems currently confronting the countries of the european union. this enables me to approach you with themes of a more general nature and to talk about things which, at first sight, are possibly not as dramatic as the solutions to today's economic crisis, the russia-ukraine gas conflict or the situation in gaza. in my opinion, however, they are of absolutely fundamental importance for the development of the european integration project. in just under three months, the czech republic will commemorate the fifth anniversary of its accession to the eu and it will do so in a dignified manner. it will mark the anniversary as a country which, in contrast to some other new member states, does not feel disappointed over the unfulfilled expectations of membership. there is nothing surprising about this and there is a rational explanation for it. our expectations were realistic. we were well aware that we were joining a community created by and composed of people and not some sort of ideal construct developed without authentic human interests, ambitions, opinions and ideas. interests and ideas are to be found at every step in the european union and that is how it should be. we saw our entry into the eu, on the one hand, as external confirmation of the fact that we had relatively quickly, over the course of almost fifteen years since the fall of communism, become a normal european country again. on the other hand, we considered - and we still do consider - the chance to participate actively in the european integration process as an opportunity to benefit from the advantages of an already highly integrated europe while at the same time contributing our own ideas to the process. we assume our own share of responsibility for the development of the european union and it is precisely with this in mind that we accede to our presidency of the council of the european union. i firmly believe that the first six weeks of our presidency have convincingly demonstrated our responsible approach. i would also like to repeat out loud and very clearly here in this forum, and for the benefit of those of you that either did not know or did not want to know, my conviction that for us there was not and is not any alternative to eu membership and that there is no relevant political movement in our country that would be able or willing to undermine this position. we have therefore been taken aback recently by the repeated and growing attacks against the czechs based on the completely unfounded assumption that we are looking for a different integration project than the one we joined six years ago. this is not the case. the citizens of the czech republic take it for granted that european integration has a necessary and important mission, which broadly speaking they understand in the following way. it is firstly to remove barriers which are unnecessary and counterproductive to human freedom and prosperity, hindering the movement of persons, goods and services, ideas, political philosophies, world views, cultural plans and behavioural models, which, over the course of time, have formed between various european countries for many different reasons, and secondly to exercise joint care for public assets that are of significance to the entire continent or such projects as cannot be implemented effectively through just bilateral agreements between two or more neighbouring european countries. the effort to implement these two aims - removing barriers and making rational choices over issues that should be resolved at european level - is not and never will be completed. the various barriers and obstacles still remain and there is definitely more decision making at the brussels level than there ideally should be. there is certainly more of it than people in the various member states want. you are surely well aware of this too, ladies and gentlemen. i would therefore like to ask in a rhetorical sense whether you are certain each time you vote that you are deciding on a matter that should be decided on in this house rather than closer to the citizens, in other words within the individual european states? other potential impacts of european integration are also discussed in today's politically correct rhetoric, but these tend to be of a secondary and irrelevant nature. they have more to do with the ambitions of professional politicians and the people connected with them than with the interests of ordinary member state citizens. i said earlier that for the czechs there was and there continues to be no alternative to eu membership - and i am delighted to emphasise and underline this - but that is only half of what i would like to say. the other half comprises the completely logical assertion that a range of potential and legitimate alternatives exists in respect of the methods and forms of european integration, just as it has done throughout the past half century. history has no end point. to claim that the status quo, in other words the current institutional arrangements of the eu, is a dogma forever beyond criticism is an error which unfortunately continues to proliferate, even though it is in direct conflict both with rational thinking and with the entire historical development of over two thousand years of european civilisation. the assumption that an 'ever closer union', in other words an ever deeper political integration of the member states, represents the only possible and correct course of development for the european union is a similar error, which is postulated a priori and is therefore similarly beyond criticism. neither the status quo nor the postulate of deeper integration bringing indisputable benefits can or should be regarded as sacrosanct by any european democrat. it is unacceptable for them to be enforced by persons regarding themselves as, to quote famous czech writer milan kundera, the 'keepers of the keys' to european integration. moreover, it is obvious that the institutional arrangement of the eu does not constitute an end in itself but is a means to achieving real ends. these ends are nothing less than personal freedom and a set of economic arrangements that will bring prosperity. in other words, market economics. citizens of all member states surely want these things but, over the course of the 20 years since the fall of communism, it has repeatedly been confirmed that they are wanted more and cared about more by those people who have experienced tyranny for a large part of the twentieth century and who have suffered the effects of a dysfunctional, centrally planned, state-run economy. those people are quite legitimately more sensitive and more aware of manifestations or tendencies pointing to ends other than freedom and prosperity. and those people include the citizens of the czech republic. the current system for decision making in the eu differs from the historically tried and tested traditional form of parliamentary democracy. in a normal parliamentary system there is a group supporting the government and another supporting the opposition. however, unless i am mistaken, this is not the case in the european parliament. here only one alternative exists and those who dare consider other alternatives are labelled enemies of european integration. in my part of europe, we lived until relatively recently under a political system where no alternatives were allowed and where no parliamentary opposition therefore existed. we learned through bitter experience that where there is no opposition, there is no freedom. this is why political alternatives must exist. that is not all. the relationship between the citizens of the various member states and their eu representatives is not the normal relationship between voters and the politicians representing them. there is more distance between eu citizens and their representatives than is the case within individual member states, and not only in the geographical sense of the word. this is often referred to in various ways: the democratic deficit, the loss of democratic accountability, decision making by the un-elected but selected officials, the bureaucratisation of decision making and so on. the proposed changes to the status quo contained in the rejected european constitution or the not-so-different treaty of lisbon would only exacerbate this defect. since there is no european demos, no european nation, this defect cannot be solved by strengthening the role of the european parliament. this would only make the problem worse and would lead to member state citizens feeling ever more alienated from eu institutions. the solution does not lie in trying to breathe new life into the current form of european integration, or in trying to suppress the role of member states in the name of a new multi-cultural and multi-national european civil society. these are attempts that have failed in the past because they were not natural historical developments. i am afraid that attempts to speed up and deepen integration and to shift decision making affecting living standards of member state citizens more and more to a european level may have repercussions endangering everything positive that has been achieved in europe over the past half century. therefore let us not underestimate the concerns felt by many member state citizens that decisions affecting their lives will be taken elsewhere and without their involvement and that their ability to influence the decision-making process is very limited. the success of the eu to date is due among other things to the fact that the opinion and voice of every member state had the same weight in voting and thus could not be ignored. let us not allow a situation to come about in which member state citizens live their lives with a resigned feeling that the eu project is not their own, that it is not developing as they would like and that they are obliged merely to resign themselves to it. we could very easily and very quickly find ourselves once again living under conditions we now habitually regard as a thing of the past. this is also closely connected to the question of prosperity. it must be said openly that the current economic system of the eu involves constraints on the market and a constant strengthening of a centrally-controlled economy. although history has given us ample evidence that this path leads nowhere, we are following it again. the level of restrictions on the spontaneity of market processes and the level of political regulation over the economy are constantly increasing. this development has recently been further reinforced by incorrect interpretations of the causes of the current financial and economic crisis, attributing it to the market rather than to the actual cause which was, on the contrary, political manipulation of the market. it is again necessary to remember the historical experience of my part of europe and the lessons we have learned. many of you will certainly be familiar with the name of the 19th-century french economist, frederic bastiat and his famous petition from the manufacturers of candles, which is still a well-known standard text to this day, illustrating the absurdity of political interference in the economy. on 14 november 2008, the european commission approved a real petition from manufacturers of candles, not just a bastiat-style fiction, and imposed a 66% tax on candles imported from china. i could not believe that a 160-year-old literary essay had become a reality, but that is precisely what happened. the inevitable consequence of introducing such measures on a broad scale is that europe will fall behind economically and that economic growth will slow down or even grind to a halt. the only solution lies in the liberalisation and deregulation of the european economy. i say all this because i care about a democratic and prosperous future for europe. i am trying to remind you of the fundamental principles upon which european civilisation has been built for centuries or millennia. principles whose validity is timeless and universal and which should therefore still apply in today's eu. i firmly believe that the citizens of the various member states want freedom, democracy and economic prosperity. the most important thing at this point is clearly to make sure that we do not equate the open discussion of these matters with an attack on the very idea of european integration. we have always believed that being allowed to discuss these serious questions, being heard, defending everyone's right to put forward alternatives to the one correct opinion, no matter how much we may disagree with them, is precisely the kind of democracy that was denied us for four decades. we, who have involuntarily spent the greater part of our lives witnessing how the free exchange of ideas is a basic precondition for a healthy democracy, believe that this precondition will be honoured and respected in the future as well. this represents an opportunity and an irreplaceable way of making the eu freer, more democratic and more prosperous. ladies and gentlemen, mr president, it was your wish to address the european parliament. we have gladly granted this wish. mr president, in a parliament of the past you would certainly not have been able to give that speech. (applause) thank goodness that we live in a european democracy in which we can all express our opinions. (applause and uproar) ladies and gentlemen, we are one european family and, as in any family, there are differences of opinion. mr president, i agree with you when you say - i only wish to make a few comments, but i feel obliged to do so - : we are a human community. a human community is characterised by having advantages, strengths, disadvantages and weaknesses. together, we must strengthen the strengths and eradicate the weaknesses. i also agree with you when you say that we need to ask whether each decision that we take could perhaps have been taken elsewhere. yes, but our national capitals must also ask themselves whether many decisions should not be taken in our towns and communities rather than at national level. (applause) allow me to make one final comment relating to our parliament's understanding of itself: we thank you for your acknowledgement that this european parliament is an important institution. if we were not so influential, we would not currently be the legislator in 75% of cases and we would not be a co-legislator in almost 100% of cases with regard to the treaty of lisbon, and then it would, in fact, be the case that decisions in europe would be made by bureaucratic means. however, it is now the european parliament that decides. (sustained applause) thank you, mr president, for your visit. it was an expression of our diversity of opinion in europe and of our european democracy, and in a democracy it is ultimately the majority that counts. i would urge us all to continue, together, to stand up for this democracy, for europe, for unity and for peace. (standing ovation)

mid-term review of industrial policy (debate) the next item is the report by mrs jordan cizelj, on behalf of the committee on industry, research and energy, on the mid-term review of industrial policy - a contribution to the eu's growth and jobs strategy. rapporteur. - (sl) the news concerning the formulation of the lisbon strategy has had a considerable response among the european citizens. we soon realised that the objectives set out were too ambitious from the point of view of time, but the idea was made public and presented to europe and to the world. we polished it somewhat in 2005, when the new lisbon strategy was prepared, still ambitious, yet much more down to earth. it was then that the commission also prepared an integrated approach in the sphere of the industrial policy. at this point, we are assessing what has been achieved and how to proceed. although industrial policy remains within the competence of the member states, the european measures, encouragement of development and economic growth have considerable influence here. industry stimulates the creation of a knowledge society, it stimulates research, development and innovation, and at the same time it is also a consumer of these activities. when deciding on initiatives at european level, we must consider only the priority areas of common activities. so, what is of genuine importance? which are the topics that the european parliament views as the priority areas? i should like to mention that we welcome the commission's report on the work that has been done, and we highlight the priority areas for our future activities. first, without any doubt, are climate change and sustainable development. the commitments regarding a considerable reduction of greenhouse emissions do not only apply to energy and traffic. they have a strong influence also on industry, without which the development of low-carbon society is not possible. sustainable industrial development therefore requires coordination, consistency and conformity. we must ask ourselves what encouragement industry requires in order to develop cleaner technology. how do we encourage the use of more efficient technologies? which are the right mechanisms to avoid damage to competitiveness, or for consumers to have a choice? how do we act beyond the union's borders? it is our vision to reduce global warming; therefore just moving higher-emission technology to third countries is not acceptable. climate change is an opportunity and not a threat to the european economy. another priority topic must be the securing of natural raw materials, and taking care that natural resources are handled wisely. an activity of the member states that has not been harmonised can cause rivalry and in the long run weaken national economies. this is why i expect concerted european activity with a strong international component. a lot of work is still ahead of us in order to create a more conducive environment for small and medium-sized enterprise. europe will truly open up for them only if they do not encounter new, disparate and complicated procedures and obstacles in each member state. therefore i expect more unity, harmonisation and a reduction of administrative burdens, both at european and national level. i expect measures that provide an even greater impetus to personal initiative. at the same time i expect changes to the european system of values, to encourage european society to accept greater risk. european society appreciates the acquisition and generation of new knowledge, research and innovation. the legislative framework must follow this. we must formulate adequate procedures for the protection of intellectual property. these must be european, and reasonably quick. the necessary financial means should not be an obstacle to action - i am talking about the so-called community patent. ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, i have listed just a few priorities, which have also been presented in our report. i am now looking forward to your further debate, which i know will be productive, and i invite you to present your contributions, which like your amendments will add considerable value to this report. thank you. vice-president of the commission. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, three years ago we modernised the industrial policy of the eu and established it as a cornerstone of our entire economic strategy. we are able to say today that it was the right decision. european industry is better placed as a major competitor when it comes to defending its share of the market. the excellent export performance of european industry contributes to macroeconomic stability, even in times of crisis. on the basis of a mid-term review, we have presented you with a timetable and work plan for the coming years. i ask you to support this plan. i should like to thank mrs jordan cizelj for drafting this report, and you will understand why i am truly pleased and want to express my delight that this report is so favourable and gives us such strong backing. like me, the rapporteur sees the main functions of industrial policy in the creation of the right conditions for businesses, making the european union a sustainably attractive location for industries and strengthening our industrial base so that we shall also have sufficient good and secure manufacturing jobs in future. industrial policy in the 21st century no longer bears any resemblance to what used to be called industrial policy. let me reiterate clearly that our industrial policy is based on the premise that our companies must face up to competition and that we cannot protect them from competition and indeed have no wish to do so. our task is not to protect industries. our job is to provide them with conditions in which they can fully develop their potential. i am pleased that the parliamentary report endorses not only the aims of our industrial policy but also the method by which we are pursuing them. this method is based on a combination of cross-sectoral and single-sector initiatives. there is certainly a need to act in numerous areas that have a great impact on the whole of european industry. let me cite just three examples, namely cutting red tape for european businesses, strengthening their innovative capacity and fostering an enterprise culture. on the other hand there are matters that only concern specific industries. let me remind you that we have introduced a system which guarantees the safe production and marketing of chemical substances in the union. we have just launched a comprehensive package of measures designed to strengthen the european defence industry, and there is an ambitious programme, adopted only this week, to simplify the legal provisions governing the automotive industry. i could add many more examples to this list. all of these things have been done in close partnership, not only with industry but also with all groups of stakeholders. i attach great importance to the fact that we have done all this together with parliament, with the trade unions and with the environmental and consumer organisations in open, transparent and verifiable processes. i reject the idea of making industrial policy behind closed doors or in back rooms. european industry is the vital driving force of innovation in europe and an absolutely crucial factor in safeguarding our position in global trade, and its achievements therefore merit recognition and praise; they merit measures to enhance the ability of european industry to maintain its performance in future as far as possible, and they merit efforts on our part to meet the challenges that lie immediately ahead. these challenges stem, of course, from the gathering momentum of economic globalisation - we should have no illusions about that. what we have seen so far is only the beginning. the same surely applies to technological change and the pace at which it is happening, with all the implications for productivity, structures and jobs, and, of course, to the increasingly central question of the ways in which our climatic and environmental objectives impact on our industrial policy. adjustments are needed here, and they will occupy us in the immediate future. for this reason, the commission's next major initiative, which is to be launched before the end of this month, is the initiative for sustainable industrial development, a sustainable industrial policy and sustainable industrial production. the political aim is to pursue an integrated approach comprising environmental, employment and industrial policies. we want a strong economy, safe jobs, less energy dependence and a clean environment. the way to these goals lies in products and processes that are innovative and designed to meet future needs, less environmental pollution in europe and more support for other regions in their essential efforts to cope with climate change with the aid of modern technology made in europe. that is the path we intend to pursue in our industrial policy. in addition, we have also launched new initiatives on industry clusters and pilot markets. i shall present you with an action plan on standardisation and examine ways in which industry can obtain higher-quality and more competitive services. two new sectoral initiatives have also been launched. the first deals with problems specific to the food industry, and that has now acquired great significance, of course, in the light of rising food prices, while the other relates to the challenges facing another of europe's key industries, namely electrical engineering. all in all, i believe we can say that our industrial policy is now well on the way to creating the right conditions for european businesses to flourish. let me say again that our aim is not to intervene or to favour particular economic players, nor do we seek to relieve the member states of their responsibility; what we are aiming for is partnership, optimum coordination and the common achievement of common goals. we are in the process of dovetailing the industrial policy of the european union more closely with those of the member states, and i am delighted that parliament has also given its firm backing to that effort. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (pl) mr president, i should like to congratulate mrs jordan cizelj on an excellent and very comprehensive report. it covers everything that it should. i should also like to thank mr verheugen, vice-president of the european commission, for the statement he has just made which i support in its entirety. i shall begin by reminding the house that it was once said that the best industrial policy is no industrial policy. fortunately, we have now moved on and things are different. it should be recalled that the lisbon strategy mainly relates to industrial activity. it concerns production, products and competitive products and covers all enterprises from smes to large concerns. i believe that there are five important points that apply to our industry, from the smallest to the largest companies. these points have already been mentioned, but i would like to emphasise them. the first is innovation. this obviously calls for research and development, but that is a separate issue dealt with in the european union's seventh framework programme and also in national programmes. however, there are also some very important requirements, namely the creation of the macro-economic conditions necessary to ensure that innovation can triumph on the market, along with new technologies as opposed, for example, to state aid. the second issue is to create appropriate conditions for banking operations and encourage banks to grant high-risk loans, because innovation involves risk. thirdly, we must combat monopolies on our market. this is what we are currently considering and debating in relation to a free market for energy. we all know this is a difficult issue. nonetheless, we must simultaneously protect our market against dumping from outside the european union. fourthly, legislation needs to be simplified and better regulation implemented. we should support every action in this regard taken by the european commission and by commissioner verheugen. fifthly, we must lay the foundations for genuine solidarity regarding energy and raw materials. this is a sine qua non for the development of industry. in addition, far-reaching standardisation and policy coordination at union level should be introduced, linked to the policies of the member states. every member state has some way of coordinating its regional policy at national level. similarly, the policy of every member state should be coordinated from above. my final comment is that we have to comply with provisions on environmental protection and climate protection. it is our intention to continue to be leaders in this area, but in the interests of our industry we must proceed cautiously. on behalf of the pse group. - (ro) i would like to congratulate mrs. cizelj and thank her for the openness she has shown in the process of making this report. i submitted four amendments that we can find at items 18 and 27 of the report. i begin by calling attention to the need to correlate industrial development with the improvement of social protection systems. all employees in industry should have decent working conditions. at item 18 of mrs. cizelj's report, the european parliament considers that industrial development is closely related to the availability of an efficient transport infrastructure at european level. a developed transport infrastructure will allow the development of industrial areas outside urban communities as well. member states can also use the regional development funds for the creation of industrial and technological parks in rural areas close to large urban agglomerations. through another amendment i submitted, i requested the commission and member states to support and accelerate the achievement of the projects that the european council declared of european interest for energy safety and diversification of the european union energy sources. at item 27 of the report, the european parliament calls attention to the need to further invest in education, professional training and research. industrial development and the competitiveness of european products depend on the quality of human resources and their level of training, as well as on the innovations contained in the new products. unfortunately, at the level of the european union, in spite of the community research programmes and the funds allocated to them, too little is invested in applied research and this is true especially in the case of small and medium-sized enterprises. they are dealing with difficulties in providing the co-financing required for their participation in the research framework programme. in this context, i consider the banking system could prepare financial instruments to facilitate the participation of smes in the research framework programmes. on behalf of the alde group. - (de) mr president, commissioner, let me begin by expressing my thanks to romana jordan cizelj whose report truly touched on all aspects of a modern industrial policy and stressed the particular importance of creating the right basic conditions. i am very grateful to her. we cooperated well on this report. in your explanatory statement, mrs jordan cizelj, you say that, in general, industry in the eu is healthy and dynamic. yes, we are even experiencing a renaissance of the so-called 'old economy'. i myself come from a highly industrialised state. no one ever thought, for example, that the steel industry would suddenly boom again. we are a vibrant global force. the state of our industry is robust, and our flagship, the euro, has indeed steered us through the straits. nevertheless, in spite of the sound industrial base and the resumption of investment activity in europe, we note that the tide is turning. the speed of technological change is breathtaking. the question is how we should deal with this. is this the right time to be conducting a mid-term review of our industrial policy? without raw materials and cheap labour - neither of which we possess - we shall come under competitive pressure that we shall be unable to withstand unless we are creative. for this reason, i wish to congratulate the commission first of all for having designated 2009 as the year of creativity and innovation. yet what does that mean? innovation, as we know, must be far more effective in turning knowledge into wealth. we have established the eit, the european institute of innovation and technology - or, to be more precise, it will soon be established - and that is a good basis. yet the creative people in the world are not only leaving europe, they are now even quitting the united states. you should read the book by richard florida in which he reflects on this situation. what is happening with regard to the creative class in this world? creative people will settle in places that fulfil three criteria, which florida calls the three ts - technology, talent and tolerance. the question is whether these three ts are present in sufficient abundance here in europe. i believe we have laid good foundations with the seventh framework programme and the eit, but that is not enough. we must do a lot more. the three ts need more money. the clusters are a sound initiative. it is essential, however, to select the right specialisations; the cluster initiative must be coherent, as must the whole industrial policy of the eu, and it must be appropriate and balanced. in the case of the car industry, of course, we see some lack of consistency; we see that, in certain respects, we are overtightening the screw. that has to do with our policy on climate change, which is increasingly becoming a fanatical moral crusade, subjecting europe to a form of lifestyle regulation that sometimes goes over the top. how else can it happen that co2 emissions from exhaust pipes are penalised 24 times more heavily than emissions from chimneys? we must ensure, commissioner verheugen, that the policy of the eu is coherent. we cannot be the lead market and possess an 80% share of global trade in premium cars and yet pull the rug from under our own feet in this very part of the market. we must take care to act consistently. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) mr president, the value of the rapporteur's work deserves to be fully recognised. the review undertaken presents an encouraging picture of the state of many sectors of the union's industry. we must, however, recognise the challenges facing our community. these challenges mainly relate to the pace of technological change, notably regarding new materials, to the need to save energy and water, to environmental protection and also to demographic conditions affecting the labour market. we need to improve our approach to the implementation of innovative solutions in all areas, including technical and organisational, legal and financial. the current legal, administrative and bureaucratic barriers are detrimental to the competitiveness of our industrial products. the question of the transition from idea to production should be raised in this context, as should the subject of patents and european discoveries. every effort must be made to devise solutions that will be acceptable to small and medium-sized enterprises as well as to large ones. european products can and must succeed through their attractive design, finish, excellent quality, creativity and outstanding service. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (fr) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the sole objective of this report and today's discussions is simply to conceal a glaring reality in the european union: industry is in crisis and the damage being caused is substantial. the figures provided are certainly dream-like: 80%, 73%. they could well have been replaced with billions of euros to show them off to everyone. they fool no one, however. they do nothing but hide the real state of affairs. one of the major concerns of industry as a whole is that the only thing that counts is the profit margin. the endangered species of captains of industry has now been replaced by sombre-talking slot machines. no matter what decisions are taken and their consequences for the women and men of europe, profit must be as high as possible and it must be immediate. i am well aware that some people will tell me that never has so much been invested, produced, exchanged and earned by industry. that is true, but what is the significance of huge financial reward benefiting a handful of people when most are suffering and seeing their little dreams of happiness going up in smoke? we cannot fail to see that the theme of employment is not a feature of this report, and nor are the concepts of land planning, population needs, taxation and social issues. the fact of the matter is that the commercial success of major industrial groups in europe is now making ever smaller contributions to eu development. the large european groups are relocating and outsourcing to countries that operate dumping in terms of wages, welfare, health, taxes and the environment, and meanwhile the eu refuses to enact any industrial policy. this policy is also strangling small and medium-sized enterprises and encouraging them to do the same. it is obvious it is not the . (the president cut off the speaker) mr henin, the time was not established by us, it was established by your group. unfortunately, you have got one minute and thirty seconds. so, if you protest, just send this protest to your group. (nl) europe is rightly staking a lot on maintaining and strengthening competitiveness and we know how to keep our market share in essential sectors but, as the commissioner has just said, we are only in the first wave of globalisation. we really need to keep on the edge of our seats. then there is the question of this new combination of research, development and making and selling innovative products in a way that is actually profitable. this report by mrs jordan cizelj does put the emphasis in the right place. we have to eliminate the bureaucracy and we actually have to talk about more efficiency in laws and legislation. the action programme gives the initial impetus for that, but i should like to make a heartfelt plea. it is still difficult for industries to find their way through the typical european instruments. the competitiveness and innovation framework programme and the seventh framework programme are central top-down instruments to be decided in brussels. the structural funds are decentralised in nature. all have their own front doors, their own criteria, you name it. my message is that there should be more combination, more coordination, more choice of priorities and their definition, even within the european commission. then i would see the effect in the regions. i would see clustering develop in successful sectors. last month in my region we set up an office, a one-stop shop, for the various instruments and that provides clarity. in conclusion, fragmentation and bureaucracy are unnecessary. we need to know what we want and that also increases the visibility for businesses and the public that is so necessary. they have to say that europe has chosen well and implemented properly. on that point there is still a great deal to be desired. (pl) mr president, commissioner, i was delighted to hear the statement by the commissioner just now. i should like to refer to three points he made in it. firstly, commissioner, you emphasised that we must individualise our approach to certain sectors of transport. secondly, you said that specific regions require greater assistance. thirdly, you referred to the issue of innovation. some parts of our industry operate at global level and others at local level. i would like to mention the shipbuilding industry. typically, this industry is linked to coastal regions. it is, however, one of the industries experiencing difficulties at global level. not only is poland affected, but also for example malta, along with other member states of the european union. contracts span several years, commissioner. three years ago nobody anticipated that the rate of the dollar in relation to the euro would fall. nobody anticipated either that the rate of the dollar and of the euro would fall in relation to the polish zoty, for example. this has resulted in very serious economic problems. i appeal to you, commissioner, to deal with protection of the european shipbuilding industry by way of the european union's policy, so that ways of protecting the former can be found, precisely within the framework of these global conditions, in the context of competition with chinese and indonesian shipyards. i feel sure that this must be a matter close to your heart, commissioner, as you are an honorary doctor of szczeci university. (lt) the implementation of eu industrial policy, which is within the competence of the member states, is facing a number of obstacles that prevent better results and higher competitiveness from being achieved. i will highlight some of these - regulation and sustainable development. industry in the eu is challenged by excessive regulation and bureaucracy. small and medium-sized enterprises suffer the most because of the unbearable burden of administration. small and medium-sized enterprises account for more than 90% of all enterprises; they are known for their innovation, dynamism and flexibility and their important role in withstanding competitive pressure as well as creating new jobs. i therefore call on the european commission and the member states to make major changes and simplify the regulatory environment of smes. sustainable development is the horizontal dimension of all eu policy. in the eu we must strive to achieve the transition to industry based on lower co2 production and efficient use of resources, allowing a reduction in environmental pollution, the export of pollution to third countries and the effect on climate change. sustainable development should be based on new technologies, so funding for scientific research should be improved, since we lag behind the united states and japan in this sphere. however, the cost of patents should be reduced to facilitate the spread of innovation. although industrial policy falls within the national sphere of competence, i have previously urged the commission to take on a more substantial role, especially in carrying out studies and delivering forecasts along with preparing recommendations to governments on which spheres would be competitive, which is very important in terms of moving production to third countries. i therefore welcome the commission's new sectoral initiatives in electrical engineering and the food industry, the problems of which are most acute nowadays. (pl) mr president, i should like to draw attention to two issues in this debate. firstly, as a result of the financial crisis and subsequent economic crisis in the united states, the rates of economic growth and employment within the european union in both 2008 and 2009 will be lower than previously forecast. this may cause serious difficulties, particularly in relation to the operation of smes. secondly, the european commission has set ambitious targets for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide by european industry, when the best that can be said about other countries in the world is that they are being careful regarding emissions. as a result of this approach, the cost of production in europe will increase, just as economic growth is set to slow down. a further negative consequence for the activities of european manufacturing relates to allocation of carbon dioxide emissions between individual member states, without considering how far some of them lag behind in terms of development. the impact on the new member states has been disastrous, notably in the case of particularly sensitive economies based on coal, such as the economy of my country. it seems that the report before us today does not consider these two issues, especially where their effects on economic development and employment in europe are concerned. (pt) the central issue in this debate is the priority that must be given to the defence and promotion of existing industries in the various member states, bearing in mind their specific natures, whether these are textile, clothing and footwear industries, or automobile, naval or chemical industries, or any other traditional sector or new sector involving new materials and innovative technologies. this priority demands not only measures to stimulate innovation and effectively support micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, but also an international trade strategy which takes account of the current situation and the industries existing in our countries, defence of employment with rights, promotion of development in our regions and social inclusion. it is not enough to say that we want a forward-looking industry. we urgently need to look at the present and place industries and their social impact at the centre of the decisions that must be made in terms of macroeconomic, financial and commercial policies at both community and national level. (pl) mr president, within the framework of the new lisbon cycle, the emphasis should be on industrial policy, because a flourishing industry is very important in terms of making full use of the european union's economic potential. it is true that industrial policy falls largely within national competence. nonetheless, better coordination between action at national and european level is needed in order to guarantee the effectiveness of political strategies. the new action plan on sustainable industrial policy should take account of aspects such as better legal regulations to reduce the administrative burdens that are particularly onerous for smes. it is the latter, however, that play one of the most important roles in generating economic growth and strengthening competitiveness in europe through their potential for innovation, dynamism and flexibility. environmental objectives such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy efficiency should also be taken into account. after all, the advantage resulting from the implementation of innovative solutions could turn european industry into a world leader in the area of environmentally friendly and socially acceptable technology, products and services. (pl) commissioner, europe's updated industrial policy, the new approach, the reduction in the number of regulations, increased competitiveness and innovation are all due to you, commissioner verheugen. i should like to make that very clear. we are all agreed that the undue amount of regulations affecting enterprises should be reduced. this includes reducing administrative burdens, especially for smes. we have made high demands of industry in terms of quality requirements, environmental standards, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy saving, and ensuring suitable working conditions. all this increases costs. at the same time, we want the products manufactured to be competitive on the market. how can this be achieved? is it even possible? i should like to add that the union and its industry need appropriately qualified workers suited to the needs of a knowledge-based economy. it is therefore necessary to support measures to improve the quality of human capital through all types of training, and to fund investment in the development of individuals. (ro) i would like to call attention to the insufficiency of european funds to support the ambitious objectives of the european union regarding climate change. the commission has come up with legislative initiatives that would have an important impact on the different industrial sectors, measures that have no correspondent in the union's budget either. i also consider that an ambitious industrial policy has to go hand in hand with a european employment strategy. the free movement of people, combating illegal immigration and, in particular, respect for the rights of all european citizens can ensure equitable work conditions. compliance with the rights of legal immigrants in a member state will also ensure the protection of the rights of all workers in that member state and avoiding social dumping. (pl) mr president, i venture to take the floor again as i saved a few seconds of the time allocated to me earlier. commissioner, you referred to monopolies in negative terms. i would prefer us to speak of monopolistic practices as something we could overcome. i wonder, commissioner, how you might react to what are known as natural monopolies in economic theory. within the framework of our industrial policy, will we allow natural monopolies to remain in certain areas? after all, on the one hand we are in a position to control them, and on the other to ensure economies of scale. vice-president of the commission. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, in these last two minutes, i should like to try and outline how i expect things to develop in the period that lies ahead. we shall continue to have a strong european industrial base. there is no danger that industry will disappear from europe. i am also quite certain that european industry will continue to generate growth and create jobs, though not necessarily in europe. that is the problem. we are already seeing more and more large european companies achieve their growth and their profits outside europe, and they are also creating their new jobs outside europe. that is resulting in a jobs problem here, and the only way to redress the balance and truly resolve this principal social issue of our time, namely how to create enough good jobs, is actually - as several speakers have said, and i fully support them - to focus initiatives more sharply on enterprise by placing greater emphasis on small and medium-sized businesses. the key to the long-term success of our economic strategy does not lie with the large industrial undertakings, which are well able to look after themselves. no, the key to success lies with the numerous small and medium-sized enterprises in europe, whose potential is far from exhausted, and they are the focus of our policy. the other point is that the conditions in which european industries compete will change very rapidly. it is wrong to imagine that we can go on regarding competitors such as china as suppliers of cheap products for the masses and ourselves as the manufacturers of finer and more expensive goods. the chinese are already producing and exporting high-quality and technologically complex goods. we shall very shortly be challenged in those areas in which we are still particularly strong today. this means that we must strive to become even better. for this reason, everything that has been said here about research, development, innovation, education and training is correct. the european economy, and european industry in particular, will be successful if it forges ahead resolutely with the transition to a knowledge-based economy. it will also be successful if it realises that the major environmental challenges of our time, especially those relating to energy and climate change, can actually create economic opportunities too, and that these opportunities must be grasped. the commissioner has mentioned the positive approach. and i believe that with goodwill and cooperation we shall succeed in transferring this too from a european level to a national level and create an even stronger link between the industrial policy of the european union and that of member states. ladies and gentlemen, i do not see industrial policy as a protection of undertakings either. i see it as a policy that we create for the good of european citizens, which, of course, we can accomplish by creating favourable development conditions for undertakings, for investment, innovation, and for the creation of more new jobs. it has not been mentioned today, but politics can also do a lot with appropriate public procurement orders. i agree with the initiative that we have to be careful and pay special attention that industrial development within the european union is balanced, both in geographical terms and in terms of the scope of projects. it is true that our view of industrial policy, or of any other requirements for it, must not be too narrow. i too am convinced that european industry is in good shape, although it may need, of course, some additional impetus, and i believe that we share the view that we primarily seek more innovation. what causes bottlenecks for more innovation? in my opinion, one of the bottlenecks is insufficient human resources. it is in this sphere of our european society that we can do something about new values, not just in politics, but i expect greater responsibility also from the undertakings. if undertakings really understand that they too have their share of responsibility for the creation of the necessary human resources, i think that they will actually be able to demonstrate what possibilities people have if they participate in activities that have a closer link with the creation of innovation. mr commissioner, i am convinced that the initiative in connection with grapes will prove to be successful, and i believe that the european technological institute will prove to be successful as well. i thank you for your productive discussions, and i wish you success also in your future work. thank you. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday. written statements (rule 142) , in writing. - (fi) there is an especially problematic point in the report, where it reads: 'welcomes the commission's proposals on consolidating the european market in defence equipment and improving the global competitiveness of the eu defence industry'. this means we are building a military-industrial complex on the us model for the union, an organisation which is marketed in the name of peace. it is obvious that that will also include the galileo satellite positioning system, which has come to be financed entirely by the union. it is just as obvious, moreover, that the legal basis for the militarisation of the whole eu is the new constitution, i.e. the lisbon treaty. the people are not being told about the way military matters are being fiddled about with; instead, the union is marketed as a peace project for civilians, which it no longer is. the union will have functional and quasi-judicial powers to launch offensive operations, far beyond its borders, which are illegal under international law. , in writing. - the european union is the most important global actor and leading exporter of technology in the world today. sustaining its leading position entails a series of challenges. among these, attention should be given to the need to sustain european exporting industries in the global market by ensuring that unfair competition is challenged, while resisting the temptation of protectionism, and also the need to support small and medium-sized enterprises in the eu through the reduction of administrative and market access obstacles. special attention needs to be directed by the eu institutions towards supporting the sme sectors of the economies of new member states, so they can close the developmental gap with their peer smes in the eu. with regard to the opportunities presented by sustainable industrial policies, the eu has to take into account the potential presented by the industries of the new member states. the urgent adoption of a comprehensive small business act will contribute greatly to the development of the sme sectors in all member states, thus also contributing to the reinforcement of the leading role of europe in sustainable and technology-oriented industrial production.

2006 annual report of the eib (debate) the next item is the report by jean-pierre audy on behalf of the committee on budgetary control on the european investment bank's annual report for 2006. rapporteur. - (fr) mr president, commissioner, president of the european investment bank, ladies and gentlemen, my first words will be to thank you, mr maystadt, for the excellent relationship you have built up with the meps on the committee on budgetary control, which has made a significant contribution to enabling the report we are about to debate to be written. i would extend these thanks to your team of staff, and especially, philippe de fontaine vive, vice-president, with whom i was able to work in complete transparency at the bank's headquarters in luxembourg. you carry out your role, mr maystadt, with a great deal of competence, warmth, determination and courage, but also with wisdom and, i would add, with elegance. the eib, which was set up by the treaty of rome, celebrates its fiftieth anniversary in 2008. its members are the european union member states, and their finance ministers form its board of governors. its mission is to contribute to the development of the common market, using the capital markets and its own funds. it is a community instrument, but within it power is exercised intergovernmentally. it is a good thing that citizens' representatives are talking about these issues at a time when citizens themselves are demanding results from the european union; they often benefit from the eib's services without realising it. first i would like to congratulate the bank for its action, its ambitious plan of activities and projects; i particularly welcome the excellence of the new strategy for 2007-2009 including transparency, the reinforcement of added value and the gradual increase in risk-taking, activities for the benefit of smes and local government, the use of new financial instruments and the stepping-up of cooperation with the european commission. the important role of the bank in the neighbourhood policy should also be underlined, and the report calls more specifically for further development of the facility for euro-mediterranean investment and partnership, or femip, within the framework of the euro-mediterranean policy. i believe, however, that the time has come to go even further, faster and better, in terms of both control and support for the european union in financing its investments. in terms of control mechanisms, i think the time has come to set up genuine control of banking regulation, and i suggest that the eib itself apply to the committee of european banking supervisors, based in london, to look at the conditions for this task of regulation and in particular decide who could carry it out in the regrettable absence of an official european banking regulator. concerning support for the european union in financing investment, where needs have been estimated at eur 600 billion for the trans-european transport networks alone, i suggest that a reflection be carried out on the role of the european union in terms of the development of our territory. the funding allocated by the member states and the eu is far from able to meet these needs. is it not understandable, commissioner, that the european union should have difficulty finding eur 3.4 billion to finance as strategic a project from an industrial, scientific and military point of view as galileo, under these circumstances? i suggest that, given the quality of the eib's human resources, its detachment and its experience of financing major infrastructure, the commission gives it the task of carrying out a strategic study on the funding of investments, excluding no possible scenarios: subsidies, payment of sums subscribed by the member states to the eib's capital, loans (including special loans from the member states as provided for in article 6 of the eib's statute), innovative instruments such as risk sharing, loan guarantee instruments, financial engineering appropriate to long-term projects that are not immediately profitable according to market-based financial criteria, creation of an investment section within the european union budget, financial consortia between european, national and local authorities, public-private partnerships, etc. these, mr president, mr maystadt, ladies and gentlemen, are the ideas put forward in this report. i look forward to hearing the debate that will follow and thank you for your attention. member of the commission. - (es) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to thank mr audy, who has produced and just presented to us an excellent report on the annual report of the european investment bank for 2006. i think that, as the report reflects, the productive dialogue established between the european investment bank and parliament in recent years is very important, as it benefits democratic transparency, which is very important to both parliament and to the financial institution. the eib contributes significantly to launching and developing many european policies, and we should therefore welcome the quality of this dialogue, which is undoubtedly being strengthened with philippe maystadt at the bank's helm. the activity of the european investment bank is also being strengthened through the new financial framework, with the new financial perspectives for the european union for the 2007-2013 period. obviously we are debating the 2006 report. the progress of these perspectives in this initial period of 15 or 16 months is not yet covered by the report, but with the new funding instruments launched thanks to these new perspectives, this cooperation will continue to take place and to become more ambitious and effective in many fields: in policies on research and development, regional development, trans-european networks, support for small and medium-sized enterprises, etc. also, with regard to the external actions of the european investment bank, on the basis of these financial perspectives the new eib external mandate has already been adopted. it is not only in the bank itself, but within the european investment bank group that cooperation is also being increased, with the european investment fund. proof of this, for example, is the jeremy programme. in addition, we are satisfied with the tripartite agreement between the european investment bank, the ebrd, which is the european bank for reconstruction and development, and the commission, for actions by each of them in countries bordering the european union to the east, and also with the development of the new femip, which mr audy referred to, which is doing a great deal of work, and these are examples of an increasingly close link between the activities of the bank and the external activities of the european union. mr audy's report highlights, and in my view rightly so, the potential of the european investment bank for developing innovative funding instruments that are capable of having an enormous effect in terms of increasing the resources available in the european budget for implementing a whole series of policies. the commission is aware of this potential. not only have we already made some agreements with the european investment bank, which have been approved by the council and parliament, to do more with the same budgetary resources in areas such as trans-european networks or research and development policy, but also, in the context of the review of the community budget that we will propose at the end of 2008 or the beginning of 2009 for debate, we are looking at extending these new funding mechanisms, and the resulting increase in capacity for action through the budgetary resources available, to other priority areas such as energy and climate change. with regard to the mechanisms for cooperation with the bank, i would also like to inform you that we are already finalising the negotiations with the bank on a new memorandum of understanding to cover all of our cooperation relations, and we hope that it will enable these relations to be even more effective. i cannot give a response to the suggestion from the rapporteur, mr audy, whose concern i share, regarding what the right solution is for the european investment bank to be supervised as a financial institution. i do not have the solution, but i think this is a very pertinent question, on which we should all cooperate in order to provide a suitable response. finally, mr president, i would like to reiterate the commission's satisfaction with this high level of cooperation between parliament and the european investment bank, and i hope that in the future this will enable all of us - all the european institutions - to contribute to better achieving the union's objectives. on behalf of the pse group. - (bg) the report is an example of good cooperation between the european parliament and this financial institution which has the task to contribute for a balanced and sound development of the community by using capital market tools and its own resources. i congratulate the rapporteur on his good presentation of the european investment bank, his reasonable suggestions aimed at enhancing cooperation, efficiency and transparency of operations. the bank's report lists ample examples of achievement in terms of the main goals and priorities of the union such as the geographic allocation of investments, strategic direction and project applications. future efforts should focus on several areas such as to encourage private business to implement investment policies, including social responsibility projects in line with the eu social cohesion and territorial balance policy; to identify internal audit and internal control mechanisms; to set up offices in the new member states; and to establish new financing mechanisms. i support the amendments made in plenary which deal with more stringent control over capital. mr president, commissioner, mr maystadt, ladies and gentlemen, the european parliament has made a number of recommendations and i agree with three of them. i would also like to ask mr maystadt to respond to this in his reply. we are happy that the european investment bank operates a zero tolerance policy with regard to fraud and corruption. the european parliament would actually like to further reinforce that policy. we recommend measures, for example, for implementing an exclusion mechanism with regard to companies that are suspected or have been found guilty of corruption. we support a reinforcement of the policy on whistleblowers and we are in favour of a revision of the existing tendering procedures. what does mr maystadt think of these? a second element: many billions of euros are invested in trans-european networks. as the european parliament, we should seek to support those projects in particular that have a smaller or negative co2 footprint. finally, with regard to external loan operations, we would like supervision to be exercised to ensure that such activities, particularly on the african continent, are in keeping with the european consensus with regard to development and also the millennium objectives. as president of the european investment bank, how does mr maystadt respond to parliament's recommendations? (nl) mr president, we applaud the fact that this report emphasises the eib's zero tolerance policy with regard to fraud and corruption and also highlights the increasing number of investigations being conducted by olaf. however, experience in contracting loans has shown us that the eib is not without sin. recently, for instance, a loan of eur 100 billion to a large-scale mining project in congo came under heavy criticism owing to all kinds of major irregularities, such as a lack of transparency in the negotiation process and in the final award of the contract. there was a serious conflict of interest. since 2000, the european investment bank has already invested more than eur 700 million in all manner of mining projects in africa. what i would like to stress here is that these many millions come from european taxpayers and that our institution's loan and contract policy must therefore also be subject to the most thorough supervision possible, particularly when funding projects outside europe. (de) mr president, president maystadt, i would like to congratulate mr audy, because he made the point very well that trans-european networks have particular significance for us. i can imagine that, in this respect, the eib also provides an incentive instrument for ownership unbundling. we now have the commission's proposals before us, that is, to increase the focus on ownership unbundling in the energy and telecommunications sector. my suggestion would be to concentrate on creating incentives here rather than focusing on making statutory obligations. my second point is that the export industry is currently having difficulty in maintaining its performance, especially now the euro is strong. would it not be possible to focus on special programmes to provide guaranteed support for the export performance of our european businesses? president of the european investment bank. - (fr) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank you for giving me the chance once again to continue our dialogue with the european parliament. i think it is important that an institution like the eib should regularly have to explain itself to the representatives of eu citizens. i would particularly like to thank mr audy for his report. i can bear witness to the fact that he has put a great deal of personal effort into writing this report. he took part in many working meetings both in brussels and luxembourg, thereby taking up the constructive dialogue we began with his predecessors. in his presentation this morning, he highlighted two points. the first issue is one we have already talked about in previous reports - i remember mr schmidt's report and mr lipietz's report - and it is the issue of whether the european investment bank, because it is a bank, should be subject to banking control or supervision. this is not provided for as the texts currently stand. there are, of course, audits of the european investment bank: the audit by the court of auditors, to the extent that the eib uses eu funds, and also the audit by the audit committee, composed of experts appointed by the governors, who report directly to our governors. it is true, however, that, if we want to apply the best banking practices to the eib, it would undoubtedly be desirable for a specialist body to check that these practices are correctly applied to the eib. theoretically, we can think of three possible avenues. the first is written into the treaty of maastricht, in article 105(6). this would be the possibility of the european central bank exercising this supervisory role. the treaty states that the council, acting unanimously, may confer a prudential supervision role on the european central bank. this is an avenue that exists theoretically but realistically it is doubtful whether the member states, at the moment at least, would be unanimous in conferring this new role on the european central bank. another possibility is the one we have embarked on informally, namely calling on a national regulator. at the moment it is the luxembourg regulator, the supervisory council of the luxembourg financial sector, which also performs this role in relation to the european investment bank, particularly when it comes to checking basel ii is being applied correctly. a third avenue for exploration would be to strengthen the audit committee provided for in our statute, and to convert it into a quasi-banking supervisor. the reform treaty provides for the enlargement of the audit committee. a first step might be to appoint a number of banking supervisors, who would bring to the audit committee the necessary experience to check that the eib is actually applying best practices in this matter. the second point highlighted by mr audy was the special role he would like to see the european investment bank play in infrastructure, particularly the trans-european networks. as you know, the eib already plays a relatively important role in this. last year, we financed the trans-european networks to the tune of nearly eur 9 billion. we use various instruments, including our structured finance facility, which allows us to take more risks than is generally the rule. for example, we recently did this for a motorway in greece. this is a good concrete example of the use of this particular facility to encourage the private sector to take more risks with the operation of a motorway. with the european commission very recently, we developed a new guarantee mechanism to cover a particular type of risk, the risk of insufficient traffic during the first few years of operation of an item of infrastructure. experience has shown that the first four or five years are often the trickiest. these are the years when income is not necessarily at the level hoped for. this causes problems for private operators, so to encourage the private sector to take on the financing of such infrastructure regardless of this problem, in conjunction with the commission we have developed a new guarantee mechanism. i would add that the european investment bank has taken the initiative of setting up a european expertise centre in public-private partnerships to share our experience in this area with national representatives. mr audy, this is certainly an area in which the eib is eager to continue its action. mr staes asked a question about the anti-fraud policy. we have just published our anti-fraud policy following a consultation procedure that required several rounds of talks. in relation to the specific question he raised, about a debarment system that would prohibit companies guilty of fraud or corruption from continuing to participate in projects we were financing, we announce in this policy that we hope to be able to use the same system that the commission is attempting to set up. if we could not - and we should know this by the end of the year - if, for legal reasons, we could not use the same system, then we would set up our own debarment system. as regards our financing in the energy sector, we have reviewed our policy on financing energy projects in the light of european guidelines on combating climate change. as a result, we have decided to give priority to investments of the type that will reduce co2 emissions, and this already shows up in the figures for 2007, since finance for electricity generation products using fossil fuels accounts for only 25% of our financing in the energy sector. in 2007, the amount committed to renewable energies, for example, far exceeds the amount committed to these more traditional forms of energy generation. finally, as regards the millennium development goals, we are obviously trying, as far as possible, to make sure our projects contribute to their achievement. however, i would draw your attention to the fact that when we intervene outside the european union, we are acting on the basis of specific mandates given to us by the european council. the millennium development goals do not feature as such in the mandates we have received from the european council. that is why it is not possible to make as direct a link as you would have liked. finally, to mr dillen who, if i understood correctly, mentioned a project he said we financed in the democratic republic of congo, i can say that for several years now we have not provided any more finance in the democratic republic of congo. our board of directors has in principle approved finance for a mining project in katanga, but nothing has yet been paid out for this project. the loan agreement has not yet been signed. why is this? it is because the new congolese government quite rightly wanted to renegotiate the licence conditions to ensure more of the revenue went back to the congolese state, and we suspended the signing of the contract until a satisfactory agreement had been reached between the promoter and the congolese government. mr president, those are a few answers i can give to those who spoke, and i would like to thank parliament once again, and particularly the committee on budgetary control for our excellent collaboration. (applause) thank you very much, president maystadt. we are very grateful to you for your presence here this morning, for your report and especially for the work you do for the european union as president of the european investment bank. thank you again and all the best! rapporteur. - (fr) mr president, i would in turn like to thank the commissioner, mr almunia, and the president of the european investment bank, mr maystadt, for these specific answers. i would also like to thank the rapporteurs from the political groups, who supported the writing of this report. i would just like to share a few thoughts on the debate we have just had, firstly on the task of regulation. i believe it is in everyone's interest that banking regulation of this kind should be set up. obviously i do not have the solution. the idea that it is the european central bank that should do it seems to me a good one. for the luxembourg regulatory body to play a stronger independent role, a genuine regulatory role, could also be a short-term solution. nevertheless, i believe parliament will be very interested in the opinion of the committee of european banking supervisors if the bank applies to it as the report suggests. finally, regarding the financing of infrastructure, i would like to say that the european union is clearly at a cross-roads and that financing is not enough now, but that debt should obviously not be used to fund operation, which is sadly what is happening in some member states. debt used skilfully for investment is, however, a key part of economic and social performance in europe, which is competing with all the other economic regions of the world. i believe the time has come for a major development policy for the land, partially supported by investment. there needs to be public investment, because if there is not, we cannot expect there to be private investment. it is a problem of collective confidence in the future of the european union and i am delighted that the european investment bank can offer its expertise thanks to its experience and the quality of its human resources. the debate is closed. the vote will take place today. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - (de) mr president, president maystadt, mr audy, ladies and gentlemen, i would first like to thank the rapporteur most warmly and congratulate him on the good, balanced work he has carried out. i congratulate the eib on its successful activities and ambitious business plan. when it comes to energy and innovation, the eib is helping the eu to implement its policy. without the eib we would not have got the cip off to such a good start. the eib's strategy for 2007-2009 provides for reinforcement of the value added, the gradual increase in risk taking, the use of new financial instruments and the stepping-up of cooperation with the commission. i heartily endorse this strategy. the evaluation of the activity by the eib rapporteur and the suggested next steps are correct. however, we must not forget that the role of parliament is limited. although the eib is one of the community's institutions, its power is exercised internally according to intergovernmental rules, which means that the member states are the most influential shareholders. the european parliament has been commenting on the eib's activity reports regularly since 1999 and this has developed into a close, trusting, successful relationship of cooperation. i would particularly like to praise the cooperation with president maystadt, which is exemplary for relationships with other institutions.

i declare resumed the session of the european parliament adjourned on thursday, 6 november 2003. colleagues, as you will be aware, on saturday 15 november 2003, 15 people died and 28 were injured after the collapse of a gangway on the new cruise ship , in the french shipyard of saint-nazaire. on behalf of the european parliament and in my own name, i express my most profound sympathy and solidarity with the families of the victims of this terrible and tragic accident. it is also my sad duty today to express on behalf of this house our condemnation and grief at the two car bomb attacks on synagogues in istanbul also on saturday, which killed at least 23 innocent civilians and wounded hundreds more. we send our deepest sympathy and sincere condolences to the families of the victims and to the turkish government. we also commend the swift and vigorous action of the turkish government in seeking to apprehend those behind an indiscriminate, senseless and criminal anti-semitic attack, one that struck at the place of traditional peaceful coexistence between different religions. intolerance and anti-semitism in all their manifestations are abhorrent to the values that we represent. i should also like to inform the house that the president would like, at the opening of tomorrow's sitting, to pay a personal tribute to the italians who died in iraq. for the moment, i ask you to observe one minute's silence for the victims of the accident and the attack i have just mentioned.(1) the final draft agenda as drawn up pursuant to rules 110 and 110a of the rules of procedure by the conference of presidents at its meeting of thursday 13 november 2003 has been distributed. the following changes have been proposed: i have received a request from the ppe-de group for a separate debate on its oral question on eurostat to be taken immediately after the commission statement on the legislative and work programme for 2004. mr president, both my group and i appreciate that when we are seeking parliamentary time it is advisable to be brief. that being so, we recognise the conference of presidents' decision last week to refuse to have a separate debate. we would therefore like to propose that this oral question be attached to the overall debate on the legislative and work programme for 2004, because over the weekend we heard that president prodi will be raising the question of olaf during that debate and we have a number of questions we would like to ask in that context, which are included in the substance of this oral question. that is a reasonable way for the house to proceed. it is what happens in normal practice. we will not be asking for a separate debate, but we have questions we wish to raise when mr prodi is with us on tuesday. mr president, i should like to speak against the proposal, but i shall do so in a special way. i want to say to the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats that it is puzzling, their having become interested in this proposal. when we had the opportunity to tidy matters up, it was you who lifted the carpet and swept the dirt under it, so i think you are playing to the gallery in this case. i therefore think we must say no. the members of the ppe-de group are deeply untrustworthy in this matter. (1) mr president, we members of the communist party of greece also observed a minute's silence for the italian soldiers and policemen killed in iraq recently and for the victims of the bombings in istanbul. we deeply regret the deaths of so many young people and we send our condolences to their families. we regret even more that these young people lost their lives serving an occupation - i refer to iraq - as the result of the unprovoked, illegal, barbaric invasion by the american and english imperialists, with thousands of victims and massive destruction. fortunately, the just resistance of the repressed iraqi people is developing against this occupation. the italian government alone, which has hastened to help the invaders by taking part in the occupation, is solely responsible for the unjust and inglorious loss of the italian soldiers and policemen and it must answer to the innocent victims' families. at the same time, we cannot fail to observe that the european parliament has not demonstrated the same sensitivity to the thousands of iraqis who have died as victims of this barbaric invasion or to the victims of the imperialist interventions in yugoslavia and afghanistan or to the victims of sharon's barbarity in palestine. we consider that the only real way of honouring the dead is to immediately withdraw the occupying forces from iraq and to prevent any other military intervention in the internal affairs of states in order to stop further bloodshed and this crime against humanity. mr president, i would like you to ask mr cox, the president of parliament, to raise with the commission the situation regarding mrs radia nasrawi, who has just completed five weeks on hunger strike in protest at the intolerable human rights situation in tunisia. she is one of the leading human rights activists in that country. her life has been made unbearable by the activities of the tunisian authorities, who oppose her human rights work. this situation is one which has been repeated many times over in relation to other human rights activists. i would particularly like the commission to ensure that the european union representative in tunisia makes direct contact with the tunisian authorities in writing, insisting that the human rights of mrs radia nasrawi and others in tunisia be respected. the only european union embassies to have taken a stand on this issue are those of the netherlands and finland. it is quite disgraceful that the european union itself has not made its views known on this matter at this critical juncture for mrs radia nasrawi. mr president, we have all been able to witness the fact that about a week ago, the president of the commission, mr romano prodi, sounded the starting shot for the italian election campaign. mr prodi has issued a political manifesto, in which he has outlined the strategy and necessities that the left needs to embrace in order to secure an election victory in italy. we take the view that the president of the commission must maintain a certain political neutrality, that he must be above party-political wrangling. it is now clear that he no longer does that. the eurostat scandal would have been a good opportunity for mr prodi to take his political responsibility and to step aside. the publication of this political manifesto is going too far. he should shoulder his responsibility: either remain president of the european commission and concentrate fully on that task, or else conduct a political campaign in italy. mr president, drugs are, of course, a big problem in thailand, and it is entirely understandable that the thai government, being also under pressure from the international community and from the united states, should wage war on drug smuggling. this war on drugs, however, also has a flip side. during my visit to dutch prisoners there last week, including machiel kuyt, i saw the abject conditions under which she, along with other europeans, is being held, and how, consequently, the international covenant on civil and political rights, to which thailand has been party since 1997, is being violated. extremely long detentions due to a shortage of judges and overfull prisons illustrate this point. two things need to happen in order for this situation to change. first of all, in the framework of the country strategy paper on thailand dating back to may 2002, the european union should turn its attention to legal aid, so that the seriously overtaxed legal system is relieved and the rights of the suspects are better respected. secondly, the union should urge its member states to conclude bilateral agreements with thailand, which enables the transfer of prisoners. these agreements already exist with a number of countries, such as great britain, sweden and denmark, and certainly also with my own country, the netherlands; other countries should also conclude them, and thailand is very much in favour of them doing so. mr president, over the past few weeks, i have received various complaints from spanish and dutch meat transporters who apparently have been threatened by breton farmers and attacked when delivering their products. supermarkets too are being threatened if they want to buy meat from spain and the netherlands, and the french government is refusing to take action. although it is the insurers that compensate the direct damage, the damage incurred in the long term, because the meat is no longer bought for fear of threats from a few gangs of thuggish breton farmers, is a thorn in my side. it is also in contravention of the internal market and the free movement of goods. i therefore ask you to urge the commission and the french government to put a stop to this as soon as possible, because if it is not, french wine and champagne may well similarly be rejected in other european countries. this would not benefit the internal market and would even spoil our christmas to some extent. - mr president, i would like to return, albeit briefly, to the massacres which have scourged europe, and not just europe, in the past week. i feel it is right that we should express our fierce condemnation of terrorism and specifically of these incidents. i would like to remember, in particular, the 19 italian victims of the massacres in nasiriya. it is important that the president of parliament expresses our sympathy for the victims and our condolences to their families tomorrow, but i feel that it is also appropriate to thank all the armed forces of all the european countries who are currently on peace missions throughout the world. lastly, i hope that parliament will make a firm commitment to implementing increasingly effective measures to combat terrorism, for the message which must be sent out by the european parliament is that none of the european peoples are going to let themselves be intimidated by these cowardly attacks. mr president, secretary of state colin powell and president george bush are both in europe this week: colin powell to meet with eu foreign ministers and president bush on a state visit to britain. i hope that the foreign ministers and prime minister blair will impress on their guests the need for transatlantic understanding to flow both ways. europeans are rightly alarmed at the unilateralist policies of the us administration, its readiness to contemplate pre-emptive strikes and its refusal to internationalise the occupation of iraq. europeans are deeply unhappy at the prospect of military commissions imposing the death penalty or unlimited detention for the guantanamo bay detainees, and at the way the us is trying to sabotage the international criminal court. these are some of the reasons for the demonstrations against president bush. they must be peaceful protests, and as such i personally intend to join them. i have just returned from washington as an ad hoc member of the us delegation. our hosts were gracious and hospitable, we had useful discussions and we have a huge amount in common. however, as well as us understanding their position, the americans need to understand our objections, and our foreign ministers and prime minister must convey these objections this week. mr president, you have already quite properly expressed the sympathy of this house to the turkish government and to the families of those killed and injured in the callous and indiscriminate terrorist attacks that took place in istanbul on saturday. these attacks on innocent civilians remind us all of the grave security threat that terrorism poses. we should remember that the neve shalom synagogue was the subject of a horrific attack 17 years ago. the democracies must work closely together to combat terrorism in whatever form it takes and whatever excuses are used by the perpetrators. we must not allow any difference in other areas of policy to undermine our unambiguous solidarity. with reference to the previous speaker's remarks, we should remember that the united states is carrying enormous burdens on behalf of all of us and we should stand shoulder to shoulder with the united states in these difficult times. mr president, i hope i will be forgiven for moving from matters of life and death to more commercial matters. this house, in its role as legislator, is deeply concerned about intellectual property and the need to protect holders' rights in the interests of consumers and of fair play. it is all the more alarming if the holders of the rights themselves abuse the rights to the disadvantage of consumers. i regret to say that this is what is being done now in scotland by diageo, the multinational spirit drinks producer, which produces cardhu whisky. the supply of cardhu single malt has run low. however, now diageo is producing something called cardhu pure malt whisky. not all members of this house may be aware of it, but there is a very big difference between pure malt whisky - which is a blend of various malts - and single malt, which comes from a single malt distillery. it is vital to the health of this scottish and european industry that consumer trust is maintained and that sharp practice by producers is eliminated as quickly as possible. this industry has often sought and obtained the support of the european authorities. we should insist that they themselves play the game. mr president, please write to the chief executive and get diageo to stop this! mr president, since the thessaloniki summit, five months ago, several young europeans have been detained in greek jails. specifically, there are two twenty-year-old spaniards, carlos martn martnez and fernando prez borraiz, who are facing extraordinary accusations. these are young people who were there taking part in a demonstration under the slogan, 'another world is possible'. i believe we must concern ourselves with their plight. they have begun a hunger strike and they are facing possible death. i would ask the presidency to call on both the greek government and the other institutions to adopt measures in relation to this problem. i should like to point out that i shall not reply to each contribution individually. they will all be passed on to the president of parliament. mr president, on 8 november 2003 i was in the hague participating in a demonstration in favour of the release of slobodan milosevic. i am not going to speak about mr milosevic now, since i have done so on a number of occasions in the past. i should like instead to refer to the fact that the demonstrators in the hague, most of them serb immigrants, were not allowed to write slogans in their own language. speaking to the police i found out that there is a general rule against slogans written in languages that the police do not understand. this is apparently so that the police can control their content. it is obvious that the netherlands, so tolerant on many things as we all know, will not tolerate uncensored political expression. another incident occurred last saturday at the airport in paris when i was going through a security check on my way to athens. the staff insisted that i take off my jacket, although i had removed from it all metal objects and had gone through the metal detector. upon my refusal, the police were called and the next minute mr 466294 and mr 485684 - they would not give me their names - appeared and tried to convince me that this was the rule and nobody was supposed to contest it. behind this unacceptable behaviour i see a clear effort to terrorise people by having them obey stupid orders. i also see the presumption of guilt of terrorism for any person going through a security check. moreover, if a member of the european parliament can be subjected to such embarrassing and humiliating treatment, i wonder what would happen to others, in particular those whose complexion is a bit darker than average. these two incidents show signs of a police state being gradually built up in the european union, in line with the wish of the ruling class to exercise full control upon their subjects. i look forward to your reactions, mr president. mr president, many members will be aware that there are several hundred eritrean demonstrators outside our building this evening. they are here because of their concern that the algiers agreement - which was a settlement of the boundaries between ethiopia and eritrea - has not been agreed by ethiopia. on behalf of mr cox, the president of parliament, i have received a petition signed by 22 000 eritreans living in the european union and in norway. both countries are to be urged to accept the provisions of the algiers agreement, which was based upon the decision of the boundary commission. ethiopia is reluctant to agree to that decision at this time. mr president, would you please ensure that a letter is written to the ethiopian government to urge it to respect that decision, in order to restore peace between the two countries after what has been a bloody and terrible war. mr president, i wish to bring to the house's attention the situation concerning a local councillor in lancaster in the uk, who made public a decision made in secret by the cabinet of the city council to suspend the local taxation owed to it by the local nuclear power station owned by british energy. the commission has indicated that this taxation relief could amount to the unlawful granting of state aid. in response to the publication of this information, this particular councillor, councillor dowding, has now been suspended for three months as a penalty for making public allegedly confidential information. depriving the electorate of their only representation on the local council, and making an example of somebody who has brought to the public's attention an act which is not in the best interests either of that council or the european union, is hardly an incentive to others to raise such issues. as the house is committed to transparency and financial probity, i am sure it will join with me in regretting the action of the standards committee. - mr president, i should like to return to what our fellow member said regarding mr prodi's untimely remarks of a few days ago. i should like, through you, to ask our president, mr cox, what action he intends to take to remind the president of the commission that positioning himself as leader of the italian left at a time when his own country holds the presidency of the european union, and at a time when italy is engaged in a bloody ordeal in iraq, is inelegant to say the least. taking such a stance is in any case contrary to the spirit of the rules governing the european institution in question and contrary to the most basic of political ethics. i would request, mr president, that you pass on this comment to mr cox. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, approximately two years ago, information was circulating to the effect that roma women were being sterilised against their will in eastern europe, especially in slovakia. on 17 october 2003, mr alvaro gil-robles, the council of europe's commissioner for human rights, published a recommendation on 'certain aspects of law and practice relating to sterilisation of women in the slovak republic'. the recommendation states that there has been no organised policy in this area. it has, however, happened that women have been sterilised against their will. in march 2002, i put a question about this to the commission, which promised to follow up the matter and enquire of slovakia whether proof had been found of such compulsory sterilisation really having taken place. mr alvaro gil-robles, the council of europe's commissioner for human rights, has now published this evidence, and i would ask the commissioner to fulfil its promise. we cannot have an eu in which what is most fundamental is not respected: a person's right to his or her own life. i hope that everyone else who, later in the debate, discusses issues of life and death will also consider this aspect. we cannot accept such things in a european union. mr president, the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats proposed that the question of serious democratic violations during the recent elections in albania be included in this week's topical and urgent debate. the purpose of this proposal was to send a suitable message to the albanian authorities and prevent any further attempt to undermine the democratic morale of the citizens and candidates of this country. unfortunately, this proposal was rejected by all the political groups and, again unfortunately, it was borne out by the sad events during yesterday's repeat elections in albania, which saw very serious cases of intimidation, bombing attempts and so on, against citizens and candidates. i trust that the european union will draw the necessary conclusions from this unacceptable situation, which reveals attitudes and conducts which are absolutely foreign to the european perception of democratic values and process. mr president, i should like to join with you in condemning these atrocious attacks on the jewish synagogues in istanbul. as we all know, turkey is a country that is proud of the fact that, when the jews were being persecuted by the terrible pogroms in europe in the middle ages, it gave them refuge. it is right to be proud of this part of its history. when these terrible attacks took place, the turkish president happened to be out of the country on an official visit to support an illegal regime which turkey and the turkish armed forces have created and are obstinately maintaining in northern cyprus, contrary to the directives of the international community. this coincidence alone speaks volumes and i hope that it will enlighten mr erdogan and that he will take turkey, as i am sure he wants to, off the road of illegality and tyranny which only harbours tragedy for turkey itself and the rest of the world. mr president, i would like to revert to a subject raised during the previous session in connection with the fact that the pakistani authorities are still holding the greek seamen from the hostage. the accident happened in july 2003, 4-5 months ago, while the was being piloted by a pakistani pilot in the port of karachi. the procedure to restore the environment and pump out what oil could be pumped out then commenced. on 17 august, once the shipwreck had already been cut in two, a team from greece headed by the shipbuilder, mr pappas, went to pakistan in order to clean up the area. as we speak, both the ship's crew and those who went to clean up the area are being held hostage by pakistan without charges and, apart from the fact that they have not released them, this is preventing the companies which have undertaken the clean-up operation from going there, because they are frightened that perhaps they too will end up as hostages. in all events, the ship was insured. the pakistani government may have differences with the insurance company. however, under no circumstances can the seamen, especially those who arrived well after the event in order to help clean up the environment, be held as hostages as a negotiating element between the pakistani authorities and the insurance company. i therefore call on parliament to do what it can to help free these hostages. mr president, i represent the south-east region of england and am the only member to live in the county of hampshire, very close to the port of southampton, the home port of the new , which will be the greatest liner in the world. this liner, built in france, will sail from england, showing there is some life left in the . i know that the people of southampton, and the port workers of that city, would wish to associate themselves with the condolences expressed to the families of the people killed and to those injured in the awful accident at saint-nazaire. mr president, the speech by the greek communist member who condemned the usa as an imperialist occupier of iraq is a little rich from a party which in its day supported the ussr's invasion and crushing of the hungarian uprising in 1956, the czechoslovak 'prague spring' in 1968 and the afghan invasion in 1979. the ussr would never have left these countries if it had not been forced to do so by the economic collapse of the communist system. unlike baroness ludford, i welcome tomorrow's state visit by president bush to the united kingdom, and his commitment to hand over power to a democratically elected iraqi government by the end of next year. i salute the courage of all the brave coalition forces in iraq who are fighting for law and order and freedom and justice in that country, and against international islamic terrorism. mr president, i shall not comment on what the previous speaker said; i shall merely say that it is inconceivable to me that such reasoning should be heard in this house. i should like to ask you to allow me to inform the house about a number of serious infringements which i noticed during my recent visit to estonia and lithuania. in estonia, as in latvia, although half the population is russian or russian-speaking, the russian language is not recognised as an official language. public-sector services, courts and laws are all in a language of which they have an inadequate command. in addition, they are denied the nationality of the country in which they and their fathers were born. they are made to sit humiliating and highly specialised examinations in language, the constitution and history, which very few are able to pass. the universities and schools are closed to russian. in all three baltic states, the communist parties are banned and their cadres persecuted. in lithuania, the leaders of the communist party of lithuania, mikolas burakevicius and koulalis, have been in prison for ten years on prefabricated charges under a law passed long after they were arrested. this and much more goes on in the baltic and in other former socialist accession countries, despite assurances to the contrary by mr verheugen, who has repeatedly expressed his support for these flagrant violations. i should like to draw your attention to a letter containing specific facts . mr president, i was extremely shocked at the fact that the behaviour of the police in the hague was likened to that in a police state, only because they insisted on the placards that were being carried during a demonstration being intelligible to the public for whom the demonstration was intended. this is extremely odd. it is, in the first place, all very well for people to travel to the hague especially to demonstrate in favour of a totalitarian dictator, but then, on top of that, they refuse to write the placards in a language that is intelligible to dutch people. what is the reason for that? it is very obvious. if they are written in a non-intelligible language, they may contain all kinds of racist messages. if they are accepted after all, then the next thing is, the newspapers carry photographs that give the impression that the dutch police is standing by while these awful things are being written. it is therefore entirely logical that a request is made beforehand to draft the messages in an intelligible language so that the dutch police can ensure that the placards themselves do not infringe the law. if that is seen to be a police state, then that is taking matters very far indeed and is clearly indicative of what those who are behind milosevic think a police state is like. mr president, on the subject of commercial arrangements between ryanair and the airport of charleroi in belgium, may i remind the european commission that it tolerated airline monopolies and exorbitant prices for air travel in europe for years. ryanair has helped to reverse air price arrangements in europe; it has secured favourable deals from private airports. surely in this era of competition we should permit public airports to compete with private airports for the generation of air travel business, because at the end of the day it will mean cheaper air prices for consumers. this in turn will send out a positive message from the european union that it is actually supporting measures which promote air travel at a competitive price and help the consumers of europe. before ryanair started to fly to charleroi airport it was a deserted field and now ryanair flies 2 million people in and out, to the satisfaction of consumers using this invaluable air link. the next item is the commission statement on the european year of people with disabilities (2003). . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me this opportunity to report to you on what has been achieved during the european year of people with disabilities and how it is to be followed up, given that it is only six weeks until the end of the year. we must bear in mind that policies relating to people with disabilities are national policies. what we were trying to do in 2003 was to find all the methods, tools and gateways which we can use to give european added value to national policies. so far, the year has achieved significant results to do with raising awareness about the rights of people with disabilities. we have had thousands of events in all the member states at national, regional and local level, debates in parliament, fora and exchanges of best practices between the member states, while of course the non-governmental organisations and the disabled people's movement have also made a real contribution to an explosion of events and to passing on the message about the rights of people with disabilities. the european parliament supported the year without reservation right from the start. on 3 november 2003, the first reading about lifelong learning facilities was organised with young people with disabilities and a few days ago, on 10 and 11 november, the european parliament of people with disabilities sat and passed a resolution on the subject. of course, we should emphasise that the year marks the start of a european procedure and that all the efforts and planning do not come to an end at the end of the year. it is especially important that we use the momentum created and we must say that today, in every country, initiatives and innovative action are being taken, which was not the case in the past, and we also have important, exceptionally advanced legislation in certain countries. on 30 october, the commission issued a communication about the follow-up needed to this year. there are three basic objectives: the first is to achieve the adoption and full application of the directive on equal treatment of the disabled in employment and at work. the second is the successful incorporation of issues relating to people with disabilities in all policies. this relates to our agreement on mainstreaming, so that this policy is not just a matter for the ministries of social affairs or the ministries of health or the ministries of employment, but is a horizontal policy which concerns all the ministries in each country and all portfolios at the commission. the third is improving access for all people with disabilities. as far as the first issue of the application of the directive is concerned, ladies and gentlemen, i would remind you that, in the year 2000, an anti-discrimination directive was adopted in record time, which was unprecedented in the european union, but of course we have to say that its promotion by the member states did not proceed at the rate we expected. today, a large number of countries have still not adopted the draft directive on equal treatment for people subject to discrimination. the deadline expires at the end of december and, basically, only two countries have adopted the directive. however, we have to go beyond adoption to implementation, where important changes will be needed to the rules which apply today in certain member states. this will have an impact on employers, in both the public and private sectors, and on the working practices applied to people with disabilities, because the directive, which concerns reasonable adaptations, will have to be applied to the letter. in other words, the workplace will have to be adapted to the needs of people with disabilities. the commission will perform its duty in full as guardian of the treaty, as regards the adoption of the directive at the correct moment in time, its proper transposition - not in the wrong way and not without there being specific references to the european text - and of course its implementation. the communication, as i said earlier, also focussed on the issue of horizontal policies relating to people with disabilities, in other words incorporation into all individual policies. we already have examples at european level, with an important step in the field of transport and in the field of electronic communications, for which commissioners de palacio and liikanen are responsible. the incorporation of these issues into all the relevant policies must focus mainly on access issues, access to goods, services and buildings, and must be linked to the principle of 'design for all' expressed in the commission communication which immediately preceded this communication. the communication introduces a multiannual, rolling action plan. the first priority is employment, which is also the most important factor for the social integration of people with disabilities. i would say that our philosophy is essentially encapsulated in the slogan that people with disabilities must have the right to work and not to benefits. consequently, the first stage in the application of the action plan, which is to be developed between 2004 and 2005, will concentrate on putting the necessary conditions in place for promoting the employment of people with disabilities. today we calculate that there are 3 million people with disabilities in europe who could be integrated into the labour market. there is an even bigger number who, with special policies, with investment in these people and with skills which matched their capabilities, could be integrated into the labour market. our policy for the workplace will focus on four priorities: access to and staying in employment, lifelong learning, new technologies - which we consider to be one of the most crucial elements - because, with innovation and research, a series of new tools really can give people with all sorts of disabilities the power to deal with their disabilities. at the same time, however, these tools must be cheap and accessible to everyone. today, the european market is extremely difficult for these people. every country has its own specifications to a large degree, each social system is linked to its own undertakings. this results in the same tools being cheap in one country and expensive in another. hence, this field of new technologies and access for people with disabilities to the technologies in question at european level is one of the challenges and, finally, the fourth priority is access to public buildings. as one way of supporting the successful incorporation of these issues in policies, the commission is proposing the publication of a biennial report on developments in each member state, focussing each time on planning and new choices of priorities. we think that this report, the first of which will be published in 2005, will be an important tool for exerting pressure on the member states, who will have to announce developments at institutional level and at implementation level, which we shall publish every two years. finally, the commission is proposing to further strengthen the contribution of all the interested parties and of the basic protagonists in the policy-making dialogue, so that we have major and permanent changes in the economy and society as a whole. i should like to express my satisfaction about the facility being given to carry out a study, as called for by parliament, on the situation of people with disabilities living in institutions, who make up another large category of our fellow citizens, with special problems of another sort. of course, this type of problem has a very large dimension in the candidate countries. mr president, the expectations of the year were great. i believe that we have significant results, especially if we think - as i stressed in my introduction - that these policies are, to a large extent, almost purely national policies. i believe, however, that with all this activation during the year in 2003, the issue of people with disabilities became a top priority on the political agenda both of the member states and of the european union itself. most importantly, however, it brought the policy of the disabled people's movement itself to the forefront, by putting into practice the slogan 'nothing about us without us', meaning they must be involved at all planning and decision-making levels. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are now approaching the end of the european year of people with disabilities, which is to be concluded in rome on 5 december 2003 under the italian presidency, and it was the president-in-office of the european union himself, who, in his speech at the start of his six-month term of office, made what i consider to be a powerful, historic gesture where social policies relating to people with disabilities are concerned. he explicitly stated that the union presidency would take steps to lay the foundations for legislative measures to combat discrimination, producing, in practice, a directive protecting the independence and equal rights of millions of people with disabilities in all aspects of daily life in the new europe, giving them genuine hope for the future. however, to date, the commission has neither provided a timetable for a future horizontal directive on the rights of people with disabilities, covering not just work but all aspects of life too, nor even given specific undertakings to integrate the rights of people with disabilities into policy, as confirmed in the recent communication, which would seem, rather, to be no more than the announcement of good intentions. indeed, it is not clear how the objective of boosting equal opportunities is to be achieved if such opportunities are only available in certain aspects of life such as work. here are some examples: with the directive on employment, the commission's aim is to achieve full employment of people with disabilities, which would be a step towards eliminating discrimination. this is all well and good, but how is a person to penetrate the labour market nowadays and work towards getting a worthwhile, high-quality job if people with disabilities are not provided with adequate teaching, education and training, for instance? integration starts early on, as you can see; indeed, it has to start at school. people with disabilities are not divided into sectors or compartments of inactivity, they are girls and boys, men and women who are entitled to full integration, not integration in some areas: thousands of children with disabilities in europe still live in institutes rather than with their families, for example. the coordination method could come to our aid here too, but there is too little mention of it in the communication. lastly, i would say that the european year is certainly closing with quite a positive result as regards the goals set of raising awareness of disability issues. i feel that what was lacking was a specific, effective measure from the commission, which did not act diligently on the strong, firm pressure from parliament or the calls from the council presidency. i will end by calling on president prodi, if mrs diamantopoulou will relay the message, to be, perhaps, a little more active and more diligent, even though the commission is at the end of its term of office, as regards an issue, the issue of disability, which is of such great importance in human, social and cultural terms. - mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that 2003 is drawing to a close and with it the european year of people with disabilities. it is the perfect time to take stock of the situation, but also to reflect on the future of community policy in this field. the achievements of this year should be welcomed, commissioner; it has been a unique opportunity, as you hoped it would be, to promote the rights of people with disabilities and to take into account their legitimate claim to play a full part in social, economic and political life. the momentum created by this year, with thousands of varied events on offer at national, regional and local level, is considerable, and we are grateful to you. today, however, we need to capitalise on this momentum and use this experience as a launching pad for new measures, both at the level of the member states and at community level. the communication that you are tabling does, i believe, properly reflect what is at stake here. i welcome this, but think that it also needs to be said, as one of my fellow members already has done, that, given the reticence of member states, greater affirmation of political will is still needed in this field. the lack of enthusiasm shown by member states to transpose the directive on equal treatment in employment, for example, should be widely denounced, and compels us to do even more. the group of the party of european socialists has a clear position in this regard, and my colleagues and i are convinced that difficulties related to disability should be addressed across the board in an integrated way, taking as our model existing legislation on equal opportunities between men and women. we were very keen to improve a number of legislative texts. you mentioned transport. i should like to say that where corporate social responsibility is concerned, companies' policies on disability should be one of the criteria for assessing that responsibility and the quality of their contribution to society. at the same time, the european parliament of disabled people, which met last week, regretted the fact that a specific european directive on disability would not be concluded during this important year. admittedly, the gamble taken on the employment issue is absolutely fundamental - no one can dispute that - but we want to believe, commissioner, that this is just one step towards implementing community legislation that needs to be even more ambitious. where disability is concerned, perhaps more than in other areas, i think it is appropriate to finish by sharing with you a personal conviction. these community legislative measures are essential, and we recognise this, given the impetus that they should unleash, but we also know that it is at national, regional and local level that a whole series of coordinated policies need to be brought on stream, policies that must be accommodated within civil society by industry, the social partners and - let us not forget, where school-related issues are concerned - teachers. in conclusion, allow me to say, commissioner, mr president, that where rights are concerned and where the dignity of those who today live with a disability is concerned, we cannot afford to rely solely on member states' goodwill. we need to come up with greater incentives, as i hope you are doing in the communication. we are counting on your multiannual report, commissioner, precisely to exert pressure on those member states that are not moving in quite the direction that we are recommending. mr president, i am pleased that the commission has produced the action plan on lifelong learning, new technologies, access to the built environment and so on, but we need to go much further. as rapporteur for the european year of people with disabilities, all of us set out with very high hopes for this year. we wanted to see positive outcomes and indeed that is what i wrote in my report. we need to mainstream disabled peoples' rights, get away from the medical model of disability once and for all and move to the social or rights-based model of disability. we also need to highlight the achievements of disabled people. some of those things have been done, but i did not want this just to be a pat on the back for the member states for having held conferences in major cities, or for them to say simply 'how wonderful we are to have had a european year of people with disabilities'. we must make sure that disabled people really are at the top of the political agenda and that means that the employment directive must be fully implemented. i would like to know which countries have not implemented the employment directive, which countries have not put into place anything to start to implement that directive and what sanctions the commission is going to take against those countries to make sure they implement it. furthermore, we need, as mr mantovani and mrs gillig said, a specific disability directive. if we do not get that specific directive, i, along with a lot of disabled peoples' organisations, feel that the european year of people with disabilities will have been a failure. i am sorry to have to say that because we have made some progress, but without the commitment to a disability directive we have not gone far enough. mr president, it is true that some important initiatives for debate have been launched during the european year of people with disabilities, such as the congress on autism, held this weekend in lisbon, and the european parliament of disabled people, which took place in brussels last week. everyone had hoped for much more, however, at both community and national level, particularly in my country - portugal - which suffers from serious social problems, the highest rate of poverty in the european union, many forms of discrimination and has seen cuts in fundamental public investment in areas such as education and health. these factors have hit people with disabilities particularly hard, in the name of complying with the irrational criteria of the stability pact. regrettably, we are reaching the end of this european year without having made any progress on a disability policy and without issues relating to discrimination and the human rights of these individuals being made the top priority of the various community policies. until this is done, there can be no real social inclusion. i must point out that the report i drafted on the scoreboard on implementing the social policy agenda, which parliament adopted in september, focused on the need to present a proposal during this year of people with disabilities for a directive based on article 13 of the treaty to combat discrimination on grounds of disability. regrettably, this did not happen. in the documents adopted by the european parliament of disabled people last week, priority was also given to the call for this new directive to prevent the raising of further obstacles and to stipulate that the existing obstacles faced by people with disabilities must be eliminated throughout the european union. this should really happen in the near future. the directive on equal treatment in the field of employment and occupation should also be transposed, establishing a broad definition of disability and laying down strict and effective penalties to be applied if the law is broken. we hope that this year will spark effective policies in this field of supporting people with disabilities and bring recognition of their rights. - mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the european year of people with disabilities is approaching its end and it is time to examine the results. what do we see? can a year really make any difference? have we been able to achieve anything concrete that could help us to have an impact on the day-to-day existence and quality of life of disabled people? i would hope after this year some permanent changes will remain in the way at least some disabled people cope in their everyday life. a good example would be the use of assistance dogs throughout the union, which, along with technical tools and information technology, mean greater scope socially, educationally, and professionally for people with visual, aural and motion disabilities. i will take this opportunity to thank commissioner diamantopoulou for her genuine interest and encouragement regarding this issue, which i hope will continue to make progress and extend throughout the new member states too, possibly with the aid of eu funding. there is nevertheless the question of how to incorporate accessibility, non-discrimination, and full citizens' rights for people with disabilities in major policy lines at all levels. right now too we are introducing more major areas of policy for the future. i am involved in adapting a proposal for a directive on public procurement and we are now trying to settle two important issues for people with disabilities and the enforcement of their citizens' rights. to what extent can we take the special needs of disabled people into account in planning the built environment and its other physical aspects and developing transport and other services? another essential question that remains unanswered is the criteria for production methods. in my opinion, it is also mainly a matter of democracy. these two directives involve taking important decisions on just how great the power of decision of the local authorities should be. furthermore, there is an implied danger under the new draft constitution that healthcare and other social services would be opened up to competition. how then would the special needs of people with disabilities be affected? mr president, last week, we had an excellent parliament for the disabled. i would, in fact, like all of us, as much as possible, to try to act on the recommendations that this parliament made. despite the fact that a large proportion of the policy for the disabled - particularly its medical component - is national policy, it is, however, the case that employment policy, social exclusion policy and internal market policy are of key importance to people with disabilities. i therefore hope that the commission will give this due consideration. the main reason why we are here today is, of course, as various speakers have already mentioned, this specific directive. i believe that we should really go ahead and adopt it. mr president, there is something i fail to understand. the commission has, after all, always referred to the fact that this directive would be too controversial at this point in time, but, commissioner, you yourself adopted a draft directive two weeks ago that is much more controversial than what we have here. by so doing, you have, in effect, totally undermined your own argument. if you are prepared to table very controversial directives in another field, then i applaud this, for i am always pleased when the commission is brave. however, you should at least commission the studies so that it is possible to submit this proposal as soon as possible. that is, after all, what we have asked for. finally, as you indeed already indicated, we will need to give a great deal of attention to the new member states. i think that it will be some time yet before we know precisely how policy is conducted over there. i found out this week that certain categories of people with disabilities in some countries are not even entitled to identity cards. a great deal still needs to be done there, but this also applies to the current european union, because people with disabilities are still too much the invisible citizens whom we forget all too easily. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we must, no doubt, all concede that we were somewhat surprised by how very successful this year was. i am myself always sceptical when 'european years' devoted to social policy objectives are declared, and, at the end of them one cannot actually point to anything having been achieved. such was not the case with this one. this may be because this 'year' was something special, above all in that it promised much, and because the idea for it was put to politicians by non-governmental organisations and associations of handicapped persons. there were discussions of a wide variety of topics, in which disabled people themselves discussed national and european approaches. rather than having discussions about disabled people, we discussed things with them. in my own country, too, a debate has got under way, which has as its objective, not only legislative measures but also, of course, the raising of public awareness. we want unrestricted participation, no longer to be cared for outside society in the way we once were. we want full equality rather than the former demeaning sympathy, and, instead of being patronised by well-meaning people, we want the right to autonomy. for that, of course, we need legislative measures. i might add that we in this house agreed that this year should not remain a one-off, a concern that the commission's new action plan takes up. i think the commission is still being a bit too hesitant as regards the timescale, as we should make use of the present commitment, which is evident everywhere, rather than putting things off for another two or three years. i am also glad that the committee on employment and social affairs has managed to get a line inserted into the budget, not merely for a survey, but for following up all the things that have gone well in this european year. i would like to close with a very fine slogan that you, commissioner, mentioned at a recent event, when you said that we should use 'getting on board' as a slogan. i would like to end with a slogan for the future, when disabled people will not just be 'getting on board' but also 'staying on board'. mr president, the european union's permanent preoccupation, at the level of communications alone of course, with people with disabilities, forms part of the effort to conceal the tragic reality, which is that there is 90% unemployment in the european union - and not 70% as the leaders assert, with a dramatic increase in unemployed people with disabilities, in conjunction with a dramatic reduction in disabled children attending special schools or parallel departments in recent years. in greece, only 7% of disabled children attend special schools, which are financed by the insured, not the state. for autistic children over 14 years old, there is not one rehabilitation centre, while few children with mental health problems attend some sort of school. of the 2 000 rehabilitation centres which should exist in greece, there are only 200 sub-standard centres in athens. the problem of people with disabilities is deeply class-based. equal opportunities for people with disabilities mean a free national health and welfare service, special education, assistance and dignified work for everyone. it means a different policy, which the european union, by its very nature, is unable to practice. that is why it takes refuge in 'lying on a massive scale', as we say in greece. mr president, commissioner, i have to conclude once again, as i have also told you at the end of the european disability forum, that literally across the entire political spectrum, another directive is being requested, a broad directive which goes further than the directive that has not yet been applied in the member states and that only pertained to work and vocational training. there is no argument that could justify why this directive has been neither transposed nor implemented. the ultimate deadline is early december, and as far as i am concerned, you can initiate proceedings against member states that have not done anything by then, and, with the help of parliament, put pressure on those member states. following this, however, a broad directive must be adopted immediately, not only in the form of studies. studies are a start; something must certainly be done about that too. however, we would like your word in the mean time that this directive will actually be adopted. this was also a request that was made by the european disability forum. they have, in fact, got the directive all ready on paper, and we would ask for progress to be made in that area in the meantime. mr president, i should not wish the european year of people with disabilities and the parliament we had last week to be seen as the end, but rather the beginning, of something. demands have been made in a number of areas. now, it is a question of implementing them. the commissioner said that mainstreaming should apply to disability issues. i share that view. disability policy is not a policy area. disability issues are part and parcel of all policy areas. in those areas in which the eu has competence, disability issues are therefore also an area of responsibility for the eu. for example, one area of competence for the eu is people's freedom of movement. that applies to everyone, including people with disabilities. transport is also one of the eu's areas of competence, and transport for all, including people with disabilities, also falls therefore within the eu's competence. it is regrettable that the member states have not implemented the directive concerning the equal treatment of people with disabilities in the workplace. that must not be used as an excuse for not producing directives in other policy areas. what signal would that give to those member states which do not want to do anything? they would, of course, imagine that, if they did not do anything, no further measures would be put in place. we know that directives are needed that cover all the relevant policy areas, and that is what we demand. i shall conclude by mentioning two other important areas to which attention should be given over the next few years. the first is the new member states. even though we face challenges in the present member states, the challenges are still greater in the new member states. the second is the debate about the future. we must push our demand for majority decision-making when it comes to anti-discrimination. the country that is least ambitious where discrimination is concerned must not be allowed to determine the agenda. that is why majority decision-making is needed in this area. mr president, commissioner, opportunity has been taken of the european year of people with disabilities to express numerous proposals and to formulate interesting ideas. generally speaking, we have a wealth of material before us which, however, needs to be mastered if we want to have an integrated policy on people with disabilities. this is the most difficult point of the entire strategy. if we want to be efficient, we need to focus our policy on three objectives. first, we need to persuade the constitution writers that it is high time we moved on to a new generation of rights which are recognised in the countries' constitutions as an integral part of fundamental rights, because only if people with disabilities are recognised as having special rights will they too be able to enjoy the fundamental rights which are generally recognised for all citizens. secondly, we need to persuade finance ministers to recognise that expenditure on people with disabilities should be seen not as consumer spending, but as an investment in human potential and, consequently, as productive expenditure. this will pave the way for taking the measures needed to stop the exclusion of these people. finally, but equally importantly, we need to introduce a strategy to convince the rest of the population that the problems of people with disabilities relate not to a specific category, but to society as a whole, if we want to have a society with cohesion and superior living standards. in other words, the indifference or even, on numerous occasions, the negative attitude of our fellow citizens towards the special characteristics of these people needs to be overcome. only if the problem of people with disabilities becomes a common problem will it have an auspicious outcome. in particular, as far as the employment sector is concerned, we need to persuade businessmen that they stand to gain a great deal from becoming involved in measures to support these people and make use of their potential in undertakings because, as experience to date has shown, these people are the most loyal of employees. to close, i should like to congratulate you on the initiative which you have taken and on the programme which you have announced; however, both i and my fellow members would say that, if it is to be successful, it needs to be integrated straight away and to include legislative measures. mr president, in this year we should highlight the problems but also celebrate the achievements of people living with disability, not just people of genius - the beethovens, miltons, van goughs and stephen hawkings - but those who are unknown. for example, the boy from the north of england who had learning difficulties and was written off by the education service, but was then found to have musical ability. whereas had he had a job in industry he could not have read the safety signs, he went on to play in the orchestra at covent garden. then there is the dancer who trained at the ballet rambert school. she was profoundly deaf, but learnt to dance through the rhythm of her feet and went on to dance with the portuguese national ballet. i knew a tiny, frail, 23-year-old girl who had been confined to a wheelchair all her life and had undergone 26 lifesaving operations. she was a trainee at the share community. she decided to do a sponsored wheelchair push, self-propelling the wheels with her tiny hands. as she herself said, it was the first time in her life she had the opportunity to help other disabled people. people can and do achieve, despite severe physical and mental disabilities. for a few that means successful careers in business, politics, the arts or professions. for most it means more local, private, domestic achievements: coping with living and contributing to the lives of those around them. we have a duty to help not in an intrusive or invasive way, but by removing legal, physical and psychological barriers. they bring the courage. they deserve from us the opportunity and the dignity. in government i was able to bring in a system of direct payments so that a person was not provided for by social service departments if he or she preferred to have the cash equivalent to purchase the services from the supplier of their choice. if you buy your own services, meals, transport and so on, then you are in charge, you have a form of dignity and independence which too often is lacking in the relationship between state services and citizens. that is the route we should be seeking from this year on. mr president, i was not surprised that the european year of people with disabilities was a success. anyone who has consulted and spoken with ngos, activists and community groups on the ground, as i have in my constituency, will know that the people who represent our 37 million fellow europeans are very clear in what they demand from us. at the weekend, i was told by one group in my constituency that they are happy that the european year will have some follow-up, but they want clarity about what that will be. as mr bouwman said, they were promised an employment directive that would be implemented by member states, and yet they see the member states still dragging their feet. that is not to say that the commission and colleagues have not pushed those member states to implement the employment directive in its disability provisions, but it is not being implemented. they are therefore concerned that implementation will be lacking in other spheres. they want to see action after 2003, not merely more words. mr president, commissioner, the equal value of all people is fundamental to the european union. that, at least, is the message in speeches made on solemn occasions. actual practice leaves a lot to be desired, however. the european year of people with disabilities is coming to an end. in the course of the year, the searchlight has been directed to a more than usual degree upon the situation of people with disabilities, and it has revealed a lot of shortcomings. it is excellent that these deficiencies are being brought to light, but something also needs to be done about them. the equal value of every person must, then, also be the criterion for what needs to be done. people with disabilities are still discriminated against. it is not a matter of isolated cases. instead, discrimination is the rule, rather than the exception. what is at issue is being able to cope successfully in everyday life, faced with a lack of jobs and problems using shops, post offices and banks, buses, trains and 'planes. it is about being able to use public services and to read newspapers, watch television and listen to the radio. the fact is, there is a host of difficulties for people with disabilities, making clear the need there now is for a new, all-embracing directive concerning the rights of people with disabilities. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as has already been said, we are in the final stages of the european year of people with disabilities and i wish to add my voice to those of my fellow members who have spoken in favour of a cross-cutting european directive to address this problem. i would like, however, to say that this european year has already been an enormous success, because never has there been so much discussion about this issue in so many different places and never have we been so aware of everything that we need to do, at all levels of responsibility, wherever we happen to be in the european union. the year has, therefore, been a great success. this is a first step towards the future, as has been said, and i therefore wish to conclude this debate on a note of much-needed optimism. . mr president, i should like to thank the members of parliament for their commitment and for the passion with which they themselves, all this time, have supported efforts which really do function as a steam engine to promote the issues of people with disabilities. allow me too, however, to express my disappointment at some sort of criticism which was voiced. i imagine that, not only the members of the european parliament, but also the commissioners sometimes have the right to express such disappointment. i shall explain what i mean at once. i have repeatedly supported the need for there to be a horizontal directive. and i have explained the reasons. i shall certainly come back to why this could not be proposed at this specific moment in time. however, i want us to focus on what has happened, on all the policies developed, all the fights fought, because i want to assure you, mr pronk, that i at least believe that i have shown considerable courage - as much as my position allows - in order to put forward the directives proposed. they were not easy, i can assure you. when i submitted them to the commission, there were public administrators who bet their positions that they would never get through the commission. they passed the required majority of 12 votes. when they went to the council, there were public statements that there was not one chance in a hundred that these directives would get through. yet the directives got through in record time. the directives in question - and to be more specific the workplace directive - are now a huge wager which we, the european institutions, have against the national administrations. i have been in contact for the last two years with all the ministers in all the member states. i have set up a team of experts, which has recorded the difficulties in applying these directives in each member state. these difficulties are not simply a question of political will. it is not that the ministers or some governments are refusing to apply something which they agreed on three years ago. there are constitutional problems, there are political problems, there are legal and economic problems, because this is the first time we have had this sort of directive at european level and the majority of member states did not have the basic experience needed to apply or, more to the point, adopt it within their legislative framework. so here we are, one month before the adoption of the legislation, which means, mr bouwman, that i do not have any facility to take the member states to court. wait until the end of december and then you can check if the commission is doing its job. one month before the deadline and we only have two countries with the legislation. we are not talking about application. we are talking about adopting the legislation. there are many countries which have not yet drafted a bill. that is because there are huge problems in their parliaments. so that is the situation today. the objective, the political objective, must be for us to focus on the implementation of what we agreed on. i would ask the honourable members, as i have repeatedly asked the disabled people's movement, to make this their top priority in their countries. governments need to be criticised for failing to honour their obligations. there needs to be a public debate as to why we are not applying european legislation. a number of members said that the european union is all about grand speeches, nice resolutions, communications and conferences. i have spoken about legislation. i shall tell you what we have done in practice for mainstreaming over the last two years. with the commissioner for competition, mr monti, we are making exceptions for the first time from the state aid rules and allowing subsidies for workers with disabilities. for the first time, we are making an exception with mr bolkestein, the commissioner for the internal market, for vat on tools used by people with disabilities. for the first time, mrs de palacio is submitting legislation on access for people with disabilities to transport, and with mr liikanen we are organising the whole e-accessibility programme giving people with disabilities access to the electronic sector. and we can take it for granted that these often involve real acrobatics at the level of subsidiarity. when we come to the content of the proposed directive, i should like to remind you of the areas apart from employment. they are education, health and welfare, the social systems and benefits, taxation and, as mr mantovani mentioned, the question of political participation. as i said, honourable members, i have talked to all the ministers about these matters, so that we can see how to prepare the next step. i leave it to you to assess the reactions of the ministers for education to interventions by european legislation in education and of the ministers for health and welfare to interventions by european legislation in health and welfare and social systems. i consider the question of taxation far easier and i consider the question of european legislation on the participation of people with disabilities in the political systems of the member states impossible. the reason i am referring to individual policies is to show how difficult the second step is. by which i mean a directive which relates to anything apart from employment, when we are totally unable to apply the first legislative act. mr pronk criticised me because i demonstrated courage and because, with so many clashes, i proposed article 13 on equality of the sexes and because i have arguments for one and not for the other. i shall explain to you at once, mr pronk. legislation on sexual equality in the workplace goes back thirty years. for thirty years now we have been passing european legislation, implementing, improving, reverting and cooperating and now we are completely reforming, recasting the legislation on sexual equality so that we can take the second step. with the second step, i think every member of the european parliament has been following not the clash, but the furious attack at the mere announcement of the proposal. it is not a question of courage here. i think that for a politician to put forward clashing issues also has its positive side. knowing the extent to which what you propose is implemented is a matter of responsibility. i can assure you that i had no problem whatsoever with being the good commissioner, compared to all the other bad commissioners who rejected the directive in question. i took a little longer, but after one year of the 'year of people with disabilities' and after four years with policy for people with disabilities firmly on the european agenda, with specific achievements and not just words, with legislation and with policies which are changing the daily life of european citizens, i really do think that what mrs lynne said about it being a failure if there is no proposal for a directive was truly unfair. i really cannot accept that statement. thank you, commissioner diamantopoulou. that ends the debate on the commission statement. the next item is the report by mr liese (a5-0369/2003) on behalf of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy on the proposal for a council decision [com (2003) 390 - c5-0349/2003 - 2003/0151(cns)] amending decision 2002/834/ec on the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration: 'integrating and strengthening the european research area' (2002-2006). - mr president, honourable members, i welcome this opportunity to address an issue in which parliament has always shown a great interest. i should like first of all to thank the rapporteur and all of the members of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy for the high standard of their work. my thanks also go to the rapporteur and members of the committee on legal affairs and the internal market. in the economy of the knowledge-based society that the union has set itself the objective of developing in europe, scientific research and technological development by definition play a key role. more than ever, both the competitiveness of companies and the quality of life enjoyed by european citizens depend on advances in scientific knowledge and their exploitation. it has often been said, and with good reason, that this century will be the century of life science and technology. research on embryonic stem cells would appear to be crucial to gain more knowledge about the very first stages of life. it also promises to have significant medical applications, such as in the treatment of diseases that have so far been incurable, particularly degenerative diseases - cancer or alzheimer's disease for example - which are placing an increasing burden on european society in terms of human suffering and in economic terms. in the shorter term, research on embryonic stem cells will allow scientists to gain a better understanding of the processes of cell differentiation and reproduction, the key processes in forming life and in the emergence of certain diseases, which will make advances in other research areas possible. this research will gain from being carried out at european level, where the added value of cooperation is significant. cooperation between teams from different member states allows the resources required to be used more effectively and makes it possible to obtain the best results more quickly for the benefit of the scientific community and patients across europe. i will speak first of all about the institutional context to this cooperation. the proposal tabled by the commission on 9 july was a follow-up to the council of 30 september 2002, during which the specific programmes were adopted for the implementation of the sixth framework programme of research. on that occasion it was agreed that the commission would table a legislative proposal amending the specific programme 'integrating and strengthening the european research area' and setting out a framework for research using embryos and human embryonic stem cells. the commission is therefore proposing a set of principles, a framework which lays down very strict, clear and transparent conditions, both scientific and ethical, which are intended to govern the funding of research projects using human supernumerary embryos to develop new stem cell lines. the commission believes that it has drafted a responsible proposal to the extent that it strikes a good balance between, on the one hand, meeting the needs of research and the expectations of patients and, on the other hand, providing an assurance that such research will respect the strictest ethical standards. imposing even stricter conditions than those proposed by the commission would in practice amount to banning this research, when in fact it is permitted in accordance with the decisions already made by parliament and the council regarding the framework programme and its specific programmes. i should like to underline that it is not our business here to lay down ethical rules for stem cell research in europe. the conditions proposed only apply to the sixth framework programme and do not affect national legislation. this research will never be funded in a country where it is forbidden. in proposing these conditions, the commission wanted to send out a clear message to those who might have reservations about the type of research concerned here. it proposes that only those supernumerary embryos that were created before 27 june 2002 may be used. the purpose of this time limit is to prevent community financing providing any kind of an incentive to create additional supernumerary embryos for research purposes during in vitro fertilisation procedures. i should also like to stress that funding for research using embryonic stem cells is in addition to funding for research on adult stem cells. research on both types of cells is necessary, in particular because their properties are different, as moreover are the medical applications envisaged. it is also important, however, to be able to have new embryonic stem cell lines at our disposal, because those that exist today are few in number, for the most part of poor quality and - i would stress - essentially non-european, patented and therefore only accessible at high prices, even for research work. under these circumstances, it is in europe's interests to develop its own capacity. in conclusion, i would remind you that the three institutions have undertaken to reach a decision on this dossier by the end of the year and i am obviously counting very much on parliament's support to achieve this. . mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the topic we are considering today is one that is of great concern to many people. emotions have run high in recent weeks. many members of the european public have fundamental ethical convictions that lead them to reject research using the stem cells of human embryos. others advocate such research, and do so with great vehemence. commissioner busquin was right to say that we are not here to decide on how reliable this sort of research is, or, therefore, to affect national laws, something that is also made clear in the committee's amendment 1. the only issue we are deciding is what, in this field, we in the european union will fund. so i ask all members of the house to be careful about the language they use. this is not about banning anything, but about whether or not the european budget should fund it. according to the council decision on 30 september 2002, the end of this year marks the deadline for a decision to be taken on the use of human embryos and embryonic stem cells under the sixth research programme. this is where i have my first point of criticism to make, one also made in the amendments adopted by the committee, for the commission proposal deals only with the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from human embryos. it contains no comprehensive rules on research using embryos and embryonic stem cells. the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy has adopted a whole series of amendments that very definitely do take up a position on research using embryos and embryonic stem cells. i strongly appeal to the council, to consider both in the next stage of proceedings; this will certainly make it easier to arrive at a compromise. one very important amendment by the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy is amendment 6, which the committee adopted by a large majority, and which states that: 'according to an overwhelming majority of scientists, a transplantation of human embryonic stem cells to patients during the time frame of the sixth research framework programme (until the end of 2006) is not possible for purely scientific reasons, because this approach is mainly in the stage of basic research and a transplantation at the current moment would lead to non-calculable risks for the recipients.' as this amendment makes clear, we cannot make exaggerated claims to the effect that we can cure everything. research into embryonic stem cells is at a very early stage, and the risk of cancer associated with transplantation into patients obliges us to be very, very cautious in our approach. if transplantation into patients is not possible, then why does the committee nonetheless believe that this research merits our support? amendments 7, 17 and 18 clarify this. in these, we make it clear that the real object of our efforts is the use of adult stem cells in research and in the treatment of patients, but, from a purely scientific point of view it appears that we need embryo stem cell research simply to further develop research with adult stem cells. nevertheless, of course, we must not lose sight of the real objective, and that is why we demand in our amendments that research with adult stem cells should take priority. this has already yielded real successes with real patients - real successes that have already been achieved, at least on an experimental basis, when treating patients with bone and cartilage damage, leukaemia, heart attacks, incontinence and even parkinson's disease. this, therefore, is the area that we have to prioritise. so far in this debate, as you will be aware, i have always been among those who have expressed fundamental misgivings about research with human embryonic stem cells generally. i nevertheless believe that, on most points, the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy has achieved a good compromise, and so i will defend to this house the committee's position on most points. i cannot, however, say that of amendment 10, on which the committee outvoted me and adopted a form of words that supports the production of new embryonic stem cell lines and research on embryos themselves. my personal view is that this amendment is not well-advised, and that it would be better to support mr nistic's amendments, 25 and 24, according to which we should indeed support research on embryonic stem cells, but not the procurement of new stem cell lines. i believe that to be a good compromise, and one that could be adopted by the council, which would clarify matters once and for all. it also has to be made clear that if you support mr nistic's amendments, you are also supporting rules for publicly-funded research that go further and are more liberal than those applying to publicly-funded researchers in the usa. i do not therefore believe that it can be said that this approach is restrictive or inimical to research, and so i ask you to support mr nistic's amendments, 24 and 25. . mr president, i would like to make two points, one of a moral nature and one of a legal nature, in this debate on a very sensitive issue, and link the two questions together. embryos are human beings in their own right: this is now a certainty, and it is a certainty that we want to stress with all our might. the nice charter of fundamental rights recognises the dignity of these rights - physical and psychological integrity - and there is therefore a moral obligation to protect embryos as human beings, irrespective of how they have been created. it therefore follows that experimentation is only justified when carried out in the interests of the individual or embryos in question, and there are no justifications or extenuating circumstances, which could serve to balance out the interests of the individual, the fundamental rights of the individual, and the interests of society. the issue goes beyond this kind of balancing out process because the protection of inalienable and fundamental rights certainly takes precedence. thus, destructive experimentation is out of the question and, consequently, public funding is out of the question for experimentation which only endorses the line that embryos are a set of cells with no intrinsic value, with no bioethical value as human life. stem cells, on the other hand, can be removed, as we have heard, from the umbilical chord or from spontaneously aborted foetuses of adult cells for use in the treatment of serious illnesses. thus, moral responsibility dictates that we opt for this kind of investigation, these types of treatment. there are, however, more than just moral arguments; these moral arguments give rise to legal arguments, which the committee of which i have the honour of being chairman has pointed out and brought to parliament's attention. the union respects national identity, and so i am pleased to hear the rapporteur say that we are not going to diminish member states' legislation or cultural diversity. community law takes precedence over internal law and, therefore, over the basic law of the member states. community law, despite the fact that it takes precedence in other sectors, cannot exist in all areas of general law because there is a limit, as the constitutional courts - of italy, germany and many other countries - have said repeatedly, for fundamental rights must be respected and take precedence. therefore, there is clearly no question of blanket community funding - and we focused on this point in the committee on legal affairs and the internal market. i am speaking in this chamber today in support of this line. mr president, i welcome the remarkable work and flexible, astute approach of our rapporteur, mr liese, who, from a somewhat rigid starting position, from strong ethical principles, has endeavoured to achieve, with the support not only of myself but of the entire ppe-de group, as balanced a compromise as possible on a very sensitive subject, the use of human embryos and human embryonic stem cells in research projects under the sixth framework programme. as a research scientist, of course, i can only support the progress of science, in the primary interest of patients who have, for years, been placing their hope in new technologies, as has been said, which may provide a cure for or control debilitating, sometimes irreversible diseases such as parkinson's disease, spinal lesions which can cause paraplegia, tetraplegia, alzheimer's' disease and so on. that is why i want to thank commissioner busquin for his prolific efforts to achieve what is, without a doubt, a difficult compromise. i have to say that, recently, at the specific request of the italian minister for scientific research, the italian bioethics committee, chaired by professor francesco d'agostino concluded that it was ethically legitimate to remove stem cells for therapeutic purposes from embryos which can no longer be implanted. the decision that we will be called upon to take in this chamber only concerns the funding of the sixth framework programme and, therefore, relates to a fairly short period of time. however, i have good reasons for thinking that the amendment adopted by the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, which provides for the funding of research using supernumerary cells, will not be unanimously endorsed by the council, with the risk of a minority block and the extension of the current moratorium. this would be even more damaging to public research in europe, which would remain in its current state of uncertainty and lack of regulation. this is why i drew up a new compromise proposal, in order to find some common ground between scientific demands and ethical principles: indeed, my proposal - put forward by the ppe-de group, moreover - on the one hand, bans the funding of research projects which provide for the use of human supernumerary embryos, and, on the other, allows research scientists to use in experiments stem cells and stem cell lines from human embryos which are already available in laboratories and which were taken from supernumerary embryos before 27 june 2002. i feel that, only in this way, can we make it possible for research scientists to proceed with preliminary comparative investigations, which are essential for the purposes of the future use - or non-use - of embryonic stem cells. i therefore hope that reason will prevail over emotion and prejudice in tomorrow's vote in this chamber, in the higher interest ofpatients' health. mr president, i agree with a lot of what has been said so far. this has been a difficult report which arouses strong emotions and we do not have a european consensus on the issue. the use of human embryos to create embryonic stem cell lines and embryonic stem cell research are contentious, but we have discussed the issues and have reached a useful consensus in the report by the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy. i had to modify my views on the subject - which are quite liberal - in order for a consensus to be reached, and i know mr liese has modified his views too. however, i am now concerned that many amendments that were comprehensively defeated in the industry committee are being retabled. i appeal to colleagues to think again. we have quite a good compromise, which we should support. the vote in the industry committee was a reasonable and proper one. one or two amendments need to be addressed. a number of colleagues have sought to reintroduce a very restrictive deadline on the use of supernumerary embryos, which is a very serious problem. it means that, to create any new stem cell lines, you must use ageing supernumerary embryos which are not in the best condition. if you accept this restrictive deadline, more embryos are inevitably destroyed to create useful and viable stem cell lines. it means that if you restrict yourself to using just existing stem cell lines created before the date stated by mr nistic and others, you will be confined to using ageing stem cell lines from the usa that have been made by using mouse-derived proteins and that are not suitable for treatments for human patients. this is the trap that the usa has fallen into and we should learn from that. we should also take note that research scientists are already leaving the usa for the uk and asia to avoid the problems created by the introduction of a deadline. personally, i would prefer that there should be no deadline, but i think that what the commission proposes is the maximum practicable limit. the rapporteur says there is no immediate prospect of therapies being available to patients; if he gets this restrictive deadline reinstated, he may be right. i appeal to this parliament to support the compromise proposed by the industry committee and not to support restrictive deadlines. stem cell research will then bring relief to millions of alzheimer's, parkinson's and diabetes sufferers, some of them known to us personally and some in fact colleagues in this house. please vote for common sense tomorrow and on wednesday. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate is not about whether the european union should permit research using stem cells and embryos. the position varies from one member state to another and is a matter of subsidiarity, and we in this parliament have no say whatever in the matter. we should concentrate on the question of whether the stem cell research that is carried out in eu member states can be financed with funds from the sixth framework programme. in september 2002, this question was also the topic of negotiation between the commission, council and parliament during the debates about the sixth framework programme. at that time, a compromise was reached, and parliament voted in favour of it. our position is therefore unambiguous. thanks to the compromise, it is possible to finance stem cell research with community funds in those member states where such research is permitted. a moratorium has subsequently been imposed at the request of a few member states; with effect from september 2003, european funding of stem cell research is frozen until the commission tables a new proposal. this commission proposal is now before us and i urge my fellow meps to give it their backing. after all, it is in line with our position of september 2002 and therefore provides consistency. mr liese, the rapporteur, has attempted to undermine parliament's position in a scandalous manner by, during the discussion in the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, tabling extremely restrictive amendments, which make embryonic research in the european union virtually impossible. indeed, not only has he introduced an end date, after which stem cell lines created before that date cannot be used, he has also limited the proposal's scope by permitting research only on existing stem cell lines. he has ruled out the development of new stem cell lines from supernumerary embryos, while it is in this very field that the eu should gain research experience. fortunately, the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy has opted for consistency and has taken a stand against most of mr liese's amendments. - mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, if there is something particularly remarkable about our rapporteur mr liese, apart from his intelligence and the amount of work he does, it is surely his pugnacity. when we debated the sixth framework programme, he fought against all research on embryonic stem cells. he lost. when, a few weeks after parliament's vote, the council of ministers wrongfully froze the research funds set aside for this purpose, he inherited a report on the same subject and, while pretending to seek compromises, set about tabling amendments to prevent practically all research in this area. roundly beaten in the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, he left his name on a report that he wished to see rejected and that had been adopted against his advice. mr liese is, therefore, returning to plenary this evening with the same intentions. faced with his efforts, there is only one reasonable and balanced way forward and that is to support the commission's compromise text, a text that is fairly close to the compromise that was agreed by our parliament when it adopted the sixth framework programme. to do so, we need to vote against all those amendments that distort it by changing the scope of application. my position, summed up in three points, is as follows: firstly, to respect those who do not want this kind of research to be undertaken in their country; secondly, to refuse a european right to veto those who wish to, and indeed do, undertake this kind of research; thirdly, to restate our firm objective of funding research that seeks to save those suffering from incurable diseases and bring relief to those enduring intolerable pain. that then is the position that i am adopting this evening on behalf of my group, the confederal group of the european united left/nordic green left, and the approach that we would like to see being taken. mr president, i would like to start by taking a critical view of the bitter attack made upon mr liese, the rapporteur. if, mrs plooij-van gorsel, it is so scandalous that someone should try to get this house to accept a different position, then you evidently have no idea what parliament is meant to do. our function must surely be to take up an independent position rather than being a mere extension of the commission, and so i would like to take this opportunity of expressing warm thanks to mr liese. today's vote blazes a trail. mr liese was right to say that what we are not doing today is deciding whether or not we welcome research on stem cells or embryos. in my own group, too, there are different opinions on that, but we can quite clearly agree on one thing, namely that it is not acceptable that research involving the destruction of human embryos, which is illegal and punishable in many member states, should be funded out of the eu's tax revenue. for money to be invested in research projects that are illegal in the member states in which they are carried out would be without parallel in the european union. being, like mr liese, from germany, i can say that this, for germany, is yet another quite remarkable situation. it is utterly unacceptable, commissioner, and something that the german public cannot be expect to tolerate - particularly since we are net contributors - that german taxpayers should be coerced into co-financing one out of every five projects in the field of research using supernumerary human embryos, that is, research in the course of which embryos are destroyed, even though this is a criminal offence under german law. i think this is a problem for other countries in a similar way. let me repeat, commissioner, that you are sending out completely the wrong message! you are rewarding the production of supernumerary embryos, which one might term a stock incentive. your proposal reduces human embryos to the level of a biological raw material. there is something on which i ask you to elaborate, commissioner, something that i find utterly inexplicable, and that is that i have heard that what we are talking about here is nine research projects out of 15 000. just nine projects, and i ask myself why you are so vehement in their defence. i get the impression, commissioner, that this is about something quite different, that what matters to you is . mr president, i welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate and to put on record - not for the first time - my concern regarding the ethical guidelines for research funding. it is my hope that we can avoid acrimonious debate and respect the right of members to express freely their views on a subject that is complex, sensitive and, for many, a matter of conscience. those of us who are not scientists must rely on the judgment and evaluation of professionally qualified people. the fact that there are so many diverse views and divisions amongst scientists must surely bring home to us legislators that this is not a clear-cut issue. whether we like it or not, the commission proposal, if carried, will allow experimentation with the very origin of human life and the destruction of human embryos. we have also seen in other areas what can happen through the abuse and misuse of science. to the extent that we are the custodians of the public interest in such a crucial area, we must act with extreme care and reflect and respect the views of our citizens. i do not want to see european union funds being spent on a practice that is illegal in some countries, including my own country, ireland, and also in germany, austria, italy and portugal. such an act would be a clear infringement of subsidiarity. it is unfair, disingenuous and indeed misleading to say that those who oppose funding for stem cell research are preventing the discovery of cures for serious illnesses. professionals more qualified than i have proven that this is not so. in a previous debate in this house i said that those who marvel at the wonderment of our creation must act now in the interests of mankind. that time is now. mr president, is the european union going to finance research involving human embryos, yes or no? that is the crucial question. the essence of this topic is not so much monetary, as it is ethical - a discussion about good and bad. it is not so much about whether funding is good or bad, but about whether this research is good or bad . that is what this is really about. when we debate the funding of stem cell research, why can we not simply state the fact that in many member states, this research is not permitted, and that, consequently, we should not use community funding in those countries? what is wrong with this logic? if it is not done in some member states, fine, but it is a punishable offence in a number of others. how can we ask member states to contribute to research to which they have fundamental objections? surely that is a slap in the face for those eu partners? i am in favour of stem cell research. i consider it our duty to look for therapies for diseases that are still considered incurable. i am also in favour of the eu setting aside funds for this. however, and this is where, in my view, the issue of ethics comes in, this research should not be at the expense of other human life. human life, at whatever stage of development, should never be used in a merely instrumental manner. the commission proposal should therefore be rejected, not only because of the considerations of criminal law within the eu and of the destruction of human life, but also because it is not consistent with what has previously been agreed. the council minutes specify that the commission will table a proposal in which further 'guidelines' are given for the decision-making principles concerning community funding of research projects that involve human embryos and human embryonic stem cells. the proposal should therefore be about 'guidelines for principles for funding'. however, the commission proposal is about 'conditions for funding'. that is quite different from 'guidelines for principles of funding'! a principle could, for example, be: no european funds for research that leads to the destruction of human life. another example of a principle is: in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, no funds for research that is prohibited in certain member states. another example from my amendment 55: no funds for ethically objectionable research if less objectionable alternatives are available. although the commission claims otherwise, there are most definitely alternatives in the issue of stem cell research, namely research involving human somatic stem cells (so-called adult stem cells). a research report was recently published on this topic by the dutch lindeboom institute, in cooperation with the israeli business ethics center of jerusalem. according to this report, which makes reference to dozens of scientific publications, the most recent scientific developments involving adult stem cells offer a wide range of possibilities for therapies of degenerative diseases that do not rely on research that involves the destruction of human embryos. these developments, i quote, 'seem to indicate that embryonic stem cells are not essential for medical progress'. there are therefore alternatives to destroying human embryos. finally, if this parliament refuses to concentrate on the funding of only adult stem cell research, the liese report's approach still deserves a great deal of support. i would quote amendment 61 to illustrate my point. mr president, it is rather strange that members of this house - such as mr hyland - should have accused those in favour of releasing funding for scientific research on embryonic stem cells and attempting to impose a scientific model on europe, on the european union and on parliament. what is happening in europe, with the national laws of some member states, is exactly the opposite, namely that ethical prejudices are blocking research for all citizens, not just for those who wish to stand aloof from such research and its results on ethical grounds. the european commission has produced a compromise, which is already at the very limit of acceptability for scientific reasons: the european commission excludes funds for what is known as therapeutic cloning from union funding. why, however, if this funding can, as it genuinely can, provide the hope of treatment and of survival - i say the hope, not the certainty, for we in this house, unlike members of other parliaments, do not have scientific certainty - for millions of people in europe? the european commission has already been forced to make compromises of an ethical and moral nature, as you call them, and to renounce this kind of funding. fine, or rather it is not good at all, but now enough is enough: there need be no more constraints; there are no scientific grounds for imposing more limits. then, as regards the issue of the date, the draft amendments state that stem cells - i am referring to mr nistic's proposal - must have been derived before 27 june 2002. why, however? what are the ethical grounds for using older embryos which are out of date from a scientific point of view? indeed, you do not give the scientific grounds. the reason which you give, namely that new embryos must not be produced, is, quite simply, ridiculous, for any research scientist will tell you that this problem does not exist. if scientific research were to be allowed, there would be no difficulty in obtaining embryos, nor would there be any need to produce them specifically for the purpose. there are tens of thousands of embryos in italy and, i imagine, hundreds of thousands in europe, which have been frozen and for which there is only one alternative to scientific research: the dustbin. the chairman of the committee on legal affairs and the internal market, mr gargani, believes that an embryo is a human being, then? does that mean we should consign that embryo-human being to the dustbin rather than using it for scientific research? let mr gargani and all the others try and save those hundreds of thousands of lives frozen in laboratory freezers! this has nothing to do with science. an attempt is being made to impose an ethical and a moral principle, and this is being done - i am referring to those who are trying to table amendments which are even more limiting than the commission's proposal - by means of a device which we will not allow: setting up research on adult cells as an alternative to research on stem cells. unlike you, we scientific research antiprohibitionists, do not know whether research on adult cells or research on embryonic cells will produce results first. we do not know and we do not claim to know, nor do we presume to tell parliament that one kind of research is better than another: they are both valuable. we must proceed with both kinds of research, and the first to succeed in saving the lives of the citizens of europe and the world will be the better. we do not claim to have this scientific knowledge, and it would be better if you did not either. we hope that the italian presidency of the european union, which has been so respectful of the union's positions in failing to muster the courage to propose a moratorium on executions, will, at this juncture, seeing as this is the approach it has chosen to adopt, do the same where scientific research is concerned and not boycott the busquin proposal. let us open the door to funding for therapeutic cloning! mr president, research using supernumerary embryonic stem cells is necessary to bring closer the day when adult stem cells can be used therapeutically to cure 'dread diseases'. i am sure that goal is desired by everyone. parliament's previous compromise was accepted by an absolute majority of this house. this restricts funding of research by the european union only to embryos which are surplus to ivf requirements and are destined for destruction only at the undifferentiated stage of development up to 14 days and only in those jurisdictions where there is effective and strict regulation and it is permitted by law. this has yet again been adopted by the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy. i regret that our rapporteur has represented his own position, rather than that of the committee. the suggestion that the european union cannot fund ventures that are not permitted in any one member state opens an absurd and dangerous precedent. what about nuclear research and the growing of the tobacco? i should like to tell mrs breyer that germany permits research on embryos, even if german embryos are exempt. what is the purpose of a cut-off date? if it is valid to use embryos produced before a date, can it be invalid to use embryos produced after that date? an amendment by mr nistic is flawed by the fact that it restricts itself to stem cell lines and not to embryos. do we have so little trust in european ivf practitioners that they might be tempted to overproduce embryos for ulterior purposes? that is surely an unjustified calumny on an honourable profession. is it more christian to walk by on the other side and leave our fellow human beings lying in the ditch on the road to jericho, smitten by parkinson's disease, alzheimer's disease or spinal injury? god gave us humans inquiring minds, the ability to tame nature, the brains and skills to improve our lot on earth. yes, we must respect human dignity and i completely respect my colleagues' strongly held views as to what human dignity is. however, i ask is it an early-stage embryo destined in any case for destruction, or is it your parents struck with parkinson's disease, or your teenage son paralysed with a broken neck? the research committee's considered position - amendment 10 - is a position we must support. we must persuade the council of ministers to do likewise. mr president, this parliament gave its views clearly during the reading on the sixth framework programmes. those views were reinforced by the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy last week: we are in favour of the development of therapies for dreadful diseases by the use of embryonic stem cells under very strict conditions, with no creation of embryos for research, with the use of supernumerary embryos, with the consent of parents and without payment. i regret the intolerant anti-european rejection of subsidiarity by some colleagues this afternoon. we believe that the exploration of other forms of stem cell, and indeed comparisons, are essential. now to the matter of dates. i regret that the commission chose to introduce a date, because it has encouraged some members of this parliament to put forward even more absurd dates. this has been done in a rather sly, hypocritical and misleading way in that not simply different dates, but also different procedures - with stem cell lines and not with embryos - have been proposed. the hypocrisy of those amendments should be exposed so that members are absolutely clear on what they are voting. i have a direct question for the commissioner. is it true that the dates suggested by mr nistic and others would drastically reduce the availability of stem cell lines to make the european union totally dependent on the united states, israel and other countries for lines under patent? would this damage european union science and, most importantly of all, would it damage the prospects of helping people who are suffering from terrible diseases? mr president, commissioner, i wrote the draft opinion of the committee on legal affairs and the internal market. because the majority of the committee differs from the majority in parliament and because the right is considerably over-represented, the opinion took, however, a form i was unable to accept. i did not, therefore, want my name to appear on it. my legal analysis differs totally from that presented by the committee chairman, mr gargani. firstly, there are no obstacles to this research under the oviedo convention. secondly, i have to say that mr gargani's analysis of what the research programmes mean in legal terms was also completely irrelevant. it was a very long way from the truth. i also observe in my proposal that the european group for ethics, of which the commission and ourselves can make use, has not excluded embryonic stem cell research. what is the point of an advisory group if we do not listen to it? for me, as for many others, the most important ethical issue is about reducing human suffering. that is something we can do if, in regulated and open ways, we try to cooperate and to do what many speakers have said we must in order to reduce suffering through diseases such as alzheimer's and parkinson's. we must have public funding, and the funding must be european if the results are to be made available to all europeans. i should, however, have liked to have seen the time limit removed from the commission's proposal. it is not justified on ethical grounds. i view with great satisfaction the committee's amendment 11 about removing the demand that all alternative methods must have been examined. it leaves room for a very great deal of arbitrariness, and i support what has been said by mrs plooij-van gorsel, mr bowe and others. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, yes! yes to research. i remember the temporary committee on human genetics; yes to research and yes to the compromises reached in the sixth framework programme. and then we perhaps need to talk about something that no one has yet mentioned, even though i have been listening to the debate from the outset. there are those who are here to criticise this research and reject it because of something that has remained unsaid and that i am going to say out loud now. it is almost a vulgarity; it is the word 'abortion'. there are some here who are refusing to support this research in a bid to fight against abortion. it is all very well to talk about suffering, parkinson's disease and so on, but i would also like to talk about this issue, because it concerns women's rights. there are two aspects to this. firstly, research on stem cells is not an ethical battle over whether or not there is a right to abortion in european countries. secondly, however, men and women are not on an equal footing where embryonic stem cells are concerned. i would be glad if someone other than myself were to say this in this house. there are a whole series of amendments, commissioner, that seek to ensure that this is not a source of financial gain, and that you reject it on the basis of article 152 on the grounds that this is not within the competence of the european union and our institutions. in fact, i might remind you that article 3 of the charter of fundamental rights provides that the human body cannot be a source of financial gain, and i would also remind you that this charter will - as, i hope, all of us here wish - be incorporated in the constitution very soon. moreover, i would draw your attention to the fact that, even though embryonic stem cells do after all affect first and foremost women, and what women carry within them, there is no question of their becoming research instruments, economically speaking. this is not to be a source of financial gain. even though we might think that it is not up to us to say it, i nevertheless believe that we should confront this fundamental and historically significant issue. mr president, i am just taking over the minute allotted to my colleague mrs ahern, who has unfortunately been unable to get here on time. i have to ask you again, commissioner, whether it is true, as we have been informed, that this has to do with only nine of the 15 000 projects forming part of the biomed programme? if this is just about these few projects that we are discussing with such passion, then i cannot repress the suspicion that this is an un-called for attempt at making embryo research respectable in the eu. all the member states that want to engage in this sort of research, and which has passed legislation permitting it, can do so, but without funding from the european union. i get the impression that your concern is with something else, that this is about preparing to breach an ethical dam and open the door to research on embryos. if this is just about these few projects, then i ask myself why you are doing this and thereby needlessly bringing discredit on the research programme as a whole? i can tell you right now that, although i hope it will not happen, if a majority in this house supports research involving the destruction of human embryos, then that will have to be tested against european and constitutional law. in member states such as austria and ireland, it is a criminal offence, and it is not acceptable for something punishable within the european union to receive funding from it. this amounts to a major problem for european and constitutional law. a few final words on stem cell research. why the dates? what matters to us - if this fallback position . mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this debate can clearly not avoid the basic issue and fail to deal with the fundamental ethical problems, even though they are not what we are here to discuss and decide on now. if they were the issue, i would happily say to mr cappato - who criticised national legislation banning this type of research for being prejudiced - that there is no prejudice here; this word is always used as a smokescreen when there is disagreement. this is a principle, not a prejudice - the principle that an embryo has human life. more than this, it is a known fact and recognition of this fact. this is not, however, what we are here to discuss. as various speakers have stated, we are only looking at the issue of european funding for this type of research. on this point i fully agree with mr bowe, who holds a completely different view of the basic issue. he said - and i agree with him - that there is no european consensus on this issue and because there is no european consensus there can be no european funding in this area. that and that alone is the issue at stake. otherwise, we will be breaching the principle of subsidiarity, which we believe must be scrupulously observed. if there are member states that wish to undertake this type of research, then let them. if it is legal in their countries, let them, but let them do so with their own financial resources. using community funds, particularly funds contributed by citizens in countries where such procedures are illegal and are even prohibited by law, would constitute a breach of the principle of subsidiarity. this would constitute a financial breach of the substance of the principle of subsidiarity. this is basically what we are fighting for in this debate, although we are happy to engage in ethical debate if necessary. we must emphasise, however, that this is not the real issue. furthermore, i wish to add my voice to those of my fellow members who are calling for greater priority and greater investment to be given to research into adult stem cells. i urge the house to support the amendments tabled by mr gargani, which express the opinion adopted by a majority in the committee on legal affairs and the internal market. - mr president, the debate on the use of stem cells in research has to be based on fact and steered away from emotional argument. talk of life and death distort reality. stem cell research is only a question of life, as research can help save countless lives each year. for this reason eu funding must in future be targeted at stem cell research. as the commission proposal also states, stem cell research is expected to play an essential role in promoting the development of forms of treatment in many areas of medicine. this applies in particular to the treatment of various degenerative diseases such as alzheimer's disease and parkinson's disease but also to more common diseases such as diabetes, the number of cases of which has rocketed. for europe to be able to exploit stem cells successfully in the future the most important thing now is to set aside adequate resources for basic research into stem cells and furthermore permit the funding of embryonic stem cell research under the sixth framework programme. this will ensure that research in the field can make progress within a regulated framework and that european researchers and ultimately patient groups can benefit immediately from new knowledge and skills in the field. if the use of stem cells is not permitted under the constitutions of some eu member states, that must not be a barrier to research, and the benefits obtained from it as a result, in other eu countries. i am against artificial deadlines. it is wrong to set dates before and after which stem cells can be used. of course ethical principles and technical safety measures have to be complied with, but now, ladies and gentlemen, it is a question of cells that will be destroyed in any case. in any case, we have to use our common sense in this matter. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, the revolutionary technique of therapeutic cloning echoes to a large extent man's ancient dreams and myths. therapeutic cloning opens up a whole new area for human knowledge and medicine. dogmatic attitudes in this field, particularly those based on the bible, are therefore pernicious. they demonstrate little concern for the reality of people's lives. loyalty to beliefs and to their origins is their . we all agree with the universal ban on reproductive cloning but this does not mean that it is a taboo subject and that it should be likened to devil-worship, which is what we are seeing at the moment. only recently, an extremely eminent french philosopher, marcel conche, in a book entitled 'confession of a philosopher' which is a dialogue with andr compte-sponville, claimed provocatively that the right to be cloned, provided, of course, that it is subject to strict rules is - would you believe - a fundamental right. i do not share this view, but it is a fine exercise in intellectual freedom. those who would like to ban cloning outright but are unable to achieve this are putting so many obstacles and barriers in its way that research will be completely stifled. we cannot accept such a blatant strategy. unlike mr lisi, i see no good reason for completely excluding community funding from the sixth framework programme for research 'research using embryonic stem cells'. it should be emphasised that, even today, it is impossible to tell which stem cells, those derived from embryos, from foetuses or adults, best meet the needs of fundamental research and clinical applications. the answers clearly lie in undertaking scientific research and in the freedom given to scientists and researchers. - mr president, given the way that society is currently organised, where economic decisions are determined by profit, i do not trust the way in which industrial groups use scientific discoveries. but it is not the freedom to research that poses a problem, because research is what leads to human progress. we do not accept that the most reactionary pressure groups should be able to censure research on the grounds of religious interdicts or for whatever obscurantist reason it might be. we will therefore be voting against any amendment that seeks, on pseudo-ethical grounds, to ban research on stem cells from supernumerary embryos. citing respect for life as a reason to oppose research on a mass of embryonic cells is all the more unacceptable because it prohibits therapeutic advances - and these have been made - that make it possible simply to save lives. in addition, these objections sometimes come from political movements that are apologists for the most odious wars, when it is not stem cells that are destroyed but actual human beings. i will finish by saying that in france, scientists have just demonstrated in protest at cuts in research funding. i support their protests. if there is not enough money for research, we should take some from the defence budget, which, conversely, is steadily rising. mr president, as has already been said here, a couple of years ago, when we held the debate on the sixth framework programme, a compromise solution was reached on the conditions under which research on stem cells could be funded. let there be no doubt that this was a compromise solution between those people, such as myself, who preferred a more open and liberal position and others who advocated more restrictive solutions. consequently, now that we are debating the issue once again, it does not appear logical that that compromise solution should be considered an extremist position and that other parties, opposed to research on stem cells, should tell us: let us now seek a compromise between that solution and our position, which, at the end of the day, means rejecting any possibility of funding research with stem cells. no, mr president, this is not a good system. it is a form of subterfuge aimed at hindering the european funding of research with stem cells, when there are many countries which allow it, because there are significant sectors of the scientific community and of the social community in general which believe that researching with stem cells can lead to great progress in the fight against the extremely serious diseases which devastate us today. i believe that this way of working is not worthy of the european parliament. it could have been said - and this would seem logical - that, since it is exclusively a question of funding, the funding would be allowed. mr ribeiro mentioned the principle of subsidiarity, well, let us accept it. we could say: european funding is allowed in all countries which allow research with stem cells. under what conditions? under those allowed in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity in those countries. nevertheless, rather than maintaining this position, we have upheld the agreement which was reached on the sixth framework programme. let us not now aim, as a result of intolerance, not just to destroy the european area of research, but also to prevent and hinder successful research in this area in the countries where it is allowed. mr president, i had the privilege of serving on the human genetics temporary committee in 2001. i recall that the house was completely polarised on that issue. the rapporteur produced a compromise that neither side, in the end, was prepared to vote for. therefore we must recognise that there are widely different opinions honestly held in this house. mr blokland tells us that the issue is simply one of right or wrong. however, with respect mr blokland, it is a question of your opinion of right and wrong. other colleagues in this house take a different view of what is right and wrong. i know that there are members who hold strong religious views. for example, our rapporteur, mr liese, has strong religious views. however, i would say to mr liese and those who think like him that they have no right to impose their particular views on the whole of european society through the means of legislation. there are third countries where religious fundamentalists seek to impose religious laws on the whole of society. most of us in this house would condemn that practice and yet some of us are seeking to do it here. many colleagues propose alternative research methods - for example, that we should use adult stem cells. most of us are not scientific experts. this is not an issue which we are able to judge. it is an issue which we should allow scientists to judge in order to make the best decisions in the interests of research. if we are serious about promoting research in the european union, if we are serious about promoting the economy of european union member states, then we should not support these backward-looking amendments that seek to restrict research in this way. mr president, i have a question for the commissioner. commissioner, i really do not want to provoke you, but your answer does give me real cause for concern. amendment 18 states that, 'in addition, research on embryo or foetal stem cells deriving from spontaneous or therapeutic abortion may be funded.' rumours have it that the commission is already doing something of the kind. you see, abortion is legal - up to the third month in austria. by then, the child's heart is already beating. if the child is handicapped, whether mentally or physically, it can be aborted up to the ninth month. will there be some point at which we say that we want to save life, even if the child had to die anyway? will we also do that with a three-month old child whose heart is beating, or with a nine-month-old child whose death is inevitable? abortion is carried out quite legally. you know, the reason why i find these arguments so horrifying is that i heard them a number of years ago when a former nazi doctor was on trial in vienna. during the nazi era, he carried out experiments on children with serious mental handicaps. the argument by which he justified his actions was that these children would have to die anyway, and that he wanted to help other people. let me say something to mr cappato. my dear mr cappato, you are such a charming chap! even at the moment that your mother's ovum came together with your father's sperm, even when you were a tiny embryo, you were just as charming, just as handsome as you are now, your voice was as easy on the ear as it is today. you were already unique. never before had you had the chance to come into the world, and never again will there be another marco cappato. even as an embryo, you were already a personality. and mrs matikainen-kallstrm, you have a little baby! this baby was an embryo, and it was your baby. your child's laughter, the colour of its skin and eyes, all were already present in the embryo. i do not believe that anyone would say they were prepared to sacrifice their own child, even only as an embryo, for the sake of saving someone else. mr president, i was against the compromise reached by parliament on this issue at the time, and i am against the commission's proposal today as well and, consequently, the liese report. and there are procedural reasons for this, because i believe, in agreement with the committee on legal affairs and the internal market, that within the framework of the internal market and since there is freedom of establishment, community funds cannot be used to finance research which is not permitted in some member states. above all, however, i am against this for reasons of principle, because i am against any research which involves destroying a life, however incipient it may be and however noble the intended aims of this research are. all lives, regardless of their stage of development, have the same value and we cannot save some lives at the expense of others because, although the life being destroyed is embryonic, it is a life just the same. i agree that research has to be promoted, in particular if the aim is the well-being of patients suffering from serious diseases, and i am in favour of freedom of research but we must always fully respect human life and the dignity it deserves. the possibilities opened up by research with adult stem cells are very hopeful and much closer. very positive results have already been achieved. let us therefore focus the programmes' funds on this type of research, which, furthermore, does not pose any ethical problem. because, however many time limits we set, however many ethical principles we establish to justify this research, the destruction of an embryonic life represents a clear violation of the most fundamental of these principles, these principles which we say we defend and which we do defend: respect for human life and the dignity it deserves. mr president, as parliamentarians we have a duty to uphold the democratic will of the citizens we represent in keeping with the laws and the constitutions of our sovereign member states. we must also ensure that in the european union human dignity is protected and the weakest and most vulnerable are defended. it is unacceptable for human life, whatever its age, to be treated as a commercial product, without regard to that life or the price paid by women in supplying the embryos. it is deeply disturbing that the european commission, supported by members of this parliament and certain member state governments, is seeking to impose public funding of controversial and unethical research without proper public debate and without the opportunity for national parliaments to respond. there has certainly been no debate in dil ireann. this proposal is against not only laws and constitutions, but also the conscience of millions of citizens. it also pressures applicant and third world countries to become part of an eu market-place for human embryo research. this controversial research has no scientifically positive results and, as our rapporteur has pointed out, is high-risk. let us not play on the hopes and fears of sufferers. let us use public funding for adult stem cell research, which has positive scientific results and may be as effective as research using embryonic stem cells. the committee on legal affairs and the internal market rejected the commission's proposal and i urge support for the amendments tabled by its chairman, mr gargani, which i have co-signed with other members. last week a key committee in the irish parliament also voted to reject this unethical research. there is a public outcry in ireland. tnaiste mary harney and the irish government have no mandate to agree this funding on behalf of irish citizens. just as there was no public mandate for an eu constitution, there was clearly no mandate for this unconstitutional and unethical use of taxpayers' money. mr president, there is one fundamental reason why this debate becomes heated at times. it would be very easy to draw on legal arguments. many members have already raised the basic question: can the european union, with great difficulty, adopt an initiative, which does not have backing in all the member states of the union? that would be one of the many possible - if you will forgive the expression - hypocritical approaches to the issue. on this matter, there is a basic problem, which politics cannot resolve: politics is the art of the possible and, without a doubt, the art of compromise, but compromise on fundamental values is impossible. therefore, on this matter, with due regard for the positions of all the members and with due regard for the positions expressed by the commission, all the attempts that have been made thus far seek to open the door to a new process, and that process involves tampering with the principle of life. for some, this path is completely acceptable, and for others it is a path which is not acceptable because it runs counter to certain fundamental values. that is why, as i see it, none of the attempts at compromise that have been made - although i commend the wisdom, ability and capacity of the members - has achieved the ultimate goal. as regards the process in question, i would draw your attention not so much to the initial phase, the phase we are experiencing now, which is extremely important because the treatment of a number of degenerative diseases is at stake, but to what will happen when we have decided to meddle with life: not in the short term, that is, but in the medium and long terms, and these are all questions of eugenics. we are going the same way as we did with the atom: in exploring the possibilities of the atom we made the atom bomb, and now we need rules to take us back a step. at this juncture, therefore, on a matter such as this, which is much more complex and much more sensitive, there may well be a need for further reflection. . mr president, my group has given me another two minutes, and so i can deal with a number of the questions put by some of my fellow-members. for a start, it is unfortunate that not only the commissioner, but also a number of members of this house have asserted that the adoption of mr nistic's proposal would make research impossible or - to put the charge in a diluted form - that we would then be entirely dependent on the united states. can you confirm, commissioner, that sweden is situated in europe rather than in the usa? most of the stem cell lines listed in the nih register come from sweden. i once took the trouble to consult the people who manufactured them. let me quote from professor lars hamberger, whose unequivocal response, in an e-mail, to the question as to whether these stem cell lines were available to european researchers was as follows: 'at present, we have 24 stem cell lines, out of which 20 are relatively well characterised. in the case that european researchers want to get access to these cell lines they can apply to us, and if the respective country laws and regulations permit export we can arrange, and we have already distributed a few cell lines to europe.' so these cells are available; i have had similar answers from the other institutes. mr nistic has again drawn my attention to the fact that his proposal actually goes further than the americans'. this is not just about cells, but about cell lines and a later date, so i ask you to desist from asserting that all research would be made impossible. let me conclude with a thought that i ask members of this house to take on board. many of us have mutually contradictory interpretations of what subsidiarity means. i ask you, though, to imagine for one brief moment that we are dealing with a different type of research, for example, research involving cruelty to animals, specifically primates or anthropoid apes. in that event, i think the arguments would be reversed. what is absolutely vital here is that, day after day, the commission says 'no' to research projects. i agree with mr linkohr that we must make more funding available for research, but, for as long as we are unable to fund uncontroversial projects, we have to think even more carefully than the commission suggests about why we want to support controversial ones. for that reason, i believe that mr nistic's proposal really is a good compromise. mr president, on a point of order, i want to correct a misconception about the irish constitution which, it has been alleged, bans embryo research in ireland. the irish constitution is in fact silent on the matter, as indeed is irish law. the irish constitution does indeed ban abortion, but it provides for exceptions. the issue is not as black and white as it is being presented. that was a point of clarification rather than a point of order. mr president, regarding the order in which amendments would be voted, i would suggest that when we look at those amendments referring to the date we take first those furthest away from the commission's proposal, which includes a date. those would be amendment 68 from mr bowe and others, followed by amendments 10, 64, 25 and 24. that would be a more logical order, given that they are furthest away from the commission's suggestion. i hope the voting lists can be changed along those lines. i will make sure that the services concerned are aware of your suggestion. mr president, there is talk here and there about information from stockholm and sweden concerning how many stem cell lines there are. i wonder about the date to which the answer obtained by mr liese is relevant. a lot has happened since 2002. i have received an answer from the carolingian institute to the effect that they only have three well-characterised stem cell lines now available to them. that is significantly fewer. i hope that the commission discriminates according to date in this area. - mr president, the commission does of course attach great importance to your work and has taken a keen interest in it; it has also examined your amendments closely. it was pleased to see that, at the vote in the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, a clear majority emerged in favour of providing community funding for research projects involving the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from supernumerary embryos and therefore the creation of new lines. this is an important point in support of research which will in all likelihood have beneficial effects on the treatment of major health problems. the commission does, however, have some difficulties with those amendments that seek to remove the 27 june 2002 cut-off date for the creation of supernumerary embryos, as proposed by the commission on 9 july. i acknowledge the fact that this date has no scientific basis: it is simply linked to when the framework programme was adopted. in effect, the commission, like parliament for that matter, had gone along with the majority at the vote on the framework programme and that is why this date has been taken as a reference date. furthermore, this proposal should be seen, as mr bowe said, as a compromise gesture, a signal to those who want - and i understand this, as it is quite legitimate to hold a different opinion on the subject - to prevent in vitro fertilisation being diverted from its objectives and being used to create embryos for research. we have always said very clearly that we do not want embryos to be produced specifically for research purposes. the aim of including this date is then to show that we are not encouraging the creation of embryos for research purposes, but that existing supernumerary embryos may clearly be used for research because, as several members have said, they are no longer part of a parental project. on this basis, the commission is able to accept a majority of the amendments, which are i might add excellent, thanks to the work done by the rapporteur and the whole of the committee. the amendments concerned are amendments 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18, either in full or in part, subject in some cases to their being redrafted. these amendments clarify the content of the proposal and thus correspond, as mrs plooij-van gorsel stressed, to the position agreed by parliament when the framework programme was adopted. i would remind you that parliament's proposal was also based on the opinion of the european group of ethics, which had set out what could be done. in response to mrs breyer, i would add, along the lines of what i have just said, that the fact that there have not been many expressions of interest - nine so far - was to be expected, because generally speaking there are few really competent research teams working in new research areas. moreover, it is better that this be the case, because in an area like this it is genuinely competent teams that we need, which can provide a maximum guarantee that the dossiers will be dealt with ethically. the commission cannot however accept amendments 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 16 and 19, in particular because they seek to remove the date fixed for the reasons that i have just explained. we wanted to produce a compromise and we wish to keep this date. this applies, amongst others, to amendments 5 and 10, which delete the reference to this date. amendment 11 removes a condition from the commission proposal. i will take this opportunity to stress the conditions, because much has been said about different methods, in particular those that use adult cells or cells from the umbilical cord. in this regard, we state very clearly, in the point deleted by amendment 11, that we need to ensure that all other alternative methods have been examined and demonstrated not to be sufficient for the purposes of the research in question. this is also a signal to those who are not in favour of these research developments. this type of research will only be developed if it really is a solution that is scientifically proven to be necessary. in other words, many scientists, including those who are not, from an ethical point of view, in favour of research on supernumerary embryonic stem cells - like some of the professors who took part in our meetings - have to recognise that this method is worth exploring, that it complements research on adult stem cells and that it should not be ruled out. i would like to finish with the amendments that mr nistic has tabled here in plenary. i recognise that mr nistic always goes to great lengths to reach a compromise. i might add that he made a similar effort at the parliamentary vote in june 2002, because it was his amendment around which the consensus was built that formed the basis for the commission proposal. mr nistic, the amendments that you have tabled here are not entirely neutral, however, and this also answers mrs mcnally's question. when you link cells and supernumerary embryos with cells and lines already in existence before 27 june 2002, you put a total restriction on research. nevertheless, i would like to make it clear - for the sake of mr liese, who is obviously very familiar with the dossier, but sometimes confuses the different concepts, lines and dates - that, on 27 june 2002, there were no stem cell lines in existence in europe, at least formally speaking. the existing european stem cell lines appeared later in sweden. in response to mrs thors, i would say that you can ask the researchers in karolinska; three lines turned up there sometime after september 2003. if you incorporate this amendment, you will therefore create the following problem: the only stem cell lines that were in existence before 27 june 2002 are in american, israeli and asian hands. this means that you are linking them to trade mechanisms, because the american lines are available but under commercial contract. you would not give europe the slightest possibility of developing this type of research, which is worthwhile; you would not allow europe to move from embryo lines to existing stem cell lines. today there are more of them in existence. there are two in the united kingdom and seven in sweden (three in karolinska and four in gothenburg), but they appeared after 27 june 2002. you are therefore putting europe at a disadvantage in two respects: in terms of scientific value and also because of the fact that the lines from before 27 june 2002 are sold on the open market. this is therefore completely contrary to the spirit of what many people have in mind, which is for that matter what the commission also has in mind: under no circumstances can supernumerary embryos be a source of profit. i cannot be clearer than that. we do not want stem cell lines to become marketable commodities; they should simply be made available to the european scientific community. at present, they are not available to the european scientific community, except in exchange for payment. they are also being imported into germany. research is being carried out on imported stem cells that have been traded. i have every respect for differences in ethical views, but your line of argument does not hang together. your reasoning is internally consistent when you say that you do not want research on supernumerary embryos. that is consistent. but you cannot link this to a date; the date is a symbolic gesture, a compromise, so as not to encourage the creation of supernumerary embryos and stem cell lines. that is totally contradictory and runs completely counter to high-quality research at european level, quite apart from the fact that it does not resolve the ethical problem either. we could not accept this amendment if it were to be adopted in plenary. i am quite happy for you to try to find solutions, but this one does not make any sense. i would like to thank parliament for its work on this difficult and sensitive dossier, which affects each one of us and indeed life itself. i understand that there are differences of opinion. that is a sign of europe's greatness. but there is also a value: research. the purpose of the commission's proposal was to try to respond, as has been said, to a concern expressed both by parliament and the council of ministers at its meeting of 20 september 2002. the commission has worked to provide a framework for this research with strong, consistent ethical rules, in such a way that fundamental principles can also be defended in this area. thank you very much, commissioner.the debate is closed.the vote will take place on wednesday at 11.30 a.m. no scientific evaluation justifies research on embryonic stem cells and researchers have said that using these cells for therapeutic purposes has proved unsuccessful. nevertheless, alternative methods, such as adult stem cells, offer very promising results. two comments must be made on the argument, which enables this fundamental research on embryonic cells to include adult stem cells. first and foremost, existing cell lines are sufficient and this is the proposal by mr liese. then, it ignores the fact that the purpose of adult stem cells is to repair tissue on the patients themselves, whilst the purpose of embryonic stem cells is to follow the development of the human being from conception onwards. the commission proposal is ambiguous and inappropriate since scientists do not promise any results for 10 to 15 years and this research does not match the urgency of the needs of patients who are suffering while they wait for a treatment to be found. we need to prioritise funding for research into adult stem cells, the only alternative method which does not raise ethical issues and which is a technique that has been approved by all members. i will not support the commission proposal amended by the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy and i will vote in favour of the gargani amendment, to which i also added my name. the next item is the report (a5-0389/2003) by mr linkohr, on behalf of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, on investing in research: an action plan for europe [com(2003) 226 - c5-0381/2003 - 2003/2148(ini)]. mr president, my report is less controversial, but, i believe, no less significant. it makes the simple claim that europe must invest more in research. the proportion of europe's gross domestic product devoted to research expenditure is to increase to 3% by 2010; one-third must be raised from public funds, and two-thirds to be contributed by industry. only in this way can the european union become the most competitive region in the world, which is what europe's heads of state or government called for in lisbon as many as three years ago. the commission endorses this call and has calculated that, by 2010, industry's expenditure on research will have to increase by 9% per annum, and the public contribution by 6% per annum, if this target is to be reached. we are nowhere near doing that. even though the eu is more populous, the usa spends usd 140 billion more every year on research; the national institute of health, which deals solely with medicine as a life science, has usd 28 billion at its disposal - more than the whole of the rest of the world spends in this field. its budget has doubled over the past five years, and, in 2004, it will be getting another billion dollars, itself equivalent to over two-thirds of the budget of the german research foundation. the national science foundation will also have its funding increased by 6%. the usa is not alone, though, in increasing its expenditure on research, which is already at a high level; japan has sharply increased its spending on research, even though its economy is flagging. in 1997, all parties in the japanese parliament joined in taking the initiative in adopting a ten-year plan, with substantial rates of increase to encourage young scientists. canada, which was facing economic recession some years ago, has consciously invested in science and technology and is now reaping the economic rewards of its efforts. in the past year alone, the sum of cad 800 million was made available for the purpose of attracting foreign professors to the country. in europe, by contrast, spending has been static and has, in some countries, even been reduced; despite all their pious utterances, most eu countries are cutting back on education and research. fewer and fewer students are interested in physics, chemistry, mathematics and biology. enterprises are moving their research to the usa. unice is already talking in terms of the threat of de-industrialisation. to be sure, there are exceptions: sweden and finland are showing us what everyone should be doing. why is it, though, that it is the larger countries that are neglecting research? i have just received a letter from italy, where a competition was held to appoint 1 600 scientists to university posts. they have now spent two whole years waiting to be appointed because the funding has not been made available. surely, though, this cannot be just about money; after all, we spend a lot of money on subsidising all sorts of things, including eur 900 million from our budget for tobacco cultivation alone. it is evident that what we lack is not money but the right priorities; it is in the past that we invest rather than in the future. what is to be done? we have to change course, or else our repeatedly calling for a knowledge-based society in europe will become a sad joke, and then nobody will take the eu seriously any more. it will be seen as a tired and enfeebled colossus, a continent filled with boastful babble, fragile and old, nothing more than a historical museum. i therefore have three demands to make in the hope that parliament, the commission and council will endorse them. firstly, there must be an increase in private-sector expenditure on research; a rate of increase of 9% per annum would be feasible if we were to do as the commission communication on research policy recommends. to do that, we have to try every incentive, including tax exemption. secondly, we have to increase public expenditure. what this means for the eu's research budget is that the seventh research framework programme must run to at least eur 30 billion. i might add, by the way, that this figure corresponds to the annual increase of 6% for public-sector research expenditure that i have called for and takes account of the growth in the eu's size. thirdly, the eu should act on the advice of the scientific organisations and set up a european research council, from whose resources basic research would be funded. if we are to change course, the new policy has to be set out, so i suggest that we hold, before the european elections, a european scientific congress in brussels or strasbourg. enough has been written, enough has been said; the commission, too, has presented a convincing document. enough of statements of intent; now is the time for action. mr president, i would like to thank mr linkohr who, naturally as rapporteur, carried out a very important task and who has, for a long time, been familiar with the issue. this is a very high-quality report, which is entirely worthy of the members of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy. i would also like to thank the rapporteur of the committee on legal affairs and the internal market and its members. once again this report shows, and i am delighted about this, the importance that parliament attaches to research and innovation. what is also very important is that this is a growing phenomenon. the council of ministers now regularly discusses research and innovation. the growth initiative introduced research and innovation as a key element of european growth. in the same way, knowledge production has - and this is quite logical - become a major political priority in the knowledge-based society. this is why, moreover, the 3% objective, which was discussed here in parliament, was also adopted by the council of ministers and must be implemented. mr linkohr did, however, quite rightly mention that, in order to implement the 3% objective, an average increase of at least 8% is necessary, 9% for the private sector and 6% for the public sector. it is a good idea to repeat these figures regularly if we want to take up the challenge. the actions proposed in the action plan are aimed at many aspects, in particular creating a more favourable environment for private investment as well as in research and that regards, in particular, the areas of competition, intellectual property, the regulatory environment, financial markets and taxation. nor must we forget however, as you stressed, the issue of public support for research and innovation, which remains essential, as does, of course, the whole issue of fundamental research, and i will return to this after the speeches - which will no doubt provide some responses - on this european research council which is being discussed and formed. there is, of course, also a process and the action plan is the start of the process. there is no time to lose. fundamentally, i believe that we need, once and for all, to not see research as an expense, but rather as a priority investment for the future of europe. i think that this is the key element in the approach and i feel that, with the joint action by parliament, the scientific community, and industry, there is greater and greater awareness that this is a question of life and death for europe, in economic and social terms. i would like to thank you mr linkohr, and all of the members too, for having given your backing to these issues and i hope that the next time i speak, i will of course be replying to more specific aspects of what has just been presented to you. - mr president, i would sincerely like to thank my colleague, rolf linkohr, for his commendable work in this important matter. there is consensus in the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy regarding the fact that research funding in the eu should be increased significantly and promptly. thus, on the threshold of enlargement it would be good to come up with some clear figures in addition to all the fine words. the final sum for the seventh framework programme has to be eur 30 billion. a smaller investment will not bring the same benefit. one of europe's weaknesses has been insufficient sme involvement in research. statistical illusion also has a part in this. the most important tool in europe to achieve the 3% target is companies and in particular smes. at present, companies are doing much innovative work that is not statistically recorded at all as research and development and it cannot even be supported through the various public aid instruments. the reason for this is that the notion of innovation is vague, the rules can be interpreted in many ways, and, consequently, there is uncertainty over the fairness of the system. for this reason, it is this area that needs improving, because smes are often particularly innovative. they are also a driving force behind any kind of growth and the creation of new jobs. market-oriented research support for smes should be encouraged through special funding. forms of public intervention, be they tax advantages or direct subsidies, must not, however, influence what types of subsidy are approved nor the permitted intensity of aid granted. member states should in future be free to devise their own policies so as to ensure that the competition rules which are within the community's competence are neutral in relation to the choice of instruments. the establishment of a european research council would strengthen the worldwide competitive position of basic research carried out in europe at the highest scientific level. this would mainly come about by offering long-term funding at european level. there is a need to ensure that the european research council is granted sufficient resources, not out of the present budget, but over and above the existing research funding. it is also important that the commission should provide further and more accurate information about which forms of public aid do not distort competition. the commission's aims to investigate and clarify the community's r[amp]d state aid system and target such aid at horizontal objectives are very important and welcome. mr president, i should like to congratulate both the rapporteur and the commissioner. we are lucky to have two committed men, both of whom realise the importance of science. i was re-reading the hearings documents on the appointment of the commission and i was very pleased to see how far the commission has gone towards the objectives the commissioner set out at that time. at the moment the whole credibility of european union member states is at stake. they have made declarations, including the one made in lisbon, but they have not taken the action needed to put those declarations into effect. indeed, some member states have done precisely the opposite of what is needed. the rapporteur, like many of us, endorses the commission's recommendations and the action plan it has put forward. we plead with member states to implement what they have said in their declarations. we need the finance ministers of the european union to look towards the seventh framework programme and the necessary funding. we need to train and retain scientists; women scientists in particular are a wasted resource. there needs to be coordination between research infrastructure and regional policy. we must find out why countries like sweden and finland can do that whilst other countries cannot. we have much to learn from them. i entirely support the creation of a european research council to give some coordination and coherence to our work, particularly in basic research. a recent meeting with astronauts made me more aware of the potential for science in europe if we take the messages of the lisbon declaration seriously. almost all of us know them off by heart, but member states have so far taken very little action on them. congratulations again to mr linkohr and to mr busquin. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in barcelona, the european council decided in 2002 that eu expenditure for research and development needs to be increased to 3% of the gross domestic product. this is a necessary target if we want to close the gap with the us and be the world's most competitive knowledge-based economy by 2010. unfortunately, this 3% is currently not being achieved; it is only 1.9%. industry must account for the lion's share of this 3%, because, according to the council proposal, one-third should come from the government and two-thirds from industry. this is an agreeable proposal, but the european governments should, however, create the right climate for industry to be able to gain a permanent foothold in europe and to re-invest, particularly in development and in r[amp]d. this also applies to a great extent to small and medium-size enterprises. in various member states, initiatives have been developed in order to provide financial support to starter projects from smes, especially in the field of technology. in this respect, the fact that technological research, especially high-quality research, takes a very long time to establish is being overlooked. that is why there is always a need for new funding, and this is not always forthcoming in europe. starting is not such a problem, but secondary funding is a huge problem. we are experiencing this in the netherlands too, with the hugely successful 'biopartner' project. however, an investment climate requires clear and transparent legislation, backed by sufficient and well-trained researchers. moreover, the mobility of researchers in europe is still a major problem, because researchers are being hindered by different working conditions in the different member states. i would therefore call on the commission and the member states to put their money where their mouth is and take specific measures to create a favourable business climate for research and development in europe. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are a number of points in mr linkohr's report with which i agree. they include recognising the role of research and researchers and the need to increase expenditure and ascribing the importance to basic research which it deserves. for that i should like to thank our rapporteur. on the other hand, however, there are also extremely dangerous points in keeping with the more general policy of commercialising everything. they include the reference to competition-orientated research in paragraph 5, the approach to intellectual property rights from the point of view of the commercial interests of private undertakings in paragraph 26 and public intervention for market-orientated research and financing which abides by the rules of competition of the european union in paragraph 32. we also have a proposal for tax incentives for private research activities, while the main international cooperation which appears to be of interest is at the level of undertakings in paragraph 41. the most worrying of all is that the suggested criterion for measuring the success of each research activity is if it has a positive economic result, while the introduction of a corresponding evaluation system is proposed in paragraph 37. the above proposals and everyday political practice in research and higher education make the positive points in the report sound like a simple wish list. thus, i disagree with the overall orientation of the final version of the report. we face the demolition of the system of values developed over previous centuries and the erection of a new structure founded on commercialisation and corporate profit. mr president, once more i would simply like to thank themembers for their speeches and respond to some aspects of them. first of all, as mr linkohr rightly said, i believe that what is very important is that we show that we are keeping a close eye on the next financial perspective, because this is what will determine the leeway after 2006 and, not least, the place of research and innovation in the european union budget. as commissioner for research and innovation, i submitted proposals and the commission will present a document, but it is clear that there will be a major political debate next year and up until 2006. that debate will allow a financial perspective to be drawn up, which increases the relative share of research and innovation in eu budgets, and will do so in order to respond to various needs that have been expressed and to sustain the 3% objective. clearly it is also important that, when i think of new measures, i am thinking, among others, of fundamental research, which is not currently supported at european level. i am thinking of space policy, on which mrs mcnally and myself have just published a white paper, which has obviously drawn on this desire to develop new technologies and to develop technology transfers and to sustain this level of scientific curiosity, which is determined by the desire to go further because there is the potential to do so. mrs matikainen, however, you rightly stressed the role of small and medium-sized enterprises. it is true that the drive to transfer research to the economy, which is also a reality, is and must be greater for small and medium-sized enterprises. you are from a country that sets an example for us since, in finland, 55% of small and medium-sized enterprises maintain regular contact with universities and centres of research. these areas must be extended to european level and there are, of course, methodologies, which must be specific to small and medium-sized enterprises. the commission intends to adopt the category exemption of small and medium-sized enterprises regarding state aid for research and development at the beginning of 2004. as a result, from 1 january 2004, it will no longer be necessary for small and medium-sized enterprises to inform the commission and, therefore, it will be possible for the various states and regions to adopt more individual and specific measures for their small and medium-sized enterprises. furthermore, as regards fundamental research, it is absolutely necessary that there is a clearer proposal on this field, in the seventh framework programme, that also takes into consideration the current debate in the scientific community on the european research council. you have spoken about this european research council, which seeks to place the best scientific teams in the area of fundamental research in competition with one another at european level and consequently to support these areas which, as has been said, are comparable with what is being done in the national science foundationwhere the best teams have programmes at us level. we should have this type of programme at european level. there is, of course, the issue that mrs plooij-van gorsel, moreover, quite rightly stressed, and that is the issue of funding. this obviously includes public funding, private funding, which must be increased, and of course looking to the european investment bank, which could be more geared towards research and innovation, which is, incidentally, happening more and more. also, in the growth initiative, which was adopted on 11 november 2003, we find the concept of 'quick starts', that is to say projects that can be implemented quite quickly. in addition, for the first time, eur 14 billion is earmarked for projects for european structures and for essential european infrastructure. we are, of course, thinking about all general network issues, all issues of space policy, regarding in particular the gmes and interactive telecommunications satellites; we are, of course, thinking about tri-electron lasers, which are crucial to the emergence of a new generation of research in molecular biology, in materials and in nanotechnologies because nanotechnologies will be essential, bearing in mind the shift from microelectronics to nanoelectronics. we have made provision for a technological platform and, in this area; the finnish centre is involved in implementing the shift from micro to nanoelectronics because it is there that the greatest challenge lies. as regards this challenge, we will clearly look into the issue of technological platforms. according to the sector, we will endeavour to bring together major players to determine research projects as well as research needs. moreover, to reply to a question from mrs mcnally, it is, therefore, through programmes that include questions such as: 'what are you going to do?' that we will get there. as regards the member states, the 3% objective and the growth initiative call upon them to say: 'this is what we are going to do. here is our programme for us to reach the objective by 2010'. the commission's role will therefore be to encourage, because even if we cannot decide for the member states, we can still motivate them, show the best practices and support the process to this 3% in 2010. this is an essential process if europe wants to keep its place in the world, but that requires financing and being given the priority, which is granted to research policy. i think that you appreciate this and i would like to thank you for supporting this policy. since, in addition, this will probably be one of the last times we will be given these reports to discuss, i would like to thank all of the members of the commission, as well as parliament for the support they have given to research and innovation and my friend erkki liikanen, who will take over from me. clearly we are on the same wavelength and we are in favour of an ambitious european industrial policy for research and innovation. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at noon. - i very much welcome mr linkohr's own-initiative report on 'investing in research: an action plan for europe' and wish to express my personal thanks to him. i endorse his call for a significant increase in the amount of money spent on research in europe with the aim of achieving the lisbon targets, even though prompt transposition will be made difficult by the present tightness of many member states' budgets. if research in the eu is to be built up on a long-term basis, any increase in expenditure must therefore go hand in hand with greater efficiency in the application and management of the resources and with a more pronounced bias towards basic research. i am glad that the lead committee has agreed to my amendments in this regard. however, it also rejected the motion that what are termed the new instruments in the current sixth research framework programme should be drafted more rationally. this has led my own group to reintroduce amendment 1, in which parliament 'calls, in the context of the 6th research framework programme, for the ideas of 'networks of excellence' and 'integrated projects' to be geared more closely to the guiding notion of the european research area, and that adjustments, particularly in relation to the size of projects - both in terms of the number of project partners and of the financial volumes involved - should therefore be made.' it is our expectation that this will enable, even now, the eu's research policy to be adapted to the currently prevailing realities. i therefore ask you to adopt this amendment. the next item is the joint debate on the following three reports: - a5-0374/2003 by mrs read, on behalf of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, on the proposal for a european parliament and council regulation on amending council regulation (ec) no 2236/95/ec laying down general rules for the granting of community financial aid in the field of trans-european networks (com(2003) 220 - c5-0199/2003 - 2003/0086(cod)) - a5-0375/2003 by mrs read, on behalf of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy on the proposal for a european parliament and council decision on interoperable delivery of pan-european government services to public administrations, businesses and citizens (idabc) (com(2003) 406 - c5-0310/2003 - 2003/0147(cod)) - a5-0376 by mr clegg, on behalf of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, on the eighth report from the commission on the implementation of the telecommunications regulatory package (com(2002) 695 - 2003/2090(ini)) . mr president, i would like to thank mrs read for her reports on eten and idabc, which strongly support these programmes. mrs read has been very committed over the years to the ida programme. the commission would strongly support a vote in favour of these reports. let me start with the eten programme, which was formerly known as ten telecom. this programme will play a key role in achieving the objectives of the eeurope 2005 action plan. the programme has been reoriented to the objectives of eeurope 2005. the focus has been fixed on services in the areas of egovernment, ehealth and elearning. the programme has shown, through a number of validation projects, that there is high potential for the deployment of such services. however, the current 10% limit of community financial support has proved insufficient to overcome the barriers to deployment at a trans-european level. the commission has proposed raising the maximum level to 30%, since both research and experience in other programmes show that this is the level needed to encourage deployment successfully. however, as a former budget commissioner, i should like to reiterate that the budget for the programme will nevertheless remain unchanged. the funding will concentrate on fewer but more focussed projects, thereby making the programme more effective. the scope of the new idabc programme will be broader than that of the present programmes. idabc provides a more comprehensive coverage of pan-european egovernment services. the benefits resulting from the cooperation between public administrations across europe extend to citizens and businesses. idabc supports, initiates and manages the delivery of pan-european egovernment services with a view to giving business and citizens easy access to cross-border information and transactions. the commission fully supports the report of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy as submitted to the plenary session today. the commission can accept amendments 1 to 5. considering that the council is expected to reach a political agreement on the idabc programme on thursday, the commission hopes that the very good cooperation with mrs read and the european parliament will allow a second reading and final adoption before the parliamentary elections. let me turn now to the third element of our debate today, which relates to the implementation of the telecom regulatory framework. i would like to thank the rapporteur, mr clegg, for the thorough job he has done, and parliament for its interest in the eighth report. i particularly welcome your involvement in the ongoing issues of the transposition and implementation of the new regulatory framework in the member states. eight countries have now succeeded in adopting legislation: denmark, spain, ireland, italy, austria, finland, sweden and the united kingdom. the commission has opened infringement proceedings against those member states that have failed to notify measures. we will pursue these proceedings vigorously. at the council on thursday, i will be urging those member states that have not yet transposed to make renewed efforts to complete the task with the minimum of further delay. in addition, in a few days the commission will adopt the ninth implementation report, addressed to parliament and council, which sets out in more detail the state of play of transposition as at 1 november. as far as the situation in the electronic communications market is concerned, the report will identify some encouraging signs on the market after the difficult financial conditions of last year. the number of mobile subscribers is anticipated to grow at a greater rate than in 2002, despite the high penetration rates already achieved. even if competition in the broadband market is still weak, the number of fixed broadband lines increased by nearly 80% in the year to october 2003. unbundling, in particular, has developed significantly, with over 1 million new unbundled lines between october 2002 and october 2003. some of the key issues we are examining in our assessment of transposition measures include the role of national regulatory authorities, and the putting in place of measures to avoid over-regulation. accession countries will need to adapt their laws to comply with the new framework by may 2004. parliament is being kept fully informed by way of the recent comprehensive monitoring reports, which contained a chapter on the telecommunications sector. we will continue to monitor the situation closely and to assist the authorities in accession countries. the situation regarding transposition and implementation there will be fully covered in the 2004 report. in conclusion, with renewed effort by all member states to complete the process of transposition and market review in the coming months, we believe we can do our share of the work to help the market stabilise further and to maintain its growth, so that consumers can continue to benefit from competitive prices and the development of broadband services. . mr president, i am delighted to present these two reports to you. i will deal with the easier one first, the eten programme, which the commissioner has outlined with admirable clarity. i want to recommend to parliament that it accept the commission proposal. i was interested that the budget blood still runs in the commissioner's veins. he was quite right to point out that this proposal is a reallocation of an existing budget and is not about raising the total budget. however, if the 10% ceiling is raised to 30%, it will mean the deployment of fewer but more focused projects in the future. the commissioner again is quite right that when the potential for deployment of a product is recognised, the main barriers it faces are financial ones. there are difficulties which we well know in obtaining private capital for initial investment in this area. to raise the ceiling in this way is a proper use of funds in the eten budget programme. i hope that the commission proposal is accepted and i have not tabled amendments, nor have other colleagues, which is the right thing to do. the ida programme is more complicated. i had hoped that we would get a first-reading agreement on this but this proved not to be possible. in some ways, for very good reasons, the council showed a good degree of diligence in its considerations of this proposal. what we are looking at here is extending the ida successes in cross-border cooperation and communication between public administrations. this will build on that and also extend this cooperation to citizens and to businesses. however, there are also important changes which relate to the procedure, which has been streamlined and simplified. it is good that lessons have been learned from previous ida work. the commissioner knows that i was the rapporteur on two or three separate ida proposals and i note with some wry humour that this was long before the phrase 'egovernment' was widely used or even invented. however, the proposal can and will have real benefits. the commission estimates that for every euro spent on it infrastructure, the public sector can gain up to eur 1.8. the annual cost of the testa programme, the part of ida that deals with infrastructure, is eur 4.6 million. the benefits are estimated to be eur 8.6 million across the public sector: a genuine multiplier. the new programme will be called idabc. i will read to you what it means because it is sometimes easy to forget: interoperable delivery of pan-european egovernment services to public administrations, businesses and citizens. although it is a real mouthful, we can point to the ida successes as bringing real benefits to european union citizens in ways that really touch their lives. ida is currently working in the following areas: agriculture, humanitarian aid, the internal market, statistics, environment, trade, employment and education. i pulled out here, and in my explanatory statement, five or six specific projects: the solvit network, which provides a mechanism for people who come up against barriers to the internal market to raise the issue with the member state concerned; the euphin programme, which enables authorities to exchange data on public health issues, including communicable diseases in a fast and secure way; ploteus, a portal that supplies information on learning opportunities around europe; tournet, a system for linking tourism administrations so that they can share information about their own particular areas; and finally transcards, a more local and focused programme, which allows citizens living on the french-belgian border to use the health facilities of either member state, regardless of which country they live in. they are all good, quotable examples of tangible benefits the ida way. this new proposal will bring not only tangible benefits in the ida way, it will also bring benefits to european citizens and businesses. it will facilitate the free movement of people, goods and services by making egovernment applications more accessible across national boundaries. i very much hope that parliament supports the commission proposal in the way that i have amended it and i commend it to you. lastly, i should like to make a very brief comment on the report by my colleague, mr clegg. i will not go into the detail. he has done an excellent job here and is quite rightly using very specific language about some of the shortcomings of member states. the commissioner indicated his seriousness as regards addressing those member states which did not meet the due deadlines: the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy made it clear that it would back him if he wanted to take the action he has outlined. i am confident that parliament will also support him in this. we are already getting some indications that the accession countries are saying that they do not have enough time and need more breathing space. it is difficult to resist those arguments if existing member states, which should be well able to transpose and implement, have not done so. i commend my own two reports, and that of mr clegg, to the house. . mr president, i am reminded on occasions like this how very specialised these debates must appear to the rest of parliament given that we are so small in number. seeing so many friendly and familiar faces here this evening, however, i am also reminded that we perhaps make up in sheer intelligence and talent for the lack of numbers that we are able to muster this evening, merry gang of telecoms specialists that we are. on a more serious note, i would like to thank many colleagues here this evening for their support and cooperation in producing this report, which really was a collective effort. i know that all parliamentary reports are collective efforts, but this one very much represented a collective effort by the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy as a whole, including the shadow spokespeople. this was reflected in the unanimous vote in our committee. it is not an exaggeration to say that this report represents a welcome new development in the way in which parliament is working, in the way in which we are increasingly not only promulgating and amending legislation, but also developing a highly welcome preoccupation about how that legislation is subsequently implemented. it would be irresponsible for us as legislators not to pay due attention to what happens to our worthy texts once they are adopted as legislative texts. this is a model example of not only cooperation across parties, but also cooperation between institutions in ensuring implementation is properly and fully pursued. i would like to isolate four points which are of particular significance. first, in urging the commission to take action against those member states that have not yet implemented the telecoms legislation in good time, and welcoming any action already taken, it is important to remember that we stress in paragraph 3 of this report that we also believe the commission should continually look at innovative ways of not only forcing implementation on those reluctant member states, but also encouraging implementation by benchmarking and comparative analyses. the commission can produce these in order to urge the laggards to take a good example from those member states who are perhaps more advanced. second, our comments in this report on the regulatory structure and the european regulatory group are important. in paragraph 22, we put it on record that we feel that the existence of the european regulators group - the erg - and the independent regulators group - the irg - is increasingly illogical because there is so much overlap between the two. whilst many of us here understand that the commission cannot take a formal position on this, it is worth stressing this evening that we feel there is absolutely no logical reason why these two bodies should coexist as is currently the case. a merger between the erg and the irg is desirable. i would like to see more proactive input from the commission as regards the accession countries, and the degree to which they are abiding not only by the old framework but also looking to adopt the new framework. in our discussions with the commission on this report, the commission explained that it would be too onerous and complicated to meet an initial demand made by myself and others for specific reports on the implementation of telecoms law in the accession countries. in the end we urged the commission to collate more information on the state of play in the accession countries. however, it is important that it should be taken seriously. if one looks at the monitoring reports issued recently by the commission, there are only about two or three paragraphs on the telecoms sector in many of these countries. that really is not good enough. as they approach their own date of entry into the european union, it is essential that we monitor that situation more closely than perhaps has been the case hitherto. finally, i would like to draw special attention to the importance of paragraph 9 in our report, which stresses once again that notwithstanding the emphasis in all the regulatory activity in recent years on increasing access-based competition, our long-term goal has to remain facilities-based competition. that is sometimes obscured by all the battles we have about local loop unbundling, bit stream access and so on. at the end of the day, what we want for the benefit of european consumers, let alone european telecoms operators, is sustainable, robust, facilities-based competition. it is to that end that i hope this implementation report has made some contribution. . mr president, on behalf of my colleagues in the committee on legal affairs and the internal market, i would like to thank mr clegg for the work he has done and his cooperation in enabling us to bring our own ideas into the report, and also for pushing the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy to take the initiative. many of us worked as rapporteurs or shadow rapporteurs on the electronic communications package of legislation over two years ago and it is important that we continue to show our political support and sustained engagement. after all, we all put a lot of work into it. we know it is in the implementation phase now, but it sends a clear signal that this parliament is extremely interested in what we regard as one of the most important pieces of internal market legislation and one that enhances competitiveness. competitiveness is absolutely crucial to the current agenda. i would like to highlight one or two points that the committee on legal affairs considered in relation to our work on the universal services and users' rights directive. firstly, we thoroughly endorse the commissioner's opening statement about avoiding over-regulation. one specific measure in the universal services directive is aimed at ensuring that member states do not intervene directly in the retail market to try and cap prices unless they have exhausted remedies at the wholesale level. they must be asked to keep that in mind and act on it. the second point is a practical one: we have put a lot of work into our directive on tariff transparency and publication, to encourage member states particularly to address the issues of tariff transparency and comparison for private consumers and for small businesses. unfortunately i have not seen a great deal of evidence that member states have really taken that on board and i hope that will be picked up in the commission. we would encourage you, commissioner, and your team to pay close attention to this whole transposition, to make sure that we get the maximum benefit from this very important piece of legislation. - mr president, my task is a relatively simple one. the committee adopted both of mrs read's reports by a large majority, without us having to make major changes to them. this means, mrs read, that i can keep my comments relatively brief. our group unreservedly endorses the commission's intention, which the committee has also approved, namely to increase the upper limit for aid granted for trans-european electronic networks from 10% to 30%. although the overall framework is no bigger - which means that fewer projects can be supported - we were persuaded that the 10% limit was too low, so we support this motion, and you can rely on our unconditional support for the first report. in the second report, your concern is to introduce greater flexibility into pan-european government services, which are capable of being used in every conceivable way. in it, you express your desire to do away with the commission's distinction between 'projects of common interest'and 'horizontal measures', thus allocating resources, totalling eur 59.1 million for 2005 and 2006, and eur 89.6 million for the period from 2007 to 2009, in a more flexible way. we support you in this concern, too, and i believe that both your reports, in which you describe the problems in great detail, will enjoy the support of a broad majority in this house. i would now like to conclude with an additional observation on the trans-european networks as a whole, a topic that has been on our agenda for many months, indeed for years. up to now, the problem has been that these great projects - whether in transport, telecommunications, in the energy infrastructure, in research and technology - have suffered from insufficient financial resources. the consequence has been that the implementation of the essen resolutions, which first sought to promote the trans-european networks, has been very slow, very sparing and very incomplete. a group of experts under mr karel van miert conducted a mid-year study of the transport infrastructure. the commission's new initiative for growth, the sixty-two projects in which are expected to be signed off by the summit, deals precisely with this area. even though we are, today, discussing only funding and total budget, i can tell the commissioner that the approach of promoting and extending trans-european networks is the right one if we want, not only to free up markets, but also to make europe fit for the future and thereby move a bit closer to achieving the goal we set ourselves at lisbon. congratulations to our two rapporteurs, firstly mrs read, who has always been a doughty supporter of telecommunications. i am very pleased that she realises, as we all do, the added european value of telecommunications for all of the lisbon agenda. firstly, on the trans-european networks, when i arrived in this parliament, the talk of the town was the delors white paper, one of the main planks of which was european networks. i am delighted that the commissioner and his staff have been adaptable enough to recognise that if the proposals put forward are not working as originally designed, the best thing to do is to, for example, concentrate on fewer projects in a more focused way and to increase the commission contribution, since the 10% clearly was not stimulating the sort of initiatives we wanted. i strongly support their flexibility. i also support, of course, the idabc programme as outlined by mrs read. i believe that one of the neglected parts of the lisbon agenda is greater social cohesion, which the ida programme will contribute to greatly, as well as, of course, the knowledge-based economy. the word 'interoperability' is appearing increasingly frequently. we are a continent comprising many small countries with different traditions. if we do not ensure that our systems can be brought together and work in an interoperable way, we are doomed to be less successful than continental blocs such as the united states. therefore i strongly support the interoperability aim of ida and its support of community policies as outlined by mrs read, those that are traditional - agriculture, employment statistics - and those that are newer - civil protection, humanitarian aid and justice and home affairs. i am also interested in making our citizens feel safer and, of course, i am also interested in the internal market. turning to mr clegg's report, i would again like to congratulate him. he and others on the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy have been very vociferous in saying that it is simply not enough to pass directives and to put in place legislation if member states then feel free to transpose that legislation according to some personal timetable which does not make europe more competitive or promote social cohesion. commissioner, i am glad that in your eighth report you bring out some of your tough instruments and make it clear that you will instigate infringement proceedings against those member states which fail to transpose. this should be done far more frequently in a whole range of community policy areas, because there are some member states that take advantage of the markets created by those member states that do transpose, while not playing fair themselves. i also agree with mr clegg that accession countries should be looked at. congratulations again to both rapporteurs. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to join other members in expressing my approval, not only of the three reports we are discussing here but also of the commission's proposals. the main aspects of the commission's proposals and of the reports have been highlighted, but i would like to insist on the aspects which appear to me to be fundamental. firstly, the slowness of the process implemented on the basis of these proposals, which are very positive in terms of relaunching and achieving operational unity in the major communications networks and which, as the commissioner has quite rightly stressed, within the context of enlargement, are very necessary. there is therefore an essential need to respond to this reality and at the same time to fulfil the lisbon commitments. but, unfortunately - and we see this in practice - there are obstacles to fully attaining these objectives, some of which - as has been pointed out - are highlighted in the white paper by the former president of the commission, mr delors. there are basically two of these obstacles; the lack of discipline and commitment on the part of the member states, a significant obstacle which distorts the market in these fields and, in particular, in the telecommunications fields, which is the issue dealt with in the report by mr clegg; and secondly, the financial difficulties in supporting and developing these major networks of communications, telecommunications and electronic services, in the case we are now considering. overcoming these two obstacles will clearly be the competence and responsibility of the commission, but in this task it has the support of this parliament and the liberal group which i represent. madam president, i will focus on just one point: is a european regulation for telecommunications needed? nick clegg is saying that it only has to be provisional and i am saying that it must be permanent and firmer than the current regulation. i would have liked nick clegg to give greater consideration to the analyses of distinguished economists from oxford and cambridge, who stress that if competition policy is then the regulation has to be to meet the economic, social and environmental aims. the rapporteur stresses that incumbent operators must give way to competition and, although this is true, it will not automatically be efficient, nor will it even be effective where competition is limited. the european telecoms sector has just come through a disastrous period in terms of investment and employment and has frittered away its lead with the gsm provision. a umts regulation would have allowed the use of infrastructure to be shared, instead of investors duplicating them and getting heavily into debt by doing so. furthermore, the discrepancy between the 'price' criterion and the 'quality' criterion forced the uk regulator to impose greater quality obligations on british telecom. as regards the social and territorial cohesion objective, the commission report is particularly weak. is there really universal access? we do not know. does it need to be extended with effective territorial coverage for mobile phones with access for everyone to a fast internet connection? there again, there is no opinion. generalising the call for tenders procedure could favour all the pressures for eliminating universal service. as regards the issue of calculating the costs for special financing, the answers vary significantly depending on the choice of the relevant territory. all this becomes all the more important in the context of enlargement. who will dare to say the liberalisation will be enough to ensure that private capital is invested . i will therefore speak strongly in favour of more stringent european regulation. there is no evidence to support the idea that the national regulatory authorities should simply be independent and regulate themselves. these authorities must be part of a legislative and regulatory framework in the public interest. madam president, commissioner busquin, ladies and gentlemen, my fellow fans of communication, since, as was just mentioned, we are by and large among friends in this house, there is actually a whole range of dangers that mr herzog has just highlighted and that i will not go over again. i will, therefore, endeavour to be positive by saying that the three reports, despite everything, form part of a policy intended to prevent the digital divide and, from this point of view, i will not just thank the two rapporteurs for their work, but the group of the greens/european free alliance will also support these three reports. i will go back over mrs read's proposals in a little more detail because as regards these very technical subjects, which are, however, of financial interest to the european territorial authorities - and i am speaking as someone from the auvergne, moreover - these proposals help to ensure that the information society is not left in the hands of one or two monopolies. there is not just bill gates in the age of computers, and that is just as well. i will, therefore, make every effort to concentrate more specifically on thanking all those who told us beforehand what they were doing, so that we could clearly follow the amendments that were being prepared. the ten programme is a decisive implementation tool alongside the general rules for granting community financial aid in the area of trans-european networks. this is provided for until 2005. the objective is to raise the aid ceiling to projects in the telecommunication sector from 10% to 30% and this proposal is not insignificant because it will probably enable the lisbon objectives to be backed up and therefore europe to be developed in the area of services of general interest. this is precisely what we are interested in; that this is known as universal services or services of general interest, and that this service will in any case ultimately apply to all citizens and will be a tool that is strengthened for the good of all. this concept of services of general interest is perhaps even truer, moreover, with the idabc programme for the period 2005-2009. indeed, we the group of the greens/european free alliance are as you know pro free software and have found that it is backed up because it is included in the idea of interoperable delivery of pan-european government services to administrations. we therefore support these projects. i will say, to conclude - because it is interesting news - that the town of munich for example, apart from the example that was set with ida, has switched to linux, to free software, and i hope that other administrations will take up the same challenges. madam president, i would like to thank the rapporteurs for this report, which is, , technically detailed. we will give our full support as regards expenditure, so much so that, for my part, i have sent a letter signed jointly by myself, as vice-chairman of the committee on budgets, and the chairman of the committee, supporting the commission's proposal on the ida programme as regards raising the maximum funding level. what is the reason for this? we feel that 10% is only a symbolic gesture whereas raising the figure to 30% is a tangible action, which will show people that europe is close to the citizens rather than far away, particularly where tens are concerned. as the rapporteur for this subject, however, i would like to speak about tens in general. i feel that raising the maximum level is important for trans-european networks in general. we started with 10%, we raised the figure to 20% at first reading and now we are talking about 30%: this is significant. in addition to this, however, i feel that we need to amend the report on tens so that it provides the possibility of introducing a subsidised system, with regard to all the networks included in the tens in all sectors, including telecommunications and including ida, in order to give the states the option of doing all this on the ground where they have problems with local authorities. i believe this is something that could streamline the procedure and provide an increasingly smooth channel for funding to reach the territory. in addition, i must mention what is known as -rewarding, which we already see as a comparative document and which should, in the future, reveal the good states and the bad states and, above all, make it possible to intervene where it is necessary to use the funds in question. lastly, i would state that we certainly do not support what is known as the quick shortlist, in that it runs counter to the procedures of the treaties. that area is not the responsibility of the commission but the responsibility of the council and ecofin, on the one hand, and the european parliament, on the other. - madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to start by warmly thanking our rapporteur, mr clegg, for making the climate in the committee conducive to the report's unanimous adoption. tomorrow we will see that this report will not meet with resistance; quite on the contrary, it will be adopted with a great degree of consensus. we are particularly advocating a competitive and open market. why do we do this? quite simply because we, in europe, want to become more competitive. when competition is on a global scale, telecommunications are urgently needed as a key to the future, and our telecommunications need to be highly competitive. it is therefore of the utmost importance that this be implemented as quickly as possible, not only in the candidate countries, but also in the member states. we do not want distinctions to be drawn; we want the regulatory authorities to make public the progress achieved in the various countries, so that benchmarks and best practice may show us how to advance more rapidly where broadband is concerned. we know that there are, at present, a number of difficulties associated with the introduction of umts, because the auctioning of frequencies had an inflationary effect. i therefore think it makes a lot of sense for certain member states to decide on tax incentives in order to get these new technologies up and running as soon as possible. reference has already been made to the overlap of work between regulatory authorities. it is indeed necessary to bring the national and european levels together, even though, of course, the main work should be done in the member states, with the european level intervening only when absolutely necessary. it is particularly important that these institutions should be independent, and i believe that, in the future too, we should take care to ensure the functioning especially of the technical interfaces in order to guarantee the systems' interoperability. it might therefore make sense for the regulatory bodies to give some thought to the question of in which areas we need europe-wide standardisation and in which mutual recognition, for it is, in the final analysis, targeted technical standardisation that can guarantee competition, it being of the utmost importance in terms of competition that interfaces should work and that the different systems should be capable of being used alongside each other. we are of course all aware that businesses and entrepreneurs are tempted to create monopolies and keep technological innovations to themselves, but we must nevertheless guarantee the existence of a functioning market with technically well-executed interfaces. madam president, i also wish to congratulate both the rapporteurs on good and timely reports. speaking mainly on mr clegg's report, one of the greatest obstacles to investment and competition in the telecoms market throughout europe has been the lack of consistency and application in regulation. the differing requirements, and consequently the differing costs, have deterred new operators from starting up operations alongside existing ones. as a result, it has stifled the market and reduced competition. therefore, i welcome this new regulatory package as it proposes changes by generating a consistent approach with the aim of liberalising the telecoms market. it provides a unique opportunity for all the governments to set the standards in a developing market and to finally begin fulfilling the goals we set at lisbon, which have been all too slow to be realised. today's buzzword in the telecoms arena is 'implementation'. this is the key issue, more so now than before, as the sector is showing positive signs of stabilising. however, i fully support the rapporteur in questioning the commission as to why it is that only five member states have met the deadline for the transfer of the new regulatory package this year and why the commission has been very slow in responding to this. what exactly is it proposing to do? the commission needs to be tougher. we need action from the commission, not just words, because delays not only penalise both new entrants and incumbents, but also put up barriers to the national regulatory authorities and the collation of information from the market players. we have to move on and we need proper market analysis on which we can base further action. i am also extremely disappointed at the slow development of broadband. i have been contacted by numerous people in the west midlands who have expressed their concerns about this moving at a snail's pace and the need to address that, especially in some rural areas. madam president, two aspects of this package warrant particular attention: the first concerns the double standards it adopts towards the lisbon strategy: the social aspect is totally overlooked and ignored by the member states, specifically targets for employment, social inclusion and equal rights and opportunities, but when it comes to liberalising sectors that are of interest to economic groups, the commission is asked, in the clegg report on telecommunications, for example, to press ahead with infringement proceedings against member states that have dragged their feet in the liberalisation process, without even bothering to find out whether public services are guaranteed for all citizens. this position is unacceptable. the second aspect concerns increasing the maximum funding level from 10% to 30% of a project's total investment costs at implementation stage, but without increasing the overall budget, which is a problem, because this means that fewer projects will be taking part at a time when a balanced development must be guaranteed. in other words, the countries with the greatest shortfalls must not find it more difficult to get projects funded. consequently, this increase of the maximum funding level must be accompanied by an increase in the overall appropriations. madam president, in the proposal for a regulation on trans-european communications networks it is noted, as in the case of other networks, that there has been no progress in the implementation of the projects of community interest as a result of the lack of funding, either private or by the member states concerned. in this regard, forgive me if i leave behind telecommunications and comment on the planned south-east european high speed railway, where it is surprising that the vitoria-irn-dax atlantic branch, with a link to bilbao, has been removed from the commission's final report, according to the requirements of the european council, despite the fact that the basque government has made a financial commitment to this line and has been prepared to build it since february 2001. furthermore, this project can be in operation from the outset linking the french and spanish states, via irn, since there is already an international european gauge track throughout the french network as far as that point. for these reasons, the fact that this vitoria-dax branch is not included is not comprehensible either strategically or politically and i would call publicly on both the council of transport ministers and on the spanish commissioner, mrs loyola de palacio, for it to be reinstated. - madam president, i wish to thank both my colleagues for their very creditable work in this area. i shall now just concentrate on the report by mr clegg. the topic he deals with is now extremely important because the commission is for example calling for the swift implementation of the new european regulatory framework in all member states. mr clegg quite rightly criticises member states which, despite pressure from the commission and the sector, have not done enough to adopt the new legislative package as part of their own legal system. if europe wishes to create a genuine internal market for the telecommunications sector as well, it is particularly important that we ensure that harmonised legislation is implemented. we must keep to what we have decided. with circumstances as they are it is dangerous to start proposing measures to remedy the market situation before the telecommunications package has even been implemented. given that eight member states have not made the package part of their own legislation, it is nothing less than a scandal. point 34 in mr clegg's report is not the correct way to proceed in the situation as it is now, since in my view it conflicts with the universal service directive. can we have the operators pay for these reforms in the infrastructure? as a list of obligations and remedying actions has just been launched on the market it is sheer madness to confuse the issue by adding new public service obligations or imprecise notions regarding a monopoly, which are oddly combined with perhaps some quite interesting business concept, which is to say the european service number idea. the whole information and communications technology sector has to be regulated until the markets are fully competitive. that is only fair for everyone. let, then, the new service concepts come about in a commercially competitive market where business developers skilled in their field will certainly do their work well. that is european innovation. let us also do our work: let us enact laws that last. . madam president, first of all i should like to thank the honourable members of the european parliament, who have been very consistent in following this file. i have a few comments. interestingly, a couple of studies have been carried out recently which compared levels of productivity growth and development in the eu and in the united states. one was conducted under the leadership of professor van ark of groningen university. there, they have studied the industrial and service sectors, trying to spot the areas in which the gaps between the eu and the us have been narrowing and widening. the communications sector is one area in which europe has done better than the united states. the latest issue of the harvard business review came up with the same conclusion. even though only two reference countries were used - france and germany - productivity growth in europe has been about 15% faster than it has in the united states over the last five years. therefore, the liberalisation of telecommunications within our regulatory framework has provided a real boost for innovation and competition. i am also sure that investment into research and development has been very helpful. all this shows that the right pressure for competition and a push for innovation also boosts productivity growth, which is a major benefit for the whole sector. second, on future issues, i agree with mr clegg that in the long term, facilities-based competition encourages investment. the big challenge in applying these regulations will be how to build a bridge from service-based competition to facilities-based competition. the only way to do it consistently is via the opening-up of legacy networks, which have hitherto been financed under monopoly conditions. where the opening-up of networks will require future investment and may involve risks, these risks must be properly assessed. mr herzog made a very interesting comment. it is very clear that we need both ex ante and ex post regulation. ex ante regulation should be used in cases such as universal services, when there is strong public interest, but once markets are fully competitive, then reasons for broad ex ante regulation will essentially diminish. regulation is not the purpose here. the purpose is high-quality services for the citizens at competitive prices. finally, mrs gill, as far as our measures on the implementation of the regulation are concerned, the commission is extremely strict when it exercises its role as guardian of the treaties. the infringement procedure has three phases. the first is the letter of formal notice, which we have sent out. we are waiting for the reply. when we have received it, we will produce a letter giving a reasoned opinion. if we are not happy with the reply we will take the member state to court. we will be extremely cool and objective in applying these principles, so there is no reason for concern in this respect. i also noted the comments of both mrs read and mr clegg on the accession countries. i am ready to have another look at this and will be happy to discuss that issue another time. thank you, commissioner liikanen. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at noon. the next item is a report (a5-0383/2003) by mrs kauppi, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the introduction of special tax arrangements for diesel fuel used for commercial purposes, this with a view to aligning the excise duties on petrol and diesel fuels [com(2002) 410 - c5-0409/2002 - 2002/0191(cns)]. . madam president, on 27 october 2003, after more than six years of negotiation, the council adopted the energy tax directive. that directive includes some aspects of the commercial diesel proposal and notably it gives member states the possibility to apply differential tax rates to commercial diesel and non-commercial diesel. however, the energy tax directive is still based on the principle of minimum rates only. hence, it does not remedy the problem of distortion of competition on road haulage markets, which stems from the significant differences in diesel taxation in the member states. only harmonisation, or at least a greater approximation, of commercial diesel taxation will put an end to those distortions of competition. three parliamentary committees, the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, the committee on the environment, public health and consumer policy, and the committee on regional policy, transport and tourism have broadly supported the commission's proposals for that reason. however, the debates in the committee on economic and monetary affairs have also shown that there is wide recognition of the existence of such distortions. however, that committee does not share the views of the commission on the need and the means to reduce those distortions of competition. i recall that, according to article 93 of the treaty, provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning excise duties must be adopted to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and proper functioning of the internal market. it is clear that the distortions of competition resulting from the very significant differences in excise duties applied to diesel by the member states are a threat to the functioning of the internal market. i would like to point out that the commission reacted positively to many amendments contemplated by the rapporteur of the committee on economic and monetary affairs and other members of parliament. in particular, the commission could in principle have accepted the following three items. firstly, the creation of an indexed fluctuation band for excise duties applicable to commercial diesel. such a fluctuation band could be considered a 'second best' if a harmonised rate for commercial diesel cannot be achieved. the second item is the alignment of the present proposal with the terms of the energy tax directive, in particular as far as the definition of commercial diesel and tax rates are concerned. third, there is the issue of the implementation of a refund system, as a practical tool for differentiating duties for commercial and non-commercial diesel. to my surprise, it appeared that these amendments were subsequently not considered by the committee on economic and monetary affairs to be sufficient to allow support for the commission's proposal. finally, the council, according to the minutes concerning the adoption of the energy tax directive, is clearly committed to pursuing its work on the commercial diesel proposal. for the reasons i have given, the commission is still convinced of the merits of this proposal. i would invite members of parliament to consider their position on this issue very carefully before the vote on it this week. . - madam president, ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately i cannot share the commission's view that the time is ripe for this proposal, which aims at full harmonisation of excise duties for commercial diesel. my criticism mainly concerns the following matters. i will start with the reasoning behind the proposal: is there really a problem? the commission mentions two primary reasons for its proposal: protection of the environment and fair competition in the internal market. whilst being a staunch supporter of both these aspects, i have my doubts as to whether the proposal as drafted will have the desired effects. first, the environmental effects should be seen in a wider context. it is questionable whether the proposal will have any environmental benefit worth mentioning. the commission, citing evidence which can best be described as anecdotal, contends that trucks make unnecessary detours to fill up their sizeable tanks in countries where excise duties, and hence prices at the pump, are lower. the proposal contains a reference to a 1997 oecd report, which concluded that 'gasoline tourism' accounted for 20% of sales in switzerland, for example. even if one accepted this figure, there is no way of knowing whether this is a real substitution - that truckers are not filling up before departing from the country of origin - or whether this is a result of drivers making detours in order to fill up in certain countries. i wonder whether this really is a problem of such magnitude as to merit such a far-reaching measure, total harmonisation, as proposed by the commission. neither am i at all convinced that it is even desirable to eliminate differences in excise duty between member states. i am of the opinion that an element of tax competition is very healthy, especially as the proposed harmonisation drive would result in higher taxes in most member states. finally, coming as i do from a peripheral region of the union, i would say that i consider that regional aspects must also be taken into account. scandinavian truckers are unlikely to be affected by gasoline tourism in the same way as german or belgian haulage companies allegedly are in the congested regions of the union. i believe that this proposal has been tabled outside its proper context. although there are a number of references to the ongoing debate on a new transport policy framework and the proposal to introduce a charge on infrastructure use, there has been no real discussion of the interaction between these two initiatives. the commission has presented concrete proposals on infrastructure charges and taxes, so it would have been better if these measures had been proposed simultaneously. otherwise, there is a clear risk that an excessive burden will be placed on the transport sector in the form of increased diesel taxes and raised infrastructure charges. while it is true that the proposed article 8(e) makes reference to this problem, it only applies during the transitional period, and only to trucks weighing less than 16 tonnes. how, moreover, will this proposal affect the new member states, some of which at present apply taxes that are significantly lower than those in force in the eu at the moment? is it, as the commission suggests, realistic to expect a harmonised tax rate to apply to all 25 member states by 2012? i fear that massive price hikes in several new member states would place such tremendous burdens on them - quite apart from increasing inflation at a time when they are striving to bring down their inflation levels to qualify for emu membership - that this development is not politically possible. besides, the candidate countries have already done a lot to adapt to the current minimum tax rate and already the relatively modest increase foreseen in the directive on energy tax may pose difficulties for some countries. one of the commission's reasons for tabling this rather complex proposal is to bring the tax rate for passenger cars rapidly in line with the rate for unleaded petrol. the commission justifies this sort of tax treatment from the environmental point of view. we have to consider what impact the harmonisation of these tax rates would have, for example, on r[amp]d for diesel engines. we must also bear in mind that at the moment, in a competitive market, european manufacturers are market leaders in the area of diesel technology. we must also consider what impact this will have on the petroleum industry and oil refineries as, with the proposal, diesel consumption is likely to decline. finally, i want to say that before the summer recess i tried to make some amendments to this proposal, to make it possible for parliament to adopt it. i only received verbal assurances from the commission, however, that the change parliament desires will in fact be what the commission pushes for in the council. it is very unsatisfactory that the consultation procedure in parliament will either have to reject the proposal or give the commission in its negotiations with the council. i therefore hope that in future a new constitutional agreement will allow the use of the codecision procedure and qualified majority decision-making in matters of taxation, making it much easier for parliament to adopt a commission proposal with certain amendments and return to the issue at second reading. - madam president, europe must take measures relating to car use if we wish to comply with our kyoto obligations. it would be shortsighted to try to attain the kyoto targets at the expense of those who create employment, if no previous attempt had been made to exploit all the opportunities which transport affords for reducing emissions. the eu has already concluded agreements, for example with european car manufacturers, concerning production of cars which are cleaner and perform better in terms of fuel economy. the directive now before us is important for efforts to achieve the same end from the demand side by making costs visible to consumers. it is just a pity that the commission proposal comes on its own. for it to be adopted, it ought to be discussed in a broad context: within a decade it is proposed to establish a european tax system comprising charges for vehicle registration and use, an intelligent pricing system for infrastructure, and harmonised fuel taxes. as it is not possible to adopt such a comprehensive approach now, and as this directive fixes the level of fuel taxes for quite a long time, a decision seems unlikely. a comprehensive review would be in the interests of consumers and would ensure balanced development of transport in sparsely populated regions where no public transport is available. in rural and remote regions, people are more dependent on private cars, and the external costs of transport are lower than elsewhere. people have a tendency to reconsider their choices only when a major change occurs, such as when moving house, transferring to a new place of employment or buying a new car; they may not even realise substantial developments in public services have been made. accordingly, big changes in immediately perceptible costs, such as fuel prices or road pricing, are important initiators of choice processes. in that sense, a linear model for increasing excise on fuel may be too slow and gradual to spur consumers genuinely to perceive the situation in such a way as to change their consumption patterns. at all events, it is important from the outset to stress in public information the ultimate objective of internalising the external costs of transport. diesel vehicles consume less fuel and produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions. it must, however, be remembered that they emit more nitrogen oxides and particulates, which are a serious threat to public health. it may be considered a justified objective, therefore, to align the rates of excise duty on diesel and petrol. madam president, i am sorry that the committee on economic and monetary affairs and mrs kauppi are so negative towards the commission's proposal. i naturally respect the fact that many are opposed to tax harmonisation on principle. there is of course a value in countries' determining their own taxes because these fund a significant proportion of welfare provision which, as is known, differs from one member state to another. even if it is important as a matter of principle to stand up for the right of individual nations to determine their taxes, this principle should not, however, be honoured to the point at which it becomes counterproductive. in certain areas, common tax rates have a clear added value. diesel fuel tax is one such area. there are a number of drawbacks to having different tax rates on diesel fuel in the member states. firstly, different tax rates militate against fair competition between eu companies, for which it costs more in one country than in another to transport their products. it creates an imbalance in competition between companies. secondly, this difference encourages what is known as fuel tourism. i have myself worked in the transport industry, driving heavy lorries. i know that drivers travel hundreds of extra kilometres to buy cheap diesel fuel. not only that, but they attach additional tanks to their lorries so as to be able to fill up with enough fuel to make their journeys that much more profitable. naturally, this fuel tourism also contributes to further destroying the environment. we work an unnecessary number of hours on the roads, and the number of accidents is increasing. that is the price we have to pay for the large discrepancies that currently prevail in the tax area. thirdly, this situation, involving big differences in taxation, creates scope for social dumping. the gap between different transport costs in different countries is widening, and this makes room for social dumping. the environment, road safety, employees' conditions and fair conditions of competition will be the overall losers if we retain an arrangement within the eu involving large differences in fuel costs. - madam president, commissioner, i welcome the way in which mrs kauppi, in her revised report, has moved away from her negative stance. mrs kauppi, you are quite right to say that the commission proposal leaves room for improvement, but i cannot be satisfied with the outcome of the vote in the lead committee, which rejected it. with this proposal for harmonising the taxation of diesel fuel used for commercial purposes, the commission has taken a courageous step in the right direction, one in which the lead committee was not prepared to join it, thus ignoring the recommendations in its favour in the opinions of the advisory committees. in essence, the commission proposal has two ends in mind. it envisages disentangling the tax rules on fuels, for commercial purposes on the one hand and for private use on the other, and, secondly, duties on diesel fuel in commercial use are to be harmonised, the object being to avoid distortions of competition. competition, though, is distorted not only when rates of duty are not harmonised, but also because drivers work and drive for different periods of time. that should not, however, be a reason to reject the proposal, but rather a reason for improving it. after all, parliament has always encouraged and endorsed measures aimed at opening up markets and making competition fair. harmonisation is, moreover, intended to avoid the customary detours and the damage to the environment that results from them. it cannot be denied that 'gasoline tourism' is commonplace nowadays, and it is partly responsible for the damage to the environment. so how do things now stand with the outcome? firstly, it does not get to grips with the alignment of competition conditions in the transport business, which is so urgently needed. secondly, this decision amounts to a retrograde step in terms of environmental policy as well. this is lamentable, and it is my belief that it would have made sense, particularly at the present time, for the commission to improve its proposal in order to tackle the deplorable state of affairs to which i have referred. - commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i have to tell mrs wenzel-perillo that mrs kauppi's report, in the resolution of the committee on economic and monetary affairs on page 9, has this to say: 'we call on the commission to submit a new proposal as a matter of urgency.' that is precisely what this is about. we have not rejected the proposal or said that the whole thing is preposterous. there are very many approaches, and they are all right, but, if we are thinking in terms of the whole picture, there are still very many questions left to be resolved. i think that the harmonisation of fuel excise duties makes sense, but does that achieve its purpose if we retain differences in taxation, tolls, road pricing and vehicle taxes? if we are in favour of an internal market, we also have to think about the effects on the environment. does it really make ecological sense for us, in this directive, to favour heavy goods vehicles by separating the diesel and excise duty rates for the commercial and private sectors? are diesel cars not urgently needed to bring about a reduction in co2 emissions? we therefore cannot see any justification for aligning the excise duty rates for diesel and petrol. are there not circumstances under which this uncontrolled abundance of divergent diesel tax rates might result in abuses, and lead to an abuse of the trust of all those who took on board higher acquisition costs when they changed over to diesel? let me conclude, then, by saying that something remains to be done about tax in relation to the internal market, but many issues still have to be resolved before we can describe the cost-benefit equation as balanced. i am, therefore, rather surprised that, on page 24 of tomorrow's communication by the commission to the european parliament, it is stated in the working programme for 2004 that this directive is already to be transposed, even though we are today discussing the need for the commission to submit a new proposal. only if the new commission proposal is quick in coming will we be able to achieve the working programme's objective. - madam president, this directive will not be transposed as quickly as the commission imagines. we are dealing here, of course, with a typical case for mainstreaming. i very much wish the traditional transport sector were as keen on proper europe-wide regulation as it is on combating distortions of competition. it is simply that certain things have to be considered as a whole; i mention this just by way of introduction. fundamentally speaking, commissioner, i do of course share the commission's view that harmonising indirect taxes makes sense as a means of guaranteeing the proper functioning of the internal market. arguments based on fair competition and the protection of the environment always go down well with the public. in this instance, though, the subject matter has to be seen in a more nuanced light. on the one hand, we are dealing with what i would almost call the commission's inability to fashion a more comprehensive policy for the public in the transport sector, and, on the other hand, the finance ministers want to raise more money by increasing duties on diesel fuel. the way in which road and rail interact demonstrates a policy of isolation rather than one of integration. in the same way that we need a comprehensive transport concept for europe, so we also need an overall concept for all taxes on motor vehicles, tolls and the transport infrastructure costs directive. it has to be seen as a whole, as a single package. only in this context would the alignment of diesel tax be sensible and feasible. in the proposal for a directive, the commission has also referred to the sharp increase in the number of privately owned diesel cars and regretted the revenue lost to the member states' budgets. it describes this as an error in need of correction. it is regrettable that it had nothing further to say about the owners of these vehicles, which are as a rule cheaper and use less fuel, who have, up until now, been able to drive more economically with diesel. it is worth examining more closely the question of who drives these vehicles. as a rule, their drivers are workers who are obliged to travel to work by car every day because no other options are available. in some states, these vehicles make up over 50% of private cars. european tax policy meant that it was precisely this factor that had a decisive effect on the car market, and environmental concerns have eventually resulted in improved technology in this sector. it is, i believe, precisely in this context that this issue needs to be considered more fully. i do not think that the underlying thinking is wrong or bad, but simply that the proposal needs to be revised or reworked. as it stands at present, it is not exactly in line with our thinking. my group recommends that the commission should submit a new proposal, and advocates the rejection of the one put before us. madam president, commissioner, this is a sensitive subject. we see this from the many vicissitudes that the committee on economic and monetary affairs has gone through since we dealt for the first time with the issue of tax on diesel fuel. of course, the debate in the house this evening also indicates this. i wish to thank my fellow mep, mrs kauppi, for the typically assiduous and ambitious work she has done. this time - this once, i hope - i must however inform you that the majority of the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party do not share her conclusions. certainly, we can agree that the commission proposal entails problems, difficult issues and delicate considerations. my conclusion, nonetheless, is that it is a pity that the committee's majority could not have built upon what was good about the proposal and improved it instead of rejecting it in its entirety, something now proposed by both the big political groups. i therefore share mr bolkestein's opinion on this matter, and i shall explain why. firstly, the eldr group's amendment is about tax coordination, not harmonisation. we propose allowing taxes to vary and fluctuate within a broad tax band, providing scope for the member states' own judgments without dispensing with what is good about the proposal. secondly, the commission proposal is of course about improving the environment. i certainly think that a number of the arguments sound like just a lot of excuses. tax competition may, i agree, be a good thing, but not if the environment suffers as a result. environmental and energy taxes are the taxes i believe can be decided at eu level. thirdly, the big differences between the member states damage the internal market. to maintain, as mrs kauppi does, that there is no diesel fuel tourism is, in actual fact, to put one's head in the sand - or possibly in the tank - and not see what is actually going on. a modified commission proposal would be good for the environment, strengthen the internal market and improve competition. that is something to which opposition in this house should be impossible on the part either of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats or on the part of the group of the party of european socialists. let us not end up recoiling in fear or engaging in exaggerated rhetoric every time we debate a proposal containing the word 'tax'. madam president, commissioner bolkestein, it is not the first time that i have pointed out in plenary that my group shares your opinion, that is that we are particularly disappointed by the vote which took place in the committee on economic and monetary affairs, which in my view was a reactionary vote. before i presented my comments i re-read the commission proposal, the document of 24 july, and, both personally and on behalf of my group, i find the proposal made by your services to be of a very high quality, because it gives a very positive diagnosis and clearly explains the impact that we can expect from this proposal. i would like to once again stress to my fellow members that the commission made an extremely progressive proposal, which can be expected to have an impact in 2010-2012 for the candidate countries. it begins with an extremely weak central rate, which is the simple indexation of the rate that was in force as early as 1992 and, it is true, this means that some states will have to raise these rates. i also think that the comment from fellow members, to the effect that an overall package should be proposed, is nothing more than a ploy to sidestep the issue; in other words, agreement will not be reached on the entirety of the measures proposed. i would also like to say - and in my view this is one of the reasons why this proposal was rejected by the main political groups - that you are obviously stressing the issue of distortion of competition but, if you carefully read the commission proposal, you will clearly see that it seeks not, for example, to increase the overall tax burden of the states, it involves reorganising the national tax systems. for example, one proposal, which we support, is to reduce taxes on transport infrastructure and instead, to favour taxation according to use, which is the same index as that of the 'polluter-pays'. it is clear that states do not want interference in the tax systems, but they are wrong. i would also like to say that, as regards the plan for sustainable development, the commission paper stresses, according to the european environment agency that the external cost of transport represents 8% of gnp. i think that the commission is right to stress that if the council wants to respect the objectives, in particular regarding reducing pollutant emissions for private cars, then it must follow your proposals. mr bolkestein, you have the full support of my group, but i know that this will be insufficient. nevertheless, we continue to battle on together; we will get there one day. madam president, i was driving through luxembourg this afternoon. as befits a true dutchman, i always fill up there, paying luxembourg prices. normally, i fill up in the netherlands, but if i travel through luxembourg on my way to strasbourg anyway, it does work out as more cost-effective. according to the commission's explanatory note to the harmonisation proposal, countless drivers drive extra miles to fill up cheaper elsewhere. this strikes me as illogical and certainly not a reason for tabling a far-reaching proposal for harmonisation. i therefore find this proposal very worrying. my first objection is that the proposal is not in keeping with other proposals for tackling environmental problems as a result of mobility and transport. in addition, i regard the proposed harmonisation of excise duty on fuel as an undesirable measure in view of the member states' sovereignty in the area of taxation. mrs kauppi is right to note that any taxation competition is healthy as it is. i have therefore joined with mrs lulling and mrs villiers in proposing in the committee on economic and monetary affairs to reject the proposal, and we have been backed by a large majority. i urge my fellow meps to follow our position and reject the proposal for harmonisation. finally, i should like to ask commissioner bolkestein what the commission will do when parliament rejects the proposal? i would appreciate a concrete response. - madam president, i cannot but endorse the rapporteur's view, as europe needs more fiscal competition rather than less of it. the average tax rate in europe already stands at over 40%, which is markedly higher than in japan and the usa, and with its consequences we are all familiar. we have to contend with rising unemployment, fewer enterprises being set up, and declining levels of investment. the commission is aware of these facts, yet it nevertheless advocates the introduction of tax increases, taking away the dirty work from the member states' finance ministers, who increase the taxes and shuffle off responsibility onto the eu. doing this would be simple if we were to jointly commit ourselves to making the internal market a reality and were to ensure that the competition rules were not cut back. as the member states would have to commit themselves to slimmed-down structures, this would automatically reduce their administrative obstacles and taxes. if we do not seize this opportunity, europe will become an ever-expanding giant, but one enfeebled and dried out. it could also mean a great idea running into the buffers. this would be a pity, as we need a strong europe. -madam president,the commission has chosen an inopportune time to put before us a complex and completely superfluous proposal for special rules applicable to the taxation of diesel fuel. over and above that, it seeks to completely harmonise duties on diesel for commercial purposes by 2010, which would end up amounting, for most member states, to a tax increase and therefore an increase in the price of diesel. it is, moreover, proposed - without considering the devastating effects on diesel technology - to raise the tax rate on diesel to the level of that on unleaded petrol. as our rapporteur has already described, that is completely absurd. faced with the commission's regrettably uncompromising attitude towards the amendments proposed in a spirit of goodwill by our rapporteur mrs kauppi, the members of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, of whom i am one, voted by a massive majority - of twenty-three votes and two abstentions - to reject the commission proposal in its entirety, and it did so for the many good reasons to which reference has already been made. the result of the commission proposal would be a complicated system of rebates, one that would be bureaucratic, expensive and practically unworkable. it would leave us wide open to further tax fraud, with which we are already familiar in the context of vat, and i personally agree with what our rapporteur has already said, namely that healthy fiscal competition is desirable and helpful in terms of stimulating economic growth; i certainly do not believe that it distorts competition in the internal market. what is the point of imposing even higher taxes on our businesses at a time when the economic environment has for some years been characterised by stagnation and unemployment? such a thing is absurd, and i hope that the commission will listen to our rapporteur and will put before us a complete and properly thought-out package to coordinate, among other things, the tax treatment of fuel and charges for the use of infrastructures. madam president, the commission initiatives on harmonising taxation of vehicles and fuels are broadly justified and are to be welcomed. they are justified because they constitute an essential factor for the smooth operation of the internal market, by attempting to eliminate or alleviate the anomalous situation of vehicle and fuel markets that are enormously segmented. these initiatives are to be welcomed because they systematically prioritise an approach that takes account of the environmental impact of traffic. transport and mobility are, today, crucial factors for the pricing of goods and services and it is, therefore, crucial that in no way do they constitute breaches of competition. this does not mean, however, that there can now be complete harmonisation of fuel taxation even if this is spread over time. a degree of competition in taxation is, of course, perfectly acceptable if it leads to tangible benefits for consumers. the ultimate aim of all community initiatives and proposals for initiatives must be to meet the needs of europe's citizens, either by making goods available and guaranteeing their quality, by ensuring the environmental sustainability of societies or by gradually reducing the costs of accessing this type of goods. this proposal, in this specific wording, does not look as though it will help to achieve significant results in the field of environmental protection and could even lead to pressure to raise prices. furthermore, an initiative of this nature can only be accepted by the council if it is integrated and coordinated with the directive on the taxation of energy products and with the proposal for a framework directive on infrastructure charging. the political complexity of this issue and the difficulties in managing, in the context of this directive, the administrative aspects of its implementation, specifically those concerning the distinction between fuel used for commercial purposes and fuel for private use, and the consequent return or refund of duties, justify the reserved standpoint of the committee on economic and monetary affairs. the commission must view the possible rejection of this proposal, however, as a spur for drawing up a new draft that takes account of the suggestions and proposals made in the european parliament, respecting the immediate interest of the citizens and contributing to overcoming the inevitable resistance of some member states. . some members of parliament have spoken about competition in the fiscal area. indeed they have spoken about fiscal 'sovereignty'. i should like to read out article 93 of the treaty. the text i have in front of me is in french. 'the council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the commission and after consulting the european parliament [.] adopt provisions for the harmonisation of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties [.] to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market [.]'. the english text says that 'the council shall establish measures'. the word 'shall' indicates that the council has no choice but to harmonise the excise duties insofar as they are an obstacle to the internal market. so do not tell the commission that this is anything to do with fiscal sovereignty. article 93 of the treaty says that the council must harmonise excise taxes if they are an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market. the question is then raised as to whether there is an obstacle to the proper functioning of the internal market. mr blokland said that he did not think it logical for lorries and cars to go out of their way to go to luxembourg to fill up with diesel. let me give you some figures. these figures pertain to diesel sales per head of population. they run as follows: 610 litres for belgium, 531 for denmark, 424 for spain and 536 for france. these figures are all in the area of 400 to 500 to 600 litres per head of population. then there is luxembourg. where the amounts in all other member states do not go over 640 - this is the figure for austria - in luxembourg the figure is 3 106. now why should that be the case? it is quite simply because the excise duties in luxembourg are dreadfully low, and therefore it is an open and shut case that there is a distortion of the internal market here. there is not a shadow of a doubt about that. if mr blokland says that is not very logical then i am afraid i cannot follow the logic of mr blokland. in my view it is perfectly logical that lorries and cars go out of their way to line up in luxembourg. if you travel to luxembourg you will see the long line of lorries all trying to fill up with that cheap diesel. so there is no doubt that there is a distortion of the internal market here. that is one of the reasons why the commission is making this proposal, which is to be considered by the council after parliament has given its opinion. the second reason - and mr jonckheer was very eloquent in pointing this out - is that the implementation of this proposal will lead to a general reduction in emissions of pollutants, such as nox, volatile organic compounds, so2 and particulates. there will also be a reduction in co2 emissions. that is the reason that the environmental ngos support this proposal. mr jonckheer is quite right in pointing this out to his colleagues. he ended his speech by saying that his support will probably not be sufficient. i am not so pessimistic. i think that after this debate many members of parliament will realise that there is a distortion of competition, that harmonising excise duties on diesel is good for the environment, and that article 93 lays the obligation - not the choice - on the council to do it. that is also what the commission is trying to do. furthermore, it is far from the intention of the commission to go for an increase in taxes. that is the last thing the commission would like to do. member states are perfectly free to cut their taxes elsewhere if they have to increase the excise taxes on diesel. so do not think that the commission wants to do that. it is certainly not the case. as regards the situation of the future member states, may i stress that during the enlargement negotiations, all the future member states agreed to apply the current minimum rates on motor fuels as of 1 may 2004, the date on which they will become member states. most of them, except the baltic states, are already at levels above those rates. mr blokland asked me what my reaction would be if parliament were to reject this proposal. once again, this is not something i expect. however, if that were the case, then, in accordance with the arrangements between parliament and the commission, i shall raise the issue in the college of commissioners in order to consider carefully the commission's position under those circumstances. lastly, on the amendments, as i have already said, the commission could accept the creation of an indexed fluctuation band for excise duties applicable to commercial diesel as a second-best solution. it could also accept the alignment of the present proposal with the terms of the energy tax directive, in particular as far as the definition of commercial diesel and tax rates are concerned. therefore, the commission agrees in principle with amendments 1, 3 to 12 and 14 to 16. amendments 2 and 13 are acceptable in part, subject to some rewording when they refer to establishing a connection between this directive and the directive on infrastructure charging. the commission does not support amendment 17 because the proposed rates are not consistent with the energy tax directive. the proposal may look complicated but it is dead simple. it is beneficial to the environment. it goes against the distortion of the internal market as it has to in accordance with article 93 of the treaty. -madam president,because commissioner bolkestein has used what i have to describe as intellectually dishonest comparisons to pillory my country and has presumed to describe our taxes as far too low, i must, with some regret, put him right on some points. i do not know how good commissioner bolkestein was at geography in primary school, but i have to point out that luxembourg just happens to be where it is, and when mr blokland travels from holland to strasbourg, he is not indulging in 'gasoline tourism' if he does so by way of luxembourg. that is the easiest way to get here, and it just so happens that he has to fill up his tank . that, after all, is one of the common market's freedoms - free movement of goods, of capital, of people, and so on - and it is one of these fundamental freedoms, the free movement of goods and services, that the commission is now seeking to jeopardise. i would also like to point out that, every day, 100 000 people cross the border into luxembourg every day to work, coming from belgium, germany and france. they are entitled to fill up their tanks there. we are creating jobs for 100 000 commuters across national borders, who would otherwise be hanging around on the street in france and in belgium. your arguments, commissioner, do not hold water, and i find it regrettable that you have presumed to adduce them. . madam president, what would a debate be without a last intervention from mrs lulling? it would not give me the same warm feeling, the feeling that i have now. thank you very much for your contribution, mrs lulling, but would you please explain to me why luxembourg's diesel consumption is 500% higher than austria's, the next highest in the list? if you can explain that to me, then perhaps i will change my proposals. but you cannot explain. it is quite simply because the excise taxes in luxembourg are very low. it is an open-and-shut case. thank you, commissioner bolkestein. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at noon. (1)

tribute ladies and gentlemen, i have the sad duty of informing you of the deaths of a fellow member and a former fellow member. our fellow member fausto correia died yesterday morning. he was born on 29 october 1951 in coimbra and was only 55 years old. he leaves a wife and three sons. an illustrious career as a barrister, journalist and then a politician in portugal followed after he finished law school at university in his home town of coimbra. he was for a long time a member of the portuguese parliament as well as minster of state under prime minister antnio guterres. he had been a member of the european parliament since 2004. fausto correia was and remains famous and well-loved in portugal for his unremitting, life-long mission to establish democracy and his dedication to the core values of fraternity and neighbourliness. fausto correia will be sorely missed by his family, his friends and by us, his fellow members. a book of condolences for messages of sympathy from members and staff of the european parliament will be open during this week's sitting on wednesday and thursday at the front of the chamber. it is with great sadness that we learnt of the death of our former fellow member christian de la malne, who was a member of the european parliament on two occasions - from 1959 to 1961 and from 1962 to 1994. christian de la malne, who was also a former minister and senator under president de gaulle, died on 26 september at the age of 86. as a former chairman of the group of european progressive democrats and the group of the european renewal and democratic alliance, christian de la malne was a convinced european in heart and mind. he dedicated his long life to a strong and democratic europe, and a political community. christian de la malne was a colleague and friend who will be remembered for his humanism and his political commitment. on this note we wish to commemorate him in gratitude. a moment's silence, please, in remembrance of our deceased colleague. (the assembly rose and observed one minute's silence).

1. financial year 2008 as modified by the council (vote) - financial year 2008 - before the vote: rapporteur. - mr president, the second reading budget conciliation between the two arms of the budgetary authority was held on 23 november 2007. parliament achieved a budget for results on its major objectives: financing for galileo (eur 2.4 billion) via a revision of the 2007-2013 multiannual financial framework (mff) and the use of the flexibility instrument (eur 200 million); significant further use of the flexibility instrument (eur 70 million) to finance an increase in the spending on common foreign and security policy (cfsp). the committee on budgets voted its second reading amendments, further to the conciliation outcome, on 29 november 2007. after the technical check of the figures, a small number of technical adjustments were necessary to ensure full respect of the conciliation outcome of 23 november as regards revised financial framework ceilings and the overall level of payments. the agreed modifications are the following: first, in heading 1a, commitment appropriations are adjusted as follows: amendment 335: 06 02 09 01 (galileo supervisory authority) to eur 7 460 000 06 02 09 02 (galileo supervisory authority) to eur 3 100 000 08 07 01 (research cooperation - transport) to eur 348 922 000 amendment 331: 02 02 01 (competitiveness and innovation) to eur 126 300 000 amendment 69: 06 03 03 (tens - t) to eur 955 852 600 second, in heading 1b, in order to meet the overall level of payments agreed at the conciliation, payment appropriations are modified on lines: amendment 27: 04 02 17 (esf) to eur 3 823 198 181 amendment 140: 13 03 16 (erdf convergence) to eur 10 606 637 496 amendment 141: 13 03 18 (erdf competitiveness) to eur 2 540 832 078 all these technical adjustments were unanimously approved by the committee on budgets on monday 10 december. third, a number of technical/nomenclature changes will be made, mainly as regards pilot projects and preparatory actions. these changes have been presented to the president of parliament. these modifications do not change any figures, nor do they change any mff classifications. (the technical adjustments were accepted) - after the vote: president-in-office of the council. - (pt) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, may i emphasise, before going on to comment on the results of the approval of the european union budget for 2008, that today is a particularly pleasing day for me, not only as a european, but also as a citizen of portugal. i am of course referring to that historic event - the signing of the treaty of lisbon - due to take place in just over an hour in my country's capital. following the enlargement of the european union to 27 member states, it is another decisive step in european integration, that will make europe more democratic, more representative, more flexible and effective in the way it works than it was before. if i might make a brief and early summing up of the achievements of the portuguese presidency, i would point to three important areas of success for the future of the european union. they are the agreement making it possible for the eu reform treaty, the treaty of lisbon, to be signed today, the holding of the eu-africa summit and of the eu-brazil summit. to that we might now also add the important agreement we were able to reach on the financing of the strategic galileo programme. ladies and gentlemen, today we have the second reading of the 2008 budget, the final stage of a long process of negotiation which finally ended very successfully. i am pleased to report the agreement reached between our two institutions in the concertation meeting on 23 november, that dealt in full with all the budget proposals for 2008 on which we had agreed by that date. in accordance with the procedures, i must point out that the council will be able to accept the maximum rate of increase resulting from your second reading. i note, however, that some small adjustments are still needed as regards the classification of expenditure on which the council reserves its rights. in conclusion, mr president, i should like to take this opportunity to express once more my gratitude to the chairman of the committee on budgets, mr bge and to the two rapporteurs, mr virrankoski and mr itl, to my colleagues in the council, to commissioner grybauskait and to all those who have helped to bring this very demanding budgetary procedure to a successful conclusion, culminating in parliament's approval. minister, you have uttered, among other things, the sentence i was waiting for. i therefore note that the budgetary procedure has been completed in accordance with the treaty provisions and the interinstitutional agreement of 17 may 2006. i also note that, in accordance with article 13 of the interinstitutional agreement, the council and parliament agree to accept the maximum rate of increase of non-compulsory expenditure that comes out of the second reading in parliament. consequently, the budgetary procedure can be declared complete and the budget definitively adopted. (applause) as you know, the president is currently in lisbon where a small signature ceremony is taking place. my powers as vice-president end here. the official signature of the budget for the financial year 2008 will be on tuesday, 18 december, at the plenary session in brussels.

commission question time the next item is question time (b6-0316/2007). the following questions are addressed to the commission. part one subject: respecting the specificity of sport does the commission agree that uefa's 'home-grown players' initiative will encourage sporting solidarity and safeguard european football? what steps does the commission plan to take in order to respect the specificity of sport when framing legislative proposals and in interpreting existing eu law? member of the commission. - madam president, i am happy to contribute by answering on the issue of the specificity of sport. it would be very timely to discuss this even in more depth - not now, but later on - because on 11 july this year the commission adopted a white paper on sport. this was a very important contribution, which stressed the importance of promoting the training of young, talented sportsmen and sportswomen in proper conditions, which is crucial for the sustainable development of sport at all levels. this was an institutional and very political contribution to the question and to cooperation on this matter. i quote from the paper: 'rules requiring that teams include a certain quota of locally trained players could be accepted as being compatible with the treaty provisions on free movement of persons if they do not lead to any direct discrimination based on nationality and if possible indirect discrimination effects resulting from them can be justified as being proportionate to a legitimate objective pursued, such as to enhance and protect the training and development of talented young players.' i think this is a very important clarification of how to understand this issue. the commission is currently in the process of evaluating the compatibility of uefa's measures on home-grown players with community law, with a view to striking the right balance between the need to comply, on the one side, with community law and the autonomy of sports organisations, and with the interests of european football on the other. this is done in the light of the declaration annexed to the amsterdam treaty, the so-called nice declaration of the european council in 2000, and the white paper on sport, which specifically mentions, as action number 9 in the pierre de coubertin action plan, 'to complete the analysis of rules requiring that teams include a certain quota of locally training players'. this comprehensive comparative information on football academies in member states and on home-grown players is not available at present. in 2006, the commission launched a study on sport academies in member states, including the issue of home-grown players. the results of this study are expected to provide valuable input for its analysis. concerning the second part of the question - because it consists of two sentences on the specificity of sport - chapter 4 of this white paper develops the concept of specificity of sport within the limits of existing eu competences. as described in more detail in our staff working document in the annexes, decisions taken by the european court of justice and the commission show that the specificity of sport has been recognised and taken into account in the past. the commission shares the view that certain values and traditions of european sport should be promoted and will continue to recognise the specificities of this sector, while respecting eu law. however, a case-by-case approach remains the basis for the commission's control of the application of eu law, and in particular competition and internal market rules. this is in line with the current treaty provisions. in order to provide legal clarity for all stakeholders and to contribute to the improvement of governance in european sport, the above-mentioned staff working document and its two annexes explain in depth this issue of specificity. it concerns sport and eu competition rules and sport and internal market freedoms, and takes stock for the first time of european court of justice case-law and commission decisions in the area of sport. i want to underline that, for the first time, the specificity of sport is set out in our policy document much more than it has been at any time in the recent past in the eu context. that is one of the most important contributions - not only to this answer, but also to the promotion of sport in the european union. uefa's rules requiring clubs to have a certain proportion of players that are locally trained and home grown is designed to make sure that clubs do not rely only on their financial muscle in the transfer market, but have to invest locally in their communities in training. it is a vital scheme. yet the commission, on this point in its white paper, has not come off the fence in saying that it is a scheme that is acceptable under the treaty and now, commissioner, you say it could be, if. - and you are still investigating. may i ask the commission, why is it taking so long? when will the commission be in a position to endorse this welcome scheme? member of the commission. - i would love to give more of an answer, but there is already a kind of step forward if we recall our debates a year ago, or at least from the perspective of parliament. i think that the answer i quoted, which is part of the communication, of this policy paper, is an important assurance that we want to support the specificity of sport, particularly of football, in terms of the protection and promotion of young people and the training of, and investment in, young people. the study has not been completed, because we do not have all the data we would like to have. i hope that with the complementary questionnaire we are now working on we will get the remaining figures. it is very important that partners from member states' associations, federations, clubs and leagues, work with us. hopefully in a foreseeable time - i would like it to be early next year - we will be able to give a definitive answer. in two weeks' time we will meet with all stakeholders from the world of sport in brussels to debate the content and implementation of the white paper. i believe that this part will be very crucial for concrete action and the promotion of the values of sport. on behalf of the commission, i can tell you that we remain committed to these issues, and all the sensitivities must be dealt with duly. before we take any decision - not only in this area, which is quite specific - we have to carry out a thorough analysis and then take real decisions. (de) commissioner, without wanting to offend the commission or the court of justice, i have the feeling that neither our judges nor our commissioners, or the female members of the commission, are seen very often at a football ground. if they were there more often, they would notice that we are currently at the start of the european cup season, in which we have teams playing against each other in which often just one member at any one time is a member of the national squad. we have therefore witnessed the nurturing of new blood being totally neglected and we attribute an exclusively economic dimension to it all. football is more than an internal market, and football is not merely competition in the legal sense. football is a sports competition between national, regional and local teams. something needs to happen here, and fast. can the commission promise that something really is happening apart from studies being undertaken? member of the commission. - i am sure that something really will be done. i use football as a great example, because in a way europe is the best in the world in football. i think we can be the best in many other areas like, for example, higher education, which is usually not seen as the best of europe. no, what europe needs is not only to refer to its successes or to refer to the importance of football or sport for its historical developments and current achievements, but also for the future. a balanced approach to sport activities is one of the answers, which means it is not about money in the first place, but about the rules and values that govern the world and money to support healthy investment. i know about the imbalances, the problems and doubts about the credibility of competitions and about corruption, and too much money deciding who is really a strong partner or strong competitor. since 1999, with the helsinki report - you remember, maybe, even better - and then the nice declaration, there has been, i think, a new momentum. the commission had never come forward with a policy paper. if we come forward, not just with a paper in hand, but to offer actions - and there are 53 actions offered under the name of the pierre de coubertin action plan - then we can do a lot. if we stay credible in implementation, i think we can prepare also the first treaty article on sport, because we do not have a legal base now, and that is why we cannot define some of the actions, and that is why we have to decide case by case, on individual problems. there are many collateral issues in this answer, so more credibility means cooperation of eu institutions, national legislators, but also governing bodies in areas of sport. they set the rules, they govern and they have to be also credible in governing individual disciplines or games or competitions. i would say a sports forum, which we will organise under the portuguese presidency, could be one of the answers for permanent or regular transparent and credible dialogue on all problems and possible solutions, whether on a small scale, in europe or in broader international cooperation. (el) madam president, commissioner, in his letter michel platini, president of uefa, asks the leaders of the 27 eu member states to intervene by dealing with the rising wealth of football clubs, which are spending ever more on players and other purchases, thus turning football into a business rather that a sport with values. however, in his statements before this letter, the president of uefa asked politicians not to interfere in football. he said that the eu and the european parliament should confine themselves to their political roles and stay away from sport. do you agree with these views held by the president of uefa, and to what extent? will the white paper on sport be a good opportunity to clarify these outstanding matters? member of the commission. - thank you for your concern and for the message indirectly from the president of uefa, michel platini; we met repeatedly, and i even have a description of the 'home-grown player' proposal. now, we urge more common action, including the possible inclusion of sport in the reform treaty - it is in the mandate and in the draft. we are not asking for power; in the white paper we are asking for cooperation, for very concrete actions, which range throughout many areas - education, training, social inclusion, public health - but also, on the other hand, repressing phenomena such as violence, racism, corruption in sport or individual organisations or events. we cannot just wait for the next treaty, or even take any consensus reached today for granted in the future. we should act today for a better future, whether in football or in other areas. i think that the european parliament, the commission and the council can address many of the problems, and, as i said, together we can do a lot. it does not mean that we have to intervene at eu level. for example, if we agree in october at ministerial level on the content of an amendment or improvement to our code on anti-doping convention or rules within the world anti-doping agency, then this is the action against doping. i recall mr mavrommatis and many colleagues who claimed urgent action from the union when i became commissioner in 2004 against doping, which was the problem of the olympic games. doping is a very visible, damaging and influential cancer or phenomenon in sport. there we can do a lot, but we have to act, not only discuss, and that is our approach now. subject: biofuels when does the commission expect to adopt proposals for certification of crops intended for the production of biofuels, or of biofuels themselves, with a view to ensuring that eu demand for such products does not increase the rate of destruction of tropical forests? member of the commission. - the commission is currently finalising the directive on the promotion of renewable energy, and i am targeting adoption of this directive by the end of this year. and one of the very important issues in this directive will be addressing sustainability of biofuels, the principles described and ways of guaranteeing that biofuels do not have a negative influence on the environment. for this reason, a particular scheme will definitely be proposed that could be used - and will be used - both for domestic grown biofuels and also for imported ones. would the commissioner agree that our record in controlling the import of timber from illegal sources is lamentable - simply dreadful? given this experience and the potential for corruption and falsification of documents that exists, how can we have confidence that any certification of biofuel crops will be valid? might we not end up making a bad problem worse? member of the commission. - first of all, i cannot confirm that there is a lot of illegal timber being brought into the european union, but what i can clearly say is that, so far, there has been a very limited amount of biofuels coming into the european union. we have not had any effect whatsoever in terms of negative consequences for rain forests. the certification schemes that are proposed will be implemented. i have no doubts whatsoever about that, because the general performance by customs within the european union has been very positive. (de) commissioner, what has just been mentioned is a problem. a second problem apparently is that due to the increased use of biofuels, prices of staple foods are beginning to increase, particularly in countries where this really can become a problem and many people, particularly in these countries, are no longer able to afford their staple foods. are you aware of this problem? if so, what are your thoughts on it and what is being done about it? member of the commission. - (de) the main reason for the current price increases for food is rising demand, particularly in china, india and also in other states. that is the main reason for the price increases. my colleague, who will take the floor after me, will explain what measures we need to take. it is clear that we have to produce more because demand also has to be covered. as far as biofuels are concerned, their influence on food prices is very marginal at present because consumption of biofuels globally is still low. we do, of course, have to take account of this because a great deal of maize is currently being produced for biofuels in the united states. this can influence a certain sector, but there are ways to continue to meet rising demand. i am of the view that we in the commission have to find an answer to world market prices. my colleague has already prepared some proposals on this. (el) madam president, commissioner, there is a view that growing biofuels and trading in them may absorb the surplus production of developing countries via conversion to biofuels for their own use or for export. does the commission believe that the biofuels sector could unlock the doha round of the world trade organisation negotiations? member of the commission. - there are definitely some countries that are interested more in the international trade in biofuels - particularly brazil; that is true, but the doha round of negotiations is much broader than that. it is not only about biofuels, which is one small part of it, and we should definitely agree on a broad range of issues. i would say biofuels will have a very marginal influence on the outcome of the doha round. subject: the state of play in the wto talks can the european commission make a comprehensive statement as to the present state of play with regard to the wto process? member of the commission. - it is a normal nordic approach: rather short but straight to the point. i can clearly say that the next two months will be crucial for the doha development round. negotiations have now re-started on the basis of the proposals that were submitted in july by the chairs of the respective negotiating groups on agriculture and on industrial products. the chairs, in producing their negotiation proposal, have done an honest job. i think we can say that they have distributed the pain fairly. they put pressure on each of the key players on each issue of the so-called negotiation triangle - ama, nama and domestic subsidies - which is most sensitive for the different players. it is obvious as well that the text of the chairs is not cast in stone. the wto membership had a chance to offer preliminary reactions to these texts before the summer break. but now negotiations really have to get down to specifics. a further round of discussions on modalities kicked off at the very beginning of september, taking place in geneva. the objective of the wto director-general, pascal lamy, and the chairs is to be in a position to issue a revised paper some time in october to serve as an ultimate basis for a final deal on modalities, to take place no later than this autumn. whether this will be the case, whether there will be a final paper, depends entirely on the negotiating engagement of the different players. the united states should now translate president bush's political commitment at the apec summit into concrete negotiating moves to try to clinch a deal. it is imperative for the united states to be seen to engage and to move on agricultural subsidies, not least in respect of its objective to ensure access to the developing countries' agricultural markets. brazil, india and, by the same token, other emerging economies have to move in the right direction and deliver their side of the bargain, and that means cutting, to some extent, their actual tariffs on industrial products. the reality of these talks is that the distance to the finishing line - if we talk in economic terms - is fairly short at this stage, certainly very short compared to the road that we have been travelling until now. the value of remaining concessions that both developed and some developing countries need to bring into the final package is small compared to the systemic gain of doing the deal, especially as global economic conditions are becoming more and more uncertain. but the clock is ticking. if there is no agreement on modalities in the autumn, an early conclusion of the dda becomes very unlikely. the united states presidential campaign will pick up speed and the round might then be put into the deep freeze for years. for the round to succeed now, all parties need to show flexibility and willingness to reach a compromise. the european union will continue to reach out to the various constituencies of the wto membership and their key members to ensure their constructive engagement. i want to thank the commissioner for her response. i would have liked it if commissioner mandelson was here as well, because i know he had a meeting in america last week, where he was disappointed with the response. but, very briefly, you spoke about the developing countries and you mentioned, as part of that, brazil and india. from an industrial point of view and from an export point of view, they cannot be classed as developing countries. yet at the same time, from a cultural point of view, they are classed as developing countries with regard to the benefits that they will get. should europe give more in the agricultural field, in particular when you see that the us farm bill, which has now come into being, is taking more subsidies out of the package that was originally negotiated, and europe seems to be giving all of the leeway, whereas america is not taking any of the pain? is that a correct way to continue? and, finally, if autumn is the deadline, the end of october is autumn. winter starts on 1 november. so do you see a time frame there for that to be successful? member of the commission. - in defining when winter starts, in my calendar it is december, but so be it. first of all, it is obvious that, when we look at the direction that the us farm bill is taking, it is not very productive in terms of supporting an agreement within the doha round, but we cannot prejudge the decisions in the senate at the end of the day. i am not going into a discussion on whether brazil is a developed or developing country when we talk about the mix of agriculture and industrial products, but it is obvious that, in the agricultural sector - and in biofuels, which were discussed just a few minutes ago - brazil is a very competitive country. biofuels produced from sugar cane are very competitive in the global market. thank you, commissioner, for your reply. you said that it is very important that the us make an offer. it has been strongly suggested in recent days that the us has in fact made a very significant and very interesting offer on domestic market supports. i would just like to ask you if this is so, and, if it is, could you give us any information? my second question is: would you not agree that, certainly up to now, we seem to be the ones that are making the concessions? can you confirm that commissioner mandelson has offered 70% cuts in support to eu farmers, and, if this is so, do you support this position? would you not agree that such cuts would devastate european agriculture and, in particular, the beef sector? member of the commission. - first of all, when we looked at the negotiating papers from the two chairs, mr falconer, who is responsible for the agricultural sector, put a paper with some gaps between the figures. and when we look at domestic support, which is the most difficult issue for the americans, it is obvious that they have now signalled that they will be able to operate within the gap or within the two figures mentioned in the falconer paper. the negotiations, or discussions, are ongoing, so it will be extremely difficult to say where the final game will end up. but i have to say, the difficult issue for the european union is, as far as the agricultural sector is concerned, of course the tariffs. but even more important than the tariffs is the way that we treat our sensitive products. this is simply key and more important, actually, than the reduction of the tariffs in the different bands which we are operating. so i can only encourage you to keep a close eye on the way to treat sensitive products as this will be key in the final game. (de) i do understand that we have to deal with these negotiations on quota prices etc., but what i do not see here is the negotiation or dissemination of what europe represents, the dissemination of our way of life. madam commissioner, the question for me is whether you are entering into these negotiations and saying: we do not want any products that have been made by children! we do not want any products that have been made by forced or slave labour! we do not want any products that have not been produced in compliance with core labour standards! is this the issue and are you making an issue out of it? member of the commission. - we have actually tried to introduce a discussion on what we normally call the non-trade concerns, but it has been very difficult to relaunch this discussion with some of the other operators. i am quite sure that the issue on the products for which we ask for a certain level of taking care of the livelihood of employees and the health of the employees - of course, i think personally that there is a commitment to the companies that import goods from those countries. you can talk about towels from india with the type of colouring that they are using in specific locations. so i think if we are pulling in the same direction - all of us - i hope that we can find a decent solution. part two subject: doha round negotiations on agriculture what is the commission's assessment of the progress of the doha round agriculture negotiations and the 'offers' by the eu's negotiating partners? is it true that it is minded to make a larger offer - in comparison to the october 2005 offer - on behalf of the eu in the agriculture sector, primarily with regard to access to the market? at all events, has it carried out a study on the impact on the european agriculture sector? in the event of failure of the wto negotiations, what are the commission's priorities at bipartite and (inter)regional level in the area of trade in agricultural products? member of the commission. - the commission is still of the opinion that there is a window of opportunity for a positive outcome of the doha negotiations in the very close future, as i mentioned in my previous answer. i can only say again that, unless a breakthrough is achieved before the end of the year, i find it very difficult to see a possibility of finalising the negotiations, because of the upcoming presidential elections in the united states. however, current offers made by some of our negotiating partners are still falling short of what could be required to obtain a balanced outcome to the negotiations. regarding the scope of a final eu offer, the ongoing common agricultural policy reform constitutes clearly the limits of the commission's negotiating mandate, and this means that we cannot accept a deal that means that we have to reform our common agricultural policy again. it is clearly in accordance with the mandate given by the council, and the negotiation limits that we have will also be, of course, the equivalent concessions from our wto partners in agriculture and elsewhere, resulting in improving market opportunities for our exporters. it is important that when we talk about the reduction of tariffs we sometimes fear that our agricultural sector will come under immense pressure from imported commodities. we have to remember that the coin has two sides, which means that a reduction of tariffs will also take place on the new emerging markets that could be - and i am sure this will happen - of huge interest for european producers to enter into, such as, for example china, and india. so we are still striving towards a positive outcome of the doha round. it is obvious that a multilateral solution is to be preferred, whereas a bilateral one could be supplementary to the multilateral discussions. we are doing our very best at this stage, but it is crucial, if we find a solution, for it to be a balanced solution - within the three pillars of agriculture but also between agriculture, industrial products and services. (el) thank you for your reply, commissioner. i have the feeling that you are speaking more as a commissioner for international trade and less as the commissioner for agriculture. does mr mandelson, the commissioner responsible for international trade, also share your view that the review of the cap will not do any damage? does he share the view that accepting the modalities of july 2007, which go beyond the offer made by the eu in october 2005, does not exceed the negotiating mandate given by the council of ministers of 2005? if so, before you make any commitment to our trade partners, you need not ask for a new mandate from the council. member of the commission. - when the cap reform was agreed among the ministers in the council in 2003, it was the mandate that was given to the trade and agricultural commissioners. within this mandate we could negotiate. what we are now presenting - or what we will be presenting on 20 november - is the health check of the agricultural policy, and this is not a new reform. it is not a new reform and therefore it is not my perception that, whether or not we get a doha deal, it will have influence on what we are suggesting as the health check of the common agricultural policy. so it will not be influencing or moving the mandate that we have already got. (de) madam commissioner, genetic engineering in farmed foods makes many people in europe uneasy, anxious and afraid. is this subject again playing, or will it continue to play, a greater role in the doha round? member of the commission. - it is obvious that what we have experienced throughout the last few months in terms of the price increases in europe, especially as reported in the newspapers in germany throughout the summer break, has of course raised many questions. these are quite new questions on agricultural policy in europe, where we were previously fighting against overproduction, intervention stocks, and we are now in a much more balanced market, thanks, i think, to the decoupling of the direct payment to farmers, which allows farmers to react to the market instead of calculating the best outcome on the cheque from brussels. it is clear that in the doha round the prfrence communautaire or the security of food supply is not in itself an issue. it is, of course, crucial to everybody round the world to be sure that they can feed their own people, but it is not exclusively a chapter in our negotiations. in addition to expressing unease about yet further concessions damaging to our agricultural interests, can i ask you what focus there has been in the negotiations on raising beef production standards amongst those who seek greater access to our market, so that we might end the prejudicial impact on our own producers of permitting food imports where traceability and quality fall far below the standards that we expect of our own producers? member of the commission. - i think i have heard this before. i might be wrong, but it reminds me of some question raised by the irish minister and some irish meps on the import from brazil, traceability, and the opinion of the irish farmers on lack of traceability. it is obvious that we are following this case closely, and i know that my colleague, commissioner kyprianou, will be meeting the committee in parliament. we want to ensure fair trade, which means that importers or exporters into the european union have to meet the same quality standards as our own producers. i will be visiting brazil next month to see if they can show me what i want to see: that is, how things work in brazil concerning the possibility of tracing back the products that are taken into the european union. question no 36 is inadmissible as its author is no longer a member. subject: amendment of the cmo in wine on 4 july 2007 the commission unveiled a proposal for a council regulation on the common organisation of the market in wine. funds for the 'national envelopes' are allocated according to a key which is based to 50% on the historical input of member states, 25% on area and 25% on production. moreover, adjustments have been made in favour of certain member states. will the commission say which criteria were used in the selection of the specific allocation key and why the funds are not allocated on the basis of the historical payments of member states over a representative reference period, as occurred in the case of all those cmos which have so far been amended? furthermore, given that the overall amount of resources is limited, how was it decided to adjust input for the benefit of some member states, which necessarily results in a corresponding decrease for the others? member of the commission. - in order to propose a fair share between member states of the overall amount that will be allocated to the national envelope, and of the amount transferred into our rural development policy, we have actually been using three different criteria: areas under wine on the basis of all the available historical data that we have; secondly, the production in terms of volume on the basis of historical averages; and, thirdly, expenditure, on the basis of an historical average, except for bulgaria and romania where the budgetary requirements calculated within the framework of adhesion were used, as those were the only reliable figures that we could use. the weighting between these three different areas is 25% on area, 25% on production and 50% on the budget for the envelopes and the transfer into the rural development policy. 50% for area and 50% for production for that part of the envelope which is specifically related to promotion in third countries, which i consider to be a new and very important forward-looking policy for the wine sector. when we had this discussion on the redistribution between member states' envelopes, we made a positive correction for three member states so as to limit their reduction in view of the important divergence for these member states between their share in historical expenditure and their share in the two other criteria. this correction was not made to the detriment of the amounts allocated to other member states, meaning that we did not cut other amounts to find money for these three member states, so we simply increased the total budget. this makes it possible to share community support equitably by taking into account, on the one hand, the respective reductive capacity of each member state and, on the other hand, effective implementation of the new measures proposed within the framework of the reform. (el) madam president, commissioner, at a time when the commission believes that it is necessary within the framework of the law to make structural changes for some member states, is it examining the possibility of reacting in a similar way to help greek wine-growers recently hit by the catastrophic fires? their income for the coming years will be significantly reduced. huge areas covering thousands of hectares of vineyards have been burned; this means that the vine-growers have suffered loss and that their plants have been damaged. in view of this, does the commission intend to demonstrate solidarity and to help these people? member of the commission. - first of all, i think that everybody who watched the devastating forest fires in greece on the television wondered what would happen afterwards with the damaged areas. i have had the possibility to discuss it with greek members of parliament, with the minister, with the ministry, with the minister for economics from greece as well, while travelling round to find solutions. and there are different solutions, and that will be for my next question. i can only say we cannot solve the problems of the forest fire within the cmo for wine. that is excluded. and i can tell you, if we re-open the distribution of money between the envelopes and member states, it will be like opening pandora's box, and i have no more money available than the present budget of approximately eur 1.3 billion every year for the wine sector. we have to find solutions to the consequences of the fires within rural development policy, within the regional funding, and i am quite sure that decent solutions will be found. as they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together: subject: payment of cap support for areas hit by fires the recent fires in greece had a disastrous impact on farming, particularly in the olive oil, fruit and vegetable and wine sectors, with serious consequences for the environment and the development of these regions, posing a major threat to the continuation of farming activity. how must the application of cross-compliance be redefined so as to ensure the legitimate payment of uniform decoupled aid to farmers affected? how will the implementation of the new com for wine be ensured in areas hit by fires, in particular as regards the commission's proposals for granting direct aid to wine-growers who use practices that respect the environment? what additional provisions and clarifications are required in the new regime for raisins so that immediate crisis-management measures can be implemented? is it possible to increase the resources for operational funds in order to finance such measures in the event of emergencies? is it feasible to create a specific national programme to support farmers with funding from the coms for fruit and vegetables and for wine? subject: funding of non-governmental organisations and bodies for immediate reafforestation in greece greece recently suffered the greatest environmental disaster in its history. however, many greek environmental bodies and monasteries located on burned land possess the know-how and the scientists necessary to organise the rapid reafforestation of these areas by extensive planting operations. how can the commission provide funding directly to non-governmental organisations, monasteries, environmental bodies etc. (i.e. outside the framework of the third csf) so that they can immediately restore the environment in greece's forests which have been destroyed by fire? which community initiatives could be used for this purpose? member of the commission. - first of all, i can again only express my sympathy with all the people that have been hit by the consequences of the fires. i think it is important to say that the single farm payment - the direct payment to the farmers - is not at risk. the possible destruction of the crops, of animals or of buildings, has no consequence on the decoupled payment since there is no obligation to produce. as regards cross compliance, one important rule is that the reduction of direct cap payments under cross compliance can only be decided as a result of actions or omissions directly attributed to the farmer. therefore, forest fires like the ones we saw in greece this summer would not result in the reduction of payments. as far as wine is concerned, in the event of partial destruction, vineyards could be eligible within the restructuring scheme, under the current regulation, and within the national envelopes that will be foreseen for the new cmo. the reformed cmo for fruit and vegetables foresees new crisis prevention and management tools. however, this new regulation will only be in place from 2008, and there is no retroactive clause. as for the last question, the financial rules do not allow the commission to transfer possible savings from the market organisation budget to specific national programmes to support greek farmers. concerning the specific question on non-governmental organisations, monasteries or environmental bodies, the commission does not have the possibility to directly support these for the purpose of environmental restoration activities. european union assistance is only possible through specifically designed programmes and interventions which are drawn up by member states following the principle of subsidiarity and submitted to the commission for co-financing. i want just to mention some specific possibilities in our rural development policy which could be used to help as well. i referred to these in my previous reply. the first option concerns the programme 2000-2006, and can involve modification of the programme complements of national operational programmes and the regional operational programmes in order to reconstruct agricultural potential after national disaster measures. this can, for example, mean that a farmer can get money for buying cattle, fruit and olive trees or to restore buildings that have been destroyed. however, i have to repeat very strongly that it is not possible, via rural development policy, to compensate farmers for lost income. the second option is the new rural development programme 2007-2013, which includes measures for restoring agricultural production potential, as well as forestry potential, following natural disasters. it must be noted that interventions through these two options would be limited to reforestation and reconstruction of production potential, and again cannot be used to compensate for loss of income. i want to conclude with the possibilities that will be available within state aid schemes. a disaster like the forest fires in greece would normally be considered exceptional occurrences, which actually allows member states to grant support to compensate for material damage. nationally funded assistance to agriculture and forestry may be given following notification of a state aid scheme, and is subsequent to approval by the commission. i would also remind you that there is a much easier possibility, which is to use what we call de minimis state aid, which means that member states can pay farmers, with the new changes that have taken place, eur 6 000 - and you can do that every three years. so, without asking anyone, you can actually pay direct to the farmer up to eur 6 000 to help immediately, if necessary. deputising for the author. - (el) commissioner, i would like to ask if you have received a specific draft plan for the reconstruction of the regions affected by fire. what will the procedure be for approving such a plan? member of the commission. - as i mentioned, you have two possibilities within the programmes. within the rural development programme, it is possible to find support for reconstruction to buy, as i said, new olive trees and new wine stocks. then you have the regional policy, which falls within the responsibility of my colleague commissioner hbner. i know that there is a direct link and very good contact where commissioner hbner has been nominated to hold the ropes. i am sure that lots of constructive discussions are ongoing. subject: funding for research which sectors of research does the commission consider are lagging behind in funding provision under the plans for the programming period 2007 - 2013? what criteria determine the priorities for funding? how does assessment of the usefulness and effectiveness of the research that was funded under the sixth research framework programme influence the selection of new research projects? what criteria determine the priorities for funding in each research sector? member of the commission. - madam president, it is good to be here again. i would like to thank the honourable member for the question concerning the funding for research. her question refers clearly in the first instance to research funded by the european union and in my answer i shall deal with these aspects. however, the need for increased investment in research at national as well as european level, private even more than public, is central to achieving the lisbon goals. at the same time we have to make sure that this money is well spent to ensure the maximum effect. the question is essentially in four parts and i shall reply to each of them in turn. at the same time, we must bear in mind that it is still very early to draw definitive conclusions and lessons from the sixth and seventh framework programmes. but before turning to the four aspects of the honourable member's question, i should like to recall that european union cohesion policy, especially the european regional development fund and the european social fund, also makes an important contribution to the development of the european research area. the commission estimates that cohesion policy support for research and innovation will more than triple in the programming period 2007-2013 compared to 2000-2006. turning to the first element of the question, what are the sectors of research that the commission considers to be lagging behind in funding provisions under the plans 2007-2013? the commission believes that it has a good balance between the more top-down thematic areas in the programme and other, more bottom-up activities in framework programmes, such as frontier research and fellowships. it would not be appropriate to single out specific areas in particular need of funding. the closer you look at our 10 thematic priorities, the clearer it is that we need more funding and more research in practically all of them. but, to give you an example, i could mention the research infrastructures of pan-european interest, for which the final budget in framework programme 7 is much less than the commission had originally proposed. this is an important area where we have real added value in europe. we are seeking to combine funding from many sources, especially from national and regional sources and the european investment bank. it is also evident, following the first call for proposals of the european research council, that we are faced with serious oversubscription. we have received many more excellent proposals for fundamental frontier research than we have money to fund. looking at thematically orientated research, we can clearly see the need to better support research areas such as energy and climate change. here, member states can help not only by increasing investment in research but also by exploring ways of combining research efforts rather than allowing them to remain fragmented. this is also one of the areas which we advocated in our green paper on the european research area. turning to the general criteria, the thematic priorities for funding are set out in the cooperation specific programme. these research areas are the ones which will be supported through calls for proposals during the 2007-2013 period. our proposal was made after an extensive consultation with stakeholders during 2004, including a web-based consultation on the cooperation themes as well as input from industrial stakeholders through the european technology platforms. it was also based on an extensive ex-ante impact assessment. results from ex-post evaluation and monitoring exercises also form an important element in determining the priorities for research funding. this learning from past experience was indeed a key element in defining the priorities in the framework programme, as you suggest in the third part of your question to which now i turn. you asked how assessment of the usefulness and effectiveness of the research that was funded under the sixth framework programme influenced the selection of new research projects. here we have to distinguish two different ways of making that link. first, at the more detailed, operational level, we should note that the several thousand fp6 projects are monitored by the commission services. these colleagues are in frequent contact with the research community and their up-to-date insight into the progress achieved within this project is an important element in preparing the framework programme 7 work programmes. but, in the second place, at a more global level, in 2008 the commission will organise the ex-post evaluation of fp6. this assessment of the overall impact of the different research activities will be carried out by high-level experts. the results of this fp6 ex-post evaluation will be a major input in the forthcoming mid-term review of fp7 in the year 2010. finally, turning to the last part of the question, when considering the priorities for funding in each research sector, the topics to be funded are specified in the annual work programmes and the call for proposals. each year, we undertake consultation with the right variety of stakeholders in drawing up the work programmes. we also call on the assistance of external advisory groups, key specialists in the area, who provide input on ensuring that the work programmes contain the most essential areas of research, taking into account ongoing projects that have been funded in previous calls for proposals. once the individual proposals have been received in response to the calls, they are evaluated by expert peer reviews using a standard set of evaluation criteria. the proposals funded are those which receive the highest overall mark for the call or part of the call they address. in conclusion, i believe that it is fair to say that for research funded through community instruments we have a transparent system which allocates funding to the most relevant areas and also ensures it is then awarded to the best proposals. (el) thank you for your rather informative reply. i should like to ask whether international progress in research is taken into consideration when decisions are made on various actions, seeing that we live in a globalised world. to what extent do young people in europe receive special funding for participation in research? member of the commission. - of course there is no other way than to look at the global context. if you look in practice at what other major communities around the world are focusing their research on, then it is the same as ours. more than that, we do combine our efforts in many areas. one of the things we really strengthened in the seventh framework programme was precisely international cooperation. we are funding and supporting that, and will do so more in the future, because we believe that in the world of globalisation the challenges which lie ahead of us - be it food, health, drinking water, climate change, security or energy - are global and it is for us all to deal with them in the proper way. commissioner, you mentioned among the top priorities the thematic subjects energy and climate change. that is a correct priority, and the european union needs a breakthrough. how does the commission intend to organise cooperation between the best brains in the eu to work on this subject, and maybe - even more so - to promote cooperation between the best brains in the world? because this question is a crucial one. member of the commission. - yes, we are truly focusing on that. it was basically that philosophy - it is shared in the existing framework programme - but the truth is that we are now also focusing on the preparation of a strategic technology plan for europe. it should be adopted by the commission by the end of the year. in that, we are of course consulting practically everybody in this area in europe. so we have consulted all the technology platforms which already exist. we have had very open talks with them. they are, from bottom up, practically all included in our activities and we are trying to find a proper way of having this coordinated. you properly said that it is also vital that we share in the best possible way, in an international way, on how to address these questions. but in that respect, there are two things: when you also try to address it from the private sector, you have to do it in a balanced way, before or between the cooperation and competitiveness, and that is exactly what we try to take into account. (de) commissioner, the council has reduced research funding for 2008. how are you preparing for the health check, the mid-term review of the financial perspective? do you believe that we can submit new initiatives and proposals here that also reflect the importance of research in the european budget? member of the commission. - i think it is more the principal question of how far this mid-term review should go. i think that is the question we have to answer. if the answer is that we have to address, because of the urgency, some of the issues that are inside the already agreed financial period, then i am sure that area of science and research would be one of the candidates that needed to be addressed. subject: iter project iter is an ambitious project that undoubtedly smacks of scientific serendipity: we can find things without knowing how to look for them. there are also many non-eu countries involved. have the partners to date handled their commitments, economic or otherwise, in the proper manner? member of the commission. - the iter project, as the honourable member knows, is a project which is an international flagship of the world fusion energy research programme. since its inception during summit discussions in the late 1980s, europe has played a leading role in the successive preparatory stages for the project. the commission can be justly proud of the confidence shown by the iter partners in according europe the central role of the host party to the joint implementation of this project. the jet facilities, designed and built through the joint action of euratom and its members, provided an outstanding example of what can be achieved when leading fusion research organisations pool their expertise and resources. the iter project extends this principle from the european to the global level of cooperation. iter technical objectives and design are based on the steady and scientifically rigorous prospect process of development, in fusion research worldwide which has witnessed dramatic increases in the performance of experimental fusion facilities over recent decades in an atmosphere of international scientific cooperation that has transcended political barriers. beyond jet, iter extends the experimental side to the level where the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy can be demonstrated. since the signature of the iter agreement in november 2006, the iter partners have all handled properly the commitments that they accepted through the iter negotiations. at the political level, all the partners have pursued to completion their respective constitutional requirements for ratification or acceptance of the agreement, which is now accepted to enter officially into force within october this year. in the mean time, the partners have properly honoured their undertakings to abide by the terms of the agreement to the fullest extent possible until it enters into force. the staff of the international iter team and the iter site in cadarache in france is building up with representatives of all partners now present. the partners are providing their financial contributions to the budget of the iter organisation and are pursuing conscientiously the necessary joint technical preparations for the technical and scientific contributions to which they have committed themselves. in the european union, a joint undertaking for iter and the development of fusion energy was established by the council decision of 27 march 2007. its role is to prepare and coordinate activities for the construction of the demonstration fusion reactor and related facilities. to date, its supervisory body, the governing board, has met twice and adopted a first work programme and the administrative decisions necessary for the joint undertaking to be operational early 2008. in particular, the headquarters agreement with spain has been signed. the governing board also appointed the director, the chief executive officer of the joint undertaking. iter is indeed an ambitious project. in bringing it to fruition we shall be pushing back the boundaries of our experience in the scientific, technological and organisational domains. it is the nature of experiments that the results cannot be forecast with certainty. but iter is not an enterprise that we have entered into lightly or in the expectation of serendipity. iter consists of long-term international partnerships and commitments, bringing together partners that represent over half of the world's population to address issues central to our common future, the development of sustainable, non-polluting sources of energy at the service of humanity. the prospects for iter rest on the strong scientific and technological foundations of the project and on the enthusiasm and commitment demonstrated to date by its partners - by all of them; or rather, by all of us. there was never such cooperation in the world as we have gathered in iter. (fi) commissioner, our experience of one particular cooperation project, galileo, is bad. the european union had to finance it, contrary to the original plans, while not all parties shared in its financing as planned. is the commissioner's answer to be interpreted as meaning that we may not have any problems with iter as regards fulfilling the commitments made, i.e. we will not have the same problem with iter as we did with galileo, where the parties concerned neglected the responsibilities they had committed themselves to? member of the commission. - that is certainly correct. i can give a very short explanation. the commitments which are then done are done by governments. they are all public commitments. so, the commitments which were in galileo from the public side were never really the question. truly, the problem that arose in galileo would not arise at all in iter. subject: nanotechnology nanotechnology is a new branch of technology which offers many opportunities but also involves increasing risks. according to the nano dialogue project, 48% of people in the eu want a moratorium on the use of nanotechnology in consumer products until its effects on humans and on the environment are known. what legislation is in preparation for the sectors in which products containing nano-materials are used and are already on the market, such as cosmetics, skin care products, medicines, cleaning materials and other consumer products? does the commission envisage a sector-specific approach or horizontal legislation on nanotechnology in consumer products? member of the commission. - first of all, i would like to thank you for the question concerning the area of nanotechnology. the commission takes the question of safety and consumer protection very seriously and it is working to ensure that the public can benefit from the innovations that nanotechnologies may bring while being protected from any adverse impact. much effort is dedicated to addressing safety issues. something like eur 28 million from fp5 and fp6 has been dedicated to projects expressly focused on environmental and health aspects of nanotechnologies, and such research is planned to increase significantly in framework programme 7 too, both in size and in scope. as you know, the commission adopted an action plan for nanosciences and nanotechnology for europe 2005-2009 and parliament adopted a resolution on it, in which the action plan was well received. in the communication published this month on the implementation of the nanotechnology action plan, we fully address the second part of your question. a wide range of european and wider international, especially oecd and iso, approaches are pursued, both regulatory and non-regulatory, to address the potential adverse impact of nanotechnologies. the commission is performing an assessment of regulatory aspects in relation to health, safety and environmental aspects of nanotechnology-based products. preliminary results indicate that, overall, the existing community regulatory framework gives good coverage with regard to nanotechnology-based products developed today. different aspects of production and products, such as the ones mentioned in the question, like cosmetics and medicines, are already subject to various community provisions, albeit not specific to nanotechnology. consequently, there seems today to be no need to develop new legislation for nanotechnology-related safety risks or to propose major amendments. nevertheless, on the basis of scientific development or regulatory needs in specific areas which the commission closely monitors, regulatory changes may be proposed where necessary. it is not nanotechnology as such where regulatory aspects should be considered but rather nanotechnology-based products. the commission is convinced that the moratorium on nanotechnology would be severely counterproductive. apart from denying society the possible benefits of such technologies, it may lead to the emergence of technological paradises outside europe, where research and innovation are carried out without regulatory frameworks. finally, i would like to mention another eurobarometer survey, which was about new technologies and was carried out in 2005 on a sample of 25 000 people. if you compare it to the nanodialogue exhibition, which you mention in your question, this one was based on 700 respondents. eurobarometer found that, on the whole, europeans supported the development of nanotechnology, with approximately 55% in favour. these technologies are perceived as useful to society and morally acceptable. understandably, as many as 42% of respondents were uncertain about the effects of this new technology, but according to the survey almost 70% of the respondents who expressed an opinion as to its effects were optimistic. (sv) i think we are agreed that the worst thing for nanotechnology would be if the products we release now are poorly monitored and damage the reputation of the technology in its early development. i do not believe that traditional toxicity tests assess the risks of nanotechnology sufficiently reliably; on the contrary i think that the toxicity tests required in current legislation must be updated. i think that we need a labelling system so that consumers can choose for themselves, and i wonder whether the commission is planning such legislation. member of the commission. - i fully agree with you and with the first statement. the worst thing would be if something happened, so we have to prevent that and we have to be on the safe side. that is the name of the game and i fully agree with you. proposing legislation does not fall within my responsibility, but falls within the responsibility of my colleagues in the commission who deal with protection. i am sure they are looking at that very carefully. what i can say is that we are doing everything possible in research to try to analyse the potential risks that you mentioned, and this is certainly something done under my responsibility. (de) commissioner, where will the focus be in the nanotechnology sector in the seventh framework programme for research? the population has very high hopes here, particularly in the 'live a long and healthy life' sector. do you too see totally new opportunities here in the medical sector for being able to live a long and healthy life? member of the commission. - yes, the answer is clearly positive. this is one of the areas. nanotechnology, if one were to compare it, is a bit like information technology, because there is a horizontal influence on many sectors. one of the sectors where the results are very promising is health, so this is also part of our research, which is also, without any doubt, orientated in this direction. thank you, commissioner, for your answers. i was very pleased to hear that you think that the common regulatory framework is developing in the right direction, and also that you challenge the nanodialogue project and findings of the study to which the question is referring. i think that the eurobarometer shows clearly that european citizens are in favour of developing nanotechnologies. my question for you is that, in his question, mr schlyter says that nanotechnology involves increasing risks. do you have any data now that shows nanotechnology would pose such a risk, which mr schlyter seems to say is already a fact? member of the commission. - without any doubt, this is an area which needs attention, not least as concerns risk. when we enter into areas which in practice have this inherent potential then we have to act with caution. if we do not want people to turn against something which, if handled carefully, would certainly benefit them, then we have to do things in a way in which everything possible is done so that this does not happen. that is exactly our approach. at this very moment, of course, there have been no incidents connected to this area, but it is obviously one in which it is much better to take a cautious approach. that, surely, is the right way to proceed. questions 43 and 44 will be answered in writing. subject: london buses according to figures released by the greater london assembly in june, the so-called 'bendy buses' (long single-deckers with two carriages) found in many european cities and introduced in london in 2002, were involved in 1 751 accidents in 2006. this is 75% more than other types of bus, and represents an average of almost five accidents per day or more than five accidents per year for each 'bendy bus' in london's fleet. given this clearly unacceptable situation, particularly in comparison with other types of bus, what steps is the commission taking to ensure that there are adequate safety measures for the operation of 'bendy buses' and that drivers receive the necessary level of training? how can they be considered safe enough for operation in crowded urban conditions? the commission is not aware of worrying statistics in other european cities that use articulated buses. however, community legislation addresses the problem in several ways. directive 97/27/ec relating to the masses and dimensions of certain categories of motor vehicles and their trailers lays down the standards for the manoeuvrability of buses in general, as well as specific standards for articulated buses. directive 2003/59/ec on the initial qualification and periodic training of drivers of certain road vehicles for the carriage of goods or passengers is aimed at improving the level of driver training. in this respect, it would be desirable for national legislation transposing the directive to make provision for special training programmes for drivers of articulated buses. in terms of driver vision, european legislation addressed the problem of heavy goods vehicles by directive 2007/38/ec on the retrofitting of mirrors to heavy goods vehicles registered in the community. however, the commission is aware of the need to take account of other categories of vehicles, such as urban buses. that is why, as requested by the legislator in the abovementioned directive, the commission will submit, when the time comes, a report on the results obtained, accompanied, if appropriate, by a proposal for the revision of existing legislation. these are my answers to baroness ludford. i think my question is well-timed, as just today the commission has published its green paper on urban mobility. i cannot expect the commission to address my personal sense of loss that the iconic double-decker london routemaster bus has been replaced by these low-level continental-type 'bendy' buses (or 'articulated' buses, as the commission put it), but i am grateful for his reference to various pieces of eu legislation which ought to apply. could i ask him actually to make contact with the mayor of london and transport for london to investigate why these buses have a 75% worse accident rate than other buses, and to examine whether these directives are being properly applied in the uk, and specifically in london? you are quite right to be insistent about the safety of these buses. if you do not mind, we will ask the london authorities about this problem. it is true that articulated buses can be easier to drive than rigid buses, but once the driver has weighed up what the vehicle can do, he tends to drive a bit faster and have more confidence when turning, sometimes a bit too much unfortunately. therefore, you raised a good point and we will try, as i have just mentioned, to enquire whether in fact the existing legislation needs to be amended. having said that, you were also right to raise this in view of the fact i underlined earlier, before this assembly, that practically two thirds of accidents occur in towns and cities, and that, therefore, all the causes of these accidents must be understood. your highlighting of one of them has been timely. subject: connecting bucharest, constanza and sofia to the european high-speed rail network one of the trans-european transport network's 30 priority projects is priority axis no 22, which includes the following railway sections: athens-sofia-budapest-vienna-prague-nuremberg/dresden. romania is included in this project with the 480 km railway segment from curtici to brasov. given that since the accession of romania and bulgaria the european union has gained an outlet to the black sea and has increased its population by some 30 million inhabitants, i should like to ask the commission what steps romania and bulgaria have to take to connect the cities of bucharest and constanza, in the case of romania, and sofia, in the case of bulgaria, to the european high-speed rail network for passengers and goods? mrs icu, rail priority axis no 22 must, in effect, link germany with greece via prague, vienna, budapest and sofia. a branch to the north of this axis will go, via curtici and brasov, to bucharest and constanza. romania and bulgaria, as well as the other countries concerned, are making considerable efforts to construct this railway line so that eventually their respective capitals and the port of constanza will be linked to the rail network of the rest of the european union. these efforts should continue during the period 2007-2013. these projects are potentially eligible for community funding through the cohesion fund or the structural funds, or even via the trans-european networks budget. more specifically, romania is prioritising the development of the curtici-brasov-bucharest-constanza railway line. a 92 km section to the north of bucharest has already been built. projects are under way between bucharest and constanza. these should be progressively completed between now and 2010. romania has indicated, in its transport operational programme for 2007-2013, that it plans to develop the curtici-brasov-predeal line using eur 1.1 billion from the cohesion fund. in terms of the sofia link with the eu network, a major step was taken with the signing of the contract for the construction of the road and rail bridge over the danube at vidin-calafat, financed by the ispa fund. the bridge should be completed in 2010. in addition, bulgaria plans, in its transport operational programme for 2007-2013, to develop part of the vidin-sofia line. the cost of the work to be carried out up to 2013 comes to eur 320 million, out of a total of eur 1 380 million for the entire line. romania is committed to completing, by 2013, all preparatory studies for the upgrading of the craova-calafat line to the north of the danube bridge, so that it is ready to carry out the work shortly after 2013. there you have it. i apologise for giving you all this information verbally, but obviously we can supplement this if necessary in writing, mrs icu, if you request it. (ro) mr. commissioner, indeed, if possible, i would like to receive this information in writing as well. i would also kindly ask you to organize a seminar on structural funds in romania, because i consider that the new member states need to be supported in order to be able to gain access to structural funds and develop their transport infrastructure. the european union's access to the black sea is important and, for this reason, i believe that, for the mobility of passengers and goods, it is also important to develop the railway. i come back to the question regarding the high-speed train: the mobility of passengers is important and, for this reason, i request a dialogue in order to be able to achieve, step by step, whatever is necessary for this important project. mrs icu, i am just as concerned as you are. i would really like the new member states, particularly romania and bulgaria in this case, to make the best use of the cohesion fund. certainly we must prioritise rail transport wherever possible, which will then help us avoid major problems later on in terms of environmental requirements and the risks of congestion on european motorways. thank you for your question. i will ask my colleagues to answer more fully. once i have the chance to visit these countries, we will of course be able to provide you with even more information. subject: high-speed rail links paris-budapest and strasbourg-brussels what is the commission's opinion, following the basic agreements on the stuttgart 21 project, of the timetable for the construction of the individual sections of the 'magistrale for europe' from paris via strasbourg and munich to vienna/bratislava or budapest? what possibilities does the commission see for expanding this magistrale by a high-speed rail link between the three 'capitals of europe' strasbourg, luxembourg and brussels? i will answer mr posselt. the paris-strasbourg-stuttgart-vienna-bratislava railway axis no 17 is one of the 30 priority projects of the trans-european transport network. the stuttgart 21 project that you mentioned is a major link in this priority project. on 19 july 2007, an agreement was signed between mr tiefensee, the german minister for transport, and the authorities in the federal state of bade-wurtemberg, the region and city of stuttgart and deutsche bahn. this agreement is a key phase in the elimination of the bottleneck represented by the stuttgart-ulm section, since it includes funding for the work to start in 2010. the commission is keeping a close eye on the modernisation of the sections between stuttgart and ulm. in july 2005 it appointed a european coordinator for this line, mr pter balzs, who has already submitted his second report. this report was sent to the chairman of parliament's committee on transport and tourism. it is available on the website of the directorate-general for energy and transport. the coordinator, mr balzs, is continuing to give great attention to the stuttgart-ulm bottleneck, which must be eliminated. in his report, the coordinator analysed the progress of the paris-bratislava priority project and concluded that most of the project could be completed in 2015. however, given the complexity of the stuttgart-ulm section, this section will not be built until 2019. it is clear that a priority project does not exclude continuation to other destinations. other priority projects, such as the athens-sofia-budapest-vienna-prague-nuremberg-dresden axis, will extend the paris-bratislava project as far as the black sea and greece, while the eurocaprail priority no 28 project will link brussels to strasbourg via luxembourg. in july 2007 member states submitted their proposals for community cofinancing. these proposals are currently being evaluated. based on this evaluation, the commission will propose the rte-t budget allocation for the period 2007-2013 to the european parliament and council. those are the answers i wanted to give you, mr posselt. personally i am extremely interested in the paris-budapest axis, and i can tell you that mr balzs and i are really keen for every effort to be made to complete this major project. (de) commissioner, the historical credit for setting in motion what mr kohl and mr mitterrand had decided to do back in 1982, and which is now finally becoming reality, goes to you. i have two brief questions. firstly, the strasbourg-kehl-appenweier and the munich-mhldorf-salzburg cross-border projects are also highly complex. is there any news on these? secondly: can you perhaps appeal once more to the rail companies - when we are already deploying so many european funds for cross-border routes - and ask them to stop cutting back cross-border train connections? we are expanding the railways with our money at the same time as the rail companies are hacking transport routing to pieces with national timetables. naturally, i am quite ready to intervene. could you write to me on the subject, so that i can contact deutsche bahn? i will also look into how we might improve things at this stage, since this is also part of our job: not only to plan these major corridors of the future, but to improve the situation now. i will look forward to receiving a short memo from you that we can act on. subject: final judgment by the greek court on olympic airways (oa) in the discussion of my oral question of 13 march 2007 on 'the court decision offsetting debts of the greek state to olympic airways (oa)', commissioner jacques barrot said: 'the decision of the courts is a new aspect that we are analysing currently'. and recent reports in the greek press (3 june 2007) state that commissioner barrot, in his contacts with senior officials in the greek ministry of economy and finance during his most recent visit to greece, 'allowed some margin for offsetting debts provided that progress was made with privatisation of oa'. what exactly is the commission analysing? is it considering whether the final judgment of the court of arbitration is in line with community law? can the commission confirm that it is negotiating on acceptance of the court decision provided that the greek authorities go ahead with privatisation of oa? mr papadimoulis asked me a question, which i will now answer. the commission has taken note of the greek court of arbitration's decision of 13 july 2006 on flights carried out as a public service requirement, and of the decision of 6 december 2006 concerning the relocation of olympic airways to athens international airport. the greek authorities have already informally consulted the commission on these decisions on compensation, which were the subject of a preliminary examination. based on that preliminary examination and the documents submitted at this stage by the greek authorities, the commission is still unable to adopt a position on the nature of these decisions under eu rules on state aid. if these decisions were to involve further aid, they would obviously have to be notified under article 88(3) of the treaty. the commission's services informed the greek authorities of this preliminary evaluation and we are awaiting their response. broadly speaking, the commission is doing everything in its power to ensure that the aid which it has ordered to be recovered are actually recovered. that is the information i can give you, mr papadimoulis. (el) madam president, commissioner, it is not just olympic airways that owes money to the state. the state also owes money to olympic airways, a very large amount. in total, olympic airways is demanding more than eur 1 billion from the greek state. i would like to ask you whether the commission intends to wait for, and especially to respect, the final judicial decisions by the greek courts having jurisdiction. i am informed that next week you are to meet with the responsible greek minister with whom you will be discussing these matters. can you outline for us which points you agree on and where you disagree with the greek government on this subject? in greece there is considerable concern, and a significant section of public opinion blames the commission for liquidating olympic airways while it was still in operation, for a token price, for the benefit of its competitors. what reply can you give on this subject? for the time being, we are awaiting clarification from the greek authorities on the ruling of the court of arbitration. we have not been in contact recently with the greek authorities concerning any privatisation plans. the issue is not whether the court of arbitration has taken the correct decision but whether the contractual relations on which it was based as a point of departure are compatible with community law. i cannot say much more about it, mr papadimoulis, since, as you yourself stated, i have just agreed to a meeting with the new greek minister. i think that we will have the opportunity to discuss this with him then. that is all i can tell you at the moment. we need more information from the greek authorities before we can take the necessary decisions. thank you, commissioner, and thank you for dealing with that last question. questions which have not been answered for lack of time will receive written answers (see annex). that concludes question time. (de) madam president, please allow me to speak on the rules of procedure. i have been talking with my colleague, mrs madeira, and have also, of course, listened to the commissioner's answers. we have been asking our questions now for about three years and have not managed to get an oral answer to a single question. of course the written answer is also very detailed and correct, but it is easier to ask and make inquiries verbally and it makes the result even more interesting still. do you have any advice or guidance as to how this could perhaps be achieved in future? mr leichtfried, thank you for your comments. all i would say, in connection with the working party on the internal reform of parliament, is that conduct of question time is one of the issues that we are looking at very carefully, and your comments will be taken on board. (the sitting was suspended at 19.30 and resumed at 21.00)

question time (council) the next item is question time (b6-0231/2009). the following questions have been submitted to the council. mr kohout is here representing the council. i should like to take this opportunity to welcome the decision made today by the czech senate, which gives us high hopes of the future ratification of the treaty of lisbon. subject: protection of european creative works given that european creative works are being undermined by the growing plethora of pirated copies, what measures does the council propose in order to afford real protection? president-in-office of the council. - mr president, thank you for your kind words addressed to the czech republic and to the senate. we are also very pleased that the green light for the lisbon treaty is now much stronger than it was a few hours before. in response to the first question, i would like to say that the council shares the concerns expressed by the honourable member relating to the need to comprehensively address the problem of piracy of protected works. this issue has been identified as a policy priority by both the european parliament and the council in the context of the overall effort to protect and foster innovation of european creators and consequently the competitiveness of the european economy. the european parliament and the council have adopted directive 2004/48/ec, which puts in place a community framework for the enforcement of intellectual property rights and are currently working on a proposal for a directive on criminal measures, aimed at ensuring enforcement of such rights. the legislative framework already in force provides for a solid base for the member states to pursue effective protection of intellectual property rights, including by fighting piracy. moreover, the european community and the member states are participating in ongoing negotiations, such as the draft anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, in order to render the protection of intellectual property rights more effective at international level. on 25 september 2008, the council adopted a resolution setting down concrete actions to be taken by the member states and the commission in the context of a comprehensive european anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan. moreover, the council adopted in november 2008 a set of conclusions in response to the commission communication of january 2008 on creative content online in the single market, highlighting, amongst other things, the need to promote and facilitate legitimate online offers of copyright-protected material as an important means of effectively fighting piracy. in the customs field, the council has adopted regulation (ec) no 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights. this regulation sets out the conditions under which the customs authorities may intervene in cases where goods are suspected of infringing intellectual property rights and the steps to be taken by the authorities when goods are found to be illegal. in particular, the community has concluded a series of customs cooperation agreements, like the agreement recently concluded with china, in order to improve and facilitate cooperation with the customs authorities of third countries, inter alia for the fight against counterfeited and pirated goods. these agreements are practical means and methods of cooperation between the european community and the customs authorities of partner countries. these agreements are constantly implemented and updated in the framework of the joint customs cooperation committees established under these agreements. at multilateral level, the council actively contributes to the work undertaken under the auspices of the world customs organisation. lastly, on 16 march 2009, the council adopted a resolution on the eu customs action plan to combat intellectual property rights infringements for the years 2009-2012, following on from the abovementioned council resolution of 25 september 2008. the council remains open to examining any future initiatives that would aim at reinforcing the fight against counterfeiting and piracy so as to provide more comprehensive protection to right holders. the council appreciates all similar efforts by the european parliament to the same end. (es) thank you very much for your answer, mr president. i believe that, in fact, the council does understand what the problem is, but i would like to insist on this point and to ask you, president-in-office of the council, if the council is aware that at the moment european cultural production is below minimum levels. european union law on the protection of creative works is that of an underdeveloped country and, as a result, our cultural production is falling to the levels seen in underdeveloped countries. this is especially apparent in the audiovisual sector, where at the moment the majority of production is taking place outside europe, mainly in the united states, because that country protects creative works. if europe does not protect creative works, we will not have them. is the council aware of the responsibility that it bears at this time? (de) my question concerns the following: mrs trautmann was outvoted today here in parliament with her compromise amendment on the telecommunications package. this means, therefore, that she has put president sarkozy in a good position with his 'three strikes - out' solution. how does the czech presidency assess today's vote in parliament with regard to the european creative artists who want to protect their rights on the internet? mr president, i would just like to assure the honourable member that the council is well aware that this is a significant activity and a real threat to the cultural wealth of europeans and the european union. i think it is evident from the list of measures that the council has undertaken in previous months and previous years that these issues have been and continue to be a priority, even within the framework of the comprehensive european plan which has set specific action goals, such as the establishment of the european counterfeiting and piracy observatory. i believe it should be stated in this context that the council realises its responsibility, is aware of the serious nature of the problem at hand, and is resolved to take specific action in this matter. as for the telecommunications package, both the previous presidency and our presidency have invested much energy in this matter. we are disappointed that the complete compromise, including this anti-piracy provision, has not been approved. i would like to voice the hope that the agreed telecommunications package will eventually be passed, following further procedures. nevertheless, i am disappointed that, for the reasons mentioned by the honourable member, the package has not been passed today. subject: climate change given the well-known sceptical opinion of the czech president vclav klaus on climate change, how is the council ensuring that the views of the vast majority of eu member states and citizens endorsing the scientific veracity of man-made climate change are being respected, specifically in relation to preparations for the copenhagen climate summit and the forthcoming swedish presidency? president-in-office of the council. - last march the council and the spring european council further refined a new position for the international climate change negotiations, in particular in view of the copenhagen conference. at this meeting of 19-20 march 2009, the council stressed its conviction that the economic crisis and the policy measures in response to it provide an opportunity to achieve the necessary economic reforms and at the same time speed up reforms towards a safe and sustainable low-carbon resource-efficient economy. the presidency conclusions of the european council of march this year stated that the european union remained committed to playing a leading role and bringing about the global and comprehensive climate agreement in copenhagen in december this year, designed to limit global warming to below 2 celsius. to this end the european council recalled the eu's commitment to a 30% emission reduction as its contribution to such an agreement, provided that other developed countries commit themselves to comparable emission reductions and that advanced developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and respective capabilities. the european council will further discuss these issues at its june meeting. deputising for the author. - i would like to thank the czech presidency for the chairing of the committee and their views on this. as i asked one of your colleagues before, could i have assurances now, as we approach the critical meeting that will be the unfcc cop-15 in copenhagen this december, that we will have the enthusiastic support of the czech government for an adequate and fully equitable global agreement to reduce carbon emissions worldwide? you started your presidency with the reputation of being climate-sceptics. can you confirm now that you are converts and that you fully agree with the legislative climate and energy package that was passed overwhelmingly last december by this parliament? president-in-office of the council. - (cs) mr president, in response to the question i would like to say firstly that we - in the sense of the czech government and the czech republic - have never been sceptical about climate change. i do not think that what i said in my speech about certain conclusions being adopted by the march european council, about certain measures being adopted by previous european councils attended by the czech government and about the government agreeing with those conclusions, can indicate in any way that either the outgoing government or the new government which comes into office on friday have changed their opinions on this matter in any way. in this sense we can say that we will follow the course submitted or outlined by previous councils, and our ambition is for the eu to do its utmost at the upcoming june eu summit to move forward, despite all the associated problems and difficulties, on the preparation of the mandate of the european council and the negotiating framework for copenhagen. i sensed in the question an allusion to the czech president but i can tell you categorically and honestly that two days ago a summit with japan was held in prague, chaired on behalf of the eu by president klaus and if you spotted anything out of line there with the unified eu view on the climate, kindly let me know, although i know that but nothing of that kind took place. seen in this light, i view these concerns as understandable, but not entirely justified in principle, and i hope i have managed to dispel them. subject: lisbon treaty and the czech presidency could the council please comment on a possible timetable for ratification by the czech republic of the lisbon treaty? president-in-office of the council. - (cs) mr president, in your introduction to my speech today you made an announcement in which you congratulated the czech republic over the fact that its senate today approved the lisbon treaty with a clear majority of votes. i believe that - at this moment - this is the best reply to the question in hand. thank you to the czech minister and congratulations through him to the leader and all the members of the czech senate. now both the upper and lower houses have voted to approve the ratification. you may look at me as an irish member of this house and say: is this the pot calling the kettle black? we have a job yet to do in ireland. the poles and the germans also have a bit of tidying up to do. but can i ask you to indicate when and if your president klaus is likely to accept the wishes of the upper and lower houses and approve - or sign off, if you like - the full ratification of the treaty? again, thank you. i am delighted with today's result in your senate. (de) mr president, i congratulate the czech presidency on the decision in the senate. nonetheless, i have to say that we in europe are naturally dissatisfied with many areas of the interplay between the institutions of the european union and that is why we have negotiated this reform treaty over the last eight months. would it perhaps be possible for a debate to be conducted in the czech republic regarding what in fact they find troubling about this treaty and what alternatives president klaus could offer the people of europe to quell the current dissatisfaction, to which he indeed vociferously refers, and what solutions he would envision? at present, all that is known is that he wants to prevent the reform but is putting forward no positive proposals. (de) mr president, with president klaus having damaged the national renown of his country out of sheer egocentricity i too would like to congratulate the czech presidency and say that it was a first-class presidency. i am happy that it has ended with the ratification of the treaty as far as parliamentary procedure is concerned. mr president, i would like to thank you for your words of appreciation, and your congratulations on the approval of the lisbon treaty by our senate. president klaus has his own views and we in the czech republic respect his opinions, which are part of the democratic spectrum of opinion. as for the debate on the lisbon treaty, it proved to be very intense, and that is why the senate has not approved the lisbon treaty until now, following long discussions on the subject. the large majority of votes - 54 senators out of the 80 present - cast in favour of the treaty included senators from the civil democratic party (ods) (the party president klaus once founded), which shows that there is 'eurorealism' in the czech republic, that there is a very strong feeling of co-responsibility for europe and for the eu, as well as a will to continue the process of european integration and to take an active part in it. as regards the constitutional arrangement for approval by both chambers of the czech parliament, it is really a precondition for ratification, which then culminates with the signature of the president. in this respect, the constitution does not set any deadlines, and i would not like to speculate at this moment about the date by which the treaty will be signed by the president. the situation for us is now quite new, even in the czech republic itself. this is a great load off our minds and we are naturally overjoyed. we will of course hold further consultations and talks aimed at finalising ratification within the shortest possible period of time. subject: croatia, macedonia and southeast europe how does the council judge the likelihood of concluding accession negotiations with croatia and giving a deadline for negotiations with macedonia before the end of the year and fleshing out the prospects for eu accession of southeast european states, including kosovo, lying between croatia and macedonia? president-in-office of the council. - mr president, the negotiations with croatia have entered an important and demanding phase. since the start of these negotiations, 22 chapters have been opened, of which seven have been provisionally closed. forecasts of the conclusion of the negotiating process cannot be made. as you know, the advancement of the negotiations is mainly guided by croatia's progress in preparing for accession in addressing opening and closing benchmarks, as well as in meeting the requirements of the negotiating framework and fulfilling croatia's obligations under the stabilisation and association agreement. the implementation of the revised accession partnership is also important to prepare for further integration with the european union. full cooperation with the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia, including access to documents, remains essential in line with the negotiating framework. in this context, it is worth recalling that the council has repeatedly stated that, in accordance with the negotiating framework and the accession partnership, efforts towards good neighbourly relations must be continued - in particular work on finding solutions to bilateral issues with neighbouring countries, especially border issues. the presidency regrets that the border issue with slovenia is affecting the pace of croatia's accession negotiations and the progress on the ground does not match the former progress registered. as you know, the presidency, together with the former and incoming presidencies and the commission, has made significant facilitation efforts to make progress on this issue. furthermore, the april general affairs and external relations council held a useful discussion to take stock of the situation. concerning the former yugoslav republic of macedonia, i would like to recall the decision of the european council of december 2005 to grant it the status of candidate country, taking into account in particular the requirements of the stabilisation and association process and criteria for membership and implementation of the priorities in the partnership, the substantial progress made in completing the legislative framework related to the ohrid framework agreement, as well as its track record in implementing the stabilisation and association agreement, including its trade-related provisions since 2001. according to the european council of june 2008, further steps by the former yugoslav republic of macedonia in its progress towards the eu will be possible, provided that the conditions set out in the december 2005 european council conclusions, the copenhagen political criteria and the outstanding key priorities of the accession partnership are fulfilled. maintaining good neighbourly relations, including a negotiated and mutually acceptable solution on the main issue, remains essential. holding free and fair elections is crucial. according to the preliminary assessment of the osce/odihr election observation mission, elections held on 22 march and 5 april were organised thoroughly and met most international commitments and standards. this is an important step forward for democracy in the country. we encourage the new president and the government in their efforts to achieve progress in their country, to the benefit of all citizens, and the government for concentrating on the reform agenda, such as the strengthening of the rule of law, economic progress and the fight against corruption and organised crime. concerning other countries of the western balkans, very considerable progress has been made towards eu membership over recent years but this has also been uneven and huge challenges remain. the council is willing to support efforts to meet these challenges, in particular by implementing the stabilisation and association agreements and by granting considerable financial support. the stabilisation and association process remains the overall framework for the european perspective of the western balkans. by making solid progress in economic and political reform and by fulfilling the necessary conditions and requirements, the remaining potential candidates in the western balkans should achieve candidate status according to their own merits, with eu membership as the ultimate goal. in december 2008 montenegro filed its membership application. on 23 april this year the council asked the commission to prepare its opinion on the application so that the council can then take further decisions. on 28 april albania applied for eu membership. applications from other countries might be received at a later stage. the council recalls the european union's willingness to assist the economic and political development of kosovo through a clear european perspective, in line with the european perspective of the region. the council welcomes the commission's intention to present, in autumn 2009, a study examining means to further kosovo's political and socioeconomic development. the council is committed to strengthening people-to-people contacts, such as lifting the visa requirements when the benchmarks defined in the visa liberalisation road maps are met, as well as further promoting student and young professional exchanges. while strengthening the ownership principle, the eu stresses the importance of regional cooperation and good neighbourly relations among the western balkan countries. regional cooperation and the european agenda are linked. the more western balkan countries cooperate with each other, the more they integrate within european structures. this is because regional cooperation contributes to a shared understanding in the region and to finding solutions for issues of common interest, such as in the fields of energy, transport, trade, the fight against organised crime and corruption, refugee return and border control. (de) many thanks for that very good and very exhaustive reply. i have three very short supplementary questions: first, do you believe it is conceivable that the czech presidency will open a new chapter with croatia? second, will you name a date for macedonia this year? third, what is the timeframe for relaxing visa restrictions? president-in-office of the council. - (cs) mr president, with respect to the first question concerning the unblocking of the negotiation process, as i previously stated in my opening speech, one of the agenda items of the last meeting of the council for general affairs and external relations was devoted precisely to these issues. we firmly believe that progress in this matter will be achieved during the current presidency, as well as an agreement to facilitate the conclusion of the negotiating chapters that have been prepared for closing. it has been one of the main goals of this presidency since the outset to unblock this situation. a solution is taking shape and we hope it will be acceptable to all parties involved, making it possible to achieve progress in the negotiations. as for the question concerning the former yugoslav republic of macedonia (fyrom), it should be noted that at this moment we do not expect a date to be fixed or other specifics to be finalised during this presidency. we do not envisage visa liberalisation in the first session of this year, but do believe that by the end of this year or early next year citizens from a number of western balkan countries that are close to meeting or have already met the benchmarks, could travel visa-free from some of the western balkans countries to the european union. it has been emphasised here on several occasions that one of the priorities of our presidency is to bring the countries of the western balkans and the european union closer together. we have been devoting considerable efforts to this end, and we want to devote equal, if not greater, efforts to this priority in the two months remaining to us. subject: protecting the most vulnerable in the economic crisis in the conclusions of its meeting on 19 and 20 march, the european council stated that in tackling the social impact of the current economic crisis, 'particular attention should be given to the most vulnerable and to new risks of exclusion'. in what ways is the council focusing on protecting the most vulnerable, such as new migrants, older people, settled ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and the homeless, from being pushed to the margins of society? president-in-office of the council. - as the honourable parliamentarian has said very well the joint report on social protection and social inclusion, which was submitted to the european council meeting on 19-20 march, stresses the need for appropriate social policies, not only to mitigate the adverse social impact on the most vulnerable but also to cushion the impact of the crisis on the economy as a whole. this implies adjusting benefits, where needed, to safeguard appropriate support for recipients. in particular comprehensive active inclusion strategies that combine and balance measures and inclusive labour market access to quality services and adequate minimum incomes need to be implemented. a boost must be given to member states' efforts to implement comprehensive strategies against poverty and social exclusion of children, including accessible and affordable quality childcare. sustained work is required to tackle homelessness as an extremely serious form of exclusion, to promote the social inclusion of migrants and to address, for example, the multiple disadvantages the roma people are facing and their vulnerability to social exclusion. vigilance is also needed as new risk groups, among them young workers and labour market entrants, as well as new risks, may emerge. as regards the specific situation of older people, ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities, the council has already adopted legislation aiming to protect these and other vulnerable groups from discrimination. council directive 2000/78/ec establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation. council directive 2000/43/ec implements the principle of equal treatment between persons, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, in a wide number of areas including employment, self-employment, vocational training, social security, education and access to goods and services, including housing. in addition, the council is currently examining a new commission proposal that aims to extend the protection against discrimination even further. the proposal for a council directive on implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation would extend the protection against discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation to areas beyond employment. on 2 april 2009 the european parliament voted in favour of the commission's proposal under the consultation procedure, and discussions on the draft directive are ongoing in the council. allow me also to recall that last spring the council and parliament successfully negotiated a first-reading agreement on the commission's proposal to establish a european year for combating poverty and social exclusion in 2010. at the time, few of us could have guessed the scale of the coming economic crisis. however, with the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the commission, council and parliament were absolutely right to focus on the problems of poverty and social exclusion. finally the council is also examining a set of draft conclusions on equal opportunities for women and men of the age 50-plus generation, tabled by the czech presidency. it is expected that these conclusions will be adopted by the council in june. this will be another opportunity for the council to reaffirm its commitment to ensuring that our older citizens can live active lives and age with dignity. within the framework of the current eu presidency, the conference on social services entitled 'social services: a tool for mobilising the workforce and strengthening social cohesion' was held in prague in april this year. the conference stressed the importance of social services for active inclusion of people endangered by social exclusion and excluded from the labour market. the social services sector, due to economic and demographic changes on the one hand, becomes the important field of new job opportunities, in particular for women and older workers and, on the other hand, it helps the social services users themselves to hold down their jobs. the conference introduced basic starting points for further all-european discussions on the role of social services in society. although the ways of providing social services, sharing competences and the conception of financial sustainability are different in eu member states, there was a good deal of consensus among the speakers at the conference on the role and goals of social services. in the conference conclusions, which will be further elaborated and then negotiated with the aim of adoption by the epsco council in june, the role of social services as an essential instrument for social policies is stressed. the necessity of the integrated manner in conceiving and delivering social services and taking into account individual needs of clients is underlined as well. the important role of public authorities in guaranteeing quality, access and sustainability of social services is mentioned and it is stated that investing in social services, in particular during the present financial and economic crisis, pays and can strengthen the growth potential and the cohesion of economies and societies. the importance of informal care is pointed out and so-called 'shared care', a combination of both formal and informal care, seems to be optimum and most effective. in the conference conclusions, the importance of the promotion of a system of lifelong training and capacity-building for assuring the quality of services is mentioned. last but not least, the protection of rights, dignity and special needs of social services users is emphasised. deputising for the author. - (nl) mr president, i would like to thank the czech presidency warmly for answering my question. i was pleased to hear that the issue of extending the directive on anti-discrimination to goods and services was given a prominent place in your answers to questions on the fight against growing poverty and social exclusion amongst the most vulnerable groups. allow me to tell you how much i appreciate this. my question to you is, does this also mean that the text which this house approved in april enjoys the full support of the czech presidency, and what practical steps have you, as president-in-office, taken in order to ensure that this directive is also adopted as soon as possible by the member states and the council? many thanks. (lt) i too would like to thank you for your comprehensive reply. the problem of social exclusion is very widespread and multi-faceted, because, in my opinion, now many people simply face problems of survival. is the council prepared to increase food aid? food aid is also a very important matter now, as this crisis rages, and it seems to me that we should devote more attention to this. president-in-office of the council. - (cs) i would like to thank you for applauding my previous reply and my efforts to give a truly exhaustive answer to the question posed. as regards the additional question, it must be said that i am not in a position to give a perfectly clear answer at this point in time. nevertheless, it should also be noted that all of the issues relating to social exclusion, as well as those concerning the fight against poverty in this time of crisis, are quite naturally on the agenda and are being discussed intensely in the council's working groups, including the directive that you mentioned. as for food aid, i may have misunderstood the aim of the question, but at the council we have been discussing food aid primarily for developing countries, in other words the countries worst affected by the economic and financial crisis, as well as by the previous food crisis. as far as the situation in the european union is concerned, no such topic is being discussed. nevertheless, we are aware of the responsibility of the european union regarding the least successful or those who need far more assistance in the current situation, and this subject will also figure on the agenda of a meeting of the ministers for development co-operation. subject: european employment pact how does the council view the proposal to adopt a european employment pact which could be an important tool in preserving social cohesion and promoting the growth and economic recovery of the eu which is suffering from the effects of the global crisis? president-in-office of the council. - the council has not received any proposal from the commission for a european employment tax. therefore the council is not in a position to answer the specific points raised by the honourable member on this issue. however, the council shares the concerns expressed by the honourable member in her question and considers that it is important to preserve social cohesion and to promote the growth and economic recovery of the european union, which is suffering from the effects of the global crisis. in this framework, the presidency would like to recall that member states remain, in the first instance, responsible for designing and implementing the employment policies. nevertheless, the council pays special attention to these employment policies, especially now that europe is facing a financial economic crisis and adopts new early employment guidelines in accordance with the treaty. in this sense, the presidency would like to recall that in december last year the european council decided an overall european economic recovery plan to address, inter alia, employment issues resulting from the financial crisis. the plan consists of immediate budgetary measures amounting to eur 200 billion comprising, on the one hand, community measures amounting to eur 30 billion and, on the other hand, national measures that would amount to eur 170 billion. the european council also supported the idea of rapid action by the european social fund in support of employment, especially for the benefit of the most vulnerable groups in the population, such as supporting flexicurity policies and policies easing job transition periods, and giving member states the opportunity, where necessary, for reprogramming european social fund expenditures in order to strengthen their employment strategies. it is also to be recalled that, in addition to the european social fund, the european globalisation adjustment fund also provides community assistance to complement national actions, including actions at regional and local levels. this fund, created by the council in 2007, addresses specific european-scale crises caused by globalisation and provides one-off, time-limited individual support geared directly to redundant workers. a revision of the european globalisation adjustment fund is under way and the european council of march 2009 called for a swift agreement to be reached. the council welcomes the agreement for a first-reading adoption of this revision and goes by today's vote in plenary. the european council of march also agreed upon some additional measures such as the following: removing barriers while preventing the creation of new ones and achieving a fully operational internal market; further reducing administrative burdens; improving framework conditions for industry in order to maintain a strong industrial base and for businesses with a special focus on smes and innovation; encouraging partnership between business, research, education and training; and stepping up and improving the quality of investment in research, knowledge, and education. finally the presidency would like to recall that the initiative of the current presidency, an employment summit, will be organised on 7 may in prague. yesterday the czech deputy prime minister for european affairs, mr vondra, had the opportunity to speak at this plenary on this issue on behalf of the presidency. (el) mr president, i thank the president-in-office of the council for his reply. my question was on exactly the same wavelength. should all the means programmed from time to time - especially as a result of the crisis - not be coordinated under one umbrella, what i call an 'agreement on employment', so that they bear fruit for the european citizens, who hear about millions of euros - you mentioned the sum of 200 billion - but do not see this money being translated into effective action which will give them a way out of unemployment and poverty? president-in-office of the council. - (cs) mr president, i must say i am wholly sympathetic to what has been said here, and i am convinced that the forthcoming summit, the'employment summit' in prague, will be another occasion for creating and putting forward initiatives which the june european council will be able to return to and which will be focused precisely on the topics we have been discussing here, in other words issues relating to the impact of the economic crisis on employment. subject: health care abroad the new patient mobility directive, scheduled to be debated by parliament in april, will lay down common provisions on the reimbursement of health care received abroad. members of the european parliament are seeking to ensure that patients from eu countries have every opportunity to receive treatment abroad (such as through the reimbursement in advance of expensive health-care services so that they are not only available to the wealthy), while the council is proposing that such rights be limited and that the member states themselves decide what health care received by their citizens abroad would qualify for reimbursement. in the council's view, how can these opposing positions of parliament and the council be reconciled? what possible compromise proposals does the council envisage? president-in-office of the council. - mr president, the presidency, building on the work carried out by the french presidency, is pursuing actively discussions on the proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council on the application of patients' rights in cross-border health care. the presidency's objective is to find solutions that will strike the right balance between the rights of the patients in cross-border health care and the responsibilities of the member states for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care. as the presidency stated during the plenary debate of 23 april 2009, patients travelling to other member states should receive full information and high-quality health care. but it is also important to make sure that the directive fulfils the principles of clarity, legal certainty and subsidiarity. discussions are still ongoing in the council, so it is impossible to predict whether a political agreement can be reached under the current czech presidency. however, the current discussions in the council suggest that a system of prior authorisation is likely to be limited to specific types of health care. it will be an option for member states, which they may or may not use. this possibility was recognised by the european court of justice under certain conditions. the council is also considering accompanying any system of prior authorisation with measures aimed at transparency and full information of the patients about their rights related to receiving cross-border health care. on the other hand, the directive sets a minimum level of what the member states have to guarantee to their patients as regards the reimbursement of the costs of cross-border health care. it is the same amount which would be incurred for the same treatment in their home member state. nothing prevents member states from providing their patients who receive cross-border health care with a more advantageous form of reimbursement, even in advance. however, it depends on the member states' national policy. nevertheless, in cases where the person really needs to receive planned treatment in another member state and there are objective medical reasons for that, there is already in existence regulation (ec) 883/2004, under which the patient will receive health care without actually bearing costs himself. according to the report voted in parliament's plenary on 24 april 2009, the european parliament has also recognised the prior authorisation system as a planning and management tool if it is transparent, predictable, non-discriminatory and subject to clear information for patients. the council will study all the amendments with care and will consider how to take account of them in its common position in order to reach an agreement in second reading. (lt) once again thank you for your comprehensive and, i would say, hopeful reply. it is very good that the conditions for obtaining medical assistance, both at home and abroad, are being harmonised. however, it is clearly wrong that a lot will depend on a patient's ability to pay. those patients who are unable to make up the difference between costs at home and abroad will not be able to take advantage of this. the czech republic, which took over the presidency from france, is still a young country and i would like to ask: were there differences in the way the new and old member states assessed this problem? president-in-office of the council. - (cs) mr president, i would like to express my thanks for the additional comment by the honourable member. we are bearing this in mind and we will take account of it. i think he has identified a major problem, but at this moment the question cannot be resolved in a clear-cut and simple manner. i view this as a problem that should be addressed by the council in its further discussions on these issues. questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see annex).

6. presentation of the commission work programme for 2011 ( - before the vote on amendment 7: (de) mr president, i would like the end of this amendment to be reworded. the wording is very negative and i would like it to read as follows: the initiative "youth on the move" underlines the importance of the above mentioned programmes. mr president, i just want to say that we are withdrawing amendment 14. (de) mr president, this is about the union for the mediterranean. we know that it has currently come to a standstill and that we want to revive it. the wording does not express this clearly enough, so we would like to insert the following text: the current stalemate of the union for the mediterranean. (de) i know that there is a contradiction here. perhaps another wording would be possible, but the wording we are proposing is: the current stalemate of the union for the mediterranean.

facing oil challenges (short presentation) the next item is a brief presentation of the report by herbert reul, on behalf of the committee on industry, research and energy, on 'possible solutions to the challenges in relation to oil supply'. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, in this report on oil supply i make a plea - and this was also agreed in committee - for emphasis to be placed on the importance of oil in the european energy supply of the future. oil will clearly remain a very important source of primary energy in the eu even in the medium and long term. we have been seeing a steep rise in demand caused by economic and population growth and also by the desire for individual mobility. in recent months and years we have been concerning ourselves in varying ways - the report also concentrates on this to a large extent - with the logical question that arises as to how to reduce consumption, how to reduce demand. how can we lower our consumption or cover it with other energy sources too? this report seeks to look at the fact that we politicians should be thinking about whether and how the resources, the supply side, can be increased and what can be done in this regard. three or four points are mentioned in this regard. firstly, massive investment is needed to produce and exploit the available oil: usd 350 billion per annum is the figure always quoted in this connection. secondly, it must be pointed out that we need to be much more active in the field of technological innovations. we also need to think about how to exploit all the available reserves as efficiently as possible. this brings the focus not only to the issues of technology and the usability of land but also very quickly to foreign-policy considerations, of course. in this regard, too, in a number of points i cannot list exhaustively here, this report attempts to point out that we must step up our efforts to make unconventional oil resources commercially viable: so as to contribute to diversification, to answer the question as to how transport routes too can be changed, and to raise the question as to what contribution foreign policy can make in terms of strengthening relations and mutual dependency and reliability between the european union and the oil-producing countries. this report does not attempt to answer all the oil-related questions but rather seeks to examine a number of issues that have not been central up to now. it disregards all efficiency and energy saving issues, not because they are unimportant but because they are dealt with elsewhere. a number of new questions should be raised in this connection - we should even consider, for example, whether sufficient young blood is entering the technology field: young people who are prepared to get involved in this field and to seek new solutions. that was a brief summary of the substance of this report. vice-president of the commission. - (fr) mr president, i wish, on behalf of the commission, to thank mr reul for having prepared the report on the possible solutions to the challenges related to oil supplies i also wish to thank the members of the various committees that have put forward views on the issue for their valuable contributions to this important debate. the economic conditions have greatly changed since the commission communication of june 2008, entitled 'facing oil challenges'. at the time, crude oil reached usd 140 a barrel, with major effects on the general economy and on private individuals in the european union. since then, the price of crude has fallen by a good usd 100 to below usd 40 a barrel. however, the analysis carried out at the time by the commission remains relevant to the structural conditions of the oil markets, world energy demand in the medium and long term and the importance of european union policies on energy and climate change. all these factors will change our forms of production and consumption and our behaviour. many of these questions were discussed in detail in the second strategic analysis of energy policy adopted in november 2008, which has been the subject of debate on other occasions in parliament. furthermore, the adoption by the council and the european parliament, in december 2008, of the package of proposals on energy and climate change was a major step towards resolute action on our future energy needs, in particular with the setting of the objective for the use of 20% renewable energies in all energy consumed by 2020. the commission gives a favourable welcome to most of the points raised in mr reul's report. we note the support for new investments in replacement energy sources, such as renewable energies, and the priority given to energy-efficient goods and services. these features were put forward by the commission in the european economic recovery plan. we, of course, welcome the importance given to the intensification of the dialogue with the producer countries to find pragmatic solutions to the problems faced. it is clear, given the growing connection between energy and foreign policies and the need to ensure energy security, that good relations with the producer countries must be promoted to make the operation of the international markets more predictable. the question of transparency on oil reserves must be raised in this context. as for the transparency of oil stocks, this question was broached at the time of the second strategic analysis. on this issue, the option of a weekly publication of information on commercial stocks is currently being studied. on the issues of energy savings and diversification of sources, we note the arguments put forward on the potential for energy savings in the building sector and we await with interest the conclusion of the debates on the revamp to the directive on the energy performance of buildings. as for the parts relating to the need to diversify energy sources in the transport sector and exploit the potential of energy-efficient vehicles, i note that the recovery plan includes an initiative on green cars. in conclusion, i would draw your attention to the commission commitment further to develop the action on all the questions raised in relation to oil prices. these questions form part of the general policies on energy, climate and research. we are pleased to continue our cooperation with the european parliament in all these fields and i thank mr reul again for having provided some information and explanation, which will be a very valuable guide for our future energy policy. the item is closed. the vote will take place on wednesday. written statements (rule 142) mr reul's report is extremely important in the context of the current economic crisis and the challenges linked to climate change. as a member of the committee on agriculture and rural development, i have consistently supported the line that we must not play down the importance of investments in clean technologies and renewable energy as solutions for reducing the dependency on oil, cutting carbon emissions and, last but not least, as a solution for creating new jobs and stimulating economic growth. i welcome the fact that this report too mentions biofuels as a resource which has not been sufficiently exploited, and i hope that the recommendation to facilitate market access for them will be taken into account by the european commission. the use of biofuels offers a viable economic and social alternative for rural development and environmental protection. at the same time, i am pleased with the increased attention being given to energy efficiency in buildings, which has been included as a priority in the european economic recovery plan and mentioned in mr reul's report as a solution for reducing the demand for fossil energy resources. energy efficiency has the benefit that it will also reduce the size of consumers' bills at a time when the economic crisis is having an increasingly adverse impact on them. in writing. - (el) now, more than ever, the european union needs a common european energy policy which will promote energy security and energy solidarity and, at the same time, support viable energy choices. today, oil is the most important source of energy in europe, mainly due to its widespread use in the transport sector. by way of illustration, it has been stated that in 2030 the eu's reliance on oil is expected to reach 95%. we cannot ignore the fact that imports basically come from countries in which political instability prevails and cannot therefore be considered secure. furthermore, today europe faces three challenges, the financial, the energy and the environmental challenge, which inevitably limit our choices. oil is an outdated source. its cost has doubled since 2005, its price fluctuates constantly and it is linked to high co2 emissions. the reorientation of energy policy is therefore the only way forward. supporting nuclear energy or new mines in africa is not the solution. the solution is to support european and national measures to promote energy efficiency and invest in projects which make use of renewable energy sources.

community customs code (debate) the next item is the recommendation for second reading, on behalf of the committee on the internal market and consumer protection, on the common position adopted by the council on 15 october 2007 with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the european parliament and of the council laying down the community customs code (modernized customs code) (11272/6/2007 - c6-0354/2007 - (rapporteur: janelly fourtou). rapporteur. - (fr) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, now that we have come to the end of three years of hard work i am delighted at what has been achieved in respect of the key points in this document. the customs union is one of the pillars of the european union and an essential element in the functioning of the internal market. the present community customs code, which was drawn up in the 1980s and adopted in the 1990s, is now outdated. our customs services are faced with new challenges. in 2007 world trade totalled nearly 16 billion dollars, or 31% of global gdp, and the european union alone accounted for 20% of the total volume of global imports and exports. the customs services are therefore responsible for maintaining the smooth flow of trade and the controls that are needed to provide for this, while at the same time ensuring that the safety and security of eu citizens is protected. if a satisfactory balance is to be reached the control methods used have to be modernised and the level of cooperation strengthened between the different services and economic operators. the code also has to be adapted to other radical changes that have occurred in the international commercial environment, mainly resulting from the growing and irreversible recourse to it and electronic data exchange technologies. this particular subject was also the focus of a report that was drawn up by my colleague mr heaton-harris and adopted by parliament last december. the first reading of the modernised customs code was adopted on 12 december 2006 and the german presidency managed to secure a political agreement on 25 june 2007. parliament adopted 51 amendments to the proposal at first reading, 34 of which, mostly of a substantive nature, were taken over fully or in part in the council common position. the main subjects of disagreement were the status of authorised economic operator, the right to act as a customs representative, centralised customs clearance and comitology. the status of authorised economic operator, which is directly related to the events of 11 september, was introduced by the so-called 'security amendment' regulation, whose aim was to offer greater facilities to operators and hence offset the new burdens they had to shoulder in order to cope with security-related aspects. your rapporteur is satisfied that the concept developed by parliament at first reading has been taken over; this involves drawing a distinction between two types of authorisation, namely 'customs simplification', on one hand, and 'safety and security', on the other. this pragmatic solution allows for the different needs of the economic operators. turning to the subject of customs representatives, emotions have been running fairly high in those countries which have had a long history of this profession. while the council has not adopted parliament's proposals to the letter, it has nevertheless proceeded from the premise that customs representatives and authorised economic operators should interact along the lines we desired. your rapporteur believes that the council has arrived at a good compromise. moreover, this solution has been accepted by customs representatives associations, even though they have lost their monopoly in certain member states. as far as centralised customs clearance is concerned, we have another novelty in that the council has introduced a new article 106, taking the view that it is more logical and transparent for all of the provisions of the code related to this concept to be encompassed within a single article. henceforth all economic operators may benefit from centralised clearance on the territory of any one member state. in cases involving several member states they have to satisfy the eligibility criteria for authorised economic operator status. finally, of all the areas in which this document has made significant progress we can also be very pleased that we have broadened out the comitology process to cover 44 provisions of the modernised customs code. for this reason i am calling on parliament to support the council common position without amendment. member of the commission. - mr president, after more than two years of active interinstitutional work, we are now very close to the completion of the codecision procedure on this proposal, thanks in particular to the commitment of ms fourtou and the support of the members of the committee on the internal market and consumer protection. i am very pleased that the legal framework for a future-oriented reform of european customs will - hopefully - be in place this year, which marks the 40th anniversary of our customs union. that will provide encouraging impetus for the work that still lies ahead of us. the customs union is usually presented as an 'old' pillar of the community. it cannot, however, be reduced to a simple legacy of the past. it is in operation today - and not just to ensure the collection of own resources. more and more, customs administrations, legislation and procedures will secure the internal market, contribute to consumer protection, support the external aspects of common policies and, at the same time, contribute to the facilitation of our international trade. to this end, customs legislation will evolve to respond to major changes and challenges, inside and outside the union, and resort to the most effective rules and efficient techniques. what will modernisation of the community customs code actually mean? first, better customs regulations, including simpler and streamlined rules and procedures, clarifying the rights and obligations of economic operators and guaranteeing their more uniform treatment, while providing for an equivalent level of security and safety. second, a progressive computerisation of all customs formalities, with a view to a completely 'paperless' environment for customs and trade, whose development will be supported and framed by the e-customs decision (no 70/2008/ec) of the parliament and of the council, adopted on 15 january 2008. these changes include interoperability between national computerised customs systems. they will allow, in particular, customs clearance of goods at the place of establishment of the declarant, irrespective of the place of entry into, exit from or supply within the community of those goods - so-called 'centralised clearance'. they will also permit an exchange of data elements, in real time, between customs authorities, in order to perform risk analysis and improve controls within the framework of common risk management. by supporting the commission's proposal at first reading, parliament has acknowledged the essential contribution of this legislative initiative to the lisbon strategy for growth and jobs. the council common position of october 2007, which incorporates most of the amendments adopted by parliament at first reading, is considered by the commission to be a well balanced compromise. the commission therefore welcomes ms fourtou's report recommending approval of the common position without amendment. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - mr president, firstly i would like to thank ms fourtou. i am always in awe of her grasp of the detail in this very complex matter. the modernised customs code, as the commissioner has heard me say before, is an amazingly boring but ever so important piece of law from the commission. in 1975, when the united kingdom voted in a referendum that we should actually be having now (a referendum on the lisbon treaty) - a referendum to come into this club - we thought we were voting to come into a free-trade area. what people got was, in fact, a customs union, and since i have been here i have been working hard on this particular report, because getting this customs code right and modernising it correctly is possibly the most important thing we can do until the whole thing is rejuvenated, as the commissioner said, within the system of e-customs, making trade much more easy and duty collection much more simple across the union. however, as with all things european, we do not move forward as quickly as some of us would like - if we move forward at all. there are still barriers that are contained within this text. some are pretty much built-in, until there is a complete wipe-clean of the slate and we start all over. what is an authorised economic operator? what qualification should customs representatives - or aeos, as they are known - have? could these be used in the future as barriers to stop people coming into the business as start-ups, or indeed existing businesses running in europe spreading across the rest of it? this modernised customs code is actually a very good document, on balance, but it could have been very much better as well. alas, we have to compromise in this house a little too often, but i hope that, on balance, this will be good for the continent of europe. on behalf of the pse group. - (es) mr president, in my opinion, the community customs code as presented by the commission and debated by parliament and the council has proved an exemplary procedure. our rapporteur, mrs fourtou, has put in an enormous amount of work on this and in the end, as is almost always the case, parliament, the council and the commission have agreed on the final text we will be adopting. i think that, as mr heaton-harris has already mentioned, the european union is above all a customs union, and so the customs code is an important component to allow it to function. however, the customs service as such does not function as a totally free operation: the authorities are involved to a great extent, since certain goods and values affect us all. what we are talking about here is smuggling and some of its more dangerous varieties, such as arms and drug smuggling, and controls of capital outflows. it is therefore logical that the community customs code should include the normal restrictions operated by each of the member states, and make an attempt at harmonisation. i feel the points of debate we had here were satisfactorily resolved by the dual concept of customs representation rights and the authorised economic operator: the idea of two concepts that are theoretically different but can find common ground for harmonisation. i think the solution adopted is quite a good and proper solution. commissioner kovcs insisted on the concept of centralised customs clearance insofar as the customs union constitutes a single unit. it does not, of course, make sense for there to be differences between the various customs facilities. i feel this is a good and practical solution that will allow us to operate in the appropriate fashion. the last aspect to be mentioned is the comitology procedure. both the commission and the council have now acknowledged the importance of parliament's involvement in the procedure. the agreement reached means that the 28 provisions with respect to which this procedure was applied with the involvement of parliament have now increased to 44, i.e. parliament may intervene in an increasingly effective fashion in the creation of provisions for the customs code. finally, mr president, i wish to thank mrs fourtou for her work and the commissioner for his efforts to encompass the proposals of this house. (de) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the european union is undoubtedly much more than just a customs union. we will not reduce it to a customs union in today's debate and in the decision we take tomorrow. nonetheless, the customs policy at the eu's external borders is an important element of the european union's activities and a functioning internal market. the vp europe club in the european parliament welcomes the proposal for a regulation on a modernised community customs code. why? because it streamlines customs procedures, because it establishes the basis for simpler, speedier common customs procedures at the external borders, because it means that the radical changes in the international trade environment - for example, in relation to information technology, electronic data, etc. - will now be taken into account, and because customs representatives will now be subject to clearly defined common criteria, which will result in greater reliability and professionalism. this regulation strengthens cooperation between the member states and the european union. it creates a stronger community, which is also reflected in the fact that all the amendments tabled by parliament have been taken over by the council. from my perspective, it means simpler, speedier common customs clearance, and that is good for business and for the european union as a whole. (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would also like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur and, of course, to our shadow rapporteur, both of whom have done valuable work on a highly technical dossier. with the new customs code the aim is to replace the existing code and the related regulations with a modernised code, streamline current customs procedures and create the bases for accessible interoperable customs systems across the european union. this is something which we greatly welcome, for it will mean that companies will benefit from the adaptation to current developments in information technology and faster and more secure processing of the increasing volumes of goods passing the eu's borders. business associations and chambers of trade have rightly warned from the outset about the excessive red tape being generated by the eu's security initiatives which have spilled over from the us. through our deliberations in parliament and intensive contact with the commission's offices, we have finally achieved a relatively sound and unbureaucratic solution, for which i am grateful. a key point for companies that is now being implemented is centralised customs clearance through a single point of contact. we have also been able to push through our demand - and i am very proud of this - for privileged status for those businesses which fulfil the requisite criteria. as a member from south baden, i must point out, however, that the customs code could cause considerable problems at the eu's external borders with countries which are not eu member states, unless precautionary measures are taken in time. i know that the commission wishes to take these precautions - i am talking about switzerland here - and i hope that the member states in the eu-swiss joint committee will also play their part. switzerland is one of the most important markets for eu goods. switzerland's four immediate neighbours in the eu account for 41% of its total exports and 59% of its total imports, which is why there is a need for action here. we cannot allow kilometre-long queues to form at the swiss borders as a result of the introduction of the customs code, simply because the swiss system of customs clearance differs slightly from that of the eu. commissioner kovcs, i would ask you to look at this problem and draw it to the attention of the member states concerned as a matter of urgency. we are talking about an economic centre in the heart of europe which must not be cut off from the international flow of goods as a result of our activities. (cs) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i trust that tomorrow we will approve at second reading the council's common position on the customs code. it is a successful modernisation of european customs legislation. it is a true gateway to an electronic, centralised, interoperable and automated customs system. all eu bodies will be able to avail of a single management point - a one-stop-shop - for their operations, making the much-needed controls more effective. thanks to a unified customs information portal - single window - entrepreneurs will be able to communicate with only one customs office in the eu at the place of their establishment. this rule simplifies and unifies terminology and definitions, as well as making them more user-friendly. it is a good example of the ability, even in an enlarged eu, to simplify bureaucracy and improve the legal environment for entrepreneurs and citizens. moreover, the project will reportedly have paid for itself by 2010. i thank the rapporteurs, mrs fourtou and mr newton dunn, the commission and the council for the excellent work carried out over the last three years. mr president, i would just like to make one comment in response to mr heaton-harris saying that he thought that britain in 1975 was joining a free-trade area. i am very worried about his memory, or perhaps it is his education. britain was leaving a european free-trade area - it was called efta. we chose to leave it to join the european community, and mrs thatcher, who was the conservative leader at the time of the 1975 referendum in the uk, said that it was 'more than a free-trade area'. very simple, very clear, on the record. now, since mr heaton-harris wants a referendum today on the lisbon treaty in the uk, he is clearly confident that the british public would read all the documents to make up their minds how to vote. and that must have been true in 1975. the british public in 1975 will have read in the documents that this is about an ever closer union and not a free-trade area. the european union is about an ever closer union. so please, mr president, can we get a pill for mr heaton-harris's memory? thank you, mr newton dunn. how gloomy our evenings in the european parliament would be without these interesting british discussions. mr president, i will resist the temptation to join in. i would like to thank the rapporteur for the detailed work on this report. let us be honest, this is not the stuff that people talk about in public houses and on social occasions. but getting our customs laws right is very important for business and for jobs, and that is why we are doing it. so the idea of centralised clearance makes good sense, if it works - and let us hope that it does, under these new rules. also, the idea of a single window has potential to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. but can i make just one point: let us take feedback, when this all is up and running, from the economic operators, and be willing to adjust it where we see problems which have been identified by other speakers this evening. member of the commission. - mr president, my point of departure is that i am not only pleased but also very proud that we have reached this point, because i agree with all those speakers who consider it a very great achievement for the union as a whole. first of all, i would like to express my thanks for your support for the modernised customs code and for your interest in future developments. as you have recalled, the adoption and subsequent entry into force of the code will not be the end of the story, since its application will depend on the finalisation and application of its implementing provisions. the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny will be used for the adoption of these provisions. it will give parliament the possibility to check the way the commission intends to implement in detail, with the assistance of the customs code committee, the general provisions resulting from the code. besides this procedural requirement, the commission intends to keep parliament, through its committee on the internal market and consumer protection, properly informed about the state of preparation of the draft implementing measures and the time-schedule envisaged for the application of the modernised customs code. concerning the problem of switzerland and the european union, which mr schwab raised, on 1 july 2009 the security amendment to the community customs code will be fully implemented. this means that all goods entering or leaving the community shall be the subject of a pre-arrival or pre-departure declaration. the authorised economic operator will benefit from the facilitations envisaged in the code. as with other third countries, we are currently negotiating with switzerland on the mutual recognition of control centres, the results of controls and the status of authorised economic operator. the negotiations are ongoing, and we are looking for a mutually satisfactory solution to be in place by 1 july 2009. now let me finish by inviting you to join the celebrations of the 40th anniversary of the customs union on 1 july 2008. the customs union was the first cornerstone in building the internal market and remains one of its essential components. i am looking forward to continuing our discussion about the future role of customs in the context of the celebrations. thank you very much, once again, for your support. rapporteur. - (fr) mr president, i would like to thank all those who have spoken and all those who have contributed to the drafting of this report. since mr medina ortega has spoken about smuggling i cannot resist the urge to bring up the subject of counterfeiting. between 1998 and 2004 the number of arrests for counterfeiting rose by 1 000%. this just goes to show that the controls currently in place need to be updated and a new approach adopted as far as the duties of customs officials are concerned. i also wish to pay tribute to the professionals themselves, who have displayed a real openness of mind, and i would like to say to them that i still feel a debt of gratitude towards them. this will no doubt answer the concerns voiced by mrs mcguinness. as far as the implementing measures are concerned, i will do my best to encourage dialogue between the customs authorities and the community institutions, including the commission, with which there has always been a good measure of close and productive cooperation. i therefore call on you to support the common position and would conclude by thanking you all for your attention. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on 19 february 2008.

1. statistics on migration and international protection (vote) - before the vote: rapporteur. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, ever since 1999, this house has been debating legislative proposals relating to migration without any figures on which to base its decisions, while the scope of immigration policy has become considerably wider. what we need, then, is more and better information if we are to be able to effectively plan, implement, evaluate and monitor political measures. led by commissioner frattini, the commission has responded to pressure from this house and has submitted a draft regulation on the statistical monitoring of migratory movements, something that is made necessary by the member states' failure to supply all the relevant statistical material, or indeed any at all, on the previously voluntary basis. data are also collected in different ways, with the consequence that they have, hitherto, not been comparable. this regulation obliges our member states to provide any and all figures that may be required; it also brings about harmonisation and makes it possible to compare the figures. it was relatively difficult to get the council to come round to this, whilst all the parties in this house agreed in principle on the need for the regulation. the general agreement prevailing among the groups meant that this house was able to get its position accepted through the comitology procedure, and the outstanding cooperation of all the shadow rapporteurs, to whom i would like to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks, played a considerable part in enabling us to bring this dossier to a satisfactory conclusion, so thank you all, once more, for that. mr president, i beg the indulgence of the house. i wish to draw the attention of the house to the appalling situation in zimbabwe. we look with horror and enormous frustration at the images of how a peaceful assembly is brutally dealt with in mugabe's country. i understand the opposition leader, morgan tsvangirai, has been released from detention, but he has a fractured skull. grace kwinjeh, the opposition representative in brussels, has had part of her ear cut off while in custody. i know that the president-in-office of the council has expressed condemnation of what has happened, but can we take more concrete action? in particular, i call upon the presidency to use its influence to persuade the south african government and the other sadc governments to take a more principled position and act to bring about urgent change for the better in zimbabwe. wringing our hands is not enough. (applause) thank you very much, mr van orden, we take good note of your comments.

2. indonesia, including attacks on minorities ( madam president, i lived in indonesia and i love indonesia. i know well the extraordinary progress that indonesia has made since the first free elections in 1999 in practising democracy and respect for human rights and civic and political freedoms. i believe that in europe we must appreciate - and i think we do in this resolution - how society in indonesia, now the third largest democracy and the largest muslim nation in the world, has firmly engraved in its fabric the values of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance, be it ethnic, linguistic, religious or political. it is that which makes indonesia strong and appealing and inspiring throughout the world. i would say like europe, the europe that i want. but in indonesia, as in europe, we see that extremists and fanatics are sowing bigotry, hatred and intolerance. this is shown in crimes like the ones against ahmadiyya followers or people in papua. in indonesia some of these extremists may be used by terrorist organisations or incite people to undermine the democratic system. this is one more reason why these extremists must be combated politically and ideologically and their crimes must receive exemplary punishment. i hope that the people in the indonesian government will read this resolution as an expression of concern for the victims and as a genuine expression of solidarity and encouragement for all those brave people in indonesian civil society - in government, in parliament, in the judiciary and in the media - that are fighting against these criminals and for the end of their impunity. i would like to recall a good friend who has been doing just that: suciwati, the widow of the great human rights campaigner munir who was murdered a couple of years ago. the perpetrators of his murder have not yet been fully brought to justice.

1. guatemala (vote) - before the vote on recitals b and c mr president, a couple of small but important wording errors have managed to creep into the resolution. i propose to correct them as follows: in recital b, to replace the word 'authors' with the word 'perpetrators', and in recital c, to replace the words 'intellectual authors' with the word 'instigators'. are there any objections to the inclusion of these oral amendments? (the oral amendments were accepted)

community guidelines for the development of the trans-european transport network (recast) (debate) the next item is the report by mr simpson, on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism, on the proposal for a decision of the european parliament and of the council on community guidelines for the development of the trans-european transport network (recast) - c7-0111/2009 -. as mr simpson cannot be here, mr el khadraoui will speak on his behalf. deputising for the rapporteur. - madam president, the chair of the committee on transport and tourism, mr simpson, is not able to join us today and has asked me to read out his statement. the recast on the development of the guidelines of the ten-t network seeks to bring together the various amendments adopted over the years to the guidelines and to incorporate amendments that take account of the enlargement of the eu to 27 member states. to give a bit of background to the report, the guidelines give direction to the development of the trans-european transport network. the objective is to establish the network gradually by 2020 by integrating land, sea and air transport infrastructure networks throughout the union. turning back to the report at hand, it is, strictly speaking, a codification of the legislative text, but, because the commission made some minor changes to the annex, they were forced to do it via the recast procedure. the changes to the annex are to correct initial mistakes that were made during the accession of the 10 new member states that joined in 2004. the changes are not about updating the maps or making any substantive changes. the two changes the rapporteur has introduced to the report involve minor modifications in the recitals and some technical corrections to the maps. these are in line with the changes made by the council and in line with correcting the guidelines. following the commission's advice, the decision was taken, both by council and by mr simpson as rapporteur with the backing of the transport committee, not to make any substantive changes to the guidelines. the rapporteur is, however, aware that the greens have retabled their own amendments seeking to update the line between munich city and munich airport, but the rapporteur would like to reiterate the point that the changes we are making in this report are about correcting the text, not updating it. the point of this recast is to bring everything into order ahead of the real revision of the guidelines during early 2011. it is important to ensure the clarity of the guidelines in preparation for the more substantial changes that will take place next year. we are all eagerly awaiting the real revision of the guidelines and the chance to further develop the ten-t network but, in order to get to that stage, we need to get the current legislation right, and that is what we have done here. member of the commission. - madam president, i am very grateful to the speaker and rapporteur. this is exactly what we have been looking for, so that is why i have on this point nothing to add because i think it describes exactly what is at issue. i will just concentrate on this measure revision, where we stand on it, because it is important to see it being the process. based on the green paper of april 2009, the commission has launched a public consultation with more than 300 answers and set up six expert groups, which help to work on the results of consultation in a new policy proposal. in a very short time, there will be a proposal to the college, a document that will outline the methodology for establishing the new trans-european transport network. so we foresee that this could be presented to the college on 5 may. then this methodology will definitely be presented to this house and the council. the commission will then engage in the preparation of the proposals for the new ten-t and its financing. so, our expectation is that we will be able to adopt this in the college in the first semester in 2011. i am very grateful to parliament for understanding the necessity for minor changes and i am looking forward to our having a very broad and strong debate on new outlines for the trans-european transport network in the months to come. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank those members who, following the information imparted by the rapporteur and also by the shadow rapporteurs, have allowed the swift conclusion of the parliamentary process concerning this matter. they have desisted from tabling amendments which, although acceptable in terms of their content, would have been an obstacle to the adoption of this codifying text. we are now in a position to give the commission the basis for the programming of the ten-t of the next decade. in a specific effort to make the timescales shorter, from the moment the rapporteurs took up this matter, they reached an agreement not to table amendments that were not agreed on with the council. the committee on transport and tourism has approved the technical modifications examined by the legal services of parliament and of the council, and the council has stated that it can conclude at first reading if we vote along these lines, which is entirely acceptable. the few changes made by the committee on transport and tourism are consistent with this objective, and i regard them as appropriate and useful for presenting a coherent and accurate final text. therefore, i support the amendments tabled, although i do not consider appropriate at this time the amendment tabled by the group of the greens/european free alliance, which has already been rejected in the vote within the committee on transport and tourism. although the content of the amendment - namely the modification of a map relating to munich airport - is acceptable, there will be an opportunity to table it again during the review of the ten-t, which could even take place by summer, since the work in the european commission is progressing quickly. this technical document allows annex i to be updated by including the maps of all member states and the target deadline to be changed to 2020. the in-depth debate on updating the list of ten-t projects is planned for the end of the year. this list should include the development of black sea maritime corridors, road links with the republic of moldova and ukraine, as well as the extension of the current priority projects 6 and 17 so that the high-speed railway line can reach bucharest and constana. the eruption of the volcano in iceland has highlighted to us the weakness of the european transport system. the european union ought to have had an efficient system for redirecting passengers to other forms of transport. it is becoming absolutely vital for a trans-european transport network to be developed so that high-speed railway lines can serve not only all the member states' capitals but other large european cities as well. another increasingly important aspect is the development of transport along inland waterways and the european maritime corridors. madam president, the trans-european networks are a topic which is keeping us busy in this plenary session, and which should keep us even more busy. we now have a recast, and some people - mr silvestris, for example - have been surprised that the greens have put forward amendments proposing changes to the list of the trans-european networks, or what is considered to form part of this. they must not forget that what we have suggested involves a special case: namely where the member state itself has said that this part of the trans-european networks is only a feeder and will therefore no longer be relevant for us; this famous flight path - now i am talking like mr stoiber; i think this is contagious, and quite dangerous - is something we do not want to build any more; one would, so to speak, have built a feeder to munich airport. this is the reason for our amendment, therefore. i also generally think, however, that we should apply ourselves with particular care to revising the trans-european networks, and we should consider a point which is particularly important to me. there is a study by a dutch person - i will gladly pass it on to the commissioner, when he is here - which, for me, is very relevant for the coming debate, and which shows that the costs of a large project - and it very often involves large projects - are, as a rule, underestimated by an average of 45%, and their benefit is always overestimated, since that is needed in order to implement the project. that means that we must completely rethink the cost estimate for trans-european projects, and i would call on you to do that. it is our responsibility to give our citizens good, clear information. the definition of trans-european transport networks is a fundamental step towards improving transport connections for residential and industrial areas across europe. while in the north, west and south of europe, railways and roads terminate at sea ports, roads and railways in the east have the enormous potential to continue eastwards across the whole of asia to the shores of the pacific. asian countries such as china, japan and india are experiencing significant economic growth and are becoming major trading partners for european companies. it is therefore necessary, along with the construction of an internal european transport structure, to also open up transport routes to the east. the broad-gauge railway line from vladivostok reaches the border of the eu at ierna nad tisou. a project has been drawn up for this line to be continued to vienna, linking it to the danube, to the ports and, of course, to the european network. in my opinion, projects such as this should also receive very significant support in the future. thank you. (de) madam president, yes, i rather prefer 'non-attached'. even though, at this point, we are only talking about a recasting of the guidelines, i would nevertheless like to take the opportunity to mention a project that is particularly problematic for austria. the brenner base tunnel is part of the high-speed rail axis from berlin to palermo and the trans-european transport network programme and it is intended to cross under the innsbruck to bozen axis. the current situation is that the eu has left austria, tyrol, northern italy and also southern germany in a state of uncertainty and there is a risk of the tunnel becoming a black hole for billions of euros. the original cost estimate of eur 4.5 billion from 2002 has long since been exceeded and experts expect higher construction costs in the region of eur 16 billion. moreover, the financing has still not been clarified. in principle, the project is supposed to be financed partly by the member states concerned and partly by the eu. however, the eu refuses to make a legally binding promise for the period after 2013 and, as a result, is leaving the aforementioned countries in a state of uncertainty. that is not all, however. of course, in order to ensure that the tunnel is fully utilised, appropriate feeder lines also need to be established. the catchment area concerned stretches from munich in the north to verona in the south and, in this regard, the financing is totally unclear, including on the italian side. my request is therefore that, when the ten projects are launched, they must not be subject to insufficient planning by one party, leaving the member states concerned to foot the bill. the eu must accept at least 50% of the costs, and the planning and the promises must be forthcoming with due speed. (de) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, these guidelines for the development of the trans-european transport networks initially sound very technical. however, the rapporteur, mr simpson, has already pointed out that they are, of course, vital from the point of view of future economic development in europe. roads are the arteries of our economy. that is something on which we all agree. we also have to acknowledge time and again that, as an economic and trading centre, europe is in competition with the large economic and trading centres of america and south-east asia. it is therefore necessary for us to develop our inland transport systems for the domestic market while, on the other hand, of course also linking europe's export capacity with the development of the trans-european networks and continuing to strengthen them further. the purpose of traffic arteries is to take up originating traffic and turn it into terminating traffic and ultimately, to take it to where the customers are. the big issue in this regard is, of course, that the development of major traffic axes is also intended to provide access to the area and thus has an economic development role - we really must not forget that. europe is a continent that has very many coastlines and very large ports and these ports need to be linked together - in this regard, mobility is essential. however, we must not simply take a 'just-in-time' approach. we also need to work in a cost-effective, environmentally sound and environmentally friendly way. this will be particularly important in future. an absolutely crucial question will be: can we turn the north-south and east-west links that we currently have in terms of rail, road and inland waterway systems into a real network, because we have to acknowledge that there are bottlenecks here that we need to get round. in this regard, there are, of course, certain things that need to be taken into account. when it comes to the longest trans-european axis - from palermo to berlin - this should be extended further via rostock in the direction of scandinavia. these are things that we will need to take into account in future. (the president cut off the speaker) (es) madam president, the text that we are concerned with today updates and consolidates the procedure for establishing trans-european networks, to prepare us for the definitive launch of the penultimate and final phases of the review, now in a europe of 27 that is richer and more spatially complex and which has new, innovative mobility needs. the trans-european transport network executive agency is now almost fully up and running, we have almost all the coordinators for the corridors, and we hope that soon, we will have the remaining ones so that they can promote the corridors that we need. our neighbours, especially in the mediterranean, also have enormous expectations regarding these networks and their own networks, and we are looking forward to receiving the communication that the commission has promised us on the methodology, which will complement the consultation and the debates, before starting work on one of the most exciting exercises for our committee on transport and tourism. the mobility and cohesion network is becoming a reality and, for the first time, it will connect the eu-27 common area in an integrated and dynamic way. it will identify the essential hubs - ports, airports and logistical hubs - overcoming the border barriers. it will include, among other things - if you will allow me to mention it -breaking through the centre of the historical barrier of the pyrenees with a low-level tunnel. it will thus achieve a plan for the future of 21st-century europe that has such strength of conviction that it will secure the necessary funding. that is our challenge, but for now, we will be more humble and limit ourselves to approving this first legislative polishing exercise, for which i would like to congratulate our chair, mr simpson. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the transrapid system should not be included in these guidelines. it does not fit into the european landscape. it does not reduce the differences between the systems that we currently have; it increases them. we have paid out billions to create a uniform system, and here billions are being paid out at national level to counteract that. that cannot be allowed to happen! although the european parliament had previously come out against the transrapid system, it suddenly reappeared in 1996 as a project between berlin and hamburg. it then suddenly disappeared again - and no one knows why. in 2004, the transrapid link between munich airport and munich central station appeared just as suddenly. that was then halted in germany, with the additional support of the state government of bavaria. there was agreement about scrapping this project - no one wanted it any more. that is why it must no longer be included in these guidelines. after leaving office, the former minister-president of bavaria, edmund stoiber, was appointed to campaign for a reduction in bureaucracy here in europe. that is his responsibility. he is also the one who now has to take the decision that this transrapid system does not belong in these guidelines. that is something that we should all take note of. we must get rid of this transrapid system. it was a nice model from a scientific perspective, but it has no place in europe. it does not belong here and, as such, does not belong in these guidelines. (de) madam president, i would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur, mr simpson, and, at the same time, express my regret that he cannot be with us here today. we will manage, nevertheless. i would particularly like to express my congratulations for taking the approach of essentially leaving things as they are in these guidelines, because there is one principle that is very important, namely reliability and calculability on the part of the european legislator. that is certainly fulfilled with this report. secondly, i would like to mention that we also need a proposal for the future when we can once again decide what is really part of the ten system and what is not. we could conduct the debate in the way that it is, to a certain extent, already being conducted. some people are arguing charismatically in favour of linking a boot with an island and the others say that that absolutely must not be included. however, that is the wrong way to go about it. we need to look at what adds value for the european union and european taxpayers. moreover, support should clearly be provided in places where the member states are already doing something, where something is happening, because then, something really will happen and we will not have a situation where ten plans are made that are then never implemented. european citizens and passengers will benefit, as will those member states that commit themselves ultimately to moving traffic away from the roads and on to the rail system. (de) madam president, as a result of the fall of the iron curtain and of central european integration, the baltic-adriatic corridor is, as we know, currently regaining the importance that it had before the collapse of the danube monarchy. the eu has, of course, already confirmed the importance of the baltic-adriatic corridor by giving priority status to the northern part from gdask to the czech republic. however, it would be even more important to also give the development of the southern part via the austrian southern railway to italy the same level of priority. in this network, in particular, which carries half of all goods and passengers, we need to neutralise a dangerous bottleneck situation. only the koralm tunnel will be able to permanently eliminate the barrier posed by this bottleneck. the people living along the transit routes are, as we all know, paying a high, and rising, price for the increasing volume of traffic. only the complete development of this southern corridor will lead to the sort of switch from the road to the rail system that could not be expected to be achieved by any other infrastructure measures in austria. (ro) at the moment when all the air traffic throughout europe is experiencing severe disruption due to the volcanic eruption in iceland, the need to develop pan-european transport networks is even more obvious than ever. the european union should be giving particular support to the development of the transport infrastructure and its interconnection with the main european transport routes in the countries which have joined the eu in recent years. romania has three pan-european corridors crossing its territory, 4, 7 and 9, which are all closely linked to the black sea port city of constana. i feel that particular attention must be focused on corridor 7. the danube is part of the main trans-european rhine-main-danube transport waterway, which links the north sea and black sea via the ports of rotterdam and constana. it could provide europe with a proper transport backbone. however, cooperation must be established in order to raise the profile of these transport corridors as soon as possible. (de) madam president, the trans-european networks are indeed utilised for regular traffic in europe. we could even say that the traffic is the absolute backbone of the entire european internal market, which is, of course, one of our main aims in europe. therefore, we absolutely must take care to ensure that all corridors are indeed developed and to discover where there is a need for financing and where the eu should concentrate its efforts. of course, it is clear that there are always national interests. we have seen it already today: some people talked about the danube, others talked, in particular, about southern europe and others still talked about the brenner base tunnel. these traffic corridors are found all over europe. the aim is for them to be generally continuous throughout europe so that not only goods, but also people, can be transported from a to b. that is the task facing us. as i said before, it is natural for each of us to attach importance to our own regional requirements. we need to make sure that we avoid bottlenecks and, above all, that we have a truly functional network for all means of transport. that is what it is all about, and that is also what we will debate accordingly. (de) madam president, during this debate, the brenner base tunnel and the new rail route from munich to verona have also been mentioned. currently, around 50 million tonnes of goods are transported by road on this route and so this tunnel is urgently needed. however, it has also been said today in this chamber that on both sides of the brenner - in both austria and italy - it is difficult to finance the project. financing on the italian side would easily be possible by reallocating the revenue from the road tolls, from the brenner motorway, to fund the rail route. for this to happen, however, it would be necessary for the concession for the brenner motorway not to be put out to tender - as is the current intention as a result of pressure from europe - but for the italian state to be given the opportunity to extend this concession for at least another 50 years instead of it being awarded to private tenderers. otherwise, there will be no cross-financing, which would mean that it would be extremely unlikely for the ten route to be developed on the italian side. (es) madam president, parliament is going to adopt this recast on the trans-european networks, and i would like the commission to tell me as specifically as possible when we are going to be able to have access to the communication on the methodology. as you know, commissioner, this is one of the spanish presidency's priorities, and we are now crossing the half-way mark. i would therefore like to know as specifically as possible when we will be able to have this text, as parliament is going to adopt the recast now and will therefore be free to examine this new text. member of the commission. - madam president, again i would like to thank the committee on transport and tourism for its support for this technical recast and i hope that the vote in plenary will confirm it. today's debate was on a broader scale and it will help to propose a methodology. commission vice-president kallas will send the proposal to the college on 5 may. it took a bit of time because this new commission has not been in place for long, and it takes some time for the new college to prepare proposals. what i take away from this debate is that this house very strongly supports trans-european network policy. i believe that without a well-interconnected infrastructure, in transport or in energy or in telecommunications, it is very difficult to speak about europe. i believe this debate will help us to shape our proposal for methodology, which basically means that the committee on transport will have a chance to speak about it if everything goes well in may. deputising for the rapporteur. - madam president, i would just like to thank the colleagues who have contributed to the debate today and reiterate my point that we are looking at correcting mistakes made in the past and not at making any substantive changes. that will come later on with the real revision of the guidelines and, of course, we are looking forward to that debate. for this reason, the rapporteur, mr simpson, and myself, as coordinator for my group, will be instructing my own political group to vote against the amendment put forward by the greens. we hope that the other political groups will be able to support us on this. the debate is closed. the vote will take place during the next plenary sitting in brussels.

the situation in palestine (debate) commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have all been deeply moved and disturbed by the terrible events and tragic occurrences in the gaza strip over the last few days. as you know, i chose to make the middle east the destination for my first official trip outside the european union and visited the region. my meeting with mr abbas, the president of the palestinian authority, was originally scheduled to take place in ramallah, but, because of increasing hostilities between fatah and hamas, he asked me to visit him at his official residence in gaza, where he was trying to mediate between the opposing factions, and that is what i did. it was exactly three weeks ago that i was having talks with president abbas in gaza, when i was impressed by the calm determination with which he explained his convictions to me, yet, once outside his official apartments, i could feel the tension in the air. my recommendation to you, members of this house, is that you condemn the hamas militias' violent attacks on the legitimate security forces and the institutions of the palestinian authority in the strongest terms, and it is out of the deepest conviction that i recommend that you express our support for president abbas and our solidarity with him. we support the palestinian president's decision to announce a state of emergency and appoint an emergency government in order to be able to resolve as soon as possible the political crisis in the palestinian territories. the new prime minister, mr salam fayyad, recently visited me in brussels; we have great confidence in him and in his leadership qualities, and, should you mandate me to do so, i shall say so to him today. the new government has a difficult task; it will need active assistance from the european union and from the international community, and i should like to say, following on from the conclusions adopted at yesterday's council of foreign ministers in luxembourg, that we in this house should act on our deepest convictions in supporting, in word and in deed, those who seek peace in the middle east and are continuing to work for it. yesterday, at the opening of our plenary session, this house decided to defer voting on a resolution on the european union's middle east policy until the july plenary sitting, and, given the continuing instability and the constantly changing situation in the region, i do believe that was the right decision to take. that does not mean, however, that we have any intention of being passive observers of what is happening. the european union - and that means this house too - must be in the advance guard of those working for a renewed relationship with the palestinian people and those responsible for representing it. we must shoulder our responsibility and act accordingly, doing everything in our power to get conditions throughout the palestinian territories restored to those worthy of human beings; while we must support those who live there in meeting their most pressing human needs, we must also help to give them a real and long-term political perspective. yesterday's council of foreign ministers resolved to restore normal relations with the palestinian authority, and this is something we should welcome, together with the related decision to create the conditions needed in order to facilitate the resumption of efficient and transparent direct financial assistance and help with the development of functioning institutions. the mission under the common foreign and security policy, together with the police cooperation mission, are remaining in place, and, as a decision-making part of the eu's budgetary authority, this house should firmly support that decision. as well as taking these steps, though, we in this house should call on the palestinians to return to the path of dialogue in order to achieve the reconciliation that is needed before there can be a palestinian state covering the palestinian territories as a whole. it cannot be in anyone's interest that the civil war should become more widespread or go on for any longer. it has to be said, though, that there can be no peace without israel, which bears a great responsibility. when i paid a visit there - and especially when i addressed the knesset - i made it quite clear that the european parliament was and is calling on those in positions of political power in israel to express their firm support for president abbas. with that in mind, i would like, now, to reiterate my call for israel to release to president abbas the palestinian customs duties and taxes - amounting to some usd 800 million - that it has been withholding for several months now. the israeli government has declared itself willing to do that, and should now actually do so with the minimum possible delay. the european union must be an honest broker, and i see the european parliament's role as being to play a responsible part in this. the peoples of israel and palestine are equal in dignity; they are entitled to live within secure borders. may the day come when palestinians can live at peace with palestinians and palestinians with israelis; a policy of reconciliation and mutual understanding along these lines may, today, appear to be a long way in the distance, but we in this house, being the representatives of the people of europe, must support it as a matter of conviction and out of a sense of our own responsibility. (applause) on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (es) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i believe that our parliament was right to alter the agenda in order to deal with the middle east situation. unfortunately, i am very doubtful as to whether our debate will help in the quest for a solution to the conflict, but we clearly had to hold it all the same. just a few days ago in brussels we held a debate on the situation in the middle east with the high representative and commissioner ferrero in which we recognised the fortieth anniversary of the six day war, during which israel invaded gaza, the west bank and the golan heights. today, 40 years later, we must accept that the situation is still in deadlock - as the french press reminded us yesterday - that it has not been possible to create a palestinian state and that, unfortunately, there are effectively two governments in conflict with each other. furthermore, there is an extremely serious political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis. you were asking, mr president, what the international community in general, and the european union in particular, can do, and what we clearly have to do, firstly, is support mahmoud abbas and the moderate government of salam fayas, the destiny of which is not just to be the government of the west bank, but also of gaza. we must also lift the international blockade - as you also pointed out, mr president - imposed on palestine since hamas won the elections. we must therefore welcome the decision taken yesterday by the general affairs council to restore direct aid to the palestinian national authority, and we hope that the meeting that is to be held today in washington between the president of the united states and the israeli prime minister will take us in the same direction. it is also time, mr president, for israel to transfer the sums owed to palestine in customs duties. while these are all necessary conditions, however, mr president, they are clearly not sufficient, since we all know that the situation in gaza is still one of violence and that, in reality, in the difficult equation of war and peace, progress can only be made in the middle east through the renunciation of violence as a means of political action, through the recognition of the state of israel and through any actions, such as the release of the british journalist alan johnston, that may contribute to the objective of peace. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we are all political men and women in this house, and we are perfectly aware that the highest of the political values is unity and that, without unity, it will not be possible to realise the dream of a viable palestinian state living in peace with its neighbours. mr president, as you have pointed out quite rightly, it is time for the guns to fall silent so that dialogue can prevail and peace can be consolidated, and it falls to the european union, together with other players such as the united nations or the arab league or other members of the quartet, to mobilise all of its efforts in order to contribute, intelligently and generously, in a manner that is consistent with its tradition and it values and, from the point of view of humanitarian aid, naturally, to a fair and lasting peace in the middle east. on behalf of the pse group. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, although we have to regard the events of the past few days as representing a nadir in the development of the region, i would see it also as representing a nadir in our own - the european union's - role in its dealings with the middle east. yesterday, the council of foreign ministers decided to resume sending aid. why, though, did they wait to do that until after civil order had broken down? (applause) you, mr president, have just called for the payment of direct aid to mahmud abbas. i would ask whether it might be the case that it is too late for that. is it not perhaps possible that the disintegration of civil order in the gaza strip - which is what is happening now - might have been prevented if the aid had been sent earlier on, and if we had not imposed on ourselves, as a matter of strategy, the rule that there were to be no talks with hamas? (applause) i do not myself know the answer to that question, and we are certainly not in a position to say that things would have worked out better if we had acted differently, but it is a question that we must at least be allowed to ask. is it not also the case that we - that is to say, the european union and the community of western states - are now, once again, seeing that there is a process at work, whereby a people elects a government that we do not like the look of; we are happy with the elections - which our electoral observers confirm were unobjectionably conducted - but not with the result that emerged from them, and so we come to the conclusion that what is needed is a blockade, and a complete one at that. why was it that we did not actually talk to those members of the government of national unity who are not members of hamas? there were many members of the government who were not members of hamas, or of fatah either. the forces with whom we find ourselves talking may not, for the moment, be to our liking, but dialogue is nevertheless the only way to reach peaceful solutions. i can remember - as you all can - how, when i was a young man, yasser arafat was seen as the world's number one terrorist; the man was later awarded the nobel peace prize. i was in favour of engaging in dialogue with him. history has shown that it was dialogue that provided a way out of violence. today, fatah is regarded as one of our partners; it was once seen as the terrorist organisation par excellence. that is why we have to learn from our own mistakes. if we consider things as they actually stand, then there is only one way we can go - that is what i still believe, that is what my group still believes, that is what the social democratic family of parties still believes - and it is that we have to try to get all the stakeholding forces and all the interested parties around one table. anyone who talks to syria is treated as an outcast, yet we ourselves know that the time will come and is not far off when there will be negotiations between it and israel. preparations for them are already in hand. we know that the israeli government, over the past year, has tried to establish contact with syria. let us be a bit more honest and say, yes, it goes without saying that syria should have a place at the conference table, particularly if you want to have some influence over hamas. there is surely no point in only looking back at the past. we have to provide whatever direct aid we now can. i do not know whether there is any chance of exerting some influence in the gaza strip, but, if there is, what this aid needs to be used for above all else is the creation of a state infrastructure, with support for the security forces who are actually making things safe rather than bringing insecurity, but most of all - and this is something about which not enough has been said in the debates over recent days - we in the european union have to ensure that humanitarian aid is provided, for what we are now seeing happening is, among other things, a people who are already in need having - and not for the first time - yet more misery inflicted on them by radicalised armed forces on the fringes of society. the people who really suffer are the ordinary people who have no water supply, no electricity, no medical care, and cannot send their children to school, and it is only as and when we are able to deal with those things that we will get people to want israel to have the security that it needs in order to be able to live in peace, for one thing that is plain to see is that it will not be able to live in greater security if people become even more radicalised and civil war breaks out. that will make only for even more instability. the fundamental precondition for social security is always that we can extend it and thereby create in a given region greater willingness to make peace. that is what the european union's main task must be, rather than the sending of european troops, which is what i have heard advocated by not a few representatives of this union of ours over the past few days. it is not conceivable that, for political reasons, there should be no money available to send humanitarian aid, but that the funds are there when it comes to sending troops. that it is, in any case, not our way of doing things. i hope that it will prove possible to resume the dialogue in the middle east. (applause from the left) on behalf of the alde group. - mr president, as mr schulz said, there can be no justification for the actions of hamas militants, however badly the palestinians have been treated. and yet, if one year ago the international community had not reneged on its commitment to democracy in palestine, if we had not refused dialogue with hamas moderates and suspended direct aid payments to a freely elected government, the situation would not be as bad as it is today. financial sanctions designed to force recognition of israel or to push hamas out of power altogether have simply made the palestinians more desperate and prospects for peace more precarious. a two-state palestine is emerging, riddled by violence, sectarianism and fear, while a two-state solution to the conflict is moving further away. liberals and democrats are disappointed - though not surprised - by what has come to pass. a year ago, we warned that palestinian suffering would lead to greater extremism, particularly in gaza's prison conditions, where 1.4 million citizens have been systematically sealed-off and starved of their basic necessities. last week's violent takeover of gaza bespoke a lack of respect for the rule of law, which is a de minimis requirement for any legitimate government. if hamas is not careful, it will have betrayed its cause and, in the words of saudi arabia's foreign minister, 'put the last nail in the coffin' of the dream of a palestinian state. unless we want civil war to triumph over unity, all sides must face the facts: their refusal of dialogue has got them nowhere. a heavy dose of pragmatism is now required - not condemnation, not sanctions, and certainly not a refusal to negotiate. that is the coward's option and one which will backfire. to that end, my group welcomes prime minister salam fayyad's determination to restore security and president abbas's commitment to dialogue. we welcome resumption of direct aid to the palestinian authority and the prospective release of up to usd 800 million in palestinian tax revenues by the israeli administration. however, we caution against supporting the west bank administration at the expense of gaza. if you consider the strip a 'terrorist entity' - as israeli officials have called it - you will not bring the region any closer to peace, you simply create more insecurity as a desperate people, deprived of food and other essentials, decides it has nothing left to lose. hamas control of gaza was the nightmare that became reality. however, the european union must not be prepared to take a back seat and watch as iran becomes a player in the contest. if this year has taught us nothing else, it is that politics - and politics alone - can create prospects for peace in the middle east. while parliament, at least, kept talking, the council and the member states took to the sidelines. it is now up to the council and our member states to put democracy, human dignity and the rule of law back at the centre of proceedings and work to foster peace in the region. (applause) on behalf of the uen group. - mr president, the most important thing we have to remember here today is the people's lives that are affected by the new wave of violence in the palestinian territories. in particular, we must think of the women and children, whose suffering is not something that has occurred just because of the hamas takeover in gaza, or just because of a lack of negotiation between the palestinian and the israeli authorities, or just because of the cancellation of aid from the european union and the us; their suffering goes back 30 years. anybody you speak to from the palestinian area will tell you that it has always been the women and the children who have suffered most, but they have also been the most resilient in trying to find a way forward to challenge the failure to negotiate, the failure to respect and the failure to find a solution; indeed, the failure of both israel and palestine to live up to their commitments, to agreements that they voluntarily signed up to, the failure of the united states of america and the european union to live up to their commitments with regard to clear and open negotiations, the failure of other states bordering israel and palestine to take a more proactive and positive role with regard to, ultimately, achieving a two-state solution, which must be based on viability and equality. colleagues will remember that, some weeks ago in the european parliament building in brussels, the president of parliament invited a number of nobel prize winners to speak on the future of europe and on areas and issues that they are concerned with. it is quite ironic that, when you read through the speeches of the people who were there that day, who won the nobel peace prize, all of them said that the peace efforts they were involved in only came about through dialogue, respect for diversity, tolerance and equality. what we have seen in palestine over the last 30 years has been a failure to meet any one of those four criteria. when yasser arafat was the leader of the palestinian people, israel said it could not deal with him, it could not negotiate with him. when a new president was brought in, israel said it could not deal with him, it could not negotiate with him and they were backed up all the time by the americans and by certain member states of the european union. to think that what happened in gaza with hamas was an accident is to misread, even with the gift of hindsight, our own failures in the european union and in the us to deal properly with the solutions that may be required. now we have been given a new opportunity to do something. now we have been given a new opportunity to show courage in the face of death and disaster, to show humanity in the face of oppression and injustice, and to stand up and say what is right and what is correct: that we should give aid to the palestinian people, we should insist that israel negotiate with the democratically-elected representatives of the palestinian people and we should back up the palestinian authorities to ensure that the rule of law applies throughout the palestinian territories. (applause) on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i believe that we can all agree that what we have heard today is an analysis. mistakes have, without a doubt, been made by interested parties on every side, and when i say that we are paying bitterly for them now, by 'we' i mean above all else the palestinians, but also - or so i believe - the israelis and all those with an interest in this region having, for once, something to look forward to - not just a peaceful future, but any kind of future at all. what can be done? that is the question i would like to focus on. for a start, the european union must at last wake up and do something about the mistakes that have been made here, and the reason why it is the european union that must act is that it is the only political entity in a position to act as a mediator; the americans cannot do it - the war in iraq makes that impossible - and nor can the russians or any of the others. someone has to take the initiative in saying 'yes' - 'yes' to direct aid payments, 'yes' of course to support, 'yes' to contacts with gaza and with hamas in order to address the humanitarian problems in the gaza strip. that means not waiting for a declaration, but rather taking action and then getting a declaration - that is what is called for; it means going straight to the heart of the nation in the name of the european union and carrying on straightaway with a european quintet - which is, in essence, what is being attempted even if it is not being called that - with a great big conference held in the region. mr schulz is right to say that we have to talk to syria and with everyone we want to - and, in any case, must - negotiate with about the golan heights and the borders of lebanon, and that has to be done now. why? because that is the only chance that the region will have of renewed hope. it is renewed hope that makes political dialogue possible and not the other way round. we are always being warned against giving any one side preferential treatment; nobody in this region is going to be given any. that is what we have to learn from all this. that means without a doubt that humanitarian aid for gaza must be forthcoming; it is in nobody's interest that the only humanitarian aid it gets should come from iran, and if that happens, we will again shed tears and say that we did not want that. well, if that is not what we want, let us prevent it, and if we want to prevent that from happening, we have to take action; that is what is needed, and right now. what israel has to come to understand is that a policy of occupation founded upon a wall that is perceived as an injustice will not bring peace, and it will not bring hope either; they have to get that into their heads once and for all. for them, getting out of a worst-case scenario must mean doing what they have not done before, that is to say negotiating with the new government in palestine the demolition of the wall and the establishment of a secure boundary on the other side of it. that means that financial assistance, humanitarian aid and political initiative are called for, and if those things are not forthcoming, then, month after month, there will be weepings and lamentations when we meet here. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (fr) mr president, in the face of the tragedy that is unfolding in the palestinian territories, appeals for the violence to cease are completely ineffective if we refuse to see how this predictable catastrophe came into being. this unprecedented explosion of violence is, firstly and above all, the product of those other acts of violence arising from 40 years of military occupation. it is the fruit of the impunity granted by the entire international community to the israeli leaders, whoever they are and whatever they do, in utter disregard of international law. this violence is the price to be paid for the loss of all hope of a palestinian state worthy of the name. what a heavy responsibility that is, then, for european leaders! europe, it is said, is the chief donor. all very well, but what is the point of giving aid if we allow the deadly poison of permanent humiliation to spread? the situation in gaza grotesquely illustrates this, and the continuing isolation of gaza could only push it to the extreme. what a responsibility to have ruined historic opportunities such as the arab league peace plan since 2002, the success of the first democratic process in palestine in 2006 or, more recently, the establishment of a last-chance national unity government, all by aligning ourselves with the deadly strategy of the white house! there are a certain number of us here, who raised cries of alarm time after time. the most recent being an appeal by more than 100 members of the european parliament to put an end to a policy that, through government boycotts and the withdrawal of direct aid, nurtures the despair of a nation on the point of imploding. we were answered with reassuring words about the intentions of the quartet, that illusion manipulated by the bush administration to cover up its non-intervention. here, however, we have the un special envoy to the middle east delivering, in person, a clear indictment of all those, europeans included, who practise what he calls 'self-censorship' with regard to the occupier and whose recent decisions to boycott and to freeze aid have had, he insists, devastating consequences. this historic failure and this repudiation on the part of the chief un representative in the region call for a special debate at the highest level. from now on, if we no longer wish to make ourselves party to a new iraq, we must demand, as a matter of utmost urgency, fundamental strategic revisions underpinned by the international law that should have been imposed on everyone for the last 40 years. history will be our judge. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - (nl) mr president, last week, the so-called palestinian fatah-hamas unity government came to a violent end. as a result, this house is facing two palestinian cabinets that deny each other's right to exist. meanwhile, the council and commission have clearly opted in favour of the salam fayyad crisis cabinet on the west bank. i should like to back this position all the way, because unlike the fatah movement under the aegis of mahmoud abbas, the hamas leaders persist in the denial of israel's right to exist within and outside the gaza strip. on purely religious grounds, hamas has turned against a two-state solution to the israeli-palestinian conflict. this is an issue, the religious foundations of hamas, which mr schulz ought to read up on some time. given the permanent policy of regional destabilisation pursued by damascus and tehran, i can see how this destructive position adopted by hamas is actively being fuelled by the islamic republic and syria. the fact, however, that certain meps and even groups in our house wish to trust as an equal interlocutor and pander to hamas, which is after all israel's arch enemy, totally baffles me. even to this day. does this mean that the two-state political solution has become nothing but absurd hypocrisy in this house? meanwhile, i warmly wish the palestinian people a selfless leadership that, internally, shows evidence of a powerful government and externally, genuinely seeks the modus vivendi with israel. the newly appointed fayyad emergency cabinet offers this opportunity. in order to put this into practice, i am counting on the helping, motivating and controlling hands of all the european institutions. on behalf of the its group. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the gaza strip is not a new palestinian state; far from it, it is a prison, a prison in which people - palestinians, the palestinian people, and women, children and old people in particular - are obliged to live in barracks, shut away from the world. the latest outbreak of violence, with the hamas militias seizing power in the gaza strip, was of course made possible by wrongdoing on the part of european policymakers, american policymakers, israeli policymakers and fatah too. for it was israeli politicians who refused the palestinian government its tax revenues and built a wall to keep the palestinian people in their place; the americans allowed that to happen and showed themselves incapable of forcing all the warring factions to sit down at a table together; and, finally, it was the europeans, including us in this house, who were unable to give support to a democratically elected government, some of the elements in which we found uncongenial or disagreeable - and hence found ourselves denying support to the moderates and failing to encourage the growth, within hamas and elsewhere, of those forces who could have been amenable to reason. it is they who are to blame for this state of affairs. we know that, now hamas has seized power, it is one of the four radical elements in the middle east, together with iran, syria and hizbollah. we also know that radical islamism of the kind preached by hamas is very dangerous, that the elements associated with it are the forces behind global islamist terrorism, and - of course - that we europeans must defend ourselves against it. on the other hand, though, we have to stand up for the palestinians' right to self-determination, which means that they should elect as their government the people they want rather than the ones we want, because we are not in a position to pick and choose them. it follows, then, that we must not repeat our former mistakes; we have to talk to, and support, those palestinian forces that enjoy majority popular support. important though the security of israel is to europe, the future prospects for the palestinian people are no less so, and if we manage to give them hope for the future, we stand a chance of establishing peace in the middle east in the longer term. the debate is closed. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - (sk) i have serious concerns over the current situation in the palestinian territories. the palestinian authority is split. notwithstanding the outcome of the elections, the joint government of the fatah and hamas movements was doomed to struggle, and it was only a matter of time until the tensions erupted into a bloody conflict. hamas takes pride in the fact that, in their founding documents, the movement set for itself the goal of destroying israel. judging by the current behaviour of hamas, we can conclude they have never given up their terrorist actions and way of thinking. how are we supposed to work on helping palestinian citizens who live in refugee camps, have no jobs and live in wretched living conditions, if the same palestinians elect a movement which subscribes to terrorism and aims to destroy their neighbour, israel? how are we supposed to work on implementing the oslo accords and the establishment of two equal states, palestine and israel, when one of the participants dreams of wiping out, through war and terrorism, the very existence of its neighbour with whom it should peacefully coexist? as a member of the political section of euromed, i call on parliament to condemn all forms of terrorism in palestine and any alliances with hezbollah terrorists. the european union must support the peace process in both palestine and israel. last but not least, the eu humanitarian assistance there should not, via non-transparent means, end up in the hands of terrorist organisations.

situation of christians in the context of freedom of religion (debate) the next item is the debate on the statement by the vice-president of the commission and high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy on the situation of christians in the context of freedom of religion. i would like to ask vice-president/high representative catherine ashton to take the floor. vice-president of the commission/high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy. - mr president, i shall begin by expressing how fully i share the concerns of this house about the recent violence against people belonging to religious minorities, as well as those who stand up for religious freedom. i expressed my views on this issue most recently on 6 january when i visited bethlehem and the church of the nativity on the eve of the orthodox christmas. i went there to underline the need for all religious groups around the world to be able to gather and to worship freely. i also stressed that the european union condemns all forms of intolerance and violence against people because of their religion, wherever it takes place. i have also strongly condemned the recent terrorist attacks in iraq and egypt targeting places of worship, as well as the assassination of salmaan taseer, the governor of the punjab in pakistan. these attacks are unacceptable: they are perpetrated by extremists with an agenda of intolerance which must be condemned and must be resisted. honourable members, all too often in today's world, people's human rights are violated because of their religion or belief. the victims do not belong to a single faith or to one region. regrettably, no part of the world is spared from the scourge of religious intolerance. any discrimination or violence against individuals because of their religious beliefs runs counter to the values that we in the european union uphold. each violation must be taken seriously and each must be condemned with equal force wherever it takes place and whoever the victim may be, because, as we know and accept, human rights are universal. long-established christian communities in the middle east face difficulties which have led to significant displacement in some countries and to a dwindling of numbers in the region as a whole. the european union will not turn a blind eye to their plight. we consider their demand to have their rights respected as citizens of their own country to be entirely legitimate. freedom of conscience and of belief belongs to everyone and every state has the duty to ensure it is respected. the eu stands ready to enhance its cooperation with governments in order to combat intolerance and protect human rights. we must not fall into the trap that extremists and terrorists are laying for us: we must resist the manipulation of religion into a source of division. the best response to extremism is a united international front based on the universal standards of freedom of religion and freedom of belief. the european union was a driving force in the un general assembly behind the resolution on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief - which was adopted by consensus in december 2010. we make a concerted effort every year to build on that consensus, so that the international community can send a firm and united message. we are considering another initiative to rally strong cross-regional support on this theme at the forthcoming session of the un human rights council in march. we also raise the issue of freedom of religion or belief during our human rights dialogues and urge countries to eradicate discrimination and intolerance. our delegations closely monitor these issues around the world, and the european union's next annual human rights report this spring will address the situation of religious minorities around the world. honourable members, i am fully committed to keeping freedom of religion or belief at the top of our agenda. the next foreign affairs council on 31 january will again address this issue so that the european union can step up its efforts to promote religious freedom. baroness ashton, i am very pleased to welcome you to the european parliament in the new year. it is not very often that we can discuss with you personally such important issues of the foreign policy of the european union, so thank you very much for coming here. mr president, baroness ashton, you have promised us that you will appear more often in front of the european parliament, so that this will be settled. i believe that it is important for you, baroness ashton, and for everyone else to note that a broad majority of the european parliament is in support of this issue and that this is an indication that it is part of a sequence of measures and not just a normal resolution. you are right when you say that we must ensure that intolerance and violence against people because of their religion, regardless of the religion in question, is regarded as unacceptable. however, it is clear that 75% of the attacks made for this reason in recent years have been directed against christians. christian europe must take a self-confident approach and defend itself. it must not remain silent on this issue. the attacks are taking place to a large extent in muslim states, but not only there. christians are being persecuted in china, for example, and in other countries. we must not accept violent discrimination or acts of terrorism. imposing the death penalty on someone because they have converted to christianity is not acceptable and neither are the acts of terrorism and terrorist organisations or the fact that public bodies, which are not themselves responsible, turn a blind eye to these actions. the result of this is that the tradition, which dates back millennia, of christian groups and communities being present in many countries, including syria, turkey, iraq and iran, is coming to an end. if the pressure continues on christians in bethlehem, the birthplace of jesus, there will soon be no christians living there. the 20 million coptic christians living in egypt represent a specific problem which we take very seriously. we cannot talk about minorities in this case. for this reason, i would like to highlight two demands made in the resolution. there must be clear references to the persecution of christians in the human rights reports produced by the institutions of the european union, including your organisation and the european parliament. resources must be made available within the external action service to handle the subject of christianity and the issues of human rights and freedom of religion must play a major role in the treaties which we sign with other countries. mr president, baroness ashton, thank you for your clear statement. the increasing number of attacks on christians and the growing levels of religious intolerance are highly alarming. we must make clear our condemnation of these acts, because we are supporters of religious tolerance, freedom and diversity. i would like once again to express our deepest sympathy and regret concerning the attacks on coptic christians in egypt. this was a heavy blow not only against the coptic christians themselves, but also against the tolerance which is still widespread in egypt. i say 'still' advisedly, because unfortunately, it has now been put at risk. on behalf of my group, i would like to express my very deep regret about the way in which christians are being treated in iraq. the aim of overthrowing saddam hussein was not to bring about the lack of tolerance of christians that we are seeing now. however, there is also intolerance between different muslim groups. therefore, our group believes that it is particularly important to take decisive action against intolerance of other religious views and especially of religious minorities. i hardly ever make written statements, but i was happy to become involved in this case at the invitation of mr maurer, because it is so important for us to combat growing intolerance and to work together to overcome it. i am pleased that we have a joint resolution and a joint basis for action. however, in just the same way that i clearly condemn these attacks against christians on behalf of my group, and not just the recent violent attacks, but also other discrimination, i would like to state specifically that i very much regret the growing islamophobia in certain circles in europe. this is simply an argument, which is admittedly wrong and invalid, but still another argument that allows certain radical muslim forces to find a cause, a reason and a justification for discriminating against or even attacking christians. all of us, whatever our views of individual religions, must admit that people have the right to practise their religion in peace. the existence of an aggressive, violent minority, whether it consists of muslims, christians, jews or members of other faith communities, can never provide a justification for attacking other religions. on behalf of the alde group. - mr president, religious conviction is an individual matter with a different meaning to different people. the role of the state is to protect all citizens, regardless of their conviction, and to allow them to freely associate and express themselves across the world. a glance at our world today shows a very bleak picture: from the bah'i in iran to copts in egypt, from the use of blasphemy laws in pakistan to the attacks on christians or places of worship in iraq and nigeria. today, we highlight the increased violence against christians specifically, which provides a reason for great concern. it is incredibly painful that people attack and get attacked, both in the name of religion, and people of all faiths are victims. it is unacceptable to see that some individuals, extremists, choose to use violence and even terrorism and do so in the name of god or in the name of a religion, claiming thereby to speak on behalf of others or even seeking to be above the law and thus associating countless innocent people with this violence. but let us not be mistaken. by giving the extremists more credit than they deserve, by accepting the link between religion and terrorism, we disqualify the majority of believers who, in the diverse ways in which they do, practice their faith peacefully. terrorism is political and terrorism is a crime. religion can never be a credible or acceptable reason to use violence or to breach human rights. too often this does happen, not only through violence, but also in limiting freedom of expression such as through the abuse of blasphemy laws. religion or conviction should never be a reason for people to live in fear and the european parliament rightly speaks out against the extremist acts against christians and supports those who condemn this extremism. mr president, baroness ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the massacres inflicted on the coptic christians in alexandria provoked international outrage. the eastern christians' situation as a whole is worrying: in iraq, in lebanon and even in palestine, where christians are leaving what they see as their holy land, worn down by the humiliation they have suffered under israeli occupation. i am glad that our resolution on freedom of religion gives the subject a broad interpretation and recalls the fundamental rights: the right to believe and not to believe; the right to choose a religion without being discriminated against. whilst our text quite rightly mentions the recent attacks and killings that have gone on in the world, we must also admit that in some european countries, respect for this freedom of religion is under threat. we often witness acts of intolerance: the profaning of jewish and muslim cemeteries, anti-islamic and anti-semitic talk. actions such as switzerland's vote to ban the construction of minarets and the rise of extremist parties who express intolerant views against certain communities are all signs that we must make the fight to uphold secular principles a priority in europe. refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and ethnic and religious minorities are all facing a worrying increase in violations of their universal fundamental rights. europe ought to set an example on tolerance and intercommunity dialogue. eastern christians are increasingly suspected of representing the interests and causes of the west, while muslims in europe are associated with radical islam and terrorism. let me read you if i may two lines of a poem by louis aragon: 'celui qui croyait au ciel, celui qui n'y croyait pas, et leur sang rouge ruisselle, mme couleur, mme clat' ('the one who believed in god and the one who did not, their blood runs equally red and equally bright'). mr president, mrs ashton, i should like to start by thanking mrs ashton for responding so rapidly to events in alexandria. it is vital for us to respond rapidly and predictably, since that means that the world listens to us more attentively. christians are, without a doubt, the most neglected minority in the world today. every year, 170 000 christians throughout the world suffer legal discrimination, assault and even murder. all those who claim to uphold human rights must take active measures to defend religious freedom. the matter of religious freedom must be raised in talks with countries such as afghanistan, iraq and sudan within the framework of development aid. china, india and vietnam must hear our views on religious freedom in the framework of trade negotiations with the european union. we must reinvigorate our neighbourhood policy when it comes to countries such as egypt. ultimately, our diplomacy must respond to each violation of the right to religious freedom. we therefore have the instruments at our disposal, we need only use them, and we must also convince the world that, after years of silence on the matter, the freedom of christians really is important to us. the world will only listen to us if it is led to believe that this issue really is important to us. otherwise, we cannot expect our policy in this area to succeed. mr president, according to the un founding charter, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. the right of every person to follow a religious conviction, or even none at all, must be safeguarded and respected by everyone. for us, religion cannot be used as a means of exploitation in political conflict. within this framework, we condemn all the recent attacks in both alexandria and elsewhere and express our condolences for the victims' families. in an unprecedented move by the turkish occupying regime in cyprus, the christian religious service in the church of st. synesios in occupied rizokarpaso was violently interrupted and ultimately cancelled. this act was in breach of fundamental human rights of the trapped greek cypriots, such as religious freedom. similarly, on epiphany in yialousa, the religious service was cancelled on the unfounded allegation that permission had not been obtained by the required deadline. the above acts are in clear breach of the third vienna agreement of 2 august 1975, articles 3 and 9 of the european convention on human rights, article 10 of the eu charter of fundamental rights and article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. we roundly condemn the actions by the occupying regime, which are blatant infringements of a basic human right. urgent reaction is needed. respect for convictions and rights must be of fundamental importance to the european union. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the recent terrorist attacks in egypt and iraq are criminal acts that represent just one aspect, albeit a tragic one, of the persecutions of christian communities around the world and particularly in the middle east. the most worrying part of this in institutional terms is the systematic curtailment of christians' rights as citizens, in that they are not allowed, for instance, to build churches, take public, civil or military office or freely practise their religion, amongst other things. the two things together - terrorism and discrimination - force hundreds of thousands of people to leave these countries. in iraq, for example, over 60% of christians have been forced into exile, and we are talking about some 600 000 people. this house fights for the right of people to emigrate. in this case, however, entire communities are being denied the right to live in their own country. the aim of terrorism is to expel christianity from arab countries through mass murder. action, including military action, is needed to fight and prevent it. europe, which is historically christian and a great defender of human rights, must put pressure on the governments in the area, calling on them to respect the rights of their own citizens. (fr) mr president, freedom of conscience is most certainly a vital freedom. god cannot want forced observance. this freedom was persecuted in atrocious ways by the communist regimes. we should have the courage to stand up today and say that these abuses are primarily committed against christians in islamic countries. it is right that we should condemn atrocious killings perpetrated by fanatics. it is not only a matter of extremism, however. in several countries where the majority of the population are muslim, even some that are seen as being moderate, christians are treated as second-class citizens. conversion to christianity is forbidden or even punishable by death. in the west however, whatever mrs kiil-nielsen may say, people are not prevented from converting to islam if they so wish. in those same muslim countries, anyone who actually or reportedly criticises islam can face the same fate. in particular, legislation supposedly aimed at repressing blasphemy must be repealed. we specifically call on pakistan to quash the conviction of the poor woman who was accused by her neighbours. we can talk as much as we want, but fine words are not enough. we must act and make it clear to these states that our relationships with them are dependent upon whether they are willing to respect freedom of conscience. (it) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to offer the commissioner my heartfelt thanks for the content of her speech, because the purpose of our resolution here is to ensure greater protection for religious minorities in everyone's interest. however, baroness ashton, speaking with the greatest sincerity, cordiality and friendship, i would like to bring something to your attention: if you have the patience to re-read the text that you have just read out, you will notice that you managed to give your whole speech without once using the adjective 'christian'. that is something that struck me, because there is actually a feeling of embarrassment in our institutions, and in that sense we are playing the game of the fundamentalists, who tend to identify the presence of christians in the middle east and other parts of the world precisely with the west and europe. my iraqi christian friends and our palestinian christian friends are arabs, think in arabic, love their country, love that mentality and love their history and culture. i would like to ask you, therefore, baroness ashton, whether we should not perhaps take a very thorough, careful look at ourselves and how we have approached this subject up to now, because it is a strong point of ours to call a spade a spade. that is what we must do: we must call hatred for jews anti-semitism, hatred for muslims islamophobia, and hatred for christians by the name it deserves, because that is the only way we will succeed in involving everyone in those countries who loves justice and freedom. that is my question to you, and i would ask you to be specific in your answer. we are now about to adopt the agreement on iraq. let us include proper rules alongside the principles of a trade agreement, so that there can be economic advantages in exchange for rights. let us do something tangible and in everyone's interests, but let us do it quickly and well, because the world is waiting for a signal from europe. mr president, i want to begin by reminding us of the words of the universal declaration. i quote, 'freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance'. it makes the point that protection of these freedoms is integral to, and inseparable from, the protection of all human rights. our determination to defend them should be no less. it also makes clear that we should act against all religious persecution, which is a problem for all religions and in many countries including - let us be honest - some of the countries of our own european union. the pew centre says that 70% of the world's six billion people live in countries with strong restrictions on religious belief or practice. i personally have a strong conviction that religion can be a force for good, upheld by the work of the faith council in my own east-of-england constituency which promotes mutual understanding, a role mirrored in the european union's own obligations for dialogue, as outlined in our resolution. but i know that when preacher of hate terry jones, who threatened to burn the koran, said he would come to luton - also in my constituency - to stir up religious hatred, he was told he would not be welcome. tolerance, dialogue, mutual respect and understanding are, for some, parts of their faith. for others they are values in their own right. either way, they are values that we should promote and respect. (fr) mr president, fanaticism that targets other peoples' religions is barbaric and must be condemned and fought by all those who uphold democracy. that is why it is so important that we express our solidarity today with all those who are persecuted for their faith in the world. the terrible killings carried out by al-qaeda in iraq and egypt and the threats that eastern christians face from islamic fundamentalists are, in reality, aimed at only one thing: creating tension between religions, fuelling hatred, setting communities against each other and provoking a clash of civilisations. this attempt at destabilisation will fail in europe, as it is failing in france, where the whole muslim community naturally condemned these barbaric acts immediately. we must solemnly reaffirm today the right of all minorities to practise their religion freely and safely everywhere in the world, including here at home in europe. we must defend religious pluralism, tolerance and mutual understanding both here in europe and everywhere in the world. this is why i hold the hope that the democratic revolution that tunisia is experiencing will soon reach other countries, so that the values of respect, tolerance and secularism will spread. (nl) mr president, thank you very much for being here with us today, baroness ashton. have we not already discussed the situation of the christians in somalia, sudan, egypt, syria, turkey, iraq, iran, afghanistan, pakistan and malaysia many times before here in this parliament? have this house, my group and i, myself, not already asked many questions about the systematic suppression of christians in these islamic countries? with that in mind, i believe that the time for talking and fine pronouncements is over. it is time for action. i have two specific questions for mrs ashton. first of all, although the remit of the european external action service should be limited, the service must take one task very seriously: it has to stand up for christians who are being persecuted. therefore, establish a separate unit within the service that will be responsible for this. secondly, the european union has signed bilateral agreements with all those countries. freeze those agreements, put them on ice this very day! squeeze those governments' wallets until they demonstrate that they have made conditions safer for christians. i would like to hear your reply to these two specific questions of mine. (fr) mr president, the confederal group of the european unified left - nordic green left did not participate in the resolution put before us today. we, of course, condemn all acts of terrorism, irrespective of who the perpetrators or victims are and of where they are carried out. however, our group's members firmly believe in secular principles and a secular society. we therefore naturally condemn blasphemy. this means that we believe strongly in freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, which includes the freedom to believe or not to believe, to choose one's religion, change religion and to freely practise the religion of one's choosing regardless of which religion that is. it also means that we are firmly committed to the separation between religion and politics and we condemn the rise of fundamentalism in europe and elsewhere, which is often a response to social unrest and the inability of public policy to address it. we believe that this resolution is a step in the wrong direction. to put it briefly, i would say that it lacks balance, especially in comparison with the motion tabled by my group. we feel this resolution gives the impression that christian europe, or the christian community in europe, is running to the aid of christians throughout the world. we do not think this is the best way to combat the rise of these sectarian attitudes. (nl) mr president, the joint resolution has rightly broached the issue of aggression against religious minorities in europe itself. exactly one month ago, a jewish student in my country, the netherlands, wrote the following: 'i feel anxious, anxious about the paradox inherent in the protection of freedom of religion. if i have to leave tomorrow because there is no security here, where can i then live? the uk or france? no, the same problem exists there, as well'. my question is: is europe heading towards a future with no jewish communities in any of its member states? this is an acid test of our european spiritual values. that applies equally to the european attitude towards a well-nigh forgotten group of christians in the middle east, the palestinian christian minority in gaza and the west bank. they are entitled to expect concrete backing from the european union, especially when christian organisations take pains to provide a real home for disabled palestinian children, regardless of their faith. palestinian christians face exceptional difficulties in the labour market, especially as self-employed entrepreneurs. they usually remain silent about their daily problems in order to avoid difficulties. madam high representative, let the council and the commission, as important donors to the palestinian community, look after their interests and listen to their voices, as well. mr president, i welcome the opportunity to speak on a subject that is close to my heart. as an evangelical christian, it has become apparent to me, particularly over recent years, that the expression of christian beliefs is largely deemed unacceptable in a society that wants us sanitised of any strongly held belief and where we must all believe the same or believe nothing. this attack on conviction is more aggressive towards christianity in certain quarters. this year, we celebrate the 400th anniversary of the king james bible, yet today, to express beliefs founded upon the contents of the bible is often deemed unlawful. we face a situation where christians are being excluded from certain professions because of their faith and hauled before courts because of their faith. in the united kingdom, equality laws are being used more as a sword than a shield, to punish expression of christian faith. this marginalisation of christianity was exemplified recently by the commission in the publication of their diary: muslim, hindu, sikh, jewish and chinese festivals were marked - yet there was nothing about christian celebrations. i have no doubt that this was no accident, no oversight and i find it deeply regrettable. i would call upon the vice-president/high representative to address this in particular in her remarks. freedom of religious expression is a fundamental right in society that should be protected and this debate is but a small recognition of the problem. we should not shy away from it just because it is christians who are persecuted . (the president cut off the speaker) (de) mr president, baroness ashton, i would like to thank you very much for your statement. it is correct, it has been made at the right time and it is also encouraging with regard to the basic approach taken by you and your organisation to the problem as a whole, with regard to cooperation with other countries and with regard to the measures that are needed. this debate today is also necessary, not only as a result of recent events, but also because freedom of religion is one of our fundamental values and part of our european identity. this debate is important because discrimination, violence and persecution are taking place in many countries in the world and it is particularly worrying that a high proportion of all of those who die as a result of religiously motivated violence throughout the world are christians. our sympathy goes to all of those who have been killed, injured or tortured in attacks of this kind. our sympathy also goes to their friends and families. we must do everything we can to reduce and even abolish this type of intolerance. unfortunately, we are also seeing discrimination against christians by official bodies and we must make every effort to combat and overcome it. we must make a commitment to ensuring the right to freedom of religion. this must lie at the heart of our bilateral relationships. we need effective instruments which will allow us to protect christians and to protect freedom of religion. therefore, i welcome the fact that ensuring the human right to freedom of religion will be one of the items on the agenda in every bilateral form of contact. we must also include provisions that guarantee freedom of religion in our agreements with third countries and i very much welcome your intention to devote a chapter of the european union's annual human rights report to the situation concerning freedom of religion. (it) mr president, baroness ashton, ladies and gentlemen, it is important to link the condemnation of these attacks and the call for urgent, concrete measures to protect christians around the world with the more general demand for respect for the freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and thought. there is no difference between someone who is murdered while attending mass and someone who is sentenced to death for adultery or for belonging to a muslim, christian or jewish minority, or for having been born in a particular place rather than for practising a religion. the right to freedom and coexistence is universally recognised by humanist culture and international conventions. in contrast, we are seeing the world divided between those who uphold human rights and those who want to brutally extinguish them. only an attitude open to dialogue and against any form of intolerance can provide a basis for protecting identities and values. a lack of respect for these can even lead to the expulsion of entire communities from their historical homelands. there is a great deal of work for europe to do in this respect at a political and diplomatic level as well as in the cultural and social spheres. today, we urge the council and the commission, and especially the high representative for foreign affairs, to adopt clear guidelines for our relations with third countries in the context of the new european external action service. bilateral agreements, too, must attach greater importance to the subjects of religious freedom and human rights more generally, violations of which should lead to the suspension of these agreements. i am also thinking that europe should take a leading role in promoting dialogue between religions. a lack of such dialogue often goes beyond individual incidents and leads to real wars, in which religion conceals other, more complex reasons for conflict. lastly, we must also look closer to home: there is no lack of cases of intolerance in europe. our cities are, in practice, multicultural, and that fact brings with it religious traditions and values that must be respected and afforded freedom of expression. there is, therefore, no alternative to dialogue and mutual respect. it is important to repeat the appeal made by religious communities. (the president cut off the speaker) (it) mr president, high representative, ladies and gentlemen, the fate of eastern christians is changing the map of cultures, with communities thousands of years old - 'copt' means 'egyptian' in greek - now looking to emigrate overseas to escape from the violence they have been suffering. however, the media or xenophobic parties should not make the mistake of calling this a clash of religions or a clash of civilisations. i would like to recount a short incident that i find significant. years ago in cairo, an old man from the countryside who delivered milk to our house three times a week stood at our door crying. we could not understand what he wanted, as all he could say through his tears was 'said akbar, said akbar,' the great old man, the great old man. we eventually realised that he was showing his christian customers his grief at the death of karol wojtya, who had just passed away. this was a simple, sincere man, a muslim who acted with all the ancient mutual respect of the mediterranean peoples. this short but significant incident, reflecting widespread values in egyptian society, happened in the same country in which the copts were massacred at christmas. today, however, eastern christian communities need protection. they are sometimes trapped in the settling of scores between terrorists and fundamentalists and authoritarian powers. european foreign policy should not remain powerless while the world changes. it should not be afraid to say the word . (the president cut off the speaker) mr president, tolerance of another's belief is a trait of a civilised society. the horrific events in egypt and iraq go against human rights and basic principles of freedom of thought and expression. no one should be persecuted because of their religious beliefs. the action of curtailing christians, or any other faith, in the practice of their religion is totally unacceptable in our society. but, before we criticise, we should put our own house in order. last month, the christmas religious services were prohibited in the occupied village of rizokarpaso in cyprus. as we all know, the eu member state of the republic of cyprus is, at present, and has been for 36 years, under part-occupation by turkey. the action by the occupying turkish army of entering a church, forcing the priest to terminate the service and forcing the people attending it to leave, is unacceptable. this incident is now being considered by the un. so, as we talk about the situation in countries outside the eu, and about the freedom of christians, i would like to remind this chamber that we need to sort out our own house first. we cannot accept any forms of discrimination in this chamber if we are to be credible in the wider context. (nl) mr president, baroness ashton, the freedom of religion or belief protects both religious and non-theist beliefs, and even atheist beliefs. these views can be incompatible with each other, however, and then governments have a duty to promote tolerance and stand up for those who face discrimination and violence because of their beliefs. i wholeheartedly support the joint resolution, in the form which we now see it before us, not because i think that we should solely concern ourselves with christians, but because christians are currently having to deal with intolerance in an increasing number of countries. i would, in any case, have acted the same if this concerned any other religion. the iies requires significant capacity in this area. i have previously held a similar position myself at the dutch ministry of foreign affairs. finding your way around human rights violations, tensions and conflicts based on religion or belief requires a lot of manpower and effort, as do sincere attempts at dialogue and tolerance. i therefore hope, madam high representative, that you will heed the recommendation that manpower be freed up for this purpose. (it) mr president, baroness ashton, ladies and gentlemen, in the prevailing relativism of european politics, there is one word that is taboo: christianophobia. for many years, however, serious and often tragic reports have been coming in from reliable and indisputable sources about the persecution of christians on several continents. europe needs to wake up, open its eyes and take concrete action. it needs to send out clear messages, such as the one we were expecting from baroness ashton. she could, for example, have quoted pope benedict's inspired words for the world day of peace a few days ago, when he pointed out that to deny religious freedom is an insult to god and to human dignity, as well as a threat to security and peace. concrete action is needed. what are we waiting for - as i asked straight away - to send a commission to check the situation of our coptic christian brethren in egypt, an officially moderate country where they have practically no fundamental human rights at all, not even in public office, in the civil service? wake up, wretched europe, and remember your christian roots! (es) mr president, the attacks that have recently taken place in iraq and egypt are evidence of two tragedies for europe, albeit of a different nature. firstly, it is a tragedy that the events themselves have taken place, due to their cruelty and the loss of human life. secondly, however, it is also a tragedy to see how too often they go unnoticed in our society. in many cases, the way in which we act means that these events are confined to the accident and crime reports in the media, as if they were something external rather than an attack against us. it is as if they were happening somewhere else when, in fact, these attacks are taking place at the heart of and against the core of our civilisation, our europe. the role of the european institutions is, fundamentally, to raise awareness regarding the seriousness, the significance and the scope of the attacks against christians in these places. the european institutions should not only issue generic statements condemning these attacks, but should also promote action along two lines: firstly, ensuring that this tragedy is more present in our societies and our media, and secondly, ensuring that the european institutions are more present where the tragedy is taking place. with this objective and with these two lines of action, allow me to say, baroness ashton, that the european institutions and you yourself must promote the important role of the victims of these events. the victims need to be given faces. the victims need to be present in our european institutions. we need to prepare a programme of visits, meetings and even material support for the victims, but it is the victims of this terrible persecution themselves who will do much better than we can to defend their cause. (el) mr president, as socialists, we believe in human rights and we certainly believe in religious rights. as mr swoboda quite rightly said earlier, we are interested not only in the christian religion; we are interested in the rights of all religions, in people's right to worship in accordance with their faith and, more importantly, in understanding between all religions, and understanding of the faith which someone holds as a citizen. however, i should like, due to my origins, to comment on a specific incident which happened in cyprus and which is referred to in the report. the turkish occupying forces intervened in a church at which christian services have been held for decades, in order to stop the service and, more importantly, to expel the congregation and force the priest to remove his vestments. the difference with this specific episode was that it occurred unfortunately - or fortunately, because it gives us an opportunity to pull together and resolve this problem - on european territory. (fr) mr president, baroness ashton, the barbaric massacre in alexandria on 31 december comes on top of a long series of murderous attacks against christians in many parts of the world: in iran, iraq, pakistan, nigeria, and most recently egypt. the main victims of the persecution - we should dare to say the word even though it does not appear in our resolution - have been eastern christians. this is a deep-seated problem and christophobic acts are a reality. the remedy that the european union must provide - that we must provide - must do justice to these christian minorities. these are 12 million people who are in need of protection and who must be given a choice other than to flee or to face death. as has already been reiterated several times, it is not a matter of stigmatising one religion more than another, but simply of pointing out how absolutely vital it is to combat these islamic extremists who are destroying freedom just as they are killing people. we hope, baroness ashton, that during the foreign ministers' meeting at the end of this month, you will come up with a coordinated response and strategy to combat this violence against eastern christians. i think it is important to bring pressure to bear via the association agreements we have with some of these countries, for example, and to call on their respective governments to pursue the perpetrators and bring them to justice. this is paragraph 2 of our resolution. freedom of worship must be put into practice everywhere in the world, just as each individual is free to believe or not believe, because if this freedom which allows religions to be separate from the state is undermined, then all our other freedoms are also in jeopardy. (pl) mr president, the victims of at least 75% of all cases of religious persecution throughout the world are christians. the european union cannot be a passive bystander, and it cannot sit back and do nothing on this issue. today's debate serves not only to remind europe that it must be involved in the global fight to ensure respect for the right to religious freedom, but also that we should all give joint consideration to what instruments the european union can use to prevent the persecution of christians in the future. what can we do? as i see it, the first thing we should do is to ensure that respect for religious freedom is one of the priorities of the european union's external policy. when signing agreements with other countries, it is important for us to ensure that they include provisions which prevent persecution on the grounds of religion in the country in question. secondly, we should consider setting up a european centre for monitoring religious persecution throughout the world, which would provide relevant information without delay and enable the european union to respond quickly. thirdly and finally, we should put an end to our policy of double standards. the european union and europe as a whole is opening itself up to immigrants from various countries around the world. we are allowing places of worship to be built for them, and allowing them to practise their own religions. at the same time, however, we seldom stand up for the rights of christians in those very same countries, in the countries where possessing a bible is often punished by many years in prison, and on many occasions even death, in countries where it would not just be hard to build a christian place of worship, it would be simply impossible. today, the time has come for us to take a tough, resolute and firm stand for the rights of christians around the world. today, the time has come for us to be vocal in our demands for christians and followers of other religions to be free to practise their religion. (es) mr president, this debate is very necessary given the recent serious events that are affecting the religious freedom and even the lives of christians. i am particularly referring to what has happened mainly in pakistan, iraq, nigeria and egypt. article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights sets out in great detail what it calls freedom of religion or religious freedom. despite this, it is, unfortunately, a right that is little respected in some countries. we are now even seeing that those who profess the christian faith can pay for it with their lives. baroness ashton, the european union must robustly defend the right to religious freedom in general, clearly incorporating it into its external action and demanding respect, freedom and security for what is now the most persecuted religious group in the world, the christian community. we must demand that all the governments concerned do what is necessary to prevent these attacks, and when that is not possible, to arrest and punish those responsible. ladies and gentlemen, baroness ashton, freedom is a symbol of european identity, and that includes religious freedom, which is part of the basic core of human rights. that freedom is also a path to peace, as pope benedict xvi said in his message on 1 january. i would also like to highlight the essential role of christianity in shaping the european identity. it would therefore be a sad paradox if the european union did not demand as firmly as possible that the world protect the most basic rights of christians and did not help them where it could. the european parliament resolution sets out methods for better defending religious freedom in general and the freedom of christians in particular. i welcome the fact that the forthcoming foreign affairs council is to give them close consideration, and - i am finishing now, mr president - that the forthcoming european council on 14 february is to give its opinion on these serious events, just as, for example, president sarkozy very courageously did. (fi) mr president, baroness ashton, the european union's credibility as regards its foreign policy is measured in terms of how well it keeps to its fundamental values, which are human rights, democracy, the principle of legality, and freedom of religion. egypt's legal system is in danger of remaining in the shadow of sharia law, whose very victims are the coptic christians. the conference of european churches is calling for dialogue in europe between christians and muslims. european religious dialogue, the cultural tradition of religion and the tradition of religious instruction are also a resource that can be used in european policy. christianity and other religions are peace movements like the european union. when it is at its most successful, religion unites people; it does not divide them. we cannot let terrorists use religion as a tool of barbarity. (pl) mr president, according to organisations monitoring religious persecution, every day, over 200 million christians are under threat of persecution. over the past two years, over 170 000 individuals have died simply because they were christians, hard as it is to believe. these figures come from organisations monitoring the persecution of christians, and they mean that christians do, in fact, suffer most in terms of religious persecution, which is something that we should remember here in parliament. the situation is particularly tense in a significant proportion of islamic countries, where christians are treated as second-class citizens. europe can no longer tolerate this situation, and not only because of its christian roots. innocent people are dying merely because they are followers of one religion and not another. the european union does not react resolutely enough to attacks and discrimination against christians. the persecution of christians must be raised in bilateral negotiations and relations between the european union and the countries in which such extreme and terrible events occur. parliament should also require mrs ashton to be more proactive and resolute in her actions. mr president, i very much appreciate this debate and fully support the resolution, which i also sponsor. i believe there is a sleeping giant that is awakening because of the gratuitous and vicious abuse of christians. if this viciousness and abuse applied to muslims or the jewish community, i would be equally concerned. europe is a mosaic: its unity and diversity are our motto. yet in cyprus, the turkish government and its representatives think it appropriate to require christians to apply for permission to pray and turn them out of church when they decide to do this collectively. has the turkish representative to the european union been called in? if not, why not? i would like to pay tribute to those muslims who supported their christian neighbours who were under attack. so let us not make this a motion against anybody. it is for christians and for those who are being attacked. i do not support and cannot accept abuse of people, individuals or communities because of their religious beliefs. this debate is about christians; too many expect christians to accept any old comments. they think it an anachronism. it is time we started to have mutual respect. i respect people in this house who have no religious belief or who have a different religious belief to me. it is time people in this house started to show respect for those who have christian beliefs; it is in diversity that we have unity. (el) mr president, the number of cases of religious violence has multiplied recently throughout the world, causing concern and indignation. banning the exercise of religious faith is a blatant infringement of fundamental rights and of international law, which stipulates that the right to faith is inalienable and self-evident. the ban on the christian service in rizokarpaso in occupied cyprus by the occupying forces and the bombing in the christian church in alexandria used by the coptic community are just two examples of the increased tension and religious hatred which are developing in numerous places not far from europe. the european union must develop a set of tools which will protect the right of every religious faith in practice. the message that the european union will not tolerate such behaviour must be clear and strong. i should like to call on the high representative to include an evaluation of the situation of freedom of religious expression in her priorities. finally, at council and european commission level, it would be a good idea to include protection of religious faith in all discussions with third countries. (pl) mr president, christianity has always been an indicator of european identity, and the european union's values derive from it. the eu cannot, therefore, sit back and watch while christians are being persecuted, and this includes persecution in other parts of the world. in arab and asian countries, christians are the religious minority most under threat, as is confirmed by the recent attacks on christians in egypt and iraq and previous attacks in india, among the victims of which were small children. we have many instruments at our disposal to prevent and denounce such attacks, and the european union must resolutely condemn attacks on christians. one of the most effective ways to do this would be for the conclusion of agreements with the eu, for example, trade agreements with third countries, to be made conditional upon guarantees that the countries involved will respect the rights of christians, and upon the inclusion of clauses providing for the severance of the agreement if these rights are violated. (de) mr president, baroness ashton, in 2009, we encouraged an intercultural dialogue in europe, between christians and muslims, orthodox christians and catholics and between protestants and orthodox christians. in our community, we have attempted to bring about the growth of trust. we are doing this among ourselves. of course, this means that we have our own views and the courage to express them. sometimes, this is obviously not the case. i have recently read and heard that the european commission has published a calendar for young people which includes the public holidays of all other religions except christianity. all i can say is that things like this will only encourage those people in egypt and elsewhere to continue committing horrific acts. we have an obligation to help christians in those countries that have already been mentioned several times. the majority of them live in countries such as palestine, egypt, iraq and iran, which are the birthplace of christianity. we must not allow these people to be driven out of their homes. they are not minorities, they are egyptians and palestinians, just like all the other residents of these countries. they want to continue living there, but this is being made difficult for them. we must support baroness ashton and we must attempt to ensure that the european union includes a guarantee of religious freedom in all the treaties which it concludes with third countries and, in particular, with the countries we have referred to. we must make sure that no one is forced to leave their country for religious reasons. (nl) mr president, when i look at the situation in baghdad and alexandria, i get the feeling that we have gone back in time 500 years. back then, we in the netherlands were in the midst of the hook and cod wars, during which protestants and catholics fought each other hammer and tongs. mr president, there is no longer any place for that kind of thing in modern european society. when i look at baghdad and alexandria, however, i see that they are merely gross expressions of a life that exists under the surface in many countries. for that reason, my message to you is that, in the framework of both that cultural dialogue and the freedoms which we have laid down together, the european union needs to ensure the paramount importance of freedom of religion in every treaty it adopts, in every country it does business with and in every report it drafts, as i, indeed, pointed out in the report on turkey. that also means - although mrs pack has not mentioned that - that these freedoms must be reciprocal and that freedom of religion must also be respected in countries where islam is not the majority religion. mr president, i think that the intolerance and violence that have taken place are unacceptable and that we should engage the warring factions in dialogue. i therefore call on madam ashton, together with her diplomatic service, to ensure that we are absolutely consistent in discussing freedom of religion in every communication we have with the authorities of all those countries. you can count on the solidarity of parliament in that regard. (el) mr president, the persecution and slaughter of christians in the middle east is usually the work of fanatical and terrorist organisations. the persecution of greek cypriot christians in occupied cyprus is the work of the ordinary army of a country with ambitions to accede to the european union. i have in my hands a letter from the self-styled 'ambassador of the turkish republic of northern cyprus' in brussels - an entity that exists purely and simply based on the force of the turkish occupying army - in which he tries to ridicule me, while, at the same time, admitting that the service in rizokarpaso was interrupted because the greek cypriot christians had not obtained permission. lady ashton, since when has permission been required from anyone in order to exercise religious faith? how long will you tolerate such blatant infringements of the human rights and religious freedoms of european citizens by a country with ambitions to accede to the european union? (sk) mr president, baroness ashton, i would like to address you and to make a strong appeal to you in this matter, as it is simply unacceptable to us that christians in the middle east continue to face such merciless attacks. iraq, iran, egypt, nigeria, turkey, pakistan. these countries have been home to them - to christians - for centuries, and they have no wish to leave. it is appalling for islamic clerics to promote anti-christian sentiments in speeches to their believers. in northern iraq, people are afraid to adorn their homes. in baghdad, armed individuals burst in, shooting 52 people and wounding 200. in december, we had the chance to meet the iraqi bishops who were visiting the european parliament. they emphasised to us that they need our support and the support of the entire international community so that innocent people are not killed for their religious beliefs. where have we got to with this? in this context, i would like to mention turkey, which is making major efforts for european integration, while, at the same time, prohibiting the establishment of christian religious societies or congregations. we allow the construction of minarets in europe, while they do not reciprocate at all. i would also like to ask where are all the defenders of human rights, and the defenders of animal rights and so on. i sometimes wonder whether it is not necessary to establish a group for protecting christians around the world. mr president, it is very disturbing to see an increase in the incidence of vicious and violent attacks on christians and their communities. those responsible are mostly fanatical islamic extremists. it is pure hate. it needs to be stopped and it must be stopped. the eu and its institutions, including this house, must increase pressure on governments where these incidents occur, particularly in those countries where the state has weak policies or turns a blind eye to such incidents. here, we value and protect each and every life; we severely punish anybody who endangers human life; and the punishment is more severe if attacks on life are against any minority and motivated by hate. we need to insist that other countries provide similar protection of people's lives and severely punish any perpetrators of these heinous crimes, and we need to assist the countries concerned in these respects. we all know the grave potential if nothing is done and the current growing trend is not stopped. the best efforts of the entire civilised world should therefore focus on reversing this dangerous trend. (fi) mr president, commissioner, i do not in any way want to undervalue the pressure on other religions, but the statistics speak for themselves: 75% of those threatened or killed for religious reasons are christians, and around 100 million christians around the world encounter persecution and violence because of their faith. recently, the situation has become particularly worrying in the middle east, as we have heard here. attacks on church services in iraq, egypt and syria have claimed dozens of lives, including those of children. elsewhere in the world, too, there are challenges. dramatic economic growth in asian countries conceals serious breaches of fundamental and human rights. in china, india and vietnam, for example, freedom of religion is mainly only recognised on paper. we have to acknowledge that the eu and its member states are closing their eyes to this, on account of trade relations, for example. nevertheless, if it wanted to, the eu could do so much more to improve the situation for christians and to promote freedom of religion in the world, for example, by insisting on a freedom of religion clause in all agreements concluded with third countries. for that reason, i would like to ask you, commissioner, whether the intention in future is to insist on such a clause and, furthermore, monitor its implementation. europe's fainthearted attitude is partly due to the fact that we ourselves are losing our old values here. we want to isolate religion in a private space. this is reflected, for example, in the crucifix debate that took place in italy. in the same way, mrs pack mentioned here the calendar published by the commission, from which christian religious holidays have been omitted entirely. secularism is not the answer to these problems. the answer lies in a respect for those with views other than our own and for the convictions of others. mr president, the plight of christians in the middle east, asia and africa is no accident. this is not a series of regrettable but uncoordinated attacks. on the contrary, it is classic mass persecution. the christians are intimidated, evicted or killed with a clear purpose: religious cleansing. this is happening as we here in europe are bending over backwards to accommodate the endless sensibilities of muslim believers. the result is a europe full of mosques and the middle east purged of christians. but this is not about numbers. it is about liberty and identity. even for those among us who do not believe, christianity should be more than a forgotten, exotic and diminishing sect. we are free to believe or not, but we are not free to see our freedoms abused. this approach means that we should make religious freedom a precondition in our relations with sovereign states. this approach should be inscribed into law and become part of the high representative's mandate. mr president, i should like to say to the high representative that in this situation, condemnations and statements are not enough. attacks on christian communities have dramatically intensified, especially in the countries of the middle east and north africa. it is difficult to find a state there where christians can live as a normal minority and, most importantly, freely proclaim their faith. people who have newly adopted christianity are exposed to the risk of death. we do not speak about new minorities there. christians are among ancient traditional inhabitants in these countries. nowadays, they increasingly are forced to leave their countries, are forced into ghettos, or have become internal refugees like those in iraq. therefore, it is a pressing task to formulate the eu strategy on religious freedom and to earmark a set of concrete measures against those states which deliberately fail to protect religious minorities. i would like also to mention the idea of a colleague, mr mayor oreja, which is to compose a list of victims with whom the eu external services should actively make contact. this is not opposing one religion against another. this is about real equality of opportunity because it should be as easy to build a christian church in alexandria or ankara as it is to build a mosque in brussels. (mt) mr president, the attacks against the christian community in egypt and other countries should be condemned, and it is our duty to react. my question is this: if europe, as the cradle of christianity, fails to defend christians and their freedom to practise their religion, then who will? however, we must also try to prevent muslim communities from being radicalised and manipulated by extremists. we must also be careful not to label all muslims as terrorists, because those who favour violence and extremism are in the minority. at the same time, muslim communities worldwide are duty-bound to condemn extremists who are taking advantage of their religion and should disassociate themselves from these people, so as to prevent them from giving the muslim religion a bad name. in addition, we must urge the authorities of these countries with all our might to protect christian communities from persecution. above all, despite the events which are unfolding before our eyes and which instil a sense of anger, we cannot forgo all sense of reason. as mahatma gandhi said, 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will leave us all blind and toothless'. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the members who have already spoken have said practically everything. they have recalled the facts, assessed them and made specific requests. therefore, as this is the last speech scheduled, i should like to add something that has not yet been said, and what comes to mind are the thoughts of a very great european, john paul ii, a man who very effectively helped to bring down the berlin wall. in his spiritual testament, he mentions the four values that underpin our future civilisation, that is to say, the civilisation of love: they are life, peace, bread and religious freedom. then i think of everything that has been written by giorgio la pira, the former mayor of florence, who promoted large conferences on christian civilisation at the height of the cold war. in his book premesse della politica ('premises of politics'), he wrote that every political idea has a particular concept of man underlying it. for christian europe, he writes, man is essentially a praying being, that is to say, a being able to enter a dialogue, to conceive of the infinite and to talk to god. taking away a man's ability to take part in private and public dialogue is not only a negation of religion, but also a negation of man himself. i leave these thoughts with the house and with you, high representative, as a contribution towards a concrete and effective commitment by our european union, which is rooted in its christian identity and never fails to proclaim its purpose of defending and promoting human dignity and human rights. colleagues, we now come to the catch-the-eye procedure. i have a small problem because i have more than 25 requests and we have only five minutes for that, so obviously not everybody will get the floor. i will do my best and i will try to divide the time evenly and justly, but unfortunately, not everybody will get the floor. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i shall confine myself to asking the high representative, baroness ashton, to place a specific request on the agenda of our relations with egypt: we call on the egyptian authorities to remove information on religion from official documents, identity cards, passports and all documents needed to obtain work. christians are discriminated against in egypt since the word 'christian' is included on their documents. islamic terrorism has now become legitimate in a situation in which there is institutionalised discrimination against christians. this is a specific request which, if implemented, would free christians from one form of institutionalised discrimination. mr president, article 3 of the european convention on human rights prohibits 'inhuman or degrading treatment' and article 9 protects the right 'to manifest one's religion or beliefs' in worship. this has been reiterated by the european court of human rights in its judgment in the fourth cyprus v. turkey inter-state case since 2001. i would say to lady ashton: unfortunately, for the last 36 years, turkey, a candidate country for accession to the european union, has been destroying religious monuments in cyprus and turning christian churches into mosques and stables, and it recently put an end to christmas and epiphany masses in christian churches in occupied rizokarpaso and yialousa. turkey must be condemned for its crimes within eu territory. the eu must not remain passive. christians in cyprus are in danger. (de) mr president, baroness ashton, today we are discussing a motion for a resolution on the situation of christians throughout the world in relation to freedom of religion. the european parliament supports fundamental freedoms and human rights all over the world. the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe is one of the driving forces behind this support and this distinguishes us from the conservatives who are focusing specifically on the situation of christians. in general terms, this is not just about the position of christians. from a liberal perspective, this concerns freedom of religion as a whole. by this i mean all the religions throughout our entire world. it is about protection for religious minorities and the obligation of every state to protect to the best of its ability the members of those religious minorities which are under threat. we also have problems in europe. i come from berlin, and there alone, we have had six arson attacks against mosques within the space of six months, fortunately not resulting in any deaths, following the uproar sparked by a social-democratic former central banker. however, the german state is attempting to provide the best possible protection for religious buildings. in the same way, egypt is also increasing the measures it is taking following the second major terrorist attack against christians. of course, we cannot have a policeman standing in front of every church, mosque or synagogue. i very much regret the fact that in many countries, including my own, jewish buildings have come to look like high-security institutions. for this reason, it is important that we as politicians take responsibility for the attitude to religious minorities in our countries and that we promote an open, friendly approach to all religions. mr president, when i was first elected to this house eleven years ago, it was regarded as somewhat eccentric, verging on embarrassing - particularly even within the epp i have to say - that i frequently raised the issue of christian persecution in the islamic and communist worlds, which i regret has only got worse since then. so i am delighted today that even some of the more aggressive and anti-clerical forces in this house have woken up to the existential threat to ancient christian faith communities such as the iraqi assyrians, of which i am a patron in the uk, and the egyptian copts. last saturday, i stood outside 10 downing street in london with my coptic constituents demanding that the uk government do more to pressurise egypt and its government to protect its own citizens. today, i call upon you, baroness ashton, as the high representative of the european union, to do likewise. (el) mr president, a while back, i wrote an article entitled: 'plural monologue'. plural means that several of us are speaking and monologue means that one person is speaking. this is precisely the problem of our communities today. everyone is talking - and mostly about ideas - but we only listen to what we ourselves are saying. this includes the problem of the outbreak of islamic fundamentalism which has occurred in recent days and which occurred in egypt in the savage attacks around the new year. i should like to point out that, within a century, from the beginning of the 20th century until now, the number of christians in the east is estimated to have fallen from 22% of the population to less than 10%. we need to pay attention to this outbreak of islamism, because we have old leaders in both egypt and libya and in other countries and we do not know what may happen when they fall and which direction these countries may take. this being so, i call on you, lady ashton, to take initiatives by exerting your influence to mitigate the situation of religious fanaticism, be it christian or muslim. (de) mr president, the coptic bishop anba damian recently called for the establishment of a christian alliance especially for christians in egypt, following the inflammatory campaigns in mosques and also the horrific massacre at the christmas mass. the charity open doors lists 50 states in its worldwide persecution index where christians are subject to severe persecution. i do not quite understand why we are showing our concern today. we should not be surprised, because the problems start at the top. if we in the eu and in the commission distribute a calendar as the perfect example of self-denial to 21 000 european schools for 3 million school children, which does not list any of the christian holidays, but does show islamic, sikh, hindu and chinese festivals, then this is no longer a question of self-denial, but of self-hatred. baroness ashton, we need courage and we need to maintain our standards. we must not be tolerant of intolerance. (sk) mr president, the european union cannot remain silent, cannot respond only after the event, when christians are dying and are expelled from their homes. the european union fails to provide sufficient defence for christians because the union is terrorised by political correctness, which suppresses freedom of religion. the ideology of laicism ties our hands and suppresses freedom of religion. the union finds it hard to protect and defend christians worldwide because it does not respect christian philosophy itself. some members also disagreed with religious leaders making speeches in our parliament. this parliament refused to condemn the abduction of the archbishop of mosul, who was later murdered. a political group from this parliament made sure that the pope was accused of violating human rights. the commission forgot to mention christian festivals, not to mention the crucifixes in italy. i look forward to the establishment in vienna of the european observatory on intolerance and discrimination against christians, and i think it will have a lot of work to do. (hu) mr president, as a member of a minority in romania, i know what religious persecution meant in the days of ceauescu's dictatorship. i was pleased to hear prime minister viktor orbn today mention the fight against the persecution of christians among our priorities. i believe that high representative ashton should contribute to this in cooperation with the hungarian presidency, and ask her to do so. when we visited istanbul recently, we could see and hear that millions of armenian and greek christians were killed there during the 20th century. it saddens me that the persecution of christians continues in our world to this day. together with mrs hautala, i propose that this current issue also be put on the agenda of the 'droit' committee as a separate item. on the other hand, i ask baroness ashton to subject the protection of christians to serious debate at the 31 january meeting of foreign ministers and to make it a foreign policy priority. i give the floor to catherine ashton to sum up the debate and answer many of those questions. vice-president of the commission/high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy. - mr president, i wanted, if i might, to pick up two or three of the many strands of ideas which have been given to me - first of all, to thank honourable members and to recognise the strength of feeling and expression of support for some of the work that we are seeking to do in this area. as i have already indicated, part of the reason i was very pleased to be able to participate in this debate is that this has been raised once before with the foreign affairs council - but we will come back to it at the end of january - and the concerns that honourable members have made have resonated and echoed with the concerns which have been raised with me from a variety of different sources, not least from some of the member states and some of the ministers who have been most concerned about these issues. i want to make it clear that i did, in fact, talk about christianity. i began by expressing the reasons i had for specifically going to bethlehem, and that was to recognise that although i was in the middle east, i was also in the heart, in a sense, of many religions - specifically on the eve of the orthodox christmas. that was a very powerful statement in itself and it was a very personal and deliberate act to do that. i know that, unfortunately, mr mauro is no longer in his place to hear my reply, but i hope that he is told that i did in my words indeed mention that. i want to just pick up two or three things. a number of honourable members have raised the question of how we use the tools that are available to us to ensure that these issues can be addressed. i want to remind honourable members that almost all of the trade and cooperation agreements which we have concluded since 1995 have included a human rights clause, and that exists in agreements with, i believe now, 134 countries. the principal purpose is to demonstrate the shared commitment to human rights which we have, but it also constitutes the legal basis for sanctions in the event of grave human rights violations. honourable members will remember that in my previous capacity, it was i who raised the issue of 'gsp plus' and sri lanka. you will know that we have taken steps to suspend them from that scheme, specifically on the grounds of issues of human rights. it is very important, as honourable members have said, that we continue to look at the way in which we conclude agreements and the tools at our disposal to do that and to make sure that those levers are pulled if necessary. one of the things that i think will be very interesting as the commission begins to look at the future of the gsp regulation is to see whether aspects of that regulation that concern the ratification and implementation of human rights and conventions could be improved. i also wanted to put the other side of that, which is, of course, the instruments that we use to promote and support democracy in human rights. we are, as honourable members know, supporting projects worldwide in the fight against racism, xenophobia or discrimination on any ground. we have funded anti-discrimination ngos in some 60 countries. therefore, we strike a balance between using the tools at our disposal to ensure that we are able to demonstrate when we feel very strongly that this has been violated, and using those tools - combined with the willingness that we have and the availability that we have - to support those ngos, in particular, those that are active in the field of anti-discrimination. i wanted also to just touch on one other area, and that is the role of the delegations across the world and the role of monitoring what is happening. a number of honourable members indeed raised this as a particular point. i have already said that i think it is really important that we monitor the issues across the world. i was particularly struck by one issue that honourable members talked about in a number of contributions and what, in a sense, has become very much more recognised in recent weeks and months but which nonetheless has been a concern to many honourable members for a very long time: the concern about the way in which religious people, of all kinds of religion, are treated or discriminated against on a regular basis across the world and our need to be mindful and watchful of those issues, not when they become violent - when they become violent, in a sense, we are, of course, bound to act - but before they become violent, too, when this is a regular source of discrimination. i think it is important that we see our delegations across the world as a source of being able to see and recognise the kind of discrimination that honourable members feel 'bubbles below the surface', if i can use that expression, and notify us when they see it. i also think it is important, as i have indicated that we put forward at the last foreign affairs council, that in our human rights work and in the report that we produced, we are also addressing the situation of religious minorities across the world. christianity has played a very important part in our discussions today but many honourable members have pointed out that this also needs to apply in ensuring that we have respect and tolerance for other faiths in everything that we do. i think it will be important to try and get a sense of what is really happening both through our monitoring in our reports and also through our delegations across the world. that i think will give us a greater sense of knowing how then to use the instruments that are available to us, particularly from the commission side; but also a sense of the political will, not just from me, but - as you have rightly pointed out - as parliamentarians you have a strong voice and a strong role in this, together with the member states and the ministers involved in the member states. as i began, i said that i am committed to trying to make sure that we use what we have better, that we monitor carefully what is happening and that we use the political and economic instruments at our disposal to keep this at the heart of our agenda for the future, and i am very grateful for all the contributions. to those whose comments and questions i have not answered: it is not lack of will, i will consider them very carefully, and all of this will feed into the debate that we will have at the foreign affairs council at the end of january. i have received seven motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with rule 110(2) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday, 20 january 2011, at 12:00. written statements (rule 149) innocent people have become victims of a reckless criminal act which has nothing to do with any religion or moral principle. we citizens of the european union support and promote religious freedom and have a duty to emphasise that this must be respected, protected and promoted as one of the basic human rights. indeed, the aim of terrorism, in this whole context, is to cause uproar and conflicts through attacks which the perpetrators try to justify by referring to an underlying religious motive. i would like to stress that terrorism does not have any type of religion. this is precisely the reason why any kind of fundamentalist thinking must be left at the door of mosques, churches and synagogues. the world's religions do not encourage violent attacks. indeed, the people who participate in such attacks should not believe that they are fighting for something. quite the opposite. i believe that they are fighting against morality, fellow human beings and humanity itself. in writing. - the persecution of christians in islamic countries, and some non-islamic countries such as communist china, is a growing and despicable trend. one of the most recent outbursts of anti-christian violence was in alexandria at new year when 25 people were killed and 80 injured in the bombing of a church. the background to this attack has been highlighted to me by the coptic community in london and elsewhere in the uk. they estimate that there were more than 100 attacks on christians in egypt last year, in which many were killed. those responsible are motivated by fundamentalist and extremist islamist ideology. i and the uk independence party, which i represent, do not want an eu foreign policy or an eu foreign minister - currently in the form of baroness ashton. however, since the baroness is in this position, she should take account of the fact that the eu signs deals worth billions of euro with countries that are among the worst persecutors of christians. the eu should use its economic muscle to insist it will not give preferential deals or favourable treatment to those countries that tolerate the persecution of christians. this is the very least it should be expected to do. statistics on religious freedom show that the majority of acts of religious violence have been against christians in recent years. in 2010, the number of attacks on christian communities rose worryingly. unfortunately, many lost lives need to be mourned, resulting from the bloody attacks on the christian communities in nigeria and pakistan, the terrorist attacks against coptic christians in alexandria and the philippines, the jihadi terrorist attacks against assyrian christian families, and the coordinated bomb attacks on christian homes in baghdad. moreover, i repudiate the deplorable persecution of christians by the government of the islamic republic of iran, as well as the reprehensible repression of the activities of the catholic church and other religious communities in vietnam. the european union must renew the commitment it has always shown to the pursuit of religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought, which are fundamental principles of the acquis communautaire. governments have a duty to guarantee these freedoms. therefore, and given the increase in anti-christian violence worldwide, i would argue that the council, the commission and the high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy should take rapid, robust and energetic action to guarantee the defence of religious freedom in the world. all is most definitely not well when it comes to respect for the rights of christians to follow their own religion. last year alone, the european parliament had to respond to violations of christians' human rights exceptionally often. i have been the co-author of three resolutions on related subjects - one on iraq, in particular, the death penalty (including the case of tariq aziz) and attacks against christian communities, adopted on 24 november 2010, one on recent attacks on christian communities, adopted on 20 january 2010, and one on religious freedom in pakistan, adopted on 19 may 2010. this year's events in alexandria are a reminder of the fact that the european parliament called on the egyptian government a year ago to guarantee the coptic christians and the members of other religious communities and minorities the ability to exercise all human rights and fundamental freedoms - including the right to choose and change religion freely - and to prevent any discrimination against such groups. meanwhile, tomorrow, we will hold another debate on the freedom of christians in pakistan. the statistical method is not ideal, but sometimes it allows us to make a better assessment of the scale of a problem. deutsche welle journalists have done some interesting calculations regarding violations of christians' rights; they have calculated that, on average, a christian martyr dies every three minutes somewhere in the world as a result of his or her beliefs. it is truly shocking that such a thing is happening literally before our eyes. as europeans, we try to ensure that everyone in europe can freely practise the religion which allows them to follow their heart and conscience. we also adopt legal regulations which protect citizens from discrimination on the grounds of religious faith. we teach tolerance and equal rights in schools, and we allow immigrants to make free use of their religious symbols. it so happens that we are doing this at the expense of europe's majority religion. our tradition and civilisation draws most extensively of all on its christian roots, and there are more christians among us than adherents of any other religion. i say this also as a representative of a political group which includes the phrase 'christian democrats' in its title. we have no influence over how christians are treated in many countries of the world. however, we can and should ensure freedom of religion for all europeans. we are confronted, regrettably, with a global attack on christianity. the data speak for themselves: last year, 75% of violent attacks motivated by religion were carried out against christians. the problem becomes a political one, however, when religious differences are used as a means to prevent growth and development. the hatred fostered by these terrorist attacks is designed precisely to destabilise the social and political system in the countries where the violence occurs. given the european union's role of promoting respect for human rights and for civil and democratic freedoms and, above all, given its christian origins and roots, it has a duty in all this to react firmly by condemning all forms of extremism and promoting dialogue, religious freedom, mutual respect among communities, and tolerance. i hope, however, that the eu will go further than that and include the clause on upholding freedom of religion in all economic agreements it signs with other countries, and that penalties will be imposed on countries that violate this clause. we should not be shy or reticent about the european union's duty to uphold the freedom to profess one's religion. in view of the undeniable exacerbation of violence against christians in various parts of the world, the eu urgently needs to take a clear stance against any violation of the right to the freedom to profess one's religious faith. the subject of religious freedom must be integrated in european policies, not least by including a binding clause on respect for religious freedom in our agreements with other countries. these principles are europe's banner, and we cannot make exceptions to them under any circumstances. christians are currently persecuted in over 70 countries around the world. this means that the fundamental human right to religious freedom is violated in every third country. the european union has started to realise that persecution on religious grounds is a serious violation of human dignity and freedom. the debate on religious freedoms and the situation of christians, which has been going on in parliament for several months now, is also significant in formal terms, since the treaty of lisbon strengthened the position of churches in european debate, and they now have the right to be official partners in dialogue with the european commission. the european parliament, which acts as a guardian of human rights, should find ways to defend freedom of religion around the world as quickly as possible. bearing in mind the recent violence against christian minorities in certain middle eastern, african and asian countries, i believe that it would be a good idea to raise this issue at the forthcoming eu foreign affairs council and, together with the eu high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, to draft specific instruments to protect the christian community. the european parliament should call on countries where persecution takes place to take effective steps to protect religious minorities, despite the difficulties involved in doing so. we should therefore also start to take the matter of religious freedom seriously when the eu signs agreements on cooperation with third countries.

3. press freedom in kenya the next item is the debate on six motions for resolutions on press freedom in kenya. author. - mr president, freedom of the press is synonymous with freedom of expression and democracy. this does not, of course, apply in an ideal fashion in our society, in which media barons as well as government and political party media interference are not unheard of, but is rather prominent in some western countries, not excluding the usa and some eu member states. however, at least as far as legislation is concerned, the media in our societies are given the theoretical protection of the law they need to function as near properly as possible. this is where we beg to differ with the kenyan government, which is introducing legislative measures that can be used for possible repression and persecution of the press by the state. we therefore call on the kenyan authorities to reconsider their stance on the matter and give their mass media the legislative freedom they need in order to try, at least, to function as democratically as possible. the kenyan government must understand and accept that the protection of the press is essential for their country's road to betterment of living standards for its citizens. we hope and trust that the plea we have made through this resolution will not be seen as interference but as friendly advice to the government of kenya, that it will be taken seriously into consideration and that there will be wiser reconsideration of what they have been doing so far. mr president, kenya has been in the throes of a serious political crisis for a long time. the current president, mr kibaki, is implementing measures which are clearly intended to restrict the freedom of speech and of the press. on 2 january 2009, he violated the provisions of the declaration of human rights and the african charter of human rights by sanctioning amendments to what is known as the kenya communications bill of 1998, giving the national authorities new rights, including the right to dismantle broadcasting and communications equipment, as well as to control and alter the content of mass media publications. the international community unanimously declared this to be a further step towards media censorship in kenya. moreover, in spite of earlier commitments arising from agreements signed to establish kenya's grand coalition government, the president failed to consult the prime minister in office regarding either this decision or any further decisions. this exacerbated the crisis in kenya, which had already lasted for over a year and which had claimed around 1 000 victims and left 350 000 people homeless. the european union cannot stand by while fundamental freedoms are being blatantly violated. we should welcome the kenyan president's assurances that the amendments will be revised and that all political powers will be consulted on this matter, in order to give these amendments a new, democratic quality and ensure the broad support of kenyan society. the european union must support these measures and monitor them in detail, fostering pluralism during the process of building a civil society. at the same time, the kenyan authorities should take stronger action to introduce a state of normality in the country, including the creation of a special committee, consisting of local and international experts, to punish those guilty of violence and of causing the crisis last year. there is a chance that these measures will stabilise the internal situation and prevent a humanitarian disaster, which inevitably threatens this eastern african country with a population of ten million. author. - mr president, i regret the signing of the kenya communications (amendment) bill by president kibaki. this act disregards the rights to freedom of expression and press freedom as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and echoed by other international conventions, including the african charter on human and peoples' rights. this act would give considerable powers to the kenyan information minister to raid media houses deemed to be a threat to national security and to dismantle broadcasting equipment. the act will also give the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by electronic and print media respectively. i welcome, however, president kibaki's recent move to revise this media law and his gesture to consider amendments to legislation proposed by members of the media. freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, as stated in article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights. i call on the kenyan government to initiate a stakeholder consultation in order to build consensus on how to better regulate the communications industry without interfering with press freedom and without infringing rights contained within the universal declaration. finally, i would like to underline the need to adjust the culture of impunity in kenya in order to bring those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago to justice. i call for the setting-up of an independent commission consisting of local and international legal experts who would carry out investigations and prosecutions into the violent events following the flawed elections in december 2007. mr president, kenya has a violent past. after the second world war, when europe slowly came to accept that the independence of african countries was eventually inevitable, kenya was emphatically excluded, as was the country we now know as zimbabwe. according to colonial rulers, there were too many foreign colonists and too many foreign economic interests in those countries to be able to leave them in the hands of the predominantly black populations. unlike other west african countries, independence in kenya did not come about peacefully, but only following a protracted and violent struggle by the independence movement mau mau. this need for a violent struggle has laid the foundations for continued violence and intimidation. the victors mainly belong to one major tribe, the kikuyu. other population groups have always been kept in opposition, where necessary on the strength of rigged election results. the latest presidential elections proved once again that a non-kikuyu cannot become president, not even if the majority of voters vote for him. thanks to a compromise, the opposition candidate is now prime minister and domestic peace seems to be restored. while, out of the two african countries with rigged presidential elections, zimbabwe is considered the country with the bad compromise, kenya has been praised as the country with the good compromise. for years, western europe and america considered kenya to be a major success story. it was a country with relative prosperity, freedom for international businesses, friendship with the west and attention for tourists. kenya has now lost that success-story image. a food shortage and a new press law have made for renewed tension. this food shortage is partly attributable to the fact that the president, in exchange for the construction of the port, has leased out 40 000 hectares of farm land to the oil state qatar for food supplies. the press law appears to be a lever which the president uses to restrict the power of the coalition government and to eliminate critical opponents. this is all the more shocking, given that this law came about without the prime minister even being consulted. the coalition compromise between the president and the prime minister is in jeopardy if the president is given the capability of bypassing the prime minister, restricting the role of the government and protecting his own role against the critical press. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - mr president, until last year's violence, kenya had a reputation as one of africa's politically more stable countries and had a tradition of a relatively free and robust press. president kibaki needs to realise that political stability and a free press are mutually reinforcing. this restriction of freedom of speech, as proposed, is unbecoming for a country led by a man who came to power promising a new era of openness and transparency. unfortunately, it seems that many senior politicians in kenya have still not developed a sufficiently thick skin to handle the inevitable barbs of a free press and a democracy. i hope that president kibaki will take our advice and change his mind. that would reassure us of kenya's purported commitment to a free society under a power-sharing coalition government. it would also strengthen kenya's case for moral authority and leadership in an unstable region. i welcome the president's pledge now to consider amendments to this bill and to consult more widely with the media. given that prime minister raila odinga and the odm, his party, are vigorously opposed to this legislation, it is also vital for the stability of the government that it does not become even more of an inflammatory and divisive political issue. on behalf of the pse group. - mr president, i am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this joint motion for a resolution on press freedom in kenya. a year ago, like many others, i was dismayed and disappointed that, after flawed presidential elections in kenya, street demonstrations led to riots and ethnic clashes that spread across the country, killing more than a thousand people and leaving another 350 000 people homeless. those responsible for the post-election violence a year ago must be brought to justice and a period of reconciliation and tolerance is now essential for kenya. in this context, it is very bad news that, on friday 2 january 2009, president kibaki signed the kenya communications (amendment) bill 2008, which amends the kenya communications act of 1998. this bill flies in the face of press freedom and disregards international conventions signed up to by the kenyan government. two sections effectively introduce direct media censorship by the government. section 88 gives the information minister considerable powers to raid and dismantle broadcasting equipment from a media house that is deemed to be a threat to national security. section 46 gives the state the power to regulate contents to be aired and published by both electronic and print media. within kenya, the bill has been opposed by journalists, by prime minister odinga and by the odm, and its passing highlights a serious lack of consultation within the current grand coalition. i regret the passing of this bill and urge that any revision of the media law takes account of the many, many reservations expressed. mr president, as a member of solidarno, and someone who has experienced martial law in poland, i know that freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. the kenyan government signed and ratified the universal declaration of human rights and other international conventions, including the african charter on human and peoples' rights. these conventions include the right to freedom of speech. today, the eastern africa journalists association informs us that the government intends to introduce censorship in kenya. i hope that president kibaki will refrain from any amendments to legislation concerning the media, which could infringe the freedom of speech. i call on the kenyan authorities to relinquish their plans to introduce censorship, to build consensus in order to foster the freedom of the press and the public communications sector. i hope that the rights of religious and ethnic minorities will be respected in kenya. a year ago, over a thousand people died during protests linked to the elections and 350 000 people fled their homes. i hope that those responsible for these incidents will be justly punished. (pl) mr president, even if it is true that some of the private media in kenya helped to instigate riots following the emotional election campaign, this is no justification for restricting the freedom of speech. the attack on the freedom of the press in kenya also involved the violation of the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. it is worth stressing that the new legislation was adopted by 25 out of the 220 members of parliament. this is an utterly inconceivable situation. what is worse is that, until that point, kenya had boasted one of the most developed and pluralistic press networks in the whole of africa. this will change after the new legislation is implemented, which will allow special services to interfere in the activities of the media, close down editorial sections and control the printed or spoken word. restricting the freedom of the media sector in the name of national security can only have the opposite effect to the one intended. (lt) why are we concerned with freedom of the press in kenya? why is the european parliament debating this issue as a case of human rights violation as a matter of urgency? firstly because freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, as laid down in article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights, to which kenya is a signatory. therefore, it, like other signatory countries, must not only observe its spirit, but follow it to the letter. the demonstrations which took place almost a year ago after the presidential elections in kenya and grew into riots and ethnic conflict, in which more than 1 000 people were killed and tens of thousands were left homeless, is the strongest argument for not allowing similar events to be repeated. therefore, the kenyan government and president should act together and honour their own obligations to respect freedom of the press, speech and assembly. in addition - and this is particularly important - they should fight impunity and call to account those who are responsible for the riots which took place a year ago. mr president, while we are debating humanitarian issues and freedom of the press in third countries, i take the opportunity to inform the house that, according to media reports from gaza, the offices of the un which were bombarded earlier on today by the israeli forces are completely ablaze and all the un humanitarian aid which was stored there, much of it sent by the eu, has been completely destroyed. the same fate has befallen the offices of reuters and of other international journalists in gaza. i wish to record that i share the view of the un secretary-general, mr ban ki-moon, currently in israel, who is reportedly completely outraged at the israeli authorities. mr matsakis, thank you for this declaration, but i am not supposed, in theory, to accept it because the rules require that when you ask to speak by catching my eye, it must be on the subject under discussion, which is, i would remind you, the freedom of the press in kenya, even though the events to which you have referred are indeed dramatic, as everybody agrees. (pl) mr president, the european parliament's resolution on press freedom in kenya highlights an important issue. dictatorships begin with restrictions on the freedom of the press and information, as well as civil rights. i hope that this process will be halted by international and internal action. i think that president kibaki and prime minister odinga will take appropriate action. the resolution, which i support, will certainly help the process of democratisation in kenya. (pl) mr president, during the communist period, both in poland and in other countries, one of the provisions of the criminal code stipulated that any person disseminating information that could lead to civil disorder would be punished. this kind of provision was exceptionally useful as a stick for beating not only individuals but also, and above all, the press. today, we see similar intentions behind the legislative endeavours in kenya. one cannot state, as an argument or a threat, that the press must be muzzled as it might cause trouble in the country. that is no justification or explanation for this kind of censorship. the press is there to provide people with information, which is a real cornerstone of democracy. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to begin by emphasising that freedom of expression, including television and radio, is one of the pillars on which the eu rests. this freedom is among the key european values and it cannot be called into question. the 'communication act' of 2008 which became law in kenya on 2 january 2009, includes some points which, in our opinion, might encroach upon media freedom. we therefore noticed with satisfaction the recent decision of president kibaki on 7 january to revise some disputed sections of this act. we are delighted that mr kibaki authorised the minister for information and communications and the attorney general to meet with media representatives in order to propose changes to this law that would eliminate these fears. freedom of expression and freedom of the press form part of public affairs administration in the broadest sense of the term and this, in itself, is at the centre of eu development strategy. i frankly take the view that a free and responsible press is an essential precondition for democracy and the legal state, which are integral components for sustainable development. only on the basis of dialogue will the media and the kenyan government be able to develop a common understanding and build mutual respect. thus, the european commission looks forward with interest to the results of the various meetings which will take place in kenya between the parties involved and it hopes that relevant parties will reach agreement on appropriate recommendations for proposals to amend the media law. as far as the post-election violence is concerned, the commission welcomes the report of the investigative commission on the violence (the waki report). it appreciates the undertaking of the kenyan government to implement the report recommendations, including the establishment of a special tribunal to ensure that the people responsible for the violence will have to answer for their acts. the debate is closed. the vote will take place immediately. written statements (rule 142) at the start of 2009, democracy in kenya suffered in the form of a blow against the freedom of the press. president mwai kibaki has signed a law, although he has subsequently had a change of heart, which grants the kenyan authorities the right to carry out raids on editorial offices, tap journalists' telephone calls and check the content of broadcasts on the grounds of 'national security'. as if these abuses were not enough, the law also stipulates huge fines and terms of imprisonment for reporters found guilty of 'anti-government' practices. although president kibaki has ordered these provisions to be amended a week later, we are not aware as to what these 'amendments' envisage. this law, in its initial form, is a reminder of the dark days of dictatorship, when the kenyan press was brought to its knees. kenya is currently a democracy and i firmly believe that no one, president kibaki included, wants to return to those times. an attack against press freedom is an attack against democracy. the international community must continue to put pressure on the kenyan authorities to treat civil liberties responsibly, especially press freedom. ladies and gentlemen, kenya is acting in contravention of the universal declaration of human rights and the african charter on human and peoples' rights. such fundamental pillars of democracy as freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not respected. the free press is in serious danger. state control and censorship were sections of a draft amendment to a communications bill. through the ill-considered action of president kibaki, these have now become law. it is unheard of that the government should possess the right to organise raids on the editorial offices of newspapers and broadcasters and check what is broadcast and in what form. that is far from a democratic society. it is essential that the existing legal provisions should be amended. it is possible to regulate the press without endangering freedom of speech and the freedom of the press. this must be done as soon as possible.

cross-border collective copyright management (debate) the next item is the debate on the oral question to the commission on the follow-up of the ep resolution on cross-border collective copyright management (lvai report, by giuseppe gargani, on behalf of the committee on legal affairs - b6-0381/2007). author. - (fr) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, on 13 march 2007, in plenary session, the european parliament adopted a resolution on the commission's recommendation of 18 october 2005 on collective cross-border management of copyright and related rights for legitimate online music services. in that resolution, parliament invited the commission to make it clear that the 2005 recommendation applied exclusively to online sales of music recordings, and to present as soon as possible - after consulting closely with interested parties - a proposal for a flexible framework directive to be adopted by parliament and the council in codecision, with a view to regulating the collective management of copyright and related rights as regards cross-border online music services, while taking account of the specificity of the digital era and safeguarding european cultural diversity. parliament also stressed that the proposed directive should not in any way undermine the competitiveness of creative businesses, the effectiveness of the services provided by collective rights managers (crms) or the competitiveness of user businesses - in particular small right-holders and users - and that it should, on the other hand, guarantee right-holders a high degree of protection and equal treatment; ensure that the relevant legal provisions had a real, significant and adequate impact; emphasise the use of alternative dispute resolution; provide for democratic, transparent and accountable governance in crms; promote creativity and cultural diversity; allow only fair and controlled competition without territorial restrictions, but with the necessary and suitable qualitative criteria; take into account the interests of users and of the market; satisfy the future needs of an online market; and foster the development of legitimate online music services. today the european parliament is asking the commission what steps it has taken towards meeting the expectations enshrined in that resolution. member of the commission. - mr president, i would like to thank the european parliament for the interest expressed in the cross-border management of music rights and the 2005 recommendation on online music. the commission's 2005 online music recommendation aims to allow the music market in europe to develop in the digital environment. it aims to create a framework in which the best new online licensing model will emerge by agreement between the market players. this should allow authors, composers and music publishers to get a fair share of the distribution of their online works. the recommendation does not prescribe a particular eu licensing model, and leaves implementation of its principles to the market. exactly two years after adoption of the recommendation, the commission is assessing the development of online licensing practices in the music sector in europe. stakeholders were invited to comment on emerging online licensing trends by 1 july 2007. the commission received 88 replies from interested parties, such as collecting societies, authors, creators and music users in member states. the process of reviewing the submissions is still ongoing. only after a thorough examination will the commission assess further policy steps regarding the online operations of collecting societies. the submissions analysed so far show that most stakeholders do not see the need for a framework directive, and prefer market-based solutions to regulatory intervention. on the question of whether the 2005 recommendation is limited to online sales of some recordings, the commission would like to point out that the principles on transparency and governance set out in the recommendation should not be limited to online music sales and should apply to all the activities of collecting societies. to conclude, while the online market for music is still in flux, legislating in favour of a particular licensing model would appear premature. the commission will monitor developments and report back to parliament and the council as foreseen in the recommendation. any follow-up, if necessary, will be closely coordinated with the european parliament and the council. mr president, on 13 march 2007 the european parliament passed a resolution on collective cross-border management of copyright. in its resolution, parliament called on the commission to waste no time in presenting a proposal for a framework directive regulating collective cross-border management of copyright and related intellectual property rights for legitimate online music services. it also called on the commission to make it clear that the 2005 recommendation in this area applies exclusively to online sales of music recordings. can the commission update parliament on the measures it has taken to date, in response to parliament's requests? can the commission inform parliament whether it is following the same guidelines and instructions issued by president barroso on the unified, democratic, rapid development of a united europe? when will the commission respect parliament's procedural rules and the position adopted by the majority of its 785 members? the 13 march resolution reflects the european parliament's clear position on cross-border collective management of copyright. the commission's recommendation was the first step towards future convergence of the various practices in the 27 member states. on behalf of the committee on culture and education, i myself argued, in my opinion for to the competent committee, in favour of the importance of ensuring equal treatment for all right-holders, whether writers, composers, editors, record producers or performers. in other words, this is an issue concerning millions of right-holders throughout europe. the situation today, as regards online services is not considered to be effective enough, either for rights users, or for right-holders. we have thus all worked to present the commission and the council with the proposals that we believe would bring about a change for the better in the collective management of copyright. the close cooperation between rights managers must be retained for the benefit of all parties. piracy remains the greatest problem facing the music industry today. three of the reasons for the spread of piracy internationally are the technological facilities for low-cost illegal copying, unfavourable economic conditions and the expansion of the internet. we shall all have to bear in mind that the spread of music piracy has the greatest impact on small countries where the music industry is mainly of a local and regional nature. in specific terms, piracy entails a shrinkage of the legal music market and results in a decline in legal sales; it therefore affects the viability of the national music recording industry. piracy certainly entails copyright losses for composers and songwriters, but it also deprives the state of income tax and vat. the fight against piracy must therefore be included among the commission's initial aims in the possible legislative proposal on collective management of copyright. i would therefore like to call upon the commission to take steps, as soon as possible, to fulfil parliament's requests and to present a proposal for a framework directive with a view to regulating the collective cross-border management of copyright. lastly, as i have always said, music is not a commodity, and it is the duty of us all to protect and strengthen creativity in europe. a directive that will in all likelihood not come into force until 2010 is a disaster for millions of artists in the eu. on behalf of the pse group. - (hu) thank you very much. i would like to emphasise that this is about an extraordinarily important area, since income from goods and services protected by copyright and related rights accounts for 5-7% of the european union's gdp. this highlights the importance of such rights being managed appropriately. as you know, in 2005 the european commission adopted a recommendation on the cross-border management of legitimate online music services. at the time, commissioner mccreevy described the recommendation as 'a "soft-law instrument" designed to give the market a chance to move in the right direction'. the recommendation has far-reaching consequences for the copyrights market and major players in the market are already acting on the basis of it. it clearly goes further than merely interpreting and supplementing existing rules and its impact has all the characteristics of a full regulatory initiative. at the time, a lot of fear took hold in connection with this recommendation, including the fact that it would result in uncontrollable competition and that market forces would be concentrated in the hands of a few big management societies, and monopolies would be created. this is precisely why i thought that i should make a recommendation in an own-initiative report for the online music market to be regulated in a different way. all the same, the recommendation - which the commission adopted - deprived the european parliament and the member states of the opportunity to have any significant influence on the changes affecting competition and cultural diversity in europe. it is precisely for this reason that i have been able to win the support of the whole parliament and all the political parties for my report, in the interests of bringing to fruition a decision-making triangle, so that parliament cannot be left out of the legislation of such an important area, and i have recommended that the commission draw up a framework directive. in my opinion, this recommended directive must meet the following requirements: it must guarantee right-holders a high degree of protection and equal treatment. it must be based on solidarity between right-holders and on an appropriate, fair balance among management societies. it must provide for democratic, transparent and accountable governance in management societies, including organisational structuring, transparency, representation, rules relating to copyright and production, and accounting, through minimum standards. comprehensive transparency must be ensured in collective management societies. creativity and cultural diversity must be promoted. fair and controlled competition can be allowed, without territorial restrictions, but with the necessary and suitable qualitative criteria for the collective management of copyright and the preservation of the value of the rights. a high degree of legal certainty must be provided for users, and the availability of the global repertoire must be preserved. we, or i, therefore ask you to think about whether a directive would be necessary for regulating this important area. (es) mr president, commissioner borg's reply to the question put by mr dumitrescu fills me with concern: the commissioner spoke of leaving the matter in the market's hands. but what is it we are talking about? we are talking about rights which have taken two centuries to evolve: rights of creators, authors, composers, artistes. and now we are being told that those rights are to be regulated by the market: by what market? the market of thieves, the market of people who have divested producers and creators of their intellectual property by using new means of communication? what sort of rights are we talking about? rights are regulated by public bodies; specifically in the european arena we have institutions, namely the commission, the council and parliament: the commission with its power of initiative, the council and parliament through the codecision procedure. it seems to me that now is not the time to follow a path which will lead to the disappearance of intellectual property. and if intellectual property disappears, intellectual creation disappears as well. some of the wise men and women who talk to us today about the advantages of the information society say well, yes, composers and authors can wander the streets giving concerts like in the middle ages. are we going to reduce our authors to medieval minstrels who can play in the middle of the street, with a cap on the floor hoping someone will give them alms? i think now is the time for the institutions of the european union to react vigorously to defend this european tradition; its political essence is very important and it is vital for the maintenance of intellectual creativity. only through societies of authors, the collective management of those societies, can intellectual property rights and the creation of intellectual property be defended today, right now, against the real thieves in the form of broadcasting companies which use intellectual creativity for their own benefit. (pl) mr president, the response to the commission's recommendation on collective cross-border management of copyright for legitimate online music services was provided by parliament's resolution that a framework directive be introduced to regulate this issue. however, the commission did not carry out the necessary and wide-ranging stakeholder consultation that was required, including with parliament, which was a breach of democratic procedures. it is completely unacceptable to ignore the institutional triangle and instead apply the so-called soft law approach without prior consultation and without the formal involvement of parliament and the council in the matter. this recommendation, which aims in practice to create more freedom for copyright owners to select the institution that provides collective management, depending on requirements, would have far-reaching consequences for the copyright and related markets and would create a potential threat not just to competition rules, but also to cultural diversity. as a result, market power would be concentrated in the hands of a few of the largest entities that will then be able to bypass the network of bilateral agreements and grant licences to the whole european market. it is worth remembering that about 5-7% of the eu's gdp comes from the sale of goods or services that are protected by copyright and similar laws. this fact illustrates even more how important is proper management of the relevant rights, as well as the need to strengthen their position in the current digital era. while respecting the principles of competition, we should avoid reducing the income of composers, at the same time providing users of musical works with an eu-wide licence that corresponds to the business model of the future. with this in mind the commission should, as soon as possible, submit a proposal for an appropriate instrument that would be legally binding on entities working in this area. member of the commission. - mr president, first of all i would like to thank all the members who spoke for their comments, which i will certainly convey to my colleague, commissioner mccreevy. if i can pick up on a number of points that have been raised: regarding the need for legislative intervention, let me say that the 2005 commission recommendation on online music licensing has already brought about significant progress in the marketplace. the recommendation has given collecting societies in europe an incentive to set up eu-wide licensing platforms that make their repertoire available for online music shops across europe. let me cite three relevant examples. the uk and german societies have set up a platform for eu-wide licensing of the emi repertoire, celas. the uk and the spanish societies are cooperating on a platform that will manage the anglo-hispanic repertoire at eu level, and the french and spanish societies have announced a joint licensing platform that grants eu-wide access to the french-hispanic repertoire. in these circumstances, the commission does not see the need for any premature legislative intervention. i would also like to say that the 2005 commission recommendation on online licensing has already brought about significant progress in the marketplace. the recommendation has encouraged collecting societies in europe to set up eu-wide licensing platforms that make their repertoire available for online music shops across europe. i refer to the three examples i have just mentioned. the celas joint venture alone is in fact in a position to license approximately 25 % of all musical works to any european online music retailer, such as itunes, sony's connect or emusic, in a single transaction. on the question of cultural diversity, let me state that our recommendation is not detrimental to cultural diversity. there are clear indications that the new platforms for anglo-american, french or spanish music are open platforms. these platforms can include other music publishers' repertoires or the entire repertoire of existing societies. national collecting societies would not disappear; authors would still be members of local collecting societies and revenues would still be distributed through collecting societies affiliated to the new licensing platforms. regarding the issue of rights, i would like to underline that there is no reason to think that this multiterritorial licensing model is bad either for cultural diversity or for the rights of artists, while it is good for the rightholders, who get more money than under the old territorial model. cultural diversity and the rights of artists are also about giving authors more money so that they can continue to create. let me make one last point. the commission actively encourages the development of an own online licensing market for music. in this vein, the commission will closely monitor developments in this emerging market and, in doing so, the commission will carefully consider the issues raised in the lvai report of 5 march 2007. if, between now and 2010, we observe, for example, that monopolistic licensing structures are emerging on the internet, that the repertoire available on the internet does not adequately reflect europe's cultural diversity and that the marketplace alone is not delivering eu licensing structures that are adapted to the internet era, then the commission will consider adequate alternative means for reaching those objectives. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday, 29 november in brussels. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - (fr) the purpose of mr dumitrescu's question is to remind the commission of its responsibilities. through its recommendation of september 2005 and its decision to call into question the territorial competence of crms, the commission has upset the relationship between rights-holders and national collecting societies - and this has happened outside the context of any legislation or harmonisation measures. under the guise of adaptation to the digital environment, the commission has introduced confusion into the european system of author's rights and related rights. that in turn has encouraged concentration and a format-based approach, to the detriment of artists and to the advantage of industrialists and other economic operators. the commission urgently needs to stop taking random initiatives without serious assessment of their impact; it needs to examine the situation in all the arts and cultural sectors, in conjunction with all the stakeholders, and to adopt a comprehensive policy that will reflect the requirements of cultural diversity, as well as europe's values and the lisbon strategy objectives based on the knowledge and innovation economy; and it needs to present parliament and the council with coherent draft directives respecting the principles that i have mentioned.

ecb annual report for 2008 - report on the 2009 annual statement on the euro area and public finances (debate) the next item is the joint debate on the following: the report by mr scicluna, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the ecb annual report for 2008, and the report by mr giegold, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the 2009 annual statement on the euro area and public finances -. rapporteur. - mr president, the last two years have certainly been the most challenging for the ecb, in its role as guardian of financial and price stability, since its inception. my report on the ecb's 2008 annual report was drafted in this context. the report focuses on the ecb's continued response to the crisis, its exit strategy proposals, the increasing imbalances within the eurozone, the reform of the eu's financial architecture and, finally, issues related to the governance and accountability of this institution. i hope that a good balance has been found. the financial and economic crisis has seen the worst global economic decline since the 1930s. after a relatively benign period of economic growth enjoyed across most of europe, most member states have had their economies stress-tested, not through a simulated model but in real time and with painfully real consequences. the result has been gdp growth of a meagre 0.7% in 2008, followed by a 4% contraction in 2009. meanwhile, member states across the eu have forecast a very sluggish and uneven return to growth in 2010 and 2011. most member states are experiencing rising budgetary deficits and debts. the commission's economic forecast in autumn 2009 predicted average budget deficits across the eurozone of 6.4% and average government debts of 78.2%, figures which, in turn, are both expected to increase in 2010. it will take years for these figures, brought about by the financial and economic crisis, to return to the pre-crisis levels. i believe that the ecb has responded fairly well to the crisis. the primary function of the ecb is to maintain price stability. although inflation was far above the ecb's self-imposed ceiling when it peaked at 4% in june and july 2008, inflation rates have since tumbled. the ecb has also steadily cut interest rates from a peak of 4.25% in june 2008 down to the current rate of 1% in may 2009, in a bid to reinvigorate lending and to kick-start the european economy. the ecb's additional role during the crisis has been to expand liquidity provisions through the use of non-standard measures. without such financial life-support, many financial institutions holding the savings and pensions of many european citizens would undoubtedly have collapsed. of course, it could be suggested that the ecb's interest rate cuts were not as radical as those taken by the likes of the us federal reserve or the bank of england. similarly, while the ecb's massive cash injections have kept many institutions from collapse, the reality is that many banks have not passed on the liquidity to customers, particularly to the detriment of the small and medium-sized businesses on whom economic recovery rests. instead, many banks have used the liquidity to buttress their own position. to justified public revulsion, it has allowed them to make bonus payments as well. i also cannot avoid making a quick reference to the policy responses needed to the current fiscal imbalances, a subject which is surrounded by a lot of confusion and which requires timely and decisive action. however, i will leave it to my colleagues here perhaps to amplify on this. like previous rapporteurs, i believe that the dialogue between this parliament and the ecb is constructive and is developing positively. this is something to build upon. i believe that parliament should be more closely involved in the appointments of the ecb executive board members - including the next president of the ecb - by following the precedent that has recently been set by the procedure taken for the appointment of the new vice-president of the institution. the ecb is accountable to the citizens of europe through the european parliament. we must strengthen that accountability. above all, the crisis has demonstrated that markets left unregulated do not always self-correct and are prone to systemic risk. for this reason, it is important to support and complete the comprehensive set of reforms to the financial architecture of the eu and, in particular, the establishment of a european systemic risk board, a body designed to act as a watchdog, giving an early warning of any systemic risks of instability in the financial. (the president cut off the speaker) mr president, the report on the 2009 annual statement on the euro area and public finance was drafted during a period when the euro area was facing huge challenges and this period has not yet come to an end. the economic situation is a matter of major concern for the citizens of europe and for all of us. at this time, the report was adopted by the committee on economic and monetary affairs in a highly cooperative spirit and by a large majority. i would like to present the report against this background. on the one hand, it is very clear, both from the relevant commission proposal and from the recommendations which parliament and the committee on economic and monetary affairs are presenting here in the plenary session, that the economic situation must be stabilised. on the other hand, the crisis, which has achieved a certain level of stability as the growth figures have recovered slightly, has entered a second phase represented by huge public budget deficits. this is the price which we have to pay in order to emerge from the crisis. the report's message in this respect is very clear. we must return to the path taken by the stability and growth pact as quickly as possible. we cannot pass on this level of debt to our children and grandchildren. however, the report also states very clearly that the rules in the stability and growth pact are not enough. there are no corresponding measures for improved coordination in the euro area and it is important to resolve the imbalances within the euro area and increase the coordination of budgetary and fiscal policy. those with responsibility for these areas in the euro area are now faced with the significant challenge of finding a responsible solution for these problems. this means that it is out of the question for every country to continue to insist on its individual privileges against a background of parochial politics. the commission, in particular, and also the euro area countries, have a huge responsibility for introducing the necessary measures in this situation. i would like to summarise briefly our proposals in this respect. firstly, we need effective instruments for economic coordination. secondly, the structural dependency of the euro area on finite resources must be brought to an end. we cannot afford to slip back into recession the next time that there is a rise in oil and resource prices, which is already under way. thirdly, it is essential that the financial markets are effectively regulated after this crisis. however, we are currently seeing individual member states ensuring that sensible proposals are not even being made by central authorities, such as supervisory bodies. fourthly, it is unacceptable that in a crisis of this kind the focus is not on the objective of social cohesion, contrary to the values of the european union. instead, individual member states are expected to use ridiculous interest rates in order to finance their debts. this is why we are calling in the report for eurobonds or similar measures to be applied, in order to help the weaker member states by means of solidarity. most importantly, the necessary changes to fiscal policy must not be made at the expense of mass purchasing power. the simplest solution which would allow us to make good progress in this area is effective cooperation in the field of taxes. at long last, the commission must quickly come up with some proposals for a common consolidated corporate tax base. the report also calls for the implementation of a country-by-country reporting system for corporate income. we are asking you to submit a corresponding proposal. in general, the principle of tax cooperation must take priority over tax competition, in particular, in the context of the work done by mr monti and the reinvigoration of the internal market. we need you to come up with effective proposals so that we do not come out of this crisis with even higher debts. strong economic cooperation between the member states will help us to ensure that we do not leave behind debts for our children, but instead a euro area in which the countries cooperate with one another rather than being dragged down by competition. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am pleased to be here with you on the occasion of the debate on the resolution concerning the european central bank annual report for 2008. as a result of the parliamentary elections last year, this year's debate has been postponed for a long period. however, this gives me the opportunity to discuss the current situation at the end of the debate. (fr) mr president, as you know, the european central bank welcomes the very close links with parliament, which incidentally go far beyond the obligations provided for by the treaty. over the years, we have established very fruitful dialogue, and i would say that the excellent reports that we have just heard from mr scicluna and mr giegold are further evidence of this. today, in my statement, i will briefly review the economic developments observed in the past and the monetary policy measures taken by the european central bank. then i will address a few points that were raised in the proposal for a resolution and i will say a few words about the current situation. first, on the economic developments and monetary policy over the past year. in 2009, as was said very eloquently by mr scicluna, the european central bank was operating in an environment that future economic historians are likely to describe as the most difficult one for advanced economies since the second world war. following the profound intensification of the financial crisis in the autumn of 2008, 2009 started with a continued synchronised freefall in economic activity worldwide. until around april last year, economic activity was declining, month after month. during this period, the trade-mark which was vital for maintaining confidence - and it was the trade-mark of the ecb - was the ability to take the immediate and exceptional decisions that were necessary whilst, at the same time, remaining inflexibly attached to our primary objective of maintaining price stability in the medium term. overall, our non-standard monetary policy measures, which are known collectively as enhanced credit support, have served, we trust, the euro area economy well. they have supported the functioning of the money market, contributed to improving financing conditions and allowed for a better flow of credit to the real economy than could have been achieved through interest rate reductions alone. by and large, banks have been passing on the sharply lower key ecb interest rates to households and businesses. the guiding principle is that, to the extent that the situation returns to normal, keeping these measures in place for longer than required risks changing the behaviour of financial market participants in an undesirable manner, and we do not wish to breed dependency. this is why, in december 2009, we began to gradually phase out some of our extraordinary liquidity measures, taking account of improvements in financial markets. in particular, we scaled back the number, frequency and maturity of longer-term refinancing operations. at the same time, we have committed to maintaining fully accommodating liquidity support to the euro area banking system until at least october this year. the governing council is of the opinion that the current monetary policy stance is appropriate, and that the continued firm anchoring of inflation expectations bodes well for price stability in the medium term. let me now turn to some of the issues you raise in the resolution and which were mentioned in the report. on the issues of accountability and transparency, we very much appreciate the regular dialogue with the european parliament and the constructive spirit with which this exchange is conducted. i therefore welcome the repeated support by the committee on economic and monetary affairs for our quarterly monetary dialogue. i think, as it was said again very eloquently by the rapporteur, we are accountable to the european people, which means to parliament. we consider the ecb to be one of the world's most transparent central banks. our practice of holding a press conference immediately after the governing council meeting on monetary policy each month remains a pioneering initiative that has not yet been replicated by our major sister institutions. with the publication of our comprehensive introductory statement in real time, we explain policy decisions and their underlying rationale. during the crisis, as you know, we have further intensified our communication efforts and thereby helped to smooth financial market reactions, to build confidence and lay the foundations for recovery. you have also requested the views of the ecb on the establishment of a clearing house for instruments such as credit default swaps (cdss) within the euro area. i would like to say that the robustness of euro-denominated cds markets is of direct relevance for the eurosystem as regards control over its currency and financial stability in the euro area. central counterparty clearing is very important, not only for delivering transparency, but also for diversifying and sharing risk exposures and reducing the incentives to take excessive risks. certain financial instruments which were introduced for hedging should not be misused for speculation. regulators should be able to undertake effective investigations into possible improper conduct, and there it seems to me that we are very much in line with parliament's concerns. let me say just a word on the outlook for emu during challenging times. an economic recovery is in progress, but this does not mean that the crisis is over. for one thing, we know that the pace of recovery will be uneven and we cannot rule out setbacks. for another, we are still facing numerous challenges regarding the reform of our financial system. finance must play a constructive role, and not a destructive one, in our economies. the litmus test for a constructive role is that finance serves the real economy. to ensure such a role, we still need to improve the functioning of financial systems considerably further. thus far, a great deal of attention has been focused on the banking sector. effective reforms also have to look very closely at non-bank financial institutions and at the set-up and functioning of financial markets. we have to devise mechanisms and incentives to ensure that finance does not spiral out of control in the destructive way that it did just prior to the crisis. we have to contain systemic disruptions that lead to economic hardship for the people of europe. setting up the european systemic risk board, legislation for which is currently being considered by the parliament, is part of the correct response to this challenge. there are other challenges facing the european economy, and they are associated with public finances, as was again stressed by the rapporteur, and sovereign financial health. within europe's economic and monetary union, there is a clear allocation of responsibilities. with respect to that allocation of responsibilities, everyone can count on the commitment of the ecb to maintain price stability in the euro area as a whole over the medium term. based on our last projections for this year, we will have at the end of this year, after 12 years of the euro, inflation at a yearly average of 1.95%. that is in line with our definition of price stability: less than 2%, but close to 2%. the commitment of the ecb, the strategy of the ecb and its track record are consistent. the smooth functioning of europe's economic and monetary union does not rest only on monetary union but also on economic union. policy makers at the national level must keep public finances sound and their economies competitive. in the current circumstances, where europe faces pivotal decisions, it is more important than ever to recognise that a prosperous union requires determined action by all. monetary union in europe is far more, in my opinion, than a monetary arrangement. it is a union of shared destiny. (the speaker added in french and german: 'we share a destiny in common.') this destiny is for our common good, and it is the vision of our founding fathers. monetary union is not a matter of convenience. it is part of an overarching process of advancing the integration of the people in europe that began after the second world war. i believe we often play down the achievement that europe has attained. we are often too quick to criticise our institutions and processes. but they have generally worked well, even in the most difficult times. i trust that european institutions and processes have remained effective during the financial crisis. on this side of the atlantic, we have avoided dramatic events that could have triggered a new intensification of the crisis, which started in the united states in september 2008. it is within this present context that i appreciate the commitment of euro area member states, made on the occasion of the last european council meeting, to take determined and coordinated action, if needed, to safeguard financial stability in the euro area. i would also take advantage of my presence in front of the european parliament to lay out what i have already mentioned at the hearing before the committee on economic and monetary affairs on monday. it is the intention of the ecb's governing council to keep the minimum credit threshold in the collateral framework at investment grade level (bbb-) beyond the end of 2010. in parallel, we will introduce, as of january 2011, a graded haircut schedule, which will continue to adequately protect the eurosystem. i will provide the technical details when reporting on the governing council decisions of our next meeting on 8 april. let me conclude. the introduction of the single currency just over a decade ago represents the greatest achievement, in my view, in the history of european integration to date - a process that has ensured peace and prosperity in europe. the global financial crisis has brought fresh challenges to which we in europe have risen. our monetary union and our very close ties, inside the single market, with all eu member states' economies have prevented the crisis from being compounded by currency crises, as was the experience in the early 1990s. today, europe faces further pivotal decisions. our common task is to continue to ensure peace and prosperity, to make our union an even more attractive place to live and work in. for this we need strengthened surveillance as again was said by the rapporteurs, and strengthened cooperation. we also need to revive the sense of common purpose, the shared ideals that motivated our founding fathers. their endeavour was visionary and all that we see in today's world confirms their lucidity. member of the commission. - mr president, first of all, i would like to thank you for the chance to discuss the 2009 annual statement on the euro area. when we prepared our annual statement, we knew that the selected issues would be topical. they might, however, have become somewhat too topical recently. let me congratulate both rapporteurs, edward scicluna and sven giegold, for their excellent reports. in order to respect the independence of the european central bank, i will focus on the giegold report, which makes a very substantive contribution to the current debate on economic coordination and economic governance within the euro area. in my view, the broad support the giegold report enjoyed within the committee on economic and monetary affairs is indeed a testimony to the relevance and balance of his approach and issues. i fully agree with mr trichet that the euro is not only a technical monetary arrangement but is rather the core political project of the european union, which must be defended and developed in this european spirit, not least today and tomorrow, as the european council is convening at a very critical moment. since 1999, the euro area has mostly been an area of economic stability. it has shielded our citizens from economic turbulences. however, since the end of 2008, the euro area has been hit hard by the global financial crisis. despite the economic recovery policies and strong fiscal stimulus, financial markets still remain volatile and the degree of uncertainty remains exceptionally high. recent waves in the market have seriously tested financial stability and economic governance in the euro area, especially in relation to greece. i would like to say that greece is now on track to meet the 4% target of deficit reduction this year, following the bold and convincing measures that the greek parliament decided earlier this month and which are now in force. this moment may indeed be a turning point in greek fiscal history and economic development. however, neither greece nor the eurozone are completely out of the woods yet as there are still concerns regarding financial stability in the euro area. therefore, the commission has strongly encouraged the euro area member states to take a political decision on a mechanism to ensure financial stability in the euro area as a whole, a mechanism which could be swiftly activated if needed, in conformity with the treaty and its bailout clause, and without any automaticity built into this mechanism. on our side, i can assure you that the commission is ready to put such a european framework in place for coordinated and conditional assistance, which could be used if needed and if requested. we are working closely and intensively together with all euro area member states and the ecb in order to reach such a solution this week in the context of the european council. however, in addition to the immediate crisis management, we need to look at how similar situations can be avoided in the future so that we never again have cases similar to the greek case now. the greek crisis has demonstrated the need for enhanced economic governance. this was already recognised and the legal base provided in the lisbon treaty. therefore, we are currently preparing proposals for the implementation of article 136 of the lisbon treaty and the commission will make a proposal for enhanced economic policy coordination and reinforced country surveillance in the coming weeks. like you, mr giegold, in paragraph 28, we regret the lack of binding commitments among governments to enforce coordination in the euro area. therefore, an integrated and forward-looking approach focused on policy action and clear operational arrangements is needed. first and foremost, we needed to prevent unsustainable public deficits and therefore we need to be better able to monitor the mid-term budgetary policies of the euro area member states. we need to be able to issue broader and more stringent recommendations to the member states to take corrective measures. i also count on your support in this matter. we can also make better use of existing instruments. it is possible for the council to address recommendations to a member state whose economic policies risk jeopardising the proper functioning of economic and monetary union. this has been used in the past, probably too rarely. with the new lisbon treaty, under article 21, the commission can issue similar early warnings directly to a member state. this is something we must do in order to help member states to address emerging economic problems at a much earlier stage. as i seem to be running on injury time, i will continue on macro-economic imbalances in my concluding remarks. that is the second core element of reinforced economic governance. by and large, i share the views of the rapporteur in this regard. i just want to conclude by saying that the financial crisis has harshly demonstrated that the continuous economic growth of past decades cannot be taken for granted. today, the worst may be over. the economic recovery is now in progress but it is still fragile and not self-sustaining. unemployment has not yet changed for the better. the same applies to the consolidation of public finances, which is a prerequisite for sustainable growth. no matter how important fiscal stimulus was for the economic recovery, the two years of the crisis have wiped out over 20 years of consolidation of public finances. these clouds will overshadow our economic landscape in the coming years. we must do our utmost to clear the sky and bring back growth. therefore, this is indeed no time for business as usual. instead, this is time for a change in step to promote sustainable growth and job creation. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, let me firstly congratulate and thank the rapporteur, mr giegold, who has proposed a work of high quality and has shown himself ready to listen to the rapporteurs from other groups. this report, the european parliament's response to the european commission annual statement on the euro area and public finances, is rich in analyses and proposals. of course, it is, to a great extent, marked by the big event of 2009, the economic and financial crisis, which is without any doubt the most serious crisis the european union has faced since it was created. i have learnt two main lessons from this crisis. on the one hand, the economic and monetary union has shown how useful it is. the euro, a stable common currency, has played the part of a real monetary shield. belonging to the euro area has enabled more than one country to avoid a devaluation of their national currencies, which would have further exacerbated the consequences of the crisis. the euro area has therefore become more attractive, as the case of iceland shows. moreover, the active and flexible monetary policy conducted by the ecb, increasing its injections of liquid funds into lending establishments, has played a significant role in keeping european banks afloat. the first lesson then is that while we often say that europe was built on crises, this one has shown that economic europe is both effective and necessary at the same time. from this i draw the second lesson, which is that we should strengthen european economic governance. today, the only genuine european economic policy is monetary policy. there is limited coordination of budget policies. however, the euro area, which - as mentioned again by this report - is intended to integrate all the member states of the european union, must establish effective governance in every aspect of economic policy. it must begin with macro-economic as well as financial monitoring, something we are busy working on in the european parliament. it must be carried forward within the framework of the stability and growth pact as a real instrument of fiscal coordination. at this time of crisis, the considerable drop in revenue, the tax incentive measures taken within the framework of the recovery plan and the operation of economic stabilisers have led to a deterioration of the budget balances of the member states. reducing public debt remains a fundamental commitment, as it concerns our children's future. let us be austere, but let us also be inventive. let us think about a new european fiscal policy, let us think about eurobonds, and let us be bold in european economic governance. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mr giegold's report is particularly significant given the current macro-economic debate. this report is all the more relevant given the fact that its author is a german mep who wanted to draw the attention of europeans to the distorted effects, for the countries of the euro area, of the german strategy of reducing labour costs in the single currency system. the german government is, in fact, about to drag the euro area and the whole of the european union into generalised wage deflation with damaging macro-economic consequences. particularly in the absence of consistent structural funds and sufficient budgetary resources, and faced with the impossibility of devaluation, member states with current accounts in deficit are condemned, in order to resist, to trim their wages and reduce the perimeter of their social security systems. the result is firstly a slowdown in internal demand which, since the second quarter of 2008, has led to negative growth, and this was even before the start of the liquidity crisis. secondly, we are seeing a rise in the personal debt of households with modest incomes and means, whose purchasing power is no longer increasing. their debt to acquire homes was fed by the whole deregulated financial machinery, in spain, in the united kingdom and in ireland, with the disastrous consequences we have observed in the subprime crisis. ladies and gentlemen, listening to the debates in committee, a significant number of meps would seem to be forgetting the lessons of this crisis. this crisis is far from behind us. the current recovery is all the more fragile given the fact that europe is continuing with wage deflation and the commission, but also the president of the eurogroup and the president of the european central bank - whom we heard on monday - are calling on the member states to prematurely adopt exit policies that are comparable to real austerity plans. these policies risk nipping growth in the bud when it has barely become positive again, even though capacity utilisation rates remain low. these policies will fail to reduce the deficits in greece, in spain and elsewhere, because the expected tax revenue will fail to materialise also. they will exacerbate unemployment and will fuel social tensions. the giegold report has the merit of drawing attention to some of these macro-economic imbalances. unfortunately, the final version, amended by the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe, refuses to condemn wage deflation. however, on the whole, the debate opened by mr giegold may be beneficial at a time when neoliberal dogma thrown into doubt by the crisis is back in force in parliament, in the council and in the commission. mr president, first of all, i would like to congratulate the rapporteurs mr scicluna - who knows a great deal about central banks - and mr giegold. we held long discussions with them and in the end, agreed on many compromise amendments. i would like to talk to you today about the euro. i would like to point out to you all that i am new to politics: until nine months ago, i was giving classes on macro-economics at the university of barcelona. in the autumn of 2008, my family and i were living in london for academic reasons and i was a direct witness of the pound sterling's sudden drop of 30% over the course of a few weeks. all of a sudden, all my english colleagues had become poorer, and the pound has still not recovered today. in light of how much the pound has dropped, i do not even want to imagine what the value of the peseta would be today if we still had that in our wallets. these two years of terrible global economic crisis have shown that the euro has firmly anchored us to stability. it is, in fact, the only major western currency that has not made its users poorer. the euro has been a secure port against the huge waves of the global financial storms, to borrow the evocative image of the british financier david marsh. a convinced eurosceptic for many years, 12 months ago, this respected public financier published a book praising the euro, acknowledging it as a success and as the future global currency. the euro is not in crisis today: it is the fiscal crises of certain member states that are causing the single currency difficulties. the euro is a shining example of monetary union that is being studied and admired by the economic elites of china, india, brazil and russia. the euro poses no risk to the mediterranean economies. the euro is the opportunity for their economies to be permanently integrated into the good, reforming and advanced practices of the countries of central europe. the report that we are debating today includes severe criticism of the practice of state intervention in the chinese currency. its artificial devaluation has contributed to the creation of the huge global imbalances that are one of the causes of this crisis. we in the euro area must not penalise the countries that export the most. the history of financial crises shows us that, once financial health has been achieved, economic recovery comes hand-in-hand with exports. it is true that germany needs to begin consuming again and do more as the motor for european economic growth. nevertheless, under no circumstances must its export strength be weakened. i am a liberal member from catalonia, and my region - which is the source of 28% of spain's exports - also has a very high ratio of exports to gross domestic product: almost 30%. those who do best cannot be penalised. finally, the euro now has a great deal of prestige worldwide, but it needs to make a little more effort to be transparent. mr trichet, the verbatim records of the debates of the european central bank should be published, as is the case in the united states, japan and sweden. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - mr president, since i would like commissioner rehn to understand me loud and clear, i will speak in english. i would like, starting from where we are today, to take a look forward. where are we? we have huge and unsustainable public deficits and, mind you, the greens do not support this kind of deficit. second, we cannot ignore the fact that we already have huge and deepening social inequalities. 16% of europeans below the poverty level is not a small figure; 40% of young spaniards under 25 unemployed is not a small figure, and i could carry on. then we are facing climate change and resource scarcity, and all this means there is a need for investment in infrastructure, in education, in research and innovation, etc. so what we believe is that we should really switch gear. herman van rompuy said, after the february summit, that coordination of macro-economic policy needs to be considerably increased and improved. of course. what does that mean? it means, of course, that in terms of budgetary expenditure, we need to have more peer review, more ex ante control. greece has 4% of its gdp going to military spending. they have got an air force that is as big as the luftwaffe. i mean, how come? it is such a tiny country and they are arming themselves like hell. but if we just look at the expenditure side, we will not succeed. we need to look, and to take a hard look, at coordinating our tax revenue because, what do we need to do? we need to rebalance tax income away from labour income towards other forms of income, including capital income. we need to make sure that we have an effective corporate contribution - effective, not just on paper - and that means ccctb country-by-country reporting, etc. we need to implement the financial transaction tax; we need to implement the carbon tax, both to shift behaviour and to provide income. and we cannot do that just by asking countries to coordinate their policies. we need more integration. if we do not do that, our governments will prove incapable of reconciling the need to balance budgets and to meet social needs and investment needs. so i believe that europe is now at a critical juncture. the choice is between a higher degree of integration, not just coordination, and decline. the lesson that i take from copenhagen is not just that we missed the climate agreement. it is that europe has proved to be irrelevant if it is not acting together. we spend too much time coordinating, too little time acting together. so that would be our contribution to this debate. on behalf of the ecr group. - mr president, coming from a non-eurozone member state, i am not sure whether my opinion holds much weight with my colleagues in this debate. currently, many would claim that the eurozone problem is one which should be solved by eurozone members. however, the euro does not sit in isolation. it sits in the global market and has been affected by the global financial and economic crisis just as those outside the eurozone have. how we manage our states' finances during the good years entirely affects how we are able to react and recover today. as many have pointed out, there is a reason why germany faces a very different government deficit to greece. while they may be united by a common currency, attitudes towards saving and spending vary considerably. joining a monetary union did not unite completely different cultures and traditions of fiscal policy. the uk perspective has a lot to say on differences in fiscal policy. we also bloated our public sector, spent and spent in the good years, borrowing more and more to create debts we could not even admit to when it looked as though the good times were gone forever, and creating a culture where a supposedly respected economist from the uk even last week stood up in front of one of our committees and claimed that governments can magic money. fundamentally, money to fund the public sector does not magically appear. it comes from tax receipts from the private sector. germany realises this. its policies in the recent past have focused upon using government spending and incentives to help stimulate the private sector. hence, it is now in a strong position for recovery. ultimately, the public sector has done its job in the crisis. it bailed out the banks and stepped up when the private sector failed. now it is the turn of the private sector to replenish the coffers. the downside of austerity measures, which will put hardworking people out of public sector jobs, must be turned into an upside for start-up companies, taking advantage of entrepreneurial spirit by reducing start-up costs for businesses so that they can create the profitable private sector that is required to dig all of our countries out of the holes we now find ourselves in. all of those countries that have practised unsustainable economic policies for the past few years - including my own - need to realise that change is essential and inevitable. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to make use of this opportunity to take another look at the situation in greece, because i believe that the crisis in greece gives us an insight into the political status of the euro area. firstly, however, i would like to make a remark about the calls from the german chancellor, mrs merkel, to exclude greece from the euro area, if necessary. my group, the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left, believes that this proposal is absolutely absurd. on the one hand, we are talking about a community with a common destiny. if we mean this seriously, then we cannot call, on the other hand, for a member state to be excluded during the first large or moderate crisis that we have encountered. that is preposterous! most importantly, this would be an admission of failure which would amount to kowtowing to the financial sector. the financial sector has shamelessly allowed itself to be bought out of the crisis by taxpayers, but we are now being asked to deny help of this kind to greece. it will be difficult to explain to the pensioners and the workers in greece and also in the other countries affected - according to the media, portugal is the next country to come under scrutiny - why they are now being asked to pay up, having already supported the banks with their taxes. taking this route would be the equivalent of driving the eu project into a wall. despite all the justified criticism of greece - and the greek members will realise that there is much to be done in their country - the crisis is by no means solely the responsibility of greece. i would just like to point out that the majority of decisions on financial policy in the euro area have been handed over to the european central bank. the euro cannot provide the answer to the different levels of productivity in the individual economies. major exporters such as germany are forcing greek economic policy to its knees. therefore, this also represents a crisis in eu economic and competition policy. this is why we are calling for the ban on financial assistance for eu member states to be lifted. the member states in the euro area should make euro loans available, the european central bank should buy up debts in the same way that the federal service in the usa has done and credit default swaps should be banned. this is what we are calling for. (the president cut off the speaker) mr president, 25 march is the birthday of both europe and greece. on 25 march 1957, the european union was born under the treaty of rome. on 25 march 1821, greece was born. today, on their birthday, europe and greece are being tested; europe on cohesion and greece on its economy. everyone in this house knows that, of the 15 countries in the euro area, 6 have high public debts and financial deficits. everyone in this house knows that all 30 countries which belong to the oecd have debt of over 100% of gdp and 30% higher than in 2008. even the united states of america is trying, in this huge economic crisis we are experiencing, to resolve its problems primarily by printing money. we also know that greece has introduced severe austerity measures to the point at which it has exhausted its citizens. many people will say it serves greece right and it should pay for its mistakes. yes, certain people must be called to account for this. however, we must not forget that greece imports eur 15 billion more products from other european countries, especially germany, than it exports. i would therefore ask the leaders of the european union to bear in mind that addressing speculation will create a geopolitical situation in the wider policy. thank you, sir. your time has run out. i would respectfully ask that you abide by the speaking time allotted to you. (de) mr president, i would like to raise a point of order. the members want to vote on this later and we will be in serious difficulties if we do not keep to our speaking times. (de) mr president, mr trichet, firstly, i would like to congratulate you on what you have achieved in recent years. however, at the same time, you must be aware that hundreds of millions of people are currently holding their breath because they are worried about the euro, which is something that we did not expect to see in this generation. firstly, we are worried about what will happen next with the six-monthly and yearly refinancing operations and whether you will succeed in withdrawing from this package of extraordinary liquidity measures. only those people with a masochistic tendency when it comes to financial policy could fail to wish you luck in this respect. however, inflation is also a cause for concern and you are making good progress in this area. as an austrian, i would like to advise against the germany-bashing that has been taking place here. everyone should be aware germany has been the source of a great deal of stability in the past. it should not now be punished because it has achieved better results in many areas than other countries. it is not possible to show solidarity with people who have been responsible for mismanagement, waste and excessive administrative measures. (de) mr president, as the shadow rapporteur from the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) for the european central bank annual report for 2008, i am very happy with the report that is in front of us now. as a result of the close and effective cooperation with the rapporteur mr scicluna and, above all, with mr tremosa from the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe, i believe that we have produced a very balanced commentary on the ecb annual report for 2008. mr trichet and mr rehn were of the same opinion. i think that the ecb was faced with particularly difficult tasks in 2008, which was the first year of the crisis. given these challenges, in my view, the ecb has acted effectively and, above all, very prudently. mr scicluna's report reflects this approach. however, the ecb is not in a simple situation and this is not likely to change in the near future. on the one hand, we are very far from having overcome the crisis and, on the other hand, the planned regulatory measures present new challenges and problems for the ecb. it is important for the ecb to continue to ensure the stability of the euro area in the months and years to come. like a tanker on the high seas, the ecb must stay on the correct course. on the other hand - mr trichet, i have already mentioned this in the last but one discussion on monetary policy - the independence of the european central bank must be maintained, in particular, given its future inclusion in the european systemic risk board. this is of paramount importance because you, as president, and other members of the ecb will become heavily involved in this area. this should be an important criterion for future assessments of other measures taken by the central bank. it is essential for us to bear this point in mind when considering other reports in the next few years. (it) mr president, mr trichet, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the king has no clothes! the gravity of the situation has been accurately described. now it is useful to concentrate on the treatment, and the first step of this treatment can only be european economic governance, in the absence of which the economic system will not grow and the debt will become even less sustainable. greece must be supported and helped, and a potential domino effect must be avoided in the case of those european countries with economies characterised by a weak level of competitiveness and elevated levels of debt. real european governance must guarantee three objectives: 1) a policy of growth; 2) financial instruments suitable for sustaining that growth; and 3) a policy for managing emergencies. this morning, i have heard so many speeches exalting the virtues of the euro. very well, i am obviously in agreement, but why not think of the euro as a currency that saves us not only from inflation but, by means of a little virtuous and guaranteed debt, also secures us greater liquidity to launch a major european investment programme by issuing eurobonds? as far as managing emergencies is concerned, i agree with the idea of establishing a european monetary fund, which would be a sensible solution. ladies and gentlemen, what i should like to say in conclusion, and say it clearly, is that at this stage it is no use temporising, drifting, waiting for the long night to end. a 'don abbondio europe' is of no use to us. if europe does not show courage today, when will it have to show courage? mr president, we have had a heavyweight week in committee with the president of the ecb, the president of the euro group and the nominee for ecb vice-president. we all agree that stronger surveillance of member states, with accurate statistics to enable early intervention, is a key requirement. work on this has started, including audit powers for eurostat, and the committee is impatient to assert its enhanced role to help. but there are indicators beyond the stability and growth pact that need respecting too. greater fiscal coordination linked to macro-economic stability is an option. but this has been tried, of course. remember the row in 2001 over the ecofin warning to ireland during a time of fiscal surplus. so we know the lesson: exerting discipline in times of surplus is even harder than policing deficit. and, just like in the financial markets, failure to do so ends in crisis. on imbalances between member states, the focus should be on loss of competitiveness, often hand in hand with foot-dragging on the single market and failure to address structural reforms, including pensions. this, too, does not necessarily have a deficit trigger. and finally, as mr scicluna said, liquidity provision by the ecb has been a valuable tool through the crisis, but it has not been passed on to the real economy. often, it has simply been reinvested in assets bearing higher interest. and i dare say some of these were even recirculated on repo to the ecb. no doubt in some quarter, such activity is even viewed as deserving of a bonus. so i say: should we really listen to the pleas of such banks on new capital adequacy implementation dates? (el) mr president, may i start by saying that this is an important report, which strikes a worthy compromise between the tensions in the european parliament. it identifies elements of social cohesion which are not present in similar debates in the european parliament. we should also like it to signal an important turning point in the policy of the european union as a whole. of course it refers to 2009, while in 2010, important developments are taking place which, of course, concern my country, greece. one might conclude that, apart from monetary union, we also need economic and political union, as many have said. the euro should be accompanied by a minimum social security indicator for social cohesion. that is clear from the various things being said in greece, much of which is inaccurate. for example, i cannot but highlight the fact that productivity in greece was not much lower than the average of the eu of the 27. that is clear from eurostat statistics: it was approximately 90% in both 2007 and 2008. the increase in the budget deficit and public debt in greece over the last two or three years was the result of the collapse in incomes, the reduction in income from abroad, such as tourism and shipping, due to the crisis, and the increase in public spending. of course there is wastage, but people are also being recruited to the public sector in various forms. certainly all this needs to change; we also need to request this social protection indicator and not content ourselves with general calls not to do anything that will overly affect low incomes. spending and arms need to be controlled, as does everything that has increased significantly over the last two years, but especially incomes, which have decreased equally significantly. the income of large sections of the population, who are on the verge of poverty, must not fall. obviously, there are matters which also concern the summit under way today here in brussels. however, the giegold report must also signal a more general change and the incorporation of these positions in the stability pact. above all, we do not need to take any recourse to the unacceptable policy of the european monetary fund which, apart from anything else, also has a viability deficit. (applause) (nl) mr president, mr rehn and mr trichet were quite right to talk about the situation today. the greek position in the euro area is very shaky and, as far as i can see, the answer lies with the international monetary fund (imf). these days, the imf is the right organisation to help greece out of the crisis. if that does not work, then we need to be decisive and cut the gordian knot. countries that are not playing by the rules of the euro area must leave the game. mr president, let us try and learn from this situation. when it joined the euro, greece was as unpredictable as the oracle at delphi. the figures it submitted were unclear and unreliable. it is not right for the greek government to keep on insisting that other states in the euro provide the solution because they were supposedly partly responsible for the current crisis in greece. that is turning the world on its head. anyone who submits unsound figures cannot point accusing fingers at anybody else. allow me, therefore, to ask mr trichet and mr rehn a specific question: were you aware of the fact that the figures greece submitted when joining the euro area were inaccurate and incomplete? if not, should you not have known that? i hope you can give me a straight answer to that question. (el) mr president, i should like to start by wishing my fellow countrymen the very best for 25 march. the capitalist crisis has resulted in a spiralling deterioration in the living standards of the workers. at the same time, it has given capital an opportunity to step up the application of anti-labour policy choices. under state terrorism of the workers, the plutocracy started a real war against fundamental wage and social rights, in a bid to increase the profits of capital. the basic pillar of the anti-grassroots policy being exercised by the european union and the governments of the member states is the ecb. it is a harsh policy exercised solely on the basis of the criterion of the profitability of capital. the constant calls since it was founded for wages to be cut and capitalist restructurings to be speeded up found fertile soil in the capitalist crisis. the ecb has acted as the bourgeois assistant of the plutocracy in shifting the burden of the crisis on to the workers' shoulders. it has channelled over eur 1 trillion to the banks and monopoly groups. today, however, it is calling on the workers to pay for the damage and to repay that money. that is why the anti-imperialist fight needs to be stepped up, the fight to get out of the european union, the fight for people power and a people's economy, the fight for socialism. mr president, i appear to have been living in some sort of parallel universe here, hearing about the success of the euro. let us bring it all down to earth just a little bit shall we? unemployment, youth unemployment in the iberian peninsula and many eurozone countries is chronic. it has been at 30-40% for years. nothing to do with the crisis at all. a complete disaster. gdp per capita in the usa is miles ahead of the european union. gdp in the pacific rim is miles ahead of the gdp in the union. no, the euro has not been successful at all. it is already failing. it is already crumbling before our eyes. just look at some economic basics. there is no lender of last resort, which is why we have this greek crisis and a portuguese crisis round the corner. there is no lender. this is impossible in global, in currency management, whether it is an optimal currency zone or not. there is no coordinated fiscal policy so it is doomed to failure and it is failing as we speak. let me just remind everybody here about something else if i may. there are two sorts of people: wealth creators, those people that go out and work in the private sector and create wealth, and there are the others who spend wealth, which are politicians and bureaucrats and there are too many of us. far too many of us. we are the monkey on the economies' back and, until these currency zones start cutting down public sector spending, it is going to get worse and worse and worse. (ro) the mafia is the major cause of the crisis. i will give you a few examples from my own country, romania. believe you me, as a writer and historian who runs a daily newspaper and a weekly magazine, i know very well what i am talking about. since 1990, approximately 6 000 companies valued at eur 700 billion have been privatised fraudulently. unfortunately, only eur 7 billion, or 1% of this money, has been received so far. in many cases, it was not even privatisation being carried out, but the transfer of assets from the ownership of the romanian state to the ownership of other states, in other words, nationalisation. this is no longer a market economy, but a jungle economy. this situation is being repeated in several balkan countries where the local mafia has joined forces with the cross-border mafia to form an organised crime cartel. just like 100 years ago, the balkan peninsula is sitting on a powder keg. the flame of social protest may quickly spread from greece to the other countries in the region. while in the 20th century, we spoke about exporting revolution, in the 21st century, we can talk about exporting bankruptcy. starvation is the most powerful electoral factor in history. we must switch the focus from the fight against corruption, which is some abstract notion, to the fight against the corrupt. the population's mood is becoming increasingly gloomy and if we fail to put an end to the fraud in our countries, the european union's noble project will collapse like a sandcastle. however, there is one hope of salvation: radical solutions are required at such an historic crossroads. it is not under control the mafia needs to be, but under the ground. (de) mr president, first of all, i would like to thank the president of the european central bank, jean-claude trichet, warmly for his very successful work over the last six years. of course, i would also like to thank the rapporteurs for submitting a report that has been given majority support. mr rehn, i would like to remind you that you have some huge tasks ahead. i hope that the commission finally has the courage to look at the deficiencies of the stability and growth pact in a new proposal. the model of economic governance led by the finance ministers is not a possible solution in this case, because these finance ministers have failed in the past. we need a more automated system. we do not need economic governance under the control of finance ministers. instead, we need an automatic system that responds in the case of violations, with the support and leadership of the ecb and the commission. this could be the result of the summit. i would like to make two remarks about what mr trichet has said on the euro area. i very much welcome the fact that you have referred to the need for us to be competitive throughout the world. this is not just about one euro country competing with another, but about us being able to hold our own against the usa and asia. secondly, the eu has largely succeeded in balancing its accounts, thanks to the countries in surplus. if that had not been the case, the ecb would have had to put much stricter policies in place. thirdly, there are no examples in economic history of countries with a falling population generating long-term growth in the internal market. they have to export their goods. as far as germany is concerned, it made a poor start in the economic and monetary union, but it has caught up and is now an example to many other countries. that is not sufficient. we have enough to do ourselves with the budgetary consolidation. it is important not to underestimate the work involved. who came up with the idea of punishing those countries that have largely succeeded and excluding those that have not fulfilled their obligations? this is not a true european policy. therefore, i would like to wish the commission courage and give my warm thanks to the ecb. (applause) (el) mr president, allow me to start by congratulating the two rapporteurs on the excellent work they have done at a particularly difficult juncture. the work of one of the most crucial summits is due to start shortly and there is still much talk raging around the so-called greek issue and around if and to what extent we shall adopt a european mechanism that will operate, in times of need, as an economy protection indicator needed for the stability of the euro area as a whole. without doubt, the basic responsibility for this situation lies with greece and it has fully assumed it. however, there are other - collective - responsibilities. the common currency has provided a great deal, but it also has serious weaknesses. in 11 years of emu, we did not want to see and to acknowledge that the competitiveness divide and the significant inequalities and imbalances between the economies in the euro area are not compatible with either the viability or the stability of the euro area. the speculative attacks which, so far, have been directed mainly at greece - but which also resulted in portugal's credit rating being downgraded just the other day and which have already been directed at other countries, such as italy and spain, and no one knows what the consequences will be - have made that much clear. if, therefore, we want to show that we can deal with the situation, we should immediately move towards a new, enhanced model of economic cooperation and economic governance which, mr langen, respects the rules of the stability and growth pact, but which, at the same time, will be able to go beyond financial coordination in the narrow sense to economic coordination with additional criteria attached and attain the objectives of the eu strategy for employment and sustainable development. (sv) mr president, commissioner, mr trichet, the euro is ten years old and it has largely passed its tests, even though the current turbulence is not over yet. i am certain that, already today, we will see the first important step towards a european solution, with or without the international monetary fund. we share a common destiny, as mr trichet so rightly said. the alternative, if it fails, would, of course, be a frightening prospect. the ecb has been a bastion of strength when the financial storms have hit. it is worth repeating that the euro has been a success during the financial crisis and it has been an anchor in europe, including for countries outside the euro area. the euro has provided stability and the conditions for creating millions of new jobs, and that must not be forgotten in these days when everyone is talking of a crisis. greece's problems and those of other euro area countries cannot be blamed on the euro. careless expansion of public expenditure will result in problems regardless of the choice of currency. on the contrary, the economic crisis would have been considerably worse if we had not had the cooperation that the euro involves. we would have had to deal with speculation and competitive devaluation among more than 20 national currencies. many of us have experienced this and i myself sat on a swedish finance committee with a 500% interest rate. the crisis in greece naturally demonstrates the fact that the pact for keeping the budget deficit at a low level must be tightened up. the deficit is still extremely large. we need better supervision and coordination of economic policy at eu level, in other words, financial coordination that is worthy of the name. i would like to finish by saying something about speculation. sometimes, when countries are subject to speculation, as my own country was in the 1990s, it actually provides us with a good opportunity to organise the measures we take. when we were in a difficult situation, as a result of george soros, among others, we knew what to expect and so we took the necessary measures. that is something that those of you in the countries that are currently experiencing difficulties will have to think about. (pl) mr president, i shall avoid the military language which the previous speaker used. the language of war does not suit the style of banks. i am a representative of what is probably the only political group in this parliament which has attracted the majority of its members from outwith the euro area. only two are in euroland. my point of view, therefore, will be different. mr trichet's speech can be summed up by the number 36, because this is how many members of the european parliament were listening to his speech. does this mean we are lazy? no - it means, in fact, that meps do not really believe the european central bank can be a solution, a remedy, to the crisis, or that it can be a lifebelt. mr rehn said the euro area is something of value in itself, and then spoke about the crisis in greece. there is a certain contradiction here. greece is currently going through a crisis because it entered that oasis of stability too soon. we should avoid such inconsistency. (el) mr president, i agree with my fellow members who said that the crisis is not over. the economic situation in numerous countries is clearly negative. unemployment is increasing in most countries. the measures being taken to address deficits are exacerbating the crisis. mr trichet and mr rehn - and i am speaking institutionally - did you not see the crisis coming? the signs were there. when the crisis broke, you hid behind the perception that everyone had to resolve their problems on their own. now, here you are repeating monotonously the words 'monitoring deficits' and 'austerity in the stability pact'. in my opinion, the problem in the european union and in greece is not one of sound finances. you know that, in order to cover borrowing, countries such as greece are prey to speculators but, at the same time, they reveal the institutional and political gaps in emu. as such, i would say to you that what is needed is a change to the stability pact. insisting on the application of the stability pact, especially in a recession, will clearly increase and exacerbate regional and social inequalities, increase unemployment and wipe out any prospects of growth. (nl) mr president, the situation in which greece and the euro area have deservedly found themselves is regrettable. financial assistance for greece should come primarily from the international monetary fund (imf). the imf has itself said that it is in an excellent position to help greece. the establishment of a european monetary fund (emf) seems to be motivated by political considerations, in particular, that is, to save europe's face in case greece appealed to the imf. however, let us not rush headlong into establishing a new body as a remedy against non-compliance with the existing rules. the necessity and desirability of setting up an emf are dubious. the penalties provided for by the stability and growth pact must be implemented more actively in order to enforce compliance with the rules. it is really up to the council now to make a move. eurostat needs to be given the scope to carefully inspect the budget figures of the member states of the euro area and thereby monitor compliance with the stability and growth pact. (hu) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the report has one serious flaw: it does not name those responsible. and yet, we will not be able to put an end to the economic crisis in europe until those responsible have been identified. let us finally tell it like it is: the crisis was not caused by people living off their wages or salaries, but by those banks, multinationals and insurance companies that milked european societies dry. at the moment, if a multinational company wants to establish itself in hungary, the way to proceed is as follows: it receives free land from a local municipal government, is given a reduction on taxes and contributions, employs people for minimum wage and does not even allow them to unionise. these are the conditions that have led to a crisis for job seekers in europe. we demand that multinationals, banks and insurance companies play their part and shoulder the task of solving and putting an end to the economic crisis. (es) mr president, the crisis through which we are struggling is the worst in eight decades and the most significant since the launch of the community project. it started with the north american subprime mortgage crisis and, following the collapse of lehman brothers, it is now in its third phase, after leaving europe with a 4% drop in gdp in 2009, more than 23 million unemployed and a sharp deterioration in the state of the public finances, with debt in excess of 80% of gdp. the european central bank played a decisive role in maintaining liquidity in the system, using non-conventional mechanisms to counteract the credit restrictions and cooperating closely with the main monetary authorities. now that a moderate recovery is expected and there is no inflationary pressure, it must continue to contribute to the reestablishment of credit and avoid compromising the economic recovery through the early or indiscriminate withdrawal of the extraordinary measures. the crisis has shown us that the monetary and economic pillars - the basis of monetary policy - need reinforcing. one eye needs to be kept on the progress of the prices of the principal financial assets and private debt in order to guarantee the stability of prices and the economy in general. twenty member states currently have excessive deficits. the true meaning of consolidating public finances - an unavoidable task, that must be done in a coordinated and intelligent way - is restoring demand, promoting investment, and favouring reforms that will allow the economy to be revived, increase the potential for sustainable growth and create jobs. greater economic union may make the difference. global imbalances need to be corrected. the european union is one of the most balanced regions. that could come under threat unless its competitiveness is strengthened and there is greater international monetary cooperation. we will only improve our ability to compete globally if we strengthen internal economic cooperation in the areas of competitiveness and the balance of payments, in order to correct the imbalances and differences within the euro area. the efforts and courage of greece deserve clear and resolute support. it is a question of common interest and uncertainty harms all europeans. subsidiarity and solidarity are two sides of the same coin: the european currency. as mr trichet said in english, french and german, the euro is more than just a currency: it is our common destiny. i have repeated it in spanish, which is one of the european union's global languages. i will finish by saying it in greek, which is the language that best expresses our universal vocation: . (ga) mr president, the economic crisis has had a negative impact on member states all over the european union. unemployment rates have increased dramatically all over the union, and it is young people that are suffering the most. the public funds of many member states have declined as a result of this crisis. to deal with this issue, the irish government took decisive action in the years 2008 and 2009. unchecked, ireland's deficit was heading towards 14% of gdp. the government's action stabilised the deficit at 11.6% of gdp in 2010. the action taken by the government has gained recognition in international markets. since its last budget, in december of last year, the cost of irish borrowing, relative to benchmarking, has stabilised. in fact, i understand that at the meeting of the committee on economic and monetary affairs this week, the president of the central bank recognised and praised the actions of the irish government. in many ways, ireland is ahead of many other countries in its fiscal adjustment. countries such as the uk and the us, both with deficits in excess of 10%, will have to undergo significant adjustment in order to restore sustainability to their public finances. can i say in conclusion that ireland is still a good location for business as the fundamentals of the irish economy are in place and we will retain our 12.5% . (the president cut off the speaker) (pl) mr president, the widening crisis in the euro area shows the dangers which may face economic projects that are not backed up by economic calculation, but are based on ideological assumptions, especially when integration includes the economic integration of different member states which have different economic conditions. we have to ask whether some states should have entered the euro area as early as they did. at a certain point, the euro project became, primarily, not so much an economic project as a political one, aimed at accelerating european integration. european taxpayers in many countries may, today, pay a great deal for this haste. it would be good if we could draw some conclusions from this lesson for the future. the euro is not an answer to the structural problems of individual economies, or to excessive debt or a lack of financial discipline. it is the member states which are responsible for the state of their finances, and these problems should be solved in the countries where they arose. (fr) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i have read the reports with some surprise, and the speeches i have heard this morning only strengthen my beliefs. with a few exceptions, it is still a matter of budget restrictions, containing inflation, and the stability and growth pact, even though 20 of the 27 countries no longer meet all the criteria. it is true that many are demanding economic governance. however, we want a political europe that ensures control of both its economic and its social choices and that is able to intervene with regard to monetary choices. the greek crisis is telling: it is germany that has control and is imposing its demands. in the united states, the central bank has just intervened directly to finance the state budget by buying treasury bonds. in europe, the european central bank flew to the banks' assistance, but in terms of greece and more generally of the pigs, it is still the same ones who have to pay, in other words, employees, civil servants and pensioners, even though their countries have also been victims of financial speculation. it is not minor reforms that we need, but a different europe, an economic and social europe for the benefit of the majority, not just of a few. (sk) the report on the annual management of the euro area and of public finances in 2009 analyses in detail the management of the eu during the global financial and economic crisis. the decline of economic output in various eu countries has led to a dramatic rise in unemployment and a growth in the debts of european countries. the impact of the crisis on individual countries has varied and the measures through which individual countries have tackled the crisis have consequently differed from one another. despite the efforts of eu bodies to adopt coordinated and collective measures, it appeared that in certain countries, populist governments with no proper sense of responsibility for the administration of public finances were courting disaster. that is why the european union as a whole has found it harder to deal with the impact of the crisis than other major economic centres, such as the united states, china, japan and india. it has become apparent that the european economic environment as a whole may be diverse and extensively regulated but, compared to competing economies, it is very cumbersome. in the forthcoming period, we must therefore, along with efforts to consolidate the public finances of the euro area, also strive to restructure and greatly simplify the rules of the internal environment. we should not forget that it is the productive sector alone that generates the resources on which the whole of society lives. (hu) ladies and gentlemen, in the course of its activities in 2008, the european central bank was faced with unprecedented challenges as the world economic crisis wound its way into europe in september 2008. the financial crisis turned into a crisis of the real economy as the capital markets froze up due to mistrust, and financial institutions would not extend credit to each other or to businesses. the ecb reacted quickly and, in my judgment, appropriately to these financial events, but when we evaluate the crisis relief measures, we cannot overlook one deplorable fact, namely, the discrimination towards countries not in the euro area. i am convinced that the ecb acted contrary to the spirit of the european union when, at the height of the crisis, in october 2008, it did not set equal conditions for drawing on liquidity facilities. the ecb arranged currency exchanges with the swedish and danish national banks in order to ensure proper euro-liquidity for the banking systems of these two countries. by contrast, with the hungarian and polish central banks, it was prepared to do the same only against collateral. this course of action on the part of the ecb contributed, unfortunately, to a growing uncertainty on the markets, further aggravating these countries' situations. now, when we are in the process of designing a new financial system, we have to take measures to ensure that in future, similar inequalities will be eliminated. we cannot, therefore, introduce regulations that treat certain parts of the union less favourably than others. i would carry this idea further, when talking about the creation of the european systemic risk board that we are all working on now. the ecb will have an important role in this area. the presidency of that board will be held by the president of the ecb, and we will need to ensure that countries within the euro area - as well as those outside it, such as the central and eastern european states - receive equal voting rights in the new organisation. there is a danger that if we do not raise our voices against the discrimination we have already experienced during the crisis, inequality will become the practice in the new financial supervisory bodies, and this is something to be avoided at all costs. the ideal of reunification must not be allowed to be whittled away by replacing the former political disunity with economic division. (ro) it comes as no surprise that the exceptional measures which had to be adopted by the european central bank at a time of crisis feature at the heart of its annual report. against this backdrop, i think it is appropriate for the european central bank to continually increase liquidity provisions to banks in the euro area. however, we must not forget that member states outside the euro area were also themselves among those hit hard by the crisis and that intervention is required from the european central bank in this area as well, in the form of liquidity-enhancing measures. in addition, an increase in budget deficits, government debt and the unemployment rate among young people under 25 is being seen in most european union member states. the stability and growth pact is going through an identity crisis and losing credibility, thereby making it impossible to apply its principles effectively. i think that what is required is a less automatic and uniform implementation of the pact and an approach which takes into account the circumstances of each member state where the emphasis is placed much more on the long-term sustainability of public finances and less on the government deficit. the pact's main aim was prevention. it was meant to provide multilateral supervision of budgetary development using an early warning system. this is why, in keeping with the spirit of mr scicluna's report, i feel it is absolutely necessary to set up a european systemic risk board, which will meet the objective of providing a rapid warning against systemic risks or imbalances threatening the financial markets. the current financial crisis and its recent deepening in general must produce a prompt explanation of the mutual support mechanisms available at eu level, while also strengthening the coordination instruments between member states in support of common economic governance. one of the main lessons of this crisis is the need for greater fiscal responsibility and, by extension, for economic monitoring procedures for maintaining budgetary balance. (lv) thank you, mr president and commissioners, last december, in strasbourg, mr almunia, who was then commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, said that barring any significant developments, next summer, estonia would be invited to join the euro area, with effect from 2011. well, there have been some significant developments, not only for estonia, but also for the euro area. estonia is practically the only eu member state that currently satisfies the maastricht criteria. what sort of signal will it give if estonia is not accepted into the euro area, in accordance with the rules? to my mind, it would signal to the financial world that the malaise in the euro area is so deep that it is incapable of accepting a small but fiscally responsible country. in other words, a sign will be put on the euro area club door, saying: 'the club is closed for major refurbishment'. what sort of signal would it be, however, for the new member states, such as my country, latvia, which is under an imf programme and maintains a fixed rate of exchange against the euro, and which, in order to introduce the euro, devalues its economy with a double-digit fall in gdp and extraordinarily high unemployment? the signal would be why should we do our utmost to repay private debt with a high exchange rate for our national currency, when this debt has been issued as euro loans by eu banks against, for example, immovable property? thank you. mr president, 2008 was an extremely important year for the european and indeed the global economy. it was the year that was characterised by a great deal of uncertainty as regards the extent of the crisis, which only seemed to worsen. a great deal of uncertainty was also present with regard to the time it would take for the european economies to recover as well as the tools that we should use to stimulate such a recovery. this was no easy year for the ecb, which had to face a number of challenges. during 2008, the ecb engaged with other major central banks to form a coordinated approach in order to provide the banking system with plenty of short-term liquidity, and this approach by the ecb proved to be extremely successful. in this respect, i must support my colleague in the conclusion he has come to concerning the performance of the ecb. i agree that 2008 was instrumental and that those responsible have risen to this occasion. i also share some of the rapporteur's concerns with regard to the lack of transmission of interest rate cuts from the bank to the consumer and i feel that this should be further looked into, so please take note, mr trichet. all in all, i feel that this is an extremely well-balanced report, an excellent piece of work by my maltese colleague, edward scicluna. (fr) mr president, unfortunately, due to another engagement president juncker is unable to join us as usual. quite clearly, i am sorry to hear this. here we have two very good reports that enable us to go more deeply into our discussion at a critical moment for the euro area. mr scicluna's report allows us to lay the foundations of a number of elements of the debate, in particular, relating to the conditions of appointment of your successor, mr trichet. in terms of democracy, the monetary dialogue is an important element, but also with regard to the very functioning and running of the european central bank. the report by our friend, mr giegold, asks questions of you, mr rehn, which come under your responsibility and not that of the european central bank. the risk we face, as regards the functioning of the euro area, is the dismantling of our social model. when your predecessor, mr almunia, gave an assessment of the euro area's 10 years of operation, one factor was blatantly obvious, namely, the increasing divergence between the member states of the euro area. that is where we are and that is what the very authors of the treaty and the authors of the stability and growth pact underestimated. this is what we must take into account. we must take this into account for two reasons. firstly, to understand that, even if the sustainability of public finances is a key element, it is not enough. faced with national competences, the member states do not have a natural appetite for sanctions and therefore their coordination, their cooperation is not good cooperation. this is the spirit that we have to discover. this is the magic panacea that we need. the second pillar which cannot be overlooked and which we cannot do without is the matter of fiscal harmonisation. as you know, i deplore the fact that, from this point of view, the 2020 strategy does not even mention the work in progress on the harmonisation of the tax base for corporate taxation, which we absolutely must continue with determination. (fi) mr president, in the wake of the financial crisis, public debt has become rapidly worse, even if, in many countries, they are beginning to turn off the taps of recovery. having dealt with an acute economic crisis, we need to focus very closely on the long term and serious imbalance in public finances. we have had the stability and growth pact, but the problem lies in the fact that the member states have not complied with it, and so we now have acute deficits in public finances to deal with. attention has been given to incorrect statistical information in the case of greece, but the core of the problem is a badly managed economic policy. we politicians are faced with very difficult decisions, amid slow growth, an ageing population and an employment situation that is improving only sluggishly. there are only a few cures for public finances: to increase revenue from taxation, to boost economic growth or to cut expenditure. in the search for remedies, key indicators are the sustainability of public finances and the deficit. the sustainability deficit is a reflection of how much the tax rate should be raised or the rate of expenditure lowered for public finances to be on a sustainable basis over the long term. to achieve a balance, we have to continue to recognise that accrued debt will increase by the difference between interest rates and the growth in gross national product, and an ageing population will cause the cost of pensions and care to rise substantially in the years to come. in order to boost income in public finances, it is absolutely essential to have growth and employment, increase the productivity of public services and implement the structural measures that can guarantee the sustainability of pension schemes, for example. in the long term, an increase in the birth rate and preventive health care will be of significance for the balance in public finances. in the midst of the economic crisis, we called for better coordination of public finances, and i would like to ask how commissioner rehn intends to bring this about. i believe, however, that this economic crisis cannot be used as a way out of the back door for the economies of the member states to be brought under control. we just have to observe strict budget discipline in public finances. (sv) mr president, i would like to highlight three main points in the reports that we are discussing. firstly, we should not devote the debate on public finances to issues relating to austerity alone. we also need to focus on what we can do to initiate growth and combat unemployment. in many countries, cuts in public expenditure are needed. at the same time, however, it is also important to increase revenue via positive growth, by getting more people into work and paying taxes. secondly, i appreciate the fact that mr scicluna takes up the issue of increased transparency in the financial sector in his report. there is still much to do in this regard. transparency is not only an excellent way to counter harmful risk-taking behaviour on the financial market. enhanced transparency is also necessary for supervision to be effective and for the public financial institutions to have the public's trust, which is extremely important. the ecb should lead the way in this area and take immediate measures to make its work more transparent. a good first step would be to begin to publish the minutes of the ecb council meetings. openness should also be a key principle in the establishment of the european systemic risk board (esrb). in order for the systemic risk board's recommendations to have an impact, the guiding principle should be that they be made public. thirdly, i am pleased that, in his report, mr giegold emphasises the importance of having a clear environmental and climate perspective, even in times of crisis. we must not allow the financial crisis to slow down the switch to a green economy. we should instead promote economic recovery by investing in renewable energy sources, environmentally friendly transport systems and the development of green technology. only by making these kinds of investments can we create growth that is sustainable in the long term. (fr) mr president, 2009 was, without doubt, the most difficult year for the euro since its introduction, but it was also the most useful. without the euro, the european union would have sunk into a war of competitive devaluations against the backdrop of the crisis. in 2009, monetary instability could have weakened the political solidity of the european union. thanks to the euro, we have been spared the pain of a continued imbalance of exchange rates and monetary policies. but for how much longer? today we are hoping and praying for better governance of the european currency - more restrictive, more visible and more responsive governance. the fact is, the attempts by countries to take back control of the euro's ground rules do not contribute whatsoever to the emergence of proper european economic and monetary governance. only solidarity can curb the speculative activities of which greece is a victim today and which may hit other countries in the euro area at any moment. solidarity goes hand in hand with solidity in the emotionally charged context of sovereign debt markets. the political prevaricating of recent weeks has not only damaged greece. it has seriously shaken confidence in the euro. non-assistance to countries in danger is undermining the monetary stability of the whole of the euro area. beyond emergencies, let us finally give the euro the instruments it needs. we need a coordinated european bond market to avoid bottlenecks with too many sovereign debts in too many countries coming to maturity at the same time. we need representation outside the euro area at all levels, in all bodies, including international financial institutions. why is the president of the eurogroup not in the g20? let us also accept that the new members want to join the euro area as quickly as possible. we must welcome them with enthusiasm, not with petty-mindedness. contriving to exclude euro area members amounts to abandoning the ambition of a strong europe in the world. the expansion of the euro area must go hand in hand with the implementation of the instruments needed for genuine economic union: coordination of budget policies and harmonisation of economic and fiscal policies. this is the price of the euro's continued success. (pl) mr president, a crisis is a disease which usually ends not only in recovery, but also strengthens and creates mechanisms of resistance. it may also lead to what are known as complications, and even to certain kinds of permanent impairment of the body. let us think about how this illness, which we call the crisis, arose. in most cases, an illness is the effect of the various ways in which we neglect our bodies, or it has an external origin. the cause of the crisis was activity which was contrary to market principles - speculative activity. the market itself is not able to reject, counteract or limit these factors if there is not suitable supervision and monitoring of the progress of processes, particularly in situations which are not typical for the market. until now, financial markets were monitored and supervised mainly by state and national institutions. globalisation has led to the establishment of world financial institutions and a global finance market. however, adequate world, regional and, in our case, european institutions for supervising and monitoring these markets have not been established. the market is not guided by values, but, above all, by the need to achieve profit at any cost. the crisis did not begin in 2008 with the collapse in the financial markets, but in 2007, with the crisis in the food markets, as well as the undermining of the energy market, which is controlled by political instruments. the situation in the european union is the sin of not observing the universally established and accepted principles of the stability and growth pact. it is a pity that the warnings from the commission were too gentle. some member states were allowed to get away with more, because, after all, they were not going to let some commission or other lecture them. some member states behaved like children, hiding their misdeeds. this kind of behaviour cannot be the basis of community or our integration. it is important to admit the mistakes which have been made, to tell our citizens, to apologise to them and to ask for understanding and cooperation as we emerge from the crisis. we must take action so that the costs of the crisis do not fall on the weakest and poorest. european union solidarity obliges us also to support the countries which have been worst hit by the crisis. recovery will not come from outside, if the body, or the state, does not take up the fight. (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mr trichet, i would like to thank you very much, not only for what you have done in recent years, but also for your approach in recent weeks. you have been competent, independent and consistent. you and your staff have been a calming influence in troubled times. mr rehn, you have made some very encouraging statements over the last few days. we should do everything possible to continue on the path that you have taken. the euro is a stabilising force, even in times of crisis. we must put an end to the myth that the euro and the stability and growth pact are the cause of the problems experienced by greece and other countries. last week, the greek prime minister said very clearly in this house that the euro is not to blame. on the contrary, it is part of the solution. there can be no reform without the euro. there can be no appropriate restrictions on the objectives that we can set ourselves without the euro. we must not make the euro weaker, if those countries which are affected feel that the euro protects rather than weakens them. i would also like to add that greece is not begging for money, which is the impression often given by the daily press. it would be a good thing if many members of the council stopped focusing on popular opinion on the domestic political front when they talk about this subject but instead worked with us to find common european solutions. greece cannot be given subsidies, but it wants support for implementing its reform and savings plan. the president of the european central bank, mr trichet, has also stated very clearly in a three-step plan what is possible and when the measures can be taken. no one has said that nothing could be done. we have a monetary union, but we do not have an economic union. to achieve an economic union, we need the political will of the member states rather than advice. the economic union includes the coordination of budgetary policy, the harmonisation of taxes and the coordination of education, economic and social policy. this is what we are calling on the member states to do and we expect them to show commitment. we must continue on this route in the interests of the euro. (pl) mr president, last year was an extremely turbulent one for the euro area. it began with slovakia's entry to the eurogroup, and ended with huge economic and financial problems in greece. during this period, the world experienced its biggest economic crisis for years. discussions are currently under way on how to cope with the new challenges, what direction the global economy should take and what european union policy should be. the resolution we are considering at the moment is part of this debate. i would like to draw attention to one aspect of it. ladies and gentlemen, the economic crisis, the problems in greece, and also the current debate on assistance for greece, show that the division into the new and the old europe is still a reality. last friday, the head of the european commission, jos manuel barroso, referred to the idea of creating a mechanism of support for countries in the euro area which are struggling with financial problems. according to the head of the commission, the principles and conditions which would govern the use of this instrument should be established only by members of the euro area. i would like to take the opportunity of this debate to give my strong support to the position of the commissioner for financial programming and budget, mr lewandowski, and professor jan rostowski, the polish minister for finance. i would like to add my voice to their appeal, and also to the opinion of many fellow members, that all member states, including those which are outside the euro area, should now, already, take an active part in measures to strengthen the euro area and create aid instruments for its members. poland, which is one of the countries outside the euro area, will soon adopt the common currency, and we would like, today, to be responsible for the future form of the eurogroup. therefore, let us not exclude the new member states from such an important debate. we have had the 'two-speed europe' slogan. let us not now divide europe into a europe in the euro area and a europe outside the euro area, because we are a single union. finally, i would like to give my wholehearted support to all parts of the resolution which call on the european central bank, the european commission and members of the eurogroup to support the process of euro area enlargement - enlargement based on the current criteria. i would also like to thank the president of the european central bank, mr trichet, for his good work, especially this year, which has been such a difficult one for europe. (hu) i am grateful to the commissioner, to the president of the ecb and to the rapporteur for having taken an open and highly professional approach to this problem that concerns us gravely. indeed, it is alarming that despite all our efforts, the rate of unemployment and the level of state indebtedness keeps rising in almost all member states of the european union. my country, slovakia, is no exception to the rule. unemployment has risen above 13%. slovakia was the last state to join the euro area, on 1 january 2009, and this had positive repercussions on economic as well as political and social areas. the vast majority of the population still feels positive about the euro. we think it is important therefore to maintain the strength and prestige of the euro. parliament must help the commission and the ecb in their efforts in order to avoid failure in this endeavour. the first thing to do is to bring the integration of the european economy to a higher and sustainable level. this is, however, a strategic question, in which the council's committed support is indispensable. (lt) the way out of the complicated economic and financial crisis was not as effective as we had hoped. when the crisis began, the member states' programmes of support for banks were not coordinated with joint conditions set down at european level and some banks used additional funds allocated from the european central bank to cover their losses. support for economic activity, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises, was not coordinated either. the impact of these actions is clear: when they failed to receive loans from the banks on time, small and medium-sized businesses folded en masse. it was easier for the countries of the euro area to overcome the difficulties, as the european central bank ensured the provision of liquidity to these. if we believe in european solidarity, if we operate in one open market with the same competitive conditions and the main goal is to exit from this complex situation as soon as possible, i think that the european central bank should have ensured and must ensure the provision of liquidity to member states not in the euro area that were hit particularly hard by this crisis. mr president, the rapporteur, mr scicluna, said that the ecb had tried to expand liquidity, but that liquidity had not been passed on by the banks to their customers. that is true outside the eurozone as well as inside it. my party is pleased that the uk remains outside the eurozone. a state's currency must reflect the condition and needs of its own economy and not the average needs of 27 different economies. however, keeping our own currency is only part of the answer. the central problem is that credit creation and distribution is in the hands of private companies - the commercial banks - and that is true outside, as well as inside, the eurozone. the function of credit creation - in effect, money creation - must be removed from the hands of private companies. extra spending power, when it is needed - either to distribute existing or imminent growth or to finance large infrastructure projects - must be created by the government and spent into circulation, not created by the banks and lent into circulation. (ro) we have been able to observe during this crisis that the fluctuations triggered by interest and exchange rates have come up against a single currency which has properly shielded the euro area. the single currency has not provided a solution to all the internal and external imbalances which have occurred. however, the benefits provided through allowing national financial institutions to have access to the european central bank's liquidity and the elimination of the risk of exchange rate fluctuations have increased the interest shown in it by the member states outside the euro area. the efforts made by these states through improving their own economies and fiscal policies in order to adopt the single currency must be welcomed. i call on the commission and european central bank to further encourage the expansion of the euro area as quickly as possible in order to provide them with greater protection against the effects of the economic and financial crisis. (de) mr president, mr trichet, i would like to thank you very much for the part of the report which warns against excessive cuts in wages with the aim of reducing deficits, because low incomes result in a fall in economic growth. i want to thank you for this paragraph, because i believe that this not only slows down economic growth and reduces the competitiveness of europe, but also restricts the opportunities for european citizens to play a full part in society. it is essential for us to draw up our budgets according to the guidelines, but it is equally important for the member states to have room for manoeuvre in an economic and social context. if we have a europe where there is no longer any investment in education, health and research, we will also have a europe that is unstable and cannot compete with the rest of the world. those groups which are not responsible for the crisis must not now be made to bear the cost. if we do not invest in people, we will not have a future in europe. this is why i am calling for the emphasis to be put on the social aspect in future. (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the current economic and financial crisis, which is also a structural crisis, is forcing us to impose long-term controls and to introduce cautious budgets. globalisation is compelling the euro area to play an effective role with regard to financial policy. however, this must not happen at the expense of the ordinary citizens and i would like to remind everyone that caution and responsibility are needed. mr president, i have to say that i have been addressing parliament for six and a half years now, and this is the first time that i have noted so many speeches, so many analyses, so many suggestions and so many proposals. i am very impressed by the wealth of what we have just heard and very impressed also by the diversity of views that have been expressed. i will try, if i may, to summarise my main points after hearing these remarks, which were all interesting and relevant, and to which the european central bank will, of course, attach the utmost importance. first of all, i would say that i have heard a lot on the challenges the ecb faced and praise for the ecb for having been able to react in real time in very difficult circumstances. let me tell you that i think my colleagues and i tried to do our best in very exceptional circumstances: the worst since world war ii, and it would have probably been the worst since world war i if we had not acted promptly. the challenges were faced by all; many of you have said that the challenges existed for other central banks in europe and in the rest of the world. so we all had to face up to enormous responsibility and i fully agree with those who have said that we cannot say that the difficult times are over. we are not over the difficult times. we are not going back to business as usual. we have to remain extremely alert. i also got the message on growth and jobs, which is a very strong message from parliament. i fully agree with that. by delivering stability, by being credible in delivering stability in the medium and long run, we trust that we are contributing to sustainable growth and sustainable job creation. but you know that our message is structural reforms; structural reforms to elevate the growth potential of europe and the job creation capacity of europe are absolutely essential. a firm message coming from you, which we fully share in the ecb is - and i do not want to respond in the place of the commissioner - governance of europe of the 27, governance of the 16 members of the euro area is of the essence. we call for the utmost level of responsibility from countries, whether members of the 27 or of the 16, to exert their responsibility, to exert surveillance on the peers. we absolutely need full and complete implementation of the stability and growth pact. surveillance of fiscal policies is at the heart of emu, and i must also include surveillance of structural reforms and implementation of structural reforms, and surveillance of the evolution of the cost competitiveness of the various economies, particularly, members of the euro area. this is a key issue. i do not want to elaborate more on greece and the various issues at stake. i have already had occasion to respond to many questions in the committee on economic and monetary affairs and in front of parliament. let me only say that greece has a role model, and the role model is ireland. ireland had an extremely difficult problem - this was said by one of the meps here - and ireland took its problem very seriously ex ante, with extreme determination, professionalism and capacity, and this has been recognised by all. i want to stress that. that being said, i repeat: the judgment of the ecb on the new measures which have been taken by the greek government is that they are convincing and, i would add, courageous. a word on the long-term situation inside the euro area: during the next 10 or 20 years, we will deliver price stability in line with the definition we have delivered since the inception of the euro. you can trust us. we can prove that. this is not theory. these are facts; these are figures. (fr) and i must stress this: all the members of the euro area know that average inflation in the euro area will be less than 2%, or close to 2%, in the medium and long terms. they must draw consequences from this nationally. they benefit from belonging to the euro area. they must not put themselves in a national context, in terms of national inflation, since that would be far from what we guarantee, because that has been asked of us, because we are faithful to our remit and because it is a contribution to the prosperity and stability of europe. mr president, allow me to conclude - if i can, in a few words - on the matter of transparency. as i have often said to meps, we are the most transparent in the world when it comes to the immediate publication of our studies, the introductory statement. we are the most transparent in the world when it comes to the press conference that immediately follows the governing council. the only area where this decision does not stand - and we have a good reason - is that we are not giving the names of those who are voting for this and of those who are voting for that, because we consider that our message is that we are not a collection of individuals. we are a college. the governing council is the pertinent entity. it is the governing council which counts. i have already said that it is not business as usual and we must absolutely reform the financial markets in a very profound way, in order to be sure that we do not start another crisis of the kind that we have had to cope with. a last point on poland and hungary: one mep mentioned poland and hungary and told us that they were not treated as they should be by the ecb. i think the mep is not well-informed; i would encourage her to go to the national central banks of the two countries and it will be demonstrated to her that the ecb has a very intimate cooperation with those two central banks to the benefit of all of us. member of the commission. - mr president, first, i would like to say thank you to the members for a very serious and substantive debate. i have listened to your views very carefully. i can conclude from them that there is strong and broad support for an effective reinforcement of economic governance in the euro area and in the european union as a whole. in my view, today's debate has been a very worthy and valuable setting of the scene for the european council today and tomorrow. i also welcome the opportunity to continue discussions on economic governance soon in the committee on economic and monetary affairs, preferably as soon as possible after easter. i would like to consult you and move forward soon with concrete proposals. there are two lines of action in reinforcing economic governance which are of the essence. first of all, its cornerstone will be a truly credible and better preventive fiscal and budgetary surveillance that is stronger and more rigorous, also covers the mid-term budgetary policies, and uses recommendations and, if needed, warnings to the member states. its second building block will consist of more effective preventive and more systematic and rigorous surveillance of macro-economic imbalances and divergences in competitiveness between the member states of the euro area and of the european union. binding policy recommendations will also be used in this regard. this is needed to prevent an accumulation of imbalances. it is self-evident that without a doubt, the most pressing and urgent need exists in the countries with large deficits and weak competitiveness - not only in greece, but, of course, starting in greece. it is equally self-evident that we cannot - and will not - mean by this that anybody would weaken the export performance of countries with current account surpluses. in other words, the aim is not to make bayern mnchen play worse against olympic lyon but to improve both export competitiveness where needed and domestic demand where needed and possible, thus making both bayern mnchen and olympic lyon play better as a european team by making both offensive and defensive strategy ever stronger. that is what the euro area - and, in the final analysis, the european union - is all about. rapporteur. - mr president, a few points first. i would like to take the opportunity to thank the ecb for its cooperation and availability in responding to my various queries. secondly, i would like to thank my fellow shadow rapporteurs for their joint team work in agreeing to amendments to this report and thus widening the agreement on it. we have seen that the recent recession is proving to be a challenge. however the tensions in the euro area are not new and are well known. we know we are not yet an optimal currency area. however, that is why we have to be innovative. we have to follow sensible economic principles and policies. of course, they must be couched in line with european social cohesion principles. some observers have stated that the ecb cannot help greece because this is forbidden by the 'no bail-out' clause of article 103 of the eu treaty. nevertheless, it is one thing to implement a bail-out and another, very different thing to provide temporary financial assistance. we know that there are several options before us. some can be executed in the short term and others in the medium term. as my colleagues before me pointed out, and as europeans, we all look up to the euro and we all want it to succeed. we can make it succeed, so let us all - parliament, commission, council and the european central bank - put our heads together and find a successful path forward. finally, we must restore public confidence in financial institutions through measures which include greater transparency, better risk management and appropriate regulation. we need to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude does not occur again. rapporteur. - mr president, following this debate, i would like to make three quick points. firstly, looking at the different opinions here in the house, we do not have the same opinion on the question of imbalances. there were differences which were quite clear and i think we have to be careful. in particular, i would like to address that to you, mr trichet and mr rehn, and ask you not to be blind in one eye, because the central problem, as we agree in principle, is that costs should grow according to the inflation target plus productivity. some countries had cost increases which were too high, and it is good that you are acting. on the other hand, there are several countries which use tax policy as well as their wage-setting arrangements to ensure they fall below this threshold. if you do not act on those - and i know that some in the ecofin do not agree with this approach - then we will be setting fire to the economic basis of the eurozone and that is very dangerous. i urge you not to be blind in one eye and i urge my colleagues likewise. look at greece and the stability programme, which was praised. i would like to stress that there is a major problem, and i refer to what i learnt during my visit to greece last week. most people in greece feel that during the last 10 or 20 years, a lot of people became very rich under circumstances which were not just. if you praise the irish efforts, you cannot compare it to the situation in greece. people in greece feel they should not suffer because of things they have not caused. therefore, i urge you, mr rehn, also to put pressure on the greek government to get serious on illegitimate wealth which has been accumulated in the past. otherwise, the programme will be not accepted and it will also fail for economic reasons. we have to make sure that the programme is socially just - and it is not yet socially just. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday, 25 march 2010. written statements (rule 149) in writing. - there are lessons to be learnt from the current eurozone crisis. the economic crisis is also responsible for the eurozone difficulties, but i believe there are also structural weaknesses of emu that we should address in order to avoid future crises. for the ecb to be able to take efficient action supporting employment and growth, we have to provide it with the necessary tools. the ecb does not have the same tools as the fed, which is why it could not have an active monetary policy supporting growth. the ecb is bound by its main objective of ensuring price stability, which prevents it from efficiently stimulating growth. i also believe that we need greater coordination of economic and fiscal policies, so that we avoid unfortunate situations like the greek one. better coordination would enhance euro area stability. the sgp needs to be respected strictly, but i think it should be revised. the preventive arm should be strengthened. the punitive arm is not an efficient one since paying fees only increases budgetary deficits and prevents compliance with the rules. on the other hand, sanctions should not be decided by the council, because member states will always be reluctant to punish each other. in writing. - we should proceed from one central fact - during the most severe economic crisis that europe has known, the euro has been an anchor of stability and credibility. without the functioning eurozone, overcoming the crisis would have been much slower and uneven. this applies also for those member states which have not yet joined the eurozone. now it is especially important to realise that the european common currency is a common value for which every member of the eurozone bears individual responsibility. there is a general agreement that the economic crisis was a logical outcome of a widespread crisis of values. those who have joined the eurozone are expected to bear higher responsibility for balancing their expenses and incomes. it does not make sense to take the role of supposed victims of financial speculation or economic mafias. almost all european economies have sinned against the principles of sound and balanced fiscal policy. the lesson has to be learnt - we need much tougher supervision and better coordination of financial policies with the establishment of a european monetary fund. but, first of all, each and every member of the eurozone must slow down in living at the expense of tomorrow. the activities of the european central bank have, since its inception, been a subject of constant criticism from the left, and not only throughout the eu. the first cause of this justified criticism is the objectives of the bank. since the main objective of the bank is to ensure that inflation does not exceed 2% and the budget deficits of the eu member states do not exceed 3% of gdp, then everything is clearly fine in times of growth, when unemployment 'falls by itself', the liquidity of the banks is 'secured by itself' and the ecb is able to 'press governments' in individual member states to reduce their debts. from the moment when an economic crisis erupts, however, it is a very different story. the badly formulated objective of the central financial institution has the effect of making fundamental divergences from the objective necessary. the report, which is concerned with assessing the ecb's annual report and performance in relation to solving the financial crisis, nonetheless stubbornly insists on this badly-formulated pivotal objective. the report also states, among other things, that it is necessary to draw back from the policy of stimulation packages and from securing the liquidity of the banks, which was the main so-called unconventional measure for overcoming the crisis. the report does not concern itself at all with the critical state of the finances of at least five eu states, and it seems that the authors of the report are also indifferent to the meteoric rise in unemployment. all of this only confirms the harmfulness of the current concept of the european central bank. the report must therefore be rejected. the european union as a whole and the euro area in particular are in a grave situation. greece is on the verge of bankruptcy and spain and portugal are also in difficulties. because of the seriousness of the situation, new proposals are constantly being made. on the one hand, people are talking about giving the european monetary fund extensive rights of intervention. on the other hand, the commissioner for economic and monetary policy, mr rehn, is calling for brussels to be involved in the budgetary planning of the member states. the european union obviously wants to use the current crisis to strip the member states of their financial autonomy, which is one of the last core areas of national sovereignty remaining to them. however, taking another huge step towards a centralised european superstate will not solve the existing problems. on the contrary, it will further exacerbate them. the alarming state that the monetary union finds itself in and the fact that the euro has become a high-risk currency are a result of countries such as germany, the netherlands and austria, on the one hand, being brought together with states such as greece, italy and spain, on the other, with a deliberate disregard for the existing differences between them concerning their economic development and the ethos on which their financial policy is based. these historical differences, which not only relate to the economy, must be taken into consideration, instead of further tightening the existing centralist constraints on the european nation states. in the context of the european central bank annual report, i would like to highlight the disturbing change in financial policy which has resulted in far too many dollars being printed without it being possible to come anywhere near covering their value. the accompanying current or forthcoming devaluation of the dollar by the united states as part of its currency reform programme would have a severe negative impact on the european market. in order to avoid this risk, the european central bank and other european institutions should seriously consider moving away from the dollar as a key currency. the euro is much stronger, and famous economists, such as nobel prize-winner joseph stiglitz, have said that the leading role played by the dollar has been the cause of many financial crises. the european union should stop exposing itself voluntarily to the problems of us financial policy. mr president, the debt crisis in greece has raised questions about our ability to maintain the stability of the euro area. i am convinced that the strength of the single currency will be guaranteed if the rules we have agreed upon are followed in every single member state. it has been said that, as well as greece, there are other european union member states which can expect serious financial difficulties. in addition to the soaring national debt, some member states have also reached almost dangerous levels of government spending, something which the european central bank was already concerned about a couple of years ago. the euro is an anchor to which the member state economies are tied. actions by any member state which weaken the euro are unacceptable. i consider it essential that every country fulfils the conditions set up for the euro area. at the same time, i support the collective approach to looking for solutions, including compiling an aid package for greece, tightening the regulations concerning the single currency and carrying out stricter supervision. the idea of the possible creation of a european monetary fund, which was raised as a result of the greek crisis, is an approach which could prevent potential problems, but we should not forget the overseas factors operating in a globalised investment market, which necessarily have an impact on the euro area. it is, therefore, clear that at a national level, we should henceforth concentrate more on creating legislation which would protect the euro from the influence of dangerous factors, both internal to the european union and outside it.

approval of the minutes the minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed. are there any comments? madam president, yesterday an explanation of vote by mr dell'alba was recorded, two aspects of which were not an explanation of vote. firstly, it contained personal insults that i must reject, for he accused me of falsifying history, and secondly he called on the president to act contrary to the rules, namely to delete passages from the explanatory statement in my report. according to our rules of procedure, however, the rapporteur is solely responsible for the content of an explanatory statement. it can no more be deleted than can passages from a speech. this could only be done under some kind of orwellian ministry of truth, and the committee on external economic relations has unanimously rejected this notion in a letter to the president. that has been noted, mr posselt. but we really must get on with approving the minutes. are there any other comments on the minutes? (parliament approved the minutes) votes have you noted, madam president, that our group abstained because the farthofer report as such does nothing to change the monopoly situations enjoyed by all the railway companies in the member states? this is not really the time for explanations of vote, but we did hear what you said. i voted for the proposal for a regulation which will allow the renewal, until the end of 1997, of the regulations applying to importation into madeira, the azores and the canary islands of cattle for fattening and local consumption, certain fresh or frozen pork or meat-based products, and seed potato supplies. i should point out that the special regime which has now been extended consists in exemption from import duties and the granting of aid for the above-mentioned products coming from the rest of the european community. this special regime is justified because these supplies meet the needs of these particular regions and, in the terms of the proposal for a regulation, the special situation arising from the isolation and fragmentation of island markets or the ultra-peripheral situation calling for a special supply regime. however, since this is an objective and permanent situation there is no justification for the transitory nature of this specific supply regime and the contingency derives from a need for its annual extension. from this point of view, i think that it will be justified to turn it into a permanent regime which would not rule out revision when necessary of the quantities of goods which need to be imported exempt of duties, according to the annual changes in needs. from my point of view this question is related to the statutes of the ultra-peripheral regions of the european union and strengthens the importance that the next intergovernmental conference will give to proposals presented, namely by the portuguese government, to include in the treaty's rules the need for permanent and effective support for the inhabitants of these regions, enabling them to have the same rights and opportunities as any other european citizens. bennasar tous report in principle it is desirable that there should be a common measure for support for the philoxenia programme because the tourist industry is an important factor in economic and social development in the union. however, after the extremely serious criticism which has been levelled at the commission and dg xxiii in particular on account of the manner in which previous plans of action have been carried out it is highly important that the resources which have been proposed for the philoxenia programme and the objectives to be achieved are closely monitored as work progresses. the aim of the programme is very clear: to create jobs. the administrative costs of this measure, travel and staff costs, should not exceed what is reasonable. very briefly, i am pleased to see that amendment no 28, which i tabled, has once again been approved in the context of philoxenia. commissioner papoutsis' reply (p-2433/96) also suggested that the european tourism agency should by now be starting on its way, or so i hope, and i trust that the commissioner, as a former member of parliament, will be able to champion the views of parliament and not yield to other opinions or interests. i shall vote in favour. i have voted against the reports on tourism as i believe that these issues are not eu issues but areas which should be governed by national policy and intergovernmental cooperation. parodi report if measures in the tourism sector are really to have an impact it is essential that they should gain institutional recognition at community level. we do not believe, however, that it is necessary to establish a sub-committee on tourism. nor is it necessary to create more units in the commission to be responsible for monitoring the application of the principles of a common tourism policy. the common budget resources must be used effectively. a reasonable balance must be found between the effectiveness of the resources to be earmarked and the objectives to be achieved. this is why the administrative costs, including staff costs, for measures in the tourism sector should not exceed what is reasonable. i have voted for the report in the final round of voting. it is important to promote the tourist industry in europe but this is in the first instance a matter for the respective member states. there is no reason to introduce some kind of legal basis for a policy on tourism into the treaty of rome. nor is there any reason to give numerous mandates to the commission in order for it to analyse this and that aspect of tourism, such as 'types of tourism' , ' the financing of tourism' etc. this too should be done at national level and by the respective member states. the eu should, however, be able to take on a coordinating role in respect of national, regional and local authorities, the tourist industry and various consumer organisations. harrison report the manner in which the commission's dg xxiii carried out the previous action plan has been the subject of considerable criticism, especially as regards administrative and operational questions. this criticism must be taken extremely seriously. a series of organisational changes must be made in the tourism unit. if the philoxenia programme is to ensure the economic and social development intended it is especially important as part of the continued work to monitor closely the resources proposed for dg xxiii. protection against certain legislation (rule 97 of the rules of procedure) the next item is the report ( a4-0329/96) by mr kittelmann, on behalf of the committee on external economic relations, on the proposal for a council regulation (com(96)0420 - c4-0519/96-96/0217(cns)) protecting against the effects of the application of certain legislation of certain third countries, and actions based thereon or resulting therefrom. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, in its resolution of 24 may 1966 the european parliament condemned the helms burton act 'and all the unilateral measures adopted in the us against world free trade' , called on the commission 'to propose a regulation imposing a ban on compliance with such measures' and at the same time called on the council and the commission 'to pursue the dialogue with the usa' . i am glad that today, if somewhat belatedly - for the mills of the executive always grind rather slowly, even in the case of clear-cut issues - and with the unanimous approval of all the member states of the european union, the council and the commission, we have a regulation that lives up to our expectations. the helms burton act, which concerns the situation in cuba, and the d'amato act, which concerns the situation in libya and iraq, are attempts to extend national american legal provisions governing undertakings and individuals to third countries that want to make new investments in the said countries. we have established on several occasions, and we want to emphasize this again today, that this cannot reasonably be expected of european industry nor is it acceptable to european union policy. even if president clinton has suspended parts of the helms burton act, the real danger to european interests remains, since it is not possible to suspend the law relating to iraq and libya. and in any case the helms burton act has only been suspended temporarily. we have noted with extreme concern the economic implications of this law. the unilateral measures imposed by law, under which third parties will be liable to sanctions, represent a clear violation of international law, the effects of which are not yet foreseeable. what is certain is that if these laws are applied, european undertakings in particular will be damaged. meanwhile the americans have drawn up a long list describing the forms of action they could take against individual undertakings. but we are against the americans taking on the role of world policeman and disregarding international agreements such as the world trade organization which they both supported and ratified. let me point out once again that the issue is not whether we unconditionally support the american government, the american people, in their fight against international terrorism; we are in favour of extending the measures needed to combat terrorism. that is a tradition of the european parliament! we also stress that our strong opposition has nothing to do with our long-standing and good friendship with the united states and transatlantic relations. they are an extremely valuable asset and it is becoming every more necessary for us to deepen these relations in view of the international problems facing us and which will also increase. in these important areas the european union will therefore work together with the usa on a cooperative and constructive basis. but good friends must keep to the rules of play. we must make it unmistakably clear that we reject bilateralism and protectionism. primarily, that is the task of the world trade organization, which will have to take a very rapid decision under the dispute settlement procedure. we welcome the fact that the european union called for a panel to be set up, which has been delayed because of us objections but which, we hope, will happen at the next meeting of the dispute settlement body in november this year. moreover, in the madrid decisions in december 1995 the usa committed itself to transatlantic cooperation. so it is simply not on for the usa to make commitments on the one hand and keep emphasizing how important it is to cooperate with us, while on the other hand it goes against the law. we must counter the law it passed with very firm measures. that is why i am glad that the council and the commission have begun by setting out five measures by which they intend to protect the interests of our undertakings. in fact this regulation could be supported today without further discussion since it is in line with our requests and expectations. yet i would also like to point out that the general aim of the regulation needs clarification in some areas. for instance, it is not quite clear how the proposal can be applied in the case of the d'amato act. finally, let me ask you, given that the rex committee has also approved and unanimously recommended the regulation to parliament, to vote for this regulation. madam president, my group views with satisfaction the proposal for a council regulation on protection against the effects of extra-territorial legislation. we are also happy to see that the line taken by the council was the one approved by this parliament in its resolution of 24 may, as mr kittelmann also pointed out, once it became clear that the united states intended to institute a series of measures designed to restrict, penalize and ultimately to prevent trade with and investment in certain countries by means of two instruments: the helms-burton and d'amato-kennedy acts. from the outset this parliament, via the rex committee, considered that these proposals, which were in fact put forward for domestic political reasons, were dangerous to the future of the trade rules signed in marrakesh, and a politically intolerable challenge. without the cover of a multilateral organization, or an international institution such as the united nations, which in exceptional circumstances may issue resolutions which have an impact on trade, these unilateral measures are unacceptable, as are the arguments which have been used in an attempt to convince us, after the event, of the worthiness of the objectives. the commission and the council have secured the backing of parliament and of public opinion in the member states, which have provided them with enormous support in their twin-track approach: on the one hand the regulation on the protection of interests and on the other the application to the world trade organization. both approaches are right, although the council, as too often happens, forgot that this parliament is an important part of community institutions and its opinion could have been sought in a more timely manner. despite this discourtesy, our group will support the proposal for a regulation, as it supports the application to the world trade organization. we believe that unanimity is essential in this dispute, and, in line with international commitments undertaken, and with an approach entirely different from that of the united states, we believe the world trade organization to be the proper forum for settlement of the dispute, since its members include other countries whose interests have also been damaged by the arbitrary nature of these measures. we acknowledge the role of the united states in the world, but we are not prepared to accept restrictions at the expense of other parties' economic interests, as in this case, without a specific mandate issued in advance by an international organization of which we are members, which might well be, as we have already said, the united nations. we congratulate mr kittelmann, who has worked with great urgency, and we also trust that this regulation will be unanimously approved, as it will strengthen the position of the european union in a dispute such as the one we are discussing. madam president, the principle of this legislation is supported by the liberal group as a proportionate, timely and appropriate response to the ill-judged extra-territorial legislation of the united states. given the coincidence of each member state's separate and collective interests and the role of the commission in the domain of international trade, this is classically the type of legislation that is more suited to the european union than a multiplicity of bilateral member state arrangements. collectively we must defend our rights to choose when and how to engage, or isolate, regimes such as those in cuba, libya, iran or elsewhere. the will of the united states to isolate such states in the defence of democracy is not well-served by the undemocratic arrogation unto themselves of a presumption to act and to choose for all. the united states has no such right and in no uncertain terms they must be induced, and if needs be, through retaliation such as proposed in this legislation, forced to accept this fact. in recent days, madam president, we have been disturbed to read reports that suggest that denmark may delay the adoption of this legislation on the grounds of a challenge on the legal base. the legal bases proposed are longstanding and not innovative in themselves. custom and practice pending any supreme court decision in denmark would suggest that the status quo should prevail. i hope this will not delay matters and the liberal group fully supports the legislation and the rex committee's amendments. madam president, i believe that in supporting this regulation which protects the interests of companies and the trading interests of the european union as a whole, parliament is merely following a tradition which has been producing political and commercial effects since the time of the 1993 melandri report. as mentioned in the actual amendments, we are sorry to see that no account was taken of the role of parliament, and we also deplore the delay in bringing the matter before parliament. in addition, we believe that the committee on this matter should be advisory. as the committee on foreign affairs says, stringent measures have to be taken to counter the unacceptable commercial and political provocation offered by the united states with the helmsburton act and the d'amato act, since, as the rapporteur rightly said, this legislation will also have to be used to counter the future d'amato act relating to iran and libya. we also support the proposals of the committee on external economic relations, which make the watch list of united states companies and changes in the eu entry procedures for american companies the logical counterpart to the provocation represented by these us acts. at all events, i will conclude, madam president, by saying that in my view this regulation is backed by the european union's decision to defend the principle of its and other countries' sovereign right to decide with whom they should or should not trade. madam president, once again the usa wants to play world legislator and is not keeping to the rules that were agreed in the framework of the wto. we cannot let this be done to us. in the rex committee all the groups were in agreement on that. after the council gave its assent in mid-july, the commission has now presented a proposal for an anti-blockade regulation. the rex committee - and here again all the groups agreed - believes that it would be preferable for measures on the basis of this regulation to be taken by the commission rather than the council. parliament itself has been calling for this kind of anti-blockade legislation since 1992, since the usa reinforced the blockade against cuba with the torricelli act. the council and in particular the german government have been the main stumbling blocks so far. nor did the commission fall over backwards to act. presumably at the time people expected the cuban business to sort itself out by itself within a few years. but last year the cuban economy recovered somewhat and now the usa is tightening the screws of the blockade even further, supposedly in order to promote the spread of democracy. but that was also how it justified its support for the military coup in chile and for the mujahedin in afghanistan. once again the council and the commission did not act, did not immediately take the matter before the wto. only when the trade interests of the eu, especially of germany and france, were seriously affected by the d'amato act did frantic activity break out on all sides. but after the eu has kept quiet for so long, people will no longer believe that it really intends to hit back now. this anti-blockade legislation is a few years too late. if european trade interests are suffering now, that is primarily the fault of the national governments, but it is also because of the commission's failure to act. after years of inaction on the part of the union followed by the frantic activity of recent weeks, the attempt by the eu to adopt a common position risks being defeated by denmark's veto. i have the fullest understanding for the reservations expressed by denmark, which does not want to create a precedent for giving the commission wider general powers with the anti-blockade legislation. such matters belong in the intergovernmental conference, which is where they should be resolved by agreement. but in this specific case we need prompt action, which is why i appeal to all parties concerned to put aside the legal disputes and come to a rapid agreement on this question. madam president, although the issue is not to show how other-worldly we are, since the sierra madre, since the barbudos , behind their comandante , descended on havana, things have changed a great deal in cuba. we were there with a small parliamentary mission and we met president castro himself - carlos lage was there too, incidentally. things have changed, clearly, on the economic front, with the appearance of the paladares , or little restaurants, and the tax reform of 1994. and it was at that time, when cuba, despite its problems, was beginning to open up, that we saw the truth of the saying 'what's bred in the bone comes out in the flesh' . the united states reverted to type, with the 'big stick' of theodore roosevelt, the monroe doctrine, the bay of pigs philosophy - arrogance, diktats, unilateral action, embargo! in other words, the same tactics that were used, with the support of everyone here, against iraq and the iraqi people. in cuba, the effect was to create united opposition, including the archbishop of havana: we met him in june, and he too was against this philosophy of unilateralism, against this philosophy of protectionism, against this philosophy of economic nationalism. suddenly we learn that american legislation includes a section 301, a splendid section which enables the united states to impose unilateral sanctions on anyone who inconveniences it. suddenly we learn, in this house, that europe has given way to the multinational chiquita in the 'banana affair' . we learn that we were getting ready to give way in the hormone affair, allowing the global extension of american legislation. and yet all the tax experts know what is going on! california's behaviour in connection with unitary taxation, which obstructed companies in the united kingdom and obstructed pchiney in france, goes back more than fifteen years! so you see, ladies and gentlemen, the mistake of alignment that was made during the gulf war. over there on the left they forgot, during the gulf war, the attacks by american fighters on the mondoa palace in santiago de chile, because the multinational kenneccott & braden gave an order for the chilean government to be overthrown. you had forgotten that. you had forgotten the alignment in the gatt negotiations, on the blair house agreements. well, at least, it's an ill wind. we are going to start at singapore in november, we are going to start on the gatt negotiations in 1999. we have already seen president clinton pushing through a new agricultural law. is europe going to forget, is the european parliament going to forget the female spirit he displayed during the gulf war? because, if so, we shall avoid finding ourselves, too, subjected to the equivalent of the amato law, the equivalent of the torricelli law, the equivalent of the helms-burton law! thank you, madam president, when slaves awaken, anything is possible. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, this regulation is necessary and right on this particular occasion. the kittelmann report should therefore be supported. the question is, however, whether the road of rapid liberalization on which the european union and the wto have embarked is the right one when it is increasingly being undermined by protectionism and extra-territorial laws and then has to be corrected or commuted by counter-measures, such as this regulation. these are dubious legal methods of combatting a breach of international law. would it not be better in this case to take more measured steps to liberalize world trade and only to take the next step when the advantages of earlier steps have been assured and all the national economies can take the next step without reservations? i have discovered in many areas of our parliament's activities that proposals and decisions were based on wishful thinking and a lack of realism. since this is the last time i can speak in this chamber before my return to the national austrian parliament, let me take this opportunity to thank all those with whom i enjoyed good cooperation and cordial meetings in the committees. i also thank the commission for answering my many questions. and i thank the interpreters for their work, which is not always easy. at the same time, let me appeal to a number of members to consider whether it is in the spirit of europe for them to judge other colleagues not on the basis of their qualifications but purely and simply according to where they sit in this parliament. i wish you all great success in your work for europe! many thanks, madam president! madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the commission is glad that the european parliament is prepared to invoke the urgency procedure in connection with the community antiboycott provisions which the commission proposes to adopt in order to protect european operators from the extraterritorial effects of the american helms-burton and d'amato laws which came into force this year. the commission is fully aware of the fact that the european parliament has on numerous occasions, most recently during its plenary sitting of 24 may 1996, called for such provisions to be adopted. the commission believes, like parliament, that it is now necessary to protect the interests of the community, its citizens and the undertakings established within its territory against the illegitimate extraterritorial effects of the laws adopted by the united states. the community provisions should also be such as to send a clear message to the american administration, and even more so to the american congress, that the rules of public international law must be respected. that is the position which the commission, the council and the governments of the member states have steadfastly defended. however, the community's provisions must not be seen as a rejection of the objectives pursued by the united states in its anxiety to bring back democracy to cuba and to put a stop to the support provided by certain countries to international terrorism. the european union still shares these objectives, and the council has restated its desire to support democratization in cuba. on the other hand, it cannot accept that washington, by making its laws applicable outside its national frontiers, should endeavour to impose its own view regarding the means to be employed in order to achieve shared objectives. the commission must also thank parliament for the constructive amendments that have been proposed. it undertakes to keep the european parliament regularly informed, through the competent parliamentary committee, and will ensure, in compliance with the provisions of the treaty, that the european parliament is involved as it should be in any follow-up legislation. the commission shares the views of the european parliament regarding the comitology procedure and will pass on those views to the council during the discussions to be held there. as far as the union's objectives regarding cuba are concerned, it should be recalled that the european council in madrid on 14 and 15 december last year adopted the following conclusions. it deemed it appropriate to continue dialogue and cooperation with cuba with a view to actively supporting the ongoing process of reform, encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and broadening the scope of private enterprise and the development of civilian society. to this end, it called upon the commission to present a draft mandate for an agreement on economic and commercial cooperation in the first half of 1996, which the council will examine in the light of the developing political and economic situation in cuba. moreover, the european council in florence on 21 and 22 june this year adopted the following conclusions: it regretted the fact that political circumstances in cuba had not enabled any progress to be made in relations between the european union and our country. it hopes that the changing political situation in cuba will create the conditions necessary for such progress to be made. the debate is closed. we shall now proceed to the vote. (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) after earlier reticence because of the american presidential elections the commission decided in favour of a tough political response to the trade measures taken by the united states against cuba. a formal complain has been lodged with the wto, but it will be some time before it is dealt with. a further concrete step we can take at the moment is thus this proposal for a european regulation. although we do not accept the extraterritorial validity of the american legislation, this union measure against our most important ally is painful. especially since like the united states we deplore the ruling dictatorship in cuba. the european legislation proposed by the commission is far-reaching. the ban on recognizing and complying with rulings by the american judge encroaches on the law of member states. moreover, it also makes it possible for american damage claims to be removed from the jurisdiction of any judge in the member states. these measures will mean a far-reaching transfer of sovereignty. the question for us is thus whether there is a sufficient basis for community action under articles 113 and 235 of the treaty. would it not be more correct, legally speaking, to place the measures under the third pillar and act at an intergovernmental level? among other things to avoid the risk of judgments being subsequently declared void and challenged? and we do not think the regulation is formulated clearly in every respect and we think there are also a lot of legal details which need to be ironed out. lastly, we cannot agree to the commission's proposal that this legislation should also be enforced against the american d'amato act. unlike the helms-burton act the d'amato act denies european citizens and companies access to the american market if they trade with libya or iran. that calls for countermeasures other than legal proceedings on the part of the european legislator. in view of all this we have chosen to abstain. fishery the next item is the joint debate on the following: report (a4-0306/96) by mr kindermann, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on the proposal for a council regulation (com(96)0189 - c4-0312/96-96/0124(cns)) amending for the fourth time regulation (ec) no 3699/93, laying down criteria and arrangements regarding community structural assistance in the fisheries and aquaculture sector and for processing and marketing of its products; -report (a4-0271/96) by mr d'aboville, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on the proposal for a council regulation (com(96)0131 - c4-0268/96-96/0089(cns)) on the conclusion of the protocol defining, for the period from 18 january 1996 to 17 january 1999, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the agreement between the european community and the republic of seychelles on fishing off seychelles; -report (a4-0270/96) by mr gallagher, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on the communication from the commission (com(95)0669 - c4-0016/96) on the implementation of technical measures in the common fisheries policy; -oral question (b4-0979/96-0-0213/96) by mr arias canete, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, to the commission, on the crisis in the european union salmon sector; -report (a4-0305/96) by mrs mckenna, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on the commission report (com(96)0100 - c4-0213/96) on monitoring the common fisheries policy. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the commission has presented a proposal amending for the fourth time the fifg implementing regulation (ec) no 3699/93. essentially it adjusts this regulation to other legal provisions. it is designed to permit fifg participation in action to promote sales of fishery products. under article 12 of this regulation it was previously not permitted to include regional indications in a guarantee of quality. with this amendment it is now recognized that under certain conditions, which may be fulfilled especially in the aquaculture sector, the geographical origin of a fisheries product may provide objective information about its particular qualities. article 12 is therefore to be amended such that this special case can become eligible for funding under the fifg sales promotion measures. the committee on fisheries supports this proposal. the protected designation of origin or protected geographical indication together with the guarantee of quality can be regarded as an important means of promoting sales and opening up new possible outlets for fishery products, although only in the medium to long term, as its application is subject to an extensive examination procedure at the level of the member states and the commission. i therefore call on the member states to inform their producer organizations of the new opportunities after this regulation has entered into force and examine the relevant applications as quickly as possible and forward them to the commission. a further proposed change is more technical, although also important. it is a legal provision that from 1 january 1994 the budgetary conversion rate for the ecu will be used for granting aid from the fifg. this transposes into law the decision of principle taken by the council not to use the agricultural conversion rate for the ecu for fifg interventions. since the entry into force of regulation no 3699/93 on 1 january 1994 there has been uncertainty in the member states as to the ecu rate to be applied in conversion into national currencies. as this was not specified, conversion has to some extent operated differently in the member states. the proposed change is therefore a legal precision which removes current uncertainty and which the committee on fisheries welcomes, since it ensures that the retroactive nature of the provision will not work to the detriment of the recipients. i therefore ask the house to adopt the report by its committee on fisheries and to approve the commission proposal. turning now to the report by mrs mckenna, this excellent report on the commission report on monitoring the common fisheries policy says it very plainly: the success of the common fisheries policy depends on an effective system of control and resources management. but that does not exist, as the commission document clearly shows. the member states' control measures vary in intensity and, in relation to the overall monitoring programme, tend to be very sketchy and not very effective. unfortunately, reading the commission's report, one cannot avoid the impression that the inadequacies noted in the national transposal of the union's control provisions reflect a lack of political will on the part of the member states. the fishermen feel they are being treated unequally, since the controls vary from one member state to another. the fishermen's distrust of eu legislation is undermining their sense of justice. that is why the european parliament is calling for eu-wide similar penalties for similar offences, for the eu inspectorate to be granted increased powers and for the commission itself to be able to impose sanctions. illegal landings make it essential to have a more intensive control system for the landing and marketing of fish. this must be supported by setting up a satellite control system in the member states by 1999 at the latest. these measures proposed by parliament can, however, only partly help resolve the problem. its root cause lies in the over-capacity of the eu fisheries fleet. the fishermen must be freed from the pressure of economic survival and it is vital to establish a lasting balance between catch capacity and available resources. this gives new force to the question of restructuring the fleets and restricting fishing activity while at the same time implementing socioeconomic flanking measures. madam president, i should first like to protest against this rag-bag sitting devoted to fisheries. what kind of speech can you make when you have to talk simultaneously about salmon imports, fishery agreements with seychelles and technical measures in community waters, and then expect a comprehensive answer? as for the automatic inclusion, week after week, of the 'fisheries' business on the friday agenda, i think it is an absolute scandal. of course i know that friday is fish day, but, after all, these reports are dealing with problems affecting the future of people working in appalling conditions and an industry going through an unprecedented crisis! what sort of opinion do you think fishermen form of our institutions, when their problems always come up in a three-quarters-empty house and, what's more, in the absence of the commissioner responsible? a word about the technical measures before i proceed to my report. no one has any doubt, the fishermen least of all, that if their livelihood is to be saved, the resources must be carefully husbanded. the commission's proposals are on the right lines, rightly suggesting various measures based on the protection of juvenile fish. although the intention may be good, the practical arrangements are more dubious. for a start, such measures cannot be adopted until they have first been tested to assess their efficacy and their socio-economic impact. that is why we are insisting that the main proposals, especially those relating to fishing gear, should be the subject of pilot projects run over reasonable periods of time and at various sites corresponding to the differing situations to be found in community waters. as for the possible box closures, such steps, even more than others, call for a prior assessment of the socio-economic consequences to which they will give rise and the detailed planning of suitable flanking measures. i now come to my own report on the fisheries agreement with seychelles. this agreement relates exclusively to tuna fishing. in quantitative terms, in the context of fisheries agreements as a whole, this one could be regarded as average. however, it is of very great importance because of the strategic location of the area in question. it could be said that access to the waters around the seychelles determines fishing activities in the indian ocean as a whole. the agreement provides for fishing licences for 57 european vessels, with financial compensation amounting to ecu 9.9 million, divided between the fishing rights as such, the financing of scientific programmes and educational schemes such as study awards. this agreement covers the period from january 1996 to january 1999, and is a renewal of an agreement of the same type. although the financial compensation for a given quantity of catch is unchanged, a number of other things have changed. i made the point that the monitoring system has been tightened, that communications between the vessels and the authorities have been enhanced, that catches will be verified by the seychelles fishing authority, a semi-public body responsible for managing fish stocks and developing scientific research. on the other hand, penalties have been increased, both for failure to comply with the rules and for incorrect declaration of catches. as far as stocks are concerned, it is important to note that tropical tuna, as a whole, is not regarded by scientific experts as being overexploited. however, i made a point of stressing the need for the indian ocean tuna commission, a coordinating and research body which deals with the management of resources, to become operational as soon as possible. this commission covers not only the indian ocean seaboard states but also all states fishing in those waters, and its recommendations regarding species conservation will be binding on all members. as regards the relations between community industrial fishing and non-industrial fishing, it is important to bear in mind that the seychelles government has adopted stringent measures to protect zones where non-industrial fishing takes place. these measures, which prohibit foreign fleets from coastal and reef areas, have prevented any kind of conflict. the fisheries agreement with seychelles is having particularly notable economic consequences. before the arrival of the european tuna boats, seychelles existed solely for and by tourism. today, the activity engendered by tuna fishing has become as important as this tourist activity. for example, two-thirds of the total catch from the western indian ocean is landed at the port of victoria. the country's largest cannery, set up as a joint venture by the state, a canning company and a marine fitting-out company, employs 600 people. there are plans to double its capacity in 1997, which will create an additional 900 jobs. furthermore, the community vessels are required to take on board two seychelles seamen, an obligation which is complied with and often exceeded. in conclusion, given that the basic economic assets of this agreement are the same as in the previous agreement, given the development value of this agreement and given the fact that the provisions concerning the declaration and monitoring of catches have been improved, i believe that our parliament can support the adoption of this agreement. i should like to thank the committee on development and cooperation for its opinion, which i trust i have taken into account in my report, especially as regards its concerns about preventing the over-exploitation of stocks. i should also like to thank the committee on budgets for its contribution, especially for inviting the commission to open negotiations on the renewal of the financial protocols relating to fisheries before they have even expired, and to close those negotiations in good time for parliament to be able to be consulted as it should be - in other words, before signature of the agreement in question. finally, i must thank my colleagues on the committee on fisheries, who adopted this report unanimously. (applause) madam president, i wish to place on record my appreciation of the interest shown by my colleagues in the committee on fisheries in this report on the communication from the commission on the implementation of technical measures in the common fisheries policy. i warmly welcome the approach of the commission's communication and indeed many of the ideas which this communication contains. regrettably, in the past not sufficient attention was focused on technical measures within all of the member states although a number of member states were concerned. i am convinced that technical conservation measures are essential for the protection of juveniles and spawning adults. the fisheries committee believes that more attention should have been paid in the past to this important aspect of conservation. it is indispensable to improve consultation and cooperation at grass-roots level if policies are to be acceptable to those who have to operate these policies. the commission must take appropriate action to restore the confidence of fishermen in the work of scientists by means of full consultation with the fishermen. consultation with technical experts who have experience of fishing operations is essential. the views of both fishermen and technical experts should not be ignored. furthermore, i am convinced that this parliament will support me when i say that it is vital for technical measures to be simple, that they should be cost-effective, that they should be technically feasible and practical for operation in commercial conditions. technical conservation measures must be easily understood and they must be uncomplicated to enforce. remember, fishermen are fishermen, not eurocrats. technical conservation measures should be an integral part of an integrated policy for the preservation of stocks. technical conservation measures must be accompanied by other measures such as tacs and quotas. only a few member states have made proposals to the commission. i call on all member states to become more actively involved and to make proposals. in my report i call for a comprehensive scheme of incentives and training for fishermen in the use of conservation technology to be included in any package of measures as a matter of urgency. i strongly advocate the concept of conservation dividends. the purpose of the committee advocating conservation dividends is to entice fishermen to voluntarily accept conservation technology so we do not have to resort to legislation. i believe that if the goodwill of the industry is not forthcoming, technical measures will be flouted where possible. i suggest by way of a conservation dividend that we should consider magp concessions or, indeed, extra quota allocations for those who conform. if voluntary introduction of technical measures is not rewarded then the only option left is eu legislation which would require, no doubt, the agreement of all member states. i believe that this would be almost impossible to obtain. at this time nobody contests the need for appropriate measures and regulations. i strongly believe that these same measures and regulations should be introduced in all future international agreements. i call on the commission to ensure that this will be the case. the commission must ensure that the proposed measures include increased minimum mesh size - to be introduced in stages and after sea trials are undertaken, geographical simplification and the introduction of square mesh panels and indeed box closures where necessary. before i refer to the other reports and wear my national cap, i want to again thank all of those who took such an interest in technical conservation measures because i believe that such measures can play an important role in the conservation of fish stocks for the future. but it will, as i say, require the full support of the fishermen. so again, i want to advocate the need to consult with the fishermen and the technical scientists who have experience in this field. i want to take the opportunity to refer to the mckenna report. in this report, ms mckenna urges the commission to make provision for deciding not to grant, to suspend, to reduce or to cancel vital community financial aid for the fishing industry in the event that certain eu regulations are not complied with. this report unfortunately advocates quota reductions to be imposed as a penalty. such recommendations, i believe, are totally unnecessary. ms mckenna attempted unsuccessfully to seek a further reduction in the meagre irish fishing fleet. i would like to point out that ireland has the best fishing grounds in europe: we have 4 % of eu quotas; 44 % of our fleet is upwards of 25 years old; 64 % of our fleet suffers from safety deficiencies. i would hope that this will be addressed and i am pleased that, some time ago, the commissioner gave me an assurance when it came to safety that the commission would be quite forthcoming. we in ireland can ill afford to lose any further tonnage. we should be given the opportunities to develop our fishing industry, remembering full well that in addition to having a common fisheries policy, we have a regional policy, we have a rural development policy. these should be integrated with a view to ensuring that coastal regions of my country and of europe where there are no alternative sources of development are allowed to develop and provide much needed jobs in all of those areas. i therefore will have great difficulty in supporting that report. i cannot over emphasize the damage being caused by norwegian salmon imports to the irish salmon farming industry, as indeed is also the case in scotland. i realize that the norwegians gave a commitment at a recent meeting in london with a view to ensuring that the production in the last quarter of 1996 and the first quarter of 1997 would be on the 1995 basis plus 10 %. we will be very vigilant on this issue. minimum import prices, which we appreciate, were introduced earlier this year but have not worked. they have been circumvented. therefore, i now call on the commission to reintroduce minimum import prices and to follow on with quantity restrictions. i call on all governments, including my own government, to take the necessary steps. madam president, the difficult situation in which the community's salmon fishing industry finds itself, particularly in ireland and scotland, is not news for this parliament. there were already serious malfunctions in the community market last year because of imports of norwegian salmon at abnormally low prices, which resulted in heavy losses for our producers. as a result the committee on fisheries tabled an oral question in november 1995, requesting that the commission take immediate action to protect jobs in this sector. following this move, the commission set a minimum import price in december 1995. the minimum price was welcomed by the sector as a first step towards a proper resolution of the crisis. however, the expected results did not materialize, as mr gallagher has pointed out. irish producers in fact experienced a 10 % fall in sales of their products after the introduction of the minimum import price. this price was retained until june 1996 without any improvement in the situation, which indeed continued to deteriorate. in 1995 we pointed out that imports from norway had risen by 27 % in the preceding nine months, and that the price of community salmon had fallen by 21 %. our question today is justified, since in the last eight months imports from norway have increased by 22 %, with a matching 21 % further fall in prices as a result. this means that, overall, european selling prices have now fallen by about 35 % as compared with last year, whereas, as everyone knows, production costs have risen. there appear, therefore, to be grounds for believing that exports of norwegian salmon to the community in such massive quantities and at such price levels are only possible because dumping is taking place. in late august this year, at the request of the association of scottish salmon growers, the commission opened an anti-dumping case against norway. but we are told that the minimum period required to conduct this investigation properly and institute corrective measures is at least nine months. and this is the difficulty, because the producers cannot wait that long. if action is not taken immediately, the producers of community salmon will suffer such heavy losses that many will be ruined. we are talking of an important sector, for salmon production accounts for about 5, 000 jobs in the united kingdom and around 2, 000 in ireland. these are jobs in objective 1 coastal peripheral regions, where there are few or no sources of alternative employment. these suspect norwegian imports are therefore a serious threat to jobs which would be very difficult to replace. in these circumstances, immediate action is required, since it is worth recalling that the last quarter of the year is the most important period for salmon sales. if no action is taken now, and the price of salmon continues to fall, many producers will be unable to cover their production costs. it is therefore baffling to see that the governments of the affected member states have not so far taken suitable measures to deal with the situation, and that the subject comes under the doubtful heading of 'other business' on the council agenda, where decisions are never made. this situation requires us to take appropriate parliamentary action in a serious attempt to solve this problem. the european parliament's committee on fisheries has set up a working group on the salmon question, with the aim of conducting a thorough and stringent analysis of the sector's pleas, and the group enjoys the close cooperation of the commission in arriving at its decisions. this group believes that there are various measures which could be adopted immediately, all of them consistent with the legal framework of the world trade organization and the european economic area. the commission can also take steps under article 24 of regulation 3759/92 on the com in fish products, which, in the event of serious disruption of community markets, enables it to take suitable action on trade with other countries until such disruption or threats to the market are removed. a new minimum import price is the least which can be envisaged, but on the basis of past experience we remain sceptical if the circumventing mechanisms which the norwegians have imaginatively put in place are not taken into consideration. if this is not possible, the most suitable option would, regrettably - i repeat, regrettably - be to impose quantitative import restrictions. a commission spokesperson argues that this is contrary to the letter and spirit of the agreement on the european economic area, but in fact it is the dumping faced by community producers which is really contrary to both letter and spirit. the commission is legally competent to adopt the required measures, i.e. those which are needed to put an end to this situation. if quantitative restrictions are necessary - regrettably, as i say - then they must be adopted. there is a broad consensus that in the long run the only way of restoring market stability is to reach a bona fide agreement with norway. but meanwhile, in the precarious situation in which community producers find themselves here and now, the action we request is the only possible response to the emergency conditions we are experiencing, since the future of the salmon farming industry demands these decisions. in conclusion, madam president, i should like to congratulate the rapporteurs of the four reports - which, unfortunately, we are once again debating on a friday - on their excellent work, and express my gratitude to all those attending this debate who support the rapporteurs' proposals. madam president, there are two points i must make. first, i am not in fact the rapporteur. i am deputizing for mrs mckenna, who is unavailable. my second point echoes what mr d'aboville said. i find it quite deplorable that not only is mrs bonino, the commissioner responsible for fisheries, absent, but also we are having a debate where we are more or less lost, because i strongly suspect that non-specialists in fisheries will understand very little of what is going on. the commission report on monitoring the common fisheries policy summarizes the monitoring activities of the member states for 1994. 1994 was, in fact, the first year of implementation of the regulation adopted by the council in the previous year. article 35 of that regulation requires an annual report to be drawn up. the report describes the way in which the regulation is being applied - it is a stocktake - and it makes proposals. it is the first report of its type, and is therefore very important. the commission's general conclusion is that much remains to be done in order to institute an effective monitoring system. specifically, the main conclusions of the report are as follows. first, no member state escapes criticism. the controls are not sufficient, and they are not effective - a point which i feel will cause concern to us all. as regards at-sea inspections, the figures are quite alarming. in some member states, it would appear that each vessel is inspected once every ten years, a figure which might just as well be zero. as far as inspections on land are concerned, the situation is no better. the consequence of all this is inevitable: fraud. published estimates show that, for more than fifteen species, the extent of undeclared catches is in excess of 10 %, while for three species it is over 40 %. catches are clearly exceeding the recommendations made by the scientists. we are therefore confronted with a serious problem, since we are dealing with an endangered resource and, at the end of the day, it will be the fishing industry itself that is at risk. politically, it has to be said that everyone suspects everyone else of not obeying the rules and not complying with community legislation, which creates a totally disastrous atmosphere and a positive incentive to cheating. it is imperative that we react to this situation. the commission makes useful suggestions. in particular, it says that penalties should be increased and that they should be applied more frequently. the rapporteur believes that penalties should indeed be tightened, and i believe she has the support of the committee on fisheries in that view. personally, i think that we should refuse to grant aid under the structural funds where a member state is failing to comply with community rules on this matter. on the technical side, it goes without saying that measures are called for, and the committee on fisheries makes relevant suggestions in this respect. however, there is one fundamental suggestion that unfortunately makes no appearance in the motion for a resolution; any vessel, and any fishing fleet, must be prohibited from having several nets of different mesh sizes available on a single trip, a prohibition which to my mind is absolutely fundamental in order to prevent a form of cheating which is simply too easy. however, we can leave the technical problems aside - the basic problem lies elsewhere. that problem is the capacity of the fishing fleets. everyone in the circles concerned believes that the capacity of the fishing fleets must be reduced. if there is a balance between fishing capacity and available resources, it will be much easier to guarantee the conservation of the fish stocks - to guarantee the resources. if this is not the case, which unfortunately is the situation at present, those resources will necessarily come under very heavy pressure from the fishermen. it is understandable - socially understandable - that the pressure exerted by the market should induce the fishermen to cheat. we have to be alert to this situation. what we need, then, is a drastic policy of fishing fleet reduction. if we decline to address this central problem, to take a firm grip on it, we will not solve the monitoring problem. i should note in passing that, in early 1996, nine member states out of thirteen - disregarding two member states which have no access to the sea - had failed to reach the reduction targets set by the multi-annual guidance programmes, which clearly shows the scale of the problem. the fourth programme will be decisive, because if it is not - as i have just said - the regulation will never be really effectively applied. finally, there is one problem that has not been mentioned, except very much in passing, which is the monitoring of fishing in international waters, or in third countries' waters, under the fisheries agreements. in this context, there is no monitoring of the activities of the community fleet, either by the european union or by the member states. this is both hypocritical and ineffective. it is hypocritical because we are well aware that most of the states to which we are bound by these agreements lack the necessary capacity to carry out such inspections. unless we do so ourselves, obviously there will be fraud, and we will know it. these considerations all seem to me to be essential. in conclusion, i can say that this is a context in which it is impossible to refer to the concept of subsidiarity. i believe that concept is absolutely at odds with the spirit of the common fisheries policy. we shall never achieve efficiency in this area by quoting the principle of subsidiarity. unfortunately i have to note that our parliament was only consulted on this agreement four months after the end of the negotiations in mid-january, to be precise on 9 may. a month later the council then decided on the provisional application of the agreement. for the rest, the first compensation payment, which according to the commission was paid a month later, should have been paid by the end of may, which means before this house had delivered its opinion. we therefore have exactly the same situation as in spring last year in the case of the fisheries agreement with the republic of senegal. specifically, that means parliament was only consulted four months after the renewal of the fisheries agreement. once again the council took a decision with considerable financial implications without first obtaining the opinion of the other branch of the budgetary authority and without the existence of an adequate legal base. the first payment - which, after all, amounted to ecu 3.5 m - was also made before our parliament could deliver its opinion, in this case indeed before the committees responsible could give their opinion on this agreement. so the commission has once again regarded the council's decision on the provisional application of the agreement as an adequate legal base. the committee on budgets and this house have repeatedly protested vehemently against this way of proceeding on other occasions. i do so again here today. after all, presumably we are still a part of the budgetary authority! it is a bit much for the council to assume it can systematically circumvent us here. if the council and commission continue to proceed in this way in future, we will really have to consider seriously whether we will in fact have to take legal steps. i therefore call again on the commission to start and close negotiations in good time in future so that the proper consultation procedure can be concluded and a legal base adopted before payments are made. that would put an end to the unholy practice of provisionally implementing international protocols by means of exchanges of letters and circumventing parliament. this has been tolerated once more because the international fisheries agreements involve non-compulsory expenditure. in any case, these events show once again how necessary it is for the council and the commission finally to sign the code of conduct we proposed on improving information and budgeting in relation to international fisheries agreements. madam president, i shall go for keywords: the issue of monitoring is a very sensitive one. i share the views expressed by the rapporteurs, and the socialist group also contributed to them in committee. the issue of monitoring is not just a regulatory and hence a bureaucratic issue, the fishermen's associations and environmental groups have also to be brought in. we have to take account of technological instruments but also of biological particularities when reforming the common fisheries policy, given that it can be reformed by applying the principle of subsidiarity but also by means of a number of social policies designed to support fishermen's incomes, an issue already covered in the common agricultural policy. that is the point we shall be making in the debate on the reform of the common fisheries policy, realizing that the fourth programme could be a useful factor for debate. madam president, i welcome the commissioner here this morning. it seems a long time since the commissioner was on the committee on agriculture of this parliament and it is nice to see her taking an interest in fisheries matters again. we have four important issues in front of us this morning and i want to concentrate on salmon in particular. let me say that the monitoring and control of the common fisheries policy is extremely important and i hope that parliament is covering the matter adequately today. i would like to let the green group know that we will support their amendments on the mckenna report. it is especially important that we recognize in this parliament that by-catches, discards and black fish are something that we really have to get to grips with. but i address basically the question of the import of salmon from norway. we have to recognize that the commission has moved a long way by bringing forward this inquiry into the dumping of norwegian salmon. the chairman of the fisheries committee has graphically demonstrated the problem, and i thank him for his involvement and support in this issue. however, the commission could have gone further and, like mr gallagher, i call on all member states to take some action against the norwegian government at the present time on the amount of salmon that it is sending into the community. it is not good enough for governments to stand aside and see fish-farming and perhaps the future of fish production in the european community being decimated by one country which is determined to gain a substantial market share at the expense of a young, thriving industry in some of the peripheral areas of our community. the commission could go further and take interim measures on its own, and i call upon the commission so to do. in the last few days i have had the opportunity of looking at this problem and recognize that minimum import prices could be implemented straight away. i hope that could happen and that in the longer term we have the courage and the guts to bring in some form of quantitative restrictions. madam president, the mckenna report assesses the first of a very important series of reports by the commission on the effectiveness of the common fisheries policy in the area of monitoring. one of the key things to have emerged is uneven enforcement across the union and the lack of political will by member states to make the enforcement system work. the policy is failing and will continue to do so under its present structure. i am delighted that the committee on fisheries has accepted a large number of the liberal group's amendments: increasing the powers of the eu inspectors, which is essential for fair play across the board; similar penalties for similar offences across the union to ensure legal equity in a common policy such as fishing; much greater enforcement in the transport and marketing areas of the supply chain, which this report showed was almost totally lacking. one of the things that i would stress is that our group considers that this situation illustrates how the common fisheries policy in its present form cannot conserve fish stocks. that is the challenge. that is what we need to find a new solution for. madam president, i should like to say something - four things, in fact - about mr d'aboville's report and the fisheries agreement with seychelles. first, yet again, parliament is in the process of holding a debate on a decision which has already been taken. even the financial commitments have been entered into. this is an unacceptable situation - we say it over and over again, and we show our teeth, but we never get anywhere. so that in itself would be one good reason to vote against. but there are others. my second comment relates to the fact that there is no regional approach on this. when we talk about the indian ocean, the regional approach would mean simultaneously taking into consideration madagascar, mauritius, the comoros and the seychelles. so if we adopt a piecemeal approach as we are doing here, then, inevitably, we will not achieve a global view of the situation. thirdly, we are talking about an agreement with no quotas, which is a somewhat obsolete form for a fisheries agreement to take. and, finally, who carries out the inspections? it is surely important to note that they are carried out by the french and spanish monitoring authorities. that says it all as far as any genuine intent to monitor the situation is concerned. for all these reasons, we shall be voting against. madam president, i am glad we are having this debate, even if it is on a friday. i took this initiative in the first place to bring to the attention of parliament the grave situation affecting the salmon producers of scotland. but we should not have had to have this debate at all and we have to understand why this has been necessary. when we had the fisheries council, the council of ministers discussed the issue under 'any other business' and when it came to the turn of the united kingdom to say something, to take some action, it was like the famous detective story called 'the dog that did not bark in the night' . the surprise was that the dog was there and did not bark. this was the fault of the uk government which, when people were expecting it to stand up for the scottish salmon industry, failed to take the legal action. in other words, the dog did not use its teeth in this context to force the commission into considering quantitative restrictions. the industry was expecting that. there was even a scottish minister sitting there, but no action was taken. so it is now up to the european parliament's fisheries committee to step in to fill this breach. what exactly are we asking for and what can we expect? the minimum import price is not a very good instrument as we know from the past, but it is the only one that can be implemented immediately. with the threat of an antidumping case hanging over the norwegians, there is a good chance that they will behave themselves rather better in the run-up to this christmas than they did last time. but then i am almost convinced that we have to follow up with quantitative restrictions. we have to ask ourselves the political point, which is asked constantly and i was even asked it by french television yesterday: why is it that the norwegians outside the european union are managing to do better with salmon production than the scots and the irish who are within? that is why this action is absolutely imperative, necessary and urgent. madam president, the community structural measures to help fisheries and aquaculture are designed to amend an old regulation dating back to 1993, revising three aspects of it: product promotion; aid for the creation of producer organizations and confirmation of exchange rates for the budgetary ecu. we are of the view that product promotion can be regulated by this proposal, provided such references are actually linked to the protection of geographical indications and the designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. we are therefore supporting the commission's requests both as regards the aid for the launching of producer organizations and the application of the ecu conversion rate, based on the exchange rate supplied by the association of fisheries organizations. as far as mr d'aboville's report is concerned, this is not in fact a new agreement, it simply redefines what happened back in january, supplemented by funding that makes it possible to increase monitoring measures as a result of improvements in land-based communication systems. unfortunately, as is now established practice, the european parliament was presented with a fait accompli . while condemning that state of affairs and hoping that it will not be repeated in the future, we support the d'aboville proposal. i have received six motions for resolutions pursuant to rule 40(5) of the rules of procedure. madam president, the quality of mr gallagher's report and the importance of the technical measures certainly deserved the allocation of more time. at all events, it must be said that mr gallagher has done an excellent job, although admittedly he was not flexible or bold enough to accept the amendment to indent 3 of paragraph 7, which would have considerably improved his report. i should like to ask whether the commission is prepared, as technical measures are such an important subject, to open a consultation period, since the european parliament's unanimous opinion on technical measures was that no precipitate action should be taken and that the measures must be implemented with the sector's agreement. we are adopting the gallagher report, but my question, for which i request a direct answer, is whether the commission is willing to open this consultation period for the report on technical measures. parliament needs the commission's reply as a matter of urgency, for, as you know, we have the council in the background pressing for a response. i therefore request, madam president, that the commission give me an answer to this important question during this session. in general terms, i have to say that as far as technical measures are concerned the commission tends to issue them with its head in the clouds. it needs to be advised that these measures, which are ideal for an ideal world, have to be applied to fishing, where incentives have to be introduced and fishermen encouraged to implement the measures. thank you, mrs izquierdo, but i have to inform you, in the kindest possible way, that you have used almost double your time allowance. when in the chair, i never cut speakers off. i believe you should regulate yourselves, and i would ask other members of parliament not to follow mrs izquierdo's example in terms of time, although the content of her speech was very valuable. mrs fraga has the floor for two minutes. mr president, whilst i do not intend to disregard other reports, i shall concentrate on the monitoring report, which the rapporteur, mrs mckenna, has tackled in a very realistic manner. we are not here just to say what the fishermen wish to hear. in a period of crisis such as we are now experiencing in the fisheries sector the temptation to flout the rules obviously increases, and this simply further emphasizes the fact that monitoring is one of the major failures of the common fisheries policy. we must stress that whilst monitoring of their own fishermen is exclusively in the hands of member states it is virtually certain to be ineffective. requests for control measures double in lean periods, but always for other people, and this is certainly one of the reasons for the current problem of over-fishing. member states cannot be deprived of their powers, but the commission must strengthen its own control and monitor that of member states, beyond the reach of partisan pressure and also of isolated and opportunistic moves which in fact solve little or nothing, such as the obsession over the control of distant-water fleets. this is undoubtedly needed, mr lannoye, but anyone familiar with these fisheries knows that the community's fleets in external waters are, for the most part, among the best supervised in the world (as in the nafo case), whereas internally nothing is done. instead of lavishing so much attention on fleets which are already under control, we should reinforce the supervisory measures on the european union's roads, which are undoubtedly carrying a fluctuating traffic in prohibited species which is absolutely disgraceful. i believe effective control over compliance with magps is also needed, as well as the introduction of a system of genuinely deterrent penalties. as for the proposals for cutbacks. mrs fraga, you should not take the sound of the gavel as a call to halt, merely as a warning that you have used up your own time allocation and now have parliament's time available at your discretion. mr president, i have noted your comment and i shall comply with the instructions of those presiding over this assembly. i therefore believe that i have now said enough. mr president, in isolated coastal communities such as my own constituency, there are very limited possibilities for locally-based economic development initiatives. one success story in recent years has been the growth of the salmon production sector. it is a sector with considerable potential but like any other business it needs some reasonable stability in terms of its business conditions. people involved in it need some predictability for their business margins. this parliament and the european institutions need no explanation about the importance of stability for mediumterm policy. we certainly know it in macro-economic terms with regard to emu. but in micro-economic terms at the level of the salmon industry consider the implications of norway, a state outside the union which produces a massive surplus for export - and has the potential to produce much more in the immediate future - and floods our market to such an extent that the anti-dumping case when it is examined will hold. that is better late than never. it has totally destabilized the prices and on four occasions since 1989 we have tried the minimum import price response and it has not worked. frankly, if we are to give these coastal communities a chance to survive, there is only one probable long-term answer: get tough, bring in quantitative restrictions. the council dodged the issue; we should not. mr president, i must refer first of all to the report drafted by mr gallagher, whose proposals voted for in the commission of fisheries seem to me extremely positive and worth highlighting. especially at a time when we are discussing the pop iv operational plan for the coming year, since the proposals are accentuated here. the commission's proposal accentuates the protection of young fish, of fishing resources, of links with fishermen. above all, i dislike the idea that controls alone should be carried out in order to find out what sanctions we impose and what violations the commission detects rather than to show fishermen how to act, concentrating on anyone who depends on fishing and not just imposing rules and regulations. i reject the idea that fishermen are all predators or destroyers of the environment. finally, i would like to challenge the commission to try and put into practice a satellite system to control community waters. mr president, i want to refer to the issue of salmon prices and thank parliament for its solidarity on this issue over the years. if we had received the same support from the council of ministers and the commission we would have made progress. we should not underestimate the seriousness of the situation. visiting the peripheral regions of my own constituency which have traditionally depended on fishing, i have very little to offer them. the community is asking that they reduce the fishing effort, their tonnage of boats and their intake. we are threatening their state of stocks which is going to force us to reduce the turnover of the fishing communities. we have only one alternative to offer them, namely fish farming. politically it was not very popular in the past but the fishing communities throughout the european union are beginning to recognize that there are possibilities and that it can be achieved without damage to our environment and it can help to save coastal communities. this effort is being sat upon by a gigantic norwegian effort - which has obviously been subsidized over the years - that will not allow the flagship of fish-farming activities which is salmon farming to get off the ground. i would like to thank mrs bonino. i recognize that even though it is a friday morning it was on friday mornings in this parliament that we eventually brought this problem to the attention of the commission. she has begun to take action and i appreciate that very much. following on from mr macartney's point, in killybegs in the north-west of ireland when people complain about the common fisheries policy - and i try to defend the community - i am told the norwegians are surviving all right. i just wanted to emphasize that point. mr president, on the matter of the technical fisheries measures, i would first of all like to thank the rapporteur mr gallagher for his excellent work. the proposal for a regulation which is currently being considered represents a continuation of this communication from the commission on the implementation of technical measures under the common fisheries policy. i would like to add a few comments to this general discussion. the commission's aims are praiseworthy and the measures essential. but i believe that the current lack of selectivity is not attributable to the small mesh of presentday nets, but to the increasingly frequent use of illegal nets by community fishermen, which cannot be prevented because of a lack of political will. can the commission prove that juvenile fish are being caught with regulation-mesh nets? in view of the refusal of member states to reduce their fleets, i fear that the commission is attempting to achieve this indirectly via a pure darwinian process of evolution. many undertakings are trying to survive in these conditions and to do so are sometimes infringing the rules, often with impunity, with the knowledge of the member states in charge of control measures and almost always with the knowledge of the commission. i should therefore also like to commend mrs mckenna's work in her report on monitoring. with this scenario, what is an undertaking to think, and how is it to act, if it complies scrupulously with the technical measures, which will become stricter, but has to compete with others who do not? what is the use of complying with technical measures if the whole sector knows that a breach of the rules is not penalized and that this is the true cause of the capture of juvenile fish? i do not wish to sound apocalyptic, or demagogic. i am in favour of maintaining resources, among other reasons so that the sector can remain viable in the medium and long term. the technical measures are necessary, but if we tighten them when we are incapable of securing compliance with existing ones, we shall be seriously impairing the competitiveness of those operating legally, and complying, whilst favouring those who fail to comply, a result which is, of course, hardly encouraging for the conservation of resources. i am going to invite mr mcmahon to speak, and i apologize to him because he should have had the floor before mr imaz. this omission was not caused by my personal liking for and friendship with mr imaz, which ranks equally with my friendship with you. after this apology, therefore, you have the floor for two minutes. mr president, this is a very long-running issue. it has been going on for about ten years now. member after member has raised this issue. it is about the third or fourth debate we have had. we have had hearings in the committee on fisheries. we even invited the norwegians. we have had them along on two occasions. we have had slide presentation shows, we have had the opposing sides: from norway, in one corner, and the irish and the scots in another corner. they have all given us the evidence and we have listened to the debate, but still the problem goes on. it goes on because there is a lack of will in the commission and there is a lack of will in the council of ministers. the holy trinity, sir leon brittan, mr michael forsyth and mr raymond robertson - who is the scottish office minister for fishing - are the people who are in a position to try and do something about it. we know that sir leon has tremendous problems at the moment because half his own cabinet are not interested in europe, or anything european, at all, so he has to defend the european corner. he has to divert his attention from his work as the trade commissioner to guard his back against the euro-sceptics in the united kingdom cabinet. he cannot do his job properly when euro mps from ireland, scotland and elsewhere go to him to try and get some action for salmon. that is where the problem lies - the problem lies with the commission, in the external trade directorate and with the council of ministers. last month at the recent council of ministers meeting it was left to the irish presidency to raise the issue. but they did not really ask the fisheries council to do anything. they had a discussion about it but they did not ask for action. we are asking for action here today. we are asking for a realistic minimum price and quantitative restrictions. nothing else will satisfy the salmon farmers in scotland and ireland. (applause ) mr president, i agree with most of what has been said. i will not talk about fishing as such, but there are three general points that i think all the european union institutions ought to address. firstly, mr d'aboville's report spells out very clearly that we have yet another agreement which has been signed and the payments made before this parliament discussed it. this must stop. secondly, why do we always have to debate this on fridays? this has been raised several times. politically, fishing is one of the most important issues for our member states, it arouses tremendous passions, tremendous disputes but we always consign it to friday. surely that is a question the conference of presidents could address and deal with fairly. thirdly, i agree with the comment already made about this being too diverse a joint debate. surely the commissioner should be present to answer the questions which have been raised. perhaps this is linked with the previous point. so all three institutions need to address this whole problem of fishing. i support all the reports incidentally. it could be said that the question which mr gallagher has addressed in his report is a very old one. the commission is already in the process of taking action in this area, and that is a good thing. it does indeed mean that parliament can be involved, and what we need in this sector is less bureaucracy and more simplification. that is also what the council of ministers wishes to see. we should like to help to solve the problem of by-catches which die and are discarded. we should like to help determine and develop new catching methods. we should like to help protect fish stocks and limit the areas for fisheries. but this can only be done in cooperation with the fishermen and through sets of regional agreements. we must take care not to create a top-down bureaucracy in brussels, rather than something which is created upwards from the last true hunters, namely fishermen. and one final word from scandinavia: it is painful to see how we are cutting back our fleet in denmark, while the other member states are failing to do the same. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, first i should like to thank mrs mckenna for a report which is both to the point and comprehensive. it contains a number of comments and conclusions which the commission fully endorses. the report calls attention to the difficulty of achieving a satisfactory level of monitoring of fishing capacity in the union, and the urgent need to reduce that capacity. the commission freely admits that the level of monitoring within the community is still insufficient and that urgent steps should be taken to improve it - steps which are desperately needed and long overdue. the commission, for its part, means to play its part in bringing about an overall improvement. nevertheless, i should like to draw parliament's attention to the limited powers the commission has in this area. i must inform parliament, then, that the council will certainly not accept some of the bolder proposals in its report: the harmonization of penalties for similar infringements in the form of the suspension of financial aid, in the event that quotas are exceeded, and the reinforcement of the powers of the community fisheries inspectorate. i shall take this opportunity to recapitulate the main elements of the commission's approach to this matter. rigorous and in-depth verification of the application of community legislation by the member states - which is what monitoring means - and the presentation of detailed reports on monitoring levels in the member states, including special reports on specific questions - which is what transparency means. thirdly, encouraging closer cooperation between the member states in the area of monitoring. in this connection, i can inform parliament that a first package of measures was adopted at the meeting of directors-general and those responsible for the inspectorates in dublin in september, and that this package was adopted by the fisheries council on 14 october this year. next, there is the question of granting community financial aid in a way which allows genuine improvements to be made to the national inspectorates, so that the costs of monitoring can be spread more fairly. finally, the guarantee of comprehensive implementation of the provisions of the 'control regulation' , that is to say regulation (eec) no 2847/93 on satellite tracking and the recording of catches. to summarize, mr president, i would like parliament to know that the commission will carefully study the recommendations made in this report. as for the proposal for a fourth amendment to the council regulation bearing no 3699/93, regulating structural assistance in the fisheries sector, it proposes the introduction of three amendments. the first would make community co-financing available for activities to promote protected geographical indications and designations of origin. the second makes reference to article 7 of the regulation on common organization of the markets in fishery products. and the third confirms that the conversion rate for the ecu is in fact the budgetary rate, the budgetary ecu, in accordance with the wish expressed by the council on 21 december 1993. none of these amendments has any financial impact either on the community budget or on the structural appropriation allocated to each member state. the first amendment alone represents a qualitative change; the other two are mere technical updates of the regulation, with no practical repercussions. i feel sure that the european parliament will give its support to the commission, as it is invited to do by the report which is the subject of the present debate, and i take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur, mr kindermann. with regard to mr d'aboville's report, the commission would first like to thank the honourable member for his excellent report on the new fishing conditions for the community tuna fleet in seychelles waters, which are applicable for three years, until january 1999. the commission considers that, technically, these new conditions are such as to ensure even more effective implementation of the agreement, pursuant to the fundamental principles of conservation of resources. in this context, you will not be unaware that the community is to be involved as a full member in the work of the indian ocean tuna commission (iotc), whose inaugural meeting is to be held in rome next december. the policy which will be pursued by the community delegation within this new international organization, will be directed, precisely as suggested in your report, towards improving knowledge and management of local tuna stocks, in compliance with the applicable basic principles agreed under international law. with regard to the amendments, the commission rejects amendments nos 2 and 6, because they run counter to established thinking regarding the nature of fisheries agreements and prejudice the commission's negotiating powers. it accepts the other amendments in substance but not as to form, emphasizing, however, that, first, the commission is already supplying parliament with regular information on the status of implementation of the fisheries agreements, in the form of statements and reports to the committee on fisheries. secondly, the principle of conservation of stocks is a matter of the law of the sea, which the community has signed and which is already enshrined in all the framework agreements on fisheries, in particular that with the seychelles. thirdly, the community has already ratified the constitution of the iotc, whose jurisdiction, as i said earlier, is specifically the scientific monitoring and management of regional tuna stocks. as for the role of parliament in the budgetary implementation of the fisheries agreements, i should like to remind the house that the three institutions concerned are currently finalizing a code of conduct on the budgetary procedure for the fisheries agreements, which is intended to improve the organization of relations between the commission and parliament. the commission's report on the implementation of technical measures in the common fisheries policy represents an in-depth analysis of the utility of the measures implemented since 1986 to protect young fish in community waters. the commission notes that the gallagher report generally coincides with the conclusions of the commission's report, both as regards the general overview of the problems and as regards the possible options. this proves that the ideas proposed by the commission to improve the status of our fishery resources are along the right lines and encourage us to push ahead with these initiatives. as you know, the commission has already presented a proposal for a new regulation on technical conservation measures, which will replace the regulation in force since 1986. in this proposal, which was presented in june and will be discussed in detail during the coming months, the commission has adopted most of the suggestions and ideas contained in its own report and in parliament's. i hope that this general agreement will also result in the commission and parliament adopting a common position on this proposal. regarding the problem of the crisis in the salmon sector, the commission would first like to emphasize that the decline seen over the last few years has affected not only the selling price of salmon but also the unit product cost. in this context, price stability could not mean that prices must increase, or that they must remain at the same level. they are of course falling, and the size of the market has increased considerably over the same period. on the other hand, we do not know - nor shall we be able to know before the current inquiries have been concluded - whether norwegian salmon prices have fallen more rapidly than the unit costs, to the extent that a substantial percentage of total sales are taking place below production cost, causing distortion within the meaning of the regulation on unfair competition. nor do we know whether these selling prices on our markets have been made possible by state aid, such as rightly to give rise to compensation schemes. many assertions and allegations can be made, and there are indeed special cases. what we lack, and indeed what everyone lacks, is an overall picture of the situation. as you know, the market has been the subject of heated debate for some years, resulting in a great deal of sound and fury but very little light. now, once again, we face the same situation. the commission has taken the opportunity offered to it by the two complaints from scottish and shetland producers to conduct in-depth inquiries into the state of the market, especially with a view to clarifying whether or not dumping and compensatory aid have taken place and to determine both the nature and scale of the damage caused. it is not true that the commission is doing nothing - quite the reverse, it is hard at work on these files. it is essential that action should be taken on a sound factual basis, otherwise it would fail to achieve its objective, as has been demonstrated by the floor-price rules. we are of course continuing to monitor market trends, and in this respect it should be noted that the information available is less copious than it should be, and than it will be when inquiries are concluded. unfortunately, many member states are being slow to respond to our request for information. even so, we can say that the price has remained stable to date, making due allowance for customary seasonal factors. we have certainly found no indications of a sudden downward trend like that recorded during the fourth quarter of last year. mr president, this reply which the commission has given on automatic pilot does not answer the question which i put orally. can the commission at least tell me when it will be answering this question? mr president. i thank the commissioner for her reply but i would like further elaboration on the last point she made about lack of information from member states. firstly, is the united kingdom one of the member states which has failed to provide the information she is looking for? secondly, she has not really said whether the commission will move for minimum import prices, which is what the resolution calls for. thank you, mr macartney. mrs cresson, do you wish to respond to the comments made by mrs izquierdo and mr macartney? mr president, i should like to answer the question regarding the information supplied by the united kingdom. that member state has supplied information on salmon, but this is virtually the only information we have. as far as minimum prices are concerned, the commission believes that such provision is unjustified since prices are currently stable. thank you, mrs cresson. mrs izquierdo, you must realize that we cannot enter into a debate, and i believe mrs cresson has not yet finished. mr president, i did not answer the first question, but i can say that we are discussing this matter with the council. mrs izquierdo, do you insist? mrs cresson has just answered you, but you have the floor if you wish. when in the chair i shall never deny your right to speak. mr president, i request that the minutes be checked, since clearly you have not been listening to the discussion. you will see from the minutes what my question is, and i therefore ask you to review your response, since it does not answer anything. let us hope that you can be given a written answer when the minutes have been checked. the debate is closed. we shall now proceed to the vote. kindermann report (a4-0306/96) (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) despite having chosen to vote for the report in this instance, this does not mean that we have a positive attitude towards routine support for producer organisations. the industry and different types of producer associations should normally be able to manage without subsidies. d'aboville report even though we are going to vote for the report we would like to declare our scepticism as regards the large-scale purchase of fish quotas by the eu. the costs of purchasing fish quotas are of the order of ecu 300 million. we believe it to be expensive and inappropriate to continue in this way to subsidise a fishing fleet which should instead be growing smaller. there is also reason to believe that trade relations with regard to fishing with the countries concerned, particularly in africa and the indian ocean, could be conducted under conditions more advantageous to those countries. more 'joint venture' solutions could provide more jobs, more processing and bigger fishing fleets for these third countries. gallagher report each time there is a discussion about measures to ensure the long-term and sustainable preservation of fish stocks there are immediately calls for allowances, compensation and aid. this has also happened this time. the laws of ecology, however, impose limits to which we must be prepared to pay heed even without subsidies. the proposals to insert mentions of socio-economic considerations, among other things, are correct in the broader context but in this connection they give the wrong signals. salmon resolution mr president, i represent greater manchester east and some of my major interests in parliament have been on research policy and arms conversion on which i have done two reports, all of which seems a long way away from the crisis in the salmon industry. but sometime ago i was contacted by a company in my constituency that is actually in the defence sector and trying to move away from the defence sector to invest in new civilian high technologies. one of the things they were using was radar technology to treat diseases of salmon eyes in salmon farms, which apparently is a major problem. because of the sudden dumping on to the market of norwegian salmon the promised development money for that project was withdrawn. so we have a situation which does not just affect people in scotland and in ireland, it affects the whole of europe. it affects the development of new technologies; it affects the commercialization of new technologies; it affects jobs. i am therefore supporting this resolution and it is very appropriate that mrs cresson was here to reply to that question in a way that she did not probably appreciate at the beginning. we largely sympathise with the resolution. there is every reason to pay heed to the increase in norwegian salmon exports because norway provides comprehensive support to its salmon farmers in the form of subsidised transport, subsidised loans, reduced social contributions and even debt remission and compensation for losses. in this connection we would like to point out that swedish fish farmers are also harmed by cheap norwegian salmon. nevertheless, we believe that the investigation now being carried out by the commission must be completed before different types of measures can begin to be discussed. we have therefore decided to abstain. mckenna report our support for the mckenna report and therefore the call on the council to adopt a fourth multi-annual guidance programme should not be interpreted as meaning that we support all parts of the proposal made by the commission. cuts in member states' fishing fleets must be related to the fish resources safeguarded. for sweden, taking the lassen report into account among other things, there are insufficient ecological grounds for large parts of the commission's roughly prepared proposal as regards fishing in the baltic. european rural policy the next item is the report (a4-0301/96) by mr hyland, on behalf of the committee on agriculture and rural development, on european rural policy and on the creation of a european rural charter. mr president, may i commence by putting on record my appreciation of the many members who participated in the preparation of the report which deals with a broad and new area of eu policy. i gave an undertaking to reflect to the greatest extent the views of members in the committee on agriculture and rural development and other committees and also the views of interested organizations and people who are keen to see the emergence of a planned and new integrated approach to the rural problem. the report, i hope, is a faithful reflection of that consensus. i also wish to put on record my appreciation of the interest taken by commissioner fischler and his officials. all member states are experiencing great difficulty in dealing with the problem of rural decline and the broader socio-economic problem of urban/rural imbalance. the report takes into consideration the diversity of these problems in different countries and the need for a flexible application of any new initiative. i have, however, prioritized the relevance of agriculture and family farming to the rural economy and, while agriculture alone is not sufficient to maintain a viable and living rural community, it is, i believe, the economic hub around which other economic activities evolve. while i did not see it within my brief, it was inevitable that members would refer to the common agricultural policy and references in this regard do not purport to represent a final position in this important policy area which will, no doubt be the subject of ongoing debate on the basis of the commission discussion paper. at a time when job creation is very high on parliament's agenda, it behoves those of us entrusted with responsibility in the agricultural area to bring forward proposals to maximize the potential of our entire land resource for the purpose of stabilizing existing rural structures and creating new areas of employment, including work for those not directly involved in farming. i believe the report identifies these areas, commencing with the primary function of reducing food and creating employment through the added-value process in the food sector. but, as i have already said, it is also recognized that agriculture alone will not maintain the viability of these areas. the report also deals with the utilization of the community's human resources and the willingness of rural dwellers, given the opportunity, carefully to plan programmes to become involved in the work of rural development. i am of the view that it requires an integrated approach, including the eu national and regional governments working in tandem with local communities, to maximize the full potential of our land and human resources. i attach importance to the village/ town infrastructure and the necessity to maintain essential community services and would point out that the provision and upgrading of these services cannot always be evaluated in pure economic terms but must take into consideration their broader social dimension or problems associated with unplanned and over-expanding urban communities. the report deals with the importance and potential of the rural environment and the role of rural dwellers in keeping it intact for future generations. it also identifies its economic potential to create employment in areas like rural tourism and also its significance as a sustainable base for our european culture and traditions. it also addresses the challenge of providing alternative fuel resources which is a land-based enterprise, and also the importance of adjusting the smes to meet local needs and in particular initiatives such as the leader programme. planned forestry is also identified as a sustainable enterprise, giving both an economic return to farmers and employment opportunities to rural dwellers. the report deals with the social requirements of rural living and the need to provide adequate schools, postal and telecommunications services and also adequate road infrastructure. special reference is made to the role of women in rural society and the need to provide the social conditions necessary to support women who work outside the home and those women engaged in agriculture and other rural enterprises. the decline of rural communities is often attributed to advances in technology and, while this claim may to some extent be true, i believe that the advent of advanced new communication technology, like internet, can now be used to reverse that cycle and create new jobs in the rural areas throughout the community. in conclusion, the report makes the case for a new coordinated approach to sustainable rural policy which puts people at the centre of the development process and calls for the establishment of a new fund specially designated for the new programme which keeps the rural areas of the european union central to the broader economic and social objectives of this parliament and its institutions. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, as the draftsman of the opinion for the committee on culture, youth, education and the media, i must thank mr hyland for having incorporated into his report the conclusions unanimously adopted by our committee. the principle of a european rural charter, providing a global framework for community action in this field, is of course something we can all support. after all, let me remind you, from the start of the common agricultural policy in 1961 until 1975, europe lost a farmer every minute. speaking in 1995, the commissioner for agriculture, mr fischler, told the european parliament's committee on agriculture that another three million european farmers would disappear between 1995 and the year 2000. in other words, we would be losing seven farmers every eight minutes for five years. this trend poses serious problems at every level: economic problems, obviously, but also, as honourable members have emphasized, social problems, to which i would add cultural problems, in terms of civilization being at stake. after all, throughout european history and even until after the first world war, the countryside was the basis of our organized society and the foundation of our culture in every sense, in conjunction and symbiosis, over the centuries, with what was going on in the towns. the cities, then, were in symbiosis with the countryside, and it is to that that european civilization owes its very special character. this equilibrium, as has been said, has been destroyed. so we need to be creative and imaginative. in terms of cultural policy, it is important to develop an interest in local history in the rural areas - an interest which, happily, is indeed developing - in order to valorize those popular traditions which are key elements for rural tourism. that tourism is necessary in order to sustain rural employment, ensure the survival of the countryside as a whole and preserve the overall balance of society. in other words, we need to reinvent the symbiosis that formerly existed between the urban and rural worlds. with regard to youth, it is important to note that the problem of the rural exodus is also the problem of the ageing of the farming population. there is a need, then, to institute an active policy for responding to the specific problems of education and training in rural areas. no-one would sacrifice his children's education - just how important that is today is well known. we need to create employment for young people based on activities associated with farming, yes, but also with the countryside in general. in this context, bold innovations are possible, associated with the ecological concerns of our fellow citizens. farming has developed around mutual institutions and cooperatives which in turn have allowed development to take place not only in terms of agricultural production but also in terms of improving the quality of life of families in the farming sector. it is necessary that bodies such as the agricultural mutual insurance system, the farmers' banks and insurance companies, the training establishments and the rural social clubs should be involved in this rural policy. they have a tradition, they have much to teach us, and we have everything to gain from working with them in this area. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the rural world is in a precarious state, in open decline. it is suffering from the pressure of modern times and urban contagion. i am therefore delighted to see this parliament concerning itself with the creation of a framework for rural living, enabling the commission to put forward a social and economic model which can be used to tackle an urgent problem in time and on a rational basis. the rural charter will be this parliament's contribution to the conference on rural europe to be held in ireland in early november. we must therefore express satisfaction, and congratulate the rapporteur, mr hyland, on his excellent work, in terms of its approach and content and also its incorporation of other opinions, in this case that of the committee on regional policy. rural areas have to be viewed from three standpoints: sociological, as a world to be promoted and developed, ecological, as a space to be put in order and protected, and cultural, as the home of the principles and traditions which have given rise to collective awareness. hence the question of rural areas comes within the scope of both land-use planning and economic recovery, via a process of redevelopment and economic diversification. the european rural charter put forward for consideration by this chamber represents a strategy for restoring balance within europe, by promoting the maintenance of rural culture in the european union; it is also an instrument for spatial planning and the coordination of all community policies which affect the rural community. an exercise such as this, focused on rural areas, has to be integrated into a global view which can be used to balance priority options in the duality of rural/periphery/isolation versus urban/central/congestion. isolation and lack of basic services such as health and education are characteristic features; maintaining the environment, preventing the costs of desertification, preserving the spatial balance, i.e. social viability, provide sufficient reason for the retention of economic activity and population in rural areas. this approach is reinforced by broader considerations of economic and social cohesion, equality of opportunity and equality of access to services and infrastructures. this is the line taken by the committee on regional policy in its contribution to the rural charter, for although there is a shortage of basic services such as health and education in rural areas, it cannot be tackled separately in each and every part of the rural world. the development of medium-sized urban centres encourages the necessary decentralization of economic activity and services and also brings fresh life to nearby rural areas and promotes local self-sufficiency, thus enhancing the quality of life in rural communities and reducing problems of congestion in the cities. the potential role of medium-sized towns, serving as regional centres, deserves special attention. i consider it essential for the future of rural areas that member states should initiate, with union financing, schemes for cooperation between municipalities to form such medium-sized centres which will provide services and infrastructures on a joint basis. i ask you to vote for this european rural charter, which views rural areas as an opportunity in face of the increasing difficulties of conurbations, and sets the broad outlines enabling the commission to propose the necessary measures for a policy to develop rural communities and keep them viable. mr president, i should like to start by thanking mr hyland for his work on this report. it is of vital importance to the people i represent and to so many people throughout the european union. this recognition of the specific problems and the needs of rural areas is, i hope, the first stage in a fundamental overhaul in the structure and nature of the financial assistance they receive. for far too long we have directed resources towards the development of an agricultural industry, the benefits of which have been limited in the larger rural community. the continued reform of the cap will release funds which should be utilized to transform the common agricultural policy into a common rural policy in which agriculture will continue to play a vital role but whose main objective should be to ensure the economic and social well-being of rural communities. while such communities share a number of common characteristics, we must be careful in the creation of a common rural policy that we also recognize the diversity, strengths and weaknesses which exist throughout the union. our aim should be to provide a framework within which the local partners can identify their priorities and participate in shaping programmes to ensure that they bring maximum benefit. by supporting this report we can add our voice to the call for a rural development policy, but the policy will only be successful if we listen to the voice of all our rural communities. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, first of all let me give very warm thanks to the rapporteur. on the hyland report i may say the following: the development of rural areas is only possible, in my view, if we have a competitive agriculture. that is true eu-wide. the rural areas must not degenerate into a museum of folklore. when future developments are discussed in cork in ireland in early november it will have to be established from the outset that rural areas are not just of residual value. in germany 80 % of the entire country is rural. half of all the inhabitants live in rural areas, but only 20 % of them can find jobs there; all the others are commuters. the figures are very similar in all the eu countries. rural areas tend to be regarded as an important functional and services resource for over-strained urban centres. such a view does not, however, form an adequate basis for a programme of rural development and does not generally help stabilize rural employment markets. there is no getting away from the fact that the remote rural areas in the eu are deprived areas in terms of employment. in times of shortage of funds, little can be done to change this through the classical form of regional policy. doubts have also been expressed as to its effectiveness. for the remote rural areas it is therefore urgently necessary to consider alternative ways of providing real prospects for people with little chance of gaining a foothold on the standardized labour market in the medium and long term. to place ones hopes solely in commission green and white papers is, in my view, not enough. we have enough papers in europe. some hope can, however, be derived from the new accent placed on the concept of independent regional development, which has meanwhile also found its way into european policy-making. the development concept of independent regional development is aimed at protecting employment in rural areas on the basis of own initiatives. its objective is to integrate people in the world of work and to improve their chances of obtaining their own income independently of state transfers. state aids can only serve as start-up finance! that is why the aim of independent regional development remains to identify fields of activity by the creative use of local resources. this should produce an employment market that is predominantly regionally based and draws on knowledge of the situation of the people, the land and the region. unconventional small-scale initiatives and small projects can be particularly useful here; i think that new technology also offers new opportunities for rural areas. the crucial question is this: what specifically regional demand actually exists, what specific fields of activity can be established in rural areas, how can these fields of activity be commercialized? the entrepreneurial principle should continue to apply wherever possible. mr president, may i congratulate mr hyland on his good work on developing a rural charter. agricultural policy is no longer really enough to ensure the development of rural areas: a broad and manysided rural policy is needed. the premise should be respect for the individual identity and cultural richness of the various areas. finland is one of the most rural countries in europe. we therefore have a particular need for a rural policy. one of the principal requirements for a living countryside and employment in finland is sustainable exploitation of its forests. in finland, a rural programme was adopted in 1991 which is comprehensive and progressive. the problem is the lack of resources with which to carry it out. the living conditions of the residents of rural areas must be improved in such a way that people can make a living in their home region and live a full life there. the countryside should not be transformed into sparsely populated reservations. agriculture must be adapted to meet the needs of the markets, albeit taking care that old livelihoods are not destroyed before new ones get off the ground. both european union and national support should be used to develop know-how, entrepreneurial activity and infrastructure. particular attention should be devoted to putting rural women's manifold creativity and skills to use in producing high-quality products, creating experiences for tourists and providing other services. the new subcontractors' networks and quality chains will help to diversify rural employment and promote small enterprise. as we prepare for enlargement to the east, it is important to safeguard the opportunities for development of the peripheral areas of the present european union and secure understanding for the special problems of sparsely populated northern regions. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, what kind of rural areas do we need in europe? mr hyland's proposal for a european rural charter is a strategy paper for a future european policy of sustainable development. rural decline is continuing in the european union, especially in the so-called remote regions such as those of southern europe and the mountain and highland areas. yet the handicaps suffered by the rural areas can become trump cards, with integrated farming, which is particularly synonymous with employment, in close conjunction with the environment, social interaction, the countryside, green tourism and woodland - all recognized today as functions of rural areas. this charter asks the commission to remove the constraints on rural areas and to exploit their potential on the basis of a very simple idea: bringing them to life. between the world market and the food needs of europe's citizens, it is essential to retain balanced, productive rural areas which will give farmers the dignity they deserve. this is the price to be paid to ensure that rural living today recovers its full meaning. if it is not to be put on one side, this policy needs to be supported, and i ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to use your joint efforts to ensure that these proposals really are implemented through planned activities. a consensus has been reached within the committee on agriculture and rural development, focusing on mr hyland, and i congratulate him on it. to ensure that this solidarity does take effect, my group, the european radical alliance, will be voting in favour of this report. mr president, i too support the excellent hyland report. i am reminded that some time ago i visited a member state embassy in tokyo. an official there said to me that my rural region did not need any inward investment as everybody there is a rich farmer. i very quickly persuaded him otherwise. he could hardly be more wrong because we qualify for objective 5(b) aid. in fact, the guardian newspaper in britain last week showed how one european citizen in four, living in rural areas, is in fact living in poverty. this particularly applies to young people, pensioners and women who often face social and economic exclusion. yet, there are good ideas. only last week i launched a brilliant leader ii project in a small place called swanton morley where all levels of the public and private sectors have come together to benefit the hard-pressed village. we need more grassroots action like that, with european union backing. that is why a coherent, strategic approach must go way beyond agriculture. it must recognize the rapid, demographic, sociological and technological changes that are taking place. it must involve communities in partnerships. that is why i welcome the hyland report - although it is not without flaws - as amended in committee. i hope that it will be a useful prod for participants at the forthcoming conference, to help bring about the real fundamental changes we need to reform european rural policies. mr president, i would like to thank mr hyland for his report. the text before us is a very worthwhile contribution to the future development of rural areas. it was adopted unanimously by our committee on agriculture and rural development and it provides us with a very useful argument in favour of economic and social development. the resolution rightly identifies the need to develop job opportunities outside agriculture in rural areas. i fully agree with this objective which will help prevent some of the overcrowding and environmental problems associated with big cities. new employment from the enlargement or encouragement of existing small enterprises and the attraction of new industries and services to rural areas is the first priority of rural policy. the production of high-quality regional products, and food products in particular, is essential if many of our rural areas are to be saved from depopulation. whatever the cost of developing the economies of rural areas, it will cost a great deal more in the long-term if we do not provide for the balanced development of both town and countryside. the reference in the draft rural charter to a fresh reform of the common agricultural policy is something that causes me some concern. we had a fundamental reform of the cap in 1992. given the current crisis in the beef industry, it would be better to avoid further reforms at least until we have mastered the present crisis. without longterm guarantees i am not sure it is sensible to talk, as the proposal does, of further adapting agriculture to the marketplace because this usually means lower prices and increased costs for the people in rural areas. i look forward to a paper from the commission with concrete proposals to give effect to many of the very useful ideas put forward in the proposed charter. i want to congratulate my colleague, mr hyland, for the work he has put into this report and to say to him that i strongly support it. mr president, i wish to congratulate mr hyland on his report and say that it is good that the committee on agriculture and rural development has taken the initiative in pushing this charter through parliament. clearly the countryside is not a museum: there are living communities there which provide a great deal of wealth and services for every one of our european citizens. we must look to the future and cherish the distinctiveness of rural areas. we must avoid the twin dangers of suburbanization and depopulation. above all, that means giving jobs and hope to young people. for example, there should be opportunities for young farmers, modern, light industrial estates on the edge of market towns, easy access to the information superhighway, sensitive development of tourism and recreation and new non-food uses for our skilled agricultural workforce. i welcome this charter. i believe that the golden age of europe's rural areas lies in the future not in the past. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the commission congratulates mr hyland on his excellent report. it also welcomes the great deal of thought given by the european parliament to the european rural development policy. those efforts, and the draft report we are debating today, are extremely timely because they will help to send a number of signals to the conference on rural development to be held in cork from 7 to 9 november this year. that conference will provide an opportunity for further reflection, on the basis of the results obtained, and allow guidelines to be established for the future of the union's rural development policy. regarding the motion for a resolution, the commission agrees in essence with what has been said, especially regarding the need to take account, in applying the rural development policy, of all the constituents of economic and social life in the rural areas. this rural policy will not be just another aspect of regional policy, because it is designed to cover all rural areas of the european union, rather than being confined to the least favoured regions or those undergoing structural adaptation. it is, then, a total policy, the need for which has resulted in rural development being adopted as the political priority in the treaty on european union. this political recognition at the highest level is, without a doubt, a solid basis for reinforcing the community's rural development policy and facing up to the challenges that await us. the commission shares mr hyland's view regarding the need for integrated development of the rural areas in order to give them impetus. that is one of the main lines set out in the strategy document presented by the commission in madrid in december 1995, whereby rural development was to be oriented towards both farming and non-farming activities, via a policy of active diversification and the development of a multi-sectoral policy. as the hyland report emphasizes, this multi-sectoral policy integrating various approaches - economic, agricultural, social and environmental - is the best means of responding to the diverse needs of the rural areas, highlighting their strengths and combating their structural problems such as the ageing of the population, the decline of some activities and the relocation of industries. the report emphasizes a number of urgent problems which the rural world has to confront, and makes constructive suggestions. i am thinking especially of the priority given to employment, equality of opportunity, improvement in the quality of agricultural produce, environmental protection and the development of infrastructures and services. the rural development policy endeavours to deal with these problems, and the political priorities it has adopted correspond to the problems and challenges so well expressed in the hyland report. in this respect, the problem of employment, or rather the problem of unemployment, which is very far from bypassing the rural areas, is the main focus of our concerns and is one of the priority objectives of the structural interventions. the same applies to the preservation of the environment and protection of natural resources, areas which account for a substantial proportion of the appropriations earmarked for the rural development policy. in fact, the promotion of the development of the rural areas is a priority of the union, not only for economic and social reasons but also for the protection of the environment. the general effect of the rural exodus is excessive urbanization, with all the adverse social consequences and additional costs that involves, for both the rural and the urban areas. it is therefore incumbent upon all of us - as the commission is well aware - to do what we can to ensure that the diversity and beauty of europe's landscapes and its heritage should be preserved for future generations. the rapporteur rightly raises, in his proposal, the problem of defining rural areas. the very diversity of the rural world makes this a very difficult thing to do on the basis of a simple, representative criterion. in reality, there is no such thing as a typical, representative rural area. the commission shares mr hyland's opinion that the population density parameter alone takes insufficient account of the diversity of the union's rural areas. that is why we are continuing with our work, and that is why we shall ensure that the definition we are going to propose encompasses parameters other than population density, taking account of the diversity of situations in rural areas, as of course the motion for a resolution proposes. finally, we were most interested to note the proposal that a rural development fund should be created, making it possible to finance all the schemes undertaken within the framework of integrated rural development, and designed to bring efficiency, flexibility, transparency and simplicity to the administration of community aid to the rural world. this is one topic which will certainly be debated in cork in a few days' time. thank you, mrs cresson. the debate is closed. we shall now proceed to the vote. (parliament adopted the resolution) goods from the processing of agricultural products the next item is the report (a4-0264/96) by mr gillis, on behalf of the committee on agriculture and rural development, on the proposal for a council regulation (com(96)0049 - c4-0156/96-96/0039(cns)) amending council regulation (ec) no 3448/93 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products. mr president, the proposal for a council regulation aims at modifying regulation 3448/93 defining the eu trade regime for non-annex 2 products, that is, products which result from the manufacture of foodstuffs from the primary processing industries. these products, given their dual nature, agricultural and industrial, on the import side are submitted to both an industrial protection and an agricultural protection. the agricultural protection compensates for the difference between the eu and the world market price of the agricultural raw materials used in their manufacture. following the entry into force of the agreements resulting from the uruguay round of multinational negotiations, the community negotiated various gatt agreements, including the agreement on agriculture. the agreements changed the method of determining import duties on certain goods. they also provide the option of imposing additional duties on other goods. they impose a degree of discipline on the granting of refunds for agricultural products not covered by annex 2 of the treaty. the reasons for the need to modify the regulation are twofold. firstly, eu agricultural protection has to be adapted following tarification into gatt/wto. therefore, certain changes have to be made to regulation 3448 in order to delete the provisions which no longer apply. secondly, it is necessary to add certain management rules to ensure compliance with commitments made on export refunds within gatt. as rapporteur, i have had extensive consultations with different representatives of the food industry. while i see no overall problem with this proposal following discussions with the people on the ground, i have incorporated an amendment which i feel may be advantageous. as the commission proposal stands, it provides for the introduction of a system of refund certificates. in my view, this is rather too rigid and imposes an unnecessary burden on industry. i have suggested, therefore, that we should make this optional. to provide for the possibility of refund certificates and to make it more flexible, i suggest this be decided under the management committee procedure set out in article 16. it can be argued that we do not need certificates at this time at all. however, it is impossible to predict what the prices evolution will be over the next three or four years and maybe even further. in the meantime, gatt ceilings for export refunds to be paid on processed products are being reduced each year and are becoming much more restrictive. it is essential that we have a simple mechanism in place to be sure our gatt commitments are respected. by putting the system in place now we are ensuring a much smoother path for the future. i feel the modification i have made provides for the necessary flexibility which is missing from the commission proposal and, with such an amendment, i have no problem in approving this proposal. mr president, i do not wish to add to what our rapporteur has said apart from thanking him and expressing the support of our group for his work in producing this report modifying the arrangements for complying with gatt. we support his proposal to reduce the additional bureaucratic processes required in adapting to the new system and thus ensuring compliance with gatt requirements. mr president, i should like to thank the committee on agriculture and rural development, and more especially mr gillis as its rapporteur, for the care taken with the proposal for a regulation amending regulation (ec) no 3448/93. as noted in the report by the committee on agriculture and rural development, the essence of this proposal is to make technical modifications to the trade regime for processed agricultural goods not covered by annex ii of the treaty. these modifications became necessary as a result of the tarification of import duties on agricultural products agreed at the multilateral negotiations of the uruguay round. the amendment has already been studied at the council, and by industry. in general terms, it has been approved, but one point has created a problem: this concerns the supporting measures for the granting of export refunds. on this matter, the commission has adopted an approach similar to that previously adopted by the council with regard to exports of agricultural products. the proposal, however, takes account of the fact that the non-annex ii goods, unlike agricultural products, are only subject to a commitment to the wto in terms of total refunds grantable per year and not in terms of quantities of goods exported. two amendments have been tabled regarding this approach. the first amendment envisages the possible adoption of a refund certificate, in accordance with the management committee's procedure, at the point where it is felt to be really necessary. to evaluate the scope of this amendment, there are two comments i would like to make. first, it is important that measures supplementing those that exist at present should be adopted in good time to ensure that our commitments are genuinely respected. secondly, in order for it to be possible for the granting of refunds to potential exporters of non-annex ii goods to be guaranteed, these new measures will have to be adopted before we are effectively confronted by the constraints arising from the agreements of the uruguay round. the first amendment proposed by the european parliament is not opposed to this. it also restates the community's intention of ensuring compliance with its commitments. for this reason, the commission can accept this amendment. however, it is important that, as of now, the necessary measures should be drafted first to enable the community to ensure compliance with its international commitments, and secondly to enable exporters to continue exporting with advance knowledge of the total refund to which they will be entitled if they so wish. the commission, then, in order to guarantee compliance with the community's commitments, entered into pursuant to article 9 of the agriculture agreement concluded at the uruguay round, must be able to reduce the refund rates, or suspend the granting of refunds for as long as is strictly necessary. this is in any case already provided for in article 8(3) of regulation (ec) no 3448/93, as amended by the present proposal. regarding the second amendment, it must be recalled that article 8(6), which it is proposed should be amended, defines the powers of the commission in the event of the introduction of refund certificates by ensuring that this regulation is consistent with the other regulations previously adopted by the council on the adaptation of the common agriculture policy and on the agriculture agreement concluded at the uruguay round of multilateral negotiations. this paragraph 6 will probably have to be adapted in order to take account of the modifications introduced by the first amendment. nevertheless, the amendment proposed here oversimplifies the arrangements, which must be laid down by the management committee's procedure. it cannot therefore be accepted in its present form. thank you, mrs cresson. the debate is closed. we shall now proceed to the vote. (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) we welcome the fact that the eu's agricultural protection is being modified in line with the gatt agreement. any adjustment of the common agricultural policy to bring it into line with gatt commitments is a step in the right direction, not least from the perspective of enlargement to the east. ultimately, we are convinced that a far-reaching reform of the existing common agricultural policy is inevitable if enlargement is to take place unhindered. in the future the cap must take its place within a framework for measures which can be seen as environmentally friendly and as fostering rural development and are independent of direct production influence. olive oil the next item is the oral question (b4-0977/96) by mr colino salamanca, mr jacob, mrs fraga estvez, mrs redondo jimnez, mr filippi, mr campos, mr cunha, mr fantuzzi, mr jov peres, mr arias caete and mr rosado fernandes, on behalf of the committee on agriculture and rural development, to the commission, on reform in the olive oil sector. mr president, commissioner fischler recently confirmed that measures had been proposed for a reform of the common organization of the olive oil market, which was currently being studied by the european commission. the size of the sector, with almost five million hectares of olive trees, producing some 1, 400, 000 tonnes of olive oil, its location in the southern part of the european union, and more specifically in areas where no alternatives exist, its contribution in generating the only available jobs in many areas, the dominant position of the european union on the world market, and a market situation offering good prospects of continued growth in oil consumption seem reason enough to have suggested to the commissioner the advisability of adopting a procedure similar to that used for wine, the fruit and vegetable sector or certain continental products. this would have meant opening a debate in which appropriate options would have been proposed on the basis of the commission's views, identification of the problems, the environmental, social and rural development implications in the olive sector, the growth of and trends in olive producers' incomes, the production and trade situation and competition with other types of vegetable oils. yet the commission launched a proposal which will lead to a harsh restructuring of the whole sector without such discussion and without allowing those concerned with these products, whether producers' organizations, professional oil industry organizations or regional administrative authorities, any opportunity to put forward their point of view. the very nature of the reform measures announced (subsidy for each tree, and no intervention in the market) should have triggered such a debate in professional circles before the proposals were unceremoniously presented. we therefore call on the european commission, and i make this demand on behalf of the committee on agriculture, to explain, in the form of a prior document forwarded to the european parliament, what aims it intends to achieve with the proposed reforms. above all, we ask that the measures should be consistent with other policies, whether on employment, rural development or regional or environmental policy. this discussion is more necessary than ever if we bear in mind that in general terms, and at no great cost to the community budget (about 5 %), the present common organization of markets has operated normally, raising olive growers' incomes, modernizing farms and methods of cultivation, improving product quality, modernizing the industrial sector and ultimately creating a clearly dominant position in face of an open commercial future. if the alternative to the present position has to be a system which further complicates control measures, whilst the european commission evades its responsibilities, or involves the introduction of mechanisms which lead to the abandonment of cultivation methods and a consequent fall in production, or degrade the rural environment and cause a decline in employment, or produce a risk of shortage and a loss of the european sector's competitiveness on international markets, or generate problems in the processing and marketing sector, or result in environmental deterioration through erosion, desertification, disease, pests, or fire, then the european commission will be making a serious mistake. i therefore urge the need to open a debate on the basis of any comments from the commission itself, which will, in my view, be the best way to help the olive sector to remain a source of wealth, generating a large number of jobs and driving the economy of wide areas of southern europe, and to perpetuate a culture associated with these trees, without which it would be difficult to understand the reality of large areas of the mediterranean. i am using the opportunity afforded by the presence of commissioner cresson to share my concerns with her as someone familiar with these problems, and to ask her to alert the commission in the hope that this topic may be fully debated within the european union. thank you for your question, mr colino salamanca. as you say, the commission has undertaken a preliminary study of the need to reform the common organization of the markets in the olive oil sector. these discussions took place at chief executive assistant level, and the meeting reached the conclusion that mr fischler would present a detailed analysis of the sector to my colleagues on the commission. this analysis, accompanied by a specific proposal to reform the common organization of the markets in the olive oil sector, would then be presented to parliament and the council at an early stage. the commission recognizes the importance of the olive oil sector in the culture and prosperity of certain mediterranean regions and their local employment situation. economic, socio-cultural and environmental implications of a modification of the system will be dealt with in the analysis document, and the commission intends to institute, at both community and member state level, measures which are sufficiently flexible to ensure that the reform of the common organization of this market strengthens the role of the olive oil production and trade in regions where the growing of olive trees is a means of support. the commission also acknowledges that the common organization of the markets in the olive oil sector has been notable for serious control and fraud problems affecting all the mechanisms provided for by the system, especially as regards aid to production and consumption, and as regards intervention. parliament's committee on budgetary control and the court of auditors have repeatedly called for the commission to take action to sort out this matter. that is what we are going to have to do, fairly but firmly, without harming the many honest producers and dealers within the community. although it is true that, in the past and for certain sectors, the commission has decided to present a discussion paper to parliament and the council before presenting a formal proposal, the urgent need to simplify and strengthen the common organization of the olive oil markets argues against this approach in the present instance. we shall have time to study the problem of the reform in parliament and at the council on the basis of the analysis and the reform proposal. thank you, mrs cresson. as a doctor, i feel i should advise you to take care of your cold. if not properly looked after, a cold may have unpleasant consequences later on. mr president, the commission promised to present its proposal at the end of 1995, but frequent postponements and the making of alterations appear so far to have prevented it doing so. i must emphasize that these postponements and alterations have not occurred as a consequence of any discussion with the european parliament and social and professional circles about a text but are being decided on solely by the commission itself in the context of events and pressures as they occur. as a result the olive oil sector and the producers are faced with an accomplished fact. in behaving like this the commission has departed from the practice that it followed in the reform of the other major sectors, which involved the prior presentation of a discussion paper as the basis for lengthy consultation followed by the presentation of final proposals based on the conclusions of that consultation, and has placed itself at odds with the producer countries which have persistently requested it to follow that practice in this case. this refusal is very hard to credit when one considers that the presentation of a discussion paper, as well as helping to widen public debate and to promote the widest possible consensus on reform of the olive oil sector, would enable the commission to get to grips with the pressures which have manifestly led to the repeated alteration of the draft regulation and to the frequent postponement of its presentation. we are just two years away from the commencement of new negotiations on the further liberalization of the world market. the olive oil sector, which - and this must be emphasized - is a deficit sector within the european union, will be in a dreadful position. we need a solution now which will support the quality of european olive oil and bring relief to the thousands of olive oil producers in the south of europe. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard the commissioner's comments, and she has explained that, on the grounds of necessity and urgency, she was asked to take immediate steps to control cases of fraudulent diversion. however, we believe that this is no reason why questions should not be asked and the various sectors allowed to put their views. we therefore understand and support the request of the socialist party representative. and we specifically ask commissioner fischler, on behalf of the european people's party, for a discussion paper to be submitted by the commission before any action is taken. mr president, what we know of the commission's intentions for olive oil coms sadly comes from the newspapers. that is why i would like to put 4 questions to the commission. first question: when i was a commissioner, whenever we had to carry out a major reform known to be a controversial one, we would first of all draft an analytical document, containing our thoughts and perspectives. then we would carry out a wide-ranging debate only once the commission had formally presented its proposal. why has the commission not followed this procedure in the case of olive oil? second question: what are the motives lying behind this reform of the olive oil com? because there is a surplus? no, there are no surpluses! because of the budgetary cost? but those have been under control for a long time! because of fraud? is there fraud? then you should combat it! but combating fraud is not per se an objective reason for reforming a com. third question: apparently the commission is proposing ending intervention in the olive oil sector and creating aid per tree. why are you ending intervention in the olive oil sector and not in other sectors, which are also surplus sectors? this is a mystery which i would like to be cleared up. why is it that the commission is proposing for portugal, for example, 40 % aid whereas that proposed for spain or italy is 60 % of that proposed for greece? if this aid is equal for everyone at present on the basis of production, can they explain to me, a portuguese, why they are going to reduce it by 60 %? fourth question, madam commissioner: why is it that the commission is not carrying out an overall reform of the cap which it has already admitted is needed by the year 2000 instead of taking these tiny measures on a piecemeal basis? finally, mr president, i would like to regret the fact that, on this friday, we are debating such important farming reports as this and the commissioner for agriculture is not even here. mr president, hitherto all proposals for reform of the common organization of a sizeable market have been preceded by a discussion paper so that the consequences of the proposed measures could be assessed. no such discussion paper has been produced for the reform of the com in olive oil, despite the fact that some 800, 000 people work in this sector and are concentrated in regions seriously affected by unemployment. this reason alone would justify the production of a discussion paper, but apparently neither the commission nor the commissioner is concerned about workers and growers in the olive oil sector. it is worth recalling that the commission should have submitted a report on the working of the system of aids in the olive oil sector to the council before 1 january 1995, as laid down in council regulation 2261/84. almost two years later this report has still not been produced, but this has not prevented the commission from drafting a proposal for reform in the absence of the proper and necessary prior documents. the lack of a serious piece of work from the commission - of a kind which can be required of any employee and even more so from public servants - has to be made clear. so far the commission has not published its planned reform, but its content has nevertheless become known and achieved an important record for the commission: a demonstration in brussels by some 5, 000 people representing farming organizations and the unions of producing countries. demonstrations are usually against the council or parliament, but apparently the commission wishes to break this monopoly. does the commission not wonder whether its proposal may cause problems? would not this situation justify the production of a thorough analysis? at present we have no time to make an assessment of the projected reform, but i would like to point out that the draft took no note of the recommendations put forward by the group of experts in 1992. abolition of the intervention system will also mean that producers have to bear the cost of market management, which violates the principle of solidarity. for these reasons we think it essential for the commissioner to produce some serious work and endeavour not to conduct experiments which carry obvious risks of creating serious social, environmental and market problems. thank you, mr marset. i have received six motions for resolutions pursuant to rule 40(5) of the rules of procedure . commissioner, as you have pointed out, the european parliament has also been at the forefront in combatting fraud. naturally, this is something that has already been done by the committee on budgetary control, but that cannot be used as a pretext to deny the european parliament a role. what we are basically asking for is our own debate: we want to be able to discuss this issue, as representatives of sensitive areas of european territory in which economic and social cohesion is crucial and agricultural production, such as olive oil production, is a major support to family income. in those terms, then, we consider that parliament must play a positive role and it seems to me that your statements have hinted at a willingness to view favourably the proposals that the house will be drawing up on the proposed reform of the com. there is no doubt that the proposal we have seen reported in the press contains many contradictions and causes problems for some mediterranean regions, particularly in relation to methods of calculation and because production differs depending on geographical characteristics. for that reason, a reflection document would clearly be desirable. it is therefore appropriate that parliament and the committee on agriculture and rural development should be involved first hand in a matter of such importance. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the commission should have presented a long time ago a report assessing the regime of aid to the production of olive oil. yet, we are now at the end of 1996 and no such report exists or has yet been published. the commission has recognised the need for a study document before it carries out a reform of the olive oil com. it has made a promise but we have yet to see the document. the commission appears to be forgetting its obligations and promises and, at the same time, it seems to want to take decisions by itself and very quickly. that is why we have suddenly had a reform project thrust upon us and, apart from rejecting the methods used, we must also, at once, denounce the solutions which it puts forward. in this draft document, olive oil as a crop is not included in the regional rural development and employment strategies nor is it seen as a vital element for protecting the environment in farmlands and even less is it seen as guaranteeing agriculture income and quality production. this document aims to substitute production aid with subsidies per tree and proposes that, for example, for each portuguese olive tree less than half the sum paid for an italian or spanish tree be handed out. this is an obvious attempt at dividing and ruling: it is also trying to hide the wood for the trees, the kind of action recently been duly repudiated by the demonstration held in brussels. thank you, mr novo. we shall now proceed to the vote. joint motion for a resolution on reform of the common organization of the market in olive oil (parliament adopted the joint resolution) mr president, this is simply to confirm that we are voting for this set of proposals. although we were already convinced of the need to support them, i believe that the arguments provided from the commission prove that we have to back this proposal. we do so despite the fact that we usually say, as is the custom in this parliament, that we have to bring decision-making closer to the people, and that the people must take part in the decision-making process, because here we have a clear case in which professional associations, cooperatives and professional organizations should be taking part and at least giving their opinion on the process of reform of the com in olive oil. similarly, the second argument put forward, which justifies this lack of participation as a simplification of the procedure, cannot be used as a weapon. in fact, in all the cases in which the procedure ought to be simplified, it does not happen, and yet in so important a part of the process as hearing the views of those actually affected, and indeed the committee on agriculture and parliament itself, this step is omitted. logically, therefore, we have voted for a process which we believe to be necessary, and we think that ultimately the commission must introduce this discussion paper. we are looking at an agricultural problem which is however much more than an agricultural problem, involving and affecting the full extent of economic, social and environmental policies. otherwise watch out for the brutal adverse effect which the commission's preliminary draft could have on employment, local production and rural or regional development in andalusia, the leading european and world producer of olive oil. the introduction of a reform of the com in olive oil such as that prepared by the commission represents a serious attack on job promotion policies and, in the specific case of andalusia, on something which is the 'leading employment promotion programme' ; and this in an objective 1 region which, because of its unemployment rate, needs measures of an entirely opposite kind. is this not a contradiction? my opinion is that, following the failure over mad cows, and the reform of the fruit and vegetable sector, a reform such as this in the olive sector would be just too much! the commission should hear the sector's views, consult, listen, consider. why will it not comply with regulation 2261/84, which requires it to table a prior report on the working of the system of aids to production? what is the purpose of this 'unprecedented snub' ? we are merely asking for a period of consultation and discussion, of the kind provided in the case of other reforms. in andalusia this sector is generating 140, 000 jobs, which the commission cannot relocate, just as it cannot relocate olive trees away from the mediterranean, or from andalusia. what abstruse northern view can favour the passivity and loss of motivation which this proposal promotes? for all these reasons we have voted for this motion for a resolution. mr president, on behalf of those members who are still here i would like to congratulate you, mr president, on your excellent conduct of the business today. thank you, mr newman. mr newman is chairman of the committee on petitions, and knows how much i always congratulate him on his good work; today he wishes to return the compliment . adjournment of the session i declare adjourned the session of the european parliament. thank you for your cooperation. (the sitting was closed at 12.55 p.m.)

the next item is the debate on the council and commission statements on the preparations for the european council to take place in brussels on 15 and 16 june, including the next steps in the period of reflection, and on the oral question to the commission on the next steps in the period of reflection, by jo leinen, on behalf of the committee on constitutional affairs (o-0033/2006 - b6-0208/2006). for this purpose, mr winkler is here, on behalf of the council, as is mr barroso, president of the commission, accompanied by mrs wallstrm, vice-president of the commission. - mr president, mr president of the commission, madam vice-president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, in a few days' - even hours' - time, the austrian council presidency will experience a high point in the shape of the european council, which will give us the opportunity to address and discuss a whole range of issues to which our presidency has been attending, and to lay down results. during the austrian presidency, a great many issues have been addressed, and a great many such issues and problems have been solved - very often together with you, the european parliament. the topics for this european council are very diverse, and so i shall have to confine myself to a brief outline of many of them. i am not claiming to cover everything, as i naturally wish to avoid encroaching too much on the speaking time of the members of this house. the forthcoming summit will be a working summit. there are no epoch-making decisions on the agenda, but the austrian presidency's harvest - where it has not already been brought in - will be just outside the barn door. the barn door is wide open, and now we want to bring the harvest in. in recent weeks and months, the austrian council presidency has started work on a dual approach to bringing europe forward - and this also applies to the forthcoming european council. firstly, this has involved addressing specific issues with the aim of making progress on the ones that are closest to the people: issues relating to prosperity, economic growth, job security, internal and external security, social security, energy security and much more. secondly, this approach has involved reviving the continuous debate on the future of europe. this dual approach combining specific issues with the future of europe will also shape the agenda of the european council. therefore, the council agenda will contain first and foremost a number of issues that all participants agree require european solutions. these are issues that present our societies and citizens with problems that, in a globalised world, cannot be sensibly addressed without a concerted effort from all the eu member states and, i would add, by all the institutions of the eu. the first large group of issues concerns the area of security, freedom and justice. all the surveys on this, including the one by the commission - and commission vice-president wallstrm has also said this time and again - show that the public wants more europe, expects more from europe, in this particular field. in the last six months, a great deal of tangible progress has been achieved in this field: i shall make only brief mention of the counter-terrorism strategy, the enlargement of the schengen area and the conclusion of visa facilitation and readmission agreements with various third countries. we have also invested a great deal of time and energy in a strategy for the external dimension of justice and home affairs in the last six months - including making a start on developing a security belt, as it were, around the eu - and initiated a security partnership between the eu, our neighbouring countries, russia and the united states. this vienna initiative, agreed at a tripartite summit between the eu, russia and the usa, will also be reflected in the conclusions of the european council. migration has been and remains a particularly important issue and will also be dealt with by the council, on the basis of a number of specific cases. time does not permit me to go into too much detail. this important issue warrants its own debate, where it would have to be examined from various points of view: not only from the point of view of the fight against illegal immigration and of judicial and police cooperation, but also from a development perspective. as the person responsible for development matters in the last six months, i can say that we have been doing considerable work on the issue of migration within the framework of the eu's development strategy, too, and that this is an important approach that we must not forget, including in our public presentation of the problem. there is no doubt that individual measures will be of no avail in this regard: only an effective bundle of measures will help. everything i have mentioned up to now is of course work in progress, and so the european council is likely to invite the parties concerned to continue the momentum of work in all these fields. europe should also bring greater security through its efforts to improve its emergency and crisis response capacities. austria has been particularly committed to this in the months of its presidency. the european council will be presented with a report on this listing progress to date and making recommendations for further action. former commissioner and french foreign minister michel barnier has presented a very comprehensive, stimulating, forward-looking report, which will undoubtedly be examined closely by all the institutions of the eu in the coming weeks and months. it contains a number of good ideas for solving this problem to the benefit of public security. another very important issue that cannot be sensibly solved without pan-european solutions is sustainable development. as we know, the eu has had a strategy on this since the gothenburg european council in 2001, whose objective is for all decisions to reflect the responsible management of natural resources. this guideline has now been completely renewed under the austrian presidency and further developed into an ambitious, comprehensive new strategy for a whole range of key fields such as climate change, clean energy, transport, and emphasis on sustainable consumption and production patterns. the issue of climate change, too, is on the agenda in this context. the issue of the lisbon strategy is, of course, another important topic for the european council now to be held in brussels. as austrian chancellor schssel also reported here, the european council examined this strategy in detail back in march, and provided a good deal of specific guidance. since then, success has been achieved in the form of two important milestones: the compromise on freedom to provide services, for which the council owes parliament a great debt of gratitude - i should like to make that absolutely clear and express my thanks to the house - and the agreement in principle on the seventh framework programme. in the case of the services directive, the council stayed as faithful as possible to parliament's compromise. this directive is a good example of how the institutions of the eu, cooperating constructively and efficiently, can achieve tangible progress to the benefit of our citizens. the austrian presidency is particularly obliged to parliament for this. it goes without saying that the issue of energy policy will be another important topic for the european council. this issue has been examined and discussed on a large number of occasions, including in relation to third countries - and yesterday i had the opportunity to report to this house on the summit with the russian federation. as regards the discussion within the council, the main emphasis has been on the requisite internal measures, such as improving energy efficiency and moving over to renewable sources of energy. we now need to take external measures, too, and to this end we need a common, proactive approach that is properly thought out in geostrategic terms. on the instructions of the european council, the commission and council secretary-general javier solana have prepared a strategy paper that will be presented to the european council. another issue on which, according to surveys, the public expects more europe is the issue of external policy, of the eu's external relations. the majority of the european public wants the eu to play an important role on the international stage. in spite of the progress achieved in recent years - and i believe this to be considerable - the eu still does not have the weight befitting its economic power and its contribution to international trade. there remain a number of deficiencies to be remedied, and thanks are due to the commission for preparing a concept paper on this, which makes a number of proposals. i am sure that the commission president will also report on this. the issue of improving the functioning of the union is also on the agenda of the european council, of course. this rather grandiose title covers the efforts of the european council to achieve tangible progress that is also measurable by individual citizens. this includes a number of initiatives that i should like to outline in brief. one initiative that is very important to the austrian council presidency - and, i should add, to me personally - is the issue of transparency in the council. these efforts are nothing new - progress has already been made in this direction - but the austrian council presidency has attempted to find a global approach intended to create a new conscience about transparency, as it were. the core of this proposal consists in making the whole codecision procedure in all its stages open to the public. we believe that this is also a way of improving public confidence. we have not yet resolved all the reservations, but our presidency is resolute in its intention to work towards this up to the last possible minute. subsidiarity has been an important issue, as, in addition to a conscience about transparency, we undoubtedly need greater awareness of subsidiarity. i should like to make it absolutely clear - because i know that here in parliament, in particular, scepticism is expressed time and again - that we are not talking here about a desire for re-nationalisation. i wish to make clear that our presidency has been guided by a different objective. we are talking about helping to focus european action on the specific fields in which it is capable of producing added value. to this end, the austrian council presidency organised a conference that was held in mid-april in st. plten, austria, with the title 'europe begins at home'. this saw significant participation by members of parliament, of course, and you are familiar with the interesting proposals unveiled there. it is important to us that this issue now be a fixed item on the agenda and that it be borne in mind even more consciously than before. i shall mention only briefly the considerable progress we have managed to achieve - and i hope that this will indeed be the case - on the issue of comitology. this is about powers of scrutiny, it is about the commission, parliament and the council interacting efficiently. if the proposal drawn up yesterday between the negotiators can now be pushed through - both in the council and parliament - we shall have achieved progress that, although on a rather dry issue, is nevertheless important for our cooperation. i should now like to move on to the last part of my speech: the future of europe, the constitutional process, and the period of reflection. the period of reflection on which the european council decided last june has meant that many member states have taken more or less intensive initiatives to set in motion a real debate about the european project. the issue of european identity, too, has been examined from various starting points. i would remind the house of the 'sound of europe' conference at the start of the austrian presidency, and also of an event that, in my opinion, can definitely be called a success - the (european caf) event that was held at the same time in all the capitals on europe day. the commission, too, has been very active, having developed its plan d. i should like to express my particular thanks to commission vice-president wallstrm for her constructive cooperation. we have had a good working relationship with the commission, to the benefit of greater transparency and a better response to citizens' demands and expectations. it has emerged that member states would like to extend this period of reflection in one form or another by at least one year. the detailed arrangements and what should happen afterwards will be discussed intensively at the european council and the relevant proposals made. moving on to the subject of the constitutional treaty, we have succeeded in breaking the silence that reigned at first. it was not a foregone conclusion that this debate could be revived, but we worked hard at it and, in late may, succeeded in holding a discussion of this issue between ministers for foreign affairs for the first time in more than a year. as one of the participants in this discussion, i can say that it was very open, wide-ranging and useful and did clarify the way forward on many points, even if no specific decisions were reached. it has become clear to all of us that the problems which the constitutional treaty is and has been intended to solve are still on the eu's common agenda and that we must continue to pursue the constitutional project as a common european project. the discussion between ministers for foreign affairs in klosterneuburg also made clear that the time is not yet ripe for a definitive solution to the legal issues connected with the constitutional treaty, because not all member states are ready as yet. therefore, it will be a challenge for the whole of the union and a particular challenge for the coming presidencies to work to ensure that, by 2009, there is clarity regarding the legal basis of the eu of the future. after all, 2009 is a crucial year for various reasons: it will see not only a new european parliament, but also one or two institutional challenges, such as a new composition of the commission. it is not yet possible to determine the exact mandate the european council will grant in this regard, whether a time frame will be fixed - and if so, what it will be - and how to proceed with regard to this; the heads of state or government will discuss and take decisions on this. i believe that that will certainly be one of the key topics at the forthcoming european council. one thing is clear as far as the austrian council presidency is concerned, however: we must work together with all the member states and all the institutions to make progress on the key issues surrounding the future of the european union. finally, there is eu enlargement, another issue that will be given prominence at the european council. i do not wish to go into detail on individual countries. you are familiar with the status of the respective negotiations with bulgaria and romania, which - we all hope - will accede to the union on 1 january 2007. you probably followed the progress made the day before yesterday at the accession conferences with turkey and croatia in the face of all the problems that had arisen in the case of turkey, in particular. in klosterneuburg, the ministers for foreign affairs did succeed in reaching some agreement on further common action. the heads of state or government will continue this discussion and determine how to proceed in the coming months. it has emerged that, in the second half of this year, the commission will be working out, among other things, a contribution to the debate on the european union's capacity to cope with enlargement - for which, as you know, there have been calls from parliament, too. the conclusions of the european council will mention the situation regarding the western balkans. as you know, this has been a particular priority for the austrian council presidency. this issue is to be seen in the context of a policy of peace and stability in the balkans. we shall be referring once more to the salzburg declaration by ministers for foreign affairs and to the prospect of eu membership it holds out to the countries of the western balkans. a number of external -policy issues will be addressed at the european council and declarations made on them: on the western balkans, iran, iraq, lebanon and the middle east, respectively; and the eu strategy for africa will also feature on the agenda. as you can see, there is an extensive menu in store for our heads of state or government and the president of the commission. i hope that you will agree that we have worked hard over the past months on making some progress on all of these important issues, and we hope that the european council will succeed in rounding off several issues and stimulating such discussion of others as is necessary in the coming period in the interests of europe and of our citizens. . mr president, mr winkler, ladies and gentlemen, one year on from the start of the period of reflection, it is time to take stock of matters. what stage are we at? what can we do to move europe forward? what can one expect from the european council? i will begin by saying to you that a spectre haunts europe: that of euro-pessimism. while we already had the traditional euroscepticism of those who have never wanted europe to be a political project, we now have the pessimism of those who like to think of themselves as staunch europeans and who very often sink into a state of 'crisisphilia', each one of them keen to demonstrate today that he or she has a better idea than the next person about the reasons why europe is undergoing a profound crisis. what has caused this euro-pessimism? to a large extent, it has been the shadow cast by the 'no' votes in the referendums in two of our member states. this shadow has raised doubts about europe and about europe's ability to define a project for us to live together as europeans. that is one of the reasons why we need to find a solution to the constitutional issue. i should like to make it perfectly clear: we, at the european commission, are in favour of the principles, the values and the substance of the constitutional treaty. it is a question of knowing, firstly, why we need this constitutional text. what do we lose by not having a constitutional treaty? we lose a clarification of the powers between the various levels, we lose an extension of the codecision procedure and an extension of qualified majority voting, we lose a legally binding charter of fundamental rights, we lose an eu foreign affairs minister who would also act as the vice-president of the commission, and we lose more effective action in areas such as public health, food safety and even energy, because the constitution was extending the powers in that area. we also lose an extra degree of consistency in external matters. on this point, i should like to say to you - and my one and a half year's experience as president of the commission confirms this - that we, in europe, genuinely need what the constitutional treaty was providing us with externally: more effectiveness, more democracy and more consistency. the current treaties do not allow us fully to achieve all of these objectives. let us be clear, nice is not enough. it is a question of knowing how to overcome this situation. will we succeed in settling this problem by talking day in day out about the constitution? will we succeed in settling this problem by restricting ourselves to a pragmatic approach? i would say no; i would say that we need to avoid two traps. firstly, the trap that consists in saying, as some people would have it, that the constitution is dead and buried and that we should only do practical things: that would be dangerous for europe. moreover, it would also be dangerous for europe, i should point out, if, at this point, we were to let ourselves get caught up in a purely institutional or constitutional debate, if we were to claim that we are being held up now while we await a solution to the constitutional issue. that is why we must progress on two levels, as is explained in our document of 10 may concerning the twin-track approach. the first level relates to a europe of results, a europe of practical projects, but - and we are coming to the second level - a europe of results that is not in opposition, that is not an alternative, to political europe, and that is, in contrast, a prerequisite for gaining the citizens' support for europe as a great political project. therefore, it is not about choosing between a europe of results and an institutional europe, it is about choosing them both. we need a europe of projects and results if we are to have a great project for europe. what is this europe of results that is being proposed? despite everything, we have already achieved certain things. that is why i cannot agree with all those who say that europe is at a complete standstill. i believe that, albeit unintentionally, they are compounding this crisis situation. i understand that it is the analysts' job to say that europe is at a standstill, but, as political leaders, we have a responsibility. do you really believe that we are going to restore confidence among europeans merely by sending out negative messages? no. in order to move europe forward, we must revive people's hopes, restore their confidence and demonstrate what progress has been made. the truth is that, even after the two 'no' votes in the referendums, we were able to settle the budgetary issue for the next seven years, and to do so for 27 countries. thanks to the european parliament's contribution, we were able, despite everything, to find a political solution to the very controversial problem of the services directive. we were able, despite everything, to relaunch the lisbon strategy for growth and employment. we have launched a common energy strategy in europe, something that was unthinkable two years ago. let us therefore carry on making progress on the basis of practical projects. let us achieve results so that we can create the right moment to deal with the institutional issue. in our document of 10 may, we make some practical proposals. without wishing to go into the details of these proposals again, i shall point out a few of them. to see what is not working in the single market in order to protect consumers in europe. to see what obstacles still stand in the way of fully completing the great european market. to review our social sphere: what are the obstacles to a more united europe? at the same time as making progress on the issue of the market, we must make progress on the social issue. on the basis of the existing treaties, to make progress in relation to justice, cooperation and the fight against terrorism and crime. it is possible, on the basis of the current treaties, to do more in terms of immigration and of the fight against illegal immigration, at the same time as dealing with issues concerning legal migration. this is a major issue. if the member states want to do more, then they can do so on the very basis of the treaties. therefore, this is not simply an institutional matter, this is also a matter of political will. let us therefore make progress in relation to justice and security. these are areas in which europeans are calling on the member states to do more, because it is obvious today that each one of us, on our own, cannot combat terrorism and cannot face up to the challenges of illegal migration: we must work together. a great deal more can be done, too, in relation to the external dimension. the right solution is the one included in the constitution: a foreign affairs minister, vice-president of the commission. we must pool our skills and our resources in external matters, but, in view of the fact that there is still no constitution, the commission presented a document a few days ago that contains practical proposals designed to increase the effectiveness, consistency and visibility of the european union in external matters. moreover, we have made some important proposals regarding subsidiarity, transparency and better regulation for europe. we have there a series of practical projects, and that is without mentioning the two major areas that, in my opinion, will project europe into the future: energy, following on from the green paper that we presented, and research. these are two key priorities. the truth is that our research budget will increase by 60% for the next seven years compared with the previous period. that is why we proposed to create a network-based european institute of technology, with a view to giving a european vocation to our research efforts and to attracting the best researchers in the world. why are the best european researchers now based in the united states? why are we unable to attract the best chinese, indian, latin american or american researchers here, to europe? we also need a symbolic project designed to harness our abilities in the field of research. thus, let us rally around certain practical projects that can restore people's confidence in europe: this is the europe of projects. the europe of projects is not enough, however; we must settle the institutional matter too. what are we proposing on this issue? we are proposing to move on now from the so-called period of reflection and enter into a commitment period. the first important stage is next year, when we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the european community and the 50th anniversary of the treaty of rome. i do not believe that the heads of state or government can let the 50th anniversary of our union come and go without committing themselves to this project for living together as europeans. there are two possibilities: either we make a declaration focused solely on the past, in other words a simple commemoration, or we make a declaration focused on the future, a way of renewing our commitment for the sake of our common project. as president of the commission, i believe that i have the duty to ask the heads of state or government, who are the stakeholders of our projects, to renew their commitment. i believe that you too, as members of the european parliament, will have a right to ask our heads of state or government whether they wish to invest in this project for living together as europeans, which is needed now more than ever in this globalised world. that is what we are going to do. that is why i have proposed a declaration that is not simply a new messina declaration. you will remember the messina declaration, following the failure of the project for a european defence community; that declaration made it possible to revive europe and subsequently to create the european economic community. it was signed by the foreign affairs ministers. that is no longer possible today. as i have already said: europe will not be bureaucratic, technocratic or merely diplomatic; europe must be democratic. that is why all of europe's institutions must be involved and why i propose that this declaration be signed not only by the heads of state or government, but also by the commission and by the european parliament, which occupies a central position nowadays in the process of european integration. if we succeed in this undertaking, by putting all of our energy into it, we will have an opportunity next year to relaunch the european constitutional process and the process of building a europe that is an enlarged europe, and that involves a debate on enlargement. i do not believe in a miniature europe, nor in a multi-speed, divided europe. i do not believe that the response faced with the current situation and faced with the difficulties that europe is encountering should be to say 'let us divide up'. are we going to let one or two countries create a more advanced europe while letting the others lag behind? i do not think so. i believe that it is our duty to do everything possible to make europe, in its enlarged form, work. i say this to you in the light of some previous experience. if i compare the present situation with what was happening in 1992, for example, when negotiations were taking place with our us, chinese, russian and other partners, i can tell you that europe is more respected outside its borders nowadays that it was previously. an enlarged europe is a prerequisite for a powerful europe. let us hold a debate on enlargement. we recognise that some members of our public have doubts about the rate and the importance of enlargement. let us hold a debate on the issue of absorption capacity, but let us do so by highlighting the added value that enlargement has already represented for europe. that is the europe that i so earnestly desire. an enlarged europe, an open europe, a more competitive europe, a europe that is much more than just a market, a europe that has a political project, and a political project that is based on the idea of solidarity because, without solidarity, the very idea of a union does not exist. that is the great project for the europe of the 21st century. not a closed europe, nor a small, miniature europe, but a great, enlarged europe that is capable of shaping globalisation, instead of suffering the consequences of it. that is the great project for europe. if it is to be achieved, it is vital that politicians emerge from the vicious circle of euro-pessimism and can start to build the virtuous circle of trust, with practical results, of course, but also with this great vision of our great europe. . - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the speeches by the president-in-office of the council and the president of the commission have conveyed the good impression that the european constitution is not dead but very much alive, and that there is the common will to bring this important european project to a successful conclusion. i believe that this parliament can support wholeheartedly what we have heard. the austrian presidency has revived the constitutional debate. that is a good thing, and it has been hard work, but we can see that all parties are now back round the table and deliberating together how to proceed. i believe that many issues on the agenda at the summit - from energy policy to development policy to the common foreign policy - and many other issues would be easier to resolve with the new constitutional treaty than with the old treaty of nice. for this reason, the constitutional debate we need is not an institutional, but an eminently political debate. we must also inform people of the costs of not having the constitution. in our resolution, we ask the commission president to present the people with a study showing everything we stand to lose by not having this new treaty. this lunchtime, plenary will vote on a resolution containing a number of demands and also ideas for the next period of reflection and the further course of the constitutional process. the number one message to the summit is that we once again need a declaration from all 25 member states that they support this common project and are also willing to continue the ratification process. this declaration is necessary because other public statements have occasionally given the impression that the member states concerned are distancing themselves from their commitments, and that would be a real crisis of confidence and a breakdown in loyalty among the member states. i hope that the summit can send out this message. the second point i should like to raise is that we would caution against breaking up this global compromise and cherry-picking or dismantling this treaty. that would weaken the project of a political europe and endanger cohesion. thirdly, it is music to our ears that the summit is to decide on a timetable. the eu has always been successful when it has been working towards a clear objective and a fixed date. that was the case with the internal market and with the euro, and must now also be the case with the constitution. the dates 2007 and 2009 have been mentioned: these tally with those in our resolution, and we need this treaty for the european elections. i would caution against going into the european elections with this crisis unresolved - that would strengthen europe's opponents and increase euroscepticsm, perhaps even reduce voter turnout once again. we need to have succeeded by 2009. we believe that specific dialogue is needed with the two countries that voted 'no' in their referendums. it remains an open question how and under what circumstances these two countries could continue the ratification process. we cannot get around this point. the moment of truth will come following the elections in the netherlands and france, if not sooner, and their partners need to know what the specific problem is with the treaty. the 'no' was very vague, and it is not much use to us. we need a specific proposal for how we can help and what we should do. it is about time we saw a commitment to examining this issue more closely - it cannot be resolved by others; no one else can hold the debate in their place. the effort needs to come from the two countries themselves, but they do need to be asked. my next point is that the period of reflection is being extended, and indeed all parties should be committed to participating in this reflection. some countries are still silent and are not becoming involved. that is bad for everyone, because these countries, too, still need to ratify the constitution, and if the population does not know what it is letting itself in for and what is in store for it, that is bad for all the others. we believe that public involvement should be increased. commissioner wallstrm's plan d is good. we, too, must do our bit towards ensuring that even more money is made available. we simply need resources, and we also need cross-border projects rather than just national debates. we must continue to promote this element - from citizen to citizen, from union citizen to union citizen. we have had a very successful interparliamentary forum. this process requires the participation of not only the executive, but also the legislative bodies, the parliaments, and we, parliament, are willing to continue this interparliamentary dialogue. it must be clear by the end of this debate that europe is not just brussels; europe is all of us, wherever we live in our countries, regions and localities - and if we succeed in this, we have achieved real progress. mr president, thank you for giving me the opportunity, one year after the french and dutch 'no' votes and only one day before the european council, to answer mr leinen's question. it also gives me the opportunity to outline the commission's position on the period of reflection and on the constitutional process. i partly replied to that question last month, when i presented this chamber with the commission's two communications to the european council - the assessment of the reflection period and plan d - and the citizens' agenda, to deliver results for europe. as president barroso has already outlined, we have set a citizens' agenda with these concrete projects and the things we want to achieve. before i come to the next steps to be taken, let me say this about the first steps. the commission, as you have already heard, remains wholly committed to the principles, the values and the efficiency gains that the constitutional treaty would bring. we also welcome further ratifications, as from the estonian parliament recently, and as we have heard being announced from the incoming finnish presidency. i would also like to reply to mr leinen's question and proposal to look at the effects of a 'no' to the constitution or no constitutional treaty, and we are fully willing to do so. i think we should look at what would be the consequences and the costs of no constitution at all. we cannot ignore the fact that right now we have no consensus, no common position among member states on the fate of the constitution and the institutional reform that we need so much. we cannot allow ourselves to be paralysed by this, and we are not doing so, as you have already heard. to begin with, the commission intends to implement the ambitious policy-driven agenda to address citizens' expectations and restore public confidence in the european project. after president barroso's outline, there can be no doubt about our determination. we shall deliver, and we will have to do that on the basis of the current treaties. we cannot afford to wait for what will shortly be 27 member states to reach a consensus on the constitutional issue. at the same time, the commission remains fully committed to debating and engaging in dialogue with citizens at european, national and regional levels. the methods we will use are set out in plan d - as in debate, dialogue and democracy. we should use that to explain the added value of the european project. we should use that to argue why we need a new constitutional treaty. we should use it to discuss the political priorities with citizens. our two institutions may not always agree on every detail, but there is one fundamental belief that we share: our commitment to becoming a more democratic, transparent and effective union. and that goes beyond any period of reflection. i also believe that european affairs suffer from a participatory deficit. still, citizens have high expectations on delivery and policy content, and this places important demands on the member states and on our institutions. we must involve citizens more in the policy process at all levels, particularly young people and women. such initiatives should be concrete and seen as a permanent function of developing european affairs, and they should ensure that the feedback process is taken seriously - what do we do with what we hear in dialogue and engagement with citizens? - and that listening is followed up by concrete actions. i have said it before and i will say it again: plan d is not a rescue operation for the constitution. it is not limited to the reflection period - be it one year, two years or even more. it is a starting point for a long-term democratic reform process. we want to create a citizens' ownership of eu policies to make them understandable and relevant, and to make eu institutions accountable to and reliable for those they serve. i see and hear of lot of nostalgic harking back to the good old days of the european union, but nowadays it is no good having a few men shut themselves away in a castle somewhere trying to solve the problems of the european union. today we need to engage citizens; we need the support and trust of citizens and the confidence of citizens to be able to build a future for the european union. we need to engage and create the participatory functioning of the eu institutions. as you pointed out in your motion for a resolution, we need a special focus in plan d for the coming year, until the june 2007 summit. i have already promised the commission to come back after this summit with a kind of mid-term review. i will pay close attention to the summit's conclusions in that review, and also to the resolution of this house. delivering concrete results and reconnecting with european citizens will create the favourable climate that is necessary for successful institutional reforms; that is the way we motivate it. so far, plan d has been a successful exercise in terms of setting off a wide range of activities, and i believe we have started to think and reason somewhat differently. we focus on what is our reality of today and for the future, how we need to interact with today's and tomorrow's citizens. over 660 activities have been taking place in member states; hundreds of thousands of citizens have visited the europe debate website. for the future, i also think, as mr leinen does, that we need more of a citizen-to-citizen approach to allow citizens to meet across borders to discuss the european agenda. we should focus particularly on young people, the europeans of tomorrow, and mobilise more women in the decision-making process. we need the whole of the european project to be more participatory, more transparent and more effective, and this ambition goes beyond any period of reflection. that is the only way we will be able to take the european union into the future. . - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i was pleased that the president-in-office of the council spoke of a working summit. after all, europe will make progress only as a result of day-to-day efforts, of hard, specific work, and not as a result of brilliant feats of rhetoric - there is no shortage of soapbox speeches in europe. i should like to wish the president-in-office every success for the summit. my particular thanks go out to the president of the commission, however: not only for being here today - he could, of course, say that he is only present when the president of the european council is here - but for what he has said today. after all, we recently heard great criticism of the commission president by our esteemed fellow member mr schulz and, as mr schulz is, of course, known for his objectivity, i am assuming he will be very complimentary about the commission president's speech in his own speech shortly. this dual path - defence of the principles of the substance of the european constitution on the one hand and specific projects for taking europe forward on the other - has our strong support. i wish to stress on behalf of our group that this has our emphatic support, and it would be good if the other group chairmen were to join me in stating that quite clearly. when we celebrate the anniversary of 25 march 1957 next year - on 25 march 2007 - our group will insist that this event not be a celebration of those heads of state or government who engage in mutual appreciation under or in front of pretty flags, but rather that it express europe's democracy, and that there be european parliament involvement in the declaration and the establishment of our objectives for the 21st century. i am saying this for the benefit of the general secretariat of the council, as it does not actually tend to be the heads of state or government who obstruct things. i would call on the general secretariat of the council to give parliament due involvement from the outset, as the commission president has proposed - for which we should like to express our appreciation and thanks to him. my second comment concerns security in europe. this, of course, is a delicate balancing act - on the one hand, there is the public's need for protection against serious crime, against terrorism, against illegal immigration, and we expect specific measures to be taken on this, but, on the other hand, when it comes to immigration, we also expect respect for human dignity and a search for humane measures to deal with illegal immigration. we cannot accept the situation in which thousands of people are dying a wretched death in the mediterranean and on the seas of this world, but instead must take specific measures on this, too - to prevent these human tragedies. a further point concerns the lisbon strategy. on the issue of the services directive, we have proved our good will, our capacity for action - and compliments to the austrian presidency for taking this path. we are in favour of a european institute of technology - provided that it creates a network rather than new bureaucracy. as regards energy supply, we are in favour of diversity: diversity with regard to energy sources - we cannot rely on just one form of energy, nor can any form of energy be ruled out - and also diversity with regard to supply. we cannot rely on a single country or a small number of countries for our energy supply, but need diversity of suppliers too, and the principle of solidarity among all member states of the eu applies here - we cannot leave anyone in the lurch. speaking of the concept of solidarity - and looking here at mr kasoulides - i consider it unacceptable for us to negotiate with turkey at the present time - and that is a decision, and taking a decision means the treaties must be complied with - when turkey does not recognise one of the member states of the eu, when it does not extend the customs union under the ankara protocol to cyprus. this runs contrary to the solidarity that unites us in the eu, and for this reason we must insist that the customs union be put into effect. my last comment concerns the debate on the fundamental rights agency. i have my doubts as to whether this is the correct path to take, and i ask that we reconsider. of course, the council of europe has been presented with a report by jean-claude juncker on this subject. parliament needs to consider the best means of cooperation with the council of europe and also with its parliamentary assembly. the work that the council of europe does today, which has proved its worth, should not simply be transferred to the institutions of the eu; instead, we should concentrate on ways of complementing each other, since the council of europe is also a european community of states, with 46 members. we have 25, soon to be more, and the activities of each community must complement the other's sensibly. if the council presidency takes that into account at the summit, my praise for the success of this presidency will be even greater. i therefore wish the presidency every success for the brussels summit tomorrow and the day after. . - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to start with a comment for the benefit of the president-in-office of the council. the day before yesterday, this parliament adopted an interim report on the temporary committee on the cia. the voting in my group was fairly consistent, that in the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats fairly inconsistent, but nevertheless a majority recognised that the eu is founded upon the rule of law - and i would ask the president-in-office to convey that message to the council in preparation for the meeting with george bush. the existence of the eu and its member states is based on the philosophy of the rule of law. the eu is a place where the rule of law prevails; guantnamo and the cia flights are places of lawlessness. a community based on the rule of law such as the eu, which defends its values, must say a clear 'no' to the abuse of our institutions by the us secret services and an even more emphatic 'no' to the existence of legal vacuums such as guantnamo. i would ask the president-in-office to convey that message at the summit. mr poettering has made reference to my legendary objectivity, for which i am most obliged to him. he forgot to add that he was quick to join my criticism of the president of the commission when he and mrs martens sent a joint letter with similar content to the commission president. to mr schssel, too - all of them members of the ppe-de group. it is not our problem if your own house is not in order, mr poettering. the president of the commission has merited praise today, therefore - if he says the right thing, we are on his side. we say 'yes' to the need for this constitution, and 'yes' to the reforms that the constitution must bring in order to replace the inadequate treaty of nice. the fact that he is now stating that in public rather than always leaving commissioner wallstrm in the lurch, that he is declaring his support for it in front of this parliament, represents progress. bravo, you have done well, mr president of the commission. that alone is insufficient, however - something else is needed, something that has also been mentioned today. we need to ask those whose referendums are responsible for throwing out this constitution what they are actually proposing, how we can surmount this obstacle. the governments of france and the netherlands should also be obliged to suggest to the eu ways of resolving this dilemma. i have a suggestion for france. i am fairly sure that, if mr chirac were to announce that he would resign immediately if the people voted 'yes' to the constitution, we would be assured of overwhelming majority support for the constitution from the french. one thing is clear, however: the eu's crisis is also a crisis for some governments, and that is the reason time and again for the inability of the european council to move forward on most points, as some governments do not want this constitutional treaty and others are hiding behind those who do not want it. incidentally, that is true of denmark, portugal and all those with a difference of opinion from the three present and future council presidencies. the prime minister of finland, matti vanhanen, is courageous in symbolically ratifying and declaring his support for the constitution during the finnish council presidency. i think that it is good that austrian chancellor schssel has declared his support for this constitution. although the proposal he has made for this referendum is not a new one and has already been discussed by the convention, it does show that austria wants this constitution. the german government, which will then hold the third successive council presidency, has declared its firm support for this constitution, which is a good sign. anyone who says that this constitution is dead is mistaken. the council's proposal, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the treaties of rome, to demand a solemn declaration from leaders of whether they do indeed wish to further european integration, whether they really support the principles of deepening integration, whether they still support the spirit of the treaties of rome 50 years on, is a good idea. the content is what makes the difference - it must state that the solemn declaration being made is one not of noble objectives, but of concrete action. it could read, for example: yes, we want the constitution - its content, in particular - to become reality. after all, one thing is absolutely clear - and i say this on behalf of our group and of all its members: we want eu enlargement. we welcome the draft conclusions on romania and bulgaria. we know that the prospective accession of the balkan states has a peacemaking effect there. for this reason, we declare our belief in the necessity of enlargement. without the constitutional reforms and the associated division of powers, however; without the clarity of action or the democratising potential that the constitution holds, this enlargement is impossible - unless we want to destroy europe, which we do not. for this reason, we are all required to continue to fight for this constitution, so that europe retains its basis in the rule of law and acquires the economic strength it needs to meet the challenges of the 21st century. mr president, the success of this week's summit rests, first and foremost, on delivering on one concept: democratisation. democracy, transparency and accountability must be the building blocks that shape the future of our union. without a clear commitment to all three, we will be left with the piecemeal solutions that have stalled reform efforts hitherto and reinforced public distrust in the union. europe will be built with the support of the citizens or not at all. addressing the democratic deficit means an end to the rubber-stamping of regulations behind closed doors. that is why my group congratulates the austrian presidency on building on commitments to make transparency the rule rather than the exception in eu policy-making and welcomes the willingness shown by the president of the commission to publish the names of those who sit on thousands of european union advisory committees. we still look forward to receiving them, mr barroso. we call on the council to announce that all discussions on lawmaking by codecision will be open to public view. we know - as the journalist meg greenfield wrote - that everybody is for democracy in principle, but it is only in practice that it gives rise to stiff objections. we note that, whatever they say in public, those two old secret plotters, britain and france - the two countries that nurtured democracy at national level and yet with her offspring now suffer amnesia - are still resisting openness in the council. it is up to the other countries to pull them kicking and screaming into the 21st century. in the short term, the council must put its faith in parliament and allow us greater legislative scrutiny. key initiatives, particularly in justice and home affairs, are often hampered by the absence of qualified majority voting and they end in stalemate. the time has come to apply the clause of article 42 and shift policies from the third to the first pillar, as proposed by the commission in its communication of 10 may, for our reputation - indeed our influence - rests on upholding values like democracy, liberty and respect for human rights. data protection in the third pillar is necessary to ensure protection of personal data. likewise, minimum procedural guarantees for the european arrest warrant - which i had the honour to pilot through this house - have been held up in the council since 2001. we want to see progress on all of those issues in order to make the european union more democratic and more effective. europe demands no less than an unequivocal drive to democratise decision-making. in the long term, only a constitutional treaty - as practical as it is ideological - can provide the institutional framework to democratise europe. but it is also time to recognise that the sixteenth and final member state likely to ratify the constitution in its current form is finland. we must recognise that france, the netherlands and the united kingdom will never ratify the 2004 text. denmark, ireland and sweden cannot ratify in current circumstances. the czech republic and poland choose not to ratify, and portugal will find it almost impossible, while committed to a referendum. so there are two options: renegotiation or oblivion. the sooner we take steps to make structural and substantive improvements to that text and address public concern, the better. president barroso, i welcome the vision and determination you are showing today. but i want to hear you say that louder and more often to the member states. you are right - they are all shareholders in the enterprise, but they have been gripped by a fad for short-termism, and anyway the markets are falling. we need to hammer home to the member states just how much they need the european union. my group thanks the austrian presidency for its good work thus far. we wish you success with other important items on your agenda: migration and other aspects of the hague programme; social and economic policy; the fundamental rights agency that we so badly need. make sure too that our foreign ministers have aid to palestine and cia renditions on their agenda. the fine wines that you served them at klosterneuburg were a good aperitif. they now need to sit down to the meat. . mr president, mr barroso, ladies and gentlemen, i am pleased, mr barroso, that you have changed your mind regarding what you said a year ago and regarding the constitution. i only hope that you do not change your mind again and that you can demonstrate the same determination to the member states too. firstly, if the declaration must be ready in march and if the european parliament intends to contribute to it in some way, i believe that we ought to say something different regarding the matter on which we are due to vote tomorrow, which is simply that we need to retain this text and that this constitutional treaty is the only thing that the european parliament can accept. mr leinen, this resolution does nothing to further the debate on europe that we all want. if we intend to achieve a result, then we must also make the content of our proposal clear. the member states have not succeeded in doing this but, unfortunately, neither have we. secondly, on the subject of sustainable development, we find a number of very interesting statements in the final declarations that we have received. nevertheless, we believe that there are practical things that need to be done and that are not even being proposed. a more decisive measure is needed on climate change, on transport and on biodiversity, and the european union's funds need to be used in a more environmentally friendly way. instead, all that we are doing is taking a step backwards, with a set of proposals on air, on waste and on many other subjects that well and truly baffle us. we are pleased that the importance of transparency has been reaffirmed yet again, even though we believe that it is far more important to effectively monitor the application of community law than to get tangled up in complicated and very costly impact assessment procedures. this trend is very fashionable, but we feel that getting tangled up in complicated and not particularly transparent procedures is a danger to our democracy. furthermore, mr barroso, we are still encountering a whole host of problems in terms of transparency and accessing documents, with regard to which we do not feel that the commission is doing enough. we therefore endorse what the council has done, even though we know that words are one thing and actions are quite something else, and we have already made various proposals and requests that have not been exhausted to date. thirdly, i wanted to address the issue of the external dimension. mr winkler, on the subject of energy, we are slightly concerned by the fact that the only priority mentioned in the conclusions relates to the acquisition of resources and to the transportation of those resources within transit countries, while no reference is made whatsoever to eco-efficiency and renewable energy sources. these elements have an external dimension, however, because the 15 international car manufacturers have an impact on oil prices that is perhaps equal to that of opec. i believe that this silence from europe is a negative element. furthermore, in the final conclusions you state that it is hoped that a negotiating mandate will be adopted for the balkans. yet who should grant this mandate, if not the presidency of the council? i believe that, on this point, over and above hoping, you ought to be more specific. i shall conclude by addressing you, mr winkler, because when you spoke about tunisia yesterday, we were very disappointed and surprised. you said that a number of funds for ngos had been released. that is not true, and the commission also confirms it. the sum of eur 900 000 for the human rights league has not been released, and i regard the fact that the presidency is claiming the opposite here as extremely negative. i urge you to check your sources and to let us know whether or not this corresponds to the truth, because this is a very serious example contributing to europe's lack of credibility. . mr president, mr barroso, mr winkler, each of the main agenda items for the forthcoming european council in its own way raises the issue of the meaning of european integration. such is the case with regard to the results of the famous period of reflection and to the common energy policy, and europe's action in the world does not escape attention either. i shall begin by mentioning the period of reflection and its extension. the first part of the brussels summit's draft conclusion is dedicated to this and is charmingly entitled: 'europe listens'. that is all well and good, but what is it listening to? the document elaborates on the measures to combat illegal immigration, which, i might add, are most unfortunately juxtaposed in the same sentence with trafficking in human beings, terrorism and organised crime. it deals with the union's intervention mechanisms in the event of a crisis. it stresses the need, in future, to take the european union's absorption capacity more rigorously into account before embarking on the road to any further enlargement, and so forth. these are so many issues that are, i agree, present in the debate with our fellow citizens. strangely enough, however, the issue that is at the heart of the crisis of confidence plaguing the union, that is to say the social issue, is, for its part, completely sidelined in the european council's draft conclusion, which, in the course of one sentence, merely calls on the commission to draft a report on the situation by next spring. saying that is not tantamount to sinking into crisisphilia, mr barroso. i would point out that the austrian presidency itself put its finger on this issue as far back as january. that is what we must discuss first in order to draw the necessary conclusions from it. the public's trust is not given as a matter of course. it is won. let us turn now to the european energy policy. helping to address the 21st century energy challenge is, in fact, a european responsibility . unbridled competition and the race for profitability are, however, unacceptable in this context. preparing for the post-oil period, making far greater progress in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, developing the research effort with a view to increasing energy efficiency and diversity, transforming the way in which transport is organised and affirming the right to energy for all are eminently political tasks that, if they are to succeed, cannot be restricted by the short-sighted calculations of the market. finally, the same debate concerns europe's ambitions in terms of external policy. who can oppose the desire to provide ourselves, as the commission is proposing, with operational instruments and rules able to increase the consistency, effectiveness and visibility of our external action? it is my conviction, however, that the fundamental reason for the weakness of europe's action in the world is neither technical nor institutional. it is due to the tragic lack of political will and common vision at the european council. how else can we interpret, at this very moment, the staggering inertia of the 25 faced with the israeli government's irresponsible torpedoing of the initiative of the palestinian president, in flagrant and continual breach of both the un resolutions and the quartet's road map? all of that reinforces our idea that the famous period of reflection and plan d will only be useful if they represent an opportunity to hold a trouble-free debate in the open on the structural changes to be promoted so that europeans might once again see a reason to be positive about europe in the world today. mr president, i would like to thank the president of the commission and the president-in-office of the council, as well as the vice-president of the commission, for their presentations and contributions. i would like to deal briefly with a number of issues that i think we should be addressing in europe, before returning to the issue of the period of reflection on the constitution. the austrian presidency has proven over the last few months that when you deal with a particular issue in a certain way you can achieve success. when you try and bring the different players together you can achieve a result that nobody thought possible. we have already seen this on a number of different legislative fronts, both in the cooperation with parliament and in the work with the commission. i think that is what europe needs today: a greater understanding that there is a return on the investment made in terms of time and effort. that return is not just about esoteric ideals, but about creating real solutions to the problems that people face in their lives. unfortunately, too much of the debate is now determined by what media commentators are saying, rather than what the citizens of the european union are saying, because when you speak to people and ask them what their needs are, and what kind of europe that they want to see, they all reply that they want an internal market, greater job security, greater energy security, better personal security and safety, for their children to have a safer and cleaner environment in which to live and for europe to play a responsible role on the world stage. taking all these things together, why do we in this chamber seem to speak about a crisis of confidence in europe, when the level of crisis, fear and loathing which some people would have you believe exists is simply not there among the general public? there are a number of key things we can do in the coming council meeting to try and drive things forward. first of all, there must be a restatement of commitment and idealism in respect of the lisbon agenda, establishing the genuine goals and targets of having, by 2010, the most dynamic economy in the world and creating the investment, research and development that we will need to create new jobs and new opportunities. we also need to follow through on existing dossiers, be it the services directive, the protection of public services or the right to universal service, and bring these into being. with regard to energy, the president of the commission has come forward with a good policy for a common energy policy in europe, but we should also look at the alternatives, including the opportunity to use fuel crops to produce energy. finally, as regards the period of reflection on the constitution, i consider it wrong to call it a constitution, and was delighted that the foreign ministers said in austria that it was wrong to do so. however, it contains some good points and i welcome the perspective outlined for us by the president of the commission, and the vice-president of the commission in particular, in pushing the idea of a plan d and taking up on those good points and moving forward. my only words of caution are that we should not jump ahead of what the governments are willing to do, because ultimately the governments are the key representatives of their peoples and national interests. mr president, what we should do, rather, is start afresh and set up a new, directly elected convention to devise proposals that can then be put to referendums in all the member states simultaneously. in that way we would obtain the ground rules that voters want and we could call the eu a democracy and a union of democracies. the summit's document on openness is a fig leaf. last year, the eu adopted more than 3 000 acts. fifty-seven of these were adopted through a joint decision-making process. complete transparency and joint decision-making were also decided on at the seville summit in 2002 and again at the end of tony blair's presidency. now it is mr blair's own foreign minister, margaret beckett, who is trying to block progress at the last minute. if the measures are adopted in any case, journalists will all be able to write the joyful story of how the summit met people's expectations by making progress towards transparency. the majority of eu laws will, however, continue to be adopted by officials in 300 secret council working parties after having been prepared in 3 000 other secret working parties under the auspices of the commission. instances of openness and democracy will continue to be exceptions to the rule. the real progress made at the summit is in terms of its support for the commission's proposal that, in future, all proposals should be dealt with in proximity to the people, that is to say in the national parliaments. it is a constructive proposal, and the initiative now lies with the national parliaments. i hope that they are ready to seize the opportunity. - mr president, allow me to offer some constructive advice. use your many means and your sensory mechanisms to find out what the european public really wants. the answer will presumably be security, justice, accountability and democracy. the field of security is not doing too badly. the field of justice - which can only be the product of the two last-mentioned fields, namely democracy and control - is sadly lacking. i am convinced that the breakthrough can only come if you make a break with the things that have previously failed, move away from the things that have not worked: away from the constitution and towards the basic treaty, with subsidiarity, transparency and control. there is a very great lack of this. i would ask you to understand that, to very many europeans, the elite gathered in brussels and strasbourg is currently as welcome as chewing gum on the cashmere sweater of society. this has to change. when it does, you are in with a chance. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, when he awarded the charlemagne prize, jean-claude juncker said, among other things: 'thank goodness other people are watching us who are not europeans. africans, asians, even americans never cease to marvel at european successes. the only ones to grumble about them are the europeans themselves. i cannot understand it.' neither can i. we should stop talking ourselves into a crisis and instead work together on the requisite projects and solutions. the president of the commission is right in saying that nice is insufficient. that is why we had laeken, however, and laeken produced the convention - and so we have already drawn up a new treaty that needs to be transposed. he is right in saying that the two referendums with a negative outcome have plunged us into a crisis that is partly reinforced by our calling it one. that is the reason for the period of reflection we have had for one year now. that is why we want to salvage the political project of the constitution. indeed, it has already been ratified by 16 member states. to the president-in-office of the council i would say that i most definitely expect this summit to put an end to any talk of the death of the political project of a new treaty, and to result instead in all parties declaring their support for the decision on this political project, concluding it in this parliamentary term and continuing the ratification process. i expect there to be no talk of the crisis of the european union, only talk of the political projects; i expect to see not only analysis, but also the setting of dates, the establishment of projects, the issuing of work orders, the establishment of timetables and the involvement of the public. let us take over the parliamentary forums and establish them in the national and regional parliaments, too. let us increase transparency and make plan d more specific. this will enable the successful implementation of the political projects and mean that the period of analysis is a thing of the past. mr president, the council's agenda features an important topic in the shape of the eu's enlargement. i should like to say a few things about romania and bulgaria, which will be in the limelight today because of a resolution that parliament will be adopting later on today. last month, we debated here with commissioner rehn romania's and bulgaria's accession further to the commission's progress report on the preparations of those two countries. this week, the heads of state or government will be addressing the same subject during their meeting. our group takes the view that the commission has reached an even-handed verdict. the commission shares our ambition to hold firm to 1 january 2007 as the accession date for both countries, provided they apply themselves to addressing the outstanding reforms. like the commission, we are convinced that this should be possible without any problems. our group has always been consistent in its support of romania and bulgaria joining on the planned date of 1 january 2007. those two countries must now concentrate on tying up loose ends in order to meet the accession date. i think that both countries have the political impetus to achieve this. they both appear to have learnt their lesson, as was also the reaction in those countries to commissioner rehn's report. the reactions from sofia and bucharest to his report were very much to the point, to the effect that they had both made a note of what was required of them and they were going to go off and do just that. this attitude further strengthens my optimism that romania and bulgaria will take their homework seriously. moreover, both countries have made considerable progress over the past year, which is encouraging. as such, it is not relevant to speculate about deferring their accession. both candidate countries have demonstrated recently that they both have resolve in what they do, which gives my group the confidence that preparations will be completed in time. as such, we have, at the moment, no fundamental objections to the commission proposal not to arrive at a final verdict until next october when our final report is due. we would welcome it if the council were to adopt the commission's attitude. in adopting this attitude, we all have our own role to play. the roles of romania and bulgaria are clear. in the past, we have asked the commission to make an extra effort in order to help romania and bulgaria in their preparations, and to be clear about what they expect of the candidate countries. we would reiterate that request now. the council, too, has the responsibility to reach an even-handed verdict, but it also has the responsibility to ensure that the eu countries finish the ratification of the accession treaty on time. as was agreed last year with the european commission, parliament too will remain involved in monitoring the accession process right to the end, and i am convinced that this will result in a positive outcome. - mr president, i would say to the president-in-office of the council that, at the end of the austrian council presidency, his country's government has another chance to rescue the council from its helplessness, as his country's presidency has produced very mixed results so far. i very much welcome the initiative for greater transparency in the decision-making process. as mr watson said, the presidency really has passionate supporters of this in the shape of the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe. on the other hand, the irony of the story, in a way, is that 2006, in particular - the european year of workers' mobility - has seen the adoption of a services directive that hinders that very mobility. as regards the treaty establishing a constitution for europe, however, the council must understand that this treaty has failed in its present form. if we are really serious about the ubiquitous profession that the focus of european policy must be on the citizen, we cannot simply ignore the 'no' in france and the netherlands, nor can we ignore the fact that other member states have already announced that they will not be ratifying this constitutional treaty. europe needs a constitution - that much is perfectly clear - and the substance of this constitutional treaty is good, but specific proposals must be made for what can be changed. in this context, i was very pleased to read an interview with the boss of the president-in-office, wolfgang schssel, in the german newspaper - for two reasons. firstly, he said that he supports germany in the world cup. i think that is excellent - now we are sure to win. secondly, however, he took up the proposal to hold a referendum on the constitutional treaty on the same day in all the member states of the eu. i think that is excellent, as such a step would really bring citizens and european institutions closer together. in addition, it would really be a historic event: a constitution that citizens had awarded themselves - that would really be an important treaty. the president-in-office said, in all modesty, that there were no epoch-making decisions on the council's agenda. yet if he succeeds in putting the idea of a referendum on the constitutional treaty on the same day throughout europe in front of the other heads of state or government and in winning support for it among them, he will be able to say, in all modesty, that he has produced epoch-making decisions. i wish him every success in this. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow is the day when the heads of state or government come together to ceremonially extend their period of inaction and helplessness. guy verhofstadt called it a 'deafening silence': the din of cherry picking, subsidiarity and proportionality, of 'emergency brakes' and 'core groups' from the sandpits of technocracy - most of these terms not even translatable from the english. we have another year of this din in store for us. i wish to say to the president-in-office of the council that an interim report on the european debate is due to be presented at the end of his country's presidency in june of this year - but there is no debate. the presidency has promised us a roadmap for overcoming the crisis in europe - but does not have one. it has promised that europe would listen - but its discussions have been held in closed circles among hand-picked elites, have been held with experts behind closed doors, and the presidency has only heard what it wanted to hear. the citizens are not speaking about all of this. having had one year to think things over, the president of the commission comes here and gives the following answer to the question as to the causes of the europessimism of the people: the cause is the failed referendums. the president is mixing up cause and effect. the failed referendums are the result rather than the cause of europessimism. the cause is the failure of intergovernmental europe, of its massive democratic deficit, of its weak legitimacy, of its becoming bogged down in unanimity and nationalistic rivalry. the governments have been standing in the way of europe. they want to rule europe as a sideline. they are not able to come up with a social response to globalisation. these are the causes of the pessimism among europeans. they are disappointed in europe; and that is why a european democracy is needed. i hope that this understanding plays a role in the council, too. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the last year has been marked by numerous popular protests against the services directive, but also by campaigns against the dismantling of social services and the weakening of democracy. i need only point to the campaigns in france, greece and germany - in germany, the protests by university-clinic doctors that have been going on for months already are still continuing - and all of this is connected with the politics we are pursuing at national and european level. it is time for not only governments, but also the commission and parliament, to realise at long last that, outside the european institutions, the eu public started long ago to develop its own conception of a different europe, a different eu. nevertheless, it has become apparent from the plans for and deliberations on the forthcoming summit that have been seen to date that the european council wishes to give the public the impression of having understood the 'no' to the european constitution as a criticism of merely the style of politics, rather than of official policy and priorities. at all events, neither plan d, a white paper on grass-roots communication, a great deal of paper, nor a number of new websites have changed the priorities of this policy. that is, unless the listening of which commissioner wallstrm has just spoken results in the requisite corrections at long last. admittedly, if she were to understand the requisite measures of which she has just spoken in the sense of these corrections, she would have our wholehearted support. however, the reaction that we have seen thus far this year strikes me as showing lack of understanding. in my view, a further demonstration of this is the recent proposal by the austrian council presidency to put the old text of the constitution, without amendments, to a direct vote in the eu member states. that is unacceptable - corrections must be made. once this has been done, it is perfectly legitimate to consider holding a referendum. we must finally put an end to the situation seen up to now, in which the various countries have merely been engaging in ratification and glorification. in this respect, the opportunity of the 50th anniversary that has just been mentioned should actually be taken to hold a democratic debate on the eu's plans and projects to date, and thus also to enable a new start for the european union. i am sorry. if your group gives you two minutes' speaking time, then you stick to those two minutes. this is not the beginning of the end of your speech, it is the end of your speech. could people please stick to their speaking time. mr president, the european council will once again discuss the future of the constitutional treaty at its forthcoming meeting in brussels. however, there is a saying that you should not flog a dead horse. the constitutional treaty, which was rejected in referendums by the french and the dutch, is just such a dead horse, regardless of how many member state parliaments ratify it. it is difficult to imagine that any french or dutch leader would be willing to put the same document to their people again. moreover, in the treaty there is a clear attempt to move towards a single european state, although in recent years europe has witnessed trends in quite the opposite direction. before our very eyes, eight independent states emerged from yugoslavia. one of those countries is now in the european union and the others are knocking at the european union's door. in spain, the separatist tendencies in catalonia are hard to overlook, while in belgium it is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain unity between wallonia and flanders. it is therefore impossible to accept a text which appears to steer against these patently obvious processes. let us therefore stop flogging this dead horse and deal with issues that are really important to europe and its citizens. we need to support entrepreneurship and create new jobs, we need reforms to accelerate economic growth and increase tax revenues in order to allow greater spending on social programmes, education, public healthcare and pensions. if the european union is effective in resolving these problems, then europe will also function well without the constitutional treaty. mr president, the european council is once again returning to the issue of the draft constitution for europe, in spite of the fact that the text which it is stubbornly attempting to resuscitate is dead. some commentators have referred to these actions as political necrophilia. european union citizens do not want the constitution and their wishes should be respected. this seems to go unnoticed by commissioner wallstrm, amongst others, who recently stated, during a meeting in krakow, that it is vital for the european constitution to be ratified. however, she did not say how the constitution would resolve the specific problems of the citizens of the member states or what would happen to the citizens of those countries which have already rejected this constitution in democratic referendums. the constitutional treaty is a threat to democracy as it has nothing to do with the participation of citizens in deciding the fate of their countries or with the accountability of politicians to their electorate. mr president, the people of france and the netherlands are sticking to their guns. according to a british poll, 74% of french people and 75% of dutch people do not believe that a single part of the european constitution should be implemented, unless a decision is made to hold another referendum. this is a bitter show of dissent for mr sarkozy who, disregarding the vote cast by the french population, wants to make the congress vote again just on parts i and ii of the constitution. it is also a show of dissent for those who wanted to make the people of france and the netherlands vote again on the constitution, a constitution accompanied by a social protocol designed to reassure the french and by a protocol on subsidiarity designed to reassure the dutch. it never rains but it pours for the euro-federalists: according to the same poll, 63% of french people and 68% of dutch people want to take back a number of powers from the european union or to leave it altogether. this is an act of revenge by the european nations on the ideological and irresponsible eurocrats in brussels. it is also the return of the right of the peoples and nations to follow their own destiny and to defend their sovereignty and their identity. let us return to the europe of realities and the europe of nations, which the british and the danes were able to retain so successfully. they rejected the schengen agreement and a europe overrun by massive influxes of immigrants granted residence and work permits on the initiative of mr zapatero and mr berlusconi. they rejected the euro and its budgetary austerity pact, which curbs growth. they rejected the european super-state, which is aimed at destroying the nations of europe. the fact that a decision will be made during the forthcoming european council in brussels to extend the period of reflection by one year reveals - - if there were any need to reveal it - - the divide that exists between the nations of europe and the self-proclaimed elites, who have not learnt a single thing and who act as though nothing had happened. they did not grasp the fact that europeans were feeling deceived by this passive, ultraliberal europe, which is all about fine words and slogans and which has the weakest growth rate in the world and the highest unemployment rate. they did not grasp the fact that the nations of europe did not want turkey in europe and that the turkish advance imposed by brussels was creating an irreparable split. mr president, this summit is scheduled to be, in part at least, a stocktaking exercise on the european constitution. yet the constitution, however you look at it, is to a large extent discredited. france and the netherlands should not be asked to vote on it again, and the dutch prime minister's remarks should be taken very seriously. the longer this issue drags on, the more out of touch the european union appears to be with its citizens. we must move on from the endless debate on constitutional mechanics and get on with delivering results, because if we do not do that, citizens will conclude that their leaders have learned nothing. cherry-picking from the constitutional text, at this stage at least, would be unproductive. however, we certainly need a europe of results, as president barroso has rightly suggested. i personally also want to see a europe of real reform, because without reform there can be no results. progress has been made in economic reform and i congratulate president barroso and his colleagues for the work they have done there. however, we need to do much more and be more focused, as mrs wallstrm said, on achieving the concrete results. there is one other thing i briefly want to mention. the british foreign secretary said that she will try to overturn decisions on opening up council meetings to public scrutiny. this is absolutely astonishing and worrying and is a u-turn in british government policy. mr blair constantly preached the virtues of more openness during his presidency and we got a specific agreement that we would get openness in relation to council meetings and council processes. it is absolutely essential that the other governments give the british foreign secretary a short, sharp shock at her first summit and ignore her attempts to preserve secrecy in this unfair and unacceptable way. what has she got to hide? it is a shameful move on the part of the british government and i hope it will be soundly defeated. mr president, it has already been said that the forthcoming european council will not have any dramatic decisions to take. nevertheless, it could give out a very important twofold signal, namely 'yes' to enlargement, but also 'yes' to strengthening the institutions of the european union, particularly in the context of the union's capacity to cope with enlargement. it never ceases to amaze me when some of our british fellow members say that we do not need a constitution but we do need a lot of new members. equally, some polish fellow members - particularly on the right - are opposed to the constitution, but believe that ukraine must join as soon as possible. that will not be possible. there will not be majority support among the people, or in this house, for further enlargement unless the relevant changes are also made, including the eu's capacity to cope with this enlargement. we need to face this fact. anyone in favour, as i am, of setting further enlargement in motion will certainly be reflecting on how to make a place in the eu for ukraine. he or she will also have to state quite clearly, however, that the eu first needs to be given the necessary strength. the fundamental content of this constitution needs to be implemented, however, be it in the present or an amended constitution. if there is a consensus on this and the council also says so clearly, this will send out a clear signal, the right signal. as rapporteur for croatia, i am also delighted that a clear signal has been sent out to croatia. the country has long deserved its own negotiations. i will also be very pleased when we state clearly - including in relation to thessaloniki, and maybe in even stronger terms than we did in salzburg - that we have an obligation to the balkans, not only in the interests of the countries themselves, but also in our own interests. if, however, we also state clearly and unambiguously that we first need to strengthen and reform our institutions accordingly - people will understand - then that will be an important signal; one could even say that it was an epoch-making signal that this european council was sending out. as regards the partnership with the usa, the summit with this country follows the european council, and preparations will also have to be made for this. we have said time and again that this partnership is desirable and necessary. yet it must be based on common values, one of which is respect for human rights, and that is why guantnamo and the issue of the activities of the cia are so important to us, why it is so important to us that these issues be on the agenda. this is not because we want to detract from the usa or from the fight against terrorism, but because we want to conduct the fight against terrorism alongside the usa - on the basis of these common values. mr president, i have an appeal to make to the eu heads of state or government when they meet in brussels tomorrow and on friday. first and foremost, they should involve the eu in their national debates. when reforms are debated in the member states, not a single word is said about the eu. the fact is that the eu really is a completely foreign concept when the welfare state is subject to review. in, for example, germany, france and my own country, denmark, we are currently debating what economic reforms are needed to secure welfare in the future. all national politicians - ministers as well as ordinary members of parliaments - should, however, be clear that a strong and effective eu is absolutely necessary and is a precondition for any welfare state. why, then, this deafening silence? what is the use of the commission and parliament setting all these resources aside for a dialogue with the people when national politicians let the side down in such a damaging way? we in the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe have constantly worked to bring about openness in the council of ministers. why is the united kingdom now suddenly faltering after tony blair promised here in parliament to open up the meetings of the council of ministers? it is simply not good enough. openness about the work of the eu is an absolute necessity if we are to be closer to the people. i would therefore call on all the heads of state or government to open up the meetings of the council of ministers so that everyone can see how they proceed, can hopefully see that there is nothing to hide and can see whether ministers have actually been present. we should thus also avoid holding 25 different press conferences in which everyone is a hero. i am also looking forward to the presidency giving a favourable reception to president borrell's call for action to bring about a one-seat eu. mr president, mr winkler, mr barroso, i should like to go back over one part of your speech. you said, with good reason:, that we must progress on two levels: the strengthening of the single market, on the one hand, and social solidarity, on the other. i would add: social justice and equity. i believe, mr barroso, that the rejection and the europessimism are fuelled by a rather keen awareness of the fact that we are not actually progressing on two levels and that the action of your commission, like, i might add, that of the council, has been to prioritise the first level. i should like to tell you or to remind you that, under your presidency, as, moreover, under the prodi commission, no new social legislation has been decided on by the european institutions. furthermore, no new collective agreement between social partners has been decided on either. it is this serious imbalance - i believe - that is increasingly affecting one section of the population, the one which, as a result of globalisation, has the most uncertain status. it seems to me that the council, parliament and the commission should respond to this situation. that brings me to my second point, which concerns the instruments designed to promote social solidarity or social justice. mr barroso, we will be unable to build an equitable model in the future if we do not have a fiscal policy at european level. that is the contradiction between those who are reluctant to pursue enlargement and those who want more social justice: maintaining unanimity on all fiscal matters amounts to standing in the way of a possible european fiscal policy. it has taken 15 years to have a directive on savings income, which is, for that matter, full of derogations, and we are not making any progress on common standards in relation to corporate tax. to conclude, mr president, the european union's political project does not amount to a single market, which we need, but to a form of competition among national models. we need a more proactive approach and more common policies at european level in order to guarantee fairness and a european social model. mr president, if we did not have a european union, there would certainly be a need for a europe-wide cooperative that contributes to a better life for those living in the border regions, to cross-border aspects of the environment, energy supply, consumer protection and to the protection of health against internationally tradeable dangerous substances. people want a europe that helps remove the barriers for peace, social security, public services and international solidarity. this is quite different from adorning a world power or increasing the freedom of international corporations. people want a europe that helps them solve their problems, rather than a europe that causes inconvenience. people no longer recognise that europe in the union's current phase. voters in two countries have given us a signal that things must change. if we want to stick with the european union that we have, it will have to be fed from the bottom up, by our citizens and their organisations. continuing with constructions from the top down, dreamt up by the powers that be, will not solve anything. we will need to use enlargement and the increased involvement of our citizens creatively in order to make a new and better start possible. mr president, the majority of the reforms required can be carried out without the new treaty. one example is the agenda of the forthcoming european council meeting, which will address the extension of the schengen area, the issue of rendering the debates of the council more transparent, the negotiations on european union enlargement and the reform of external policies. let us not make the treaty of nice unpalatable to europeans, as it is all we have today. we not only need to reflect on the new treaty, but also on the political will of member states and their citizens in relation to carrying out common tasks. the problem is not the lack of a new treaty but the lack of shared beliefs concerning the future. we announce better legislation and yet we are adopting a services directive that is so vague that the european court of justice is rubbing its hands with glee at the prospect of the ensuing cases which will give it even more power. we announce common interests in energy matters, yet on a daily basis we are conducting an utterly selfish energy policy. we announce investment in research, yet the european technology institute is withering away before our eyes, ripped apart as a result of national self-interest. we claim to espouse the principle of subsidiarity, yet we are funding a framework research programme which will be cofinanced by all european taxpayers, even though some of the research concerned is illegal in many member states. these are real splits which, if we wish europe well, are regrettable. these are splits which place larger question marks over the state of the european project than the demise of one or other treaty. mr president, the european council must end the confusion about the status of the european constitution once and for all. while one member state declares the document dead, another member state ratifies the constitution as if nothing was wrong. i appeal to the heads of state or government to put an end to this confusion; if not, public confidence in the union will wane even further. i support extending the period of reflection by one year, on the condition that we go back to the drawing board for a completely new treaty document. i would prefer a treaty document to a constitution, a manageable document that combines the previous treaties, a treaty in which the union, within a defined space, demonstrates its added value in the area of cross-border policy challenges. i would particularly call on the austrian presidency to show leadership by finally removing the confusion that has come about and to give the emergence of a new treaty framework a shot in the arm. austria is finally leaving its mark on this programme, something which i have waited for for six months. mr president, we like to claim that the eu is a union of values based on democracy and the rule of law. yet when the danes voted against the treaty of maastricht in 1992, when the irish voted against the treaty of nice in 2000, they were told to go away and try again. so much for democracy! when the french and dutch voted against the constitution last year, we ignored their verdict. we are trying to revive a constitution which is dead in its own terms. we are implementing large parts of it with no legal basis. so much for the rule of law! in our pigheaded determination to press on with the european project in defiance of public opinion, we show our brazen contempt for the voters and for democratic values. the voters are starting to notice. amongst my east midlands constituents i sense a growing concern and, indeed, anger against the european project. so, press ahead with the eu constitution if you must, but be warned: you are fuelling public resentment, which will blow the european construction apart. mr president, illegal immigration has become one of the european union's major challenges. in spain, for example, according to all the opinion polls, it is seen as the country's second biggest problem. i would therefore have liked to have heard the austrian presidency say something more decisive, more ambitious and more concrete about the progress you expect from the next european council in this field. besides the provision in the draft constitution, we could - and in my view we should - continue to make progress on the communitisation of measures to combat illegal immigration. i am well aware that some people will say that certain governments take decisions against the wishes of their european partners, ignoring the commission, and then, when problems arise, they want them to be resolved amongst all of us. i would like to say to those people, however, that, with a community policy on immigration, there would never be mass regularisation without control, and the 'pull factor' which we are currently so afraid of would not therefore exist. legal immigrants must be guaranteed integration and equal rights and obligations. by the way, we could consider transitional measures for romanian and bulgarian citizens who - i too am sure - will soon be community citizens. moving on to other issues, the presidency referred in passing to the document requested of michel barnier. since last summer, parliament has done a lot of work on natural disasters; we have visited the areas affected and, as noted in a resolution approved practically unanimously, we have seen great dissatisfaction in society and too little coordination amongst the competent administrations. finally, i would like to say that you have not said anything about the regulation on the funds. one detail remains to be resolved, mr president, so that parliament can vote for it during the first week of july. your colleagues can tell you about it, but i would ask you to make a final effort and i wish you the best of luck. mr president, the european union and the world need reliable, affordable and sustainable energy flows. i have just quoted mr solana. the interesting document he addressed to the european council is distinguished by a number of deafening silences: while he does indeed speak of the need for an energy policy for europe and for an action plan incorporating a number of priorities, mr solana carefully avoids mentioning concepts such as the 'common energy market' and the 'single market'. in short, the europe of necessary solidarity on energy is still very much in limbo. the fact is that the energy issue is going to become a key element of all european policies. energy will dictate our international relations policy. the economic, environmental and social policies of our countries will be governed by it. energy will have more and more of an influence on all of the union's policies: from agriculture to structural policies, via housing, transport and research. in spite of that, europe's response to the various energy challenges remains weak and lacklustre. what should be done? in order to influence its external supplies, europe must first display its internal solidarity, its will to build a genuine common market. mr solana tells us that the best way of guaranteeing a reliable and affordable energy supply is to have the world markets function properly. the fact is that the world markets are dominated by cartels and oligopolies. where is the free and transparent market dear to the liberals? gazprom has just begun talks with the algerian company sonatrach, whose aim is certainly not to do the union any favours. is it not time for the countries with high energy consumption to organise themselves, in turn? in its resolution on the lisbon strategy, parliament called on the union to consult with the us, the japanese, the chinese and the indians, with a view to preventing a form of competition that would end up ruining everyone. europe must invest in energy efficiency, in new technologies and in renewable energy sources. everyone knows that europe's future energy supply will be neither 100% nuclear nor 100% renewable. we need as intelligent an energy mix as we can possibly have, bearing in mind the differences in geography and climate within the member states, as well as their resources in terms of primary energy, biomass and so on. the union cannot overlook any course of action. all forms of research must be encouraged. then, above all, europe must become more united and more vigorous in defending our common interests. mr president, the purpose of this debate is to provide president borrell with something interesting to say when he speaks at the european council tomorrow. i fear that if parliament simply agrees the line proposed by the ppe-de and pse groups, we will be signing up to the same paralysis that exists within the council. president barroso is quite correct in saying that we must make progress on policies, and a 'messina 50' is probably a positive proposal, but what is the point of extending the period of reflection without providing a target and a purpose for the reflection? procrastination is not a credible policy. waiting for the successors of chirac, balkenende and blair to be thrusting federalists is a crazy fantasy. what we require is for the european council to establish a rendez-vous with a decision in the autumn of 2007, setting up a fresh conference to renegotiate part 3 of the constitution. these are not just legal problems, president-in-office, but a profound political crisis which we must address. i expect it is going to be possible to ring-fence the classical constitutional provisions that we find in the first and second parts of the constitution, around which consensus still exists. however, it is part 3 which contains the common policies that have so greatly disappointed public opinion in france and the netherlands and in several other places, notably as regards social and economic policy and the issue of borders. in fact, we have little choice. we either try to improve the product and market it effectively within the court of public opinion, or we consign the whole project to oblivion. mr president, one of the main mechanisms for the integration of europe is the enlargement of the european union. bulgaria and romania are at the doors of the eu, turkey is already negotiating its accession conditions, the new state of montenegro has expressed its hope of becoming a member of the european union, and other states in the balkans may follow suit. in this context, i should like to focus on the issue of the copenhagen criteria and the policies related to minorities. many states are still following the old-fashioned french model and trying to assimilate those who have a language and culture different to that of the state. in romania, for instance, there is a large hungarian-speaking minority, whose rights must be fully recognised before romania enters the european union as a way of recognising internal diversity. that is to say as a way of respecting human rights, because fulfilling minority rights is absolutely essential to respecting human rights. the european union gives hope to minorities. please do not disappoint them. mr president, the council's draft conclusions begin with the title 'europe listens'. the question is whether that is true. the eu might listen, but is it concerned about what people are actually saying? a year ago, the referendums in the netherlands and france sent clear messages to the eu. the draft constitution was rejected by large majorities. if the eu had listened, that decision would have been respected. instead, what was referred to as a period of reflection was introduced, with the unexpressed but clear aim of having the same constitution smuggled in later, notwithstanding the will of the people. now, debate and reflection have been announced, but a debate aimed only at having the same constitution dusted off later is meaningless. all the answers to emerge from such a debate are provided in advance. such a period of reflection is in danger of turning into manipulation rather than genuine democratic debate. if the desire is for an open debate on the eu's future, the democratic ground rules must be respected, and it must be made clear that the constitution has been rejected once and for all. mr president, we are to have an extended period of reflection, are we? some people who are having periods of reflection are otherwise known to be 'in retreat' and some retreats are made in better order than others. some people, mr barroso, might have learned from reflection to date, saying that perhaps it was not the case, or that they might have done things differently, or even, perish the thought, that they were wrong. but all we have heard this morning is, 'we were right. the people of france and holland are wrong. the constitution should be brought back'. you have employed new architects to build on exactly the same foundations of integration, over-regulation and empirical ambition. fortunately, only three people in ten in britain any longer believe any of this rubbish, so roll on our referendum, whatever the question! - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to mention two topics, namely enlargement and the fight against terrorism. as regards enlargement, i shall highlight the importance of the compatibility criterion and of absorption capacity, which i am afraid has not been strongly supported by my country in the debates within the council. as regards terrorism, a truly obvious question must be asked. how is this commitment on the part of the european union compatible with the recent appointment in italy of the former terrorist, mr d'elia, who is guilty of being an accessory to the murder of an italian police officer? the ties of solidarity linking the european left to the new italian government have until now prevented this obvious question from being brought to people's attention and debated within the european union. this is disgraceful when we consider that, in italy, the terrorism of the and groups has affected not only police officers, judges, politicians and industrialists, but also trade unionists and exponents of the best labour culture, such as professor biagi. mr president, mr winkler, your presidency can already boast of a positive track record. we congratulate you on it. as for the european council that is due to take place, it is not in a position to take major decisions, but it may have a decisive influence on the future fate of the european union. paving the way for a revival or endorsing a failure: that is the challenge awaiting you. you will have to determine the strategy for future enlargements. i call on you to stop forging ahead regardless, an approach further illustrated by the opening of detailed negotiations with turkey, even though the latter does not fulfil the political conditions and is making no further progress with regard to integrating the . from now on, we must regard the european union's absorption capacity as a key parameter. there can be no further enlargement without an improvement in the decision-making mechanisms, without a sufficient budget, without new resources and without a genuine agreement on the nature of the european project. this is what it is basically about: constructing a political europe by setting out the timetable for implementing the main reforms contained in the constitutional treaty, which we refuse to forget about. the convention obtained a result that cannot be overturned. we must go beyond nice. what should the content of the european policies be? we do not want europe to devote the bulk of its decisions to improving the internal market, that is to say, to creating a vacuum. we want a europe that builds. we want the governments and our parliament to draft the policies that we need: on immigration, energy, economic coordination, research, security and foreign relations. contrary to what is claimed, europeans want more europe, but they want a europe that creates forms of solidarity, that guarantees security, that makes an impact on the world and that does not just police the market. they want a europe, too, that respects its most sacred commitments: strasbourg as the seat of the european parliament. a great deal of lucidity and courage will be required. we trust that you will provide evidence of this at the end of june. mr president, we have been saying that europe is a citizens' europe, because the european union exists through them and for them. at the same time, we are feeling the uncertainty, and we are actually voicing our questions, because we know that decisions have become disassociated from citizens, who tend to view the results of the community as natural; however, solidarity does not come naturally to everyone, as you would like it to be, mr president, and i have deep sympathy for everything you have said concerning this issue. the political effect of the enlargement is making itself felt behind the will of those who voted against, and solidarity has not become second nature to our operation, but, like you, i do have hopes for the future. we want more solidarity and a continuously consolidating democracy, and this is why we need the constitution. on the other hand, we are, at times, at a loss as to why the old member states, during the council session, abandoned their former initiative concerning the creation of the fundamental rights agency, when we, new member states, are continuously proving ourselves in matters of democracy and respect for human rights. even today, the importance of democracy, openness and transparency has not been questioned by anybody. but when it comes to human rights, why do we prefer to examine others rather than ourselves, the member states of the european union? we will not be able to avoid community control in respect of the enforcement of human rights. a few thoughts about the social dimension of the european union: the european union has taken into account the challenges faced by new member states. we believe that defining preferences for the european social fund is particularly important in the course of the determination of social policy objectives. but in order to ensure that the social europe is truly social, it is not sufficient to emphasise the objectives of competitiveness versus those of employment; we must also emphasise social cohesion, because in the absence of social cohesion, not only nations, but the european union itself may become divided. at this point i would like to add that we are grateful that the roma problem has recently been emphasised to the extent that we have seen. finally, when it comes to catching up, some are travelling in a high-speed elevator to the designated floor, while others have to struggle on the stairs. let us think of those who have started the painstaking process of climbing the stairs. mr president, poland supports the constitutional treaty. do not listen to polish politicians. listen instead to public opinion in poland. over 60% of poles support the constitutional treaty. if that is the case, what can we do to make sure it comes into force? the period of reflection is for the citizens and not for the european institutions. for them, it is time to get down to work. the austrian presidency can be proud of its many achievements, three of which i would like to point out today. first of all, there is strasbourg. the optimism of mozart's music encouraged european politicians to be optimistic about the constitution, something that is significant. secondly, i think that the heeding of parliament's call for council debates to be more transparent was a very important step and i congratulate the austrian presidency on this achievement. thirdly, mr barnier's report, which is one of the most interesting european documents to have been drawn up recently, will also stimulate debate. however, what should we do at this point? right now, together with the commission, we have to address two serious social problems. this is something the subsequent presidencies should also address. first of all we need to deal with the problem of immigrants in europe and, secondly, the problem of europe's social dimension. they should become the focus of community policy, of a common european policy. finally, we need to ask what can be done to make the constitutional text possible? this lies in the hands of the european commission. the third part of the constitutional treaty largely repeats treaties that have already been ratified. the european commission should carry out a legal analysis and only the 25 or so amendments that have already been tabled should be included in the first part of the treaty and be subject to an immediate decision. this is a great task for the european institutions and i would like to express my faith in the commission and the presidency of the european union. - mr president, there are two issues here: do we have and to what extent do we respect democracy in europe and who is ultimately in charge. if we truly believe in democracy and that the constitution will bring change to the lives of the people of europe, we should allow the people of europe to have their say in a referendum. we should not be afraid of the people of europe. who is in charge? are you in charge, mr president of the commission? if you really are in charge, tell me where the southeast borders of europe are. you do not know, because turkey does not allow you to know. well done. let me ask you about the law of the sea. it applies everywhere in europe except to the aegean. well done. which country is threatening europe? only turkey in the aegean with its . well done. which country is violating europe? is it russia? no, it is not. it is turkey every day in the aegean. well done. which country does not recognise the republic of cyprus? it is turkey. well done. which country is occupying 40% of a country of europe? it is turkey. well done. where is the effigy of the ecumenical patriarch mocked and hanged? in turkey and you tolerate it. well done. these are the facts, mr president of the commission, and i propose that your next meeting with mr bush should be held not in the azores, but at guantnamo. that is where you should hold it, so that you finally understand what is happening in this world and how you are colluding in the crimes of the americans. - ladies and gentlemen, at the start of the austrian presidency, chancellor schssel promised movement on the constitution talks. i therefore expect a clear message from the council meeting that the text foisted on the citizens is incomprehensible, unfair and, most importantly, dead, and that the time has come to draw up a new document. given that chancellor schssel is a politician who stands by his words, he should not accept the manipulative delaying tactics employed by chancellor merkel and president chirac. they want to leave the constitution to mature 'naturally' for one more year, and then to come to a decision on it during the german and french presidencies. austria is, from a historical perspective, in the best position to alter this process. it has already travelled down the path of attempts at european integration. less than a hundred years ago, the austro-hungarian empire united 21 european countries. it only lasted for 51 years, however. why was that? problems were not addressed and were left to mature 'naturally'. i feel that extending the period of reflection on the current constitution shows disdain for the citizens and the campaign to resurrect it is simply throwing their money down the drain. - mr president, mr barroso, ladies and gentlemen, i address you, mr barroso, because i welcomed your speech this morning in which you revived europe's great project. we have at last heard the commission raise its voice loudly in this house in order to revive politics and to secure the union's due role on the international stage. this is the commission that we want and that europeans want too. it is a commission that is shaking off the burden of bureaucracy, which is mainly to blame for the people of europe's estrangement from the institutions. mr barroso, i agree with you. if we give up in the face of difficulty and if we allow ourselves to become overwhelmed by pessimism, then we will not achieve any objective whatsoever. politics must not fail the great challenge of building a europe that is aware of the role it must carry out on the international stage, that is to say, a europe that exports peace, a europe that is capable of taking a leading role in the mediterranean, in the middle east, in the balkans and in the fight against terrorism and against counterfeiting, a europe of strong transatlantic relations. that is why the constitutional process needs to be concluded. the first six months of next year are crucially important. we support the german presidency in preparing - as the austrian presidency has already done and i am sure finland will do too - a series of political initiatives for 2007 involving the 450 million europeans that are all too often forgotten about. parliament must, and i am sure that it will, play its part as leader. the romans used to say , nothing is difficult for those who want it. we want a political europe, a europe of values, a europe of the people, a europe of subsidiarity, a europe of solidarity and a europe of freedom. mr president, we cannot allow ourselves to fail this challenge. mr president, as well as euro-pessimism, another spectre haunts europe: that of autism and its associated hypocrisy and myths. that spectre fuels the one you mentioned. i too understand the attachment to the constitutional treaty on the part of those member states that ratified it and of the majority of meps. like all those who campaigned for it to be ratified - and i was one of them in france - i remain convinced that it contains some crucial advances with regard to the functioning and the democratic life of the union. however, we must dispel the myth that, in time, it will be possible to present the same text, accompanied by a simple annex, in the countries in which it was rejected. we must also do away with the hypocrisy of the member states that have so far been unable to ratify it and that, in actual fact, are quite simply unable to secure a majority, particularly when the people have been promised a referendum. i believe that we need instead to acknowledge this and to try to forge ahead, as you proposed just now, mr barroso, because european life cannot be founded on regrets. we need a revival, advances and progress. this revival - - and on this point too, i agree with you - - cannot be limited to the debate on the institutions. it hinges on policies. it hinges on the europe of projects, on the europe of growth and knowledge, and on the europe of research, of energy and of cooperation in the mediterranean. as regards the institutions, desperately wanting to keep the treaty as it stands may not be the best way of saving its substance. i think that the period of reflection - - which the council appears to be spending its time extending - is, rather, in danger of preserving the treaty in aspic. i believe, in fact, that this exercise will soon reach its limits and that we must instead prepare to go beyond it by proposing a new road map. in order to go beyond it, we will need to do what your predecessor, the current italian prime minister, said yesterday and draft a new and simpler text, which permits limited, but crucial, reforms. as for these reforms, they should be clear and easily understood by europeans and should mainly focus on improving the democratic functioning of the union and on clarifying the responsibilities among the institutions. which reforms? i will mention six of them, and i believe that we should more or less stop there. firstly, to strengthen the powers of the european parliament, whose legitimacy is being recognised more and more by europeans. secondly, to make the council's work more transparent when it debates legislative matters, as it is unacceptable that france and the united kingdom should now place obstacles in the way of this transparency. thirdly, to ensure that the appointment of the president of the commission is made by taking into account the votes cast by europeans during the european elections. fourthly, to implement a power whereby the national parliaments can monitor compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. fifthly, to review the rules on qualified majority voting on the basis of what was agreed in the treaty of 2004, in such a way that they are based on the population. finally, in fact, to bring in a foreign affairs minister. the member states have already given their backing to all of these ideas. i am convinced that, in all of our countries, the majority of people would be willing to support these reforms. we need initiatives. let us attach importance to the substance rather than to the form. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, zeus should declare his feelings for his lover europa: that was my plea six months ago at the start of the austrian council presidency. his wife at home must be blind if she cannot see that there is quite some activity outside the marital home. a great deal of pomp and flashing lights, a great deal of silver and porcelain, distinguished guests, one important engagement after another, and now even a meeting with george w. bush. there is never a dull moment with europa. what kind of a figure does this europa cut on the international stage, however? is she a strong, self-confident woman with the support of those around her, a woman who we believe to be capable of guiding us safely through difficult times? do we believe in europa, or do we see a figure plagued with self-doubt, who does not know her role in this society, in this network of connections between individual countries? what is it we want from europa? what do we expect of her? we certainly have a clear idea. we believe that europa should protect us from poverty, should provide security, should ensure that we do not have to live from hand to mouth, but instead are able to put something aside both now and in the future, should not let others treat her like a child in the global village, and should set an example. expectations of europe run high, but we do not believe it capable of meeting any of them. this explains the great scepticism that registers on the eurobarometer. at the present time, europe is completely incapable of meeting the expectations of the public - the council gives it far too little scope to do so, and the commission keeps it occupied with tasks that increasingly alienate it from the european public. no one understands europe. what does it spend all its time doing anyway? the essentials remain undone - that message, at least, is conveyed - and so discontent grows. europe urgently needs a new master plan with projects focused on the citizen. it needs to become less ponderous, needs to develop an image. this is impossible when the council presidency rotates biannually. one goes, another takes its place; this is a 'halfway house', not a safe home. i know that things would be different if we had the constitution. this will not be the case in 2007, however - and so i ask that the summit produce clear competences and greater efficiency for europe. if it does this, even the public will give the green light for the constitution. mr president, typical statements contained in the presidency's draft conclusions concern the eu's need to listen to people and need to conduct a dialogue with them. statements of both these kinds envisage a situation involving two parties. who, then, are the parties that in some sense confront each other? curiously enough, it is the people of europe and the establishment. this means that political representatives do not in practice see themselves as representatives of the people but as a group or establishment in opposition to the people. that is very unfortunate. that is why we are always so surprised and shaken at the results of our occasional referendums in europe. the european party structure is completely out of date. europeans cannot vote for their own parties and, at the same time, communicate their deep euroscepticism. that is something we must change in the future so that we do not continue with this undignified game. an establishment must listen to the people and be prepared to conduct a dialogue with them. the establishment must represent the people. mr president, i have the growing impression that the discussion on the future of europe has reached a dead end. it is like the obstruction of a blood vessel which supplies the heart with blood. if this situation continues, there is a risk of an extremely serious and extensive stroke. i have the impression that the discussion on the constitutional treaty is precisely such an obstruction. i am someone who supported the constitutional treaty and who still supports it. i nevertheless lamented the fact that, as a result of the ambitions of certain politicians, it came to be known as the european constitution, which led from a pragmatic discussion of what should be included in the treaty to a referendum for or against the european union. although i lamented this label and these ambitions, i also acknowledged that such a treaty was necessary. today, it should be very clearly stated that this state of affairs is untenable. it is not possible to vote again on the same document in these countries. i appeal to you to remove this obstruction, allowing fresh blood to reach the heart, so that we may deal with serious problems such as the real liberalisation of the european economy, something which still has not taken place. mr president, one of the subjects for the forthcoming summit is the attempt to define the european union's exact absorption capacity with regards to potential new members. further enlargement of the european union depends on this definition. it will be an important debate as this definition should not be the key which closes the future path to membership for the european union's most important neighbours. fear of enlargement provides bad counsel. we should, of course, aim to define the geographical borders of the european community, but we also should remember that we are bound by clearly defined criteria that are supposed to be met by potential candidates for european union membership. we have to remember that the union is an attractive project which gives hope to millions of our neighbours: belarusians and ukrainians. today, in belarus, we support civil society. the current dictatorship, backed by russia, makes it impossible to pursue any other policy. however, the union should pay particular attention to defining clear european prospects for ukraine. the behaviour of the kiev government when attempts were made to use energy as a tool for blackmail in december, its solidarity with moldova, for example the close monitoring of the transnistria region and its good relations with georgia show that ukraine can be a real stabilising force in the region and can guarantee the growth of democracy. it is an invaluable ally for the european union. i will now move on to the second issue related to the european summit, which is the creation of a fundamental rights agency. this is supposed to be an important institution whose work should support respect for human rights. however, i would like to express my concern about the fact that there are attempts to limit its scope to activities in the member states of the european union. the historic mission of the union is that of supporting and promoting democratic ideas and governments. worldwide, many threats still exist outside the european union. that is why the setting up of a fundamental rights agency should be used to send a clear message to the global public that the union possesses an effective instrument to support all those who fight for human rights and basic democratic freedoms. that is why i appeal for the activities of the agency not to be limited to the territories of the 25 member states. the agency needs to act in other countries as well, most importantly those which are covered by the european union neighbourhood policy or by partnership agreements, as is the case with russia. mr president, there is an old saying that if you do not fight, you do not count. mr barroso, i like to see you fighting. i recognise that you are fighting for a new treaty. i also like to see commissioner wallstrm fighting - you make a nice couple when you are fighting. let me tell you that we really need to fight now. what is going on in the council? i know what is going on: maybe one day, through informal contacts behind closed doors, we will get a new treaty, as mrs wallstrm said today, but that was the old way of doing things. now we need to do it together with the people. if we do not have the people with us, we will not have a new treaty. that is why i am so happy to see that we together - parliament, the european parties and the commission - can have a true european debate with ordinary people. excuse me for saying so, but it is a hell of a job, because it takes time and energy and often you get very little thanks for it. however, at the end you will make a difference in history, because the result will be a new treaty. therefore i just have two pieces of advice to give you. firstly, we, together with the chairman of the group, have focused on the following issues. we cannot do more to resolve international conflicts, especially in the middle east, without a new treaty. we cannot create more and better jobs and ensure better economic cooperation without a new treaty. we cannot combat terrorism, trafficking and cross-border crime without a new treaty. we need a new treaty in order to have low energy prices. we need a new treaty to have greater transparency. therefore, mr barroso, i recommend that you work harder, as you have said, on this declaration next year. however, promise me that one of the major messages in that declaration next year will be that this european union is not a competition amongst states, because that is what people increasingly fear. they fear uncertainty and financial competition on lowering taxes, a sort of social dumping, thereby undermining the welfare state. this european union is a transparent and fair competition in the free market between firms, services and projects, which can contribute to our wealth. that is a very important signal to send out. the european union is about people: putting people first, combining a new welfare state and a modernised version, for this region's prosperity. my last point is that we need bulgaria and romania. we need to have a clear signal, president-in-office, when you meet the day after tomorrow. we will meet in brussels, with our leaders and prime ministers, and our message will be clear: we need bulgaria and romania from 1 january 2007. they deserve it and europe needs them. - mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, i would just like to make three brief comments. first, i do wonder, when we hold our debates here in strasbourg, whether we should really be setting up the fundamental rights agency in vienna in competition to the council of europe, a tried and tested instrument that is able to take on this task not only for the eu member states but far beyond our borders. i can really only encourage you, as i have also said to chancellor schssel in a debate, to make an active contribution to treating the european disease of 'agencyitis' effectively. you could also send out a clear signal from your own country in that connection. secondly - and in this i almost completely agree with what mr rasmussen said before me - we obviously also need to defend our own values in the context of the enlargement negotiations. i am rather worried that we are falling back into the mechanical behaviour that we have been experiencing here for the past 10 years and that we have criticised time and again in this forum. was it really necessary to negotiate a chapter with turkey on monday, despite the fact that some of the minimum conditions, specifically recognition of the ankara protocol, have not even been dealt with yet? i wonder whether we are perhaps once again sending out the wrong signals by setting in motion a train that, 10, 12 or however many years down the track, we will still not be able to stop. the austrian presidency of the council could have sent out a clearer signal in this regard, too. thirdly, the european union is founded on the member states. there is no single european people - and this goes for mrs wallstrm, too, who is now not listening - but 25 national peoples, as we are seeing at the moment with the football. and we have a european union that is founded on the member states and not on a majority of the population expressing their opinions in referendums. that really does need to be taken into account, otherwise this project will ultimately founder. mr president, we complain that, in spite of our successes and achievements during 50 years of european integration, the european union has become stuck in a rut. we complain that it lacks a clear vision, that there is no agreement on what direction to take and what to do in the future. however, we should admit that these criticisms and reservations expressed by the citizens are related to the current functioning of eu politics rather than the constitutional treaty, whose significance has not been sufficiently explained to the public. after all, the european constitution is a fundamental document which will allow the union to deal with new challenges. we are all aware that the union cannot develop further on the basis of the existing treaties, and not because these treaties are 'too restrictive' for 25 or more member states. these treaties have a basic flaw in that they do not provide for the involvement of civil society either in shaping union policies or in the decision-making process. president barroso, i would like to ask how many millions of signatures we would need to collect today, as part of a citizens' initiative, in order for the commission to hear the voice of the citizens. at the moment you are not obliged to take account of their voice, but the constitutional treaty would give the citizens the opportunity to set up such an initiative and one million signatures would be enough. i repeat, one million out of 457 million european union citizens would be needed to set up such an initiative. does this mean nothing to opponents of the constitutional treaty who bandy democratic slogans about so enthusiastically? president barroso, it is with pleasure that i heard your declaration on the constitution today. however, these words must be backed up with actions and the most important task at the moment is to win back the trust of the citizens of europe in the european project. we have to do this in the old union where europe has become very commonplace because the citizens have had it for too long and also take advantage of pro-european feeling, or rather enthusiasm, in the new member states. in my country, poland, 80% of citizens want more europe and 60% want a constitutional treaty. this is a good sign and i hope that during the european summit these countries will make the right decisions, showing the way for europe and the place of the constitutional treaty, so that we may overcome this impasse. mr president, mr president of the european commission, you have made a good speech today and i would like to congratulate you on it. you have made a good speech, because i believe that you have managed to move people, those of us who are here and those outside of this parliament who are listening to us. you have argued that we should not allow ourselves to indulge in euro-pessimism and i believe that you are right. you have also said something very important: that europe is not in crisis. it is true. europe is not in crisis. we must not allow ourselves to believe that. it is also the case, however, that we must make an effort to explain why the constitutional treaty is important to people's lives, because many people take the view that the constitutional treaty has not entered into force - which is the case - but nothing has gone wrong as a result; europe has not fallen into the sea. many people are therefore tempted to say that the constitutional treaty is not so important, since nothing has gone wrong despite it not having entered into force. in all of the campaigns that i have taken part in, i have never heard what all of the leaders who have spoken here today have said: the constitutional treaty is necessary in order for europe to function better, in order to provide the people with added value. we must make a huge educational effort to explain to the people what i have previously called 'the cost of not having a constitution': why not having a constitutional treaty has a negative impact on their daily lives. as mr rasmussen has said, explaining these things is a tough task; it is a task that requires a great intellectual effort. we must apply our grey matter, in order to explain it to the people through clear and relevant examples, but it is a necessary task. i believe that europe requires a huge amount of education today, but it also requires a degree of calm, a degree of political skill, and i believe that this parliament, which has been a pioneer on many other occasions, through the resolution by the committee on constitutional affairs that we are going to approve today, indicates that direction. through a lot of education, i believe that we will be able to rescue the ship of the constitution, get it back afloat, and ensure that the constitutional treaty provides the people with added value. mr president, mr barroso, ladies and gentlemen, i believe, mr barroso, that, during next friday's summit, you must go against what was claimed in klosterneuburg and argue that the problem is not one of extending the period of reflection on the institutional issue, but rather of making swift progress both in improving and ratifying the european constitution and regarding policies capable of improving europe's image among europeans. in fact, if the two countries that failed to ratify the constitution did so for reasons quite different to those regarding the constitutional text, then it is really a question of moving more quickly on practical policies capable of changing europe's image for the better. in order to do this, however, we need to go beyond the period of reflection on the institutional issue as quickly as possible. the constraints that we come up against in implementing the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world are, in fact, mainly due to the intergovernmental, rather than community, approach. there can be no single currency without common economic and social policies and without a genuine form of socio-economic governance. we must therefore clearly state that social and economic problems are resolved by a form of institution building that is in keeping with the community approach. if we do not want to destroy europe, then we must state, as mr schulz did, that europe needs the constitution immediately. mr president, the euro-pessimism that president barroso spoke about seems to be a much more contagious disease than avian flu. it is serious, because it provides a good excuse for many political leaders not to face the challenges of changing europe. if it continues in this way, this situation will remind me more and more of the old soviet joke from the 1970s: the soviet economy was in stalemate and the train was not moving, so the order was given to draw the curtains, rock the carriage to and fro and pretend the train was moving at high speed. clearly we need a political solution, not in the form of first division and second division europe, but with a new quality of political leadership that would be worthy of the founding fathers 50 years ago. can we really restore trust and generate inspiration among the voters if we continue to conduct our policies from one national election to another, finding in them a good excuse not to apply the common policies? i think people can easily differentiate between far-sighted, compassionate and courageous leadership and the petty and patronising approach of those whose main aim is to retain control of the situation. if the name of the constitution is an obstacle, then i am prepared to change the name. we could streamline the format, but we need to retain the substance of the constitution, otherwise we cannot successfully apply the common policies of enlarged europe. we cannot apply the solidarity which is a guiding principle of all our efforts. - mr president, i shall talk about the pnr agreement with the united states, which the european court of justice has rejected, and about the framework decision on data protection, which unfortunately the european council rejects every day by default. my specific proposal is this: firstly, that if you go ahead and renew the pnr agreement on the basis of the third pillar, you only do so until 2007. secondly, that you then negotiate with parliament changes to this agreement which safeguard fundamental rights and that you do so by applying the clause at long last. thirdly, that you proceed throughout in cooperation with the european parliament and in a serious tripartite dialogue and, fourthly, that you immediately adopt the framework decision on data protection in the third pillar. we shall be voting on parliament's proposal today. it is a very serious proposal and it is time you started working on it. keep the promises of the danish presidency to the european parliament and pass it because, if you do not, i worry that the european parliament will be forced to halt other important activities, even though they require first and foremost a european law for the protection of rights. mr president, parliament has been a consistent supporter of enlargement and, in particular, the timely accession of bulgaria and romania. i trust, therefore, that the european council this week will confirm its commitment to the accession date of 1 january 2007 for those countries. as the rapporteur for bulgaria over the past six years, i have seen at first hand the progress that has been made in transforming the economy, the political system and the administrative structures of that country. above all there has been a change in attitudes and expectations. people want a better life and now believe that it is achievable. it is most important that we do nothing to undermine that confidence and the duty to the people of bulgaria that we share with the bulgarian authorities. the resolution of parliament makes clear that some concrete results are needed in the coming months. those are primarily the responsibility of the bulgarian government, but the commission and the member states must do all they can to help. i know that the united kingdom and some other countries have already provided assistance in the fight against organised crime. i would ask for a reinforcement of that effort during the next four months. turning to other matters, the european union is very good at giving lessons to others, but often fails to learn lessons itself. we have heard much about the 'period of reflection' following the failure of the constitution, but we seem incapable of drawing the right conclusions. the answer that we hear this morning is 'more europe'. i do not know where that is coming from. it is not what i hear from the people of east anglia that i represent. they want less interference from brussels and they want the european union to put its house in order and to carry out a more limited range of tasks with greater efficiency. people want more control over their own lives. they want accountable national and local government; they want security and prosperity and they want a europe that differs from the outmoded project that unfortunately is still on the table. mr president, those who claim - on one side of the house, notably - that the french and dutch have said 'no' and that this whole debate must therefore come to an end and we should never again consider changing the treaties are guilty of being far too simplistic and of only wanting to hear one answer. when they say, as one of them did, 'which part of the word 'no' do you not understand owing to the french and dutch results?', we could easily turn round and say 'which part of the word 'yes' do not understand from the 16 to 18 - if you include romania and bulgaria - other countries that have said 'yes' to this constitution?' we are not faced with an issue of overwhelming rejection or of overwhelming acceptance, but we are facing a problem of divergence. and what do we do in the union when there is a problem of divergence? we sit down, talk it through and try to find a solution acceptable to everyone. that is how we make progress. that is why it is right to take the time to have this period of reflection and to prolong it and look at what is possible. it is also right to address not just the question of the text, but also the context - , the hampton court agenda, the issues that are close to people - and then, in due course, in a new context, we can decide what to do about the text. make no mistake about it: we will have to decide what to do about the text. the issues that treaty was intended to address have not disappeared. they have not vanished overnight and need solving. we will have to return to these issues, and it is quite correct to orient the period of reflection towards them. it may be that in a year's time and in a new context it will be possible to retain this text as it stands, or with certain additions clarifying it, or with interpretations, or with additional protocols, or by rewriting part 3, as some have suggested. it may also be that this is not possible and it has to be broken up. the conclusion may be that we will have to live with the existing treaties for ever more because it is now impossible to change them. however, all this will emerge in due course. now is not the time to make that choice. now is not the time to say that we need to rewrite the text. we will take that decision at the end of the period of reflection, and rightly so. - mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, one year on from the 'no' votes in france and the netherlands, it is high time for europe to pull itself together and to put forward some solutions to make the most of the content of its draft european constitution. our heads of state or government will need to discuss some key issues for our future: energy independence, immigration, the future of the constitutional treaty and enlargement. on each of those subjects, europeans expect their leaders to give real answers and to have the courage to accept both the political and financial consequences of those answers. the humanitarian situation amongst the immigrants flocking to the southern shores of the eu needs to form one of europe's highest priorities, and it calls for a joint response in terms of reception of immigrants and asylum policy. it also demonstrates the need for an in-depth re-examination of our development policy, which is evidently failing to meet the urgent needs of people in countries that we want, but are not managing, to help. with regard to enlargement, i welcome the european commission's wisdom in deciding to postpone the decision on the accession of romania and bulgaria until next october, depending on the progress achieved by each of those countries. however, the commission also needs to show similar perceptiveness with regard to turkey. i am very critical of the very positive signals just given to that country in the context of the accession negotiations, at a time when it still does not recognise cyprus, one of the members of the union it wants to join. europe can only be strong if it is respected, and it will only be respected if it applies the same legal rules to all. finally, i would like to remind you that the criterion of absorption capacity has not simply been invented by certain member states, but is one of the copenhagen criteria. we will be fooling the candidate countries if we lead them to believe that we are doing them a favour by allowing them to join a union that is not in full working order. we would be deceiving both the people of the current member states and those of the countries that are working so hard to join the european union. mr president, we are talking about the period of reflection and debate on the future of europe, but given what we are discussing this morning, i believe that this a debate on the present of the european union. the future and the present become fused, particularly because it is essential to implement a constitution in order to resolve the problems facing us today. in that regard, i believe that it is essential that the commission take account of the point in our resolution calling upon it to produce a report on the cost of not having a constitution. that is essential. i would ask for even more: for the commission to commit itself, mr barroso, to present that report to this house and to the council immediately after the summer, in september or october, so that we can hold a debate with the citizens specifically about how, with the constitution not in force, we can resolve issues such as illegal immigration, which has been discussed here. we must continue with the process of ratification and eventually find a solution that can unblock it, but on the basis of this text, which is a good text: it is a text based on a consensus. i believe that that is the objective of the european parliament's resolution. i have just one request for you, mr barroso: i have been happy to applaud you today; i can tell you quite honestly that this is the first time i have done so. if you express the same arguments outside of this house, i shall continue to do so. mr president, i too agree that measures should be taken to bring the european union closer to the citizens. i therefore support that europe of results that the president, mr barroso, has mentioned today. the failure of the referendums in france and the netherlands did not just reflect domestic political issues, but also the fact that some citizens do not sufficiently understand or value the process of european construction. we must increase the citizens' faith in the union, show them its added value, through more effective action on issues such as security, the effective control of migratory flows, job creation and so on. these are issues to which the european council must pay the greatest possible attention. we must also better explain how the union operates and the objectives it pursues. a few days ago, in aachen, prime minister juncker proposed that young europeans should visit the war cemeteries so that new generations could fully appreciate the contribution that the union makes to peace on a continent that has been so blood-stained by past wars. i believe that the union should also have a place in colleges and schools. as the chairman of my party, mariano rajoy, proposed a few months ago in paris, a specific obligatory subject should be created in all colleges and schools in the member states, which would cover the origin, the objectives and the operation of the european union's institutions. that kind of education aimed at young people is very important. we must also explain another great success: the enlargement processes. we must stress that the prospect of accession has been a powerful driving force in terms of the great political, economic and social transformations that have taken place in many countries, which have benefited both them and the union. i would like to end by referring to the accession of romania and bulgaria, a resolution on which we shall approve today. in recent times, these countries have been making spectacular progress in many areas. they are undergoing those great transformations that i mentioned just now, and in particular i would like to stress the progress that romania has made in areas such as the reform of the justice system and the fight against corruption. if they continue with these reforms, i am convinced that both countries will join the union on 1 january 2007 and i am very pleased that the next european council will encourage them to focus their efforts on achieving that common objective. mr president, we need a constitution in order to respond to the challenges which the new millennium has brought for cooperation. a union of almost 30 countries cannot be successfully guided by rules established in the last millennium for a community of what was originally six countries. a constitutional treaty will be a rational response to the challenges that the public have set for european cooperation. they have called for transparency in decision making, clarity in agreements and treaties, and power in matters which need to be dealt with together so that the measures taken are sufficiently effective. if our citizens are to be treated equally, each member state must have a right and an obligation to decide independently whether to ratify the constitution. only then will it be time to draw conclusions on the future of the treaty. as the next country to hold the presidency, finland deserves our appreciation for implementing this principle. mr president, i would like to make three points. the first point is that i think the speech made by mr barroso was excellent. right now we are getting involved in this vicious circle of euro-pessimism and what we need is a heavy-duty injection of euro-optimism. we need to take a look at what we have achieved over the past 10 to 12 years and the results are overwhelming - everything from enlargement to justice and home affairs, cfsp, and, of course, the single currency. sometimes we have a tendency to lose perspective. we must realise that the european union is constant crisis management. we go from one little crisis to another, but i think the bigger picture is a success story. the second point i want to make is that right now i think we are facing a new generation of what i call 'eu whingers' or 'eu whiners'. they are people, usually ministers, who go into a closed room, have a discussion, clap each other on the back and say 'great decision'. five minutes after that, they get into the blame game, go in front of their national media and say, 'oh no, what an awful decision the eu has just made'. you cannot talk negatively about the european union six days a week and then go to church on sunday and say that the eu is a great thing. perhaps this could be the reason why the uk foreign secretary margaret beckett does not want to see much transparency, because then people would see that some of the british positions are actually pro-european. the final point i want to make is that we need a constitutional treaty. the problems are not going to go away and we have heard that in the debate today. we need the charter of fundamental rights; we need a legal personality; we need a foreign minister; we need more qualified-majority voting and we need more codecision. so we need to fix it, and hopefully we can fix it before 2009. deepening and widening go hand in hand. nice is not enough. mr president, i would like to mention three key issues regarding the enlargement of the european union. the first issue is the consolidation of the current round of enlargement, that is, are we using the same standard when we decide to allow new member states to enter the euro zone? that is, is the european union going to ensure that the conditions for the enlargement of the schengen area are in place by next year as far as the european union is concerned? that is, are we going to create the fundamental rights agency, which has already been adopted by the european parliament, or are we going to sabotage it instead? these are important questions at a time when we have seen that for instance, for the first time ever, we applied a sanction against the will of a member state in the case of lithuania, a member state applying for entry in the euro zone. why is a price stability policy desirable in the case of a country in the process of catching up? or should perhaps deflation be a term of reference in this case? also, was the perspective of a maastricht criterion better in 1999 in an italy indebted to the hilt, than it would be today in vilnius? why are the ten new member states lectured about inflation, through lithuania, by those in whose countries the situation is progressively worsening, such as in the spain of mr alumnia or the luxembourg of mr juncker? this is rightfully branded as a disgraceful approach by none other than one of the fathers of the euro, professor lmfalussy. and can the esteemed council and commission take the strategic political decision of not recommending admission, without parliament, who is usually so proud of its privileges? how is the same standard applied in this case? secondly, are we really going to wait for the assessment of the commission in autumn, regarding the date and conditions of accession for romania and bulgaria, if we have already extracted this through an exchange of letters? are we preparing to rush the accession of countries that are falling dramatically behind current member states, and even behind the ten new member states, as regards their economic and social indicators and the level of corruption? what kind of europe is this going to be? what is the vision here? will this society comply with and apply the law when it is part of the european union? in countries where, for instance, there is no registration of the roma or of land ownership, or where there are tens of thousands of abandoned babies? and what about the largest indigenous national minority, the millions of hungarian speakers? why do we not take a look, as regards this case, at our own copenhagen statements about minorities, made in 1993, or at previous parliament and commission presentations, where minority rights and democracy used to have equal standing? thirdly, we must also address the standard and speed of individual negotiations. when are we going to admit, in the course of enlargement negotiations, that the level of preparedness and european integration of croatia is outstanding, and that it would present fewer absorption problems than, for instance, turkey? without consistency and the use of the same standard, the prestige of the european union will remain low, and it is clearly visible that by the unhurried building of the two-phase integration, it takes back everything that it has had to spend on the enlargement of the eu. this is the real, but negative item. mr president, i wish i was making this speech in a parliament based in brussels rather than in this chamber, since the ongoing strasbourg circus, now exacerbated by financial scandal, brings our house into disrepute. i welcome, of course, the fact that bulgaria and romania are on track to join the european union in 2007, even if there are still issues to be resolved, such as the system - or lack of a system - for the protection of children in romania, and the level of organised crime in bulgaria. however, delaying their admission by one more year would serve no purpose other than to send the wrong signal to their peoples and governments. on the vexed issue of what to do about the eu constitution, i agree with those who say it is dead in its current format. nevertheless, even those of us opposed in principle to a constitution, with a foreign minister, permanent president and binding charter of fundamental rights, accept there is a need for treaty adjustment in order to accommodate future enlargement beyond the nice formula and to settle the increasing imbalance between small and large member states in terms of voting rights in the institutions. this matter can only get worse with the proliferation of mini-states in the western balkans - as recently seen with the independence of montenegro - all of which are likely to become full members in the next ten years. i would also be in favour of retrieving the proposed powers to increase the influence of national parliaments and of more transparency in the co-legislative process in the council of ministers, whose current behaviour is far too secretive. that is why i particularly deplore the u-turn by the british foreign secretary, margaret beckett, which completely contradicts both the views of her prime minister and the general thrust of reform and transparency in the european union. it is deeply regrettable that the british government, unlike its danish partner, is not cross-examined or mandated in the house of commons before deciding on its voting position in the council of ministers. the whole process of framing legislation would be empowered, both in the house of commons and for the british people, if uk ministers went before the house of commons and were asked which way they were going to vote in the council of ministers and then did so in a totally transparent and open fashion. i would therefore say 'no' to mrs beckett on her views on transparency in the council of ministers. - mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, in view of the integration problems we are now experiencing in many eu member states, and in view of the population trends and the huge problems we are having with illegal immigration and the associated problems of organised crime and trafficking, i welcome the fact that you want to put the focus of the forthcoming european council on migration. we need to be quite clear about this: if we want to avoid conflicts in the european union in the long term, we must manage the influx of economic migrants, taking particular account of the assimilation and integration capacities of our member states. we must finally create a european asylum policy, and in this connection i would like to congratulate the presidency of the council, which has undertaken a great deal of preliminary work to ensure that refugees can be aided quickly, whilst at the same time preventing economic migration using asylum certificates and abuse of the asylum system. we must also focus on combating illegal immigration and human trafficking, which, as i just said, are elements of organised crime. this cannot be solved by regularisation, as we are currently experiencing once again in spain: regularisation produces a suction effect, with all of the dramatic results and tragedies that brings with it. what we need is a comprehensive strategy that must include the following elements: aid in the countries of origin, information campaigns via the mass media - including in the countries of origin - explaining the consequences of illegal immigration, and the establishment of a common external border protection mechanism using the visa information system, the schengen information system and eurodac, so that we can achieve the objective of maintaining the stability and security of the european union over the long term. - mr president, first of all my warmest congratulations to the austrian presidency on the work which it carried out and on the fact that it put the european constitution back into the limelight during its six- month term of office. my warmest congratulations also to the president of the commission, mr barroso, on the historic speech which he gave in the european parliament today. mr barroso restated the european vision today and revived our hopes for the future of europe. well done, mr barroso. ladies and gentlemen, globalisation has given rise to numerous challenges, numerous problems and numerous pressures in the european union: economic pressures, political pressures, inflationary pressures and all kinds of challenges. if it is to be able to meet the challenges of globalisation, it has no choice but to 'constitutionalise' the union. europe cannot function as it is functioning today and be expected to be in a position to address these problems. no member state can meet the challenges of globalisation alone. that is why those talking with because the constitution is dead need to tell us how they will meet these challenges under the present circumstances. europe needs to enhance its credibility and face up to the problems as best it can; this will then provide the basis for supporting the constitution and defending it to the citizens. this is our job, the job of all the institutions. the various member states need to stop passing the buck to the european union and, where they stand to benefit, claiming national successes. finally, talking about credibility, i must say that it is not in europe's interest to negotiate with turkey, which does not recognise one of the twenty-five member states and is occupying european territory. it is not in europe's interest to be lax towards this country, while we have done everything we can to be strict in our judgment of bulgaria and romania. . mr president, mr president of the commission, honourable members, at the start of this debate, mr schulz told us that, along with the president of the commission, mr leinen was one of the most important people in europe. i can absolutely go along with that, if we add the president-in-office of the council to the list: it is indeed true. this public debate that mr corbett wanted, and the debates that have taken place in this house over the last few months - i would remind you of the highly constructive report from mr voggenhuber, the discussions in the committee on constitutional affairs, and the discussions you have held here today - are actually taking place, and, when he says 'we must talk it through', i absolutely agree with him. a very important debate has been held here today, and it is also going to influence the discussions of the heads of state or government, because it is important for europe. the president of the commission has very clearly stated, just as i and many of you have, that we need to walk on both legs, that we need to continue with this twin-track approach of both producing concrete results and actions for our citizens and discussing the future of europe and the future of a constitutional treaty. i think this is essential, and it is a result that i will take away with me and report to the president of the council in this form. mr poettering and others have mentioned the fundamental rights agency. i would just like to go into that very briefly, because it is a subject very close to my heart, and i have the impression that there are some misunderstandings in this regard. it is very much a matter of the european union as a community of values, and as a union that defends human rights and stands up for them to the outside world, having an institution that can and does stand up for those values. we think that this human rights agency would be a worthwhile institution, and, of course, that it would not compete in any way with the council of europe or any other institutions. i really would ask you to take a close look at the proposals on the table, because it is precisely this competition that we are trying to exclude. mr schulz also talked about human rights, about the issue of guantnamo bay, about shared values, and about the cia. it goes without saying that we also need to make these shared values clear to our partners and our friends. the council, many member states and the president-in-office of the council have all made that very clear, and, of course, it will also be an important subject at the forthcoming summit with the united states. mrs frassoni and a number of others - to whom i am very grateful, because this was an important issue for the austrian presidency - mentioned transparency. we hope that we will be able to produce a good package at the european council. there are indeed one or two other difficulties that we hope we will be able to overcome, for this is another topic which we agree with parliament is very important to the people. mrs frassoni also said that we have not been precise enough with regard to the relaxation of visa rules for the balkan countries. i would like to stress once again that we do, of course, have a very precise plan for issuing a mandate and that the council's conclusions will also state that these negotiations will be concluded within the next year. we know that this is extremely important for the countries in the balkans. mr voggenhuber, i cannot agree with you that, over the last few months, the austrian presidency has been holding these debates behind closed doors with experts and elites. we have made a great deal of effort. perhaps we have not always been successful, but we have made considerable efforts to go out and talk to school children, students and the people on the streets in all kinds of formats and formations. that is very important: we have tried very hard to do that, and i am sure that future presidencies will do the same. mr galeote referred to immigration, and in this domain, too, we are trying to achieve some very real results. in future, we will also need to look into the issue of a list of safe third countries, and, of course, we also need a joint asylum policy. there are a huge number of issues on which we need to work with our partners in europe to draft a policy that is in everyone's interests. the issue of minorities has also been brought up, and, on that subject, let me say that this was a particularly important point that the austrian presidency has also tried to address. mrs resetarits once again talked about zeus and europa. europa was not just the lover of zeus: she also had a family with him - they had three children. of course this family had arguments, but, as far as we know, they lived happily together, and i think that should serve as an example to us. if i understood mr ferber correctly, he said that there are 25 peoples, and he related this to the football world cup. if i may interpret this as a suggestion that all 25 or 27 countries should, in future, still be able to compete in the european football championships, then i, as an austrian, can only welcome that, because then we would finally be able to participate again. . mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, honourable members, i really think that this has been one of the most interesting debates i have participated in so far at the european parliament. above and beyond the various points of view expressed, i have detected a real desire to push forward our european project and i have seen that there is a real interest in rallying together, in uniting: uniting the institutions, and also, because we need their support, uniting the member states and the citizens of europe. we need to unite the three institutions because, let us be quite clear about this, we need all three institutions: parliament, the commission and the council. if the constitutional treaty had depended solely on the european parliament and the commission, it would already be in place, because the commission adopted it unanimously and a very large majority of the european parliament supported it. however, we also need to be able to count on all the member states, and, at the moment, not all of the member states are with us. that is why, if we really want to deal with this issue, we need to achieve a blend of ambition and realism. we need to rally together all the member states. that being the case, as mr rasmussen and others have already said, and as mrs wallstrm reminded us, it is not now enough, if we want europe to make progress, to ask our diplomats to hold a meeting in a beautiful location to find the solution. these days, we need to involve the citizens. thinking back to the past, i sometimes wonder whether the single market or the single currency, all the progress we have made, could ever have been achieved if we had had a referendum at each stage. these days, if we want to move europe forward, we need to do it with our citizens, which, it is true, is why things are much more complicated now. true, it is much more difficult now, and it is going to take time, but it is absolutely essential: if we want europe to make progress, we must make the effort to get all europeans involved, and, to do that, we need to unite the european camp. that is why i made this comment in my introductory remarks: we must not add to the traditional euroscepticism of those who never wanted europe the euro-pessimism of those who want to move europe forwards. true, the various big european political families may express differing positions, but as soon as we agree on the need to push forward with our european project, we must be able to unite our camp to send a positive, confident message. those of us in this house today do not simply have the job of providing a commentary: of course, we can, and indeed must, analyse the situation, but the job of a leader, of a political representative, is to inspire confidence and hope. that is why i think it is essential to have a programme that is able to unite the people around real results, and around projects with the aim of consolidating the great european project. we could point to many of these results, and i am delighted at the energy with which the austrian presidency is working to achieve concrete results. indeed, we must say quite clearly that the member states, who want aims, who want objectives, also need to give us the resources. very often, all the member states agree, one day, that we need to do more at european level in terms of security and justice. all the member states tell us we need to do more to combat illegal immigration and to manage legal immigration. all the member states say we need greater cooperation. but then, when the commission suggests transferring certain competences regarding justice and the police from the third pillar to the first, i still see no unanimity from the member states concerning this project and the resources necessary to run it properly. the same applies to energy: today, there is consensus that we need a common energy policy, and a common strategy, but we need the resources to develop this common strategy. that is why, as mr goebbels, mrs frassoni and others have said, it is important to achieve concrete results in terms of energy efficiency and to have programmes for renewable energy, so that we can really translate the objectives from the green paper for safe and competitive sustainable energy into practice. the same applies to research. one of the most important things we learned at the hampton court summit was, amongst other things, that we need to do more at european level in terms of research and development. that is why we put forward the idea of the european institute of technology as a flagship project to mobilise our efforts, and i hope that the member states, who are in agreement on the objectives, will also be able to give us the resources to achieve them. i therefore think, mr president, honourable members, that the european council needs to reach agreement on the path to go down. we must not simply extend the period of reflection, but move into a commitment period consisting in defining specific results for the near future in order to demonstrate the added value of europe to our citizens, and at the same time to show them, as mr leinen, mrs mndez de vigo and others have said, what it costs us not to have an institutional solution. we need an institutional solution, and that touches on the issue of enlargement, because the european debate very often sets those who favour enlargement against those who favour deepening. i continue to believe, as mr juncker and others have said, that we need both. in fact, enlargement is one of the fundamental reasons for deepening, one of the fundamental reasons that justify institutional reform: an enlarged europe requires institutional reform as a matter of greater and greater urgency. the right answer to our current difficulties is not to divide europe into first division countries and second division ones, but, on the contrary, to try to rally all the member states together: both those who are already part of the enlarged europe and those who are going to join us shortly. in this connection, i would also point out that we expect the next european council to give a clear signal of its commitment to the accession of romania and bulgaria on 1 january 2007 if those countries meet all the conditions we have set them, and which they have now been working for months to achieve. i hope that the council will do that. finally, as many of you, including mr stubb, have said, we need to keep things in perspective. i know that negative nostalgia is currently in fashion: oh, how wonderful europe was 10 or 20 years ago. but, honestly, which europe are we talking about? was it really better 20 years ago, when large parts of our continent were not free, when much of our continent was divided by regimes that were against freedom and democracy? was it really better 10 years ago, when the balkans were the scene of bloody massacres? are the balkans not part of our europe, too? do we not want to extend the area of freedom and democracy to the europeans in the balkans? that is why i do not share the depression or the pessimism: i think that, if you keep things in perspective, you will understand that europe needs to move forward. it is true that europe has its problems, and that the issue of the institutions is a considerable difficulty, but we must not wallow in this negativity, scepticism and cynicism that is currently so fashionable. we need to unite around common values, such as, i would emphasise, law. some of you mentioned guantnamo, and, indeed, we must say quite clearly that absolutely nothing justifies having, as part of the fight against terrorism, a vacuum in terms of respect for human rights. in such cases, europe must stand up for its values and its convictions. so, let us be proud of europe. our partners in latin america ask us: how did you pull it off? we, too, are trying to advance regional integration - how did europe manage it? when we talk to our partners in russia, china, india and elsewhere, they show great respect for an enlarged, powerful europe. let us be proud of europe. let us be proud of our values, and i think that, in showing this confidence and this spirit of togetherness, those of us who truly believe in european values will be in a position to resolve our current difficulties and to make progress with our project for europe: a competitive, open europe, but also a europe founded on the idea of solidarity, a europe that wants to master globalisation, not suffer it. that is our great project for europe. i have received seven motions for resolutions(1) tabled to wind up the debate under rules 103(2) and 108(5) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the vote will take place today at 12.30. - the statements delivered by the commission and the council are evidence that the next european council will still fail to implement the much-needed measures to change what mr barroso has referred to as europe's 'crisis culture', and that they do not want to understand the causes of the criticisms voiced by citizens of the member states. they sidestep the fact that the main reason for people's discontent is the current social crisis, which is dealt with only marginally in the proposed council conclusions and postponed until a report is submitted by march 2007. the council's sole interest is to press ahead with liberalisations, the directive on completing the internal market in services and the common energy policy. the main priority is the constitutional issue, which the conclusions document also omits, but which was the central - and virtually the only - theme of the speech given by the president of the commission. he stressed that the commission believes we stand to lose by not moving the process forward, overlooking the fact that the democratic process led to the rejection of the european constitution by the people of france and the netherlands, which is something that the community's institutions should respect. by announcing new forms of propaganda, including the proposed declaration on political europe, to be submitted next year, which all of the community's institutions are to sign, the council is following a path that fails to address existing problems. the future of europe is a very important matter. it is not true that a good european must be a federalist. we can be good europeans without being enthusiastic about the constitutional treaty. should the period of reflection be extended? it certainly should, although we ought to make sure that this period is really used for reflection rather than for pleas, wishful thinking or creating the false impression that there is no alternative to the treaty. an extended period of reflection should be used to consider what europeans really want, how a balance can be achieved between the large and the small member states, between the new and old member states, between richer and poorer regions, between the desire to be competitive and the dogma of the european social model. this is not an easy task. i am concerned that we will not be able to resolve these issues if we limit our reflections to the existing text of the constitutional treaty. it is also important to be honest with europeans. are we sure they will accept european union enlargement achieved at the cost of strengthening the political dominance of the largest states of the european union? did all current eu member states take part in drawing up the constitutional treaty on equal terms? a lot has been said about europe needing to be closer to its citizens, that it should be easier for them to understand. i hope that this wish also applies to the debate on the european constitution. the european union's constitutional treaty projected ambitions which the union has not been able to realise to date. the eu has failed in the strategy which was supposed to turn europe into the world's most competitive knowledge economy, in the cooperation to combat bird flu and in the implementation of common foreign policy. it is quite understandable that the people of europe are questioning our aspiration of a fully-fledged constitution if we cannot even manage to make sound agreements in all those other areas, or if we contravene the agreements that are in place, such as the stability pact. we should be more modest. let us first carry out the institutional reforms that are really necessary. those changes, described in chapter 1 of the constitutional treaty of 2004, would then have the character of an ordinary treaty and would obviate the need for a referendum in each member state. the charter of fundamental rights of the european union must also become a treaty document in time. at the moment, it gives the current draft treaty its constitutional overtones precisely where the union is not ready for them. i personally would have liked to have seen the direct election of the president of the european commission included. in that way, though, we would at any rate solve the most urgent problems and support both the european parliament and the national parliaments. i should like to extend a warm welcome to mr k.p. sharma oli, the deputy prime minister and minister for foreign affairs of nepal, who has taken his seat in the distinguished visitors' gallery. mr sharma oli has held meetings with the chairmen of the committee on foreign affairs and the committee on development, and this afternoon will participate in a meeting with parliament's saarc delegation, whose chairwoman, mrs gill, is sitting here today in a wonderful shade of green. we are very pleased that mr sharma oli has taken this opportunity to visit parliament and to tell us about the most recent developments in nepal. we trust that this visit will further enhance and develop relations between the european parliament and nepal. the next item is voting time. . - mr president, i must point out an error. the amendment deleting article 14, which was adopted in the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, has not been included in the versions of the report for plenary, but the tabling office assured us that it would be inserted into the final version following the vote. i just wanted to draw your attention to that. - very well, we will certainly take note of that. . - mr president, the intention of the oral amendment is to replace the word 'commitments' by the word 'agreements' in article 8d(5). . - mr president, this is a very important vote. the report has just been adopted by an overwhelming majority in plenary. the commission has paid close attention to our work and has given us its support, as it reaffirmed yesterday evening. in contrast, we have received no support from the council, which was absent from plenary during the debate on this report. i would note that it is once again absent and that we are still waiting for its opinion on the report. i would remind you that the council made a moral commitment to this framework decision on data protection during the previous presidency, and parliament could feel betrayed if we did not have a firm commitment from the council to adopt this framework decision by the autumn. i would remind you that this adoption is extremely urgent, in view of the court of justice's decision regarding passenger name records. i would therefore ask parliament to postpone the vote on the legislative resolution in accordance with rule 53(2) of the rules of procedure. mr president, it is important for everyone to be made aware of the event that took place yesterday within the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats. i could refrain from pointing it out and send a letter to mr poettering instead but, precisely because we are talking about discrimination, rights and equal opportunities, i am outraged as a woman, as an italian woman . - i must cut you off there, because this is not a personal statement at all. perhaps you could raise it at the end of voting time. mr president, the chairman of the committee on foreign affairs, mr brok - who has been one of our political group's negotiators for this joint motion for a resolution - has asked me to table an oral amendment which has in principle been negotiated with the representatives of the other political groups. this amendment would be inserted in paragraph 6, where it talks about 'particular attention to the fight against organised crime'. it would be followed by 'in the case of bulgaria', because the purpose of the amendment is to respond to the report produced by the commission in may, and it would be unfair to extend this demand to romania when, according to the commission, progress has been satisfactory in that regard. that is the wording of the oral amendment, mr president, and i hope that the house can accept it. mr president, on a point of order, i would like to invoke rule 35 with reference to this vote. under rule 35(1), for all commission proposals of a legislative nature, the committee responsible shall verify the legal basis. rule 35(4) says that the committee should have disputed the validity of the proceedings regarding the period of reflection and the ratification process. this is for two reasons. first of all, under the eu's own rules, any member state rejecting the constitutional treaty has right of veto, and therefore it should be dead. my second point - and the most important point to me - is that the european constitution is unconstitutional in terms of the british constitution in relation to magna carta, the bill of rights and various other acts of . - mr batten, i must cut you off there, because you are starting from a false premise: this is not a text of a legislative nature. mr president, on a point of order, may i just point out that the interpretation was slightly behind you with regard to taking that vote. when you declared the vote open on the first vote, we were voting on the second part, because that was what the interpreter told us before you corrected yourself. you then closed the vote before we had an opportunity to correct our own votes. so, if possible, that vote should be dealt with again. mr president, mr crowley has asked to retake the vote on the second section of amendment 2. if you look at the numbers on your counting device, there is difference of 100 people who did not vote between part 1 and part 2. there was a total of approximately 630 votes for the first part, and only 545 for the second. every now and again, because the electronic vote closes far too quickly, people do not get the chance, if they listen to the interpretation, to respond. i would ask you to allow a little more time for this. - the vote has taken place and we must now continue, but i certainly take note of what you have said. the fact remains that we will not restart the vote, because we never do that here. that concludes voting time. - mr president, i well remember the grumbling from the left at the application to extradite the lawyer klaus croissant, who was known to be not just the lawyer for german terrorists, but an active member of their network. today, big brother is on the move, and it seems that nothing can stop him now in this european judicial area. the automatic transfer of sentenced persons from one european state to another is presented to us as being a big step forward. in a way, it seems that nationals of the eu are treated worse than nationals of third countries, whom we insist on keeping in the state where they were convicted, in the name of avoiding double jeopardy. you will allow me, in a europe where thought crimes are on the increase, and where claims of national preference are equated with discrimination, legitimate discussions of aspects of history with revisionism, rejection of communitarism. there is reason to commend austria's, finland's and sweden's initiative. it is in principle a good thing to help speed up the transfer of sentenced persons to a particular state with which they have connections in some way and in which optimum social rehabilitation is believed to be a real possibility. it is, however, worth pointing out that there is already a convention and an additional protocol from the council of europe on the transfer of sentenced persons. the june list also believes that legal and police cooperation should be intergovernmental. these issues must be decided on in the council by unanimous decision and be subject to the scrutiny of the national parliaments, rather than being decided on by supranational institutions such as the european parliament. the june list has therefore voted against the report as amended by parliament - - a report that, amongst other things, contains wordings promoting european criminal law. we wish to emphasise that the june list is opposed to engaging in propaganda in favour of a liberal approach to drugs. we have thus voted against wordings along these lines. all use of drugs, other than for medical purposes, is harmful and is something that society should have no truck with. with regard to the european monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction, we believe on principle that there is no justification for the centre's existence, since the member states each have such different views on, and policies towards, the fight against drug misuse. we have thus voted against the report on strengthening the role of the centre. . a regulation is being proposed to us that is designed to strengthen the european monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction, to sort out its administrative and communication problems and to create new posts for officials. just how effective, however, has this ultra-european tool been at a time when drugs are a scourge that continues to destroy families? drug addiction causes people to fail at school, makes them unable to work, causes them to be admitted to psychiatric hospitals and leads them to die by suicide or from overdoses. we need to see action taken, rather than having to read deteriorating statistics. parliament's committee on the environment, public health and food safety is right to propose going beyond the mere collection of data in order also to assess the policies of the member states so that the latter might benefit from best practice. this does not imply stripping member states of their prerogatives and transferring these to the monitoring centre but, on the contrary, strengthening cooperation between the member states. in addition to the death penalty for drug barons, we also need to see a radical change in mentality in order to silence the left-wing ideology of the last 40 years. this has led to lax attitudes towards criminality which have been accepted wholesale by smug governments and have led to the poisoning of millions of people, the physical consequences of which also lead to permanent social exclusion. since it was set up in 1993, the main tasks of the european monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction have been the collection, analysis and distribution of transnational data on drug problems. thirteen years later, the results are not impressive. although a certain improvement in our knowledge of the drug phenomenon in all its many aspects here in the european union is to be observed, no positive effect on drug use is to be seen. quite the contrary, in fact. one thing is to be noted. today, it is no longer just the traditional drugs that are being taken. instead, we are, to our consternation, witnessing the emergence of new markets for synthetic drugs and a situation in which drugs are produced more easily and more cheaply. they generate more profit for the traffickers and also do more harm to the health of those who take them. in reality, the european monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction is no more than a simple data base, devoid of any operational value. in fact, all the figures made available serve only to disguise the failure of the various national policies for combating drug misuse. it is high time that the member states took their responsibilities seriously and stopped hiding behind bodies that are neither designed nor commissioned to act on their behalf. . the european monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction (emcdda) was set up in 1993 and is based in lisbon. its role is to collect, analyse and disseminate objective, reliable and comparable data and in turn to provide an accurate overview of the phenomenon in europe. if we are to establish an effective policy and measures to combat the problem, we need to be aware of its extent and nature. although a great deal of progress has been made, there remains much to be done in terms of enhancing the monitoring instruments and developing a genuine 'common language'. i voted in favour of this report on the commission's proposal on the emcdda. the main amendments will ensure that parliament is involved in the codecision process, that the emcdda has a broader role and that the emcdda's bodies adapt to post-enlargement europe. the emcdda must obtain more objective and comparable data and must channel its efforts into a thorough evaluation of drug-related policy and of trends in drug use. i also wish to highlight the importance of improving the exchange of information on best practice in addressing drug issues and making that exchange more flexible. mr president, even though the vote on mrs roure's report has been postponed, this has given me the opportunity to express my opinion on it. in my opinion, the european union encourages people's fears regarding the transparency of their personal data, for example when it approves the transmission of personal data to the united states, a country with poor data protection security by european standards. we also need to ensure that personal data are adequately protected when it comes to the planned electronic identity documents for cross-border use, and, in my opinion, the proposed taxation of e-mails and text messages would be a monstrosity, because flat-rate contracts would require individual records to be kept and personal data collected for forwarding to the financial authorities. i do not feel that any of this has been given sufficient consideration in mrs roure's report. we voted in favour of the resolution as a whole but have some important objections. firstly, the risk of pandemics should not be exaggerated. should an epidemic occur, the eu should have a coordinating role. the main responsibility should, however, lie with the member states. the resolution places too much of the responsibility on the eu. certainly, there is a need to cooperate on making vaccines available in special situations ensuring, perhaps, that a vaccine is used where it is most needed. we question, however, whether the centralised eu vaccine stores proposed by the rapporteur are the most efficient response. moreover, we see these as presenting many practical problems. . as the rapporteur - a cypriot doctor who is a member of our political group - says, confusion in people's minds about avian influenza and pandemic influenza is massive. many people and authorities, he says, 'seem to equate the arrival of a/h5n1 in europe with the arrival of a pandemic virus'. he therefore suggests that improvements should be made to the commission's communication in generic preparedness planning for public health emergencies at eu level. he emphasises, as i did in a previous report, that the eu must lend technical, scientific and economic assistance to countries already affected and, in particular, contribute to raising global awareness and a global master plan coordinated at international, regional, sub-regional and national level with a proper road map and timetable. the rapporteur has sought to improve upon the commission's proposal and to clarify a number of points. we therefore voted in favour of this report. this report concerns an eminently cross-border issue. there are thus good reasons for the eu countries to coordinate the measures adopted and the political decisions taken. we have thus chosen to vote in favour of the report as a whole. we wish, however, to emphasise that isolated measures on the part of the eu are inadequate for meeting the challenges posed by a global influenza pandemic. it is therefore extremely important that the eu act in cooperation with the world health organisation, or who. we question individual points in the report, such as the need for the commission to devise a comprehensive communication strategy together with the european centre for disease prevention and control (ecdc). we presume that the eu countries are by themselves fully capable of communicating successfully with the people, without the aid of eu bodies. in the same way, we are opposed to the setting up of a common emergency supply of pandemic vaccines in the community. we believe that internationally recognised organisations such as the who should concern themselves with global world health issues. we are critical of the fact that the european parliament is in this way exploiting a significant political issue in order to extend the eu's international political role. . i should like to begin by pointing out that the confusion in people's minds about avian influenza and pandemic influenza is massive. there is much to be done, therefore, in terms of communication. as political decision-makers, we must honour our duty to protect the citizens. we must ensure that the resources are in place to provide an effective response to any public health threat that our societies may face. it has been well documented that the threat of a flu pandemic is a public health issue that concerns all of us. that being said, the likelihood of it happening is open to question. given that the relevant authorities believe that the risk to human health is actually small, it strikes me as crucial to establish a targeted prevention and rapid response mechanism for public health emergencies. this should include, as the report says, a targeted plan for coordinating action at all levels and accurate, accessible communication for all citizens so as to ensure that they are prepared for any eventuality. i accordingly voted in favour of the amadou report. mr president, in his book 'the constitution of europe', joseph weiler wrote extensively about how, in the past, the court of justice would systematically increase the field of competences of the european institutions without there being any democratic legitimacy for it and without the court having been given a mandate by the member states' governments in this matter. thanks to this notorious judgment of 13 september 2005, criminal law is now, in fact, also set to become a european competence. as a consequence, the court of justice is wiping the floor with the competence restrictions of the european treaties. the court of justice looks very much like a kind of judicial absurdistan peopled by other-worldly judges who are no longer answerable to anything or anybody. people are then surprised when our citizens, when they get the opportunity, show their displeasure by, for example, voting out the european constitution. ) one of the most important new elements in the constitution is the proposal that all eu laws be able to have common penalties attached to them. it is perfectly logical for each member state to determine, in the case of each law, what the price of breaking that law is to be. that is something that the council of ministers has also done. by means of an intergovernmental decision, it has unanimously determined the price to be paid for environmental crimes. the conflict is not about the content but about the form. the supranational european court of justice is not satisfied with being a court. the judges also want to be legislators, and in this case constitutional legislators into the bargain. what is more, they wish to legislate contrary to the unanimous decision of the member states. they are simply adopting a section of the constitution that has been expressly rejected. it is about as legal as the beagle boys deciding to empty scrooge mcduck's money bin. what are the judges thinking of? they should be defending law and order but are themselves breaking the law. the court of justice could be put in its place by the parliaments of the member states each deciding that this judgment is of no legal effect in their countries. we should also have a democratic procedure for appointing judges. . this judgment acknowledges that the commission, with parliament's support, was right to annul the framework decision on environmental protection via criminal law. it recognises that environmental protection requires concerted action to punish the most serious breaches. accordingly, its objective and its substance fall under the competence of community action programmes on the environment (ec treaty) and not under the provisions of the eu treaty on police and judicial cooperation on criminal matters. in recognition of the fact that, broadly speaking, the community does not have any powers on criminal matters, a useful precedent has been set whereby matters under the third pillar are communitarised and parliamentary control is strengthened in an area as sensitive as criminal law. the consequences are enormous, in terms of both adopting future legal instruments and the legal instruments already in force. these should be based on a new legal basis, the first pillar, which implies parliament's participation as co-legislator. a framework decision on the environment has been annulled but its consequences will be felt beyond this area, throughout community policies and in fundamental freedoms when it becomes necessary to make use of criminal law measures to ensure their efficiency. the european court of justice's judgment of 13 september 2005 constitutes a veritable legal revolution in what is usually called the community legal system. indeed, this is the first time that the court of justice has pronounced on issues of competence in penal matters and that it has decided that, for the purpose of protecting the environment, the european union can demand that the member states provide for criminal sanctions in the case of serious offences. in principle, penal legislation, just like the rules of criminal procedure, falls within the strict competence of the member states. through this legal decision, a portion of the penal law of the member states has just been brought within the competence of the community and has been so without the formal agreement of the nations. this also amounts to a harmonisation of penal law that the 'no' vote delivered by the french and the dutch in their referendums on the constitution had implicitly rejected. there is worse to come, however. there is a risk of such jurisprudence being extended to all community spheres and, in particular, to that concerning would-be fundamental rights. i am thinking of spheres such as the fight against supposed racism and discrimination of various kinds, data protection, the right to asylum or, indeed, policies on migration. this development is not conducive to our freedoms, and it is most worrying. the report concerns the consequences of the european court of justice's judgment c-176/03, which gave the eu powers to adopt, under the first pillar, necessary sanctions under criminal law in order to guarantee that full effect is given to the provisions of the first pillar, in this case in relation to the environment. the ec treaty does not, however, contain any explicit allocation of authority in the matter of criminal law. in view of the considerable importance criminal law has for the sovereignty of the member states, the implicit transfer of this authority to the community should not be permitted. what is more, articles 135 and 280 of the ec treaty state explicitly that the member states are responsible for the application of national criminal law and the administration of justice. in spite of this, the commission has stated that there is no limit to the degree to which criminal law might be brought within the competence of the community and that, in principle, all the areas regulated by the ec treaty might be subject to such transfers of authority. through the court of justice's interpretation of the treaties, the pillars are thus combined in a single institutional framework, which was a feature of the now rejected european constitution. the june list is strongly opposed to this undermining of national self-determination and has thus voted against the report. . once again the european court of justice has determined that the council has contravened the ec treaty. the council tried to sidestep the involvement of parliament in the legislative process by using a different legal basis from the one laid down in the treaty. it is therefore no surprise that it has been condemned by the judges in luxembourg; indeed, it was easily foreseeable and is to be welcomed in every respect. it goes without saying that all the institutions are called upon to analyse the judgment and to use it to draw conclusions for the future. however, i do not understand what consequences the commission is proposing. although the ecj proceeded very cautiously and reiterated the principle that the ec has no primary competence in criminal law and therefore that the ec treaty only provides supplementary legislative competence in criminal law for very specific matters, the commission seems to think that it can derive a general competence in criminal law for the ec from the court's judgment. in the council's wake, now the commission, too, wants to take from the european treaties competences that the member states never gave it. the commission's approach is not only unlawful in many respects; indeed, it is also unacceptable in terms of integration policy. parliament has therefore quite rightly shown the red light to the commission's proposals, in the form of mr gargani's report. the british conservatives abstained on the gargani report, since while we greatly appreciated the attempt by the rapporteur to strike the appropriate note of caution when trying to identify the proper application of the court's judgment, we do not agree it is even necessary to consider whether or not there is a need to activate the clause. we believe that more time is needed to consider what, if any, steps should be taken on the specific and immediate ramifications of this judgment before seeking to use it as a pretext for usurping national competence in criminal justice matters. - the report is in keeping with the ruling by the court and the relevant commission communication. like the european commission, the report interprets this ruling as granting the authority to introduce criminal provisions in all community policies containing binding rules, in order to ensure that they are applied. this is a serious step towards the introduction of minimum criminal rules at eu level by the legislative institutions of the union or, in other words, the 'communitisation' of criminal law. paragraph 4 in particular basically proposes the adoption of common criminal law in the eu, thereby depriving the member states of their exclusive sovereign right to determine for themselves what sort of behaviour they consider to be a criminal offence and of their right to determine the type and limits of criminal sanctions. in this way, one of the basic constituent elements of national grass-roots sovereignty is being seriously curtailed and one of the fundamental characteristics of the philosophy of the european constitution, namely the precedence of community law over national legislation and national constitutions, is being reintroduced through the back door, in order to directly impose on the people of europe the will and strategic political ambitions of european monopolistic capital, which have now been raised to the status of law. that is why we voted against the report. i am voting in favour of mr bonde's proposal for an alternative resolution, because he criticises the fact that the european court of justice is trying to use environmental law as a springboard to enable the eu to assume power over large parts of criminal law. i am not, however, categorically opposed to all types of rules under criminal law designed to combat cross-border environmental crimes. these may sometimes be needed in order, for example, to deal with vessels out at sea that are ruining the environment. mr president, when mrs danoka's report was being discussed, it was important for me that the amendments tabled for point 11 did not go through, as they had nothing to do with non-discrimination, and i therefore voted with the majority. mr president, this month too, we can count ourselves lucky again with the umpteenth utopian report against racism and discrimination, this time by mrs danoka. the document is, once again, a catalogue of politically correct commonplaces that are slowly but surely becoming this institution's speciality. we are once again being inundated with the spectres of racism and discrimination, as well as calls for european legislation and for forcing the member states to discriminate against the actual european citizens in favour of non-europeans, who, according to this report, should not just receive the same political and social rights, but should, in many areas, also be given preferential treatment. there is, in this house, an apparent lack of common sense if we fail to realise that true racism in europe is fortunately a very marginal phenomenon, but that, on the other hand, our citizens are anxious about the undermining and erosion of safety, welfare and the cultural identity to which they are entitled. mr president, i voted against the danoka report because we are yet again being faced with a list of proposals that do not offer a solution to the problem, but are, in fact, part of it. we must finally stop seeing minority groups, such as immigrants, as pitiful. we must stop attributing all their problems to discrimination from the outset. this left-wing discourse has only exacerbated the problems. what we need is a complete change of course. we must emphasise personal responsibility and the need for immigrants to adapt to our rules, our language, our standards and our values. the very fact that we in this house continuously talk about discrimination weakens the impulse for immigrants to integrate. this may benefit the growing anti-discrimination industry, but is detrimental to the immigrants as well as the countries where they have settled. the june list is opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether based on gender, race, ethnic origin, religion or conviction, disability, age or sexual orientation. we have therefore decided to support the report as a whole in order to demonstrate our support for all citizens of the eu member states being able to enjoy the fundamental right of not being subjected to discrimination, even if we do not agree with all the wordings and have thus voted against these. i and my british conservative colleagues are fundamentally committed to upholding equal opportunities for all. however, we have abstained on this report since in places it is over-detailed and prescriptive, and where it does propose specific measures it is far from clear that these would help member states to develop a coherent and consistent anti-discrimination policy. . the main proposals in this report bring into question three fundamental values of the european democracies. - 'positive action', which is the european parliament's version of the 'positive discrimination' dear to mr sarkozy, breaks with the principle of equality between citizens of the same country. the measures proposed, such as 'priority access' to certain professions, constitute discrimination against our countries' nationals, who do not have the opportunity to have immigrant status. - the 'involvement of . non-citizens in elections', that is to say foreigners' right to vote, destroys the very principle of nationality. - the desire to give the same rights to homosexual as to heterosexual couples in all the member states amounts to demanding the right for homosexuals to marry and to adopt children. if this demand were met, it would shatter the foundations of the family, which is the basic unit of any society. alert it may be to the fate of immigrant populations and homosexual couples, but this report has not a word to say concerning scandalous forms of discrimination: - discrimination suffered by tens of millions of honest people who are the victims of insecurity because they do not have the opportunity to live in protected parts of their towns; - discrimination that, in france, deprives the millions who vote for france's national front of any representation in parliament. . i wish to congratulate mrs danoka on her important report on a framework strategy for non-discrimination and opportunities for all, to which i lend my full support. i particularly welcome the call for the member states to take due account in their legislative practice of the various reasons for discrimination, with a view to bestowing a credibility on the charter which has hitherto been weakened by the fact that the charter is not legally binding. the fight against discrimination must be based on education, the promotion of best practice and campaigns targeting the general public and those areas and sectors where discrimination takes place. awareness of the social impact of the phenomenon is probably the most effective way of combating discrimination. i welcome this report, which stipulates that the fight against discrimination must be based on education. the report encourages the promotion of best practices and campaigns targeting the general public and those areas and sectors where discrimination takes place. given that discrimination largely stems from ignorance as regards other people, the report highlights the fact that the problem should therefore be tackled at source, by means of targeted actions designed to foster tolerance and diversity from early childhood; programmes such as socrates, leonardo and jeunesse have a crucial role to play in this regard. the report explains that positive steps should be taken to overhaul recruitment policies and practices in order to remove those that impede disadvantaged groups from participating and playing an important role in society. i regret that the commission is not planning at this stage to draw up comprehensive legislation to combat discrimination given that traditional national minorities urgently need a framework policy standard to create effective participation in decision-making processes concerning their identity, not only to overcome the double standards established by the copenhagen criteria but also to combat a lack of any rules in the member states. legislation to combat all forms of discrimination is another example of would-be progressive legislation adopted by the eu in the social sphere. in response to a green paper from the commission, parliament is today adopting an own-initiative report offering its vision of the measures to be implemented to combat discrimination, both in society and in the workplace. as long ago as the year 2000, the eu was adopting two directives (2000/43 and 2000/78) forcing the member states to provide themselves with legislative and judicial apparatus capable of curbing this phenomenon. although all the national legislatures have thus been considerably strengthened, work remains to be done, particularly work based on education. parliament is therefore putting forward a whole raft of initiatives designed to combat the various forms of direct and indirect discrimination, whether it be based on ethnic origin, gender, age, disability, sexual orientation or religious conviction. the idea is to promote better practices to avoid ending up with 'positive discrimination' or the quota system advocated by some. the eu has few competences in the social sphere, but it has to be said that it takes the initiative when it has the means to do so. what we have here is an ambitious document that cocks an additional snook at those who strongly criticise europe for not having a social dimension. . i have supported mrs zdanoka's report because the european union needs a strong european strategy of non-discrimination. the fact is that, everywhere in europe, we hear hateful words spoken and see despicable acts, including acts of violence, committed. the european union needs a strategy to promote equal opportunities in order to put an end to all forms of discrimination. this european strategy may, in certain cases, involve the use of positive action. i believe, however, that, as is explicitly stated in article 2 of the report, positive action differs from any kind of positive discrimination. indeed, we would not be encouraging the fight against discrimination by creating a new form of discrimination. positive action, in contrast, makes it possible to draw certain disadvantaged groups' attention to specific measures of relevance to them, for example where recruitment policies are concerned. finally, parliament again points out in this document that discrimination against same-sex couples, whether married or registered, must be prohibited in the same way as any other form of discrimination and, in particular, when the people concerned assert their right to move freely within the territory of the european union. in spite of there being points in which the rapporteur wishes to give the eu too much power and in which national legal practice is brought into question, it is the positive aspects of this report, relating to non-discrimination and equal opportunities for all, that predominate. the report as a whole is constructive, and i am therefore voting in favour of it. mr president, although we take the view that romania and bulgaria undoubtedly belong to the european family of nations and need to have a european perspective, we do not expect that the two countries will be able to resolve their many problems with regard to corruption and organised crime within a few months. particularly with regard to bulgaria, you are very much mistaken if you cherish the hope that the country will be able to take more effective action against corruption and organised crime within its borders as a member state of the eu. the problems in this area may even get worse, and increase the burden on the other member states. the justified concerns and fears of the european public have not been taken seriously, and an enlargement avalanche has simply been set off with no reference to them, with a automatic path to enlargement. i cannot accept that, and i have therefore not approved this resolution. i abstained from voting on the joint motion for a resolution on the accession of bulgaria and romania because i am unclear as to the point of adopting a position on the matter at this stage. i personally should have preferred it if, before expressing an opinion, the european parliament had waited for the follow-up report to be presented by the commission at the beginning of october of this year. if, by any chance, the commission then appeared to express serious reservations about whether 1 january 2007 was the right time for one or other of these countries to join the eu, i really would not see the point of the motion for a resolution voted on today. parliament's going religiously through the motions is not, in my view, evidence of good democratic health. let me be clear. for me, both romania and bulgaria and for that matter, turkey, could meet the criteria for membership of the eu. what concerns me is that the former two still have some way to go, in my opinion, before they can join the union. there are problems with corruption and the rule of law. it is important for both countries to continue to consolidate the ongoing reform of their justice systems, enhancing transparency, efficiency and the impartiality of their judiciary. with bulgaria, we also have continued widespread discrimination against the roma community in housing, healthcare, education and employment. they suffer from social exclusion. i realise that on the basis of parliament's position, we can only delay membership from 2007 to 2008. at the moment, given the opportunity, i would have to vote to postpone bulgaria's membership, and would have to consider my position carefully with respect to romania. . the successive rounds of enlargement have been an unparalleled success in the history of our continent. this is, broadly speaking, attributable to two factors. on the one hand, there is the consistent will, readiness and ability of the member states to bring in new partnerships into the project at any given moment, with all the benefits and the extra burdens that any round of enlargement implies. on the other hand, this process has been successful due to the positive effects of the prospect of accession. the history of europe of the past 50 years has largely been the history of a continent that has gradually adopted western democratic values on account of the expectations of accession. we must accordingly draw two conclusions regarding the prospects for bulgaria and romania's accession. firstly, the eu's desire to proceed with this enlargement should be absolute and the final timetable should be established at the next european council. secondly, it must be made clear that the accession will only take place when the conditions are properly in place. our demands are justified and have yielded results. this has been borne out by the progress made by romania during the past year. - the pressure on bulgaria and romania is mounting to ensure their people are fully subject to the dictats of the u, so that more onerous terms can be imposed which will make it easier for the plutocracy to exploit the workers. the accession of bulgaria and romania to the u is being pushed through along with the enlargement of , the demand for the involvement of military forces and the concession of the sovereign rights of these countries to the audacious imperialist plans of the usa, and the u, at the expense of the people. the continual adaptation of accession conditions to the for the purposes of the lisbon strategy, the reform of the cap, capitalist restructurings and the eu's more general anti-grassroots and anti-labour policy is resulting in extremely poor terms for the workers, with sweeping changes to fundamental employment and social rights. the people of these countries are realising day by day that they cannot expect anything positive to come out of their accession to the u. the european parliament motion for a resolution supports the accession of bulgaria and romania to the imperialist union and their concession to the plans of the u and a more intensive anti-grassroots policy against their people, which is why the european parliamentary group of the greek communist party will vote against it. in his last speech a few moments ago, mr barroso, perhaps unwittingly, put his finger on the problem. he said that the european union could not be enlarged and deepened against the will of the european citizens. that is true. it is just unfortunate that this conclusion was followed by nothing but a proactive pep talk, particularly as we are all familiar with the real sore points. allow me to list them for you: the lack of democratic legitimacy for the european project, the big questions about spending european money wisely and, above all, those accession negotiations with turkey which our citizens do not accept, and never will, and for which we will never find a democratic majority among our citizens. europe cannot get back on track before something is done about that. another wearisome debate dominated by the slow-learning fanatics of a failed and rejected constitution. they think that by repeatedly swearing allegiance to that which voters, when permitted, have repudiated, they will somehow resuscitate it. in voting against the resolution i again stand on the side of the citizen who wants less not more europe, states rights not brussels control, and local not central power. the degree of energy wasted by the political leaders of europe in trying to foist an unwanted constitution on our people is quite staggering. rejection may not be palatable, but it must be faced. . mr president, i voted against this motion for a resolution because the german police took unprecedented action today against citizens of the czech republic. the police refused entry into germany for dozens of football fans who wanted to attend the 2006 football world cup. in my view, this runs counter to both the free movement of persons in the eu and the treaty of maastricht. i believe that a number of my fellow members will join me in asking the german government to explain how it is possible that it can trample underfoot the basic principles of the eu's existence. i have already submitted questions to the commission and the council in this connection. essentially, i very much want to say that i emphatically refuse to see the draft constitutional treaty buried today. let us reject outright this pervasive and unhealthy preoccupation with failure. let us give ourselves the chance to make progress. let us continue with the process of ratification so as to attain the four-fifths threshold laid down in declaration 30. if we do so, the european council will, as we know, have to tackle the issue. it will then have rather more issues to puzzle over than it does at present, and in particular: - that of whether and, if so, under what conditions, ratification might again be sought in those countries that rejected the constitutional treaty in referendums; - and that of how to safeguard at least those parts of the document that make the charter of fundamental rights legally binding, those that enable the enlarged europe to operate more efficiently and, moreover, those that accentuate the eu's social role. do not tell me that a majority of people are opposed to those aspects of the document. i do not believe that they are. admittedly, this would not please those who are past masters in the art of doubt and demoralisation. i personally, however, wish to set in motion again the virtuous circle constituted by the process of european integration. . we voted against this motion for a resolution, because it emphasises support for the treaty establishing a constitution for europe. the idea of pursuing the global commitment to the treaty, which is at variance with the opinion expressed by the people of france and the netherlands in the referendums of last year, is unacceptable. how can we go on speaking about the need to deepen democracy when decisions freely taken by people in democratic referendums are not respected? this kind of hypocrisy demonstrates the deep chasm between the people and the elites of the community institutions. we also object to the propaganda campaign in the form of a series of parliamentary fora to meet the deadlines, in which they call for a 'constitutional solution', as the motion for a resolution confirms, when the 2009 elections to parliament are called. greater attention should have been paid to social problems and to finding an across-the-board solution for the aspirations of the people, with a view to improving well-being, development and economic and social cohesion. we have today voted in favour of mr leinen's draft motion for a resolution on the next step during the period of reflection and analysis in relation to the future of europe. as we have previously pointed out, we do not, however, believe that the charter on fundamental rights should be legally binding. . i abstained in the final vote on the motion for a resolution on the future of europe. i consider this motion for a resolution to be superfluous and even counterproductive. as a defender of the constitutional treaty, i expect all 25 heads of state or government to honour their signatures and submit the draft for ratification by their respective countries. the people of france and the netherlands voted 'no'. before asking these member states possibly to reconsider their votes, it is necessary that, after finland, the other dilatory member states express their opinions, beginning with the united kingdom, poland, sweden, portugal, ireland and denmark. europe's future depends on the choices also of those countries. the european union cannot do without this debate. how many times will it be necessary to repeat in this house that the european constitution has twice expired: once on 29 may 2005 in france, and again on 2 june in the netherlands? the french and dutch 'no' votes were clear and were delivered with full knowledge of the facts. because referendums were organised, people had a proper grasp of the document. what they were rejecting were both the form (the superstate) and the content (the ultraliberal policies proposed), not to mention enlargement to include turkey. have you heard? have you been listening? have you understood? you have not even taken the trouble to do so, and the document put to the vote today is proof of the fact. you are encouraging those member states that have not already done so to ratify, preferably through parliamentary means, a document that no longer has reason to exist and to do so in order that the debate might really only take place between the initiated and in order that the two 'renegade' states might be constrained into voting again on a constitution. plan d, whose implementation you call for, is in reality a plan for disinformation and is a denial of democracy. the true democracy we seek in this case is not participatory or even representative. it is referendum democracy, and that is what frightens you: giving back to the nations the voice that you took from them. with the referendums in france and the netherlands, the draft constitution was rejected. of that there can be no doubt. two countries said 'no' in referendums and did so by large majorities and with high turn-outs. the fact that the eu's power-wielding elite is now trying to explain away this state of affairs is a democratic scandal. politicians and senior officials are now openly discussing how to get around the results of these referendums. they have the cheek to come up with their own interpretation of the results in terms of dissatisfaction with existing governments in the two countries. they are beginning to count how many countries have said 'yes', in spite of its being clear that all the countries must approve the draft. seldom has the gulf between the political elite and the people on eu issues been seen so clearly. everything indicates that there would have been a 'no' vote in germany too if there had been a referendum there. the same applies in, for example, the united kingdom, sweden and denmark and perhaps a number of other countries. democratic outcomes are merely setbacks for those who have lost the vote because they lack grass-roots support. let us now instead devise a new treaty that emphasises the eu's intergovernmental cooperation. - the period of reflection has been used to convince the people to accept the so-called 'european constitution' rejected by france and the netherlands by 54.7% and 61.6% respectively and millions of euros from the budget, in other words of taxpayers' money, have been spent in the process. propaganda has been spread to the effect that the peoples of france and the netherlands made a mistake and that the values of the capitalist eu come first, in other words the values of the free market and the interests of capital. voters, however, decided on the basis of their life experience and stood up against the anti-grassroots, reactionary policy of the u and its governments, a policy which favours the plutocracy. eu policy is being disputed and that is a good thing. that is why other governments have been too scared to hold referenda and have sought approval of the european constitution via the parliamentary route. the attempt to reintroduce the european constitution under another name shows disdain for the grassroots verdict and mocks the people. the european constitution is dead and to attempt to resuscitate it is to ride roughshod even over those principles of unanimity of the bourgeois pseudo-democracy of the u. the meps of the greek communist party will make use of this extended period of reflection to continue to inform and to reveal the inhumanity and barbarity of euro-unifying policy and, at the same time, will call on the people to fight to overturn it. . progress has been made in constructing a more coherent and united europe, but there are still barriers to achieving many of the objectives we have set ourselves. aside from meetings aimed at examining the status quo, there has been no reflection on the constitutional treaty involving the european parliament, the council and the commission, aiming at considering the reasons and the criticisms of those who, in the wake of the ratification by some member states, the rejection by others and the silence of other countries, highlighted the inadequacy of some parts of the text and the muddled nature of the text as a whole. europeans have growing doubts about the legally binding aspect of the charter of fundamental rights, which lacks important references such as protection of the family. the issue of our roots also remains unresolved. we do not want a situation whereby, in not wanting to know where we come from, europe is not certain about which direction to go in. uncertainty gives rise to increased external and internal threats to the union, as a result of international terrorism and uncontrolled illegal immigration. the crisis in a society that is losing its reference points and values is causing many young people to adopt apathetic or violent attitudes. the failure to facilitate development on account of the inability to manage the processes of globalisation and to give the necessary boost to a dynamic development model that addresses the problems existing at european and international level . . firstly, the debate on the future of europe does not simply boil down to the constitutional debate, and nor does the debate on the constitutional treaty cover the entire debate on the future of europe. i do not believe that this is more glamorous and attractive to the citizens. it is necessary, although i doubt how urgent it is. it should certainly take place in full view of the citizens. in my opinion, however, what is really needed is to update and consolidate the structural decision-making model of the eu within a framework that is democratic and that respects national identity and diversity, given that the eu in its current configuration finds it difficult to cope with the realities of life with 25 member states, let alone 27, 28 or 29. i feel therefore that the solution lies in a fresh debate when the societies that are most hostile to this proposal show that they are ready. this may also take the form of restricting the 'constitutional' impulse to a more modest and realistic institutional reform that is vital to the eu's new life. most importantly, though, there needs to be a response to what actually concerns the citizens, especially economically speaking. there is a lack of policy, a lack of results and a lack of growth and jobs in an economy that is irrevocably in the throes of change. the truth is that these challenges are, for our citizens, a matter of priority in relation to the constitution. the european parliamentary labour party (eplp) recognises that the proposed constitutional treaty addresses many important issues which need to be dealt with in order for an eu of 25 or more member states to work effectively and democratically. we have abstained on this resolution, however, because we believe it attempts to prejudge the outcomes of the period of reflection and because it could be seen as showing insufficient sensitivity to the democratic outcomes of the french and dutch referenda. we believe it more important for the eu to be delivering tangible benefits to its citizens before returning to the structural reforms for better decision-making. mr president, on a point of order and to clarify what i said earlier on, during the vote on the period of reflection, in the split vote relating to paragraph 2 of amendment 2, you requested a roll-call vote but then changed your mind and said the first part of that split vote would be checked. unfortunately, the interpretation did not come through in time, so the vote that i cast for the first part should have been for part two. i was against part two, but was in favour of part one. i and many of my colleagues were caught in this dilemma. could the record show - i know you cannot go back and retake the vote - that those members who voted did so in error. certainly, votes can be corrected. having said that, i have received a number of reports from fellow members to the effect that matters proceeded perfectly clearly, and i think it is sometimes rather too easy to blame the interpretation. therefore, you may, of course, change your vote; but, that being said, i consider matters to have proceeded perfectly normally. the next item is the debate on the following: - the oral question to the council (o-0041/2006 b6-0209/2006) by anders wijkman, john bowis and karl-heinz florenz, on behalf of the ppe-de group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the commission (o-0042/2006 b6-0210/2006) by anders wijkman, john bowis and karl-heinz florenz, on behalf of the ppe-de group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the council (o-0043/2006 b6-0211/2006) by chris davies, on behalf of the alde group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the commission (o-0044/2006 b6-0212/2006) by chris davies, on behalf of the alde group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the council (o-0045/2006 b6-0213/2006) by satu hassi, on behalf of the verts/ale group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the commission (o-0046/2006 b6-0214/2006) by satu hassi, on behalf of the verts/ale group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the council (o-0047/2006 b6-0215/2006) by adamos adamou and jonas sjstedt, on behalf of the gue/ngl group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the commission (o-0048/2006 b6-0216/2006) by adamos adamou and jonas sjstedt, on behalf of the gue/ngl group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the council (o-0050/2006 b6-0217/2006) by johannes blokland, on behalf of the ind/dem group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the commission (o-0051/2006 b6-0218/2006) by johannes blokland, on behalf of the ind/dem group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the council (o-0052/2006 b6-0219/2006) by guido sacconi, on behalf of the pse group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the commission (o-0053/2006 b6-0220/2006) by guido sacconi, on behalf of the pse group, on the sustainable development strategy; - the oral question to the council (o-0056/2006 b6-0222/2006) by liam aylward, on behalf of the uen group, on the sustainable development strategy and - the oral question to the commission (o-0057/2006 b6-0223/2006) by liam aylward, on behalf of the uen group, on the sustainable development strategy. mr president, what we are debating today, then, is the review of the sustainable development strategy, an extremely important document from the european council's meeting in gothenburg five years ago. we should have liked to have seen a more comprehensive review and, above all, a report by the commission noting what has really been achieved during the last few years. we should also have liked to have seen more ambitious long-term goals specifically set out. the truth is, of course, that, in many areas, we have not made any clear progress in comparison with how matters stood in 2001. biodiversity continues to be impoverished and climate-affecting emissions are still increasing in the majority of member states. we have social divisions, migratory pressure at our borders and an array of problems in the field of health, for example resistance to antibiotics. these are all things that we must, of course, get to grips with in a way that takes account of the long term. i wish to thank the austrian presidency for having involved meps in a meaningful way. horizontal in nature, this is a difficult issue to deal with, and it has to be asked whether we are sufficiently well organised, both in government offices and in the commission and the european parliament. we are organised on a vertical and sectoral basis, but this is a horizontal problem. we should reflect on this in the long term. one of the main issues in this connection is the relationship between the sustainable development strategy and the lisbon strategy. certain meps wish to combine these strategies in the long run. what is important right now, of course, is to bring about the best possible coordination and for we meps to be involved in the process. we think that the sustainable development strategy should not, in the first place, be seen as an obstacle to, or problem for, growth and development but, rather, as an opportunity. the world is crying out for intelligent solutions to, for example, our energy and transport problems. this should be made a main issue in the lisbon process. a big advantage of the commission's new proposals is that the international dimension is now included. we see the eu leaving an ever bigger ecological footprint on the world, a state of affairs that we must, of course, do something about. it also requires that progress in society be measured in a different way in the future. we cannot only look at gdp growth, but must also consider a range of other factors. another logical consequence of the international perspective is, of course, that we must let the sustainability dimension influence our development aid very much more than we have allowed it to do so far. finally, i wish to emphasise the importance of research issues. i have a number of questions for both the commission and the council. how do you wish to strengthen coordination between the sustainable development strategy and the lisbon strategy and, above all, how do you wish to ensure that there is more encouragement for the environmental technology industry and for innovations in this area? how does the commission wish to ensure that the sustainability aspects are better reflected in the budget than they are at present, especially in the aid budget? finally, we must get to grips with the problem of the eu's increased ecological footprint. are you considering integrated measures of some kind to tackle this issue? this parliament's procedures leave us in a position of weakness. we are, after all, trying to influence the document that will go to the european council this week, but in practice i assume that has already been written, finalised, translated into 20 different languages and our impact in this chamber is likely to be somewhat limited. perhaps that is something to consider in future. however, i wish to congratulate the austrian presidency, because it has at least made this a priority; it has tried to pull together the threads and it has looked at ways to take this agenda forward, which is welcome. to me the big issue, though, is implementation. take one example: national sustainable development strategies have to be prepared in all cases by next june. but what if they are not? what tools, what mechanisms, do we have to ensure that member states actually deliver on the pledges the prime ministers will agree this friday? we need more indicators. there is a good suggested list here in austria's draft paper, but it is simply not comprehensive enough. we need specific performance tables; we need the opportunity to name and shame, to point the finger at those member states that pay lip service to the idea of sustainable development, but do not match their fine words with deeds. what we really need is for the commission, as the independent arbiter, to be able to find mechanisms to put pressure on member states which are so reluctant to rock the boat within the council and to point the finger at one another. five years ago, when the natura 2000 programme was being prepared, commissioner wallstrm, the then environment commissioner, used the fact that structural funds could be withheld unless the habitats directive was properly complied with as a means of encouraging the process. that threat of withholding money from member states brought about a dramatic transformation in performance and the submission of new ideas. i hope that over the next few months and years the commission will come up with mechanisms of that kind to really put pressure on member states where it hurts. . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we have to understand that sustainable development is the basis of our future. if we forget that, the basis of our economy will also disappear. it is a misconception that economic development and environmental protection would be in conflict with one another. our experience is quite the opposite. ambitious environmental protection promotes economic development, and this applies to both countries and sectors of industry. industry has called for the economic effects of environmental policy to be analysed. the problem is that when an analysis is carried out, the results are not believed. when, for example, analyses showed that the reach chemicals legislation is economically viable, industry did not believe it. similarly, when analyses show that cleaning up air pollution pays off, the car industry lobbies against it. we need ambitious targets, when, for example, it comes to saving energy. the least we could do, and the cheapest option, is that we should decide to end aid that is harmful to the environment. aid for fossil energy in the eu amounts to more than eur 24 billion a year, which is four times more than that for renewable energy. - mr president, on behalf of the confederal group of the european united left/nordic green left, i wish to express our disappointment and displeasure about the lack of progress in developing and monitoring the sustainable development strategy. we agree that the sustainable development strategy must include three core, interconnected objectives which have not only environmental, but also social and economic repercussions. and yet the council and the commission appear once again to be more concerned, as far as sustainable development is concerned, with promoting the objectives of the lisbon strategy, despite its environmental and social repercussions. unfortunately, the lisbon strategy relates mainly but not solely to economic competitiveness and the creation of prosperous jobs, with environmental objectives coming a very poor second, while the sustainable development strategy needs to promote environmental and social objectives, rather than economic sustainability. i should like to point out, given that a large percentage of the european population suffers from serious economic and social problems, such as poverty, unemployment and social exclusion, and the fact that the most deprived social groups often suffer the worst social and environmental conditions, including poor housing and health, that the framework for commission action to review the sustainable development strategy is extremely reticent and weak. the objectives being formulated by the commission are extremely general in nature and therefore difficult to assess. for example, the commission has introduced the european year for fighting poverty and social exclusion, an initiative that we welcome, but has failed to formulate more specific initiatives and effective, enforceable measures which will allow real progress to be made. . mr president, the strategy which the commission has published sends out a positive message: it demonstrates that the commission too has time for a sustainable society. i can concur with the conclusion which the commission has drawn in its document, namely that, if we want to work towards a sustainable society, we must seize the existing opportunities now. that should also be the message to the council. if we want to make sustainable development a success, then there are many examples of measures we could take straight away. i would like to remind you that we do not own this planet, but that we have the task of looking after it and saving it. as a consequence, we will really have to change our way of living if we want to secure an existence for our children and grandchildren. that is why we need an ambitious package of measures, and i would like to hear from the council and commission how they would like to work on it together with this parliament. . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i too am grateful to the austrian presidency for having made this strategy one of its key priorities. i hope that, although our document comes slightly late in the day, the summit will decide on something practical in this regard over the next few days and not confine itself to making token or rhetorical statements. i should like to extract and highlight three key words that i consider essential from the contribution made by parliament in the shape of the unanimous resolution on which we shall vote tomorrow. the first word is integration. the lisbon and gothenburg european councils were held one year apart. five years later, the time has perhaps come to integrate them more, maybe even with a buzz word, with a new word such as , in such a way as to overcome this contradiction and this distinction between competitiveness and environment. the second word is governance. we genuinely need to give a strong boost to the member states and, i stress, to what is actually taking place at a local and regional level, so that everyone, across the board, might play a leading role in implementing this strategy in practice. actions cannot only come from above, but this leading role also needs to be promoted. finally, the third word is monitoring. i very much agree with the need to define a concise set of, let us say, multicriterial indicators, which measure the progress made towards sustainability on a regular and ongoing basis. this is vital if we are to win over the citizens, who must have the opportunity to ascertain in practice the progress made or the difficulties encountered in pursuing our objectives. i believe that this bottom-up form of monitoring is very important. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, economic theory based on sustainable development abandons the approach grounded only in an analysis of gdp and employment in favour of an interpretation of a country's cyclical position. work is natural capital, the capital produced by people. the european sustainable development strategy and the lisbon agenda must integrate the economic dimension with the social and environmental dimensions in order to guarantee long-term development. for this strategy to be successful, it is essential to act at all levels of governance, from the largest international and national organisations to the local agenda 21, which in italy too is at last becoming one of the most important forces driving the spread of a sustainable management model. acting at a local level is the key principle that makes it possible to pursue major objectives like preserving what natural capital is left, reducing human pressure on the world around us, and improving the efficiency of the end uses of products, for instance by promoting energy-efficient buildings and environmentally friendly urban transport systems. the extension of commission support to the system of so-called 'green' public works contracts is producing good results. nevertheless, in common with members in other groups - and i am glad to have heard the speaker before me - i must highlight a number of aspects that i consider very important. the commission ought to be more specific and to stick to definite and therefore verifiable objectives. that is the only way that all the actors in the sustainable economy will be encouraged to adopt an ecologically and socially compatible model. there is still a great deal to do in europe to ensure that our energy supplies are based on renewable sources, in order to protect the environment from pollution and from the excessive, irreversible exploitation of natural resources. in this context i consider it essential for sustainable development indicators to be developed and improved: they need to be easily understood and accessible to the general public. it is important to try to monitor all the outcomes. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the european sustainability strategy is an important topic and a top priority for the austrian presidency of the council. in the past few months, 10 different council configurations have dealt with the subject of assessing and implementing the sustainability strategy for europe, in order to strengthen the quality of the strategy across the board, including with our own working group, 'friends of the presidency'. we want the european union to act as an international frontrunner, and to demonstrate its capabilities as, so to speak, a 'sustainable union' at international level. that applies to the european union with its central institutions, to the territorial authorities, to the regions and to the municipalities. we want to send out clear signals promoting sustainable development. it would be inappropriate to concentrate solely on economic growth, economic development and the lisbon strategy: it is not compatible with europe's history, and i also do not think it is enough to act sustainably in the future. we have the impression that, following the discussions, in general a text could be negotiated that is both balanced and politically significant. in line with the instructions of the european council of december 2005, we now have a single, coherent document that brings together aims, tasks, indicators and a whole range of specific actions for essential eu policy areas. this renewed eu sustainability strategy should be clearly visible from the outside. the document that the european council will adopt in the next few days has no annexes, and is clearly structured, comprehensible and consistent. this constructive cooperation, in particular from the member states, and the intensive dialogues between the various parties involved have led us to the success that we hope will be achieved in the days to come. we have had a whole range of contacts and positive conversations with representatives of the european parliament. we in the presidency have tried very hard and quite consciously to include the central points brought up by the european parliament in the negotiations - and, as far as possible, in the compromise as well. you have frequently talked about how we need to view the issue of the link between the lisbon strategy and the eu sustainability strategy from the aspect of qualitative growth. we want to send a clear political signal that sustainable development will not, as some intend, put the brakes on economic growth, but will actually support and enable intelligent growth in areas for the future. that is what we need to do with this strategy. the strategy repeatedly refers to issues such as renewable energy sources, environmental technology, 'greening' public procurement, resources and energy efficiency, the environment as a factor for more jobs, intelligent and innovative products and services and mobility solutions. growth cannot be an end in itself, but just a means to an end, and that end is improving the quality of life and of the environment in europe, whilst maintaining long-term competitiveness. if the people and the environment are doing well, then the economy will also do well. europe has always particularly distinguished itself in the past, and will continue to do so in future, by the way in which it runs its economy according to different criteria from other national economies in the world. regarding the relationship to the lisbon strategy, the two strategies, each with its own priorities and timescales, should continue to exist separately from one another, but support and strengthen each other. the central goal is greater transparency and a higher status for the eu sustainability strategy at political level. the two strategies should therefore be further developed and implemented in close coordination in content terms. we want to make it clear that the eu strategy for sustainable development and the lisbon strategy for growth and jobs do not exclude each other, compete with each other or supersede each other, but rather complement each other effectively. the eu strategy for sustainable development provides a comprehensive framework within which the lisbon strategy, with its new focus on growth and jobs, can act as the engine of a dynamic economy. in our opinion, both strategies underline the fact that economic, social and environmental goals can strengthen each other and should therefore be designed, developed and promoted together. both strategies aim to support the necessary structural changes that will allow the economies of the member states to face up to the challenges of globalisation, which affect all of us in europe. the aims and main content of the sustainability strategy, including in comparison to gothenburg 2001, which will become the key challenges for sustainable development, are clearly laid out in the paper and in the strategy, and are also translated into concrete terms through targets and actions: climate change and environmentally-friendly energy, sustainable mobility and transport planning, sustainable production and consumption models, which will be an important guide for the future, management of natural resources, health, social integration, demographics and migration, which is probably one of the greatest challenges facing the continent and a major challenge in relation to the fight against poverty and for sustainable international development. the new key challenge of sustainable consumption and production models caused a great deal of controversy, but has now been incorporated into the strategy. one major success that has been mentioned by several speakers here is certainly the creation of a separate chapter in the strategy setting out implementation mechanisms for effective follow-up and for evaluating and assessing the progress made. as you can see, we have put a great deal of energy into this sustainability strategy. we have kept 10 council configurations busy, and we have tried to resolve this apparent competition between lisbon and sustainability, so i am very pleased that, taking your comments into consideration and following intensive negotiations with the member states, we will be in a position to adopt this eu sustainability strategy within the next few days. that is good for the quality of life in europe, and it is a positive sign for the future. mr president, the sustainable development and lisbon strategies together address issues that really concern people. european value and quality of life surveys tell us that citizens want prosperity, but they also want a clean environment, good health, social protection and equality. the commission put forward its proposal for the review of the european union's sustainable development strategy in december. this has been the subject of in-depth debate in the council, culminating in the adoption of a review of the strategy at the european council scheduled for tomorrow. i welcome parliament's input from january on the stocktaking and orientations for the review, and i appreciate the involvement of many of you in the stakeholder debate on this subject. i look forward to working with you further on this, on the issues raised in the motion for a resolution amongst others. sustainable development is an over-arching objective of the union. the european union sustainable development strategy and the lisbon strategy work hand in hand towards this objective, although they should be kept separate. together the strategies are an agenda for change, for europe to adapt to a changing global context: new competitors, an aging population, and the impacts of demographic change, increased resource scarcities, climate change, biodiversity, and ecosystem loss, for example. they aim to stimulate innovation, including behavioural change, create level playing fields and engage all. the lisbon strategy and the sustainable development strategy are complementary. the much-needed economic growth must be decoupled from environmental degradation and must better safeguard social cohesion to ensure it can be sustained. at the same time, though, the worldwide drive towards more eco-efficient products and services creates opportunities for growth and jobs that we must seize. for both we need to act. by achieving results on sustainable development, we improve our chances of regaining citizens' confidence in the european union. to achieve results, we need to focus and be clear about who does what. this implies a certain practical distribution of work between the two strategies. the lisbon strategy addresses concerns about medium-term economic performance, looking to stimulate growth and jobs and helping the european union to adapt to global competition and increased pressures on resources. to achieve this aim, the lisbon strategy comprises actions in a wide range of policy areas, many of which are central to sustainable development strategy, such as energy efficiency, environmental technologies resource use, and others. the sds addresses concerns about our prosperity, both in economic and quality of life terms, including issues that are more slow-burning, where time-lags mean that actions now have impacts into the long term. a good example is climate change, but also unsustainable modes of transport, social exclusion, health and how we use our natural resources. it also looks at broader global challenges and impacts beyond the european union's borders. but let us be clear: lisbon and the sds are mutually reinforcing. the success of one depends on the success of the other. the priority now is to achieve results. there have been more than 20 years of debate on sustainable development, but progress in addressing unsustainable trends is too slow. we must move from words to action. some say that we are not ambitious enough. i disagree. the commission's revised sds provides a new political drive for sustainable policies that apply to all policy areas. we also welcome the priority given by the austrian presidency to the revisions of sds and the draft conclusions that will be discussed at this week's european council. we are talking about a new drive aimed at making the difficult changes across society that are necessary for sustainable development. the review of the european union's sustainable development strategy is about how we can do things better to get results: first, about how we design policy, including policies within the lisbon agenda; second, about implementing what has been agreed; third, about making sure that we involve all those who need to act. the european union institutions cannot achieve sustainable development alone. the new strategy addresses some of the weaknesses of the previous strategy: unclear priorities, little ownership and absence of a clear monitoring mechanism. it confirms the main challenges, but clarifies the objectives and sets out a new and more rigorous monitoring mechanism. it includes regular reports from the commission, which are to be submitted every two years, drawing on the latest eurostat indicators. it includes national strategies, to be updated to bring them more into line with the european union strategy, and it includes peer review of national strategies to allow mutual learning. we need to learn from best practice and use every opportunity to multiply successful initiatives. by clarifying priorities, we will also facilitate the coordination of the lisbon and sustainable development strategies. the renewed sustainable development strategy re-emphasises the importance of an integrated approach. the problems are interlinked and so are the solutions. good use of impact assessments that address the economic, social and environmental impacts of proposals is key. horizontal measures, such as getting prices right, investment and research and innovation, education and skills are also important. the new strategy is about all of us assuming our responsibilities. involving stakeholders, businesses and citizens in delivering results is a priority. it is also about all european union institutions and member states working for the implementation of the strategy. we believe that the european parliament, the european economic and social committee and the committee of the regions should play a more active role in helping to implement and monitor the strategy. . mr president, i feel less optimistic than those who have spoken so far, because i believe that the document that has been produced is essentially a document full of statements, which includes many existing clichs, many arguments that we have all heard and which are leading to an increasingly weak and less respected notion of sustainable development. why do i say this? because i believe that the structure in the methodology - and, as well as a politician, i am speaking as an academic - is based on an error: it is based on repeating the old clichs and on not properly analysing today's sustainable development problems. firstly, it does not make it clear whether the document has european or world ambitions. it does not make that clear. secondly, it conforms to gothenburg, but not to johannesburg. furthermore, it ignores problems such as the relationship between the economy and sustainable development. today, economic activities cannot be separated from sustainability, and if we want to link it to lisbon, even less so: in other words, there can be no employment, there can be no possibility of development for the under-developed countries, unless we take into account what kind of economy is appropriate. certain economic activities are necessary in order to maintain biodiversity. have we considered what economic activities are required or the role agriculture plays in maintaining animals? have we taken account of the fact that, if we want to talk about climate change and development in africa, we must talk about nuclear energy in order to resolve the problem of obtaining water through desalination and obtaining energy that does not pollute? if we talk about climate change, we must talk about nuclear energy as well, as a replacement for 30 or 40% of what is produced. in other words, structurally, the document is not integrated. it does not refer to the economy and it completely ignores industry. furthermore, i do not believe that the issue of population is sufficiently dealt with. the emigrations we have from north to south in europe are creating stress in terms of sustainable development, just like the african emigrations. that is something we must deal with, ladies and gentlemen, on the basis of sustainable development. . mr president, on behalf of the social democrats i can say that i agree with the commissioner that we must at long last move from words to deeds in the matter of policy on sustainable development. there needs to be a proper action programme for sustainable development as part of eu policy. sustainable development must be genuine and be capable of measuring the principle of penetrability, which relates to all the european union's political goals. policy instruments, for their part, need to adapt to these goals. so it is unacceptable that projects that harm the environment should at present be supported with massive amounts of money, considering how aid is channelled for projects that improve the environment. the decisions already taken should also be implemented. the council decided years ago now that aid that harms the environment should be gradually withdrawn. that has not happened, neither gradually nor in any other way. eu-wide environmental taxes have also been talked about in several contexts. we know that their introduction will require consensus, but we need a step forward in the right direction. the council has also taken decisions that europe-wide energy taxes should be introduced. the sixth environmental action programme, which the council and parliament adopted in the codecision procedure, will provide an opportunity for the introduction of europe-wide environmental taxes. a condition of a genuine environmental policy is that the economic policy instruments in legislation and other legislative acts go hand in hand. in this way a favourable situation can be achieved, in which society develops eco-efficiency and environmentally friendlier technologies in an economically rational way. in this respect, we are coming to a crossroads as far as the lisbon strategy is concerned, which is to say that the environment is also a good thing for the economy, and its development is a means of getting the wheels of the economy turning. mr president, the renewal of the sustainable development strategy is very welcome, but it must become more focused. the need to have better coordination with other cross-cutting strategies like lisbon is well established, but we also need to have better coordination within the sustainable development strategy itself. we need to think clearly and recognise that some of our sustainable development policies could potentially conflict with others. for example, we are committed to a european target for biofuels and i very much support this, but the sustainable development strategy also includes a commitment to sustainable forest management and to halting the loss of biodiversity. a badly thought-through expansion of biofuels could result in virgin forests being destroyed and habitats lost. a properly thought-through biofuels policy would mean european vehicles running on biofuels from certified sources only. so i would beg the presidency in this regard simply to use the strategy as a starting point for much more detailed work on sustainability. - mr president, commissioner, mr president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, we have only borrowed the earth from our descendants. we all know that any form of politics that lacks responsibility towards this principle imposes a hurdle on the next generation that cannot be overcome. jacques delors declared as early as 1993 that in order to meet future challenges the european union has the urgent task of restructuring the economy in a way that is ecologically and socially fair, and of orienting it towards a sustainable strategy; mr prll has confirmed this once again. jacques delors stated that, essentially, models of development must be achieved that are based on low consumption of non-renewable resources and that are reproducible in the long term. in 2001, the swedish presidency responded to these findings with the gothenburg strategy. now, five years later, we see that the new commission has chosen to ignore all of these findings that are so important to our survival. instead, it has returned to completely outdated notions. this is evident from resolutions in which unimpeded growth is invoked as being the key to solving all the problems of today, while the third dimension - the preservation of ecological foundations - is no longer mentioned and the necessary balance between three dimensions is negated. the earmarking catalogue in the regulation on the structural funds includes, for example, a total variable of 71 for the environmental dimension. the commission's new slogan, that the lisbon strategy must be pursued in the direction of unimpeded growth, is simply wrong, because it is short-sighted, it lacks solidarity and it is irresponsible, because acting in this way shifts incalculable costs onto the next generation. we are glad that the council does not take this line, and we welcome the austrian presidency's new strategic approach. we hope that this will be adopted in the next few days and that it will genuinely be implemented in terms of concrete political action. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the website on sustainable development that was started by the commission on the 30 may is well-meant and very interesting - the same goes for the two other websites on climate change and climate control - but that does not lessen my criticism of this commission communication. it does not contain a sustainable development strategy, but a catalogue of measures introduced, individual problems and intentions. in taking this view i simultaneously endorse the main criticism expressed by the social platform. i also agree with this network that the cardinal problem here is the definition of political priorities. however, i would like to go even further and say that sustainable development is the democratic realisation of a social model, one in which each and every person can live independently and with dignity. in my view, sustainability means that on the ground, in europe and around the world, more and more people increasingly have access to the conditions that are necessary to ensure peace, protection from violence, democracy, social security, unspoiled nature, education and culture. the sustainable development strategy must therefore set out three priorities: the achievement of the millennium development goals; the combating of poverty and social exclusion in the eu; and the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. that means disarming, demilitarising and democratising economic relations and our societies as well as redistributing and redirecting flows of resources through structural change, restructuring the energy economy and of course reorganising the social division of labour. . mr president, these questions show the european social model in flashing lights. however, the european social model is a mishmash that pleases no one: a bit of free market here and a bit of welfare state there, mixed with a little green posturing. the eu dictates that one size fits all and, judging by the identical wording of these group questions, one size does appear to fit all. however, in the independence and democracy group, we realise that one size will never fit all. i am free to say that my party, ukip, can never support the lisbon strategy, because it is the failed strategy of a commission that has no legal right to dictate economic policy to my country. it is for this reason that the eu can never impose a sustainable development strategy on britain. there is, however, a ppe-de one-sizing problem. last september, david cameron was quoted in the as 'fighting to end the eu's damaging social role' and leaving it to focus on 'making the single market work properly'. yet we now have a tory mep, mr bowis, asking how the eu will enhance its social role in economic policy. no wonder mr cameron's pledge to leave the ppe-de group has become such a huge joke. or, as i always say, 'eu must be joking'. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i speak on behalf of the new italian socialist party. it will be essential to make the management of the new development instruments consistent with the lisbon strategy by providing for short-, medium- and long-term planning in order to achieve the objectives that have been set, namely efficiency, effectiveness and economy, focusing particularly on growth but without forgetting environmental protection. in our opinion, europe's sustainable development policies have a vitally important role to play abroad, especially in developing countries, since in many cases it is precisely in those countries, where, unfortunately, there are no economic alternatives as yet, that the indiscriminate exploitation of resources occurs. the new policies must therefore be based on a feasible project for sustainable development that all peoples in the world can enjoy without distinction. for the world's sake, europe's institutions need to send out signals of political convergence based at last on solidarity and aiming at reducing the indiscriminate exploitation of non-renewable resources. at the same time they need to commit themselves to promoting research and development in the field of environmentally sound technologies. mr president, commissioner, when the lisbon strategy was reviewed, you decided to keep it separate from the sustainable development strategy. i think that this was a mistake. these two tools are more than complementary; they are inseparable from one another. that is why, at present, the impression created is of your adopting an ideological stance without taking action. it cannot credibly be proclaimed that sustainable development is one of the three pillars of the lisbon strategy unless the necessary bridging clauses are created. as for the content of the action platform presented after considerable delay by the commission, i have to say that i was disappointed in it. we were expecting more substance and more proposals. sustainable development now sounds hollow. commissioner, i may be somewhat jumping the gun and anticipating our institutional agenda, but your work programme for 2007 will have to take up this challenge. i would ask you to be firmer, more incisive and more audacious in your dealings with the council. yes, the commission must be audacious and courageous, as it is not being at present. it forever censors itself, confronted as it is with a paralysed council that has nothing more than good intentions, never translated into action. where energy is concerned, it should be emphasised that nuclear energy is no longer taboo, but it must be accompanied by renewable sources of energy. when it comes to biofuels, member states - in particular, france and sweden - are known to be working on these, but on different systems. what has become of harmonisation? no progress is being made. where are the practical proposals? they are there in people's minds but, unfortunately, that is where they remain. as for the council, i am inclined to tell it to rationalise the instruments available to the eu: the cardiff process on the integration of environmental aspects into other policies, the gothenburg sustainable development strategy and the recently revised lisbon strategy. frankly, hand-to-mouth policy needs to take a back seat in favour of visionary policy that considers tomorrow and makes sustainable development a key factor for the future. mr president, my main problem with the commission's environmental proposals is that they do not correspond with the objectives of the sixth environmental action plan. as far as traffic is concerned, the sixth eap stressed the decoupling of transport goals and gdp goals. however, the commission's new strategy does not propose legally binding measures and deadlines. it is all very well to speak about wanting fewer private cars and more environmentally friendly public transport, but without legally binding measures these are only empty words. if we want to have less air pollution and more public transport, we have to act. as the rapporteur on urban environment, i propose legal measures and targets to increase the rate of environmentally friendly transport. i hope that the commission and the council will return to the policy of clear targets and measures. listening to mrs grossette, i also hope that the ppe-de group will support my amendments and my report about having binding measures and targets concerning the urban environment and traffic. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to draw your attention to rural development. it is important that we do not lose sight of rural spaces as a whole as an aid to economic development. this means that in financial respects too we must ensure that sufficient means are available. unfortunately the so-called second pillar of rural development for the period 2007 to 2013 has been reduced by eur 20 billion in comparison with the proposal by parliament and the commission, and that reduces possibilities of development. that is why we must surely make use of the optional modulation system of 20%, i mean by redirecting funding from the first to the second pillar. we also have to ensure, however, that we give our support to the international development of rural spaces. in order to do this we need a fund that can be accessed on an international basis for rural development projects, in a similar way to the existing european one. only in this way will there be a chance to develop rural spaces as a whole. mr president, sustainable development is a nice idea. it has the pleasant aroma of the norway of dr brundtland, who invented it 40 years ago. it is a notion from the good old days, from the club of rome, from zero growth. it is a new version of the old idea of pastor malthus. at the banquet of humanity, there is not enough room for all of the generations. we must therefore restrict ourselves, because the ice is melting, the water is rising, the greenhouse effect is going to suffocate us, the sun is going to burn out and raw materials are going to run out because the chinese are consuming everything. in fact, the only thing that is sustainable is under-development. look at africa! the only sustainable thing is poverty, which is a socially transmitted disease passed on from generation to generation. development, on the other hand, is purely provisional. the stone age did not come to an end because of a lack of stones, but because of the invention of bronze. the oil age will also come to an end, not because of a lack of oil, but because we will move on to the age of fusion or of hydrogen. in short, sustainable development is an absurd notion, dreamt up by the rich to explain to the poor that, in order to save humanity in the future, they must go without today. mr president, commissioner, sustainable development is something obviously desirable that we all seek. who could possibly be opposed to it? strategy and approach have great significance for the future prosperity of europe and the world where these issues are concerned. they are linked together rather than integrated. the resolution originated in gothenburg five years ago and emphasises certain components needed for turning the sustainable development strategy into a reality. more emphasis could have been placed on the way in which strong economic development can increase the opportunities for creating smart technology. innovative environmental solutions too may require investment if they are to be profitable. the administrative dimension is emphasised to an unnecessary degree in the resolution, which sometimes shows too little appreciation of the realities of the business world. most of the resolution can be implemented, but the market perspective should not be lost. i say this in my capacity as the person appointed by the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats to take responsibility for this issue in the committee on internal market and consumer protection. when the leitmotif of the resolution was the merger of the lisbon strategy and the sustainable development strategy, we had difficulty voting for it, but we now think that there is an acceptable compromise. we are not opposed to the strategy. on the contrary, we unreservedly support sustainable development in trade and industry, environmental work and society in general. we cannot, however, encourage a merger of the lisbon and sustainability strategies right now, since the former, unlike the latter, is already in use. we are not, however, closing the door to such a merger for ever. following the review that has now been carried out, we think that the resolution has acquired a tone that we can, in general, support. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is with great satisfaction that i note that the motion for a resolution recognises that growth and sustainable development are not opposites but, on the contrary, preconditions of each other. sustainable growth is the only growth we can afford. the fact that the motion for a resolution extends sustainability to include areas in addition to the environment also constitutes great progress. the environmental and social dimensions should be integrated into our understanding of sustainability as elements of equal value. in that connection i should like to emphasise that sustainable development also involves equality between the sexes. women at present earn less than men throughout europe and are not represented in decision-making bodies to the same degree as men - be it in political, economic or public life. any strategy on sustainable development must take account of this inequality and of the fact that social problems affect men and women in different ways. the common goals of both the lisbon strategy and the sustainable development strategy cannot be achieved unless the issues of inequality and of the better use of both men's and women's potential are addressed. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, commissioner, we all know that it is no longer a time for lamenting the consequences of our mistakes. the world ecological crisis is hitting us full in the face and i will not list the problems arising within this context. we here are well aware, more than anyone else i am sure, how urgent it is to act and to make courageous and wide-ranging political choices. and what are we seeing, since this is what is important? that the commission and the member states use and abuse the rhetoric on sustainable development, sometimes cynically, to justify non-sustainable policies. i shall take the example of biodiversity, the common theme of our very survival, as you know very well, mr prll. since we have waged a real battle here to obtain budgets for biodiversity in the financial perspective, since we have said that the natura 2000 programme would be taken into account in the structural funds, an argument used to justify not creating a new budget line, could you tell us - and this question is for the commission, which is not listening - why biodiversity has not been included amongst the priorities of feder and why biodiversity has not been provided with any budgetary contribution? i would therefore really like to know who is sabotaging sustainable development in these institutions? and if there is sabotage, how much faith can we have in the strategy that you are presenting to us? mr president, in connection with the motion for resolution tabled before us, please allow me to say a few words about the relationship between sustainable development and energy economics. the document rightly points out that energy production and consumption is one of the key factors in achieving sustainability. we are also right when on this basis we reformulate - like we have done so many times in the past - our goals in respect of increasing energy efficiency, reducing the proportion of greenhouse gases or even supporting renewable energy resources. at the same time, it is obvious that we are lagging behind significantly in respect of the further development of the sustainable development strategy adopted in 2001 in gothenburg. therefore, it is worth considering why we are in this situation. i am convinced that one of the important obstacles to achieving our goals may be the lack of an efficient market economy environment. the motion for resolution encourages us to exchange national experiences, and therefore, if you allow me, i will illustrate this with a hungarian example. in hungary, where the extent of utilisation of renewable energy sources is, unfortunately, one of the lowest in the european union, the long term operation of polluting energy production facilities is protected by monopolistic situations and contracts that contradict market logic. as a result of these contracts, coupled with the unpredictable regulations concerning the compulsory electricity acquisition quota of the state, which also contradicts market logic, the utilisation of wind energy, for instance, is rendered practically impossible. and while this practice is in use, the chances of achieving our goals concerning sustainable development are very slim. therefore we need to develop an efficient, competitive and cost effective energy market, because without this, an environmentally sustainable society remains an unattainable dream. the gothenburg strategy will only become real if this is achieved. in this hope i support the motion for resolution, and trust that we will be able to return to this issue when parliament debates the development of the common european energy policy. mr president, the lisbon strategy's objectives are mistaken. we now have growth without jobs, so it is the wrong way to obtain more employment. we are also aiming at the wrong goals. with people now earning approximately eur 12 000 per year, the link between increased income and greater happiness is ever more tenuous. instead, the result is increased stress, more environmental damage, wider social disparities and more injustice. sustainable development is not only about the environment. achieving it involves, rather, seeing the environment as being inseparably linked to social conditions. today, everyone is talking about sustainable development, and tomorrow we are to vote on the seventh framework programme that allocates eur 4 billion to research into nuclear power. more money is also going to research into carbon-based energy and to research into other non-sustainable forms of energy. why is that the case? the un climate panel has shown that we can only achieve the kyoto objectives by halting the subsidies to fossil fuels. people listening to us are amazed. why do we not take the relevant decisions? it is because the lobbyists from the big companies obtain their cherished short-term growth solutions, which are inimical to sustainable development. we must listen more to our audience and less to our lobbyists. then, we shall obtain sustainable development. - mr president, since last december the commission communication and other contemporary publicity channels have been confirming the speed of global changes and the new dangers, as well as the opposing trend towards permanent and balanced three-dimensional development which links economic growth and quality of life with social integration and environmental protection. therefore, by proposing the framework of the basic principles of the european union sustainable development strategy in a manner which supplements the lisbon strategy and is divided into six basic sectors, an attempt is being made to integrate sustainability into european policymaking, both in the form of an internal dimension and by including the external repercussions of decisions and choices on the planet as a whole. today, we in the european parliament want our motion for a resolution to exert an effect on decisions by the other institutions. we are confirming our political and humanitarian sensitivity and our awareness of our responsibilities towards future generations by advocating an effective evaluation of the repercussions on the sustainability of all eu initiatives. the resolution is clear. we welcome the presidency's interest, but we are calling for a single, cohesive and concise framework which will rally public opinion and policy-makers around common aspirations. we hope that the general objectives will be supplemented by specific, people-orientated measures, which is why we must be sure to define progress indicators to measure the benefits to man as an undeniable and unique value. economic prosperity, high living standards and the ecological repercussions from the uniform dissemination of objectives on the potential of the natural world only make sense if they serve present and future citizens. - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, at the end of this debate i would like, as a summary, to give an overview of the items and goals that we have tried to coordinate with the sustainable development strategy during our presidency and on which we now want to reach a decision in the next few days. i would like to give my very heartfelt thanks for your suggestions and also for the speeches and the debates that we have had here together. our aim with the sustainable development strategy has been to put sustainable development for europe at the top of the political agenda and in doing so to make europe an example for others. we have been keeping all the council configurations busy, and in recent months we have tried very hard to work through the essential points with the european parliament and now to present them as a strategy. this strategy is, in our view, the result of very wide-ranging discussions and ambitious negotiations. seven key challenges with goals and measures have now been clearly set out in the strategy, and this will enable the european union to confirm even more clearly our role as a frontrunner in international cases. the most important chapter is of course - and this will also enable us to measure, to a certain extent, the success of the sustainable development strategy in the coming years - a strong and clearly structured chapter on implementation, which provides for responsibilities and competences regarding the monitoring of progress in implementation and very clearly addresses all eu institutions and political levels, eu-wide, national, local and regional. i also regard - and we should do this together - the sustainable development strategy as complementary to the lisbon strategy. both strategies strive, with differing priorities and timescales, towards sustainable development. we want to demonstrate, too, that quality of life and high levels of environmental quality and social cohesion are important factors in safeguarding long term competitiveness. sustainable development is a central factor in innovation: it creates opportunities and the potential for intelligent growth and better jobs. sustainable development is anchored in the treaties; it is an overarching objective for all european policies. it confronts us, however, with huge challenges, above all in institutional terms. on an eu level we do not yet have appropriate structures with which to discuss this horizontal issue in the corresponding committees or to better coordinate the opinions of different committees. during the negotiations on the eu sustainable development strategy we finally attempted an ad hoc solution with the 'friends of the presidency' group. at council level we will be working, until the first review of the strategy, on possible options offering suitable mechanisms for sustainable development. this institutional question concerns all eu institutions equally, and it would give me great pleasure to encourage a dialogue between institutions, one that goes beyond the decision on the sustainable development strategy. we regard the sustainable development strategy not, as it were, as the end of the debate on sustainability in europe, but as an important starting point in conjunction with the lisbon strategy in moving towards sustainable development in europe. i would like to thank you once again for your very constructive cooperation, not only - i am saying this as the austrian presidency of the european union nears its end - in the field of sustainability, but also for all of the constructive cooperation between the european parliament and the presidency. for me personally and in my areas of competence, discussions have always been very fruitful and successful. . mr president, i wish to thank everyone for this very interesting debate. the debate shows that this subject is a central issue for europe and that it is a priority which the commission believes can contribute towards improving the quality of life and preserving resources, especially for the benefit of future generations. it goes towards improving the economic, social and environmental dimensions of our way of life. the commission's proposal has emphasised and given added relevance to the underpinning principles of our sustainable development policy. moreover, we have given ourselves clear objectives with correlative actions to reach these targets. concerning the need to be more ambitious, and the call for new targets, i need to underline that the essential thing is to produce results. investing in new targets may not be too difficult. however, it is much harder to get people to make and accept the changes needed to achieve those targets. we are meeting our existing targets, but the real challenge is to ensure that we do so. we are therefore proposing a new approach aimed at making the difficult changes across society that are needed for sustainable development. having said that, i agree that setting new targets is also important. however, any new targets need to be established through a proper process involving impact assessments and full stakeholder consultation, so that we have the acceptance and the commitment of those who need to work in order to achieve those targets. i would also like to say something about the integrated approach frequently mentioned during the course of this debate. sustainable development is about a coherent approach to policy-making. it requires an integrated approach, and in practice this means the lisbon strategy working hand-in-hand with the sustainable development strategy - two strategies working in parallel and in coordination towards the overarching objective of sustainable development. the commission disagrees with the idea of merging the two strategies, but agrees they should be used in parallel towards achieving the overall goal of sustainable development and that they should be complementary, both in scope and in terms of governance. the commission agrees that they can go hand-in-hand, though this does not mean that they have to be integrated. this can be achieved through sound and effective complementarity between the two, and that is what the commission's communication seeks to achieve. concerning governance and monitoring, improving the governance of the european union's sustainable development strategy is key to pushing forward progress. that is why the proposal for the review of the strategy proposes a new improved governance process. the commission will report on progress every two years. let me assure you that in doing so it will draw on the full range of sustainable development indicators. eurostat has made good progress in developing indicators and this work will continue. the aim is not to name and shame, but to assess where we are, how much more we need to do, and in which areas, in order to enable us to determine where we need to act and to allow clear communication to electors and stakeholders on where we need to change and on our approach to this. concerning the international dimension, sustainable development requires a global approach. the european union should maintain its position as a world leader in sustainable development through its action at home and by addressing the effect of this. it must also engage with others to achieve the commitments made at johannesburg and the millennium development goals in order, as has been said, to allow developing economies to leapfrog, to avoid old-fashioned unsustainable patterns of development and to use clean and innovative technologies. this is essential, for example, in the drive to limit climate change. it is also why the global dimension is an integral part of the reviewed european union's sustainable development strategy and why that strategy advocates an integrated approach to development and external policies. in conclusion, the commission hopes that the interaction between us in this area can continue and intensify in the months ahead. to wind up the debate, a motion for resolution(1) has been tabled under rule 108(5) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday at 11 a.m. the next item is a statement by the council and a statement by the commission on the increase in racist and homophobic violence in europe. . () mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this issue that we are now dealing with in this plenary is one that we consider to be particularly important. whenever the security and dignity of a citizen of the european union is threatened, then we are all threatened. the credibility of our union and its principles and institutions are at stake here. the union - and this was made very clear in this morning's debate - is based on the principles of freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and basic freedoms and constitutionality. this is anchored in the founding treaties, and since then it has been restated in numerous institutional agreements and in numerous legal acts. we must therefore consider acts of racist and homophobic violence as direct provocations, and we must take decisive steps against them. we must not allow people who are citizens within our own union to feel like outsiders, and neither can we allow it, if people from other parts of the world who come here have experiences that contradict our values completely. since the treaty of amsterdam entered into force, the union has - with directives on equal treatment laid down in the year 2000 - created a set of instruments to prevent or rather to combat discrimination across the union, whether on account of ethnic background, religion, or of sexual orientation, among others. on the basis of these two directives, the community action programme to combat discrimination 2001-2006 was set up. in doing this, the european union makes it very clear that in dealing with this matter it will not limit itself to passing legal statutes, but will take sweeping measures in order to implement anti-discrimination policies. you know these measures, i do not need to go into detail here. i would, though, especially like to emphasise the great significance that we all attach to the activity of the european monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia in this context. for those in positions of political power, its findings provide an important basis for decisions. allow me to continue here a point that i already made this morning. we believe that it would be a fair acknowledgment of these efforts towards equality and against discrimination and racism, if we were to create a fundamental rights agency, a separate agency that tackled these issues. the concern of this agency would be to ensure that we, in the member states, in the institutions and in official bodies, observe the rules that we have in the european union, rules that have become part of the . this is not about carrying out general human rights investigations and setting ourselves up in competition with other institutions, in particular the council of europe. it is, rather, about the fact that we, as a union, need an institution with the job of implementing measures that were decided here. i repeat what i already said this morning, namely that in my opinion this planned human rights agency would fulfil this task. civil society - our fellow citizens - wants and needs this agency. we know that in the field of combating forms of intolerance, below the level of the union, there are a great number of worthy national initiatives, both public and citizens' initiatives. these initiatives are striving to promote awareness, to bring different groups together in order to remove prejudices or, in the case of young people, using educational means to prevent prejudices from ever arising, which i regard as particularly important. they deserve our full support. where we have to recognise, however, that positive initiatives, education and awareness are not enough to stop violence or its precursors - intolerance and incitement - then our member states must make use of legal proceedings in order to protect their citizens. the states of the european union have criminal law procedures that are thoroughly appropriate for dealing with the challenges of racist and intolerant patterns of behaviour. the austrian presidency of the council believes that a european framework decision on the combating of racism and xenophobia would be an important signal and an important step towards the completion of the relevant european instruments. work on such a framework decision began in 2001, although there are still problems, due to the member states' historically developed criminal law systems. work here is difficult, and until now a definite result has not been achieved. in the light of the serious and dangerous challenge represented by racist and homophobic violence, decisive leadership is needed from those in positions of political power - especially from the presidency of the council. the president-in-office of the council, mrs plassnik, i myself, and other representatives of the austrian presidency, have been and are trying to provide this leadership. thus on 21 march of this year, on the 40th international day for the elimination of racism, mrs plassnik declared, among other things, that: 'the worldwide struggle against racism is by no means won - in the eu, too, there is no cause for self-complacency.' earlier, on 17 march, at an event dealing with this very issue, i myself said: 'the contribution of local and regional bodies to the protection of minorities and to measures against discrimination is particularly essential.' i also drew attention to the situation of the roma minority, who are unfortunately often targets of discrimination and racist violence in the european union. on 5 may, the national austrian day against violence and racism, the president-in-office of the council commemorated the liberation of mauthausen concentration camp as well as the people from over 30 european nations who were brought by the nazis to mauthausen, where they were degraded, tortured and murdered. that should remind us where intolerance and racism lead - and this european union must ensure that it never happens again. honourable members, i would like to give my heartfelt thanks - and also personal thanks, since i have been working on this issue for many years - to this house, for having put such an important item on the agenda; and i would like to assure you that the council greatly appreciates your dedication in this matter and that it will be working with you hand in hand. . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, as a matter of principle, the commission opposes all form of racism and xenophobia and will continue to channel all its efforts into the fight against these phenomena, as laid down in the treaty. today more than ever, this task should be a priority at all levels - international, european, national and local. the commission is bitterly disappointed that the member states have yet to adopt the commission's 2001 proposal for a council framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. the aim of this proposal is to ensure that all forms of racism, including racism on religious grounds, are subject to punishment under criminal law in all member states. the commission is once again urging the council to adopt the proposal without watering down its effectiveness, and is striving to reopen the debate on the proposal, the adoption of which would be a major step forward in combating racist and xenophobic crime. the commission hopes that the seminar on the fight against racism and xenophobia, organised together with the austrian presidency and the european monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia (eumc) and to be held on 20 to 22 june, will lead to reopening the debate in the council under the finnish presidency. the framework decision is not the commission's only initiative in the fight against racism and xenophobia. for example, the commission supports the eumc's work by gathering data on the extent and development of racism in the eu. the fact that the eumc is becoming a fundamental rights agency will not have a detrimental impact on current activities, given that the fight against racism and xenophobia will remain a fundamental goal of the new agency. on the contrary, i am convinced that this fight and our efforts will in fact be strengthened. the commission is also striving to ensure that the member states fully and correctly implement the anti-discrimination regulations that have been adopted, and it is heading a series of programmes and initiatives such as the european year of equal opportunities for all (2007), which will contribute towards the fight against racism and xenophobia. the commission has undertaken to continue and step up these activities, and it is determined to extend its future efforts in the fight against racism and xenophobia. the commission is also firmly opposed to all forms of homophobia. homophobia runs counter to the principles on which the eu is founded. it is necessary in this regard to point out that the charter of fundamental rights and freedoms expressly forbids any form of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. the commission would like to mention its statement of january 2006 in parliament. in the context of its powers, the commission stands firm in the fight against homophobia. a key element of that fight is combating discrimination and the eu has already taken steps in that direction, for example with the adoption of directive 2078/ec. the commission is also aware that the legislative measures must be accompanied by further initiatives aimed at effectively combating discriminatory, derogatory, stereotypical and degrading behaviour. to this end, the commission is also contributing by means of information campaigns and initiatives such as the european year of equal opportunities for all (2007). all things considered, the commission is convinced that the eu, which at its core strives for deeper solidarity between nations, must set an example in the fight against discrimination and must take a lead in the fight against all forms of racism, xenophobia and homophobia. ladies and gentlemen, i await your debate with interest. . - mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the european union is founded on a community based on the indivisible and universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity. by coming together, our countries decided to uphold and to promote these values. each political group has decided to table a resolution to follow up the statements we have just heard; i personally have drawn one up on behalf of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats. almost every day we see evidence that the fight against intolerance is far from won. i would have preferred to deal with this subject in a different manner. it is appalling that we still have to point out publicly that racism in our societies is intolerable. numerous racist, xenophobic, anti-semitic and homophobic attacks have taken place in recent times in our countries, and that is unacceptable and intolerable. while as citizens we must remain vigilant, as elected representatives we must stand firm and vigorously condemn this behaviour; to stay quiet would be tantamount to accepting it. we must also adopt laws to protect our fellow citizens - political will is crucial in this area - and countries that have not laid down anti-racist and anti-discrimination laws must do so. i shall repeat what i said yesterday in this house and what i have been saying for some months in committee. the council must immediately stop blocking the framework decision against racism and xenophobia, otherwise fine words and good intentions will serve no purpose. our respective governments must offer an example and move forward in this fight for equality, respect for others and tolerance. as for the current situation, it is unfortunately necessary to point out that we are seeing a rise in far-right parties in many of our countries. although i personally am fully committed to this fight, i understand my group's reasons for not signing the joint text: this text clings on to ideological positions that have become obsolete. these countries will not be moved forward along the path of rigorous respect for the union's values by our condemning any particular current situation. it is unacceptable to confuse individual cases of aggression perpetrated in member states fighting against racism and homophobia with extreme positions openly adopted by some governments. we must distinguish between these situations. it is dangerous to lump everything together. we must separate this issue from the debate relating to any particular motive. the fight against racism, xenophobia and homophobia is not a matter for the left or for the right; that is something we must accept. that is why the joint resolution that will be put to the vote tomorrow seems to me to be a balanced compromise. i shall end by saying that i very much regret that parliament is reluctant to speak with one voice on this subject. this is an opportunity missed, since i know that this is a fight that all of us here in parliament share in. . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, when i was elected into the european parliament 12 years ago, i would not have thought it possible that we would have to have such a debate yet again. we were considerably more advanced in europe then than we are today. it is an alarm call that, in today's european union, we have to address the question of how we can combat and get to grips with increasing racism, anti-semitism, xenophobia and hatred of minorities - whether of an ethnic, religious, or sexual nature. that is why i, as leader of the socialist group in the european parliament, am making a statement in the name of all of the members of our group. european social democracy - christian democrats in europe, conservatives, liberals, democratic forces on the left and on the right - those who stood at the cradle of the european union: they knew why there had to be a supranational solution to the conflicts at the end of the first half of the 21st century. therefore let us think back once again: what were their motives? what had caused the european catastrophes of the first as well as the second world war, but above all, the catastrophes of fascism and stalinism too? hatred of minorities, a racist feeling of superiority, the exclusion of people who did not conform, the disabled, those of different sexual orientation, people who could be stigmatised as enemies, in order to channel general discontent and direct it onto scapegoats, those who came from somewhere else, who took our jobs. i do not want to repeat all that here, you already know it. these people with racial madness, religious madness, were the firebrands of the first half of the 20th century. what, then, have we set up instead? a solution based on integration, on a community of values and laws, and on basic rights for all: no matter what religion they have or whether they believe in god or not, no matter what race or skin colour they have; no matter where they come from, no matter what convictions they have or do not have, no matter how they wish to live their individual lives, whether on the basis of family, alone or in whatever partnership they choose, that is up to them. what binds us together is that - in our richness, in our superiority - we can organise a society that says 'yes' to a community in which each person has his or her own place: catholics and muslims, protestants and jews, black people and white people, heterosexuals and homosexuals, heads of families and those who live alone. why should anyone turn race, sexual orientation, or belief into the subject of a political debate at all, except as a means to an end - namely, to succeed in one's own political aims by victimising a minority. that is the most repulsive thing that european history has ever seen, and that is what led to this inhumanity. we do not direct our criticism at any one country, because unfortunately we have the same phenomenon in all the member states of the european union - not only in the new member states, but in the old ones as well. the criticism that we are adopting here is not directed against peoples or states; it is directed against the intellectual deficiency of those who propagate such ideologies - no matter where they are in europe. they have no place anywhere, not in any society, and, i hope, not in this house either! mr president, unfortunately this debate is indeed still necessary. in the resolution you will find a list of names of individual victims, people who were killed only because of the colour of their skin or their sexual orientation. in the 21st century in europe that is barbaric and we should be ashamed. i am, on the other hand, proud to be a member of this house that stands up against those kinds of barbaric acts. intolerance is on the rise everywhere, and my own country is no exception in this regard. i therefore welcome all the mass demonstrations we have seen all over europe in favour of tolerance and equality and, most recently, the very successful equality march in warsaw. i was very happy to be part of that. tolerance, anti-discrimination and equality are not national, internal matters. if it is anything, the eu is a community of values, and if we are a community of values, then we should be discussing these matters at european level and we will not accept that member states hide behind the argument of subsidiarity, because that is only a pretext. as i said in the debate yesterday evening, the eu needs an ambitious strategy to become the world champion of fundamental rights. we should be just as ambitious in this area as we are when it comes to the economy and things like the lisbon strategy. we do not need to weep crocodile tears: we need action. we do not need to be timid and reluctant when it comes to intervening in matters that are going on in the member states. i am therefore very happy to hear that the council will speed up the work on the framework decision and the agency on fundamental rights. i would very personally like to address a word to the president-in-office and to call for the recognition of gay people as victims of the nazi regime. that has been mentioned before in this house. i am also happy to hear that the commission is willing to instigate infringement procedures and is considering a horizontal directive. finally, we should not hesitate to use an instrument we have at our disposal, namely article 7, in cases where a member state or a member state government fails to comply with eu principles. . mr president, i welcome the strong statements that we have heard from the council, the commission and my colleagues in the house, and wish that other politicians would be as clear and as forthright as they have been in their condemnation of racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, homophobia and other hate speech and hate crimes. as has already been said this afternoon, the list in this resolution is a sad one, but it is not exhaustive. we could have added the tragic murders of young men in the united kingdom recently, and it is clear that no eu member state is free from this hatred. but i do not think we should be seeking to remove countries' names from resolutions. this week, we took a very brave stance on guantnamo; i think we should be doing the same thing when we come to look at what is happening within our own member states and be absolutely clear that we are not going to tolerate that either. it is very easy to be brave about third countries; it is much more difficult to be brave, in some respects, about your own, and i think that is a shame. people on european soil have the right to live free from violence; they have the right to live in peace; and that, i believe, is unequivocal. the political response of governments and other institutions to racist and homophobic attacks is crucial and sends very strong signals. it took numerous deaths in the united kingdom, and one in particular, before our police services realised that they were institutionally racist and set out to change that. it is still a long, slow struggle but progress is under way. if we are going to speak out, we also need to be critical of some of our media, which is also determined, it seems to me, to sow hatred rather than information and integrity. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the continual homophobic attacks in europe are a symptom of a crisis in democracy that this parliament needs to address, above all when they take place in european union member states such as poland. the far-right polish government, which is suppressing the civil rights of the homosexual community, needs to realise that such conduct is incompatible with membership of the european union. the recent gay pride march in warsaw was only authorised because of pressure from europe. poland must understand that, if homophobic attacks continue, my group will not hesitate to call for possible political sanctions for breach of article 7 of the treaty on european union and of the fundamental democratic principles of the union. it is also crucial that the 2001 framework decision on racism and xenophobia be extended also to cover the crime of homophobia, a legal category that already exists in france and belgium. i am disconcerted by the austrian presidency's failure to move on these issues and i wonder whether it may not be due to the fact that mr haider's neo-fascist party forms part of the government in vienna. i challenge the council, which is present here today, to say something in that regard. i therefore hope that the finnish presidency will inject some civilised attitudes into this europe that has fallen prey to dangerous new fiends. . mr president, justice requires reason and prudence. so while racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and dislike of muslims or christians are lamentable facts of life in certain european countries, we have to be very careful when comparing and generalising these phenomena in the course of political debate. otherwise, we may achieve the opposite of what we intended and contribute to aggravating rather than calming the conflict. the motion for a resolution on racism and homophobia contains too many contradictions and unjustified generalisations and this can have just such an effect. it is not right to throw racism and so-called homophobia and islamophobia into the same pot. that is mixing real discrimination based on race or religion with an opposition towards ideology, which is justified in democratic political discourse. our liberal colleague from the netherlands is quite humble when it comes to assessing tolerance in her country. recently a paedophile political party was legalised there and i would like to ask: how much further will tolerance go in that country? the post-communists who are speaking so freely here would do better to look at their own record of tolerance instead of picking on poland. it is grotesque that this resolution juxtaposes regret over the lack of comparable data on the phenomena mentioned above and general judgments about the countries where they manifest themselves. why should parliament publicise its sloppy work in this superficial draft of such an important document if we have been dealing with these phenomena for many years in committees within the council of europe? in ratifying paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 11 in the current version, parliament would simply lose credibility in the fight against racism and discrimination. i would like to appeal to all those of you who are motivated by genuine concern for justice to avoid false comparisons and unjustified generalisations. . mr president, this is an important day for the european parliament because this debate, and especially the resolution potentially resulting from it, may create a new trend in the just fight against all kinds of racism and persecution of minorities. however, let us for god's sake not allow it to become another weapon in the political campaign conducted by the left and the european liberals against the political parties that lean towards the right and countries where right-wing parties have come into power. i strongly protest against the proposed formulation in paragraph 4 of the resolution, which levels serious allegations at my country. they are deadly serious allegations from a moral and political point of view and include xenophobia, anti-semitism, homophobia and a lack of tolerance in poland. one thousand years of polish history surely prove beyond all doubt that poland is the most tolerant country in europe. it is a country that will never allow its good name to be dragged through the mud with impunity. we protest against the lies and hypocrisy of the left. mr president, mr schulz, together with his socialist colleagues, has joined the ranks of the polish post-communists in kicking up a fuss about the fate of homosexuals in poland. does he know of any cases of intolerance towards homosexuals? if not, what is all the fuss about? apparently a member of the league of polish families advocated the use of violence against gays. this allegation is now the subject of a complaint filed by the member against the newspaper which printed the claim. this parliament would make itself a laughing stock if it were to protest against a statement that was never made. we must check our facts first. he said that the police should prevent illegal demonstrations, by force if necessary. when the post-communists were in power, illegal gay parades were protected by the police. now they are not. we have a government that is determined to uphold law and order. yes, we are against promoting homosexuality in poland. we are against promoting immoral behaviour. we clearly differ from mr schulz in our judgment of what is or is not morally acceptable. he would be better off fighting intolerance in his own country. i am old enough to remember german intolerance towards poles during the second world war. there are still examples of lamentable intolerance in germany today. mr president, i would like to support the statement made by mr gaubert, my colleague from the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats, that this house has missed the opportunity to speak with one voice and to support the resolution he has drawn up. this document highlights the kind of mechanisms that should be introduced in the european union: constant monitoring of racist crimes, the introduction of a framework directive and the creation of an agency for fundamental rights as soon as possible. these should be priorities in our debate and in our resolution, rather than the slinging of mud at certain countries and cases, as seems to be happening here. the european union is trying to uphold the highest human rights standards. that is the aim of the agency for fundamental rights which is to be set up soon. already, a report is published annually by the vienna-based european monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia on the subject of racism and xenophobia in the european union. it is worth looking at the 2005 report. under point 5 on racist violence and crime there is an assessment of the situation in the 25 member states. what can we learn from this text? in four european countries, including italy, mrs agnoletto, there is a lack of publicly accessible official data on incidents of racist crime and violence. amongst the new member states, the report states, the czech republic, hungary, poland and slovakia collect official data on racist violence and crime on a broader scale than other countries. we lack a unified european system for registering these crimes, and this makes it difficult to carry out comparable analyses of this phenomenon. over 52 000 incidents of a racist nature have been registered in the united kingdom, thanks to an efficient system for recording such statistics, 6 400 incidents have been registered in germany, 1 565 in france and 209 in the czech republic. this disproportion shows how important it is to introduce a unified monitoring system. the majority of the 25 european union member states, we read, have transposed the anti-discrimination directive into their own national contexts. in july 2000 complaints were filed at the european court of justice against four countries, including germany, mr schulz, for not fulfilling their obligations concerning the directives on racial equality. mr president, our duty today is to make a commitment, to speak out against this return to hate, xenophobia and homophobia. all over europe we are horrified to see odious acts and we are hearing hateful words and incitements to violence. i would repeat: all over europe. it is therefore our duty to say 'that is enough', that we will not tolerate any more such acts of violence, that these horrendous attitudes are contrary to our values and the foundations upon which we have built our europe. we must put an end to racist, xenophobic and homophobic crimes for good, whether they be against a man or a woman because they are black, against a young man because he is jewish, against a young man because he is north african or against a woman because she is trans-sexual. it is our essential duty to silence all of those who preach this vile ideology. we all know where it leads: to the abyss and to horror. furthermore, we must stand firm against the incitements to hate expressed by polish leaders against homosexuals. to this end, i welcome the tolerance and the joy of living together shown by the polish people on the occasion of the gay pride event in warsaw. this is my solemn appeal: let us stand up, for these are grave times. all we have to do is count the resolutions that we have adopted on this issue to little effect, since the situation has only worsened. we must now move on to actions. the states must mobilise themselves against the hate that is re-emerging on their soil. the union must accept the seriousness of the situation and make this fight a priority. we will not be able to say in the future that we did not know what was happening. it is now that we must act, all of us together, urgently and without delay. i would therefore call upon the member states to reach an agreement on the framework decision on racism and xenophobia as soon as possible. the time has come to act. mr president, here we have yet another resolution condemning racist, anti-semitic and homophobic acts, a resolution which is unfortunately justified given the exceptional and alarming levels of hate and intolerance that we have been seeing in the european union for some years. the facts are horrendous and they have been mentioned by previous speakers: racist attacks - all forms of racism taken together - are increasing dramatically. article 2 of our joint motion for a resolution mentions the most recent ones: in anvers, on 12 may 2006, oulemata niangadou was murdered because she was black, together with little luna for whom she was caring. in france, ilan halimi was abducted, tortured and murdered because he was jewish. we could spend days discussing the causes of these barbarous acts. the first, in my view, is the fact that many of the arguments have become hackneyed. there are those who use the 'we must not fan the flames' argument. there are those who preach the infamous 'quest for social peace'. there is also a certain culture of keeping quiet as well, increasing the sense of impunity felt by the perpetrators of these xenophobic acts, and above all there are the arguments that inflame people's attitudes. i shall give one specific example, though there are others, of this great tendency to resort to hackneyed arguments which paralyse people and prevent the public authorities from acting in good time. in 2004, in france, the advisory committee on human rights stated that anti-semitism was the cause of half of the physical and verbal attacks in the country. nevertheless, it has taken two years and the murder of ilan halimi for the french citizens to realise that a culture of anti-semitism is proudly displayed in certain suburbs, amongst a minority, it is true, but a very active and particularly indoctrinated minority. two years too late, two years that should have been spent speaking out, condemning, integrating and bringing people together. my custom is to end on an optimistic note. i could, for example, mention recital i and say that we must work towards educating people to respect others, to hold dialogue and to show tolerance. it is an obvious and essential duty: knowledge with a view to recognising the full wealth and differences of others. i shall end, mr president, by saying that, in order to contain the increase in racism, we must begin, to paraphrase albert camus, by daring to call things by their name, we must identify who is provoking them, and we must have the courage to face the truth. my constituency in the north of ireland has seen a number of violent attacks on communities from other member states and from further afield, as well as a consistent level of homophobic violence. we also experience ongoing sectarian attacks, such as the recent murder of a 15-year old catholic boy, michael mcilveen. it is absolutely vital that the council now adopt the 2001 framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. i would echo calls for the finnish presidency to restart work on this with all urgency and, as we have heard today, for the council to adopt the decisions without watering them down. national governments and other institutions must respond adequately. mr president, i believe it is important that we all use this opportunity to highlight the unfortunate rise in racism at football matches in europe. fifa, the world's governing body for football, has said that there has been a recent upsurge in discriminatory behaviour towards fans and black players, an escalation that has dovetailed with the signing by many european clubs of players from africa and latin america. fifa has stated that there is a deplorable trend in the increased level of racist attacks in europe. this is not in any individual country; it is everywhere. it is unfortunate if people pick one place or country to highlight this. racist incidents that have taken place at european football matches include the following acts: monkey-like chanting, derisive singing, the hanging of banners that reflect neo-fascist beliefs and the tossing of banana skins on to football pitches. in all, more than 30 billion television viewers are expected to watch the world cup that has just started. i welcome the fact that fifa is going to use that tournament as an opportunity to crack down on racist acts at football matches in europe. there are a number of things it intends to do. because of time constraints i will not list them. however, i believe it is important for our own commissioner for sport, mr fige, the finnish presidency, the eu and the european parliament to look carefully over the coming months at how we can highlight this unfortunate trend. i also believe that players have a huge role to play in this. they are very influential with fans and they can have a hugely positive impact on getting people to stop that kind of behaviour. mr president, racism is a result of people who want to rule over others as they are convinced of their own superiority. racist violence and other discrimination due to social background, old age, illness or religion cannot be combated using racist methods, especially here at the european parliament. that is why i strongly protest against the vilification of poland, poles and the catholic radio station, , which has increased in particular since the right took control of the government. the right has been ferociously fought by the international liberal socialists who, having the worldwide press under their thumb, tarnish the good name of poles, accusing them of xenophobia, anti-semitism and homophobia simply because the majority of my compatriots believe in god and uphold traditional values. the perfidious lie that has been spread by the anti-catholic media is the alleged criticism of the radio station by the holy see. is the only independent medium in poland with a worldwide audience, something i wish applied to all media, which respects the truths of faith, defends life and real freedom and promotes truth, human dignity and human rights. poland was, and is, one of the most tolerant countries, where for many centuries those persecuted in other countries have been welcomed. that is why adopting the resolution stating that there is anti-semitism, xenophobia, racism or homophobia in poland is a scandal, and would indicate that there is racism and xenophobia in the european parliament. as polish catholics we are offended by these insults and, not for the first time, feel discriminated against. this is something that should not be happening, particularly here in the european parliament, which prides itself on respecting the ideas of tolerance, democracy, respect for diversity and freedom of belief. mr president, first of all, i should like to join in the emphatic and unqualified condemnation of any kind of violence, of course. in fact, we should come down hard on all perpetrators of violence, wherever they may come from. that is beyond dispute. secondly, i should also like to point out, though, that violence committed by isolated individuals must not ever lead to a witch hunt on people and parties who have nothing to do with that violence and who, using only peaceful means, flag up the dangers and enormous problems of immigration that is on far too large a scale and that has grown, in fact, out of everyone's control. thirdly, i should like to add that this house is once again showing little evidence of reasonableness. the joint resolution that will be put to the vote tomorrow is simply not worth the paper it is written on due to its grotesque exaggerations and of it mixing up violence on the one hand and legitimate criticism of the unworkable multicultural society on the other. it is also, on account of its plea in favour of further curbing the free expression of opinion, worryingly undemocratic. mr president, i have seen and heard homophobia vaguely, on tv and so on, but listening to some of our polish colleagues speak here today, especially mr roszkowski, mr pk, mr giertych and mrs krupa, well that is homophobia if anything is! it is absolutely stuff! i am glad that i have a of good, sensible, rational polish friends, because if that is liberal history, then for goodness sake, i do not want to see what right-wing conservativism is! sorry about that. to me this resolution is about four things. it is about the fight against racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and homophobia. first, we already have a resolution on homophobia, which was signed by all of the political parties, and i am indeed very glad about that. second, it is clear that racist violence has increased in europe and we cannot just sit down and watch it. we need action. we need action from the commission, as mrs in 't veld said, and we need action, as many have said, from the finnish presidency. my third and final point is that when i came here i thought that the resolution should not name any countries or political parties. i am still trying to believe that it should not do so, but if someone wanted to put the country of poland into this resolution, i think that after hearing this debate there is no question as to why it was done. because i am a big friend of poland, i still think it should come out. mr president, european history places a particular responsibility on the shoulders of politicians, the churches and civil society in terms of protecting tolerance and human rights. this responsibility weighs especially heavily on the shoulders of the governments of european union member states, which should guard the rights enshrined in the european treaty. unfortunately some, i repeat, some actions of the current government in warsaw, especially those related to the league of polish families, are spreading intolerance and homophobia. the deputy prime minister and minister for education, roman giertych, sacked the director of the national in-service teacher training centre because of its publication of an official council of europe guide entitled . the deputy prime minister alleged that the book, and i quote from the press, 'encourages schools to hold meetings with gay organisations'. roman giertych is considering the need to shut down this institution, which has been in existence since 1991 and which is an important institution in poland responsible for drafting and implementing educational programmes based on humanist values. fortunately, these actions by the government have roused another part of polish society. one hundred and forty thousand people have signed an internet petition calling for the dismissal of the minister for education. teachers and pupils are protesting, and a new civil society is on the rise. we have defined homophobia as an irrational fear of otherness, a fear of something that one is not familiar with or that one does not want to become familiar with. opposition to homosexuality is simply a form of opinion based on inveterate prejudice. it springs from the roots common to racism, xenophobia, hatred towards people of different beliefs and religions, and other phobias. in the case of homophobia, what we are faced with is a traditional form of prejudice, often stimulated by the media and misused by populist politicians. it manifests itself in a wide spectrum of actions, from hate speech and incitement against those who are different to calls for discrimination against individuals and actual inequality in legislation. at times, such politicians can command widespread support, especially when they choose to link homophobia with nationalistic chauvinism, religious zeal, contempt for ethnic minorities and so forth. because such ideas can fan the flames of hatred, particularly in economically deprived areas, it is our duty to warn of the illegality of homophobia and acts of racism. eradicating prejudice is, however, only one of the objectives in educating people in tolerance towards those who are different, and can complement other types of education in tolerant behaviour. the european parliament can identify the dangers of homophobia, and expose its protagonists, but it is ultimately the responsibility of individual member states to take measures to stamp it out. - mr president, unfortunately, cases of racism and violence are increasing, both in terms of intensity and frequency, not only in poland, but also, unfortunately, throughout europe. we need to condemn various racist crimes but, in light of both past resolutions and current community legislation, this is not enough. the legislation and daily administrative practices of the various member states foster intolerance and discrimination to such a degree that we can talk of institutionalised racism. the member states need to apply practical measures to combat racism. public opinion-makers must not create a climate of racism. prosecution of groups that foster racism must be encouraged. racism is a multisided, multidimensional problem. that is why composite measures are needed to combat it, measures which both prevent and cure. we need to combat both racist perceptions and the social exclusion that fosters the development of racism. mr president, we should take this opportunity and, at the same time as acknowledging the rise in racism, xenophobia, homophobia or any other kind of oppression, we should avoid putting a premature end to the discussion by stating that it should not be taking place at all. instead, we should think about the reasons for this increase, for it is this kind of reflection that has been lacking in this house. there are a number of groups other than those mentioned today which are also oppressed. i think that all europeans in the european union are being oppressed by having enlargement, in the form of turkey's accession to the eu, forced upon them. another oppressed group is that part of society which has a traditional christian outlook, which does not have anything against homosexuals but which is shocked by gay parades. why are parades necessary? they are also a form of oppression. mr president, i am saddened by what i have heard here this afternoon from our polish colleagues from the league of polish families and the law and justice party. i have heard from them about the promotion of hatred, the promotion of discrimination, the promotion of evil. we have heard family and religion used as a reason or an excuse. there is no reason, and there is no excuse, for the promotion of hatred. i have heard traditional values referred to. what value is there in diminishing the lives of ordinary human beings? there is none. this house was built on the ashes of the second world war. when it was built we vowed that no minority would ever be scapegoated again. we stand by that. we will defend that. i was in warsaw on the march that your government tried to ban. let me say to you: the reception that we got from those decent, ordinary people confirmed to me that your two parties do not represent those decent ordinary men and women of poland! mr president, we have a huge and inexcusable gap in eu action. our citizens must be very puzzled. on the one hand we have good laws and a new strategy to outlaw discrimination against people as employees and consumers. however, the eu is failing to outlaw hate crimes against people as people. it is failing to delivery security from fear, even though we talk a lot about creating an area of freedom, security and justice. president barroso enjoined us this morning to be proud of europe and its values. so why is there a lack of action on hate crimes when member states can agree criminal penalties for pollution crimes? is it complacency? is it ignorance? is it a lack of political will? i hope to avoid any more high-flown rhetoric about a europe of values while our leaders refuse to act. meps are agreed, including, i am glad to say, mr gaubert for the ppe-de group, in demanding that action. i would say to mr roszkowski that his mention of paedophiles in the context of sexual orientation is deeply misplaced and disgraceful. nothing suggests that paedophilia is more prevalent among homosexuals proportionately - indeed it is probably the contrary. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we are here to draw up a joint response to the rise in racist, anti-semitic and homophobic violence in our states, and to its consequence, the increasing expression of extreme-right views. it is our duty to hammer home, day after day, this message that we must combat all forms of hate and discrimination on the grounds of ethnic, racial or religious origin or sexual orientation: a duty of tolerance, a duty to teach our children, a duty to remember our history. that would be proof of our complete commitment to human rights. horror is never far away. recent tragic events have shaken our consciences and our people. it was not so long ago that a world war founded upon hatred for others devastated our continent. we must always remember that europe rose from those bitter ashes, on the basis of values of peace and tolerance. we cannot allow any weakness or concession, including in this parliament. we need strong responses, we must strengthen the legal instruments and rigorously apply those that already exist. it is essential to re-launch the work aimed at adopting the council's framework decision. we must stand firm and offer an example, since that is what our values require of us. in response to our polish colleagues: it is possible to believe in god and not be homophobic. president-in-office, if you have been subject to racial or homophobic violence you will never forget it. when my parents arrived in this european union from india, we were not welcomed with open arms: we suffered regular racial abuse and violence. you never forget it once it happens. what i would say to my polish colleagues, and to anyone else who doubts that action can be taken here in this house today, is that we want action. the council framework decision is at the heart of this resolution. i would say to those colleagues who disagree about whether we should name individuals, i have to agree with it, because it is a deeply personal tragedy which you will never forget. however, i would say this to the austrian presidency: you can make this happen. it has been shelved so many times, but racist attacks can be solved, penalties can be increased, a political signal can be sent. will it stop the hatred? no, it will not. but you mentioned leadership, and leadership is what we seek today, because this scar on europe today in 2006 is greater than when my parents arrived in this european union in the 1960s. that is a deep shame. let us do something about it. mr president, it is with some dismay that i have studied the news that has reached us recently from countries both within and outside the eu. it goes to show that there are very unpleasant and dangerous trends directed against homosexuals among the peoples of europe. one of the fundamental principles of a democracy is freedom of assembly, which is also safeguarded in the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. this freedom is not always respected. in russia, the gay pride parade was refused permission to go ahead, something that quite clearly is not only a breach of the convention but also an insult to those who wanted peacefully to exercise their democratic right. we do not, however, need to look outside the eu in order to find similar examples. it is enough to take a look at poland, where, from right across the political spectrum, there is an ever-renewed stream of homophobic statements directed against gay pride parades and the like. all this is entirely to be condemned. religion is frequently used as an excuse. certainly, freedom of religion too is one of the fundamental freedoms, but it should under no circumstances whatsoever be used as an excuse for oppressing others. that is something we cannot accept, either among people in the member states or among our fellow meps here in parliament. if, irrespective of the country we come from, we are to call ourselves democrats, we must vigorously condemn what is happening right now and do everything in our power to bring the oppression to an end. the issue is so important, however, that it should be asked whether the european parliament is the right forum in which to debate it. what should not under any circumstances happen is for the issue of homophobia to be addressed for the purpose of making cheap political points. . () mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is my firm conviction that we can only be successful in dealing with this important issue - so essential to our own credibility - if we hold firmly to the values of this european union of ours. we must be reliable and speak out with a united voice. it seems important to me and even vital that the institutions of the european union, above all the european parliament, the council and the commission, are speaking the same language. personally i do not believe that we will make progress if we try to accuse each other and reproach each other for failing, more or less, to observe the principles of respect and tolerance. we have to find a common language. i have heard a great deal today pointing in this direction, and for that i am most warmly appreciative. mrs lambert referred to something which i believe to be of crucial importance: the role of the media. we had a euromed conference in vienna ten days ago at which, amongst other things, we discussed the role of the media. the consensus was that you cannot censor the media, you cannot tell them what to do. we cannot aim for a code or law to regulate what the law should or should not do. however, the media should have self-control over what it does, because it plays a crucial role. as far as i am concerned, in a democracy the independent media plays probably the most important role in conveying everything that has been said here in favour of tolerance, in favour of the fight against racism. that is very important. to mrs in 't veld, i would say that this is an austrian matter. ever since 2000 we have been working very vigorously on finding solutions for the austrian nazi victims. there is absolutely no doubt that victims of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are considered victims of nazism. to mr agnoletto, who unfortunately is no longer here, i would like to say that i very emphatically reject - and i do this with some personal emotion, too - the accusation that the austrian presidency of the council is guilty - precisely on this question - of inactivity. i think mr agnoletto has not really been following the events of the last six months of the austrian presidency. i would particularly like to thank mr sonik for having emphasised the activity of the european monitoring centre on racism and xenophobia in vienna, and for having stressed the important potential role that the human rights agency could play in precisely this area. i call once again upon all members to support the future presidency of the council in this issue, so that this european human rights agency can become a reality. it would play an important part in the fight against racism and for tolerance. . ladies and gentlemen, the concept of equality and tolerance has been part of european political thinking for centuries. i recall a papal bull from the beginning of the 10th century, which opens with the words: 'does the sun not shine equally on all?' despite the existence of this concept, europe has very often endured times of brutal intolerance, which have led to millions of deaths and people's destinies cut short, not to mention those who have not been physically destroyed but who have lived under circumstances of intolerance. ladies and gentlemen, some historical events have been mentioned, and i feel that the experience of history is of vital importance. it begins inconspicuously with gradual backsliding on standards of tolerance and equal opportunities. such barely perceptible beginnings eventually give rise to movements with real political clout, with the disastrous results that they bring. that was why europe established equal opportunities, tolerance and anti-discrimination as a cornerstone of its political thinking and of its political construction. in my view this is the most important value that forms part of the european project, as all the others are rather instruments. it is up to us to adopt effective measures at all levels wherever possible. this fight is not only a matter for europe, for the member states or for the various levels. no, ladies and gentlemen, this fight is a matter for every one of us as individuals. i therefore feel most encouraged by the ideas which have emerged in this debate, and which show that in parliament there is a strong desire to support the effective, proactive implementation of the ideas of equal opportunities, tolerance and the fundamental rejection of racism, anti-semitism and homophobia. to wind up the debate, six motions for resolution(1) have been tabled under rule 103(2) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday at 12.30 p.m. the next item is the debate on - the oral question (o-0014/2006 - b6-0225/2006) to the council on small arms by mr brok and mr von wogau, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs and - the oral question (o-0015/2006 - b6-0226/2006) to the commission on small arms by mr brok and mr von wogau, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs. . mr president, as our colleagues in the commission and the council know - and i thank them for being here today - we take improving the mechanisms for controlling european arms exports and the strengthening and strict implementation of the european union code of conduct on arms exports very seriously, and we are also great enthusiasts and promoters of the idea of one day having an international arms treaty. let us hope that that day is not too far away. these are all issues that we have had the opportunity to discuss on other occasions and we will continue to deal with them in the future. nevertheless, today i would like to focus on a rather more specific issue: small arms and light weapons, which are currently the real weapons of mass destruction, to judge from their immense capacity to kill. i will give just one statistic: every minute, one person falls victim to a firearm somewhere in the world. by the time i finish this speech, therefore, there will have been five more such tragic victims. as far as this issue is concerned, time is not money. it is something much more important. it is life. you have some questions before you that were presented in writing by my colleagues mr brok and mr von wogau on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs and of the subcommittee on security and defence, respectively, whom it is my pleasure to represent here today. these questions relate to the next united nations conference to assess and review the programme of action on small arms and light weapons that will take place in new york from 26 june to 7 july, and the position that the european union will take at that conference. before getting into the issue itself, i would like to say that i am extremely pleased with the decision to include a representation from the european parliament as an integral part of the european union's official delegation at that conference. this is unprecedented at this level, and it demonstrates the need to strengthen the mechanisms for dialogue amongst the three institutions and offers a perfect opportunity to establish a more coherent and more efficient european policy on arms control. at the preparatory meetings that we have held so far, we have noted, on the part of the commission and of the council - and i have always expressed my desire for institutional cooperation - that there is a great shared interest in what i believe to be a very great and increasingly close cooperation amongst the three institutions. i would therefore like to focus my questions on the following points: firstly, how does the commission assess the preparations for the conference and how does it intend to ensure that the european union's strategy on light weapons is taken into account within the european union's foreign policy? and, secondly, how does the council intend to approach the negotiations and what results does it hope to achieve? at this point i would also like, naturally, to draw attention to the resolution adopted unanimously in this parliament's committee on foreign affairs and which will be ratified by plenary tomorrow. it contains the position that we, as the european institution directly elected by the citizens, would like you to take into account. i would repeat that i am pleased to note that, in the talks we have held, there is a very high level of agreement as to the issues that should be discussed at the conference: the inclusion of ammunition in the scope of the programme, a better definition of the control of transfers, the monitoring and marking of weapons, brokering, the relationship between development and disarmament - something which i know not just we, but also the commission, are particularly concerned about - and finally the establishment of guidelines for following up the conference. i also believe that there should be more concrete measures for dealing with the possession of weapons and acquisition and, in any event, that is an issue that i would like us to discuss. with regard to this final point, although you are well aware of this, i must point out that this parliament has insisted on many occasions that we would very much like the union to take the lead, at international level, on the adoption of an international arms treaty. although it is true that this is not the subject of the conference that we are talking about at the moment, we would like this conference to establish a basis for beginning to move towards that objective as soon as the conference is over. i would like to remind you that this is a request that has already received masses of support at international level, as confirmed by non-governmental organisations such as amnesty international, oxfam or iansa, the promoters of the initiative. with regard to the role of parliaments in general, and of parliamentarians in particular, i would like to stress the increasing importance of these institutions in the process, not just as legislators, but also and this is fundamental in terms of controlling the actions of their respective executives. to this end, the interparliamentary forum on small arms and light weapons is doing extremely important work in terms of increasing the awareness and training of various parliamentarians with an interest in improving the mechanisms for controlling these exports. if you accept these objectives, representatives of the council and the commission, you can count on us to be great allies. . () mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to go into very specific detail about mr romeva i rueda's questions and i will try to answer them one after the other. i also want to thank you for your comments. in fact we are allies, since the objectives of the european parliament and the european council are in line with each other. as for the first question, on how the council plans to cooperate with the commission on preparations for a coherent and successful implementation of the union's strategy, in connection with appropriate funding: the strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons and their ammunition, adopted by the european union in december 2005, concentrates on extending the capacities of the general secretariat of the council so that it may conclusively apply the strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of these weapons. the strategy also provides that the general secretariat of the council will proceed in this matter in close coordination with the commission and the member states. in our view this is very important, because the strategy calls for coherence and complementarity between decisions of the european union in the framework of gasp and measures taken by the commission in the field of developmental aid, so that there is a coherent underlying approach to all projects and interventions by the european union in the field of small arms and light weapons. it seems to me that consistent policy between the institutions is of the utmost importance: only by being consistent can we remain credible to the world at large. i can give a positive answer to the second question, as to whether the presidency of the council will ensure that it sends a delegation of the european parliament to participate in the un review conference 2006, in order to add a political and parliamentary impetus to the proceedings: i myself will lead the delegation and i am looking forward to it, because i think it is very important that the european union raises its profile on an international stage. the relevant council departments have checked and approved the participation of members of the european parliament in this conference, and i am pleased that members will indeed be taking part in this conference. as far as i am informed, you yourself will be taking part, i am pleased to say, and other members will also be able to take part. in this way we will undoubtedly further emphasise the importance of this issue for the european union. as for the third question - as to whether the council is to propose the european union's 1998 code of conduct on weapons exports as a possible blueprint for the future arms trade treaty, i can tell you that the council's publicised support for the arms trade treaty is not intended as an attempt by the european union to impose its own standards on the rest of the world. one could point out, however, that third states that strive towards modernising and completing their national export controls regard the eu code of conduct as an important reference document. i know that i too am subject to this temptation. if we think that we in the european union have worked out some excellent rules, then of course we would like to see these rules adopted worldwide. we have to be realistic here, however, and act as an example; if we act as a good example, then other states in similar situations will view our code of conduct as a guide. in the framework of the arms trade treaty, which represents an important project in humanitarian terms, as well as in terms of human rights, developmental policy and disarmament policy, the european union is directing its efforts towards mobilising the widest possible supranational support for this. one of our main concerns is to improve inspections of transfers of small arms and light weapons for the european union as a whole. other major concerns are to make small arms and light weapons more traceable, so-called 'marking and tracing', tighter controls on the arms trade and punitive measures against illegal trafficking of ammunition. we are very grateful for the support of the european parliament in this matter and for the very close cooperation of the commission, too; and i believe that at the conference in new york the european union will indeed give a good account of itself. . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the commission is set to play a central role in the un conference aimed at looking into the issue of small arms and light weapons, although it will not take part in the talks on the formal documents. some countries have a political interest in implementing the treaty but lack the resources to do so. we are therefore channelling all our efforts into supporting practical implementation. in 2005 alone, the commission spent over eur 16 million supporting countries and populations affected by small arms violence. with this support, we also helped implement joint eu actions in 2002 and the eu programme for the prevention and prohibition of the illicit trade in conventional arms, and contributed towards the implementation of the eu strategy on small arms and light weapons. this formed the political framework governing the work of the council and the commission on this issue. the commission's contribution to the 2002 annual report on joint action in the area of small arms and light weapons includes more specific coordinating measures. the commission's ability to honour its commitments for 2007 will depend largely on the outcome of talks between the council and parliament on proposed instruments for funding community actions. to this end, the commission has tabled some sensible proposals. whilst the commission awaits a positive verdict on the main thrust of these proposals, its departments responsible for the policy on small arms and light weapons are working towards ensuring that awareness of the risks relating to illicit small arms and light weapons and of the preparedness of individual countries to address those risks forms part of the documents of their national and regional strategies. the commission's departments continue to work towards introducing into national and regional programmes standards and measures aimed at stopping the spread and accumulation of illicit weapons. it is worth pointing out, however, that the proposed measures give recipient countries, to a greater or lesser extent, responsibility for defining aid and for specifying a number of key action areas. . mr president, we support the principle of the proposed international arms trade treaty. small arms, in the wrong hands, prolong and exacerbate some of the world's most brutal conflicts. however, we are under no illusions that so long as certain arms manufacturing nations remain outside the scope of international treaties, then oppressive governments, terrorists and insurgents and other organised criminal groups will continue to have easy access to weaponry. the british arms industry already operates to some of the highest standards in the world and the british defence manufacturers' association has said that it warmly welcomes the principle behind the international arms trade treaty. if other countries were willing to emulate the strict standards enforced by the united kingdom, an arms treaty would certainly be a worthwhile asset and a boon to international security. however, responsible countries such as the united kingdom and other eu member states will only achieve a hollow moral victory if other less conscientious nations rush to fill the gap in arms sales left by our absence. the united nations, and not the european union, is the arena in which to pursue an international arms trade treaty and it must include as many countries as possible, and particularly china, if it is to have the desired effect. amnesty international has recently identified china as one of the world's major arms exporters, with increasing influence in asia, africa and latin america. chinese weapons have helped sustain conflicts and human rights violations in sudan, nepal, burma and southern africa. i am reminded that china also continues to stockpile enormous quantities of anti-personnel landmines. for many years i have worked to overcome the problem of anti-personnel landmines, but i have always sought to focus attention on the real culprits, who use such weapons indiscriminately and irresponsibly. usually, these have been armed rebel groups in developing countries which are supplied by non-western countries. i think it is important, therefore, that when considering the matter of small arms, we should take care not to become over-obsessed with our own authorities or legitimate traders engaged in transparent activities. instead, we should focus on terrorist groups and other criminal elements that are either sitting on stockpiles of weapons or continuing to obtain them from various sources. that is the area on which we should now concentrate our attention. let us also work hard to bring china and other such countries into the scope of an international treaty. . mr president, small arms and light weapons are weapons of mass destruction in the developing world. it is estimated that they kill half a million people each year. their long-term impact on sustainable development is undeniable. fighting them means finding creative ways to bridge the gap between security sector reform and development assistance. the latest reports by the un institute for disarmament research on european action on small arms and light weapons stresses that the eu should create more synergies between the relevant cfsp and community instruments. also, fighting the scourge of illegal brokering should be a priority. this parliament has repeatedly expressed its disappointment at the lack of specific legislation in many eu countries, despite the adoption of common position 2002/203/cfsp. finally, the eu can play a decisive role in making sure that the review conference on the un programme of action on small arms and light weapons is successful, and a follow-up conference must therefore be organised. we are counting on the austrian presidency to steer that process. success would mean agreement on a global set of principles on arms transfers which, as a minimum, should ensure that all transfers are authorised through a permit or licence, that existing obligations and relevant international law are respected, that arms embargoes imposed by the un security council are respected and enforced, and that the issuing of permits or licences should take into account the risk of exported arms being used in serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, including the risk that such arms might be diverted into the wrong hands such as those of terrorists and that this may affect regional or internal security and stability. the un review conference should, of course, start work on a legally-binding international arms trade treaty as soon as its work is complete. i am very honoured to be a member of parliament's delegation to that review conference. - mr president, i welcome this motion for a resolution on the subject of small arms, although i must say that when you consider the damage these things cause, the term 'small arms' makes them seem much too harmless. however, i should like to point out a few problems with this motion. it says, for example, that transfer of weapons should not occur if there is a risk that they might lead to violations of human rights or that they might promote national or regional instability and armed conflicts. to be quite honest: when is this not the case with weapons exports? i think that the real problem is to differentiate between legal and illegal exports, because this is actually a grey area. one should, therefore, not only take action against illegal exports, but also against legal ones. contrary to what mr van orden says, one should certainly look at member states of the european union as well, since countries like france, the united kingdom and germany are among the main exporters of small arms. i will just mention the example of nepal. weapons were exported from eu member states to nepal. now these weapons have been used, and we now have this problem, to which the council responded by saying that no one could have known that events would unfold in this way. it is precisely because we cannot know that we must ban legal weapons as well as illegal weapons. every weapons export is a threat to peace. mr president, with 80 million new guns manufactured each year, and one person killed by a gun every minute, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons fuels conflict, crime and terrorism across the globe. five years after the un programme of action was agreed, the forthcoming review conference must not just review: it must act. it should recognise key gaps, such as the transfer of small arms to non-state actors and, ultimately, ways of reducing the demand for small arms. it should address controls for licensed production deals, like that adopted for austrian steyr rifles in malaysia. as mr winkler says, europe can offer leadership in this debate, demonstrating the effectiveness of our code of conduct on arms sales. i hope the council will offer new commitments to extend financial support to projects aimed at limiting small arms proliferation and their use - currently just eur 2 million in the cfsp budget - and by building on the proposals for an eu strategy for security sector reform, started under last year's uk presidency of the eu and, indeed, at the austrian presidency conference on the western balkans. last year european member states, as part of the un, agreed a tracing instrument for small arms that was neither comprehensive - covering guns, not bullets - nor legally binding. this year eu representatives must show that we have the political will to go further to promote the proposal already endorsed by the council and parliament for a legally binding international arms trade treaty, and to ensure, both at the review conference this july and at the un first committee in october, a resolution to set up a working group to begin to make it happen. i have received one motion for a resolution(1) in accordance with rule 108(5) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday at 11.00 a.m. the next item is question time (b6-0224/2006). the following questions have been submitted to the council. in the view of the council presidency, what are the prospects of eu accession negotiations with croatia being separated not only de jure but also de facto from the negotiations with turkey, in particular with regard to the opening and closing of individual chapters? . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, in response to mr posselt's question - one that has already been asked in this form - i can only confirm what i said before: there is no connection between different accession negotiations. of course, because of the fact of scheduling accession negotiations with several candidate countries, certain parallels may arise. however, the accession procedures - the screening, the analytical test and, importantly, the negotiations - are of course carried out separately with each country. i would like to remind you that one of the fundamental principles of the accession negotiations is that every negotiation is based upon the individual achievements of the individual country concerned, and that cross-connections can not be made. the speed of progress in the negotiations depends solely on the extent to which the individual candidate makes progress in fulfilling the conditions for accession. a parallel has arisen, although mainly for practical reasons, simply because the commission produced the first screening reports on turkey and croatia at almost exactly the same time, and so they were dealt with at the same time. nevertheless - as was evident two days ago - they were treated completely differently and with entirely different results; and i believe that this connection may be broken again in the future - this connection does not exist in any case - if, for example, the european commission proposes benchmarks to open the negotiation chapters for only one of the two candidate countries, and if these benchmarks are then confirmed by the member states; or, if the two accession candidates fulfil these benchmarks at different times. we stand at the beginning of these negotiations; our next concern is chapter 36 including other business; in other words, in practical terms and due to the rhythm of negotiations, the two are very soon likely to drift apart from each other. - () in theory, this principle of each country on its own merits has always prevailed, and yet in terms we have seen many cross-connections. i would like to ask once again: will the council insist that the commission deals with these two - quantitatively and qualitatively so very different - countries differently during screening, and will the council complete their formal separation, since, when one considers turkey's recent threats on the issue of cyprus, it is high time to do so? . mr posselt, there will be no formal connection, and there cannot be one. there is no provision at all for such a thing, neither in the rules of procedure nor in council practice. nor do i believe that it is appropriate to demand such a thing of the commission. different rhythms of negotiation will come about automatically. as you are so right in saying, the speed of progress and the starting positions of the two countries are of course fundamentally different. therefore - in practice - different speeds of negotiation are very soon bound to emerge. - () mr president-in-office of the council, on the one hand you are right in saying that there is no connection. on the other hand, however, it is precisely croatia that is, at least in parts, surrounded by other candidate countries, potential candidate countries and others who still hope to become candidates. to what extent could the accession negotiations with croatia affect this entire region of the western balkans, which urgently needs stabilising? . i do in fact believe, mr rack, that the negotiations with croatia have an important effect as an example to the many balkan countries that - as i know from many conversations with their representatives - see croatia as showing them the way. croatia is going on ahead of them and there is no doubt that the progress it has made in terms of economic and social policy constitutes an incentive to the other countries in the balkans. i would remind you that croatia will be following greece in holding the presidency of the south eastern european cooperation process. this too is important, in that it makes it more likely that croatia will exercise influence as an example to the other countries in this forum, which comprises only countries from that region. i personally have high expectations of the negotiations with croatia, not least for the sake of the other balkan countries. since the statistics have, for some time, shown the croatian economy to be making very good progress, the country would appear, in economic terms, to have been ready for accession some time ago. the only problems appear to be with the sluggish implementation of laws relating to the eu, where the process is hampered by the requirement that proposals for legislation be sent first to the commission. might it not be possible to give the croatian government some practical help with this? . i believe, mr mlzer, that we are doing that. croatia is getting very effective assistance from us, from the european union, from austria, from the presidency, in its efforts, and we are in close contact on a very regular basis. nor do i believe that it is fair to say that the commission is in some way dragging its feet in this regard. the commission is doing what it is required to do, and i also believe that the negotiations themselves are going very well. it goes without saying that croatia will continue to receive assistance from us at council level as it endeavours to become a member state of the european union. i can only agree with you that there has been not only an improvement in the economic statistics but also very much greater willingness on the part of the country and of its people and so the negotiations should not be too long drawn out; it is on that that we in the council are building. in october 2003 the parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of the report on trafficking in human beings: prevention and control of trafficking in human organs and tissues (cns/2003/0812). could the austrian presidency give more information concerning why the council is yet to agree this? . the council wishes to inform mr evans that it thinks it necessary to obtain further expert information on this issue, which has to do with how it is determined whether a piece of legislation is both necessary and called for from the point of view of society. the council has therefore suspended negotiation on the proposal until such time as this information is available. . the illegal trade in human kidneys has become a multi-million-euro industry, with european patients whose lives are at risk desperately trying to find donors on the internet. in far too many cases they are just preying on poor people in developing countries. for those donors the motivation is money, not the health and quality of life the recipients can expect. in listening to your answer, president-in-office, i would remind you that in too many cases that trade is linked to human rights abuses in the form of the involuntary removal of organs from prisoners due for execution in china. three years after this was voted in the european parliament, an answer that you are seeking more information from experts is really not good enough. i ask you to seek best efforts within the council to unblock this very important proposal. . i personally fully agree with you and i am sure that many of my colleagues in the council share that view. i would like to point out that the proposal was taken off the agenda, not withdrawn. it is a proposal that is important but needs to be studied very carefully. but i have taken note of your sense of urgency and will certainly share it with colleagues in the council. will the council give an opinion on the negotiations currently taking place between certain member states and the iranian government in relation to nuclear capabilities? . mr mitchell's question is, of course, very relevant to the present situation, and it is one that i am very happy to answer. over recent months, of course, the council has considered this issue in very considerable depth and, ever since the start of diplomatic efforts at resolving it, has adopted conclusions on the subject, most recently on 15 may. it appears to me to be quite vital to underline the fact that one of its concerns in doing this was to present the european union as maintaining a united front, for any sort of long-term effect on iran is dependent on its being seen to do that by the outside world. what that means is that the fact that these negotiations have, in the last few months, been in the hands of three member states, should not conceal the fact that the council as a whole, and mr solana, the high representative, as well, have constantly been not only informed about them, but also involved in them, supporting them and endorsing the relevant conclusions. we have repeatedly expressed our profound regret at the iranian government's failure to take the steps regarded as necessary by, in particular, the board of governors of the international atomic energy agency and the security council of the united nations and at its threatening, until recently, to continue to refuse to take them. we have appealed to the iranian government to cooperate unconditionally with the iaea. the council has not disputed iran's right to use nuclear energy in a peaceful manner in accordance with its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty, and, on the basis of the august 2005 proposals, reiterated in the february 2006 conclusions, the eu would be prepared - and it still is - to support the development of a safe and sustainable civil nuclear programme consonant with the principles of non-proliferation, provided - and this is the other side of the coin - that full account is taken of the wishes of the international community and its confidence restored as regards iran's intentions. the council is still determined to bring about a peaceful solution by diplomatic means, and i believe that it has communicated and reiterated that in very clear terms to the world at large. the eu would welcome it if it were to be able to develop its relations with iran on the basis of trust and cooperation. a few days ago, as you will be aware, the high representative, mr solana, presented iran with an offer package from the european union that was also endorsed by the other members of the security council - something that strikes me as particularly relevant - and the initial responses to it can be described as cautiously positive. we hope that this offer - which is a good one - will serve as a basis for achieving a peaceful resolution of this conflict, and that this potentially dangerous issue will very soon be off the agenda, so that we can achieve a comprehensive agreement and understanding with iran, thus in turn making it possible for our relations with it to be developed in all areas. i welcome the efforts to resolve what the president-in-office has described as 'these dangerous developments'. what sort of a precedent is this setting for other mavericks in the near neighbourhood of europe, if somebody who threatens nuclear development, makes xenophobic comments about a nearby state and threatens international security is to get a package? could the president-in-office tell us what is in that package? what has been the outcome of mr solana's discussions and what response was received from the iranians? could he give us some idea of exactly what is on the table and what is being offered to iran in these circumstances? . the contents of this package are not openly known and it has also been agreed with iran that the detailed content of the package will be treated confidentially for the time being, as long as these negotiations, which are at a very sensitive stage, are carried on. as far as the reaction of the iranian side is concerned, i have said that the package was not rejected, which already is progress, because as we know, in the past, that whenever the european union and other international players have made an offer, this was flatly rejected by iran. now this is being studied by the iranian side and we can only hope, not only in our interests but also in the interests of iran, that this offer will be accepted. when mr larijani first responded in public to mr solana's offer last week, he said that the package offer contained some ambiguities. can you give us any information about what those ambiguities are? have they been solved yet? he also said that the european union side has given weeks, not months, for a response. when are we expecting a response from the iranians? . you have practically given the answer yourself. firstly, it is not up to the council to interpret what mr larijani said. if there are any ambiguities, we have made it very clear that he now has a fairly short time - just as you said, we are not thinking in terms of months but in terms of weeks - to clarify what these ambiguities are and what is necessary in order to clarify the european union's position. so we hope to hear exactly on which points the iranian side is seeking more information, which we will give to them. i hope we shall be able to clarify those ambiguities to the satisfaction of the iranian side. - mr winkler, the recurrent problem with the european union in global political conflicts is that one or other of its member states chooses to go its own way and tends to ally itself with the usa, thus going against european interests. can it be guaranteed that, in the conflict with iran, the european union will speak with one voice and that all its member states will support it? . the answer i can give mr mlzer is a very brief one, and it consists of a firm 'yes'. i was present for all the debates in the council, the last of which was only a few days ago, and i can tell you that all the member states, without exception, are endeavouring to come to a common position on this matter, the need for which is being questioned by nobody, and that the european union is very much united on this issue. in the context of the eu strategy for africa and the global approach to migration, the european council, in its conclusions of december 2005, noted the increasing importance of migration issues for the eu and emphasised the need for a balanced, global and coherent approach that covered measures to combat illegal immigration and harnessed the benefits of legal migration. it pointed to the importance of ensuring that the appropriate level of financial resources was allocated to those measures and also recognised the importance of tackling the root causes of migration. can the council state what progress has been made towards attaining the objectives set in the strategy for africa? in particular, what progress has been made on increasing public development assistance to 0.56% of gdp by 2010, with an additional eur 10 000 million destined for africa, on the granting of eur 42 000 million debt relief to african countries, on increasing aid by up to eur 1 000 million per annum in order to enhance trade, and on the adoption of economic partnership agreements with groups of african countries, which should act as development tools, promote regional integration and improve those countries' access to the european markets? . let me say at the outset that it is a most especial pleasure to be able to answer a question from my old friend mr martnez martnez, and i will readily do so, since, particularly over the past few weeks, the subjects of the strategy for africa, combined with the issues of development and migration, have been right at the top of the european union's agenda. migration has already been discussed this morning in the course of the debates on the future of europe and on the preparation for the european council, when i pointed out - as i do again now in response to this question - how important it is that we, when discussing migration, should concern ourselves not only with illegal immigration, important though that of course is, but also the necessity of turning our attention to the development policy dimension of this issue. migration was a very important topic at the troika's meetings both with the african union and with ecowas, when it was confirmed that an eu/african ministerial conference would be held on migration, and agreement was reached with ecowas on the establishment of an working group on the subject. we attach great importance to the european/african regional conference on migration routes to be held in rabat on 10 and 11 july, at which we will be giving special support to spain, and preparations for this are far enough advanced for it to be possible to adopt a joint action plan. we also, in this context, attach importance to article 13 of the cotonou agreement, which makes mandatory the return of illegal immigrants and also makes provision for dialogue with the countries concerned, on which we, together with mauretania and senegal, have embarked. tomorrow or the day after, the european council will be adopting a resolution in favour of pressing ahead at greater speed with dialogue with africa, which, it is envisaged, will involve ten countries in the west of africa and four in the east. the intention is that these bilateral discussions and their outcomes should be backed up on a regional and africa-wide basis, with a follow-up mechanism being established for the rabat conference and a series of regional conferences held on this subject. turning to your question on development cooperation, i would like to observe that the european union's monitoring report this year showed that the eu is steering the best possible course towards discharging the obligations into which it entered at barcelona in march 2002 and increasing public development aid to the point at which it reaches a proportion of 0.33% of individual states' gdps and 0.39% of the average across the whole of the eu. i will take this opportunity to repeat that all the targets agreed at the millennium summit must, of course, be achieved. these are obligations that must be discharged in full, and, of course, the individual member states have their own. turning to the subject of the economic partnership agreements with groups of african countries, i am very well aware that the issue of such epas is quite fundamental in our dialogue with africa. a few days ago, in port moresby, papua new guinea, while negotiating the acp finance protocol, we made a particular point of giving undertakings on this issue. the commission has declared its willingness to make funds available not only from the current european development fund but also from the next. we are aware of the most especial importance of this issue of economic partnership agreements with africa and with developing countries generally. on the basis of the first general review, which is to be carried out in the second half of the year, we will be carrying out a complete analysis of the stage that negotiations have reached, and then we will be able to continue work without delay in what it is to be hoped will be a very efficient manner. thank you, mr winkler. your reply is satisfactory, of course. i simply wished to ask you how you believe it is really going to be possible to reconcile the commitments we have made and which you are reiterating with the financial perspective that we have approved, because it seems to us that the sums do not add up. in other words, it does not seem to us to be viable to maintain those commitments within the framework of the financial perspective, with the cuts that it implies. furthermore, i would like to know whether you are personally going to be in vienna for the meeting of the joint parliamentary assembly that we are going to hold next week, because that is where we are going to be able to talk to our african, caribbean and pacific colleagues about the issue of the epas, for example, and i would also suggest and request that observers from the acp-eu joint assembly and the euro-mediterranean assembly be invited to the rabat conference, because i believe that the presence of these parliamentarians will have . . i will take particular pleasure in being present at this meeting of the acp-eu joint parliamentary assembly in vienna, but it is unfortunate that my appearance there is scheduled for a day when other events are taking place, including the visit of the president of the united states to vienna, so it may be rather difficult for me to reach the venue at all. i will, however, do my best, and am already looking forward to meeting members of your house and parliamentarians from the acp states. turning now to the issue of financial resources, i would first like to point out that the european development fund is not part of the european union's budget; on the contrary, these resources are provided by the member states from their national budgets. i would also like to point out that the amount in this tenth edf is equivalent to an increase of over 35% against its predecessor; even though there were renewed negotiations and discussions in port moresby concerning the sums involved, that is still a quite considerable increase. what we are talking about here - and this is something that must be brought home to the public - is the sum of eur 22.6 billion over six years. i do believe that, in doing this, the european union is fully discharging its obligations, not least its moral obligations. moving on to the agreement to increase aid to africa by eur 10 billion, the intention is that this should start in 2006 and run until 2010. at present, it is probably premature to pass overall judgment on the european union's keeping of this promise. i do believe that the tenth edf is a good package and contains sufficient funds for the needs of the developing countries in africa, in the caribbean and in the pacific. a very great deal will also depend - and this too needs to be emphasised - on how these funds are deployed, which must be done in an efficient manner. it is a recurrent experience that the end of a period sees considerable amounts of money left over, and that means that we also have to improve the capacity for these funds to be used, which has to do not only with the amount, but also with the way in which these funds are used. we are working on this, and so, in particular, is the commission. would the president-in-office of the council agree with me that there are selfish as well as selfless reasons for refocusing our effort on the developing world? within a generation there will be two billion more people on this earth, 90% of whom will be born into what is now the developing world. we will indeed leave a terrible inheritance to our children if we do not ensure that the current situation changes. on the other hand, these people could become our trading partners. is the minister aware of china's activities in the developing world? is the european union going to stand by and allow china to become the trading partner of the developing world within a generation? . let me say to mr mitchell that, first of all, i do not feel qualified to make moral judgments here as to whether we are selfish or not, but, yes, it is very much in our interest to help those countries. it is not only a matter of trade, it is also a matter of global security and it is a matter of migration, which we have talked about today and during the last month and will talk about again in the future. there are many ways in which it is in our interests for those countries to develop. there is absolutely no doubt about that and we should not do it just because we are so generous, although we must be generous and i think that we are. as far as china is concerned, that is a very interesting point. just a week ago, i led a troika mission to china and we had a very interesting political dialogue with the chinese. one of the issues we talked about was exactly that: china's activities, in africa in particular but also in other developing countries, especially in the fields of energy and trade. we said we are concerned that the values we share - and that we hope china also shares - as regards good governance and human rights are not respected. so this is an issue that we are very much aware of. we raise it in relation to our partners and we have raised it, and will raise it again, in relation to china. - there is no doubt about the fact that economic partnership agreements are a positive step in attempting to curb immigration as such, and illegal immigration in particular. with this in mind, is consideration being given to coupling these agreements with provisions on the return of illegal immigrants? are you thinking along these lines? . i can tell you, mr rack, that the return of illegal and other immigrants is an open question, and i cannot say whether it will be formally tied in to the economic partnership agreements; the commission is engaged in negotiations on the subject. that this is something that both the council and the member states would like to see is not, however, a matter of doubt, and it is of course something towards which the commission is also working. agreements between the eu and russia on visa facilitation and readmission were signed at the eu-russia summit on 25 may 2006. after the signing of the agreement on visa facilitation, russian president vladimir putin said that this decision was the first step towards the introduction of a visa-free regime for citizens of russia and the european union. what is the eu's position on this statement? what guidelines have been laid down for future eu policy concerning a visa regime for citizens of russia and the eu? will the agreement on visa facilitation set new trends in policy on eu-russia relations? . the visa facilitation and returns agreements signed at the summit with russia in sochi on 25 may - to which reference was also made in yesterday's debate on the sochi summit - were negotiated with the intention of making it easier for people to keep in touch with each other and travel between the european union and russia. that is not only in russia's interest, but also in our own. it is also the intention that this agreement should, in harmony with the timetable for the development of the single area of freedom, security and justice, ensure that people can cross borders lawfully and without problems and stay legally in both areas. according to this timetable, these agreements - which must first, however, be ratified and implemented - are to be seen as a first step in a process aimed at making the free movement of persons, and their return, easier. furthermore, the timetable envisages the dialogue on visas with a view to examining the conditions for the introduction of bilateral exemption from visa requirements being moved forward, albeit as a long-term project without a definite point in time being specified. the dialogue between the european union and russia on visa matters will be continued on this basis. thank you for your answer. i would like to ask you another question. in the agreement signed in sochi, there is a sentence saying that both parties reaffirm the intention to establish a visa-free travel regime between the russian federation and the european union, so my question is: do you really believe that it is in the interests of the european union to have a visa-free regime between the russian federation and the eu? if yes, then what are those interests? . to be quite honest, i cannot answer this question today. as i have said before, this is a long-term perspective. there is no answer today, because there are many aspects to this question - there are not only aspects of external relations, but also questions of migration policy - and the situation will have to be closely observed both by the council and the commission to finally come to conclusions. this is certainly a matter of years and is not something that we need to decide today. i would like to ask the minister a question. during the austrian presidency, the european union took the decision to raise the visa fee to eur 62. this doubtless will not affect 'new russians', but will reduce opportunities for ordinary russian citizens, not to mention ukrainians, belarussians and residents of other non-eu states, to visit european union states. as it holds the eu presidency, how does austria view this step and what does it believe the consequences will be? . i will start with the issue of the increased visa charges, which have become necessary as a consequence of the introduction of biometric data, which have made the grant of visas and the processes leading up to it a good deal more complex. however, i hope it will answer your question when i say that, in the discussion on the increase in visa charges, the possibility of derogations was conceded not only for the countries of the western balkans - who are a particular priority of the austrian presidency - but also for those countries to which the european neighbourhood policy applies on the grounds of the great importance of both of them. the relevant legal act therefore includes, among other things, the provision that the visa fee for nationals of those states with which visa facilitation agreements have been concluded, of which russia is one. as you will be aware, efforts are being made to conclude visa facilitation agreements with other countries as well. i have already had occasion to observe today that visa facilitation agreements with the countries of the western balkans will, if at all possible, enter into force next year. there had previously been concern that the countries with which we want to maintain particularly close relations should not have to suffer the increase in these visa charges, which were to be - and have been - imposed for reasons that are objectively perfectly understandable. president-in-office, i am in the process of trying to get a visa for russia. it is an extremely cumbersome process: it takes 15 working days and it costs eur 71. for me, the most difficult regulation is that you have to have a passport photo in which you do not smile. we cannot find any of those. nevertheless, my question - which is slightly dangerous, as i come from finland, which has a border of 1 300 km with russia - is: what is your educated guess about the timetable for a visa-free zone? . i would like to ask mr stubb whether he has ever tried to get a visa to the united states, whether smiling or not. it is probably more difficult than it is to get a visa to russia! in response to your question, i am afraid i cannot make an educated guess. i beg your indulgence. i really cannot give you an answer. i am not the representative of the council of the european union for this area. i am not in the business of speculation and i would prefer to refrain from any speculation on this point. as they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together. does the council agree that biofuel production must take place in a sustainable manner that does not endanger biodiversity, avoids conversion of natural habitats into intensively cropped land and ensures that the entire production cycle both within and outside the eu, including transport of the fuel, is at least carbon neutral, and what is the council doing to ensure the certification of sustainable biofuel production? what progress does the austrian presidency hope to achieve on the basis of the biomass action plan and the strategy for biofuels put forward by the commission? what potential benefits does the austrian presidency see for european agriculture in the increased use of renewable raw materials, including the increased use of biomass and biofuels? the issue of the sustainability of biofuel use is generally an important one in terms of the european union's sustainable energy strategy. the fact is that we have, during the austrian presidency, put down a deliberate marker to the effect that europe must, in future, as a matter of fundamental political principle, make better progress where the sustainability of biofuels in concerned. the action plan for biomass and the eu biofuels strategy involved us having communications submitted to us, which were discussed in depth and taken forward by the council as appropriate. the issue under consideration is how, in future, biofuels may be used as an admixture or as new fuels for general purposes. we see it as an indisputable truth - and as one that we must join together in communicating throughout europe - that the production of biofuels and bio-propellants of every kind, ranging across the whole spectrum from biodiesel to ethanol, cannot work if it is detrimental to the environment. here in this european union of ours, the production of biofuels, too, must be founded upon the principle of sustainability. having visited plenty of environmental conferences over the last few months, i can tell you that it is also important that we should take care that consideration is given to the sustainability principle in the international trade in biofuels, which are produced using the whole range of methods and the most varied raw materials. during the presidency - and particularly at the meeting in march of this year - we have discussed how to take europe's energy policy in a new direction, with particular reference to fuels. in a conclusion dated 8 june this year, the council and the commission called for proposals to be made concerning the promotion of the cost-efficient and sustainable use of biomass for heating and cooling purposes, for the revision of the legal provisions applicable to animal by-products, for the use - since biogas is going to be a live topic in the future - of by-products from agriculture and food production to be promoted as a source of renewable energy, and for an evaluation of the possible extension of the rules on energy crops to all the member states; these are the cornerstones for the way energy is to be organised in the future. that is vital, particularly in the aftermath of the enlargement of the european union to include ten new member states. the commission has also announced its intention of submitting a communication on the energy crops rules by the end of 2006 - which i see as a key date - and that this communication would include practical proposals for this sector. what i mean by that is that we, in the agricultural reform of 2003, with a view to sustainability and to the creation of a new source of income for rural areas in europe, took steps to make use of 1.5 million hectares of sustainable raw materials for the whole range of alternative forms of energy in all areas, and it has to be clear to us today that we are very far from making full use of those 1.5 million hectares. the potential is there, and may well become even greater, and we await with interest the results of the evaluation and the commission's proposal, and, in both the agriculture and environment councils, we will, over the coming months and years, have to give in-depth consideration to the challenges of a sustainable energy policy, for sustainable and renewable energy production is the key to europe's independence in energy and to its future projects in the field of energy production. thank you, president-in-office, i am very glad that the austrian presidency has been particularly active on that. i should just like to come to the question of certification, which was in my original question. this morning commissioner piebalgs mentioned, in a question-and-answer session, that there would be certification to underwrite the sustainability of biofuels. certainly there has been anxiety over illegal logging and certification being difficult to get right in practice, even if it looked good on paper. i should be grateful if you could give me a little more detail on that. - mr president-in-office of the council, a very warm welcome to you, and i would like to ask you whether the council is giving consideration to how much more is to be invested in research and development in this specific area. i am convinced that this type of energy production will create jobs in rural areas and thus help implement the lisbon strategy. is the council presidency in possession of approximate estimates as to how many new jobs this will create in rural areas? . if i may start, mrs schierhuber, with your first question, on the subject of certification and labelling, we are, in creating a new energy policy for europe, right at the beginning, not only in europe, but also around the world. it will be for us to take care, by implementing certification systems, to ensure sustainable alternative energy supplies from other parts of the world, since all the things to which you have referred - the deforestation of the rain forest and the production of palm oil subject to social and environmental criteria - are things we see as undesirable. a number of approaches are being adopted; in austria, for example, we have defined cross-compliance conditions derived from agricultural reform as the basis for energy production and also for the admixture of biodiesel and bioethanol, the consequence of which is that anything produced subject to eco-social criteria and production conditions, and to european standards, can be added irrespective of which parts of the world it comes from. over the coming weeks, the issue will be surfacing in the wto, too, of how certification and legal bases be implemented in such a way that they meet the requirements of international trade and the wto, and this is where detailed scrutiny is going to be needed; indeed, commissioner piebalgs is being no less energetic than the eu officials and those at national level with responsibility for this, in seeking clarity in this matter in order not to settle this issue as prematurely as some others have been, only for us then to suffer defeats on the legal front and thus lose the market. certification and labelling are core issues. as regards your second question on research, development and the research framework programme, a greater emphasis will be placed on alternative energy in the infrastructure as a whole as part of the innovation and research strategy, from the extraction of the raw materials right through to production and use made of it in technology. as is also envisaged in the sphere of research and development, we will apply a great deal more effort to moving this forward. if i may turn to the jobs issue, what, according to the estimates, is going to happen if greater reliance is placed on alternative forms of energy? as my own country's minister for agriculture and the environment, i enjoy the strategic advantage of being in an absolute win-win situation, in that the use of alternative sources of energy not only has the effect of bringing about a reduction in co2, and thereby making a substantial contribution to achieving the kyoto targets, but also makes full use of the resources in rural areas - particularly the more isolated ones in europe - and creates jobs in them. an extra 30 000 jobs - that is the figure indicated by studies carried out by the european union and other bodies, if we are consistent in proceeding with the achievement of alternative energy targets. - the european biofuel strategy lays down objectives for the european union and obligations incumbent upon the member states. however, there are serious discrepancies between the member states in terms of technological progress, market size, scale of production and fuel market structures. i should therefore like to ask the council if this policy perhaps needs to be re-examined. perhaps the introduction of obligations runs counter to current economic and technological circumstances? you are talking about something that is true not only of european energy policy, but also of the ways in which the nation states perceive european targets and achieve them. all i can say is that we can see from the optional 5.75% target for biofuels that more and more countries are now joining in. austria has achieved this target by means of binding legislation; the hungarians are very definitely interested, and in germany, too, this target is already the subject of legislation that is going through the system. a lot is being done, then, and i am very optimistic about the likelihood of the member states consistently achieving the targets we have set down both in the biofuels strategy plan and in the plan for biomass. i will concede, though, that this is often not just a matter of political will, but also of the way in which trends in fossil fuel prices are consistently confirming that we are going down the right road. in discussions with our counterparts, we always reiterate the point that strategies must not only be devised at european level, but also implemented by the nation states. some are going on ahead, while others are lagging behind, but, at the end of the day, we are all going in the right direction. i am very optimistic. biomass is a most important form of energy, accounting for 65% of the renewable energy used in the eu. however, the total percentage of renewable energy used in the eu has remained at 6% since 1990. therefore, does the austrian presidency agree that any realistic common energy policy should include the use of nuclear power? . i can do no other than agree with you that the push for renewable energy sources is certainly not a matter for energy policy alone; it must be supported by a policy on the supply of raw materials - that is to say, agricultural and forestry policy, biomass, and agricultural production - and by action in the spheres of environmental, economic and fiscal policy. it has to be clear to us that what we need for input, for incentives to produce, is more stringently binding agricultural targets. in addition, the commission's proposal will be up for debate at the end of the year, and that is a very good thing. we are evaluating where we stand and what we have the potential to do. we will, in june - before, that is, our presidency draws to a close - be embarking on the debate on a forestry strategy for europe and on the assessment of ways in which forests might be used in the future, and economic and fiscal policies at national level must also make allowances for renewable energies, whether we are talking here about green power, support for heating, support in terms of equipment and infrastructure or research and development. this is a task for all of us together, but an enormous amount is happening on this front. - it is well known that it is at present somewhat more expensive to produce biofuels than to use fossil fuels, and it was for that reason the alternative fuels were given favourable tax treatment, the consequence being that annual increases of some 26% are to be reckoned with. will the mandatory blending that the commission is launching not have the result that the oil industry will have increasing recourse to suppliers of cheap crude oil such as brazil and hence put our european farmers at an even greater disadvantage in the future? . i do not see it like that. giving the answers is a matter for the european union and for all of us. i tried earlier to show how the issue of certification might be handled. what we in austria did about implementation was to make a mixture of 5.75% mandatory, and we will achieve that in october 2008. we are a very, very long way down the road towards doing that. facilities for producing biodiesel and ethanol are being set up, and jobs created with them; in my own province alone, a new factory for ethanol is currently creating work for 180 people. that is what we have done, and we take responsibility for it. we have also made it quite clear in the specifications that the products mixed must be produced in accordance with european social, environmental and agricultural standards. if it is possible for that sort of product to be manufactured in brazil, then brazil is in competition with us, but even if brazil is in a position to do that, the long distance that the products have to be transported is one of the factors that blunt its competitive edge. we are, then, in a position to respond to this, and we can do it by means of certification and by means of decisive action on the market, which we must evaluate and defend at wto level. what we do not want is to establish sustainable energy policy in europe and then end up doing something like importing the products. our ten new member states - to whose number romania and bulgaria are soon to be added - give us incredible potential, with a very large number of plots of land capable of being set aside for the production of energy rather than of foodstuffs, and the agricultural specifications have been chosen in such a way as to make this possible. question no 8 by earn ryan has been withdrawn. the commission proposal for the euro 5 regulation on pollutant emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles is not very ambitious, particularly as regards the limit values for nitrogen oxides for diesel cars. what action has the council taken on this issue, and what progress has been made during the austrian presidency? . the austrian presidency has already seen several debates on the quite crucial issue of how to minimise and limit the pollutants produced by vehicles in transit. we started negotiations on the commission's proposal with the aim of putting in place progressive rules, with a longer-term perspective, on exhaust gases, and with the intention that these rules would - crucially in terms of our discussions today on sustainability - not only satisfy the demands of environmental policy but also give european industry the security to plan its technical development in advance. both of these things can be achieved through stringent imposition, in the medium term, of threshold values for emissions from - for example - diesel vehicles. it was with this in mind that negotiations were conducted at council level, in the hope of achieving, in june 2006 - which is almost upon us - political agreement in the council, on the assumption that such a thing would be possible in terms of the timetable, particularly in so far as it related to parliament. if i might give a brief summary, it emerged from the negotiations - which, in accordance with the austrian presidency's initiative, were accompanied by two specific information seminars for the member states, the first, in february, discussing mainly the state-of-the-art environmental requirements for removing particulates from vehicle exhausts, in particular nox from the exhausts of diesel cars, while a second is to be held on 22 june - that a broad majority among the member states have expressed themselves in favour of this objective, concerning which there are already to be definite and binding discussions in relation to the stipulation of euro-6 limits. we will, of course, be consistent in moving this issue forward. it is absolutely vital that both air strategy and the implementation of euro-5 and euro-6 be discussed at the next environment council at the end of june. we want to take an ambitious approach to these things. in view of the discussion on the pm10 issue, on particulates pollution, particularly in central europe, and on nox values, it is important that unambiguous rules be put in place, for it must be clear to us that what our industry needs is the security to plan ahead, and that it is, worldwide, in competition with other vehicle manufacturers, some of whom have already ventured some very ambitious responses. as these matters progress, we want to move forwards for the sake of environmental safety and quality of life in europe and also for the sake of the health of the people who live in the areas affected. we will, then, endeavour to maintain this tricky balance between euro-5 and euro-6 as perspectives, as well, possibly, as nx and pm10 as means of achieving environment targets, and, on the other hand, the desire to keep europe's automobile industry competitive. this is the path down which we have set out, and, at the environment council, we will have to discuss these two issues - air strategy and euro-5, and also the further prospects for them - in very considerable depth, and several commissioners will be present when we do so. - first, let me say how very grateful i am for the precision of your answers, which is a breath of fresh air. i would also like to know what you mean, in this planning, by the terms 'progressive' and 'long term', and whether you have other intentions in mind as regards heavy utility vehicles. . i can, today, give only a report on the general mood as regards the specific requirements. the main thing that came out of the council's general debate was that the environment ministers unanimously welcomed the proposal for a drastic reduction in the particulate limit values for private diesel vehicles to 5mg per kilometre, whilst the commission's 20% reduction in nox limit values was regarded as inadequate. such is the present state of the debate, which we will continue in june. a broad majority of the member states has already expressed itself in favour of a second stage of reduction in nox for euro 6, that is to say, of taking a more ambitious approach to nox reduction - which we see as having gone a very long way as regards particulate threshold values - along with a vision for even now guaranteeing industry the security to plan ahead even beyond euro 5, which means, then, not adopting euro 5 right now, irrespective of the details of the limit values, and then embarking on the next debate in two or three years' time. over and above that, we must give industry a signal as to how things are to go in the future, and i see that - which is the approach we want to take - as a sensible thing to do. - euro 5 is a big step in the right direction. we also need to see how many percent by way of a reduction we can manage with and over what period of time. does anyone, at this early stage, have any idea about the timetable and the transitional periods? . as regards the timetable and the transitional periods, it is probably too early to give any indications concerning these, although i am involved in dialogue with most of the member states. the problem we had in the last general debate was that we were guided by the commission's specifications and used them as the basis for the evaluation, but we have not yet got to the point at which i can sum up for you the sense of the meeting as regards the percentage reductions and the periods of time over which they are being contemplated. it is, however, my intention, over a period of years - over a decade, indeed - to sketch out a vision and to set out the approximate stages by which these things may be implemented in practice, while setting out even now the further steps whereby we are contemplating the implementing stage of euro 6. the clear message, then, is that, rather than wanting to complete euro 5 with a mere compromise and then promptly starting again with something new, we want, over and above that, to put down an unmistakeable marker. can the european council make a statement as to how much financial support the eu will be giving to support forestry programmes in europe, in general, and to ireland, in particular, for the financial period 2007-2013? . on the subject of european forestry, we want, in june - that is, before the end of the austrian presidency - to put down a marker by opening a debate on the question of a forestry strategy for europe, a subject on which we have as yet had no joint debates, but one that has now become all the more important to us since the decision on the promotion of rural development through the european fund for agriculture and rural development is making it possible for the member states, between 2007 and 2013, to implement a development programme for rural areas that incorporates the protection of woodlands. the intention is - and this is important - that this forestry measure should in particular enhance the competitiveness of forestry - as stated in article 20 - and promote the management of wooded land. i would remind the house that the funds made available for this purpose at national level will be - as specified in eu regulation 1698/2005 - co-funded by the community and the member states. the community's contribution towards the forestry strategy and support for forestry will amount to between something like 50% and 55%, with upper limits clearly set out in the annex to the regulation. the total amount of aid to be granted for forestry programmes in ireland for example in the 2007-2013 period, is being planned by the responsible authorities, who will submit to the european union their plans for the allocation of national resources and for cofinancing by the european union, for which provision has been made in legislation on rural development. i want to thank the president-in-office for his reply. i want to ask him whether he believes that by-products of the european forestry industry have a potentially important role to play in the future in providing renewable energy sources. . i regard that scenario as absolutely necessary. we must not, in europe, make a mistake of the kind that we have sometimes made at national level, for example in energy policy, by discussing ambitious goals to the exclusion of all else. how big should renewable energy's slice of the energy cake be? what we really need is an evaluation of potential. what long-term potential is there in europe for the production of renewable energy from biomass, wood, biogas, wind energy or water? what is the workable potential when account is taken of sustainability, and by what means do we want to inject funds into rural development in order to make use of this potential on the energy supply market in ways that make good, effective and cost-efficient use of resources? that is what the forestry strategy, on which we are now embarking, and the biomass action plan, which is already underway, are intended to enable us to discuss. the finnish presidency of the council will be making the forestry strategy one of its core priorities, and now, in june, we are playing the overture to it. there must be greater emphasis on resources in debates, not least in those on rural development, as we, indeed, are doing in austria, where, since 47% of our land surface is wooded, we will, in future, be prioritising the sustainable supply of biomass as a raw material, using, funds for rural development and a programme specifically for that purpose. bearing in mind articles 2 and 6 of the ec treaty, which stipulate that environmental protection is to be considered a horizontal objective, regulation (ec) no 2152/2003(1) concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the community, the commission communication on a forestry strategy for the european union (com(1998)0649 final) and the european parliament's resolutions on natural disasters regional aspects (2005/2193(ini)), environmental aspects (2005/2192(ini)) and agricultural aspects (2005/2195(ini)), and given that, according to united nations figures, natural disasters in the european union have claimed the lives of 65 000 people since 1980 and have had an economic cost amounting to eur 124 200 million, what action has the austrian presidency taken to safeguard the sustainability of european forests? . the community measures for the promotion of sustainable forest management in the european union form part of the eu's forestry strategy, which comprises several components, namely rural development, the protection and monitoring of forests, the maintenance of biodiversity and the alleviation of the effects of climate change. woodland performs a very wide variety of functions, and rural development policy is - as i said in response to the previous question - the main instrument for implementing the forestry strategy at community level. under the heading of rural development over the period from 2000 to 2006, the community made available funds to a total of some eur 4.8 billion for forestry in europe, amounting to 10% of the total funding allocated to rural development. over and above that, the new regulation provides for even more to be done for forestry as part of the promotion of rural development between 2007 and 2013. this amounts to a forthright commitment to forestry and both to producers and consumers in the forestry field. what are the future areas for support in forestry to which we refer? one, for a start, is first afforestation on agricultural land, the initial setting up of agricultural forestry systems on farmland, the initial afforestation on non-agricultural land, payments under natura 2000, forest-environment payments, the restoration of forestry potential, the introduction of prevention actions, and also support for non-productive investments. what will be important in determining the direction we take in the future is the fact that we must not, in the debate on the forest strategy, forget one thing, namely that forests have a task to perform in terms of the biodiversity of flora and fauna, that they provide space for relaxation, that they have an environmental role to play, that they help us to deal with climate change, that they prepare the ground for sustainable energy supply, while at the same time having an enormous part to play in europe's economy. it is vitally important that this be considered as a whole, and the forest strategy also needs to include extensive discussion of these issues. - of course i am satisfied with your answer. nevertheless, given the environmental protection responsibility and parliament's resolutions on natural disasters and the regional, environmental and agricultural scale thereof, describing in detail the tragedy most keenly felt in mediterranean europe, especially last year in spain and in my country portugal, which were attributable to the continued destruction of vast forest areas, and which led to a heavy cost in terms of human sustainability, of the depopulation of rural areas, of the growth and development of these areas, i should like to ask you, mr prll, if there are any more . . the honourable member's question specifically relates to a region in which forestry has historically been beset by problems, particularly with forest fires and all the other things that are matters of concern around the mediterranean, and it is clear that the forestry strategy can be not only a strategy for the european countries with productive forests and a great deal of land covered by them, but also that we must, at the same time, take into account the problematic aspects that he has mentioned. i therefore take it as read that very serious attention will be given, under the finnish presidency and its successors, to the issues of afforestation, environmental action and fire prevention, among others, in the countries and regions to which you, mr fernandes, have referred. we also have to devise appropriate action for the most disadvantaged regions, and it matters to me that we should do so. the forestry strategy is planned to be not only for such countries as sweden, finland and austria, but is also to take account of all circumstances throughout the european union. - further to your reference to natura 2000 as one of the possible sources for afforestation strategies, the problem we have had with this, over and over again, is that a very large number of landowners ended up with obligations, and some of them had no help whatever with discharging them. does the programme or the financial perspective make provision for financial facilities to meet this? . that, mr rack, is a matter that is not so much of direct relevance to the european union as to the manner of implementation at nation state level, but it is important, in the forest strategy, natura 2000, and all other measures that have an effect on property - which protective measures for animals and plants certainly do - that local landowners be involved in their design and practical implementation. that is a task for those who have to put natura 2000 into practice. lack of experience has meant that many mistakes have been made, and natura 2000 in the broadest sense of the term has for that reason often got a bad name for itself, but, in those regions and countries in which it has been implemented well, not only with dialogue with landowners in devising the management plans but also with an appropriate range of direct payments on offer, the system has been effective. one can point to a number of exemplary instances of this, but what is necessary is that the landowners be involved in the development of strategy and of management plans, and there must then be no doubt about what is on offer: if the environment is to be used, then, in the forest, appropriate compensation must be made for that. since 2001, the severe foaming of the water in the river rba, which flows across the austro-hungarian border, caused by naphthaline sulphonate pollution, has been causing serious problems. the source of the pollution is discharges of waste water in excess of limit values by the austrian firm boxmark at jennersdorf and feldbach and by the firm schmidt at wollsdorf. these operations, which have been going on for five years, damaging the natural environment and local residents, have resulted in recurrent protests from hungary (austro-hungarian border waters committee, joint government meeting, representatives of civil society, etc.). in five years, nothing has happened; austria's environmental protection minister has requested 'patience'. how will austria, in its capacity as holder of the presidency of the union, set an example for other member states? how will it comply with its legal obligations relating to the quality of surface waters and with the helsinki convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes? . the question that i am trying to answer in my capacity as president-in-office of the council is not only a very specific one, but also one that i am, in particular, bound to answer as a national minister. by adopting directive 2060/ec, parliament and the council agreed on a comprehensive regulatory framework for community measures in the sphere of water policy; the directive has, , the objective of progressively reducing the introduction of hazardous substances into water. it provides for cooperation between the member states in respect of cross-border water courses, an area in which the commission can, where necessary, act as a mediator. turning to the specific question you put to me concerning the raab, i can only report that foaming does occur along the river mainly on an occasional basis, that it is very much restricted to the local area, and, in particular, occurs downstream of protective overflows. there has to date been no evidence of this foaming having any detrimental effect on the raab's water system, yet, nevertheless, austria, not least as a result of the efforts of my experts, in its report analysing the pollution and its effects in accordance with article 5 of the water framework directive creating a regulatory framework for community measures in the sphere of water policy, described the chemical state of the affected stretch of the raab as being associated with the risk of failing to achieve a good standard of water. in accordance with the rules contained in the eu water framework directive, further samples are being taken with the aim of determining the causes and the extent of, and possible solutions, to the problem, in order to put the programme of measures on a secure footing. speaking from where i am, i can assure you that i have the utmost interest in finding, in an ordered and positive relationship with our hungarian neighbour, a solution to that which is provided for in the common european water policy plan, and will do everything in my power, in consultation with the officials responsible in the regions, specifically in two austrian federal provinces, to get the problem taken seriously and progress made towards a solution that benefits hungary as well. i have an absolute interest in that; i will ensure that it comes to pass, and, in austria, i have already taken appropriate action to that end. mr president, minister, i would like to thank you and the austrian government for what you have done, and for your promise that starting from 1 july, the polluted water from the jennersdorf leather factory will no longer be discharged into the river raab. i think we agree that the austrian-hungarian border, as a green belt of a certain kind, should become a citadel of ecotourism. therefore i would like to ask you whether we may also be able to resolve the problem of the geothermal project at frstenfeld, which pollutes the river lapincs (lafnitz) via the river feistritz. . in both instances, and especially in the case of the raab, to which you refer, we have set up bilateral commissions in order, together, to ensure that your objections are addressed, so that you, by naming a date and a specific factory will ensure that improvements are made, and i have also approached the appropriate regional authorities directly. i have a great deal of interest in this and will see to it that we succeed in both cases, since i, as the minister for the environment of the republic of austria, have an equal interest in being heard in your proceedings, for example in respect of the nuclear power station at pacs. being neighbours, we have shared interests in the region; there is give and take, and i trust that that will be the case as regards water just as much as it is already in matters relating to atomic power. - since austria is, of course, well known for clean lakes and clean rivers, i would be interested to know how the european rules compare with the austrian ones. is it at eu level or in austria that the inspections are more rigorous? . when compared with that in other countries, the quality of austrian water is very good. problems do occur from time to time - there is no doubt about that - and we must, together with hungary, work towards finding solutions to them, but, taken as a whole, water in austria is of outstanding quality, as can be measured against the standards laid down by the european union's bathing water directive. it was at one of the first debates that i, as a young minister, was allowed to attend, at the first council of environment ministers in march 2003, that we first discussed the bathing water directive in which these standards are laid down, and so i am able to tell your house today that we have been able to make constant improvements in the quality of running water, and that the water in all austrian lakes is fit to bathe in and, in most, even fit to drink. that cost us billions of euros in terms of investment in purification plant, but it is nonetheless important. it is in the same spirit that brought us that development that we want to join with hungary in working to resolve the problem on the raab. the mediterranean constitutes the most important tourist destination in the world, while its natural resources are the object of various activities of great economic and social significance for all the member states of the union and for countries in the region. each year, as studies carried out by the european environment agency record, the continuing pollution of the environment, principally caused by urban and industrial waste together with shipping operations, has resulted, inter alia, in contempt for these natural resources and the ecologically unsustainable management of fish stocks. in addition to fostering regional cooperation through the un environment programme's 'mediterranean action plan', what measures does the council propose to take to promote the effective implementation of community legislation in the member states of the union and the implementation of the community acquis on protection of the environment and waters in the mediterranean states? does the council agree with the inclusion of binding provisions and measures in the partnership agreements with the countries of the mediterranean and in the barcelona process? . as was firmly reiterated in the council's annual presentation to the march 2005 spring summit, the council is prioritising, among other things, the practical ways in which the european community applies environmental law and the requirement for further improvements in european policymaking with balanced consideration of the economic, social and environmental factors involved. the eu-mediterranean ministerial conferences regularly consider the complex issues around the environmental sustainability of the mediterranean area, and - as part of the implementation of the outcomes of the two eu-mediterranean ministerial conferences on environmental issues held in helsinki in november 1997 and in athens in july 2002 - efforts are being focussed on the laying down of a strategic framework and the promotion of a common approach and joint initiatives towards improving institutional and technical capacities in the region. the primary intention in doing this is that greater attention be given to synergies with other programmes than has been the case in the past. the seventh foreign affairs ministers' conference on 30 and 31 may 2005 in luxembourg once again confirmed the commission's initiative to remove pollution from the mediterranean by 2020, the object of which initiative was to address all sources of pollution including industrial emissions, municipal waste and urban waste water, in order to improve the development prospects for tourism, increase the fisheries stocks, and make safe drinking water available to millions of members of the public in these regions, and the mediterranean partners were to be supported in this by the provision of appropriate funding. the objectives i have enumerated were confirmed at the eu-mediterranean summit in barcelona. demands were also made for the drawing up of a timetable for the removal of pollution from the mediterranean by 2020, and for consideration to be given to comparable experiences with sustainable development already gained from the baltic, mediterranean and black sea regions. five action plans have been negotiated and formally adopted under the european neighbourhood policy, these being with israel, jordan, morocco, tunisia and the palestinian authority. negotiations on similar plans are underway with egypt and the lebanon, with a particular and urgent interest in environmental protection and the supply of water, but also in the disposal of waste water and the eu's experience with environmental impact assessments and the work of the european environment agency. it has, in any case, been our intention that deeper bilateral cooperation should include the implementation of multilateral environment agreements on the protection of the mediterranean. - mr president, minister, thank you for your reply. as you said, the mediterranean is the most important tourist destination and maritime environmental policy is therefore extremely important. does the council therefore intend to use the procedures you mentioned, such as partnership agreements and the barcelona process, to promote something along the same lines as the maritime strategy framework already being promoted in the european union under the relevant directive? the reason i ask is because we already have a strategy in the directive in question. do we therefore also intend to promote this strategy through our partnerships in the mediterranean? i believe that this would make maritime environmental protection much more effective. . i very definitely take the view that the partnership agreement requires of us greater input as regards what form the financial resources should take. mechanisms were already in place in the past in order to support the mediterranean region as a whole in performing its highly diverse and necessary functions and in meeting the demands of its peculiarities and vulnerabilities, not least in its ecosystems. the council will indeed have to give greater consideration to the issue of direct support. questions which had not been answered for lack of time would receive written answers (see annex). that concludes question time. - the next item is the report by paolo costa (a6-0194/2006), on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism, on the proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council on common rules in the field of civil aviation security (com(2005)0429 - c6-0290/2005 - 2005/0191(cod)). ladies and gentlemen, we have here a piece of draft legislation that the commission and the european parliament regard as an important initiative. the proposal adopted by the commission on 22 september 2005 is important because the fight on all fronts against the terrorist threat remains a priority and because we need to learn the right lessons from the implementation of current legislation. we must continue to seek ways of improving the protection of the european public and of reconciling security requirements more effectively with the operational needs of all stakeholders, be they public authorities, airports or airlines. the legislation in force establishes rules for the security of civil aviation. it was drafted with the utmost urgency in the wake of the terrorist atrocities of 11 september 2001. the aim of the present draft is to consolidate that legislation on the basis of subsequent experience. the rules in force are fairly detailed, as becomes plain whenever we try to introduce any new technology or to make the system more flexible in order to deal with specific risks. a need for simplification has become apparent in the light of experience. without prejudice to the subsidiarity principle, the commission believes that harmonisation of security requirements in the european union is indispensable, and it is in the interests of european civil aviation that this harmonisation should be enhanced. we must meet that expectation. experience gained through the inspections conducted by the commission has shown that some provisions of the regulation require further clarification. the commission has proposed a rebalancing of the channels through which its implementing powers are exercised within the context of the comitology procedure so that it can respond more rapidly to technological change and increase the confidentiality of rules that must remain outside the public domain. i am convinced that, if this revised draft on aviation security is adopted, it will not only afford the public better protection but will also establish a consolidated framework that strikes a good balance between the extension of controls to counteract specific risks and the minimisation of their operational impact, giving due consideration to the interests of all parties. i note with satisfaction that the draft report presented to us today reproduces the line of argument underlying the commission's initiative as well as addressing the specific operational requirements that have become apparent. mr costa has produced a very valuable piece of work, and i wish to thank him for the quality of his report and for the cooperative spirit that was evident in his dealings with the commission. knowing the commission's proposal, the balance of opinion within the council and the amendments proposed by the european parliament to the most technical part of the proposal, i am very hopeful, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, that an agreement can materialise quickly. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i believe we can try this evening to make progress with this regulation and its subject-matter, which will enable us to conclude a piece of legislation initiated in the wake of the 11 september terrorist attacks. it is quite right that all the consequences of that experience should be examined and that we should be even better prepared to tackle the situation now developing. i should just like to highlight two aspects of the work we have done, because the commission's proposal is an excellent one that just needed to be made more explicit on a few points and developed further on a single point. the proposal needed to be made more explicit regarding the idea that we can only be certain of achieving a good outcome for aviation security if we have a single system that provides a level of security guaranteed by every airport and every airline. the system as a whole has been redefined precisely to that effect. the idea of implementing a single security system is essential if we are to provide the strongest possible protection for all european and non-european citizens who fly in our skies and use our airports. i believe there is one point that has been neglected ever since 2002, which is the fact that, if at least a basic level of common security is to be imposed throughout europe, effective funding mechanisms also need to be provided. support for such funding may come from two sources: one resulting from the general public concern that we must defend ourselves against possible terrorist attacks, and the other resulting from individual fear, in that each passenger as such produces a demand for additional security. currently, the situation in europe as regards the way these measures are funded is extremely varied and not necessarily very fair or correct. that is the reason why we have insisted - and continue to insist - on the need to lay down rules for funding these basic security measures, keeping in mind the possibility of redistributing the funding equally between the two sources. that is the subject of the amendment that we have put forward, which was supported by a large majority in committee and i hope will likewise be accepted in this house tomorrow. with our amendment, therefore, we invite the commission to make some technical suggestions on the subject. the european parliament will, for its part, do everything possible for the amendment to be accepted. i am aware of the fact that this is a sensitive subject for the council, but i believe that, if security is indeed regarded as a supreme good and a primary objective, it is essential to create the right conditions to guarantee it. precisely because the security funding situation in europe is highly varied at the moment, it is important to ensure that the issue is made explicit, that the citizens understand what they are contributing towards, and that the funds intended for security be used transparently and effectively. in drawing up the common rule, we have also had to address matters of detail that are very much in the public eye, such as the problem of on-board security. in that regard, parliament suggests imposing a ban on having weapons on board, except in special, duly authorised cases. i consider this an acceptable solution, and i hope that tomorrow parliament will effectively help to make the report and the regulation progress. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am delighted at the proposal for a regulation on common rules in the field of civil aviation security. if it is adopted, we can hope for greater cooperation within the union, so that we can live in a more secure europe. i endorse the idea of a single security system, the aim of which is to make further checks unnecessary if the member states are reasonably sure that the basic security rules have been followed at the airport of origin. i am not overjoyed, however, that the opinion of the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, for which i am the draftsman, and which was actually adopted by a very large majority, has not been taken into due consideration. i believe, in fact, that the member states should keep the power to apply more stringent security measures both internally and in the context of bilateral relations with third countries, should they consider them necessary on the basis of legitimate risk assessments. such more stringent measures should in all cases be proportionate and in keeping with civil liberties and free market principles, as in fact is pointed out in the opinion that i have drafted. while i believe that the commission should confine itself to laying down minimum standards and carrying out checks by means of regular as well as unannounced inspections, i consider it excessive that the commission should be able to decide by itself whether a state can continue to apply more stringent measures or not. in addition, i am consoled by the fact that, at least in the area of on-board measures, the committee on transport and tourism has seen fit to take up my amendment extending the definition of 'potentially disruptive passengers' to people whose behaviour is a source of genuine concern. i am very pleased at the acceptance of my amendment calling on the commission to draw up an annual report on the application of national security programmes. in short, i felt that the proposal needed to be accepted, including by the committee on transport and tourism, as it aims at making the various programmes the subject of an annual report by the commission to the european parliament and the national parliaments, informing them of the application of the national security programmes as well as the results achieved by the new regulation. . mr president, since the start of this parliament i have worked on several reports dealing with security issues in the transport sector. i notice that on each occasion we seem to have exactly the same debates, whether the report deals with seaports or, as in this case, airports and aviation. different industries face different threats necessitating different security measures. however, the report in front of us today is one that will probably have the greatest impact on the safety of europe's citizens. in general i welcome this proposal. clear rules for security across europe's airports are absolutely necessary. however - and here i speak personally - i have some concerns about some of the measures. firstly, within the proposals before us, the commission attempts to accrue more power for itself. what i refer to is the issue of special security measures. those generally short-term increases in security, based on national intelligence, should not have to be approved by the commission before being implemented. the commission does not have the facility of intelligence-sharing, nor should it have, in my opinion. therefore it does not have the ability to carry out that task effectively. in some cases that particular position could jeopardise security itself. it is for member states to decide on what extra measures they deem necessary. the commission's role should be to coordinate, not to dictate. the issue of in-flight security does not belong in this regulation. again, those are measures for individual governments and their own air carriers. my greatest concern is the proposal contained in some of the amendments adopted in committee to extend the competences of the european aviation safety agency to take on security. when the easa was originally set up, it was generally agreed that it would deal with safety issues and have no influence on security. i remember well the problems caused in some languages by that definition. since then the easa has not proved itself competent, even in this area of work. i do not see why, given that failing, extra powers should be given to it. despite these reservations i see the benefits of common security standards across the union. with the heightened terrorist threat to aviation today, improvements in security must and should be encouraged. thus, with the support of a number of colleagues, i have tabled some amendments that not only address my concerns but all of those across the industry. i hope we can achieve a workable solution to these issues. common standards, not draconian regulation, are required for the continued safety for all europe's citizens. . mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, i should like to thank the rapporteur, mr costa, and the other shadow rapporteurs for the excellent team effort. apart from a few minor details, we can more or less agree on everything, or at least the gist, and we as parliament will be able to put forward a forceful opinion. since 11 september, safety is, of course, more than ever, an important topic, and it goes without saying that aviation requires our particular attention, given the potentially devastating effect of attacks involving aircraft. to my group, this means that we must always strive for the highest level of protection, but that this must be accompanied by a sufficient level of transparency and with respect for civil liberties. the protection efforts and related costs must be proportionate to the safety risks. in that light, the committee of experts which issues implementing decisions of this framework legislation should not simply be given to make any proposals without any opposition. that is why amendment 61, which formally provides for the establishment of an advisory group for interested parties, is important. we feel that not only industry, but also other organisations should be able to sit on this group, including passenger associations and, possibly, organisations that can give advice about civil liberties. we also ask for an annual report to be drawn up about the application of this regulation. a second element on which we are agreed, and to which the rapporteur has already made reference, is that it should be clear who should cover the costs of security at airports. by extension, there should, of course, also be clarity about the distribution of the security costs in the entire transport sector. is it the customers, industry, or perhaps the government? it will, of course, need to be a combination of the three, but what is important is that we must seek to establish the same european rules wherever we go. we talked about this during a previous meeting, commissioner. you are supposed to present an initiative by the summer, and we are awaiting this with anticipation. a major improvement in the commission proposal is the fact that the chapter on safety on board civil aircraft has been added. it is about, amongst other things, the notorious sky marshals, armed security officials on board aircraft. we are, in principle, opposed to the presence of arms in aircraft because their misuse or accidents can have devastating consequences. as such, we are not fans of these measures. the problem is that the deployment of security officials is a matter for the member states to decide, and that is also how it will be in future. some countries, including france and the united kingdom, have already used them, while others, such as greece and spain, have not. in that light, we welcome this additional measure as an opportunity for regulating this issue at least partly at european level by, for example, imposing uniform procedures and strict security regulations or by providing for cross-border training. we too have tabled two amendments. the first is a formal amendment with regard to gibraltar airport in order to bring the text into line with existing agreements. the second is an amendment in which we ask for a european system to be set up for the certification of equipment which is used for the protection of airports, including x-ray scanners and such like. this issue should be tackled at european level, not least because not all member states have the expertise needed to make the right choices about the security equipment, which is becoming ever more modern. moreover, the maze of standards is a handicap for european industry compared to the us industry. i should like to ask for your support in this connection too. . mr president, whilst congratulating mr costa on his excellent report, i wish to bring to the attention of this house four areas of concern in relation to civil aviation security which, in my view, are not adequately dealt with by either the existing or the proposed legislation. the first relates to the non-inclusion in the proposal under consideration of improvements in the measures to prevent unauthorised access to the flight crew compartment. such measures are currently covered only by icao provisions. these provisions are, unfortunately, outdated and need revision based on experience. such experience is provided, for example, by the tragic crash of the helios airline jet in greece last summer in which 121 people died. on that occasion, the two pilots lost consciousness as a result of ensuing hypoxia and a steward, who was a qualified pilot himself, could not enter the cockpit in time to prevent a crash because of the currently-applied security locking system of the cockpit door. the second area of concern relates to the attempt to broaden the definition of a 'potentially disruptive passenger' to include people whose behaviour is potentially a source of dangerous disruption. this is welcomed, but unfortunately the most common type of disruptive passenger - the drunk passenger - is not dealt with here. furthermore, there is no attempt to prevent such situations: alcohol continues to be served in plentiful quantities and, on many flights, free of charge to passengers. the most logical thing to do would be to ban alcohol use on flights. the third area of concern has to do with the security screening for potential weapons. passengers are forbidden to carry objects which, only with the greatest stretch of the imagination, could possibly be considered to be of any offensive capability, such as nail clippers; yet glass bottles of alcoholic beverages, for example, are allowed on board. i need not point out that a broken bottle held by the bottle neck is a most dangerous weapon in the hands of an assailant. the wise approach would be not to allow glass bottles in the passenger cabin. the fourth area of concern is the controversial issue of flight marshals. the general approach of the legislators is that no weapon-carrying security officers should be present on aircraft. the main argument put forward in favour of this position is the alleged catastrophic risk of a weapon firing accidentally during flight. this is not accurate. certain states such as israel have for many years now had armed personnel on their national airline's flights, and i am not aware of any such accidents occurring to date. in fact, modern weapons such as double action pistols with built-in advanced safety mechanisms cannot fire accidentally, but even if they did this is very unlikely to cause a crash. indeed, there have been numerous occasions where firearms were used on board aircraft, and yet this in itself did not severely affect flight capability. on the other hand, the presence of air marshals could be crucial in neutralising a hijack situation and certainly could act as a strong deterrent in preventing one from arising in the first place. . - commissioner, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we have been debating air safety for a long time, and quite rightly too; it is hardly surprising that it was necessary to update it in view, not only of what happened on 11 september 2001, but also of our experience of other terrorist acts on board aircraft. we had a major argument about how this was to be funded, that being crucial when it comes to making things safe, only then to ask oneself who is meant to come up with the necessary money. the whole committee, and all the members of this house, would, however, have found it very helpful if we, at the very outset of the debate, had had sight of the commission's documents on a process reviewing the measures taken in response to 11 september 2001; that would certainly have made our discussions more straightforward and afforded us many more options. it does, nevertheless, make sense to take joint basic measures in matters of security. that is in any case more transparent than confrontation between different nations' highly divergent ways of dealing with this, which may - and i deliberately say 'may', although many are probably aware of what i am talking about - be capable of being misused to distort competition or exclude certain practices. when it comes to the financial arrangements, there is a matter pertaining to the future that we have to address, and mr el khadroui has already mentioned it: we cannot stop at air transport in debating who is to take in hand security measures in connection with large-scale transport infrastructures. we also have to devise a financial measure that gives fair treatment to all means of transport in order not, from the very start, to give preferential treatment to certain of them in the funding of security measures or when it comes to the extent to which they are to be funded through the sale of tickets, by the taxpayer, by the airlines or by other bodies. this is where the european public have every right to expect transparency; that is a core requirement. further to what mr matsakis had to say on the subject, i think the debate on the need to bar certain passengers is perfectly justified. passengers under the influence of alcohol are one aspect of this, but the original effect of this proposal would have been to limit it to asylum seekers being sent home or to prisoners under escort. the extension of this term in the course of the debates in committee was urgently needed. where sky marshals are concerned, i take a very firm line. i do not believe that the presence on board of armed personnel makes for greater security. the plain and simple fact is that there are circumstances under which that can mean that there is one weapon more available on board for terrorists or for those persons who plan or want to commit terrorist acts. let me end, though, on a positive note: the idea of a users' committee is a very important step in the right direction, and i hope that such committees will have a positive impact on the way measures are further developed. mr president, harmonising protection regulations in civil aviation can increase the level of security. in this respect, we must ensure that there is sufficient democratic control over the decisions that are taken in the framework of comitology and that therefore largely remain outside of the public domain and out of parliament's control. as this involves sensitive and confidential information, it is understandable that people should wish to keep this out of the public domain, but it does make it all the more necessary for parliament to be able to closely monitor the implementing measures that were agreed behind closed doors. as a consequence, the confederal group of the european united left/nordic green left supports amendments 61 and 62 which provide for democratic supervision. we think it would be a good thing if the advisory group did not remain restricted to professional organisations, but was extended to include representatives of passenger interests organisations and of groups that campaign for the protection of civil liberties. another aspect that caught our particular attention is the so-called sky marshals. in order to prevent arbitrariness and accidents in future, it is necessary to draw up common rules for deploying armed security officers on board aircraft. along with other speakers, i doubt whether an armed presence on board would enhance security. . mr president, commissioner, i would like to pay tribute to the rapporteur, mr costa, and to congratulate him on his work. today we are dealing with an issue that is very important for public security, namely increasing protection measures - i repeat, protection measures - in the field of civil aviation. it is the next step towards a reduction in the threats, especially terrorist threats, associated with the use of civil aircraft to transport people and goods. we must admit that the 2002 regulation currently in force contains too many specific and formal solutions which make a flexible response to operational needs difficult. it is vital to retain an appropriate balance between the need for an effective and hence rapid response and an appropriate level of protection and control. of course, it is also necessary to make the right decisions regarding the cost of the action required. it is a shame that the draft regulation does not cover this issue. i would be happy, commissioner, to know at least an estimate of the necessary expenditure. it is good that the member states are given the responsibility for drawing up appropriate plans for civil aviation security. air carriers and operators are responsible for implementing programmes and technical conditions that ensure the right level of protection. appropriate training for personnel is also required. we should also pay attention to the need for safety standards, and not lower them in an attempt to make savings. the next very important issue is to draw up appropriate agreements or contracts with countries outside the eu. it is therefore good that the regulation contains relevant provisions in article 17 referring to that problem. i am glad to see that the annex to the regulation is clear and has a structure that permits, if necessary, the introduction of specific implementation guidelines. i would like to take advantage of this opportunity to draw your attention to the necessity of using measures and methods which will not be unnecessarily onerous or even humiliating for passengers. this applies to disabled passengers or parents with small children. strange situations also occur, for example when a passenger has a very small nail file confiscated and shortly after, on board, if she is travelling business class, is given a metal knife and fork. finally, i would like to state my conviction that the draft regulation presented by the commission will be improved thanks to the approval of a series of very rational amendments, something i support on behalf of the union for europe of the nations group. perhaps you know what one mother is supposed to have said to her pilot son: 'only fly slowly and low'. i would put it differently: 'let us fly fast and as high as is necessary, but let us always fly safely'. - mr president, mr vice-president of the commission, some of what my esteemed colleague mr bradbourn had to say was his personal view; i can assure the house and the commissioner that the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats is - with the exception of one amendment - right behind the costa report, and i will take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to the chairman of the committee and to the rapporteur for their very constructive cooperation. i just want to say something about two peculiarities in this house's amendments. the first is that i believe that the costs of all security measures at airports should be split between those who use the airports and the member states, for the measures put in place at airports are not primarily for the benefit of the individual passenger, but serve to avert dangers to all and sundry; that, traditionally, is one of the functions of the state, and it is the state that should pay for it to be done. by way of comparison - and on this evening it might well be an appropriate one - let me point out that my own country, when football matches are being staged, has hundreds of police officers on duty before, during and after the match, and not one spectator is required to pay even a cent for them. if, then, the cost of protecting people against danger at football matches is borne generally, then the same ought, even if only to some degree, to apply at airports. secondly, we must make sure, once and for all, that the system of a single security check is brought in on flights not only within the european union, but also between the european union and secure third countries. it is surely not acceptable that someone should arrive at frankfurt airport by air from israel and be subject to a second security check before he travels on to hamburg, and the same is true in the case of the usa. it must be possible for people arriving from a safe country to avoid going through additional security checks when they change flights within an eu member state. this would be a sensible arrangement, and i hope that we, together with the commission and the council, will adopt it. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i wish to thank mr costa for a constructive report. i welcome the fact that plenary is now revising the existing regulation adopted directly after the terrorist attack on new york on 11 september 2001. i am deputising for mrs hedkvist petersen in the committee. i was shadow rapporteur in the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, where i tabled the amendments that were adopted by the committee and that are to be voted on tomorrow. these are about the distinction between postal mail and traditional cargo and about protection against terrorist attacks. we need increased security but also a balance between freedoms and rights. to have their post distributed efficiently and within a reasonable period of time is an important right for all eu citizens, especially for those who live in sparsely populated areas or outside cities and population centres. quite a few member states have airmail services, which are not at the same kind of risk as other forms of aviation. the period within which mail is distributed should not be several days, a state of affairs of which europeans would take a very dim view. the amendments concerning mail and postal services guarantee that people will not receive a worse postal service because of the regulation. i also wish to comment on amendment 22 concerning passengers who are potentially disruptive or whose behaviour is manifestly abnormal. it is important to make it clear that we are not referring to people with physical or mental disabilities. the fact is that, through ramps and other aids, we have made aviation accessible to everyone. this regulation must not make it inaccessible. it is also important to have clear and strict rules for when airlines have to have guards on board. the report strikes a clear balance between, on the one hand, the fight against the appalling terrorism that has hit aviation and against which we want to protect ourselves and, on the other hand, safe and efficient aviation and postal and cargo services. i applaud the report. - mr president, it is now obvious that the measures being taken as part of the fight against terrorism are to a degree unavoidable. however, it is also clear that measures may become excessive and restrict the civil liberties of those they are supposed to protect. it is of paramount importance to have effective mechanisms which function as safety valves in order to avoid infringements of civil liberties. the letter of the law is important and must be controlled, but its application must be equally controlled. it is, however, worrying that more and more powers are being transferred to the centre of the union, especially the commission. subsidiarity is being undermined slowly but surely. another question which arises is how the information which is collected and disseminated will be managed and who will have access to it. all of this has been said before in connection with similar measures with similar objectives. we have our reservations, but we also recognise the union's right to protect its citizens. our differences therefore lie in the methods used. mr president, there is a saying that you can never have too many security measures. in fact, this has become a commonly used truism. is this really the case, however? is it true that the more security measures one has, the smaller the risks of exposing oneself to danger? of course, i ask these questions in the context of one issue, which even today is hotly debated, namely the possibility of special civil aviation security services that are authorised to carry weapons. i have no doubts that there should be a categorical and unequivocal ban in this particular case. this is not only because the use of these weapons, though obviously only in defence of passengers and crew, in itself poses a danger in the rather fragile environment of an airplane, but also for another reason, namely that weapons may provoke passengers who might otherwise have boarded the plane without any aggressive intentions. this is particularly the case if they are psychologically unstable. these kinds of passengers can after all also be found on board aircraft. it also seems unfortunate that neither chapter 10(4) of the annex or amendment 79 addresses this matter. i repeat that i am in favour of a total ban on weapons on board aircraft. someone may well ask 'what about extraordinary situations where there is a suspected threat of danger'? to this i would say that this flight should not be allowed to take off at all, and must be cancelled. i, for one, would certainly not want to be on that flight. mr president, i would like firstly to congratulate mr costa on this report, which puts its finger on those aspects that were left out of the first regulation, which, as a result of the horrendous 11 september attack, was put together by the various institutions with laudable speed and capacity to respond. it is the case, however, that, at that time, certain important aspects were left out of a negotiation which was carried out in response to what was a significant moment in terms of security. it is also the case that mr costa, in these proposed amendments to the regulation presented by the commission, which is now established as a framework regulation while the contributions made by means of commitology and the application of experience are assessed, has improved - i believe - those aspects that were most necessary: those which introduce the concern and interests of the parties involved, both from the point of view of the member states and from the point of view of the airlines and airports, and also the aspects which have not yet been dealt with in relation to funding and which are so dear to mr costa's heart, who has made great progress in relation to them. we feel that there is a point in mr costa's proposal, however, that, in his enthusiasm for improving this regulation, has introduced some confusion: the package of clauses which relate to the application, which has been traditional and historical since 1987, of all of the legislation relating to safety in civil aviation applied to the gibraltar airport. there is an amendment that we have presented from various perspectives which, without in any way jeopardising the safety applied to the gibraltar airport, does preserve and protect the problem of an historical dispute, which is now on the point of being resolved. i would therefore ask mr costa not to add a further point of conflict to an agreement that has been under negotiation since december 2004 and which, with regard to the gibraltar airport, will prevent that suspension and neutralisation. we would therefore ask you to accept this amendment, which simply restores something which has been historical, without in anyway prejudicing the safety of civil aviation. mr president, mr vice-president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to begin by thanking the chairman of our committee on transport and tourism, mr costa, for his excellent report. his draft introduces provisions that will undoubtedly serve to improve the security of civil aviation. nevertheless, there are still two points i wish to pick up. several of you have referred to the first of these, namely the funding issue. we are speaking here of security, not of air safety. in other words, it is not just a matter of protecting users of air transport but all people in europe who could be the target of attacks in which aircraft are used, as was the case on september 11. it seems unfair, as mr jarzembowski said, to burden aircraft passengers with the cost of these measures, especially since they are already overtaxed in a sector where new taxes are being invented all the time, as was the case only recently with the introduction of a tax on air tickets in some countries. i therefore believe that it would be preferable not to make air travellers foot too much of the bill for these measures. the other point i should like to raise concerns the obligation contained in amendments 41 and 42, which would require member states to consult and inform the regulatory committee before applying their own security measures. although i understand and respect the idea of transparency that underlies these amendments, i wonder about the practical applicability of such proposals. if it is necessary to wait for the committee to be convened, informed and consulted every time an airport wants to deploy an additional security guard, i am not sure whether an obligation that took so long to fulfil would be conducive to aviation security. it would certainly be preferable to strike a better balance between the need for transparency and the need to act quickly. mr president, it is with real pleasure that i once again express my appreciation to commissioner barrot for proposing an excellent solution to us. commissioner, it really is a contribution to creating a safe european airspace. i would like to congratulate mr paolo costa, the chairman of the committee on transport and tourism, on his report. under your guidance we have achieved a high level of agreement, irrespective of a few individual reservations. protecting citizens gives them a feeling of security, and protecting air transport stabilises the aviation market. these are the aspects i wanted to highlight today as particularly important, especially from the point of view of those countries in which this market is in its infancy. in my country, air traffic is increasing by around 30% a year. however, i do not share the reservations concerning the supposedly excessive new competences of the commission and the aviation safety agency, as they are necessary. we have had five years of experience since 11 september2001. in the draft regulation mentioned above, we have defined tasks for governments and states, we have defined the responsibilities of airports and airline operators, we have defined the competences of civil servants and air security workers, and we have also defined the guidelines for acceptable passenger behaviour. the draft regulation also mentions how this programme is to be funded. i would urge against minimising costs as an aim in itself. after all, we have the responsibility to monitor air traffic security. neither do we have any objections towards the proposal presented by the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs. i therefore believe that our fears concerning restrictions on human rights and civil liberties are not entirely well-founded. the fact of the matter is that this regulation will have a positive, even perhaps excessively positive, influence on the competitive dominance of the airline industry compared to other transport sectors. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by thanking the committee chairman, mr costa, for his excellent work. my thanks also go to all the speakers, whose contributions testify to the importance of the subject of this evening's debate. the european commission is able to accept a large number of the amendments proposed in this report. i shall transmit the necessary information on each of the amendments through the usual channels, mr president.(1) i shall take this opportunity to reply to some of the speakers on the question of firearms on board aircraft. in the commission's proposal amending the regulation, chapter 10 of the annex proposes in-flight security measures. paragraph 4 stipulates that no firearms must be present on board an aircraft unless authorised by the member states concerned, subject to fulfilment of the security conditions. the commission is not proposing that firearms be permitted on board aircraft, but experience has shown that there are cases in which firearms are carried on aircraft by statesmen's bodyguards or by security officers known as 'sky marshals'. accordingly, the commission wants to ensure that the conditions laid down in paragraph 4 are met in such cases. so much for the problem of firearms on board, a difficult problem for which we have tried to find a few benchmarks. the commission, mr costa, can endorse the creation, as proposed in recital 9, of a solidarity mechanism that could be activated in the event of a terrorist attack, but we must bear in mind that the consequences of an act of terrorism can spread far beyond the transport sector. for this reason, the commission believes that this matter should be dealt with in a wider context. let me move on to the funding of security. back in april, i promised you a report on the financing of transport security. we are in the process of finalising that document, which will be with you before the summer recess. the report will describe the current situation and will show what is desirable to protect the public on the one hand and to guarantee the proper functioning of the single market and fair competition on the other. according to the study on civil-aviation security, the cost of security is borne to a great extent by users at the present time. for flights within the community, security-related taxes and fees levied by governments and carriers account for one to two per cent of the average ticket price. i therefore agree with your committee and its chairman, mr costa, on the need for greater transparency with regard to taxes and fees. that is the way to avoid any risk of distorted competition. the next task is to examine the situation that would develop if some member states were to set additional requirements. i certainly understand the reasons for all these amendments that relate to funding, but is it necessary to try and resolve all of these funding problems in the context of a technical regulation? the regulation is there to set technical standards for the security of civil aviation; for the rest, it is true that the simplification of certain procedures can lower costs, but i really must remind parliament that we have to take care not to delay the improvement of this security legislation. this is why the commission has misgivings about the amendments on funding, especially amendments 35 and 43. it is true that the funding problems require clarification, but let us be wary of delay in the adoption of this revised draft. i believe every speaker has acknowledged its usefulness, particularly in providing a european approach to security standards. lastly, i should like to say to the lead committee that we cannot support the amendments which would entrust additional tasks to the european aviation safety agency at this time. we cannot ask it today to assume this additional responsibility, because it already has very important functions and has some difficulty in performing them with the resources that are currently at its disposal. in spite of these reservations, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to offer parliament, along with its rapporteur and committee, my sincere thanks, because we consider that the commission can accept the great majority of the amendments. in conclusion, i fervently hope that we can proceed towards the rapid adoption of this proposal. - the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday at 11 a.m. the commission can agree to amendments 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 40, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 77, 78, 82, 89 and 91. the commission can accept amendments 9, 14, 18, 23, 25, 39, 42, 51, 64, 72, 79, 81 and 84 in principle. the commission can agree in part to amendments 5, 20, 21 and 57. the commission cannot accept amendments 2, 3, 6, 19, 22, 32, 35, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 45, 50, 52, 54, 59, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 74, 75, 76, 80, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 90. - the next item is the report by michael cramer (a6-0183/2006), on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism, on the deployment of the european rail signalling system ertms/etcs (2005/2168(ini)). . - mr president, mr vice-president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to start by expressing my very warm gratitude for the constructive cooperation on the part not only of the commission, of the committee secretariat, of the railway companies, and of the railway industry, but also, and not least, of the groups' shadow rapporteurs, for it was also thanks to them that it was possible for this report to be adopted in the committee on transport and tourism with nobody either voting against it or abstaining. the effect of ertms is to incorporate digital technology into the infrastructure of railways, with the prospect, after many decades, of the twenty different signalling systems still in operation today being consigned to the past and ertms, as a single system throughout all the eu's member states, replacing them. the system improves safety, reduces building and maintenance costs and increases capacity to a considerable degree, while also resulting in a considerable reduction in the cost of locomotives, which it will be possible to manufacture in greater numbers. this standardised train security system will make interoperability considerably simpler and speedier, enabling the benefits of long stretches, particularly in goods traffic, to be experienced in travelling across europe; any substantial increase in the number of such journeys is made an impossibility by the technical and political patchwork quilt that we have now, and so it pays to make investment in ertms a priority and to emphasise the need for it. investments in ertms are regarded as equal to investments in infrastructure and treated as cross-border projects, resulting in up to 50% co-funding from the eu, not only for ertms-compatible locomotives, but also for infrastructure - for those sections that cross borders, at any rate. i firmly endorse the memorandum of understanding by which the eu and the national railways have agreed to equip six corridors with ertms. these corridors are symbolic of the reunion of europe, and the implementation of ertms in them will, among other things, overcome national egoisms, since it will be necessary to think and act in a european way. if these projects were to be successful in the short term, it would encourage further initiatives, but what is also necessary is that the issue be kept at the top of the agenda, and not only by those who take decisions in the eu; the member states too, along with industry, infrastructure manager and rail operators must make ertms a priority and all push and pull in the same direction at the same time. if, though, trains are to be able to travel speedily into the future without damaging the environment, there are important framework conditions to be put in place. the external costs of the eurovignette must be internalised, and, as an example of how to do this, we may take switzerland, where tolls are four times what they are in germany, are levied on all road and on all goods vehicles. up to now, competition in the eu has been unfair; in germany, for example, added on to the massive fiscal drawbacks, track charges constitute a rail toll on all trains and on all lines, whilst lorries have up to now been charged tolls only on motorways and only if they weigh over 12 tonnes. not only does ertms offer europe an opportunity to grow together, but it is also essential to the medium and long term development of the rail industry and to the 15 000 highly-skilled jobs in it. even today, the railway industry is a hit on the export front, with orders for locomotives placed by korea, taiwan, india, saudi arabia and china, and infrastructure projects in those countries, clearly demonstrating its market potential. if ertms can build on the foundation of a strong market in europe, it can be the standard for the world. i have a vision of a european rail network from lisbon to tallinn, from paris to warsaw and from london to athens via budapest. with ertms, it will be taking a mighty step further forwards. it is with that in mind that i hope that we will all, tomorrow, confirm the committee's vote, and would ask you to reject all the amendments that have now been tabled. i would also ask the council, when it votes on this, to follow this house's example. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i read mr cramer's report with great attention and interest. i should like to congratulate him on the quality of his report, which is the fruit of cooperation with all stakeholders in the railway sector. you spared no effort, mr cramer! not content to organise a hearing on the european rail traffic management system (ertms), you travelled all over europe to raise technical and political questions relating to the system. you consulted closely with mr karel vinck, european coordinator for ertms. these are the reasons for the high quality of the report you compiled, which was adopted unanimously by the parliamentary committee on transport and tourism. your report clearly presents the advantages of ertms and spells out the three challenges that have to be met if it is to be deployed successfully. first of all, ertms is recognised as the best system in the world today for indicating permissible speeds to drivers and for monitoring those speeds automatically. as mr cramer has just emphasised, the success achieved in exporting the system outside europe to countries such as taiwan and korea testifies to the potential of this system as an exportable product. secondly, many lines in europe are equipped with national and even regional systems, most of which are dated and mutually incompatible. mr cramer spoke of a 'patchwork', which very aptly illustrates the wide disparities between these systems in terms of safety and performance levels. in order to operate on a given line, a locomotive must be equipped with the appropriate system, which is why the thalys trains need to have seven control systems on board. thirdly, as long as ertms is not being widely used on the european rail network, railway companies are hesitant to invest in it. conversely, as long as trains are not equipped for ertms, infrastructure providers will also hesitate to invest in it. as a result, it is often in rail companies' interests to wait for others to take the first step. there is a need to break out of this circle of inertia and convince all players in the field of rail transport that they should adopt what is ultimately a win-win strategy. we can also rely on mr vinck, the european coordinator, to use his powers of persuasion. the major freight corridors will only be competitive if locomotives are not brought to a halt at national borders by technical barriers, and to that end the community strategy must be clearly enunciated, as mr cramer has shown in his report. it is essential to ensure that ertms is put in place wherever it is compulsory, especially on all the new high-speed lines. european funding should be confined to rail projects in which ertms is taken into account. substantial financial incentives must be offered to the first infrastructure operators and the first train operators to equip themselves with ertms. a great deal of work has been done to make ertms a success, but we must step up our efforts, and to that end, mr president, the contribution of parliament is warmly welcomed. thank you, mr cramer, for your work on this report. we must move together in the same direction, namely towards a competitive european rail environment that is able to deliver high-quality service. that is how we can shift part of the volume of freight traffic from road to rail in order to save energy and come closer to the kyoto targets. all of this, mr cramer, certainly does require a bold and ambitious strategy for the introduction of ertms. in this respect, your report bolsters our case appreciably, and for that i wish to thank both you and the european parliament. . - mr president, mr vice-president, i hope that the introduction of the single train system will be quicker and more punctual than the way we are going about things, for we are already - again - running twenty minutes behind time, and i am sure you will not mind if i go pretty soon, as i want to watch another match somewhere. i do not need to repeat what the rapporteur had to say, since all the groups on the committee managed to achieve compromises on essential points, and i also share the view expressed by the vice-president. there are just two things i would like to point out. the first - and it is for mr cramer's benefit - is that we should not be talking in terms of percentages, for we have as yet no idea as to how much money is in the pot for ertms, and, moreover, we do not yet know which projects are actually ready to go ahead. one project - the route from rotterdam to genoa - does admittedly appear to be ready apart from the last stretch into genoa, but funding from the member states for the other projects has not yet been secured, and so we should not be promising something that the member states are unwilling to produce, for they, the network operators and the railways must contribute their shares. all we can do is add a topping of money from the ten budget; if the member states stonewall, then nothing will happen. secondly, i hope that those member states that can get money from the cohesion fund or the regional fund will use it for ertms, but, if they use it to build roads and then complain that the railways are not properly organised and too slow, then all i can say is that it is their own fault. with this report, we have sent out the right message, and the commission, too, is ready to do its bit, but it is now down to the member states, to the network operators and the railway companies to make use of this co-funding. if they fail to do so, then we will have moved a good idea forward while achieving nothing, and so let us all hope that the member states may, perhaps tomorrow, read the reports of what we have been saying and decide, after all, to give this project proper support. . mr president, mr vice-president, first of all, i would like to use this opportunity to express to mr cramer my warmest thanks for his good cooperation, particularly in view of the technically very demanding and difficult nature of this report. we have managed to guide the report to the vote with a great deal of speed and accuracy, and that augurs well for the future of europe's railways. it is relatively clear just why this is such a pressing matter: as mr cramer has already mentioned, there are currently, in europe, over 20 different signalling and speed monitoring systems, the cost of which is measured, firstly, in space on board, not to mention money, and also, of course, maximises to the utmost the possibilities for error and ultimately constitutes a safety problem. there is, then, a massive obstacle to interoperability, one that certainly - as you, mr cramer, have said - makes the railway sector less competitive, particularly in view of the constant increase in traffic and the urgent need to move it from road to rail. i hope that what we are hearing about the white paper that is due to appear is no more than a rumour; the planned system is certainly needed. we have been able to satisfy ourselves as to the system's operability; everything that has been said about its perhaps not working or about its working badly or something of the sort, is nonsense. it works in practice; it works on passenger trains. that is why it is of the utmost importance that the member states should, without delay, come up with a strategy for conversion to it and for the implementation of it. i would like to avail myself of this, my last, opportunity to point out that, in my view, ertms will do more to secure the social position of workers in the rail sector, in which jobs will require better skills and high qualifications, and so the further training and qualification of workers in this sector must not be overlooked. let us make use of ertms as a great opportunity for rail transport, and let us do everything possible to move the transfer from road to rail forward in the future. mr barrot, mr cramer, thank you for the work you have done. you said all the right things in your report, even down to the last detail. it is all set out very clearly. it is a little ironic, though, that in 2006, already some way into the 21st century, we should still be debating the benefit of a single rail signalling system. at a time when other modes of transport have made much more headway, cross-border european traffic has evidently never been that important to the monopolies. they at any rate never poured the money into it that they should have done; nor did they come up with the ideas to move things along. it is a little odd that we still find ourselves debating the basics where rail is concerned. we are pleased that, during the hearing you organised, the infrastructural people were keen to apply the european rail signalling system (ertms). that in itself is a success, in our view. they could quite easily have turned round and said that they were not really interested on account of the cost and that, for the sake of those few trains that cross the border, it might be better to use lorries after all, because they can be traced by satellite. they could have left the trains for what they were. the enthusiasm we display does not really seem to be shared by those who should help to get things moving, namely the member states, the railway companies and the infrastructure managers. i am, of course, following mr cramer's approach here, who said all the right things. we have to consider the entire corridor, from beginning to end, down to the last mile. there must be eu funding for the cross-border sections, and one corridor should not be singled out in favour of others. the project must be considered in its entirety and we must keep an eye on the bigger picture. the ultimate goal is to rig out the entire european railway network, or at least the major lines. we will therefore need to find a little more than those eur 5 billion spread over 10 years. the amounts involved will be of quite a different order. i would like to see whether the railway companies and member states are prepared to actually put that money on the table, because that bit of european funding is only a drop in the ocean. there is no use pretending: we cannot act as if we are going to put a pile of money on the table. one cannot expect miracles with just 1% of the gross domestic product. member states and others refuse to face this reality and think that europe, even if it has no money, should still be the driving force behind initiatives such as these. railway companies too will need to prove that the funding they have received is being spent wisely, that they will look after, and attract, customers with a view to achieving ertms's main goal - namely improved use of the network - so that rail becomes a mode of transport that can compete with other modes of transport. . mr president, in the past, only the differences in rail width represented a barrier to cross-border and through trains. since electrification, the differences in voltage and protection systems have cut the railway network up even more. we desperately need a common electronic protection system. it looks like a number of variations on ertms will become the generally applied standard in 20 to 30 years' time. the initial investments in ertms have been made, and many are sure to follow. the certainty of constant growth is of huge benefit to industry. if everyone wants to apply this system as early on as at the development stage, then this may lead to shortages and prices shooting up. moreover, there is every chance that at least the first software version will need to be upgraded in the foreseeable future. people who work for the railway companies need a great deal of preparatory training before they can start using ertms safely. for the time being, it mainly comes into its own as a secondary system alongside one of the 20 tried and tested systems. in the netherlands, this has already contributed to delays in the use of new railway sections. where ertms is applied without support of that kind, this initially leads to major delays and has, consequently, played havoc with timetables. in switzerland, the average train delay during the first four months was 18 minutes and only then did things gradually change for the better. these teething problems mean that the system has not so far been hailed as a success by the interested parties. that is why, in order to turn this project into a success, we must draw a clear distinction between the experimental initial phase, during which it can be tested selectively so as to build up practical experience, and a fully-fledged phase, at which point we can rely on it 100%. european union funding must focus on this experimental phase with a view to making versions 2.3.0 and 3.0.0 reliable and to possible further developments without filling the coffers of industry unnecessarily. until it can be fully introduced, we must make sure that the tried and tested protection systems are not neglected and prevent a further shrinkage of the railway network from becoming a means of quickly reaching good statistics with ertms. the only way we can probably raise the necessary funds is to impose an extra levy on freight transport, as is the case in switzerland. that is why the previous decision on the eurovignette needs to be adjusted. . the competitiveness of rail is being hampered by a variety of things. the lack of a uniform safety and signalling system is one of those. given the role that rail is supposed to play in the logistical process, i am pleased with the attention ertms is now getting. i can identify with the essence of mr cramer's report, which covers most relevant aspects of ertms, and i share his view that ertms is an instrument that can help rail move forwards into the future. current services are hindered by barriers that prevent competition with other modes of transport. some of those barriers can certainly be attributed to the historical relations within and outside the railway sector. the existence of nationally-geared protection systems is without a doubt part of this. this fragmentation hinders the development and implementation of cross border transport and thus adversely affects the competitiveness of freight transport by rail. since the introduction of ertms can cancel out this negative aspect, it is important that the transitional period between the current systems and ertms be kept to a minimum in order to restrict additional costs and functional discomfort as a result of the use of the dual systems. it is also important that we should have an ertms version that works adequately at our disposal. that is the case at the moment, and i hope that all those involved will make the effort to have an economically justified and technically up-to-date system in operation, now and in future. an important topic during our discussion was the financial aspect of the introduction of ertms. both in the community, in the member states and among railway companies, only limited resources are available. it is therefore necessary to weigh up carefully how they should be used. in that context, my group has proposed a number of amendments, which emphasise that, in terms of projects, we should back clear favourites and maturity, both politically and economically, so as to make maximum use of the means available. i am also aware of the interest in this system from outside europe. this represents prospects for industry and more employment. it strikes me as impossible at the moment, though, to make exact predictions about the expected effects on employment. hence an amendment to exercise caution in that respect, which is also true of the beckoning prospects. for the rest, i am pleased about the attention that is being devoted to the importance of the full participation of those involved, namely the community, member states, industry and railway companies. the development, introduction and implementation of ertms equipment can only be a success if everyone does their bit. finally, i should like to thank mr cramer for his work and the sound cooperation with the shadow rapporteurs, and express the hope that all those involved will back the processes that have either been set in motion or that are yet to be embarked on. mr president, we, in the eu, have for a long time been working to balance the relationship between road and rail, with regulations on the treatment of hgv drivers and train crew under social security and labour law, with injections of support and finance for rail traffic, with tolls and other levies for heavy road traffic, and, last but not least, with technical regulations on intermodality and interoperability. most recently, by means of marco polo i and ii, we made a direct attempt at supporting more environmentally-friendly modes of transport, and now, with naiades, we are attempting to create new opportunities for internal shipping. all things considered, though, we have not really had much success with this. on the contrary, the gap has widened. in freight transport, rail is continuing to lose out to road, so perhaps we will, in fact, soon see our dream melt away; after all, according to media reports today, the commission will shortly be changing strategy and abandoning its policy of pro-active transfer from road to rail. whatever the truth of those reports, we must continue to do everything in our power to equip railways and upgrade their technology. the new magic formula in this is 'ertms', which is intended to help make train systems mutually interoperable, so that perhaps, even if a long way down the line, rail will be given a new chance. we worked together on the cramer report in order to find a common solution, and - as mr cramer rightly emphasised - we succeeded in this, so let us congratulate the rapporteur and the commission too on the document we have and wish railways all the best for a good and safe future. mr president, commissioner, i am a staunch partisan of the european rail system, the success of which depends on three things: interoperability, funding and opening rail networks to competition. in this report, the political centre of gravity tends to be the opening of networks to competition, in other words the market is paramount; whenever that is the case, road transport is always the winner. i believe we actually want to focus on interoperability and find a way to finance it. moreover, the main issue at the present time concerning the introduction of ertms is how to fund it in such a way that the huge investment burden does not further handicap the railways in their efforts to compete with road transport. from this point of view, may i congratulate our honourable colleague, mr cramer, on his report. i am not sure that there was a need or obligation to assign priority to particular rail corridors. on the contrary, i believe it would have been better to say that, every time a network is upgraded or a new line is opened, it must be equipped to the new standard. i can scarcely imagine that any new line would not automatically be equipped in accordance with the new standard. there is also, of course, a crucial question with regard to funding during the transitional period when the old and new systems have to exist side by side. if this key question is not answered, national companies are liable to be wary. if it is answered, commissioner, i believe we shall win the day, and we need to win, because each of the thalys power cars, as you said, has seven different command and control systems installed, and they also cost 60% more than other locomotives. mr president, i would like to thank the rapporteur for a comprehensive report. in supporting him, i would like to underline that coordinated deployment of the european rail track management system, a strategic part of the trans-european network, should be applied uniformly to all european rail infrastructures. an effective signalling system with automatic speed control will help to avoid lethal accidents and will further improve the safety level of rail transport. implementation of the ertms will provide increased security by ensuring continuous monitoring during train operations. it will also ease the strain on the roads and shift transport flows to the railways. the ertms is superior to national systems because it is cheaper as far as new acquisitions and maintenance are concerned and safer at all speeds. i agree that the old systems and the ertms should not exist side by side for too long. the transition to the new system should be as quick as possible. the 20 different train protection and signalling systems that still exist today should be replaced by a single system in all eu member states in the near future. the sooner trains are equipped with european train control systems, thus allowing them to travel on major interoperable corridors, the sooner it will be possible to make savings on maintenance costs and eliminate costs associated with the use of multiple systems. - mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the unanimous adoption of the cramer report by the committee on transport and tourism basically tells us two things. the first is what you, commissioner, and the members who have already spoken have stressed, which is that the rapporteur has done some excellent work, and therefore the thanks that we owe him are far from being a formality. the second point is that, although the concerns and the emphases may vary, i feel that there is broad awareness of the fact that we may be facing the implementation of a system that appears to be a genuine industrial project of excellence for europe. that is what we need for the transport sector, and also in general to increase our competitiveness in the right direction, namely towards safety and improved quality. i shall confine myself to highlighting a few needs, which are already in the report but which i feel are worth pointing out. the first is that mr savary is certainly right in saying that the new system should include everything that is new. at the moment, however, as we are faced with the financial difficulties that we are all aware of, i think we should support the installation of the system at least along the main corridors that the european coordinator, mr vinck, has examined and proposed to us as the first step towards overall coverage. i should like to point out that the timing and procedures need to be right for the migration of the whole european network and for the current standard to be maintained, thus guaranteeing compatibility with future technical specifications. mr president, i would like warmly to congratulate mr cramer on the exhaustiveness of his report, which deals in a skilful and in-depth manner with all of the problems that we need to overcome in order to achieve full interoperability and facilitate the removal of rail borders. we must also accept that the vote in committee - i believe - improved his initial proposal, by extending it and making it less restrictive, amongst other things acknowledging the efforts of those countries that are already applying it. i am talking about countries such as my own, spain, where forty years of dictatorship left us completely isolated - as is currently the case with the baltic countries which are historically linked to russia, also by a railway of a different gauge - as a result of a different gauge of track, in addition to problems with mountains. the enormous efforts that we have had to make in spain in order to renew our rail network with european funding have led us to directly apply the european signalling and speed control systems, which we are currently discussing. it seemed natural to the spanish to overcome our historical backwardness and to allow ourselves to be led by our europeanism, opting clearly for an integrated system such as the ertms, which represents the future of the railways. in fact, i am delighted because over recent weeks - and i hope that the delegation from the committee on transport and tourism that will visit my region next week will be able to see this - we have managed to overcome and resolve a technical problem involving the ertms, which has meant that we have been able to reduce the distance enormously and make passenger transport by rail in spain even more attractive. in the future we will clearly have to resolve certain problems relating to goods transport by rail, such as level crossings with barriers. first of all, i should like to thank the rapporteur mr cramer for the positive outcome we have ended up with. it was not easy, given the sensitivities surrounding this issue. the compromise amendments that were eventually approved are very important. one of the points of discussion springs to mind, namely whether or not one corridor should be singled out. eventually, we decided in favour of six main railway corridors. that is important, because we are thus sending out the message that they all count. whether progress will be made or not will depend on the efforts and willpower of the member states and companies involved. ertms's ultimate aim must be for it to be universally applied, because a single european railway market cannot become competitive compared to other modes of transport if we continue to apply more than 20 different signalling systems. that means, indeed, that we must tackle entire sections rather than opt for a piecemeal approach. the main problem remains, of course, as most fellow members have already mentioned, the funding of ertms, as well as that, moreover, of the other trans-european networks. that is why we must be creative and extract funds from, for example, the cohesion fund and, possibly in cooperation with the european investment bank, collect additional funds. these resources should at any rate be distributed evenly, but should also be spent wisely and effectively. i wish the commission and the ertms coordinator much success in this difficult balancing act. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i thank you for this debate centring on mr cramer's excellent report. i shall restrict myself to four remarks. the first expresses my utter astonishment at mr rack's allusion to a change of strategy, suggesting that we have not always been determined to give priority to rail, which, as we know, has a number of advantages in a context of energy and environmental problems. i refer mr rack to the white paper that will be presented next week; anything other than what is set down there is sheer speculation. my second remark is this: there is undoubtedly a need to offer incentives, involving significant cofunding by the european union, in order to ensure that the european rail traffic management system (ertms) is deployed. mr savary has emphasised the risk of penalising the railway system. this is why we opted for 50% cofunding of the introduction of ertms. time will tell, but for my own part i believe it is a good motivating factor. thirdly, while it is true that the specifications of such a system are always open to improvement, it can be said today that the system works. the rome-naples route in italy is not behind schedule and has been operating very well since the end of 2005. what we can say is that the current version of the specifications already suffices to guarantee interoperability and can therefore be used in calls for tender. even though ertms will have to be perfected, there is no reason, on the basis of the present specifications, to postpone the installation of ertms. my fourth remark concerns the corridors. it is true that the coordinator selected corridors with a view to obtaining a clearer picture of the costs and benefits of deploying the system and trying to encourage the various players to work together. that, however, does not predetermine the inclusion or exclusion of particular corridors. the commission, acting in accordance with the financial regulation, will favour the best projects and the corridors that will be capable of providing high-quality projects within an appropriate time frame. these are the remarks with which i wanted to accompany my thanks to parliament and its rapporteur for this excellent contribution to a policy which is essential if we want tomorrow's railways to become a european rail system and a rail system with the potential to relieve the road network. that is really the crux of our efforts, and i am delighted with the contribution of parliament, to which i extend my heartfelt thanks. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. the next item is the report by sen neachtain, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on inshore fishing and the problems encountered by inshore-fishing communities [2004/2264(ini)] (a6-0141/2006). . mr president, let me begin with , as we say in the irish language - meaning 'a few words' - on the title of this report. following the final vote in committee i was asked if i would be prepared to accept an amendment in plenary to modify the title of the report, which refers to 'fishermen', so as to implicitly recognise the important role played by women in that important sector. it will not come as any surprise to you that i fully support the migulez ramos/kindermann amendment, which is totally consistent with the contents of the report and simply introduces the notion of gender equality in the title. like you, i learned on monday that this amendment was inadmissible. like many of you i found that hard to believe. however, you will be pleased to know that this evening the conference of presidents has approved the change in the title of my report. from the outset, had i been allowed to draft this report in the irish language, the problem would not have arisen because i would have used the word , which, unlike the english word 'fisherman', is gender-neutral and embraces all those involved in the sector. there is an urgent need to comprehensively address the multiple problems in the inshore fishing sector in the european union. this aspect of the fisheries sector is the poor relation that has been ignored for far too long. the subject matter is vast and varied. it concerns every single coastal member state, in most instances in totally different ways. that is one area of the fisheries sector where there is the odd reference, here and there, among the plethora of eu legislation, but no community rules and regulations that specifically cater for the sector. i believe that anomaly has to be corrected. inshore fishing essentially takes place in waters that come under exclusive national jurisdiction, and yet inshore fishermen, in many instances, are subjected to common fisheries policy regulations while reaping few of the benefits. inshore fishing is about the economic and social fabric of our small coastal communities. it makes a vital contribution to local economies where, in many instances, there is precious little else in the way of work. inshore fishery activities essentially maintain the social fabric of those communities. they are also essential for the preservation of cultural traditions and practices, which must be preserved. and yet that sector has been ignored for far too long. the future development of the inshore fisheries sector is dependent on social change. it is dependent on the existence of appropriate representative bodies. it is dependent on creating demand for improved added value produce through appropriate marketing structures. it is dependent on resolving the economic aspects that influence operating costs. most importantly, it is dependent on the adoption of appropriate eu programmes specifically designed to help the sector. the inshore fisheries sector is badly in need of development and modernisation. that includes boat modernisation, notably where safety on board is concerned. we must devise measures to minimise the effects of the increase of variable costs that results from high fuel prices. if that means adapting boat engines so that they can run on a high percentage of alternative fuels such as bioethenol then we must take the necessary measures to adapt boat engines accordingly. we must do all we can to attract young men and women to the sector in order to ensure its continuity. i fear that will be impossible if we do not implement adequate vocational training systems geared towards concerned groups of the inshore fisheries population, not least the development of marketing skills. i believe that we must develop new ways of commercialisation and fully integrate coastal fishermen into the marketing process. we must also enhance cooperation and communication channels between organisation and stakeholders concerned. my report is not - as some lobbyists would believe - an attack on recreational fishing in any one member state. it is about the specific social, economic and environmental problems of the entire small inshore fishing sector in all member states of the european union. it is about promoting sustainable fishing. this report is a contribution to resolving problems in the inshore fishing sector, not to creating new ones. my approach is to try to find the appropriate solutions so that different economic interests are catered for in a mutually acceptable way. it would be incorrect for any interest group to read any other interpretation into the text. commissioner borg, this report and this parliament are calling on you to consider a new community initiative for this important sector of activity. the men and women involved in the inshore fisheries sector are calling on you to consider a new community approach. i believe that we have an obligation not to disappoint them. knowing your personal commitment to fisheries, i know that you will not disappoint them. . mr president, i wish to begin by expressing my thanks and gratitude to the rapporteur, mr neachtain, who has presented an excellent report. i should also like to extend my thanks to the whole committee on fisheries for having taken up this important subject in the form of an own-initiative report. it is clear that small-scale coastal fisheries are in many ways different from fishing activities conducted by larger boats. many of these differences are highlighted in the report, and i should like to mention just a few. small vessels stay close to the coast and mostly conduct fishing trips of a single day. the businesses are small and mainly family-based, and in most cases only one person operates the vessel, with the maximum being not more than three. the catches are landed and also often marketed locally, thus making this segment more dependent on the local economy. this part of the fishing industry is fragmented and not equally represented in shipowners' organisations. these vessels operate in coastal areas, which are often biologically fragile, and where there is a lot of competition with other users, such as other fishing vessels or recreational fisheries and tourists. however, i should like to stress that not all of these differences are disadvantages. in fact, some of them are distinct advantages, such as the freshness of the landed fish. however, it is also true that coastal fisheries have handicaps, and i agree with most of your conclusions in this respect. i absolutely agree that it is not an easy task to define coastal fisheries, but this is exactly why i would strongly recommend basing ourselves on the definition which is used in community legislation: vessels of up to 12 metres not using towed gear. this definition was agreed almost ten years ago and is a good basis for further action. however, it does not mean that at national or local level additional criteria could not be used when defining the role of the different players in coastal fishing areas. on the contrary, coastal management actions and plans should include further criteria depending on the specific settings of the area and the fleets involved. let me now turn to your specific suggestions. here, again, i agree with most of your proposals, and in particular the establishment by local fishermen of coastal management plans, the harmonisation of data on coastal fisheries, the improvement of training for men and women involved in this type of fishing, better coordination of all aspects affecting coastal areas and fishermen, the improvement of vessel safety and of the safety culture for those involved, the need to recognise the role of women and improve their legal work status and, last but not least, the better involvement of coastal fisheries in decision-making and representatives bodies, such as the racs. but this leads me to the question: who does what? i am deeply convinced that it is first and foremost the local fishing communities themselves who have to come together, get organised and propose actions and initiatives. secondly, many of the aspects that were mentioned are under the responsibility of the member states, for example education and vocational training, jurisdiction over coastal areas up to 12 nautical miles, and the control and enforcement of safety standards, etc. however, i also agree with you that we have a role to play at european union level. you, the european parliament, have started with a study, the hearing of last november and this own-initiative report we are discussing today. the commission has already started work too, and i have proposed specific treatment under the european fisheries fund, which will hopefully be adopted next week. among other possibilities of particular interest to coastal fishers: the proposed european fisheries fund reduces to 20% the private contribution for the modernisation of vessels for owners of smaller ships. it gives them more favourable treatment in the conditions for engine replacement and urges member states to give 'safety tonnage', preferably to smaller vessels. i think that this is a package of better treatment for this segment, which will contribute to bringing about some of the improvements mentioned in your report. in addition, there are several areas of the common fisheries policy where coastal fisheries are treated differently or exempted from obligations, such as the requirement to use a logbook, remote sensing and vms requirements. in relation to conservation, however, small-scale fisheries have to take full responsibility in the management of fish stocks, because coastal waters are often the place where fish spawn and grow in the early stages. before concluding, let me just mention that my services have recently commissioned an important study, which is under way at this very moment, and which will give us a new and up-to-date insight into several cases of small-scale fisheries located in different regions and seas of the community. the findings of this study are expected in the coming year and i am sure that they will help us to assess whether further action is needed and how to tailor it. i take up your suggestions and, building on your valuable work, will join forces with all the stakeholders, the member states and, last but not least, all those who make a living from coastal fisheries in order to engage in concrete action to improve the situation and the conditions for this segment of the fishing fleet. thank you for your attention. . mr president, i am speaking on behalf of the committee on women's rights and gender equality and i must say that the work done by women throughout the fisheries sector and particularly in inshore fishing, should be given greater legal and social recognition. although just 3% of women take part in extractive fishing, many women are intensely involved in the other activities relating to fishing. with an economic structure made up mainly of small family businesses, the majority of women work very hard but have no economic or social rights, since they do not have a sufficiently clear work status, and in many cases they work in conditions that are highly prejudicial to their health. as we state in the report, therefore, it is urgent for both the commission and the member states to take the measures necessary to guarantee all of these women their rights. furthermore, women working in this sector should have access to funding, to credits and professional training under equal conditions to men. we must also guarantee that women participate in the decision-making, representative and advisory bodies of the communities dedicated to inshore fishing. at a time when the sector is undergoing restructuring, significant changes are taking place that affect women directly or indirectly and both men and women must therefore take part in the search for solutions. we would therefore like a recommendation from the commission to the relevant bodies to the effect that they should take the appropriate measures to ensure that they contain a balance of men and women. the lack of data broken down by gender makes it extremely difficult to seek solutions to the problems faced by women working in the sector. we would therefore call upon the commission, by means of the european gender equality institute, to find a rapid solution to this issue. making these women more visible also requires using correct language to reflect the fact that there are men and women in the fisheries sector, and not just men. i am therefore very much in favour, and we support, the proposal that the rapporteur has also just advocated to change the word 'fishermen' to 'fishing communities' in the title of this report. ladies and gentlemen, we cannot allow groups such as women working in inshore fisheries to go unprotected. the committee on women's rights and gender equality calls for greater recognition of the work of these women and for solutions to the specific problems stemming from that work to be found. . mr president, i would like to thank the rapporteur and congratulate him on behalf of my group on his magnificent report, which could not have been produced if he had not been generous enough to accept many amendments and suggestions from other members representing different fishing regions with very different views of small-scale fishing. we must not forget that these vessels represent around 80% of all community vessels and this kind of fishing is practiced in all of the coastal member states, although in each one it has special characteristics. it is precisely the treatment of this aspect, which seems to me to be one of the greatest achievements of the report, since it has stipulated a series of criteria, which can indeed be common to the majority of the small-scale fleet, which in some member states is defined by length, in others by the type of processing of the fisheries product, by distance from the coast or by the duration of tides, or by a combination of several criteria. the definition of small-scale fishing on the basis of the twelve-metre length, as in the case of community legislation, therefore, is not in line with reality, and we hope that the community legislation will be amended in this regard in the near future. it is also appropriate to stress this fleet's responsibilities and obligations in terms of the conservation of stocks, since, although they are small or medium-sized vessels, we must not forget that there are very large numbers of them and they fish in waters that are very vulnerable to over-fishing, since these areas are characterised by a high concentration of young. i would finally like to point out that a high proportion of the fleet still has to deal with the issue of safety. i would therefore like to insist once again that the future european fisheries fund must take account of the modernisation and renewal needs in terms of safety and also in terms of energy saving, with a view to alleviating the crisis faced by the fisheries sector as a result of the rise in oil prices. i do not believe that the agreement adopted in coreper and which is going to be presented to the council of ministers offers all of the measures that this parliament called for in the casa report on the european fisheries fund (efp), in which there were many more measures which would undoubtedly make the renewal and modernisation of small-scale fisheries much more flexible. . mr president, by means of this report, the european parliament is explicitly acknowledging the fundamental contribution of inshore fishing, not just to local economies, but also to the maintenance of the social fabric of coastal communities, which are so much in need of cohesion elements. i would like to congratulate the rapporteur, mr neachtain, on his fine idea of proposing this initiative report at a particularly sensitive time for small communities, which are facing problems that need to be dealt with urgently. firstly, their ancient vessels, whose modernisation we must continue to support, particularly with a view to improving the living and working conditions on board and to establishing a culture of safety, which must start with safer and more modern boats. secondly, the lack of young people. i agree with the rapporteur that a commission initiative is required in the field of training in order to encourage young professionals to join the sector. training must go further, however. it must include work safety on board, the protection of resources and the protection of the sea and coastal areas. properly regulated inshore fishing is an essential factor in the conservation of the ecosystem. training must also consider improving the quality of catches, their marketing and the management of small businesses, because these issues can help small-scale fishermen to consolidate their business results and improve their living standards. i would finally like in particular to congratulate the draftsman for the committee on women's rights and gender equality, mrs riera, who has made very valuable contributions that have enriched the report. women play a fundamental role in the sector and, properly organised, they can make a significant contribution to the socio-economic development of communities dependent on fishing. . mr president, we think it is a good thing that the specific problems involving inshore fishing are recognised in this report and that the regional advisory councils have come up for discussion in this. my group has two objections, though. first of all, we would like to call attention to subsidiarity. the differences between the regions are too significant to attempt a harmonisation process in this sector. also, the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe feels that the eu funds should be used to promote sustainability in inshore fishing, for example by reducing fuel consumption, rather than to increase capacity. if our amendments on those two points are not pursued, my group will be forced to abstain in this respect. we would in any case like to thank the rapporteur for the fact that he has brought inshore fishing to our attention with his own-initiative report. . mr president, i should like to thank the rapporteur, mr neachtain, for his initiative in highlighting the special needs and the economic and social importance of the inshore fishing sector. it is a vitally important network of mostly small, mostly family-run businesses, which are the lifeblood of most of our small coastal communities. around the coast and the many islands of scotland, it is a sector that is of the utmost importance and it undoubtedly has not benefited from the political support it deserves. unfortunately, though, scotland's offshore fishing industry has not had a happy experience as a result of the common fisheries policy. so there is not a great demand - to put it mildly - for new eu legislation specific to inshore fisheries. however, support for initiatives in, for example, the fields of vessel safety, fuel economy, training and investment funding is worth pursuing at local and eu level, through the european fisheries fund. in scotland it is not just the cfp that has been bad for our fishing communities. over the years, the scottish and uk governments too have failed to support eu initiatives by cofinancing. i hope that if, as a result of this report, we move towards some specific new programmes to assist coastal fishing, the scottish government will be persuaded to provide the necessary support. our small coastal communities have a very long history, with generations of families making a living from fishing. i would like to see those communities returned to a state where the young and the future generations have some hope of being able to follow in that tradition. . - mr president, inshore fishing, especially small-scale coastal and traditional fisheries, make a considerable contribution to the socio-economic well-being of coastal communities, both in portugal and in other coastal member states. as we have pointed out, inshore fisheries make a considerable contribution to the socio-economic wellbeing of coastal communities, contributing to local development, job preservation/creation both upstream and downstream, supplies of fresh fish and the preservation of traditional local cultures. the economic and social crisis affecting the fisheries sector is of particular concern for the less competitive fleet segments, especially the inshore fisheries. in our view, this crisis is also associated with the guidelines and implementation of the common fisheries policies, insofar as it fails to recognise the specific needs of inshore fisheries. accordingly, this sector of the fleet needs support at both national and community level. broadly speaking, we welcome this report. we should like to highlight the reference to the need to acknowledge the specific nature of small-scale coastal and traditional fisheries in the cfp, to adapt the current instruments so as to meet the needs of the sector, and to continue with the granting of aid for the renewal and modernisation of the small-scale traditional fleet under the future european fisheries fund. that being said, the report falls short of what is required as regards the immediate response to the problems associated with the current crisis and the new instruments needed to carry out a proper assessment of the specific nature of this sector of the fleet. against this backdrop, we tabled two amendments. the first relates to the need to set up a community programme to aid small-scale traditional fisheries, which will support specific projects and help to focus the instruments and channel funds into inshore fisheries. the second takes account of the need for emergency measures to respond to the desperate socio-economic situation in the sector, and accordingly proposes to establish emergency transitional compensation to offset the effects of the increase in the price of fuel. we hope that these proposals will enjoy parliament's support. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the clarity and thoroughness of the report he has presented. we have been highlighting the need for the sustainable exploitation of fisheries, particularly in the mediterranean, for a long time, repeating what has been confirmed with due emphasis in the report we are debating today. unfortunately, the short time i have available will not allow me to examine in any depth some interesting points such as gender equality in the fisheries sector, safety on board fishing boats, alternative energy sources in view of high diesel prices, and modernisation of the fleet. i am pleased to point out that inshore and traditional fishing - and i say this as a man from the south of italy, who lives in close contact with the seafaring world on almost a daily basis - not only represents an extremely important source of income for thousands of european families living around our continent's coasts, but also brings with it a centuries-old tradition that europe must, in my view, support and preserve. supporting inshore fishing means, , protecting it from unregulated fishing by vessels flying the flags of third countries that brazenly carry on their activities subject to no controls and without any regard for the quantity, quality or species of the fish they catch. southern italy's fishing community has recently protested about this for the umpteenth time, this time in bagnara in calabria. the european union should not force our fishermen to accept restrictions and sacrifices while leaving non-eu fleets in the mediterranean completely free to do as they like. the inshore fisheries sector can and must make this important economic activity compatible with preservation of the marine environment, which is both necessary and incumbent upon us. on these and other grounds i fully support this report. i must particularly stress paragraph 16 of the motion for a resolution, which calls on the commission to recognise once and for all the specific nature of inshore and traditional fishing in the common fisheries policy, since it has been poorly treated so far. mr president, i commend the rapporteur for his hard work in drawing attention to the needs of an often neglected sector in fishing. in my own constituency of northern ireland, our sector is equally feeling the pressures identified in this report, and indeed a recent political decision to deprive the white fish fleet of tie-up aid, as compensation for losses inflicted by the cod recovery scheme closure has put added pressure on the inshore sector and on inshore fish and shellfish stock, because those denied tie-up aid are forced into the domain of that sector. however, uk fishermen's experience of the common fisheries policy, whatever the conservative party might now say, has been so negative that, in consequence and in conscience, i could not advocate what amounts to the full extension of the common fisheries policy controls to the inshore sector. this is where i part company with the rapporteur. he thinks that the answer for the inshore sector is more europe. i disagree, for two reasons. firstly, yes, we need marketing assistance, fleet modernisation, fuel assistance, and proper recognition of the potential needs of inshore fishing, but the imposition of european harmonisation - fishing gear control, data collection, a new community initiative - is the path, i fear, to restriction, not to growth. secondly, only some countries would take up the match funding opportunities which might arise in return for eu regulation and competence. countries like mine, the united kingdom, would not take that up and therefore disparity in this sector across europe would intensify, not diminish, and my inshore fishermen would have all the pain of eu regulation, with none of the gain of available assistance. for those reasons i am obliged to say that i cannot support this report, although i readily acknowledge the genuine motivations the rapporteur had in bringing it forward. mr president, i should like to thank the rapporteur, mr neachtain, and to welcome the commissioner here. i too believe that the inshore fishing community is very much the backbone of our fishing community. however, after our experience with the common fisheries policy in the south-west of england we dread it extending its tentacles even further. i think we have to look at the overall take of fish - not just what has been caught inshore, but also what has been taken further out to sea - because, whether we like it or not, there is a limited number of fish and the future of inshore fishing relies greatly on adding value to the fish that is caught. when talking about inshore fishing we must also not ignore recreational fishermen and anglers, because they are very much part of the future. we really must make the most of the fish that is caught. fuel prices and costs are an important factor and there again we need to look to the future. we might not have electrical boats now, but we could in the future. the vessels up to 12 metres long, which is what we are referring to, are quite large vessels and capable of catching a lot of fish. so we have to be careful about the size of the nets. that is where i disagree with mr allister, because we have to sustain fish stocks and ensure that the larger fish are caught and the smaller ones are left to grow. if we do not face up to the fact of diminishing fish stocks, whatever policy we bring in will not create the extra fish that we all need. - i should like to join in the congratulations on mr neachtain's excellent report and his consistent commitment on this issue that is so close to our hearts. i should like to say that inshore fishing is a concept that should be defined in terms of its economic, social, environmental and technical aspects, as well as the geographical reality to which it applies. in this regard, i should like to draw the attention of the commission and of the members of this house to the reality of life in outermost regions such as the azores and madeira, where there are no continental shelves and where the coastal equivalent is effectively the coastal banks, which are sometimes a long way from the islands, but which to all intents and purposes represent exactly what the coast close to the land represents for other continental situations. this is extraordinarily important to us because if this adaptation does not take place, we will not be able to understand the real situation in these regions. i would therefore strongly urge the commission to take this into consideration. mr president, the report on inshore fishing and the problems facing inshore fishermen accurately describes their current situation. in poland a large number of old vessels were scrapped as part of the reforms. the limited viability of catches as well as a lack of financial resources means that it has been impossible for them to be replaced. a large number of family businesses involved in fishing and fish processing have closed down. at the moment, on the coast itself, it is difficult to buy fresh fish, something that used to attract tourists and holidaymakers. there has been a significant flow of people, and young people in particular, away from the fishing industry. the measures proposed in the report include access to cheap fuel, financial and investment aid for fishermen and family enterprises and career training and education for young fishermen and those interested in a career in fishing. these measures can successfully counteract the marginalisation of this fishing sector. the implementation of these measures would facilitate the maintenance of existing jobs and the creation of new jobs in regions where there is currently high unemployment. this kind of aid is important in social and economic terms and guarantees consumers the uniqueness of a local cuisine based on fresh fish. the launch of the european fisheries fund is particularly important. adopting the report and implementing the proposals it contains will be welcomed with great gratitude by fishermen. i would like to thank mr neachtain for drawing up this report. i support the rapporteur's recommendations. - mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank mr neachtain for the work he has done in performing a careful analysis of the problems facing inshore fishing in the european union. the report quite rightly considers the role of women to be important at last, recognises their difficulties in operating in this sector, refers to the subject of on-board safety, and highlights the importance of professional training and the role that inshore fishing can have in protecting and conserving the coastal marine environment. i should, however, like to mention two aspects that are important for my country, italy, and not only for the south of the country but also for the northern adriatic. first, i believe that inshore resources need to be protected and that legislation is needed to ensure that fishing is sustainable and does not harm the environment. however, the proposal to ban all fishing techniques that threaten the survival of inshore resources and the economic sustainability of the social fabric associated with fishing may well be a fair provision but it would leave many operators in difficulties, in that they would be left without work for lack of any feasible alternative proposals for a sector that is already going through a serious unemployment crisis. secondly, insufficient attention has been devoted to producers' associations and the positive role that they could play in contributing to the socio-economic development of fisheries-dependent communities. being able to relate the management of local fisheries to local conditions and to the member states would reinforce the principle of subsidiarity that our fishing communities would like to see in the management of inshore fishing, and would bring their problems closer to the source of solutions. the regional advisory councils themselves should encourage dialogue between the european union and local actors. these councils, seven of which are planned although only four have been set up, are considered neither functional nor powerful enough to manage small-scale fisheries resources, since they are only advisory bodies. to conclude, i should like to thank commissioner borg for the important work he has done, particularly in connection with the green paper on the future of the common fisheries policy, which proposes making the various sectors involved in the management of maritime policy interact with each other. - mr president, i wish to express my satisfaction with all the findings and proposals set out by the rapporteur and to make a number of comments. we all know that inshore fishing is the basic economic activity in disadvantaged and isolated regions of the european union. for example, in greece, inshore fishing has the largest number of boats (96% of the fishing fleet) and the highest rate of employment. the sector needs financial support in order to replace and update the fleet. the arrival of young workers in inshore fishing, apart from any family connections they may have, means that certain support policies need to be applied, given that even the report talks of the financial difficulties of both owners and workers and their limited borrowing capacity, factors which have an adverse impact on attracting young people to this profession. in addition to vocational training, this policy could include specific incentives for young fishermen. the role and contribution of women in family inshore fishing businesses needs to be acknowledged. the european union should help to organise inshore fishing by helping their associations to create infrastructures, move products and improve fishing methods. it should be pointed out here that their organisation prevents them from being properly represented in decision-making bodies and at public hearings. the active participation of coastal organisations throughout the european union in a dialogue during which priorities and completion deadlines at local, regional and european level are determined must therefore be one of our objectives during the consultations. mr president, mr neachtain's report is an interesting case of the rapporteur searching for the root cause of a very complex problem, one which is not easy to assess. this problem is that of inshore fishing. this is because in the general sense this term still covers industrial, artisan and holiday fishing. as is the case with any field that is hard to define and that is ambiguous, it is doomed to be marginalised and to remain outside the main current of union funding and investment programmes, when inshore fishing in fact makes up around 80% of all sea fishing. there is a lack of investment in the sector, it is neglected and faces great technical, social and economic difficulties. the shortage of funding to modernise fishing equipment results in increasingly defective fishing vessels and, what is worse, cases of vessels sinking. everyday conditions are getting worse, and catch statistics are falling. this popular and long-traditional fishing sector simply seems to be running out of clear prospects. the appeal for action is thus entirely justified. action is needed to secure the fundamental bases of inshore fishing. the member states need to implement common protection mechanisms that will guarantee its existence. these mechanisms are more effective if they take into account the specific situation of this kind of fishing and the inherent conditions, technical needs and economic framework of the relevant inshore zones. - mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i too wish to congratulate the rapporteur on the truly wonderful report he has prepared for us. inshore fishing is of great importance. it is of economic, social, cultural and environmental importance. it is of economic importance because it secures an income in what are often poor remote island areas. it is of social importance because most are small family businesses and, if this type of fishing is lost, they too will be lost. it is of cultural importance because these areas have a strong element of tradition and, if these fishermen go, a slice of european culture will be lost with them. it is of environmental importance because this type of fishing does not damage or causes the minimum possible damage compared with other types. we must not forget that 44% of the labour force in fishing is engaged in inshore fishing and that 75% of the fishing fleet in the european union is engaged in inshore fishing. these two statistics tell us a great deal. i wish to say that inshore fishing needs to be protected and, when we say protected, we mean safe boats. people who go out fishing must believe that they will return home safely, which is why we must support modernisation. young people need to be attracted to this profession because the population is aging, they need to be able to sell their products, so that middlemen do not eat up money which should end up in the pockets of fishermen and consumers, problems need to be addressed, such as rising prices and, finally, we need to make a huge effort to keep our seas clean, so that we have fish in our seas for a thousand and one other reasons. . mr president, i would like to thank the honourable members for the valuable remarks they have made, and i have taken note of the various points raised. i shall try to reply briefly to some of them. first of all, i agree that women should be given and should take every opportunity to establish gender parity. the commission will do its utmost to bring this about by all available means with regard to fisheries, particularly coastal fisheries, where women are more prominent than in the other fisheries sectors. on three specific points that have been made, the granting or otherwise of tie-up aid is a national matter and the reporting and control are aimed more at larger vessels than at smaller ones. smaller vessels are in many instances either exempt, or have less stringent requirements to comply with. with regard to the specificities of inshore fisheries, i need to underline again that up to a distance of 12 nautical miles these are largely subject to member state jurisdiction. the eu is not really involved in the control of fisheries within the 12-nautical-mile limit, other than in exceptional cases. i also agree that the specificity of different coastal areas has to be taken into account. we are actually doing that in the mediterranean proposal, and i hope that later this year i will go back to council to try and have the mediterranean proposal adopted. as i said in my opening remarks, there is quite extensive provision for the promotion of small coastal fisheries in the european fisheries fund. i would also like to say that, after a long and difficult balancing act, we have finally hammered out a compromise deal allowing coreper to agree on the european fisheries fund, and it will now feature as an 'a item' at this monday's agricultural and fisheries council. to outline how the european fisheries fund seeks to attain this assistance to small coastal fisheries, first of all there is a reduction of the private contribution to modernisation of vessels for owners of smaller ships to 20%. the european fisheries fund gives them more favourable treatment and conditions for engine replacement for vessels of up to 12 metres, in which case engines can be changed without reduction of capacity on a one-to-one basis. member states are urged to give safety tonnage, preferably to smaller vessels. the european fisheries fund also allows for young fishers to be offered favourable conditions for training and the purchase of a first second-hand vessel. the fund can also be used for projects aimed at bringing about gender equality. it provides for the promotion of processing and marketing, which could be beneficial to coastal communities and fishers. the commission will carefully examine the results of the study it commissioned earlier this year when they are available, and will decide, on the basis of the findings, what measures can be proposed next year and whether there is scope for a community initiative on coastal fisheries. mr neachtain's report will also be taken into account. however, my view is that we should not over-regulate in such a sector; we should help mainly by providing assistance for coastal fishers to overcome the handicaps that they face in exercising their profession. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. - the economic and social crisis that is affecting the fisheries sector in italy, which has been hit by management costs of over 40% and losses of income of around 25% in the last three years, is hurting the less competitive elements in the fleet most of all. the inshore fishing industry has been hit particularly badly in that it is more affected by the highly unstable fuel prices and the rise in variable costs. in addition to economic difficulties, the inshore fishing sector also has to face the lack of a specific legislative framework. the european union must take a realistic attitude and agree to adopt definitions that are not too strict. the future regulation for the mediterranean, for instance, should provide for adjustments to be put forward at a national level. the commission needs to recognise small-scale inshore fishing and traditional fishing as a special case within the common fisheries policy, while taking account of the fact that certain coastal areas, particularly in island or outermost regions, are heavily dependent on fishing and the satellite industries that it generates. it needs to analyse how adequate the current instruments are for responding to the sector's needs, and it should involve representatives from the industry to a greater extent in the decision-making process. in ireland, inshore fishing is an industry with special social and economic importance, providing jobs, maintaining remote coastal communities and preserving traditional cultures. it requires skills and knowledge passed from generation to generation of families. it is important that such an industry thrives. the exclusion of inshore fishing from current community legislation is creating an environment in which mere survival is questionable. it is so important that inshore fishing be developed, making it attractive to the employment-seeking youth. the job is generally associated with low wages and unreliability. many must seek further part-time work to supplement their income. in ireland, the celtic tiger economic boom has resulted in higher-paying, stable occupational opportunities for young professionals. an issue which should be addressed concerns the sourcing of funding aid through the european fisheries fund for inshore fishermen badly affected by legislative or policy changes relating to their fishery. from 2007 on, 1200 irish salmon fishermen face the loss of their livelihood due to such legislative and policy changes. inshore fishermen are very vulnerable to the implications of the designation of special areas of conservation. it is necessary that provisions be made to compensate those affected by such designation. the next item is the statement from the commission on level 2 implementing measures for directive 2004/39/ec, the markets in financial instruments directive (mifid). . mr president, on behalf of my colleague, mr mccreevy, who could not be here tonight, i should like to thank mrs kauppi, who has been an outstanding rapporteur in terms of her mastery of this difficult and highly technical subject and her willingness to work constructively with the commission and all parties. she has done a first-class job, along with mrs bers, the chairwoman of the committee on economic and monetary affairs. thanks also go to the committee of european securities regulators for its excellent work. under the terms of the prodi declaration, the commission is committed to taking the fullest possible account of parliament's view. we have more than met that obligation. indeed, we have incorporated around 90% of parliament's amendments into the commission's draft measures, which will be voted on by the european securities committee at the end of this month. on all the key points we agree. the level of institutional cooperation on this file has been exemplary. it shows that parliament, the commission and member states are able to work together in a sensible and pragmatic way in order to achieve the right result for europe's financial markets and europe's investors and consumers. the lamfalussy procedure, which we have all worked hard to develop over the past few years, works. of course it is important to agree as soon as possible on the european parliament's legitimate right of call-back, which the commission supports. we believe that lamfalussy procedures will serve us well in the years ahead, allowing us to adapt our legislation rapidly to keep pace with market and technological developments, while maintaining essential democratic checks and balances. the markets in financial instruments directive will intensify competition among investment firms, stock exchanges and other trading venues and improve standards of service to investors and benefit companies by lowering the cost of capital. it will update the single passport for investment firms, allowing them to operate across the european union on the basis of an effective single authorisation and across a wide range of financial instruments. aside from stimulating cross-border competition, it will diversify the range of products and services that investors can access and markets that firms can tap into. but crucially and essentially, investor protection rules will be harmonised at a high level so that investors can feel confident in using the services of investment firms wherever they are in europe and wherever the investment firms originate from in europe. furthermore, these rules are principles-based in that they put the onus on firms to behave and to always act in the best interests of their clients. the rapid globalisation of financial markets is an opportunity for europe. these implementing measures for the markets in financial instruments directive mean that we are well placed to stay ahead. our financial markets are in good shape. they are growing strongly and are set to grow even faster in future as the union enlarges further, as our middle class expands and as people increasingly take responsibility for their own pension provisions. our common regulatory framework is more or less in place. mifid is the last piece of the jigsaw where markets are integrating fast. the european financial landscape is becoming commercially more attractive. leaving politics aside, the potential stock exchange measures represent a vote of confidence in europe, in our stock exchanges, our technological prowess and our regulatory system. in the end what matters is that the cost of capital in the eu remains as low as possible overall for all eu economic actors, that european union financial markets are properly regulated by european regulators, that european union markets can grow strongly, that cross-border clearing and settlement costs are significantly reduced and that the european union, through its new regulatory regime, can influence and develop strongly its financial relations with the rest of the world, using its good emerging model of regulation as its passport. the markets in financial instruments directive is a key step towards positioning europe as a global leader in financial services. that is why the commission is particularly thankful to parliament for its cooperation on this vital subject. mr president, we can all be very satisfied with the resolution before us. it is based on a remarkable effort by the commission, the european parliament, the european securities committee regulators and market players, which has resulted in the successful conclusion of the implementing measures for mifid. the directive itself is nothing short of revolutionary in the way it opens up investment markets in the eu and achieves better guarantees for investor protection than in previous legislation. the implementing measures before us, which establish some 17 key provisions of the directive, represent balanced and measured regulatory arrangements for bringing these twin promises to fruition. the procedure by which these implementing measures have been drawn up is also highly significant. this is the first time the european parliament has been fully involved in concluding implementing legislation at the comitology phase. in the end, the percentage of parliament's amendments scheduled to be adopted by the esc is about 87%. this compares highly favourably with, for example, what we obtained in the underlying mifid directive, where that percentage was about 50%. all the parties involved can feel justified pride in the way we managed to overcome potential interinstitutional pitfalls since, as we all know, parliament's role in comitology is the topic of an often heated debate. in fact, we are still awaiting some answers from the commission and council. i should like to address special thanks, however, to the commission for its open and forthcoming cooperation with me and the committee on economic and monetary affairs, which was instrumental in bringing about this very positive outcome. i agree with the remarks made by the commission on monday to the effect that we have achieved something historic not only for the financial markets but also in the manner level 2 legislation and other comitology legislation is framed. despite the positive outcome, i should like to mention a few points. i am somewhat perplexed that the commission did not accept our modification which sought to clarify the best execution obligations of investment firms towards clients when dealing on their own account. i hope that the commission and national regulations will interpret the resulting provision in the light of the agreement reached in the level 1 directive. furthermore, i should have liked to have seen more flexibility on the delayed reporting of large trades. we will have to be vigilant and promptly invoke the review clause if it becomes apparent that premature reporting of large trades is harming the provision of liquidity to clients, making it more expensive or rendering eu markets less competitive than markets in other parts of the world. finally, i had hoped that a more modern interpretation of the business in derivatives could have been found. it will be important to amend the level 2 measures promptly if it becomes apparent that new clients and new markets, especially transactions using the internet, are being disadvantaged. the number of criticisms is nonetheless dwarfed by the overall positive result. i should like to thank all the participants and all my colleagues who helped in this endeavour. . mr president, commissioner, you can tell mr mccreevy that, here in the european parliament this evening, we have followed the entire lamfalussy procedure for the first time. the european parliament has contributed to that effort in a way which, i believe, will be commended by everyone for its quality and professionalism, and it has also defended, at level 2, the balance between the achievement of open markets and the transparency principle we defined for level 1. what we have done here in the european parliament has focused primarily on the parliamentary contribution to the proper functioning of what is known as the lamfalussy procedure and on our reasons for hoping that the agreement on the exercise of the implementing powers assigned to the commission will guarantee the rights of parliament. we also welcome the commission's acceptance of a number of our proposals designed to improve the balance in the areas of transparency and consumer rights. lastly, allow me also to draw your attention to the content of our resolution regarding the role, powers and intervention rights as a market regulator of the committee of european securities regulators, which coordinates the activities of national regulators. the member states must accept their responsibilities and give this body the resources that will enable it to ensure the proper implementation of this directive, on which the efficient financing of our economy depends. commissioner, when we began this whole adventure, some members of the committee on economic and monetary affairs argued that, besides the market itself, we should concern ourselves with what happened further down the chain, with what are known as post-trading activities, namely clearing and settlement. as you yourself observed, these post-trading activities are too costly today. for this reason, although i am not one to glorify market forces, i believe that what is applied elsewhere should be applied here, namely decoupling, which ought to be a good way to reduce costs. i hope that the commissioner will not intervene too belatedly or too timidly in this domain, as he has indicated to some market operators. . mr president, first of all, i would like to express my warm thanks to all those who took part in the preparation of this resolution and documents, especially the amendments, creating legal premises for the emergence of a united investment services market. for me, as the representative of a small and new european union member state, the kind cooperation of competent and more experienced colleagues is the best proof that we can work together in an enlarged europe and implement important reforms together. i believe that i really must stress this. another thing i would like to mention is that we have to look to the future, as the rapid and ambitious development of financial markets brings new tasks every day. i am sorry that mr mccreevy is not participating in our debates today, and that neither he nor the european commission have played much part in the current reorganisation period of europe's financial market. therefore, based on experience i have gained myself, i would like to point out the things we ought to emphasise when discussing the global challenges of the world's financial market. i feel that our strategic goal ought to be the aim to follow the development route of our own distinctive european financial market regulation model. we need to stress this more and more as we seem lost amid aggressively expanding markets. we have our own particular european financial market traditions and must foster these and mention them more often. i agree with the opinion of the commission member that europe now has great opportunities to become a leader in the field of financial market regulation, considering the very thorough regulation practice of the united states of america and the problems faced by states with new developing economies in the field of regulation. what should the elements of that distinctive european model be? first of all, we must state clearly that we will use principles-based regulation, and not strive for detailed rules-based regulation, as the former is far more flexible and means it is possible to react to changes in the global market more rapidly. while preparing the mifid documents, it was said that a more detailed regulation would guarantee a united approach in implementing the anticipated measures in all european union states, but it is possible to achieve the same by better coordinating the work of supervisory institutions. the second element of the model ought to be provisions encouraging the convergence of the interpretations and requirements of supervisory institutions. no rules will help avoid, let us say, the different financial cultures which exist in southern europe, great britain and northern europe. thus, we must rely on and the experience of the northern market as we coordinate a united interpretation of legal norms. i take a sceptical view of the proposals by the european central bank to create harmonised standards or proposals to provide more legal documents in order to establish the market. we have sufficient documents; we simply ought to devote more attention to their convergence. clearly, in future, the financial market will possibly need its own united supervisory institution, but this is a prospect for the future and not very practical at the moment. the third thing i would like to mention is that financial market efficiency must be assessed by taking into account the views of the end consumer, which would mean the separation of services, the disclosure of the internal expenditure of huge financial conglomerates and the management and exposure of conflicts of interest. - () mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to start thanking not only mrs kauppi, the rapporteur, but also all those, the shadow rapporteurs in particular, who have worked on this highly complex topic, for their great effort. once again, i have to say how deeply disappointed i am in our bureau; today is an historic date, and on it we have been provided with evidence of how effective parliamentary participation is in the committee procedure. within the institutions, we - the representatives of the citizens, of the people of europe - are actually achieving something, and, as we debate it shortly before midnight, we are enjoined to keep things brief. this is not the first time this has happened. i know that the bureau and the powers-that-be are not interested, yet, all the same, i shall not tire of saying that we should concentrate on showing the public the rights that this house possesses. at the moment, we are discussing the reinforcement of parliament's rights in respect of committee procedure, specifically the lamfalussy procedure. in the week in which the decisive sessions are to be held, the bureau schedules debate on it for just before midnight; no worse message could be sent about the subject. the good thing that has emerged from this evening is that we have demonstrated that this house plays a cooperative role in dialogue with the council and the commission, and that this is not our fault. i call on the council, both this week and next, to take this positive example to heart. we have demonstrated that we, through the procedure of our committees, can come to decisions that are more efficient, that make possible better regulation and hence also the continuation of the lamfalussy procedure, that is to say of this house's right of review, with this house notified in good time and the perspective afforded by the institutionalisation of the call-back. we should adopt something to this effect. i see that the gavel is about to come down; in this house, time is the most important thing. even so, the commission should take care that, in the financial markets - for that is what this directive is about - there should in future come into being a european model in which the strengths of all parties are taken into account. mr radwan, i must point out to you that it is not the bureau that sets our agenda but the conference of presidents. mr president, i would like to support the remarks made by various speakers on this being a historic moment. i am not referring to the time of five minutes to midnight, but to the historic moment in which we reached this sound agreement and were able to modify the proposal. i say the proposal, because the commission did not like that terminology, but i think this is what has been done, through the good cooperation and professionalism of the people involved. i would also like to emphasise our adherence to the lamfalussy procedure and cooperation between the different players in the field, and to underline what mrs bers said about the role of the regulators and the importance of getting the tools to enforce the legislation and measures we have now adopted. this enforcement needs tools and instruments and it is up to member states to provide them. the last point i want to mention is something i think we have to discuss with the commissioner responsible, mr mccreevy. i hope we can invite him to the next strasbourg session and have a debate - maybe not at such a late hour as this but earlier in the day - on the developments in the stock exchanges. i was particularly surprised by something he said the day before yesterday in a speech in ireland. he compared the globalisation of the financial markets with an ocean steamer and said that the european union is on the bridge, in control and taking the lead in this process. we are not sure that this is in fact the case, because the commission is not proactive in what is happening at the moment in the market. we are keen to debate this with him. . mr president, i thank parliament for the very valuable contribution it has made to the whole process. i consider that this is a perfect example of how well all three institutions can work together to the benefit of the european financial markets. europe should be proud today to give itself a regulatory framework for financial markets which will put it at the forefront of the world's financial centres and improve the competitiveness of the european economy as a whole. i congratulate everyone for achieving this result. on two proposed amendments which were not accepted by the commission - amendments 4 and 7, to which the rapporteur made reference - i should like to say that with regard to the disclosure of the identification of the client, the commission favours a more flexible approach. practices, as well as assessment of the usefulness of requiring identification, vary in member states. it can be an invaluable tool in the investigation of market abuse. the commission prefers to leave this issue unharmonised at this stage. the commission is not in favour of amendment 7, which relates to deferring the publication of information relating to portfolio trades. our current proposal on portfolio trades is that the block regime will apply with respect to each constituent share. if accepted, the amendment could weaken transparency requirements. by including only one transaction for which delay is permitted in a portfolio trade, a delay for the whole portfolio would be obtained. finally, i am certain that commissioner mccreevy will gladly accept your invitation to discuss this subject further with you at the next part-session in strasbourg. i have received a motion for a resolution pursuant to rule 103(2) of the rules of procedure.(1) the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m.

explanations of vote oral explanations of vote (cs) madam president, in the debate on the ce marking yesterday i drew the attention of the commission yet again to the fact that registration of the ce marking has still not been initiated, although it has been enshrined in european legislation for 16 years now and i asked for it in parliamentary interpellation three months ago. i welcome the promise the commissioner for enterprise made again yesterday as regards speeding the matter up, but i am not sure if he is aware of the importance of having the marking registered in foreign markets. until this happens, it will be impossible to sue for damages in cases of manufacturers and importers who misuse the european conformity mark symbolising the safety of the product to gain unfair advantage and deceive customers both in europe and abroad. it would surely help to free the market of unfair competition. (hu) thank you very much. it was a shocking experience to enter the gaza strip and come face to face with the everyday consequences of the occupation and blockade. 80% of the population is unemployed, the israelis cut off the electricity and water supplies from time to time, many people only get to eat once a day, and the vast majority of the population have not been able to leave an area smaller than budapest for years. as an israeli professor said, gaza is a prison, and its residents are prisoners from whom it is difficult to expect rational behaviour. at the same time, it is also embittering that some palestinian groups are using rockets from the gaza territories to threaten the lives of innocent israeli civilians. the crisis goes too far back for it to be solved in the traditional way. by now, both sides have become the prisoners of their own extremists and are unable to make real concessions because of them. the international community, and above all the european union, must force israel and the palestinians to reach an amicable settlement. i have voted for the recommendation, in the hope that the member states will take more resolute steps. (cs) i also feel very deeply for the people of the gaza strip, who have become hostages in the hands of hamas. however, i could not support today's european parliament resolution because the article calling for negotiations between the palestinian authority and hamas has not been removed from it. we all know there is no negotiation possible with the terrorists who have occupied gaza. such an appeal is an act of hypocrisy, which aims to put hamas in the role of a partner to the palestinian authority. i do not wish to be part to legitimising this terrorist organisation. i am afraid that the situation will soon demand intervention, which should, however, be authorised by the united nations. and this is where europe should play a very active part. - (nl) madam president, in contrast to what is claimed by this parliament, the un council of human rights does not in fact play such an important role in the promotion of human rights in the world. how could it possibly be any different? only 25 of its 47 members are free democracies, nine of them are not free and three, china, cuba and saudi arabia, are among the greatest human rights offenders in the world. these countries trample the un declaration of human rights underfoot and defend themselves and other regimes against any criticism. in some cases the council has simply undermined the overseeing of human rights. the council has still not pronounced the slightest condemnation of the world's current largest human rights crisis, darfur. rather than shouting for joy about such a creature, this parliament would do better to include such matters in its resolution. - (nl) madam president, i want not only to agree with what my colleague mr dillen has just said, but also to point out that the resolution insults the religions that have been adopted by the council. this resolution literally states, and i quote, that people 'with responsibility must speak out, and that the freedom to express one's opinion may be limited in matters relating to public health and morality'. this resolution concerns, of course, the prohibition of all criticism of islam. the un council of human rights is hereby rightly going against its own official objectives, the protection of the right to free expression of opinion and thus also the protection of human rights itself. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to take the floor to argue on behalf of the entire group of the european people's party and european democrats, as well as on my own behalf, for a favourable vote on the final version of this report. the report tackles the hard fact that there are many more elderly than young people, because both medical care and lifestyles enable all of us to live longer on average - not all of us, unfortunately, but on average. therefore there are many more elderly people, also because the birth rate has declined, which is why in the document we call for measures to stimulate the birth rate. i would point out that the european people's party, along with the uen and other groups, requested the deletion of paragraph 24. we voted in favour of deletion but regrettably the majority in this house was not in favour. i believe my speaking time is now at an end. - (nl) madam president, the merit of the castex report is undoubtedly that it indicates the enormous demographic challenges with which europe is faced. admittedly, a lot of good questions, trains of thought and solutions are enumerated. more and better relief for children must indeed be urgently provided, older workers must indeed also be provided with continuing opportunities within the employment markets, and health services must indeed urgently prepare themselves to face the challenge of the accelerated aging demographic. on the other hand, this parliament is straying off course in considering immigration as an instrument with which to secure the demographic and economic future of europe. just recently, one of the british prime minister's most important advisers, lord turner, described the axiom that immigrants are necessary to make up for the shortage of workers as, and i quote, 'economically illiterate and completely incorrect'. europe already has a million unemployed immigrants, coupled with all the problems which go along with that. as more immigrants enter, these existing problems can only get worse. madam president, when voting on the guellec report on cohesion policy, i could not support compromise amendment 4, which calls for 'increased financial resources for cohesion policy' in the future. automatically increasing eu subsidies is not, perhaps, the most responsible approach when we have the practical problem of making a meaningful and efficient use of them. instead, i am in favour of using the term 'sufficient financial resources'. written explanations of vote in writing. - (pt) in a european union flooded with a wide variety of directives on detailed issues that would be better tackled at member state level, given their specific nature and level of development, it cannot fail to be interesting to see how the european commission will act in terms of monitoring the application of community law. one of the conclusions that can be drawn is that each directorate-general has its own very different way of working, but it is not clear whether the member states also work in different ways, although experience tells us that the small and medium-sized countries generally act more rigorously than the european powers. this is what has happened with the stability pact. this latest report introduces a new element which the committee on petitions of the european parliament applauds. in the annual report and its related annexes, the european commission has included, for the first time, particulars of the specific and detailed treatment of infringements relating to petitions. in writing. (pl) mrs frassoni has prepared a good report. i support the proposal to simplify the application of community law and the introduction of package meetings for that purpose. i am also in favour of workshops devoted to transposition of community legal acts. in addition, i endorse the idea of improving the efficiency of application of community law through closer cooperation between the european parliament and national parliaments. these actions will help to improve the effectiveness of european union policies regarding for example european fund actions and harmonisation of standards for products on the community market. as regards the report relating to the commission's annual report on monitoring the application of community law, i am of the opinion that one of its major themes is the commission's intention of improving working methods in cases of reported breaches of community law in the member states. under the framework of the proposed new working method, citizens' queries and complaints should be handed back directly to the member states in question. as the rapporteur, mrs frassoni, rightly pointed out, this new working method of the commission, in other words the handing back of the complaint, carries an inherent risk of the commission renouncing its fundamental responsibility for the application of community law. in this connection i would also like to point out another fact, which has already been subject to criticism in the european parliament: it is the lobby groups, which always manage to access the commission's notifications directed at member states in cases of suspected breaches of community law, while citizens do not. yet it is precisely the citizens, whose submissions provide an irreplaceable source of information and alert us to breaches or non-application of community law, not some interest groups with their own agenda. in writing. (pl) i voted in favour of the report by mrs frassoni on monitoring the application of community law (2005). mrs frassoni has presented a very good report. in particular, the individual issues contained in the motion for a resolution call for cohesion in the area of joint action by eu institutions, national parliaments and the citizens themselves. the main points concern the ideas for better monitoring and the proposals for simplifying implementation of the provisions of community law and improving its effectiveness. their implementation is essential to improving the effectiveness of european union policy on, for instance, european fund actions and harmonisation of standards for products goods on the community market. furthermore, the appeal to national parliaments contained in the motion for a resolution is very important. national parliaments are urged to go beyond a purely formal transposition of community legislation and avoid fragmentation when incorporating it into national legislation. in writing. - i welcome andr brie's proposal for regulation on the accreditation and market surveillance of products in the european community. the proposal will improve the amount of protection given to consumers and will improve product safety. to ensure greater protection it is necessary that accreditation and market surveillance be carried out by a public body. the report attends to these points and i voted in favour of its recommendations. in writing. - (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, at a time when the european market seems totally incapable of defending itself against dumping from outside of europe, i note with great satisfaction the first 'institutional' step towards new legislation and harmonisation of the eu market. the european parliament in strasbourg has proposed a new way of regulating products placed on the community market. these products will have to comply with the rules in force and, following a careful appraisal, will be able to bear the ce mark. over and above the introduction of joint liability on the part of importers and foreign manufacturers for damage caused by non-compliant products, the report proposes the development of a complex system of monitoring which lays down penalties proportionate to the seriousness of the offence so as to constitute an effective deterrent against improper use. consumers and businesses can therefore look to the future with renewed optimism. the removal of barriers, the cornerstone of eu free-trade policy since the very outset, and the creation of a business-friendly economic climate will reflect a high level of protection both for consumers, through the observance of high standards on health and product safety, and for businesses, which will benefit at last from a rigorous system of checks and balances to protect goods made in europe. for this reason i am voting in favour of the report. in writing. - (pt) this european parliament report introduces certain elements which may be positive, although somewhat contradictory. for example, all those involved in placing a product on the market would bear the same responsibility, from the manufacturer to the distributor and importer, but it is not properly indicated how this would work. the report also allows national markings to be maintained which, under the european commission's proposal, would disappear, with only the ce marking being recognised. the compromise replaces the reference to 'national markings' with 'other markings'. the report also maintains that this is a non-binding framework, but that anyone adopting it will have to abide by it. in addition, it inserts a reference to smes requiring their specific needs to be taken into account. however, the objective of the european commission's proposal, which the report does not question, is to facilitate the functioning of the single market by removing the remaining obstacles, but without this applying to certain sectors of activity, in particular foodstuffs, animal feed, health and wellbeing of animals, tobacco products, veterinary medicinal products, medicinal products for human use, human blood and human tissues and cells, for which harmonised legislation already exists. in writing. (pl) mrs schaldemose rightly points out that the decision in question, aimed at creating a broader and more rigorous system of community control of the marketing of products, may have a significant impact on the conduct of international trade. this calls for a separate analysis. i agree that the proposal for importers to be jointly liable for the harm caused by unsafe products and products failing to comply with the accreditation system aims to improve the effectiveness of the system and protect the community's public interest. it also aims to guarantee the citizens' fundamental right to protection against unfair and unsafe practices. in writing. - mrs schaldemose's report calling for a common framework for the marketing of products is one that i welcome and have voted in favour of. the recommendations made in the report will bolster the eu's efforts to protect consumers. the ce mark tends to be misunderstood as a safety mark, when in fact it is simply a statement of the product's conformity with eu legislation. it is essential that we make sure that the mark is not abused and inform consumers of what the ce mark guarantees. in writing. - (sk) as rapporteur on behalf of the ppe-de group for the draft report by mrs schaldemose on the common framework for the marketing of products, i would like to express my satisfaction with the results of the vote: the compromise achieved has already made it possible to finalise the legislative process at first reading. the agreed compromise includes the transfer of some of the articles dealing with the ce mark to the report by mr brie on market surveillance, so that they can be put into practice more quickly. our decision to do so was based on clear information proving that products made in developing countries and wrongfully ce marked, that is bearing the ce logo that indicates that a product is in conformity with european legislation, keep turning up more and more often in the european database of dangerous consumer products (rapex). trusting or not trusting the ce mark cannot be based on the ce mark alone, out of context. there must be trust in the entire system of accreditation, notification and market surveillance. i see no reason for introducing additional marking on products, not even if these were quality marks. such new marking could be confusing for the end consumer and furthermore the extra cost could be reflected in the price of the goods. this is why i will curiously await the results of the impact study assessing the usage of national markings alongside the ce marking that the commission should prepare, as requested by the committee on internal market and consumer protection. in writing. - (pt) the european commission's argument for proposing this regulation is that 'the "principle of mutual recognition" . is hampered by several problems' (in other words, products marketed in one member state may be prevented from being marketed in another). it believes that the possibility of national technical rules creating unlawful obstacles to the free movement of goods between member states should be minimised. it therefore lays down requirements which authorities must meet when implementing a national technical rule and imposes on them the burden of proof. in other words, it is imposing conditions with the clear aim of restricting the possibility of each state applying its own rules. for its part, the european parliament report actually adds further obstacles to the action that each state may take, for example: 'the aim of this regulation is to strengthen the functioning of the internal market, with free and undistorted competition, by improving the free movement of products whilst ensuring a high level of consumer protection and product safety'. in practice, the member states will be prohibited from restricting the sale in their territory of products where these are manufactured and marketed in another member state, even though they may not fully comply with the rules of the member state of destination. in writing. - i agree with the recommendations contained within mr stubb's report. the document aims to clarify and define the role of national authorities and economic operators in the implementation of the mutual recognition principle. while i am in favour of increasing the efficiency with which the mutual recognition principle is implemented, it must not affect the single market's base of further harmonisation. furthermore, safety aspects must form part of the principle's implementation. i am confident that the report sufficiently deals with these issues and therefore voted in favour of it. in writing. - we do not agree with the mutual recognition principle as a guarantor for advanced consumer, social or environmental rights. the principle says that if the product is accepted somewhere in europe, it cannot be denied access to another member state unless the authorities can provide evidence that the application of a national technical rule is justified. however, the criteria for exceptions to the principle are already established by eu court rulings. and these apply to all member states, regardless of whether or not we adopt the goods package. in addition to that, consumer rights at eu level are strengthened with the goods package. furthermore, we are against any measures taken in the goods package that may give political support to a future harmonisation of criminal law at eu level. having taking all this into consideration, we have decided to vote in favour of the reports. in writing. - (de) i am in favour of the internal market for goods package, because it is essential to have a common framework for the marketing of products abroad. in an internal market which is based on the principles of technical harmonisation of rules governing the sale of products in the european market and the mutual recognition principle, we cannot have a situation in which the marketing of products which can already be put on sale in one member state is substantially delayed or, in a worst-case scenario, actually obstructed due to excessive bureaucracy in another. i therefore welcome the reports by our fellow members, mrs schaldemose and mr brie, who advocate a reduction in red tape and a common legal framework for future sectoral provisions so that in future, as much coherence as is politically and technically feasible is guaranteed. finally, however, i would point out that both proposals require further refinement so that key definitions and especially the scope of the legal framework are properly clarified. if these proposals themselves lack clear terminology, achieving the desired harmonisation will be impossible. in writing. - (de) the package on the marketing of products in europe, to be voted on today, undoubtedly brings improvements for consumers. the problems with imported children's toys last year demonstrated that there is a clear need for action here and that it must be possible to hold importers liable to a greater extent for product safety. what is important is what parliament has achieved, namely that the new approach will be implemented to a lesser extent and its application must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. we cannot be satisfied with the treatment of the ce mark to date. it is certainly not a quality mark denoting a product produced in europe, which is what it implies to many consumers in its current form, and it is therefore very misleading. in writing. - (nl) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i have voted with conviction for the three-party agreement regarding this legislation package to make the common market truly free. i am also convinced that we can round off this matter in one reading, and even within a year of launching the proposals. this legislation is so necessary that i have honestly wondered to myself why consumers and smes have had to wait so long. the principle of mutual recognition was formulated by the court of justice almost 30 years ago and is now enshrined in legislation. nevertheless, the member states do not apply it systematically. i am convinced that the reversal of the burden of proof which we are now carrying out is the best way to respect this principle and to allow the internal market for non-harmonised products to work. furthermore, we are genuinely ensuring much better consumer protection with much better market supervision. nothing less would be acceptable in a europe which boasts of its high standards. finally, we are taking care to get rid of a number of bad, protectionist tendencies. the new accreditation scheme for organisations whose products are certified as conforming to harmonised standards will entail administrative costs but will lead to a better result, a working internal market and more equal conditions of competition. the costs that we will save with this package will ultimately produce more jobs and economic growth. better consumer protection is one very good reason to approve this package with enthusiasm. in writing. - i will be voting in favour of this resolution. the humanitarian and political crisis in the gaza strip must be viewed with deep concern. we must ask hamas to stop attacks against israel from the territory it controls, and israel to cease military actions killing civilians and extrajudicial targeted killings. the policy of isolation of the gaza strip has totally failed at a political and human level. the blockade must end, with the re-opening of crossings in and out of gaza. i welcome the eu's financial contributions to the palestinians over the previous years which - with the appropriate controls and monitoring - should continue. in writing. - (sv) unfortunately, once again the eu is using a humanitarian disaster to advance its position in the field of foreign policy. the june list expresses its sympathy with the civilian population affected by the conflict, but it is only through the un that this conflict can be resolved, with broad international support, and not through the eu. in writing. - (pt) while it is true that we share many of the concerns expressed in the resolution, it is also true that these fall well short of the necessary denunciation and condemnation of israel's colonialist policy with regard to palestine and its people. among other aspects: once again, the resolution places the aggressor and aggressed, occupier and occupied on the same level, thereby ignoring the terrorism of the israeli state; the resolution does not condemn the criminal embargo imposed by israel on the gaza strip and its population nor does it denounce the connivance or silence of the united states of america or the european union in this respect; the resolution says nothing about the deplorable statements made by commissioner frattini who is responsible for justice and home affairs and who stated that the eu would be prepared to 'take on board israeli concerns and interests in a way that was not on our agenda in the first years of intifada'. it is at the very least abominable that someone who talks so much about terrorism not only ignores israel's terrorism but is prepared to cooperate with it. for our part, we continue to condemn israel's policy of apartheid against palestine and to defend full compliance with the inalienable rights of the palestinian people, enshrined in numerous un resolutions. in writing. - i voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on gaza and am pleased that parliament has taken such a strong stance on lifting the blockade. this is a humanitarian disaster in the making. there are insufficient drugs available in hospitals to provide basic care; food assistance to part of the population only fulfils about two-thirds of daily requirements; the fishing industry (which employed about 10 000 people) is under severe stress, as boats are only allowed to operate close to the coast. there is an ecological disaster under way, threatening the coastlines of the region, as the beit lahia plant sewage plant is not operating properly and repairs cannot be carried out, as supplies are blocked. businesses cannot survive and the unemployed have to find work with the smugglers and extremists. the rocket attacks continue and the few involved in this threaten the peace and the future of the many - both israeli and palestinian. hamas must stop the perpetrators. only the extremists on all sides are benefiting, as i heard time and again on my recent visit to gaza. the eu must do everything possible to break the blockade, and israel must recognise that it is not giving them long-term security. in writing. - (de) let's be absolutely clear from the outset: the embargo by israel is clearly a violation of international law and is completely unacceptable. as a result of the embargo and the denial of access to drinking water and food, israel is artificially creating a situation for the people in the gaza strip which is without parallel in terms of its inhumanity and lack of concern for human dignity. it is thanks to the egyptian government and the cool head of the border police that a major disaster has so far been averted and people who are themselves not participants in the conflict have been given access to basic goods for their essential needs. what is irresponsible, on the other hand, is shifting the responsibility onto egypt, which is completely blameless in terms of the escalation of the current situation. it is unacceptable, in the 21st century, for a civilian population to be treated as the scapegoat for terrorist acts by hamas. the infrastructure must therefore be restored immediately and supplies to the local population guaranteed. the palestinian side, for its part, should do its utmost to de-escalate the situation in order to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement by the end of 2008. in the present situation, however, prospects of achieving this noble aspiration would appear to be remote. in writing. - while every effort must be made to find a solution to the situation in gaza, this resolution at best will contribute nothing and at worst will have a negative impact. if parliament wants to be an honest broker for peace in the middle east it should stop producing unbalanced resolutions. it is difficult for any member not to vote for a resolution addressing humanitarian concerns but by linking those concerns to an unfair portrayal of israel its value falls. a parliamentary resolution should not call for hamas to release a captive as a mere "act of goodwill". hamas is not a benevolent medieval king; it is a terrorist organisation largely responsible for the situation in gaza. in demanding that israel fulfils its obligations, this house should note that israeli workers continue to risk their own lives to supply electricity to gaza despite the manipulation of that electricity supply by hamas. in addressing the needs of those who are suffering, we must include the people of southern israel on whom some days an average of a rocket an hour has been fired and where 75% of children are reported to be suffering from anxiety and post-traumatic stress. in writing. - (el) the israeli authorities are perpetrating ever more criminal acts against the palestinians. they have been cracking down on the movement of people, goods and food for many months and barring access to drinking water, electricity and other basic utilities, while the israeli army continues to attack and murder civilians. the sympathy expressed in the resolution as regards the disasters endured by the palestinian population is a sham because the eu and the united states are part of the problem. imperialist interests back israel in its criminal policies. the imperialists want to retain control of a region that is important for its position and for geostrategic activity; they wish to keep their right to intervene, even militarily. the quartet's plans have demonstrated the failure of yet another imperialist attempt, and the annapolis agreements will have the same result. the proposal for their revival is an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the people; it essentially equates victims with persecutors. the imperialists cannot provide a solution to the palestinian problem. it must emerge from the struggles of the peoples of palestine and israel themselves, and from international solidarity with their struggle for peaceful coexistence via the creation of an independent palestinian state with east jerusalem as its capital. in writing. - (fr) if, despite a certain amount of reluctance due to a totally unbalanced text, i eventually voted for it, this was because an oral amendment tabled by the group of the european people's party restored the truth to a certain extent as to the current situation in gaza. whoever is responsible, it is totally unacceptable, utterly and totally unacceptable, that initially paragraph 3 of the text set israel and hamas on an equal footing. does israel's concern with protecting its people from acts of violence perpetrated on a daily basis by hamas and palestinian militias have anything to do with the indiscriminate attacks, most recently in dimona, or the streams of qassam rockets raining down on sderot every day, targeting chiefly schools, and therefore children, the lifeblood of israeli society? of course we may have different views on the conflict, but the honest meps in this house will refuse to make israel, a democratic country and government, and hamas, a terrorist movement listed as such by the eu (this is true, just like the repeated refusal to meet the conditions of the quartet, which this resolution moreover oddly conceals), equal partners in the midst of terrible violence. in writing. - the tone, and much of the content, of the gaza resolution, is skewed in an anti-israeli fashion. it is certainly the case that the palestinians in gaza live in a perpetual state of privation, and this is inhumane. but the blame for this rests only partly with israel, and primarily with palestinian terrorists and extremists such as hamas, and the failure of arab states to assist the rehabilitation of the population, and regeneration of the area. gaza has been allowed to remain a running sore. i regret that there was no call for those currently in authority in gaza to take the necessary steps for a peaceful accommodation with israel. i welcome the call for the release of corporal shalit. i therefore abstained in the vote. in writing. - (sv) the june list supports the un human rights council and the important work carried out by that body. however, we oppose the provision laid down in paragraph 34 which states that each eu member must express the eu position on these matters. each eu member state is an autonomous member of the un and therefore has the right to express its own opinion. we have therefore chosen to vote against the resolution. in writing. - (pt) not forgetting its previous positions on the definition of this un body's operation, in which the attempts to guarantee its monitoring and organisation were obvious - we recall the eu's criticisms and pressure in relation to, for example, the way in which certain countries were elected to this body (regretting the 'clean slate' principle and defending the introduction of eligibility criteria), the 'special procedure' mechanism, the reinforcement of country mandates and the possibility of creating new mandates by simple majority, or even the terms of the 'universal periodic review' - the european parliament has adopted a resolution which, although heading along the same lines, is more moderate in the explanation of its true objectives. among other aspects, we would highlight its unacceptable pressure for each member state to make its proposals in this un body dependent on the positions which may be adopted by the eu, thereby subordinating their sovereignty on foreign policy. we would also highlight the political opinion withdrawn from the countries mentioned - and also from some not mentioned - showing once again the application of 'double standards', in other words the orchestration of human rights according to the eu's interests. in writing. - (sv) we swedish social democrats have voted in favour of the report on the demographic future of europe. however, we believe that the report is too far-reaching and addresses aspects that go beyond matters relevant to demographic change. we also oppose various proposals for tax breaks for companies that organise crches and for people being able to work at home. however, we have chosen to vote in favour of the report as it also addresses important aspects of the challenge europe is facing. in writing. - (pt) we regret that not all the amendments we tabled have been adopted. these were intended to improve the report, question certain grounds and include measures which we feel are essential in order to defend the rights of women, families and children. for example, we know how low wages and precarious employment worsen social instability and, as a result, drastically reduce the stable prospects of those opting to have children. that is why improving job stability, increasing wages, extending social security and occupational health and safety, reducing overall working time without any loss of wages and ensuring a fairer distribution of income and full employment constitute fundamental issues for the management of demographic change. it is also important to create new and better educational and social infrastructures, for both young people and the elderly, including more lifelong learning, child-care, nursing care and elderly care structures. this requires more and better public services, with a guarantee of equal access for all. by not fully promoting these aspects, this report does not effectively respond to these problems, despite containing positive proposals which we applaud but which are not sufficient to allow us to vote in favour of the report. in writing. - (sv) large parts of europe are facing demographic challenges. however, these should be resolved by national measures, not by catch-all eu proposals which perhaps suit certain countries, but may be unsuitable in other member states. many eu countries, including sweden, have also largely coped with the low birth rate and the demographic problems, partly through a well-developed welfare policy and through immigration. the member states that so wish may do well to study sweden and other scandinavian countries and copy the measures that they have taken. in writing. (pl) i fully support the report on the demographic future of europe. it is a fact that the constant fall in natural growth in recent years, accompanied by an increase in average life expectancy, is likely to lead to significant changes in the population structure of the european union by 2050. the changes will include general ageing of the population and a reduction in the number of persons working. this will result in a significant increase in the burden on member states' budgets. the process will be a painful one not only for the individual member states but also for the union as a whole. the latter may be faced with losing its competitive edge and with a fall in economic growth compared to the situation in other parts of the world characterised by swift demographic growth. it is clear too that this demographic imbalance will have negative consequences for the financing of social care and the sustainability of pension schemes. i therefore support the remedial measures proposed in the report aimed at demographic renewal, lengthening the period of professional activity, guaranteeing high-quality social care and promoting solidarity between the generations. these actions are vital to maintaining the competitiveness of the union's economy whilst simultaneously guaranteeing the functioning of the european social model in the long term. in writing. - (fr) europeans are a disappearing species. with an average birth rate of less than 1.5, by the year 2050 eu-27 will have lost some 20 million people and those over 65 years old will account for 30% of the population. the measures proposed by mrs castex to rectify the european birth rate are laughable because, like all europeanists in power, our fellow member does not want to renew the european population, but to replace it with immigrants from africa and asia. that is why she uses 15 articles in her report to call for facilities to reunite families, civil rights for immigrants, and increased efforts to integrate them . this policy, advocated in france by mr attali and implemented by mr sarkozy, will bring a further 80 million immigrants to europe by the year 2050, and will eventually lead to the disappearance of our peoples. to guarantee the survival of the european peoples, migratory flows must actually be reversed and a large-scale birth promotions policy implemented based on the family and the embracing of life. this means that our nations must seek their sovereignty and identity within a new europe, the europe of nations. in writing. - (de) i am in favour of a cohesion policy for the european union's demographic development, as the structural shift in european society's age pyramid points to a worrying future. i draw attention to the fact that all europe's industrialised countries face the same major social policy problems which constitute a serious risk to the european social welfare model that is essential for our current prosperity. in this context, i would particularly like to stress the rise in the european average old-age dependency ratio to 53% in 2050, which is due to the current abnormally low average birth rate in the eu of 1.5, and which not only leads to intergenerational conflicts and can thus be regarded as an obstacle to social cohesion, but could also weaken europe's competitiveness in the world economy. the demographic change which is taking place thus requires a general adaptation of the individual social systems and rapid and efficient implementation. in writing. - (fr) the castex report on the demographic future of europe is appallingly trite, featuring all the clichs one might expect to find in surveys on the subject. mrs castex forgets, among other aspects, to mention contraceptive methods which have been largely responsible for reducing the birth rate in europe, where it stands at only 1.5 per woman, a far cry from renewal of the future generations. a population-friendly environment depends on the possibility of women being willing to bring up their children over a relatively long period of time. this is a priority investment for society, and would substantially reduce school dropout rates and juvenile delinquency. as for immigration to offset empty cradles, this is a dangerous idea which would not only destabilise our western societies, but could be a genuine time bomb with all the consequences we can well imagine. justifying immigration by a lack of manpower, qualified or unqualified, when europe has over twenty million unemployed, is penalising european workers, who will certainly appreciate the proposals of the commission or the european parliament. for these reasons we intend to vote against the castex report. in writing. (pl) mrs castex rightly points out that in view of the fact that the european average old-age dependency ratio (the number of persons aged 65 or over divided by the number aged between 14 and 65) will rise from 25% in 2004 to 53% in 2050, the european union risks losing its competitive edge and suffering a fall in economic growth. i agree with the proposals to develop five main directions for action aimed at demographic renewal, namely high quality active life, a more efficient europe, better integration of immigrants, guaranteeing social care and solidarity between the generations. in writing. - we voted against this report because the solutions it proposes as regards the demographic crisis are counter-productive. in contrast to what the report says, only traditional families and social respect for motherhood provide the remedy we need. the social experiments proposed in the report (so-called 'alternative family structures') bring nothing but risks for our societies. in writing. - (fr) rarely have i taken such pleasure in voting on a resolution, since it clearly shows that women and elderly people have a major role to play in the challenge of our demographic future. women are expected to be willing to bring more children into the world while carrying out a professional activity over a longer period of time. in that case, a facility must be created to motivate them. women cannot be expected to feel they are in the wrong, or to expose themselves to poverty, every time they bring a child into the world. the more they procreate, the more they are discriminated against in terms of welfare cover, especially if they are full-time family carers, the less they earn, and the shorter their retirement will be. the most wonderful resolutions, therefore, will serve no purpose if there is no political courage to implement them. this, unfortunately, was the case with the 1995 resolution on the distribution of pension entitlements in the event of divorce and the resolution on the situation of spouses helping with smes, aimed at rectifying the many discriminations still suffered by women, and the terrible plight of far too many men in relation to paternity leave. in writing. - i welcome franoise castex's recommendations regarding europe's demographic future. the overall message of encouraging economic competitiveness while preserving the european social model is one that i feel is both logical and just. i agree with the report's focus on the role of areas such as education, childcare and financial mechanisms in securing this goal. there also exists a necessity for the promotion of professional equality between men and women along with a well and calmly thought-out immigration policy that incorporates the goal of successful integration. the report deals with these issues and i voted in favour of its recommendations. in writing. - (de) mass immigration and ageing are putting the stock of indigenous population at risk. the first is heralded as a miracle cure for the second, but merely leads to ethnomorphosis - in other words, to umvolkung: the forced change of the population's ethnic composition. unless the eu establishment finally starts to lobby for a pro-birth policy for the indigenous europeans, promotes the traditional family with many children, finally takes action against attempts - such as gay marriage - to destroy the traditional family, and reintroduces zero tolerance to immigration, also in relation to family reunion, in fifty years' time we will be sitting here palavering about the kosovisation of europe, just as we are doing now with the kosovo issue itself. in the report before us, an attempt is made yet again to sell immigration to us as a panacea, with europe's hereditary population soon having to adapt to the migrants. that is why i have rejected today's report. in writing. - (sk) the eu must respond to serious demographic changes if it wants to preserve its demographic and territorial balance. on the one hand it is necessary to deal with population ageing. the situation is alarming. each year after the year 2010 the number of people at work will decrease by 1 million and that will threaten intergenerational solidarity. on the other hand there are the problems caused by the decreasing birth rate; these problems have already existed for several years. postponing childbirth until later in life may be the reason for an increase in infertility of couples. protection of mother and family must be the focus of all eu policies. pension systems must not punish women for being mothers. in recent years the differences between the member states have been reducing but at the same time the differences inside the individual member states have become much deeper. disadvantaged regions in particular are less developed and on top of that they are also the ones most affected by demographic changes, namely by population ageing and migration. since there are not enough well-paid jobs, qualified workers leave for the big cities. heavy concentration of economic activities in capital cities erodes the demographic, economic, social and environmental balance and leads to a population decrease in rural areas that often lack the basic infrastructure needed for development. i voted in favour of the report by mrs castex on the demographic future; this is one of the important reports. we have to realise that demographic development is a fundamental component of all policies, whether they are medium- or long-term. in writing. - (pt) the renewal of the european population is a crucial factor in ensuring a balance between the youngest and oldest and in increasing the working-age population. the consequences of the current falling birth rate and increased life expectancy will be an increase in the old-age dependency ratio and a decline in the working-age population. it is therefore essential to take steps to promote demographic renewal which will ensure a more productive and advanced europe with a high degree of social protection and solidarity between the generations. we must develop policies that encourage the continual renewal of the european population and which ensure continued economic competitiveness, at the same time as preserving the european social model. we cannot ignore one other aspect of this issue which is linked to europe being a point of destination for significant migration flows, given that these populations invariably help to increase birth rates. the combination of the demographic issue with the migration issue poses potential risks and we cannot simply count on these populations for demographic renewal. i therefore want to stress the measures aimed at stimulating the birth rate, accompanied by appropriate policies on education and training and on solidarity between the generations, intended to halt the demographic decline of europe. in writing. - (sv) the demographic challenge faced by europe is enormous. this is a perfectly relevant subject for discussion at european level - i addressed it myself as the author of an opinion on flexicurity. however, an essential condition is that the starting point for the discussion is that most of the measures proposed, such as a later retirement age, a prudent family policy, good conditions for parental leave etc., come under the subsidiarity principle. a number of proposals in the wide range of solutions, to say the least, that the report mentions are practised and have worked well in sweden. however, that does not mean that they would turn out equally well in other parts of europe. the fundamental problem with mrs castex's report is not therefore the intention, but that most of what is discussed relates to policies that should be conducted by the member states - sometimes at municipal level. i therefore voted in favour of amendments which stressed the subsidiarity principle and abstained in the final vote. in writing. (pl) we have adopted an important report on the demographic future of europe. enabling citizens to live longer certainly represents an achievement for the member states of the union. it also leads, however, to the gradual ageing of the population. in the long term, this situation can only upset the balance between the productive population and those who are past that stage. it is a threat to solidarity between the generations, because a smaller number of professionally active people than at present will have to bear the ever-increasing cost of benefits, allowances, pensions, care and health services for those who are not in work. action to lengthen the period of professional activity and increase the birth rate is called for in order to counter such a situation. programmes for the full integration of immigrants are also required. technical modernisation and the introduction of information technology into the workplace will ensure that work is more effective and productive. this will make a significant contribution to improving the situation. consideration should also be given to the migratory flows from rural to urban areas, and to the hidden human capital in rural areas, notably in the less developed countries. demography is one of the key challenges for the european union, especially in the context of significant overpopulation in other parts of the world. in writing. (pl) in view of the serious nature of the demographic problem facing europe, it is entirely appropriate for parliament and the commission to have devoted time to it. unfortunately, i found it necessary to vote against the report on the subject by mrs castex because so many key amendments were rejected. in particular, parliament's acceptance of the provision indicating full acceptance of the definition of family in the legislation of an emigrant's country of origin in the event of conflict with the legislation of the host country, together with the consequent financial obligations in the case of polygamy, cannot be condoned. this intrudes upon the internal provisions of member states, thus infringing the principle of subsidiarity. in writing. - (ga) i do not agree with everything that is written in mr guellec's report, but nevertheless, i welcome the report and i voted in its favour. i welcome the emphasis mr guellec has placed on balanced regional development. not only must the gap between member states be decreased but we must also reduce the gaps within member states as well as the gaps between regions. we must ensure that increased resources are aimed at promoting regional development and tackling social exclusion. the only way to deal with a cohesion policy is as a tool for the implementation of the lisbon strategy. in writing. - (pt) although this report contains certain aspects which, despite being moderate, we regard as positive, it does not effectively tackle the major funding issues. an example of this compromise is the approach taken with regard to the community financial resources needed for an effective cohesion policy. the report recognises, in the recitals, that 'increased financial resources for cohesion policy must be guaranteed in the future in order to deal with the anticipated new challenges' (whether or not this actually relates to cohesion is a separate issue which has yet to be clarified). however, in the articles, or in other words in the actual proposal, the report merely alludes to an ambiguous need to reinforce the cohesion policy, to which 'sufficient' financial resources should be allocated. regrettably, the amendments that we tabled were rejected. these amendments aimed, for example, to recognise that there are countries and regions which are at odds with the eu, to prevent use of the cohesion policy for other purposes, particularly to finance objectives included within the lisbon strategy which would be contrary to cohesion, to recognise the need to increase community financial resources for cohesion, to impose conditions on community aid for enterprises so that relocations are discouraged, to highlight the need to adopt permanent measures with adequate funding for the most remote regions and to recognise the role of fishing in cohesion. in writing. - i welcome ambroise guellec's report on the commission's fourth report on economic and social cohesion. the findings point towards definite progress in improving economic and social cohesion across the eu. however, the findings that disparities have increased in a number of member states, especially between capitals and rural areas, demonstrate the need to continue in this policy's goal to try and reduce the differences within and among the eu's multiple regions. in writing. - (sk) cohesion policy helps solve problems such as demographic changes, migration from rural to urban areas, segregation or climate changes. these challenges can be confronted only if cohesion policy remains a community policy. this is why i definitely give my support to the report. we can see how beneficial this policy is when we look at the countries that received support from the cohesion fund in the past. greece, spain, portugal and ireland have recorded strong growth. similar help must be available for the new member states. like everyone else who grew up and lives in a more remote region, i know that there are pronounced disparities between regions, and even inside individual regions. sometimes these disparities are even greater than disparities between individual countries: disparities in living standards, in the number of jobs available, in income and in education opportunities. this is why i emphasise that there is a real need to reduce the disparity between territorially accessible regions and regions facing structural disadvantages. i see the way forward as prioritising such policies that would decrease the pressure on capital cities and support the development of second-tier cities. it is necessary to support the development of rural areas; this is where small and medium-sized towns play an important role. it is also necessary to direct the funds towards projects intended to make each region attractive in its own right. i support this report because i know that cohesion policy is the right answer to many demographic changes. in writing. - (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, cohesion has been one of the mainstays of community policy in the past, the expression of a principle of solidarity which marked out and accompanied economic growth in the european union. it has been an economic success story for many european countries and regions; there has even been talk of a miracle in some cases and, thanks to the proper implementation of cohesion policies, the quality of life has improved for many of our citizens. cohesion plays an even more important role in the europe of 27, with its pronounced economic and social disparities. the first effects of eu economic aid are beginning to be seen in some of the regions where development is lagging behind, even though it will only be possible to assess economic convergence on a longer-term basis owing to a very low initial gdp per capita. comparative circumstances will be different in the near future, but perhaps even today. therefore the cohesion policy will have to confront other, new challenges having a strong territorial impact, such as demographic change, urbanisation and new urban planning, migratory movements, energy supply and climate change. while voting in favour of the report, i would call upon the commission and national governments to devise a joint approach for tackling these issues in an appropriately dynamic and cooperative manner. in writing. - (el) the aim of economic and social cohesion is to create a delusion among workers so that the gap in social and regional disparities can be narrowed, and the living standards of workers in countries and regions that diverge from the community average can be raised. the law of unequal growth within capitalism is, however, inflexible. these disparities are ever on the increase; the poor become poorer and the rich become richer. that is what workers have to put up with every day. in the face of the charge made by capitalist restructurings and the frontal attack on employment rights, however, even verbal use of this term is tending to disappear, and with it the paltry provision of the community budget. in the third phase of implementation of the lisbon treaty, all the policies have to be replaced with imperialism's magic word, 'competition'. this will lead to competition between states, regions and workers, where the law of the jungle holds sway. the resolution is limited to flowery declarations and mere wishes that do not touch upon the essence of the problem. only the struggles of the workers, disobedience and insubordination to the eu's anti-worker and unpopular policies can reverse the worsening trend in the living conditions of the working classes. this trend is now becoming more marked even in the more developed countries. in writing. - (pt) the cohesion policy is one of the distinctive trade marks of the european union, one of its major successes and also one of the main attractions of our community. the idea that it is right and necessary to ensure an identical level of development across all the member states is a concept that we must not abandon and whose positive result we must celebrate. however, not everything has been successful in this area. firstly, it is essential that the cohesion funds are increasingly integrated with other funding programmes in order to guarantee that the benefits of these funds are not lost in the absence of a concomitant investment in policies directly aimed at more advanced stages of development. sometimes it is necessary to take bigger steps, otherwise we will always be lagging behind. secondly, it is worrying that we are seeing a constant process of retraction in the portuguese state in terms of guaranteeing equal access to basic services throughout its territory. what point is there in calling for community-level cohesion when this is absent from national policies, with citizens in less developed regions being abandoned in the name of, not a development idea, but a merely accounting-based view of the allocation of resources? none whatsoever. in writing. - (ga) i don't agree with everything written in gisela kallenbach's report, but despite that, i welcome it and voted for it. i especially welcome the emphasis mrs kallenbach places on strengthening the role of the local urban authorities. sustainable development of urban areas is extremely challenging in the twenty first century and the framework presented by mrs kallenbach today can help us to face this challenge. in writing. - (pt) this report on the follow-up of the territorial agenda and the leipzig charter contains aspects which we consider important. however, it must be stressed that the actual content of the territorial dimension of the cohesion policy is yet to be defined, with the adoption of a green paper on this issue being planned for next september. although many of the objectives mentioned so far are to be welcomed and all make sense - for example, establishment of a polycentric, balanced urban system and creation of a new urban-rural relationship ensuring parity of access to infrastructures, conservation of the natural and cultural heritage, preservation of high-quality public spaces and upgrading of housing stock and street furniture, strengthening the local economy and local labour market policy and ensuring proactive education and training policies for children and young people - we would stress that: land management and planning must be the responsibility of each member state; the new priorities must receive new financial resources; the territorial dimension must not contradict or dilute economic and social cohesion, in other words the reduction of disparities between the levels of development of the various regions and the encouragement of the least-favoured regions that are lagging behind. in writing. - gisela kallenbach's report 'follow-up of the territorial agenda and the leipzig charter' is a report that i voted in favour of. we need to be more sensitive to the territorial and urban dimension of eu policies. in improving cooperation between urban and rural areas and implementing efficient strategies that aim at sustainable spatial development we can successfully achieve this.

presentation by the council of the draft general budget - budget 2009 (debate) the next item is the debate on the presentation by the council of the draft general budget for 2009. i therefore welcome ric woerth, minister for the budget, public accounts and the civil service, as the representative of the council presidency. president-in-office of the council. - (fr) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, it is both an honour and a pleasure for me to speak in your house today for two reasons: firstly, because your parliament represents the heart of european democracy. the french presidency has a tremendous amount of respect and admiration for the work that you have done in support of european integration, and the best possible proof of our willingness to help europe move forward together was provided by the french president in his speech in strasbourg in july. it is this same spirit that guides me and is shared by my colleagues in the french government. secondly, because the draft budget for 2009, which i am presenting to you today, was adopted unanimously by the council on 17 july. this unanimity shows that this draft budget is balanced and that it allows all eu governments to identify with it. our initial contacts have provided a sound basis for the continuation of the budgetary procedure. the trialogue and conciliation meetings have taken place in a constructive atmosphere. we have already reached agreement on six statements, and i am sure that we shall be able to agree on many other matters of common interest. i can assure you that the council is prepared to continue this high-quality dialogue with a view to securing an agreement on the 2009 budget that is satisfactory to all. this agreement should comply with three principles: the first is to ensure the financing of the european union's policy priorities - and we have established a financial framework for the period from 2007 to 2013 that we must implement in order to achieve our objectives in terms of competitiveness, cohesion and growth. the second is to observe the rules of budgetary discipline and sound financial management laid down in the interinstitutional agreement. expenditure must remain within the limits fixed by this agreement and sufficient margins must be maintained under the ceilings for the various headings. the third principle requires that appropriations be adjusted to take into account actual requirements. in particular, we should draw lessons from previous budget outturns so as to be able to determine our real ability to implement sectoral policies. moreover, since the establishment of the financial perspective in 1988, the community budget has always been subject to an under-utilisation of payment appropriations. budget implementation is improving thanks to the efforts made by commissioner dalia grybauskait, but uncertainties related to the financial year 2009 clearly remain considerable and there is no evidence, at this point, to suggest that 2009 will be any different from previous years. it is also important to protect the interests of european taxpayers - this is all the more true in the current economic climate - and so we must avoid, as far as possible, entering in the budget any appropriations that cannot be utilised. the objective of a realistic and balanced budget has consequently been the guiding principle of the council's work. before presenting the fruits of its labours to you, i should like to say a word on the facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries. our discussions over the next few weeks will focus on this issue. the european council of 19 and 20 june provided a strong political impetus by welcoming the commission's intention to come forward with a proposal for a new fund to support agriculture in developing countries. however, the european council mandate is quite explicit in this respect: it is in strict compliance with the current financial perspective that a solution has to be found. i am aware that the european parliament does not currently share this view. nevertheless, the council will evaluate the proposal adopted by the commission on 18 july from this perspective. finally, i would remind you that the european council reaffirmed only yesterday its readiness to support reconstruction efforts in georgia, including in areas of south ossetia and abkhazia, in addition to the eur 6 million in emergency aid that have already been disbursed. the eu will therefore take the initiative of convening an international conference shortly to assist reconstruction in georgia. yesterday's european council requested the council and the commission to start preparations for this conference. i should now like to present to you the main thrust of the 2009 draft budget established by the council. we are proposing a budget of eur 134 billion in commitment appropriations, which amounts to eur 469 million less than in the preliminary draft budget. the increase in commitment appropriations therefore amounts to 2.8% compared to 2008 and, as a result, the eu's overall commitment capabilities are maintained. as for payment appropriations, the council has made an adjustment limited to eur 1.7 billion compared to the preliminary draft budget. as you requested in previous years, the council has not been making random across-the-board cuts to all headings. this reduction is based instead on a detailed analysis of budget implementation in 2007 and 2008 and on a realistic approach to the potential of community programmes to be implemented and completed. the draft budget therefore amounts to eur 115 billion in payment appropriations. the reduction in the level of payment appropriations in 2009 does not - and i should like to emphasise this point - come as a surprise. it had been taken as read when the financial framework for 2007-2013 was adopted. if the ceiling on payment appropriations in 2009 is far lower than that in 2008 and 2010, this can be explained, in particular, by movements in appropriations for the cohesion policy, which will be affected in 2009 by the end of the 2000-2006 programming period and by a gradual increase during the 2007-2013 programming period. we also have seen no indication that new programmes have been able to get off the ground more quickly. on the contrary, the mechanism for the monitoring of the adoption of management and control systems and of major projects shows that they are getting off to a slow start. therefore, out of 433 programmes, there are only two, in hungary, for which interim payments have been made. the level of payment appropriations in our draft budget is therefore realistic and adapted to the needs of the union. a few points should be emphasised heading by heading. with regard to the heading 'competitiveness for growth and employment', the council attaches great importance to the implementation of the lisbon strategy. it has therefore ensured that adequate financing is provided, particularly for research and technological development programmes, trans-european networks and improving the quality of education and lifelong learning. the council has limited the increase in commitment appropriations on the basis of the analysis of the potential of programmes to be implemented, as i have already said. nevertheless, i should like to emphasise that, in this context, the increase in commitment appropriations is quite considerable for priority programmes. for instance, compared to 2008, the research framework programme will receive a 10% increase, the innovation and competitiveness programme a 16% increase and the 'lifelong learning programme', essential for european citizens, will receive a 6% increase. these examples clearly illustrate the targeted strategy adopted by the council. moreover, the council has reduced payment appropriations (by eur 471 million) by making cuts on several targeted lines so as to take into account how the appropriations were utilised. with regard to heading 1b, 'cohesion for growth and employment', the council has accepted the amount of commitment appropriations proposed by the commission in the preliminary draft budget. for payment appropriations, we adopted a balanced approach by introducing, on the one hand, an increase of eur 50 million for convergence countries and regions and, on the other, a reduction of eur 300 million in the area of regional competitiveness. this means a reasonable overall reduction of eur 250 million in payment appropriations, and i am delighted that we were able to agree on a joint statement on the structural and cohesion funds as well as on the rural development programmes. with regard to the heading 'conservation and management of natural resources', the council has adopted a limited reduction of eur 382 million in commitment appropriations and of eur 497 million in payment appropriations. these concern mainly budget lines related to market intervention and clearance of accounts and, to a reasonable degree, rural development. i would also point out that the budget lines related to food programmes, free distribution of fruit and vegetables, school milk and promotion measures have been maintained. we have also maintained the amounts proposed by the commission for environmental policies. with regard to heading 3, 'citizenship, freedom, security and justice', the council has made a slight increase in the margins available under the ceilings to reach a total of eur 76 million by making targeted reductions of eur 20 million in commitment appropriations. in this context, i should like to emphasise the importance attached by the french presidency to immigration policy. the amount proposed in the preliminary draft budget for the frontex agency has therefore been included. with regard to heading 4, 'the eu as a global partner', we have sought to anticipate the needs related to palestine and kosovo without waiting for the commission's letter of amendment, which it should be adopting next week. we have therefore set aside additional resources, compared to the preliminary draft budget, of eur 100 million for palestine and eur 60 million for kosovo. regarding the cfsp, the council has accepted, as a precautionary measure, the commitment and payment appropriations which were entered in the preliminary draft budget and which are in line with the amounts provided for in the interinstitutional agreement of 17 may 2006. as for payment appropriations, the reduction made amounts to eur 393 million, but half of this reduction relates to the reserve for emergency aid and, as you know, the council considers that it may be possible to finance this reserve by redeploying payment appropriations, as has been seen in recent years. finally, with regard to heading 5, 'administration', the council has adopted a controlled increase of 3.8% in administrative appropriations which it deems necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the institutions. the margin available under heading 5 therefore amounts to eur 224 million. the council has, of course, accepted the 250 posts linked to the 2007 enlargement. we have also made targeted reductions based on past implementation, rather than making across-the-board cuts, which have become almost a tradition. finally, with regard to decentralised agencies, we have taken account of the life cycle of these agencies. we cannot deal with agencies that have already reached cruising speed in the same way as agencies that are still developing their expertise - agencies that are at the development stage - and we have taken into account the surplus generated by some agencies in previous financial years. this is the case for frontex and eurojust, two agencies that fall within our priorities. in conclusion, i therefore feel that the 2009 draft budget represents a balance between the ambitions that we naturally all have for our european union and sound budgeting for which we are answerable to the citizens. this is clearly essential if citizens are to share this confidence in the european idea. the view of this house will probably be different, but we are only at the beginning of the budgetary procedure and we still have plenty of time to harmonise our views on the structure of the 2009 budget and to respond to the challenges facing us as a result of the commission's new proposals. i am sure that the three institutions will therefore make every effort so that, between now and conciliation in november - in two months' time - we can reach a comprehensive agreement on all these issues, and i hope that this agreement will be the best possible compromise for both the institutions and european citizens. you can obviously count on my total commitment with that in view. thank you very much, minister. you deserved a rather better turnout, but the quality of our members counts for a great deal. today, of course, we are engaging in an initial discussion, and a former minister who once held your office is also in attendance. rapporteur. - (de) mr president, commissioner, president-in-office of the council, you just said that we are at the start of the budgetary process. as far as parliament is concerned, that is not the case. we had begun the budgetary procedure and discussions on the procedure and on our budget for 2009 at the start of the year. we have therefore come a long way already. in particular, moreover, we in parliament are agreed that neither the commission's preliminary draft budget nor the council's draft - which, as we know, has pruned back the appropriations for both commitments and payments contained in the commission's estimates, is particularly inspiring. we certainly do not regard it as an ambitious budget that satisfies the demands made of us in the european union in every possible area of political activity. in particular, parliament has recurring difficulties with the fact that, for all the constant and ubiquitous talk of wanting to tackle climate change, this intention is insufficiently reflected in the budget. we in parliament - as you can see from the overwhelming support the chamber gave the negotiating team from the committee on budgets in the july vote - will ensure that the fight against climate change can be stepped up in many parts of the budget and that this can be done with european funds. we do not believe that such a wide gap can remain between the appropriations for commitments and those for payments as the 15% proposed by the commission, which has subsequently been further widened by the council. instead, we shall ensure that we obtain a budget which is more in tune with the principles of budgetary accuracy and clarity. no doubt we shall have the occasional heated discussion this autumn. i am very hopeful, however, that we shall arrive at a satisfactory outcome once we have come to an arrangement with each other on certain matters. rapporteur. - (pl) mr president, in autumn we embark, as usual, on the decisive phase of the budget procedure, this time for the year 2009. our task is to note and take account of all the changes that have occurred since submission of the preliminary budget proposals. the greatest problem and difficulty for me, as rapporteur on the budget of the european parliament and the other european institutions, is the uncertainty as to the fate of the lisbon treaty. the budget forecasts for 2009 were based on the most likely outcome, namely entry into force of a treaty that fundamentally enlarges the european parliament's powers of co-decision. since at the present time there is a question mark over the treaty, the normal reaction with regard to the budget is to separate the expenditure directly linked with the lisbon treaty from the preliminary expenditure for the coming year, and that was the request we put to all the european institutions. we have a response from the european parliament, which is currently being examined. it is not yet an official document of parliament's bureau, but it meets the requirement to separate expenditure linked to the lisbon treaty, which can be taken into account later if the situation changes. obviously the uncertainty as to the fate of the lisbon treaty affecting the budget for 2009 does not excuse us from applying the other principles governing establishment of the expenditure plan for 2009. we have to take account of the new rules on meps' remuneration and the remuneration and employment of assistants. we have to cover the costs of the european election campaign and take account of the movements in prices of the various energy sources that occurred in 2008. above all, 2009 is an election year, in which we must strive for rigour and financial discipline. an expansion of european bureaucracy - european administration, in other words - is not the best message to send to people whom we are asking to renew the mandates of members of the european parliament. i would like to draw attention to one more matter that concerns me not as the european parliament's rapporteur but as a member of a community of democratic nations concerned with human rights and the sovereignty of all the nations of europe. we should react, on a budgetary level too, to what has happened in georgia. i believe the european parliament should take a position on this question at the first reading, since it will be difficult to persuade european taxpayers to continue providing unconditional aid to russia when it is spending money on wars beyond its borders. vice-chairman of the committee on budgets. - (fi) mr president, minister, commissioner, first of all i would like to say how thankful i am that next year's draft budget is now before parliament. at the same time i wish to say how sorry i am that our committee's chairman, reimer bge, cannot be present at the debate, as he has important obligations in his country at the same time. for that reason, i will make the speech for the committee on budgets for him. i want to thank the council and its presidency for their constructive cooperation, as at the budgetary conciliation meeting in july we made important, joint declarations which relate to the implementation of the structural and cohesion funds, the european solidarity fund, the european globalisation adjustment fund, and staff expenditure, besides other matters. this also bodes well for a positive atmosphere at the conciliation meeting in november. unfortunately, the council has not been quite as cooperative as regards the financing of the numerous new posts which were discussed and included in the resolutions at the european council in june, for example. the commission's preliminary draft budget was already very meagre. commitment appropriations stood at eur 134.4 billion, which is 2.6 billion below the financial perspective, and payment appropriations were even more meagre at eur 116.7 billion. this is the equivalent in payments of just 0.9% of the eu's gdp, which is substantially below the already extremely compromised financial framework, at an average of 1%. the council has cut the budget further by a total of eur 500 million in commitment appropriations and eur 1.8 billion in payment appropriations. in my opinion, this much reduced budget does not reflect either the eu's or parliament's priorities. it is very dangerous to have made cuts to heading 1, which is vital for sustainable growth and employment. the paucity of payment appropriations is a particular threat to structural policy, which is one of parliament's major priorities. its implementation has already been greatly delayed in any case. it is quite clear that heading 1 in the budget needs to be looked at in particular, but so does heading 4, which seems to be chronically underfunded from one year to the next. at this very moment there are difficulties with kosovo and palestine. finally, i would like to raise two issues. the first is the food facility instrument. the commission is proposing approximately eur 1 billion for the development of food aid and production in developing countries. parliament supports this, but regrets that the commission has not proposed any suitable instruments. the interinstitutional agreement is a good opportunity for this, and the committee on budgets is ready and willing to back it on this issue too. the european parliament is also ready to support reconstruction in georgia. the budgetary procedure also provides opportunities for this. we hope that when the commission makes promises on behalf of the european union at the next conference of donors they will be discussed with the budgetary authorities beforehand. member of the commission. - mr president, i would like to recall the very good atmosphere of our negotiations which we began in the spring, finalising them before the summer vacation. i hope that we will be able to proceed in this manner throughout the whole procedure. i would like to draw your attention to the fact that we will have four main blocks of problems in our negotiations. the first one concerns the level of the payment appropriations, which have been cut by the council by eur 1.8 billion. in the evaluation of the commission's proposal, parliament thinks it is too modest and the council thinks it is too ambitious; so i hope that we will be able to find a compromise and a proper budget for europe by the final stage of our negotiations. the second block of problems is concentrated in heading 4, and here i would like to mention three elements: additional resources for kosovo and palestine; the emergency aid reserve, especially as there will be needs requiring a fast response this year and next year; and of course the upcoming donors' conference to help georgia, and here - at least today - we do not yet have a decision on the table. the third block which the commission sees as a problem concerns administrative expenditure, where as usual the council approves posts but cuts the financial funding. this means that for the commission, at this stage and with these proposals, it will not be possible to recruit additional staff, although 250 enlargement-related posts have been approved. the fourth block concerns the food facility. at the council's prompting, we made a proposal which has not yet at this stage been approved as an instrument by the parliament. so this is the fourth block of our negotiations which i see as problematic. so, in general, there are only these four points which may cause difficulties. for the rest it is very well prepared and very well calculated, and i think that for the most part we can very rapidly reach agreement. if we maintain the spirit of cooperation which we have today, i hope that we will solve all our problems. president-in-office of the council. - (fr) mr president, firstly, thank you for this discussion. i should like to say to mrs haug that this budget clearly is ambitious, even if the levels are not quite the same when you refer to the various headings. however, we naturally share the same objective and we obviously need to reconcile our differences of opinion. we now have two months in which to do so. secondly, mr lewandowski, regarding your comments on the consequences of the treaty of lisbon, we share your desire which is actually to consider that the ratification process has not yet been concluded and that it is therefore wise not to enter these costs in the budget. i think that we clearly share the same opinion on this issue. you mentioned georgia. the european commissioner has actually referred to this as one of the major issues that we need to resolve, and the council has expressed its views on the subject. we must now endeavour to flesh out the policy areas identified yesterday afternoon. mr virrankoski, with regard to the preliminary draft budget, you say that it is already extremely tight and that what we are actually doing is tightening it even more. that is true. however, first we must draw a distinction between commitment appropriations and payment appropriations. in the case of commitment appropriations, there is an increase of just under 3% compared to 2008. i think that this shows how ambitious we are. regarding payment appropriations, it is true that a reduction of a similar magnitude is planned. i tried to explain that we carried out a very detailed analysis and that this is not the result of a random and undiscerning method of reducing payment appropriations. it is purely and simply the result of an analysis of the rate of utilisation of appropriations of the various policies. i tried to explain this, heading by heading. to go back to heading 1 briefly, it is true that there is a reduction, but, at the same time, within that reduction, there is a planned increase of eur 50 million for convergence countries and regions; i wanted to mention this. under heading 4 - the commissioner mentioned this as well - there is an increase in appropriations for palestine and kosovo, and half of the reduction in appropriations entered in the draft budget relates to the emergency reserve that can be financed, as has been the case so far, through the redeployment of resources. obviously, we have until november to discuss in more detail issues that are specific, clearly defined and subject to certain parameters, and we shall endeavour to find the best possible compromise, a compromise that would, of course, help us forge ahead. that was an important interim debate on the budget. you were all very quick to refer to the crisis and the war in georgia. as you know, i made a statement to the european council on that issue yesterday, and i sense that the opinion i expressed yesterday is shared by all sides in the european institutions. thank you.

approval of the minutes the minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed. are there any comments? mr president, yesterday, in one of his rare speeches, mr tomlinson referred to the sovereignty of the house in coming to decisions. early this year, when voting on the transit inquiry report, the house decided that the follow-up should go to the committee on budgetary control. in yesterday's minutes, apparently, we approved a report on telematics in transport - which is all part of the transit system - going to the committee on transport and tourism. however in a document circulated by distribution yesterday called 'activities' , it says that the commission's action plan for the new transit in europe customs policy should go to the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy. is the house sovereign or not? we will check it and take the necessary measures. mr president, i have asked for the floor on a point of personal explanation. last monday, when the session opened, mr ford spoke on a very serious matter, the fact that, since the last session here in strasbourg, someone had torn down a poster he had put up on his office door commemorating the resistance of the german people against hitler. but mr ford then made comments which i consider decidedly unfortunate and out of place: he said he was not surprised that such acts of political vandalism could occur in this parliament since it includes people like roberta angelilli, that is myself, whom he blames for alleged neo-nazi activities, organizations and initiatives in italy. frankly i have no idea what inspired those accusations, insinuations and associations of ideas. perhaps mr ford, a leading light of this parliament, is actually prepared to use the methods of the basest and most defamatory political demagoguery, born of the worst intolerance, to gain more applause from the house. well, i just want to say one thing: at least in italy, making unfounded insinuations is in fact a criminal act, and it is called defamation. i therefore invite mr ford to inform himself better before making unfounded insinuations, and in any case i invite the president, or whoever is responsible, to investigate the incident fully. personally i intend to take some kind of action, possibly even legal action, to shed light on this event. mrs angelilli, i must point out a couple of things to you. first of all, you must reply to any personal remarks or comments immediately following the remarks or on the same day. secondly, all members are free to speak in plenary session and neither the president nor any other authority can stop them. that, as you know, is what is meant by parliamentary immunity for words used within the chamber. nobody can censure another member nor can they take legal action either in italy or any other country over something said in this chamber. that is why, if someone says something that is erroneous you must reply at once, in order to clear up a misunderstanding or put the facts right, as you are trying to do today. mr ford, you have the floor. however, this is not the time to continue a debate on this. but you referred to mr ford. please could i ask you to be brief as we have far more important issues on the agenda. mr president, mrs angelilli made comments on what i said on monday. it was on the basis of a press report in the united kingdom. i will provide her with a copy of the press report on what she was alleged to have done. obviously i expect her to take legal action and, if she does not, one can only draw the appropriate conclusions. mr president, i should also like to speak on a personal remark. i was not there on monday but i cannot allow mr ford to get away with what he said. he is always provocative and he once again confused issues and scandalously accused me of racism. i should like to tell mr ford that i know france and the racism that my assistant has been victim of. mr stphane durbeck, my assistant, is a black west indian and he has been beaten up and called a 'genetic freak' , just because he does me the honour of accompanying me in all my activities. the vietnamese godchildren whom i am bringing up have been attacked and hurt just because they are my godchildren, and i treat them like my other children. i have also helped out some three thousand lebanese orphans over the years and they too have been attacked and the victims of vendettas, just because they are christians. if there is any racism here, it is mr ford's, whose thought-masters have murdered 200 million people in the world, because they were peasants, middle class or christians. we are not impressed by mr ford's stalinist accusations! mr ford, you are a provocateur! (mixed reactions) mr antony, please allow me to remind you of the rules on personal matters. speakers can only express their views on the basis of the debate. they may only refute remarks made during the debate concerning them personally, e.g. opinions attributed to them and/or rectify their, own declarations. you rectified the remarks concerning you, but it is not the time to open a debate that has nothing to do with them, or to start attacking someone else. i can no longer accept speeches like that. (the minutes were adopted) mr president, i would like to change the subject. i, as you know, argued very forcibly on monday at the setting of the agenda for an extension of the deadline for the igc amendments. i understand a superhuman effort was made by your services and i think it is right that we acknowledge that here today; people worked all through the night to ensure that we could vote today. of course we realize that there may be some frustrations and irritations in the vote and we will look sympathetically on any errors, but we do, and we should, pay tribute to the services and thank them for their work. (applause ) thank you mrs green, you are quite right because people have worked very hard all night and again from 8 o'clock this morning to make the vote possible. i think everyone will be understanding about any possible errors and i ask for everyone's cooperation so that we can have a smooth vote on this crucial issue. we understand that it is absolutely exceptional, we cannot do this every session. this is just for one occasion and only one occasion. preparation for the european council of 16/17 june 1997 the next item is the statements by the council and the commission on the preparatory work for the meeting of the european council on 16/17 june 1997 in amsterdam, including the commission's action plan for the internal market. you have the floor, mr mierlo, president-in-office of the council. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honour - it is also a duty but carrying out a duty can also be a genuine honour - to give you details of the agenda of the european summit to be held in amsterdam at the beginning of next week. as you all know, this summit is taking place against a fairly troubled background in respect of the euro and because of new elections. the summit will definitely feel the effects of that. however - and i shall probably come back to this later in answer to your questions - i firmly believe that it is highly likely that this summit can be a success despite these circumstances. i shall come back to this. of course, the european council coincides with the closure of the igc negotiations. other crucial issues are on the agenda such as employment, emu, the action plan to fight organized crime and the action plan for the internal market. given this agenda, the debate on foreign affairs, in particular current foreign policy question, will be limited to the main thrust. i am thinking in particular of the middle east peace process, the situation in the democratic republic of congo and the peace process in former yugoslavia. these points are officially on the agenda but the summit risks forcing us to look at them and to tackle them in an extremely summary way because of the restraints imposed. i shall begin by taking a very brief look at the questions of employment and emu before examining in more detail the conclusion of the igc negotiations. promoting employment has been and still is of capital importance. initially, the igc paid special attention to this subject. i shall come back to this in a few moments. the next european summit will look at the regular six-monthly report by the social affairs council, the ecofin council and the commission on the employment situation within the european union. the commission will also report on progress on the pact of confidence for employment. the committee on the employment and labour market has been successfully launched under the aegis of the dutch presidency. this committee is working in particular in conjunction with the economic policy committee employment indicators making possible to gauge progress vis--vis the essen priorities. in order to ensure that emu is launched on time, it has been agreed that the european council would take a series of decisions. in this respect, we must now ask whether decisions not essential for implementation of emu will be taken. i shall probably come back to this in more detail when giving my second reply. the aim of this was to harmonize the stability pact. secondly, a resolution established the exchange mechanism between the head group of countries and the member states which will not be taking part in euro in 1999. thirdly, the european council is invited to respond to the agreement reached in the ecofin council on the euro's legal status. finally, the european currency project will be presented in amsterdam. it is possible that we might deal with all of these questions, which in themselves should not require very much time, given that the political agreements have already been reached, but there is no certainty of this. yesterday, we visited president chirac and the new french prime minister, mr lionel jospin, and they both assured us that everything had been done to reconcile the fact that the stability pact cannot be withdrawn - something which the new government is also against - but on the other hand, the new government has noted an imperfection, namely that the question of employment has not been sufficiently taken into account. this problem will be resolved by adding a sort of addendum. this is not the exclusive wish of the french government: many member states share this opinion and we are currently working on this issue. the outcome of this work will depend to some extent on the possibility of completing this set of measures. in this respect, it is not improbable to envisage the following scenario: we decide to adopt the measures as a whole but we are not going to divide them up. that is the current state of this issue. now let us turn to the main subject: revision of the maastricht treaty. since the dublin european council, the presidency has done everything to complete the draft treaty texts, which has turned out to be a very complicated task. the irish presidency's proposal had many qualities, especially that of defining a framework - an extremely important fact - but when it came to some of the main political problems, it nevertheless revealed a number of gaps. recent debates have been dedicated to these issues and those debates are still going on. i should now like to thank the european parliament for its constructive contribution to this process. the prospects which now loom before us are that of a european union whose aim is to serve the ordinary peoples. it is a question of their security, their prosperity, their health and their mobility. the european union must also prepare institutionally to welcome new member states. i am now going to look at some of the specific subjects of the igc. i shall begin by the area of freedom, security and justice. negotiations indicate that the igc will result in a strengthening of the principles of the democratic rule of law and fundamental rights within the european union. legal controls of european union's policy in terms of fundamental rights as established in the european convention on human rights will be strengthened. furthermore, the igc is determined to include in the treaty a provision of non-discrimination in the broadest sense. the decision to favour the free movement of persons is of capital importance. from this viewpoint, the proposal aimed at integrating the schengen 'acquis' into the european union is currently being studied. furthermore, the democratic and legal legitimacy of schengen cooperation might also be improved by copying the institutional framework of the european union, in particular the european parliament, the commission and the court of justice. now i am coming to the european union and the public. let us mention, first of all, the social aspect which has been paid particular attention during the igc. integration of the social charter into the treaty is now being called for unanimously. we should also refer to the insertion of a new chapter on employment. employment policy is still a priority responsibility of the member states themselves but the union can play a role, acting as a stimulus in this respect by strengthening, for example, coordination and exchanges of experiences between the member states. considerable effort has been put into improving the quality and openness of administration within the european union. i am satisfied to note the broad support given to a proposal allowing the public to gain access to documents issued by the council, the commission and the european parliament. another important aspect of the igc is achieving a common foreign and security policy. the possible means of achieving this are a majority decision process and the concept of constructive abstention. i am not aware of the exact arrangements proposed, as for other points, but you can read in the draft documents that there will possibly be an opportunity for responding to the wish of all member states to free themselves of the straightjacket of the absolute right of veto which has so often dominated the second pillar. the construction developed in this framework consists in the possibility of reaching a fundamental decision taken by consensus by the european council, stipulating a strategy for one country, one region or one given question. this fundamental decision is being worked out in the general council in order to obtain a well drafted and well thought-out document - which is not always the case of european councils - to be presented at the european council. the resolutions contained in the fundamental resolution can then be adopted by qualified majority within the general council. again there is a possibility for a given member state to refer to the resolution which may be harmful to one of its main national interests. in order to avoid this approach being taken too often, a procedure has been worked out according to which two-thirds of the council may appeal to the european council in order to issue a final judgment in respect of an appeal which it regards as wrongful. you might retort that this system is nonetheless relatively complex. that is true but the european union as a whole is a complicated structure and there is no consensus on this type of question. even so, this measure should lead to two results. on the one hand, no member state can be marginalized by the other member states when it feels that there really is a significant national interest at stake. on the other hand, the advantage of the complexity of the procedure lies in the need to present serious arguments in order to avoid ridicule. in other words, it will be necessary to prove twice or three times to colleagues that the concept of national interest is being applied in absolute honesty. we know all the weaknesses of the procedures but that is not the problem concerning us. we have yet to come across a similar situation. on this point, let us emphasize that the union is making effective progress and many of you - as well as many of the member states - hope that we are, in this way, going to achieve a more effective way of introducing qualified majority voting. i think that there is a certain benefit in this given that, two years ago, when we began these activities, such a regulation was ruled out. we can now, therefore, conclude that our efforts have paid off and the prospects are promising. as for financing the cfsp activities, you have certainly found out about the intention to conclude an interinstitutional agreement on this subject between the european parliament, the council and the commission. this means that the european parliament's existing budgetary powers on this point will be guaranteed whatever happens. i know that some of you disapprove of this, rightly, and i should tell you at once that i fully expect to be snowed under with your remarks - but i should tell you that, in the council, there was a feeling of getting bogged down and a feeling that the procedures were holding things up far too much. the real intention - and to recall what the initial concepts were - was to turn everything into compulsory expenditure. thanks to an excellent cooperation with your president, who deserves our congratulations, we reached an inter-institutional agreement which will enable you to control all foreign expenditure. it is less than before but far more than the council originally had any intention of giving you. it is, at this point in time, difficult to predict how integration of weu into the european union is going to take place. we have already gone down much of the way towards this and know what the situation is. a small group of countries wants to limit this to cooperation between the two institutions and a much larger group, eight member states, would like a total merger. these points of view are absolutely unreconcilable in that one group would like to convince the other to adopt its position. the presidency's proposal takes this into account and we hope that it will reach a consensus. it will not be easy at all and everyone will have to make an effort but it is possible. the summit will decide the outcome, given that this is one of the major issues at stake. finally, as for the european union's external economic policy, i should like to tell you of our efforts aimed at reaching a situation where the union adopts a common position in terms of services and intellectual property. negotiations are still going on and i am unable to tell you what progress we have made but we are doing our best to guarantee a fruitful outcome one way or another. now i am coming to another key point: institutional questions. the debate has intensified especially since the informal european council in noordwijk. from the political point of view this is the most complicated point. in each country the question has been the subject of a political debate between government and parliament which means that it is practically impossible to find a solution which is going to satisfy everyone. we must take measures. enlargement will call for a better organisation on our part. the composition and functioning of the commission have been the subject of a lengthy debate. the strengthening of the position of the president of the commission has led to growing support. however, adaptation of the number of commissioners is still a controversial issue. however that may be, if the proposal to strengthen the position of the president of the commission does succeed it will imply a strengthening of the position of the european parliament, which intervenes twice in the process of forming the commission. the first when the presidentdesignate, appointed by the council, is presented to you, and you hold talks with him before approving his appointment, and the second when he has taken on the commissioners, in conjunction with the member states, and he presents the whole team to you - and you have to give your agreement to that. unless the process is interrupted, this would mean considerably strengthening the european parliament's position. changing the number of commissioners is also one of the main subjects of the debate. the igc is perfectly aware of the fact that, when the union undergoes a major enlargement, it will no longer be possible to extrapolate a system which was originally designed for six member states. we are going to have to work out an exact representation of the new ratios. at bottom, after each enlargement, we simply extrapolate, as if we were just dealing with a different size of the same organisation when, in reality, we also have to deal with structural differences. that is why, at present, we are basing ourselves on the notion that each member state will retain one commissioner but that at some point in time, when the european union is extended by a certain degree, the larger member states are going to have to sacrifice their second commissioner. on the other hand, the weighting of votes will also have to be reviewed as, when we have more than 20 member states, we are going to have to proceed to a structural reform of the whole of the system. we are going to have to think of the best way of administering the community that we are now developing but we have not yet had time to think about that. we are not going to have more than 20 members that quickly! so we are going to have to make the most of the delay. we are going to have to take more time, set up a working group and reorganize the administration of the european community. this idea, which is currently being examined, has been given a favourable welcome. i do know, however, that 'the devil is in the detail' , because that really is what it is about: how to revise the weighting of votes, etc. we have not yet reached a decision but we are on the right road. we have seen that there is a great deal of sympathy for the arguments behind this reasoning, which envisages a structural reform without waiting for enlargement before possibly painful decisions are taken, so we also are taking action and we are demanding the applicant countries to do so. the last point to which i would like to draw your attention is flexibility. in the light of the enlargement of the european union and the heterogeneity which is going to result from it, there are many people who seem to be convinced of the necessity to extend the possibilities of strengthening cooperation. at this level, the condition is the guarantee of the union's unity. flexibility seems above all to offer opportunities within the jai pillar, such that its intergovernmental character is preserved. we must pay particular attention to the ec pillar. that is what has also been expressed in the text which we are now examining. at present, the final debate must take place on the exact system to be adopted, whether we use a negative list, which is the more probable outcome, or present general definitions to which the flexibility of the first pillar must respond. come what may, considerable guarantees are necessary and they are being introduced in the first pillar. the debate will therefore concentrate on the degree of precision. and now the position of the european parliament. i know, ladies and gentlemen, that i never match up to your expectations on this score. i can nevertheless tell you that on a certain number of points results have been registered in the process of strengthening the european parliament's position which has been pursued by the presidency. i am thinking in particular of the simplification of the codecision procedure, which strengthens the effectiveness and democratic character of the decision-making process. without forgetting the introduction of the codecision procedure where the cooperation procedure still applies. in my view this change is a vital strengthening of the european parliament's position and i have already mentioned your growing influence on the formation of the commission. following this very comprehensive consideration of the igc, you are now aware of the fact that this presidency is quite determined to make sure that the amsterdam negotiations will be a success. the presidency has done all it can to enable that to take place and is continuing its efforts, not because we absolutely want to have the name of our capital city attached to the treaty - although, of course, that would be nice for amsterdamers, but that is not the reason - but because it is time (noise and laughter) time for making the union dynamic and more effective, to arm it for the next enlargement and to bring it closer to the ordinary people. just a few more words on this last point. this visibility for ordinary citizens is of capital interest. because that is what it is all about. let us not confuse the issue. i explained this recently elsewhere. at present, we are just building the kitchen. the ordinary citizen is interested in particular in the dishes that are going to come out of it. it is all very well to have a new kitchen, but the most important is the dishes which are prepared in it. it is employment, the environment, that type of issue. it is quite foolish to think that ordinary people will really be concerned about the way in which we build the kitchen. after all, it is very complex. when i go into a garage, i understand absolutely nothing about repair techniques, all i want is for my car to be repaired, i want it to be roadworthy and i want to have confidence in the mechanic. (applause and laughter) therefore, i would like you to put things in perspective. we must not and cannot explain absolutely every detail of our work. if the outcome is pleasing, that is what counts. mr president, public acceptance of the new treaty will depend partly on you. the presidency is putting much hope in other important questions. i already referred to emu, employment, the internal market and the fight against crime. i hope that we are going to make substantial progress in amsterdam. the presidency hopes that, at the end of the month, it will be able to announce to you the positive, concrete results of the amsterdam meeting. (applause) thank you very much, mr president-in-office of the council. mr santer, president of the european commission, you have the floor. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, in less than a week's time, the amsterdam european council will have to overcome the final obstacles to the reform of the treaty. we shall then see whether the igc has met its triple challenge: to narrow the gap between the european project and the citizens, find the resources to exist in the international arena and review the institutions in order to bring about enlargement in good conditions. four successive presidencies have worked on this project in turn. the time has come to conclude. further waiting at best would change nothing and at worst would lead to a move backwards. the current text drafted by the dutch presidency is a point of balance and, i hope, a meeting-point too. i would have preferred more boldness here and there but i do gauge the difficulty of marrying ambition and realism and i think that the dutch presidency team has largely succeeded in meeting the challenge. if i remain concerned today, it is because there are too many attempts to undo, at the last minute, such patiently completed work. i would like to tell all of those who, concerned at the gap between politics and ordinary people, are tempted to take a thousand precautions: ' be daring! because in europe there are more people dissatisfied with our slowness than hostile to our progress towards integration' . i also call on the heads of state and government to resist the temptation to take advantage of the final home sprint to settle, through protocols and various amendments, problems that are ill-suited to constitutional improvisations. i would rather expect them to take advantage of the final negotiations to constitute a coherent and ambitious institutional package. it is on that score that the shape of a final solution is still vague, even though a good outcome is vital. i repeat what i have often said: an ill-prepared enlargement would turn into a nightmare what i think in reality is a historic chance for europe. mr president, a few remarks about the key points of the negotiation and the 'union for citizens' . the new treaty offers the chance to create a genuine area of freedom, security and justice. in this area, the accomplished work is remarkable and the text of this presidency ambitious. the citizens expect no less, tired at seeing how the current system is deficient and that no convention - yes, no convention - has come into effect. we can only welcome the broad communitarization envisaged for the third pillar. after a three-year transitional period, we should now switch to qualified majority voting and the commission's exclusive right of initiative. but we should go to the conclusion of community logic, i.e. introduce the codecision procedure. (applause) as for criminal and police cooperation, it is legitimate at this stage to stay at intergovernmental level, provided that the effectiveness and democratic nature of that cooperation is increased. integration into the treaty of the schengen 'acquis' is a good thing. the share-out between the pillars must be clear if the union's action is to be as coherent as possible in areas linked to the free movement of persons. certain member states have specific difficulties over this, i recognize. let us find specific solutions for them, but not at the cost of blocking real progress as a whole. it is now a fact that the treaty will include a chapter on employment. of course, it cannot be expected that this measure would directly reduce unemployment - i shall come back to the broader problem of employment later - but this chapter is vital for at least two reasons. firstly, because it shows that the endemic nature of unemployment has brought some of the concerns to the heart of the european project, along with the hopes of europeans. secondly, because the provisions included in that chapter are useful ones. once our states have set as an aim a broad convergence of their economic policies, they also need a coherent and coordinated employment strategy. for that we must set up consultative arrangements and the possibility to take incentive measures. that is what the dutch presidency's draft text proposes. integration of the social protocol into the treaty will make it possible to restore unity and coherence to social policy. but we must seize the opportunity offered to us to improve it and strengthen its provisions, or we shall run the risk of replacing an already difficult action for fourteen countries with an impossible one for fifteen. we must also strengthen consumer health production to allay people's concerns. unlike 1992, nobody now contests the commission's proposals. they will rightly make it possible to involve the european parliament fully in the adoption of measures aimed at by article 129, extended to the veterinary and plant health areas. (applause) we, i.e. the european parliament, the council and the commission must then show that we can act in the interest of consumers, on the basis of the arrangements we have had made available. mr president, the second main aim of the igc can be summed up in five words: existing in the international arena. there is a time to regret our collective powerlessness, but there is also a time to react and i should like amsterdam to be the opportunity for a quantum leap in political will. first of all concerning cfsp proper. the arrangements proposed by the presidency are an important step forward. they provide for qualified majority voting for implementing strategic decisions taken at european council level. the restrictive possibility of referring to national interest (in exceptional cases) - i prefer to speak of security interests, as it happens - is a price to pay for this advance. the new troika, comprising the presidency, the commission and the secretary general of cfsp, is a promising tool in that it brings together all aspects of external policy and combines periodic renewal with continuity. in my view, it should play a coordinating rule and act as an agent of coherence throughout the process, by relying on the analysis cell. i also welcome the agreement on the funding of cfsp. but apart from the instruments, we must also have genuine political will and use it effectively to develop a common policy. one final word on cfsp, ladies and gentlemen, i do not see how europe can claim to become a major actor without a military role. that means that it should set a deadline for integrating the weu into the european union, as six of the member states have proposed in a joint position. (applause) in modern life, the economic, financial and monetary factors are playing a growing role in external relations. it is clear that the arrival of the euro will change the situation and lead to a new balance of international financial and monetary relations. commercially speaking, the commission is asking for the adaptation of the treaty to current realities. it is a simple position of common sense, common sense that sometimes disappears in the diplomatic jousting and bureaucratic reactions. i say this clearly: refusing to make progress on services and intellectual property, the defence of the union's interests, the member states and companies run an acute risk of going backwards. (applause) everyone must take their responsibilities. the text proposed by the dutch presidency is a progress, since it provides for an extension, albeit limited, of article 113 to services. but there are delegations which want to water it down or add to it, even in other articles, supplementary conditions, at the risk of emptying this progress of all substance, even ending up in a step backwards compared with the current situation. i shall oppose that. i now come to the institutional questions, which are vital as they condition not only the support of europeans but also the future of the union itself, just before its enlargement. the presidency's text provides, as the commission has always demanded, for a strengthening of the european parliament's role as co-legislator. it is a sign of confidence that corresponds to the development of your institution. only the european parliament can ensure the democratic controls that the european union needs at the stage of development that it has reached. we only need to recall the recommendations of the karlsruhe constitutional court to realize that and the presidency's approach is a real progress since it aims to cover most areas of a mostly legislative character. furthermore, simplification of the codecision procedure, and the abolition of third reading, will put the two legislative branches on an equal footing. we should resist any last minute attempts to reverse that decision. (applause) in that context, i think that the time has also come to define an electoral system that brings representatives closer to the voters and a european parliamentarian status. i think that this is a vital factor for strengthening the legitimacy of the community institutional system. (applause) as for the functioning of the council, the vital point is that of extending voting by qualified majority. the presidency has dealt with this question with the necessary openness, which means inroads into the second and current thirds pillars and a consolidation in community areas. a further effort could be made to foresee adoption of qualified majority voting on social provisions and some measures in taxation areas, but it has to be said that the member states' attitudes leave little room for hope over that. it is a shame, because unanimity in a european union of more than fifteen member states will only lead to hold-ups and even paralysis. as for the reweighting of votes, the commission is open to alternative proposals by the presidency, provided that the final solution does not make decision-taking more difficult and that it opens the way to more qualified majority voting. i finally come to the membership of the commission. the solution that will be found will probably be not that far removed from the one we proposed for preparing our institution for enlargement. the appointed president will have to be approved by the european parliament. his or her role will be strengthened, i hope, especially over the appointment of the other commissioners. as for the number, that has not yet been decided, i think. the commission continues to believe that a maximum number of commissioners should be set. as far as we are concerned, we are going to do what we announced for internal reforms and that includes the regrouping of tasks. mr president, allow me to conclude on the igc. i told you at the outset that the draft treaty that we are debating today meets, on many points, the expectations set out by the commission in its opinion of february 1996. everyone will judge the final outcome by his or her own yardstick. it is the fruit of a lengthy labour. if we can improve it, let us do so, but let us not call into question the level of the project by making last-minute demands that would change the balance already struck. it is not easy to achieve a quality treaty with fifteen member states. it will be even harder after enlargement. mr president, if there is a question that concerns all european, it is that of employment. the people of europe expect the union to offer answers to their main concern. the inclusion of an 'employment chapter' in the new treaty will help. but this is urgent. why not anticipate the implementation of this arrangement? it is not tomorrow that we should learn from each other or work out a coordinated strategy on jobs. it is today. it is today that we must translate the best practices into recommendations. in less than a year, we shall be taking the decision on the entry into the third stage of emu. the setting up of a stable macro-economic framework has progressed a lot in recent times. inflation and interest rates are at very low levels, and public deficits have considerably shrunk. at the amsterdam summit, we shall have to complete the final preparations for the euro, the new exchange rate mechanism, the euro's legal status and the stability and growth pact. the latter is important for guaranteeing sustainable growth. that growth must still be rich in jobs. i welcome the fact that the ecofin council, the day before yesterday, recognized the need for emu to walk on two legs, monetary and economic. if the monetary aspect is clearly defined, we still need to make an effort to use all the potential of the procedures provided for in article 103 of the treaty and aimed at coordinating economic policies. an ambitious monetary policy only makes sense if it goes hand in hand with a policy for higher employment that everyone can understand. (applause) i should once again like to emphasize that the stability pact, as its new name implies, is also a growth pact, therefore a job-creating pact. all the member states wanted that. without calling into question the stability pact's substance and arrangements, it is therefore perfectly possible to highlight employment still further and thereby overcome a concern expressed by one member state at the latest ecofin council. that concern is and always has been ours. i therefore very much hope that the contacts under way will make it possible to reach full success at amsterdam, including an agreement on the stability and growth pact. i also hope that the european council will send a strong signal on the completion of the internal market by the end of the century. the potential of the internal market for competitiveness, growth and employment, is huge. the action plan proposed by the commission defines four main areas for maximizing that potential: strengthening the effectiveness of the rules, ending distortions to competition or fiscal distortions, ending sectoral obstacles and putting the single market to the service of all citizens. practical commitments will have to be made and clear deadlines set. reforming and modernizing labour markets is the third axis of a coherent and integrated strategy for jobs. the role of the social partners is especially important here. i therefore welcome the agreement signed at the end of the last social dialogue summit, last friday in the hague, on part-time work. this is an encouraging sign that shows that flexibility and the defence of workers' legitimate aspirations are far from being mutually exclusive. the very positive reaction of the member states, all the member states, to the idea of territorial pacts for jobs is another reason for satisfaction. a new form of partnership is being forged on the ground and will be turned into a practicality by the launch of some 90 pacts, which will be hotbeds for job creation. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the amsterdam european council will mark the future of the european union. it will, i hope, be a historic meeting and proof of the desire of the fifteen member states to advance towards unification, while respecting their different identities. a good agreement on the igc will give europe a new boost and enable it to meet the emu deadlines and handle enlargement in good conditions. let us not miss the opportunity. (applause) thank you very much, mr santer. you have the floor, mrs green. mr president, i should like to begin by thanking the president-in-office and the president of the commission for their frank contributions here this morning. we have been in this process now for over two years and when we began, for my group the essence of it was that we should try and do our best in this treaty process to reconnect the european union with its citizens and, secondly, that we should prepare the union for enlargement. those were the two fundamental prerequisites of this round of the intergovernmental conference. my group believes that the treaty changes had to be based on four concepts: openness, democracy, clarity and effectiveness, and those were the goals which we believe we have set ourselves for this treaty round. many of my colleagues will report in detail on some of the issues mr van mierlo and mr santer raised. i want, and was mandated by my group, to give a short political message within days of the amsterdam summit so that my group's position is absolutely clear. i delivered this message with great clarity to the congress of my political party, the party of european socialists, last week meeting in malm and, in particular, to the nine prime ministers within the council who are from our political family and who were all present in malm. the message is that we recognize all the intricacies of the treaty, but now in a few days' time there are three major areas where my group feels we will be looking to see that more progress should be made. in saying that, we recognize and have been quite clear about the progress that has been made in the treaty. we are not overly cynical and we see that some changes have been made that are positive and respond to our demands. but we want more and we will be looking to see how much more can even be gained in the final few hours of amsterdam. our three priorities are as follows: firstly, we want to see the strengthening of the draft employment title in the treaty on european union. it is not good enough and is just pious rhetoric. it must encompass the coordination of economic and employment policies. secondly, we want to see included in the treaty fundamental social rights and the strengthening of the social chapter, not just the incorporation of social policy into the treaty. thirdly, we believe the enhancement of democracy in europe is crucial and we are looking at the extension of qmv and codecision across the legislative field in the first pillar. mr van mierlo mentioned the anti-discrimination clause. we welcome that but it is not good enough that it is based on unanimity. it must be based on qualified majority voting and co-decision with this house. finally, we made clear in our group that what we want to see is that those issues to be transferred, as we hope they will be, from the third to the first pillar must also be subject to qmv and co-decision as mr santer has already made clear for the commission. it cannot be that those issues are transferred without proper parliamentary scrutiny. only progress in those areas will make sure that the union is ready to enlarge and will have something serious to say to its people. mr president, mr president-in-office, mr president of the commission, both of you have offered us a serious and remarkable introduction and i should like to thank you sincerely for that as well as for the work that has been completed. the intergovernmental conference has been working for more than 18 months now. the european single act needed only five months of preparation and the maastricht treaty one year. we have always adopted a positive attitude. you mentioned, minister, the troubled circumstances and we are not hiding our heads in the sand for we will have to deal in amsterdam with a political problem which i shall be tackling as a priority, despite the meeting of six heads of government from the european popular party, which took place yesterday in strasbourg. the french government is insisting that we set up an assessment period for the stability pact and is calling into question the time allowed after the signature in amsterdam. what is our position? 'pacta sunt servanda' , the dublin commitment to the stability pact must be stuck to. we cannot accept any changes to this pact which is also a pact for economic growth. furthermore, the criteria and the deadline set in the framework of monetary union must be applied as they were agreed upon and we want the amsterdam igc to be a success. we are nonetheless of the opinion that the stability pact must be complemented. yesterday, mr lamfalussy described the fundamental revolution carried out by monetary union in europe. the reduction in inflation below the 2 % level, reduction in budgetary deficits. this is an essential base, especially for creating jobs and for economic prosperity, but we have lost ten years. i might perhaps add that, when i was president-in-office of the european council in 1987 i tried, in conjunction with jacques delors, to create a common social base and to establish dialogue between the social partners in europe and conclude collective bargaining agreements at european level. we did not succeed. we have wasted ten years and at the maastricht summit we failed to integrate the social chapter into the treaty, something which will now take place. now we must reinforce it. we all agree on this. but it is also of vital importance that employment should become an objective of the european community. we therefore approve the dutch proposal to include a six-point title - the number is irrelevant - on cooperation between the member states, which it encouraged, supported and possibly complemented. the dutch presidency has pointed out that the setting up of an employment committee has been accepted and that is something we welcome. we also still bank on the implementation of jacques santer's confidence-building pact. according to us the stability pact cannot be withdrawn but it should be strengthened. it must be complemented and jacques delors recently emphasized that article 103 of the treaty authorizes this. we would therefore insist on this point and we hope that, in these circumstances, the stability pact will be signed in amsterdam just as the ppe heads of government decided to do yesterday. that at least is our position. i now come to the igc. the dutch presidency's proposals make up a remarkable document in our view. i would say that it is a valid minimum, mr president-in-office. however, we cannot accept that, as we have been told, and as the european commission's president emphasized, the big countries should take various initiatives, including diplomatic ones, in order to undermine it. this project represents for us a valid minimum provided that it is not reduced. you have emphasized certain points: the communitarization of major elements of the third pillar with the community pillar. in our view, integration of the schengen acquis into the treaty and implementation of europol are essential elements for an area of freedom, security and justice. as far as the second pillar is concerned, we recommend integration of weu as has been proposed by six member states. we also support your attempt to introduce a system of majority decisions for this pillar, for common actions and positions and on the basis of a common strategy as you have stated. the third main point: integration of an 'employment' title into the treaty. fourth point: amending article 113 of the treaty, on services and intellectual property; then the institutions. i am fully behind what the president of the commission has just said: i understand the enormous difficulties which you have to deal with but i also note a strong political will in that the head of the dutch presidency is determined not to allow the european union to collapse but is set on seizing the challenge - historic challenge - of enlargement to 20 or even perhaps 25 members. that is why it is so important for the institutions to be reformed. mr van mierlo, in order to have a good car you need a good garage. how the garage is organized is of no interest to me but what is of interest to me is to know that it is a good garage, and that i will therefore have a good car which will be properly repaired, because at the moment it is jolting along. that means, in our view, that majority decision taking in the council and the codecision of the european parliament in this area are capital. we also feel that we should adopt a strengthening of majority cooperation rather than unanimity. dear colleagues, i shall end with these comments: we shall never approve - and we never have - of mrs thatcher's intention which was to reduce europe to a free trade area, mere intergovernmental cooperation. for 12 years i opposed this with many others in the european council. we cannot tolerate the opportunist decision by the swedish government which did not ask for opting out in the framework of the monetary union and which for opportunistic reasons, because the single currency is unpopular in sweden, has decided not to take part in it. this really is an opportunist decision which does not help us to progress. i hope that the great statesmen, the late mr mitterrand, mr delors, as well as mrs guigou and all of the others alongside what we have defended for europe for the last ten years, will enable it to pursue its course. but they must also take advantage of their considerable influence in the french government to turn the amsterdam summit into a success and to achieve the signature of the stability pact, especially so that europe can let the ordinary people have a say. so that it can become a social europe with a human dimension. i hope that, by reuniting our forces, we shall achieve that aim. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the next amsterdam summit will be the first of a series of meetings that will fashion the architecture of 21st century europe. we hope that it will be followed by the setting up, on the scheduled date, of economic and monetary union, enlargements to the south and the east, that will draw the boundaries of a finally reunited europe and assert the identity of our continent in the international arena, the only prospect enabling european citizens to face up to the challenges of globalization that, quite rightly, worries them. it must therefore be seen as one step in a long journey and not as an end in itself. it is in the light of these challenges that its outcome should be assessed. europe first of all needs effective institutions, i.e. able to take the decisions that have to be taken, at the right moment, and democratic and transparent procedures involving national parliaments and the european parliament as the co-holders of democratic legitimacy. those who rightly refuse a bureaucratic and undemocratic europe must give it the means to acquire its political legitimacy. the acquis communautaire must be strengthened, be it the single market, external trade policy - as mr santer proposed - which must be more offensive, common agriculture and fisheries policies which must be made more efficient but also fairer. social cohesion must also be strongly reinforced, e.g. by inclusion in the treaty of an improved social protocol, as the french government demanded in march 1996 in a memorandum on the european social model and by the inclusion of a chapter or a new title making employment of all one of the main aims of european construction, along with the guarantee of our internal and external security, without which there cannot be a genuine democracy. europe is often criticized, ladies and gentlemen, less for what it does, which is often little known, than for what it does not do, and should do. it would be seriously incoherent to denounce the paralysis due to maintenance of the rule of unanimity that certain states legitimately want to retain when they think that superior national interests are at stake and at the same time to refuse to develop stronger cooperation between those states that want to go further ahead. ladies and gentlemen, we should also beware of restricting the exercise of that flexibility or stronger cooperation with such tight rules that they would make it practically inoperative. if we want european construction to continue to make progress, let us retain the pragmatism and flexibility that have enabled it, so far, to develop and which will be all the more necessary in a europe extended across the continent. we expect the heads of state and government to show the political will to go full steam ahead so that the european union can finally acquire the political identity that matches its economic weight and its cultural influence. if europe now arouses fears among a growing number of our fellow citizens, it is because its institutions have not sufficiently borne in mind their worries about a seemingly uncertain and menacing future. amsterdam, mr president-in-office, should not just be the title of a brel song, but it should be a hit. the outcome must give europeans fresh hope as they are expecting practical responses to their worries, mainly about employment and security. that is the signal we are waiting for and let us hope these expectations will not be disappointed. to conclude, i should tell you, mr president-in-office, that i particularly appreciated your introductory speech, which was full of realism and pragmatism. i think that you have tried to fill the plate - to take up your own culinary metaphor - and i hope that your colleagues in the council will not prove to be fans of nouvelle cuisine. thank you for your results so far and good luck! mr president, rather than continuing with the fairly down-to-earth comparison of the garage and garage-mechanic, i should like to remind you of robert schuman's definition of community rules back in 1950. he said that europe would not be achieved in one go or in the construction of a whole, but by practical achievements creating de facto solidarity. it is in that spirit that strong institutions and rules were created to enable the states to live together, to acquire a common spirit and guarantee effectiveness. that is what is more prosaically known as the step by step approach. referring to those principles, which are still fundamental for the union's progress, i should like to speak about the draft treaty in three areas. as far as employment and social affairs are concerned, the draft text prepared by the dutch presidency takes into account the demand of european citizens by introducing into the treaty the fight against unemployment, the creation of new jobs, the maintenance of a system of social security that is in keeping with the european model. even if some think that these commitments are not enough, the door is now open to further developments: the step by step method. the result on a common foreign and security policy is quite different - something else seen by citizens as a manifestation of europe's existence. on this there are neither tiny steps nor any real progress. the tools that have been created - i am sorry, mr president-in-office - are intergovernmental. unanimity, i.e. the right of veto is going to control all decisions. the council's authority is strengthened to the detriment of the commission's. constructive abstention is made fragile by the right of veto, possible even bad tempered veto, of one of the member states. and that is with only fifteen member states! as for strengthened cooperation, it is obvious that the conditions of its implementation will be vital for the overall assessment of the conference's outcome, i.e. the future of european construction. the condition of unanimity for cfsp is a real nonsense and cannot be justified by any argument. faced with these predictably modest results of the igc, respect of the emu deadline and the stability pact seem an absolute imperative. any delays or calling into question of the conditions and timetable would return us to the darkest hours of the union's history. we have reached times of considerable challenge and dangers. we therefore welcome the courage of the dutch presidency. madam president, the igc ought to win the citizens of europe over by meeting three challenges: restoring meaning to european construction, democratizing the institutions, clearly sharing responsibilities. just before the amsterdam summit, we are far from achieving those aims. i am pragmatic and am not asking for the moon, but i think that we could do better and that we should try to do so, before the single currency and enlargement both of which are necessary in my personal view. it is not enough to have such a weak institutional framework. if we do not make enough progress in another week, let us work another two or three months over the summer so that three or four vital questions can be resolved; a more serious treaty could then be signed. with my group, i ask that the conclusion be delayed until the autumn, unless a few vital improvements are made by the time of the amsterdam summit. what needs to be improved? first of all, we should clarify the mandate to be respected by the states and the union on employment. too many doubts are blocking the implementation of clear-cut actions. the french initiative for setting new conditions of growth and employment, without of course refusing the challenges of competitiveness and stability, is timely and courageous. but how can it be put into practice? a protocol of further intentions added to the stability pact is not enough. it is the treaty that must include clear commitments and operational tools so that the coordination of economic policies really does take on board the requirement of cooperation over jobs. to that end, the decision on certain fiscal, financial or industrial questions must no longer be blocked by unanimous voting; if each state can veto decisions, there will never be a common growth and employment policy. let us not be satisfied with a cosmetic agreement when things are actually being blocked. secondly, the democratization of the institutions calls for more efforts and on this point i approve of the european parliament's proposals on codecision, controls over the executive authority and transparency in particular. thirdly, concerning the fair share-out of responsibilities and the strengthening of the union prior to enlargement, the draft treaty shows very serious deficiencies. each state is sticking to its prerogatives. it is the intergovernmental europe that is advancing and not the community. the legitimacy and efficiency of codecision will not be boosted. the states have the necessary means but are balking at committing themselves and are rejecting democratic controls. we cannot expect the igc to remove all these obstacles and it would therefore be wise at least to see this treaty as a precursor to the institutional reforms of the year 2000. we then will need a constituent procedure. ladies and gentlemen, i wish to congratulate the committee on institutional affairs on its work under the leadership of mr biagio de giovanni. but there is some hesitation over the political conclusion. let us overcome that and ask the governments to continue their efforts. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, we all know that there is much that can be learnt from history, so here is today's history lesson. prince grigor potemkin, the favourite of catherine the great, had conquered the crimea. when the empress visited her new territory, potemkin deceived her regarding its actual state with hastily built villages, false fronts and military charades. that was in 1787. today, 210 years later, prince potemkin and the russian empire are long gone, but potemkin-style villages are still being built. the biggest ever is to be inaugurated next week in amsterdam with the maastricht ii treaty! the false front is attractive and welcoming - freedom, security, the rule of law, the union and the citizens. mr van mierlo paints all this in the most glowing colours, and i really do wonder whether he actually believes what he is saying! because what is hidden behind the false front? a masterpiece of empty paragraphs, as in the case of the non-discrimination article, escape routes as in the case of transparency, lip service as in the case of the so-called employment chapter, a verbose vacuum. maastricht ii needs to make the necessary corrections to make the european union viable for a pan-european future, for democracy and social ecology. what we have now is not just inadequate but actually at variance with all the hopes, requirements and justified expectations we have expressed! maastricht ii completes the first step towards the abolition of democracy in favour of the extension of executive power. there is no other way to describe the pseudo-communitization of parts of the third pillar, the incipient erosion of basic rights and rule-of-law principles such as the individual right to asylum or data protection! instead of finally establishing the union on a foundation of civil law, where security means legal certainty and not law and order! the preamble talks about sustainability, but then the rest of the text becomes bogged down in the allpervading logic of growth which, as we know, is the very opposite of a responsible blend of ecology and economy. a start is made on the militarization of the eu, instead of promoting the demilitarization of foreign policy. our task must be to push aside this false front. we are very much given to talking about transparency and credibility. but in that case we must not let ourselves be exploited, we must not describe something as success and progress when it is nothing of the kind! we are not the star witnesses of the latter-day prince potemkin, whether his name be helmut kohl or jacques or hans van mierlo or whatever. our job is to make it clear to the national governments that democracy is an essential for european integration, not an inconvenient obstacle! we need to make it clear that there are new expectations of a change of direction in economic, social, environmental and ecological policy. the citizens, mr van mierlo, want more than just bread and circuses - they want to know what's cooking, and who is cooking it, and how, and what with. they want to help the cook. that is called participation, and it's called democracy, in europe too! madam president, mr president-in-office - i congratulate you on your frankness - mr president of the commission, the variety of political changes in europe and the short time between now and the amsterdam summit make the exercise especially difficult to achieve. for our group, it is clear that nothing should thwart the process of european integration and the need to take into account social demands and employment should not be a brake on that integration but on the contrary a further argument in favour of strengthening the union. as for the issues on the summit agenda, apart from the reform of the institutions proper, our group supports the compromise resolution to be voted on later, be it for economic and monetary union, social issues or employment, the single market, the action plan proposed by the commission, or other issues. a word on the stability pact, now the subject of discussion for several days. we feel that this pact is the corollary of the creation of the single currency and that its adoption should not be delayed, otherwise we would run the risk of delaying the introduction of the euro, which would be a serious political error. however, we understand the need to add to this pact economic and social provisions, with jobs as the target. we hope that by the time of the amsterdam summit, a compromise will be found so that nothing can hold up introduction of the euro. for that, it is perhaps not vital for these economic and social provisions to be included in the pact. they could be placed in another supplementary document. as for the institutions themselves, we regret that a few days before the summit there are still doubts on important points. the president-in-office confirmed that. we are therefore forced to give an opinion on a proposals made by our committee on institutional affairs. the first version of that proposal, drafted by mr de giovanni, was demanding and rather strict. the second version presented by the commission itself is more optimistic and less demanding. for our part, we regret this development since we want the summit to go as far as possible in the reform of the institutions and on the road to integration, be it the voting arrangements in the council, the membership, role and strengthening of the commission, the european parliament's prerogatives, such as generalization of codecision, the piloting of a genuine cfsp, or the elaboration and implementation of the union's economic and social policy, what some call the union's economic government, alongside the future central bank. the european parliament has been saying this for two years. unless our wishes are met, there will have to be another igc, as the president-in-office himself said. madam president, the preparation of the amsterdam european council is being dominated by an artificial polemic about the stability pact, which will end up masking the meeting's real challenges. it is an artificial polemic because, as we know well, the employment aspect, demanded by the french socialists to re-balance the pact, is already found in the draft treaty prepared by the igc and it will not be possible to do much better. it is also an artificial polemic because the single currency, since there is no optimum monetary zone in europe, can only work against employment and, alongside that great reality, all the rest is nothing but political hot-air or window-dressing. and it is also artificial polemic because the first and real employment policy at european level was the common trade policy, which europe buried when it launched itself into all-out free trading. but this artificial polemic on the stability pact is distracting attention away from what is really at stake at amsterdam. first of all, the very strong progress towards federalism in the draft treaty, which is going to subordinate nations still further and worsen the democratic deficit. then there is the more immediate hijacking of the debate on the single currency, which concerns radical constitutional changes that would have to be decided for it to function properly, but that nobody dares to deal with frankly out of fear of raising problems that cannot be dealt with. when we see these cares and cautions, which are rather ridiculous, it has to be said, about the draft treaty, in order to skirt around the basic question of the viability of the single currency, we cannot help thinking of jeanjacques rousseau's words: ' it is the weapon that must be left in the wound, in case the victim expires when it is taken out' . mr president, unfortunately we will not be able to hail the definitive shape of the european union at amsterdam. in fact, the work of the igc has not yet led to the consolidation of political union, and it could hardly be otherwise, as the union still lacks an institutional, democratic and operational base capable of supporting the destiny of an enlarged europe. how can we expect to have political union, a common foreign policy, a common defence policy to guarantee peace, a policy pursued inside the union, and outside with the partner countries, or a policy of respect for and defence of human rights, in the absence of a solid and efficient institutional base? what authority will there be to receive a part of their sovereignty from the member states, so that all these problems can be convincingly resolved? the absence of political union means that economic and monetary union is causing our countries immense and innumerable difficulties because, just as a new house is built from its foundations, so economic union should be completed by monetary union as the direct result of political union, and not vice versa. for these reasons the alleanza nazionale believes it is important that the work of the igc does not end with amsterdam, but continues until a consolidated and institutionally well-constructed political goal has been achieved. the question of the enlargement also needs to be viewed from this perspective. the gap between the candidate countries and the 15 union countries is vast, and in some sectors it seems downright unbridgeable. for this reason, as well as justifiable concern about the operational effectiveness of the future union, it seems absolutely indispensable to have a transitional period for serious discussions within the scope of the negotiations. from this point of view it seems clear that delaying the decisions of the igc for several months would not constitute a grave danger for the future of the enlarged europe, indeed it is the only way to achieve an enlargement which will have profitable results, and through which political europe will finally be created. madam president, i welcome the progress in drawing up the new european treaty and the agreement that has been reached, which is roughly along the lines suggested. that will be a modest but significant step forward for the european union. but even at this relatively late stage i would urge the dutch presidency to do everything possible to strengthen the text, particularly with regard to the employment chapter and selective areas of qualified majority voting. at the moment, the text is rather vague; we need greater precision and emphasis. but the amsterdam summit will also consider other issues, particularly the moves towards economic and monetary union, the stability pact and the single market programme from the commission. the point i wish to make this morning is that job creation should be the central priority. there are 18 million people unemployed in europe today, 21 % youth unemployment. that is a disgrace and we need coordinated action to tackle the problem. we need a growth and stability pact. when we talk about support for industry we should do everything we can to stimulate small and medium-sized enterprises. we need to put the essen proposals into effect, complete the single market and make europe truly competitive. all these are important issues which need to be considered at the amsterdam summit alongside the institutional changes. i believe that if this is done, the amsterdam summit will be seen as an historic landmark in the development of europe, not only because of the new european treaty but also because it puts jobs at the top of europe's agenda. madam president, mr president-in-office, mr president of the commission, thank you very much for your words. i think that they augur well for the outcome of the amsterdam european council. i think that at this time the european parliament's work should be to make sure that you and the governments actually achieve those results. i can concentrate on some practical aspects thanks to the brilliant speech by the leader of our group, mr martens. the first one, which we set out in the motion for the resolution that is going to be voted on by the european parliament later this morning, refers to something quite vital: preservation of the community approach. what characterizes this rare and complex thing, as mr van mierlo said, is that the community or the european union do things together through a supranational body which at all times decides what is in the community's interest. i therefore think it is extremely important that the commission's work should be preserved because, without the commission, we would have created an organisation of intergovernmental cooperation which would lack the necessary integration. i also think it important to maintain the court of justice's jurisdictional powers, as it has done such important work and is an efficient democratic guarantee. i think that we should also find an appropriate role for the european parliament. i think, mr van mierlo, that if you look at the motion for a resolution that we are going to vote on, you will see that it changes the role of the european parliament. the european parliament has for many years been an inciting agent because it has not had its own powers. since the treaty on european union the european parliament has taken on deciding powers in certain fields. i think that the motion we are to vote on today demonstrates this new role for the european parliament: a parliament that decides, a parliament that looks, at all times, for the direction in which the community should head. this motion, which looks backwards, as you can see, differs from our motions passed in the last decade and has highlighted a positive aspect of the dutch draft treaty which is considerable, and we wish to support you because it seems that, like the previous presidencies, the dutch presidency seems to be going in the right direction. we also wish to point out some areas where a last minute effort could be made. i think that, if we make an effort, we can achieve a good result. i think that this effort must focus on two points: first of all, the third pillar. there are some colleagues here, of course, who think we must go much further, and i think that the dutch presidency's proposal to integrate the third pillar in the first in relation to certain matters heads in the right direction, even in the longer term, and we can support you on that. as for the social chapter, i think that we must act. undoubtedly, the best social policy, the best employment policy, is a good national economic policy - i am happy to say that and i think that my government in spain is in a splendid situation - but i think that we must also send a clear signal to our fellow citizens that the european union does deal with those matters too. that clear signal should be sent in the new treaty. i should also like to point out that in the final straight before the amsterdam european council, if we can achieve those aims, if we are daring - i think daring is necessary - if we stick to our ambitions, i think that we will create a good treaty that will serve for enlargement. it should not be forgotten that if we fail to produce a good treaty it will be impossible to implement. madam president, i wish to express my thanks to the president-in-office and to the commission president for their contributions to this debate here this morning. the current negotiations on a revision of the european treaties are taking place in parallel with the preparation of the creation of a single currency. it is perhaps understandable that the preparations for the single currency have received considerably more public attention than the igc in view of the direct and obvious impact which the euro will have on our daily lives. nevertheless, the igc and the new treaty which will emerge from these negotiations could have an even more significant impact on the lives of our citizens, provided that the member state governments keep those negotiations firmly focused on tackling issues which are of most concern to the general public. the elections which have recently been held in a number of member states should ensure this is the case. the issue of most widespread concern is employment, both the provision of employment opportunities for those without work and the improvement of job security for those currently at work. the unemployment rate in the european union is twice the level of the united states and three times that of japan. this is unacceptably high, and governments must focus their attention on job-creation measures, particularly for our young people. security of employment in the future for those who are fortunate to have employment at present is an equally important issue. the union must ensure that european companies remain competitive in the international marketplace and that our countries remain attractive destinations for mobile investment and job-creation projects by overseas companies. the best available method of ensuring job security for workers is by maintaining and, in many cases, improving the competitive advantages enjoyed by european-based industries. we must guard against the tendency to introduce new legislation, particularly at european level, which increases the overall costs of production in our industry and threatens the job security of everybody ultimately employed in the industry. the union should aim to minimize the bureaucratic and administrative burden placed on our industry, particularly by union directives and regulations. it should assist in improving competitiveness through investment and in improving skills training for our workers and for the temporary unemployed. finally, we must aggressively defend our interests on the international marketplace by basing our trading policy on the premise that overseas companies will only have access to our markets provided that we have equally good access to their home markets. there is little or no point in the european union developing a trade policy based on liberal, free-market principles if our competitors continue to operate restrictive practices in their domestic markets. the intergovernmental conference should address the job-creation and job-security issues by ensuring that the proposals for revising the treaty include specific commitments to give increased priority to measures to improve the competitive position of eu industry in the international market. madam president, the intergovernmental conference which is now in its final stages is of particular interest to the new member states. it is now that we will be able to see whether membership of the eu is what it was made out to be and what it was promised to be by those who recommended it. i would like to say that there are big differences between what is now being proposed and what was promised to the swedish people, for example, before the referendum. before the referendum, one of the principle arguments concerned the extent to which we would be able to influence the union. we can now see that we will probably have fewer votes in the council of ministers and that the veto will be abolished in a number of areas. another argument was that swedish border controls would remain in place. in the new proposal for the treaty this will be effectively forbidden. in addition there will be a comprehensive harmonisation of legal matters and asylum policies. a further argument was that the swedish nonaligned status would remain in place. but now a number of steps have been taken towards a common defence system. in view of the extensive changes which are now being proposed, my party will be voting against the treaty amendments and will also propose that a referendum on them take place in sweden. madam president, after what we have heard from the commission and the council i am not exactly tempted to conjure up visions of the unity of europe. their speeches, with their blind, small-minded pragmatism, their timidity and their technocratic thinking, are far removed indeed from the historic challenge of unifying europe. even so, i believe that this intergovernmental conference will have to be measured in terms of that historic aspect. and i believe that we, too, in this house will also have to be measured against it. if we are agreed that we want to build europe as a house founded on democracy and civil rights, then we must recognize that this intergovernmental conference has done nothing to strengthen the foundations of that house. the foundations become more fragile: starting with the rights of europol and then with the lack of codecision, the lack of basic rights and the lack of any democratic structure for this technocratic assemblage. if we are agreed that the engineering principles by which the house must be built are social cohesion in society and fair shares in prosperity for all, then this intergovernmental conference has done nothing to improve that engineering. in the face of mass unemployment, rising poverty and a deepening divide between rich and poor, the instruments that this intergovernmental conference has offered us are incapable of strengthening this engineering. if we are agreed that the central pillar of this european house should be peace throughout europe, not a military pact, then the thinking that the president of the commission has put forward here is misguided. to hear the way you have spoken here, president santer, i feel you may be unable to imagine that europe can play a leading role in the world without a military presence. but this europe has already built on that very idea in the case of coal and steel, the idea of unity without military force and unity through peace. and if we are agreed that this european house is being built not for a political elite but for europe's own citizens, then i ask you this: where are the citizens to find any spark of enthusiasm for europe when they consider the results of this intergovernmental conference? if parliament is to represent the citizens for whom this european house is being built, then it must act energetically today to counter the timidity and pragmatism of this conference. madam president, allow me to deal with a point that seems to me to be essential for the european model that we are building on the eve of the 21st century - the parliamentary and democratic control of the institutions. i think i am right in saying that the union's powers are to be strengthened by the igc, concerning the fight against organized crime and terrorism, the ability to conduct trade negotiations with our partners, the fight against all forms of discrimination, public health and the defence of consumers. it should be noted, however, that that evolution, positive in theory, is occurring to the detriment of the necessary democratic controls, by the european parliament or the parliaments of the member states. certain proposals contained in the 30 may draft treaty are very significant. this is a dangerous drift which risks not only provoking a considerable imbalance in the union to the benefit of the council and the commission, but also of putting ordinary people off, as they will see european construction as something vague, remote and intangible, even uncontrollable. there are also threats of further limits on the prerogatives of the court in the field of justice and internal matters, a limitation that risks affecting the individual rights of all european citizens. mr president-in-office, mr president of the commission, i call on your sense of responsibility, that we are aware of. because we believe in europe, because we are convinced that our future depends on the future of the union that we are building, please do not offer europe's detractors a treaty on a silver platter that could be regarded as a step backwards in terms of democracy and judicial controls. madam president, i have listened this morning with great interest, in the hope that a realistic response to the concerns of the citizens of europe would come forward. sadly i found none. both the council and the commission seem determined to drive forward in a belief that only they know best. there are clearly many concerns sincerely held by millions of our citizens on the future of the emu. they are concerned with the pace and speed with which we are moving and they observe the manipulation and massaging of national reserves by national governments to meet the maastricht criteria. the citizens of europe are paying the ultimate price in terms of high unemployment and very little hope of improvement in the near future. if we were to put the same energy into creating new jobs, new security, then i believe our citizens would be more confident. the area of national interest and majority voting must be resolved with clarity. i fear we are on our way to creating a new fudge by having even further grey areas. the role of the national parliaments must be increased, not decreased. i do not believe we can move forward to any enlargement until we are clearer about what we want for ourselves. if we do not have structures firmly established before enlargement, well-tested and tried, there will be no chance of enlargement succeeding. you must be careful at amsterdam that you do not destroy what we have achieved and what has been created to the present time. madam president, the draft of an amended treaty must be assessed in the light of the european parliament's positions. first, priority for active employment schemes and social justice; secondly, a workable foreign and security policy; thirdly, joint measures in the fields of internal affairs and justice; fourthly, democratization of our structures with a new institutional equilibrium; and fifthly, doing everything possible to make the european union really capable of expansion. the proposals made by the dutch presidency are, as a whole, important steps in the direction the european parliament wants to follow. but further progress in that direction is needed in amsterdam, because we want and need this intergovernmental conference to be a success. the european parliament has a very special part to play here. may i remind you that the spinelli draft constitution was the essential precursor of the single european act of 1986, that the maastricht treaty of 1992 was itself influenced by important proposals made by this house, and that two members of the european parliament are now involved in the present discussions. even today, there is no denying the fact that many of the proposals on the negotiating table were born in the european parliament. we have been a driving force behind this conference, and the european parliament must also be a full party to the negotiation and ratification of all the further stages of reform that will follow the turn of the millennium. the responsibility now lies with the heads of state and government. they are all deeply committed to the further development of the eu in their speeches; but now the time has come for them to make real decisions that will help to improve the reality of life for all our citizens! madam president, giving the european union the ability to act, and hence the ability to expand, was one of the primary tasks of this intergovernmental conference, and the dutch presidency - like its predecessors - did its very best to make progress in those areas. but, more's the pity, the distrust between the governments of our member states is so great in many areas that only limited progress is possible, and i should like to thank president santer for his reference to article 113. if in the services sector - to take just one sector among many - we provide for three pages of exceptions in a protocol on copyright and direct investment, we are ultimately not so much reforming the article as reversing it. i can only encourage the dutch presidency to use this example to make it clear that a breakthrough must, after all, be achieved in amsterdam, so that we are not worse off than we were before, with governments defending positions which mature reflection would show are against their own interests, as in the case of negotiations in the wto round. the same applies to policy on legal and internal affairs. i think it is urgently necessary that the areas proposed by the dutch presidency that are to be transferred from the third to the first pillar really do make that transition, to give us the ability to act. and that ability to act must be underlined by an automatic transition from unanimous voting to majority voting, to enable us to take a genuine step forward. i am tired of hearing political leaders say that europe wants to combat international organized crime and then refuses europe the instruments to do so, which is what has happened! it can only be done by this automatic procedure, which must be integrated into the first pillar. that this also involves the rights of parliament is something i need only mention in passing. the same applies to the foreign and security policy. some marvellous ideas have come to light here - i am not sure whether they will really give us more ability to act in practice, but i am sure that the possibility will be examined. the second point was concerned with more democracy, and with bringing europe closer to the citizen. i believe, mr president-in-office, that you will last the course, with the support of this parliament, and achieve progress in the field of codecision. i hope that we shall be able to thank you next wednesday for ensuring that this has happened. there are a few adjustments needed, such as with the antidiscrimination clause and in one or two other areas. maybe there will be a moment of generosity on monday or tuesday that will enable one or two of these questions to be improved even now. that could also include the right of parliament to make changes to treaties, as mr schfer mentioned a few moments ago. i think that the great pressure brought to bear by the european parliament in recent years has achieved something with regard to the third point, and we are arriving at a better social equilibrium. the employment and social protocol is being incorporated. i hope that we will also obtain improved decision mechanisms in this area and greater cooperation, than has been the case in the past, including codecision procedures for example, if the previous strategy can be sustained. i also believe that we need an employment chapter offering genuine co-ordination of national employment policies. we do not need any new european powers - just co-ordination, because differing or even conflicting employment policies cancel each other out because of our interdependence in the common market. this is in everyone's interest. what matters here is not the new finance programmes - they are completely unimportant here, we might just as well use the structural funds. what matters is getting the mechanisms moving and getting employment moving. that is the starting point. employment is a macroeconomic objective, together with others. this will also enable us to overcome the problems associated with the . (the president cut off the speaker) mr president, the netherlands have adopted a logical position, a pragmatic, realistic and slightly idealistic one. mr van mierlo speaks of a more dynamic, more effective europe closer to the ordinary people, as well as a kitchen in which it is possible to prepare better dishes. but what is the interest of a well-equipped kitchen in which delicious dishes are prepared if the latter are served in a location which is in ruins. the council continues to hold secret meetings behind closed doors in this inadequate building. no open doors, no democratic openness, commissioners rushing about in confined spaces, while the president prepares his little dishes in the kitchen. ordinary people want facts, work and security. according to the president, employment cannot be guaranteed by the treaty. we shall probably see more anti-european feelings unless the dream of employment which you are inserting into the treaty becomes a reality. as for security, the action taken in order to promote it is not clear. the netherlands are taking measures which actually hamper security. let us take the example of prosecutor van der voort who had all the proof on cocaine traffic from surinam passing through the netherlands. this is not a very encouraging case, mr president. we should also mention the cases of drunken drivers or drivers who have committed speeding offences and who have escaped criminal proceedings because they forgot to convey to brussels the technical provisions relating to this matter. where is the security which the ordinary people have been promised? the dutch representatives in the european union do not want bread and circuses or window-dressing but facts. nevertheless amsterdam is not lost and i am banking on a good treaty. madam president, i think that it is very clear that the separation of economic and monetary union from the intergovernmental conference cannot continue. economic and monetary union must go ahead of course. but the igc must restore the balances. it must restore the role of economic union, and also the role of some form of economic government vis--vis economic and monetary union. and therefore it must restore conditions of political democracy. no one is going to cede major decision-making rights to organizations without being sure that social, employment and environmental policies can be implemented in the union. this will depend, of course, on the political complexion of our future leadership. but in all circumstances the politicians and citizens must regain their role and their say in things. we cannot surrender these things to an organization like the central bank and allow it to operate in a vacuum and carry out experiments free of responsibility. madam president, the grand speeches which were made before the text of the proposal was written, that the treaty would include a programme of reform as the basis of a new europe, of the future, and that this would help people overcome their scepticism of the eu, were, in my view, totally wrong. it is clear from the proposal that the emphasis definitely has not been placed where it was said it would be placed, on democracy, openness, social security and sustainable development. furthermore - and this is the most important point - preparations for admitting the new members have been postponed to a later date i think that the proposal will serve rather to complicate enlargement and in so doing will create a permanent division in europe, which is a great disappointment. we have also heard mr van mierlo commend the igc for achieving democracy and openness and meeting the demands of the people through the chapter on employment but unfortunately this is just a cosmetic solution. the people themselves will soon realise that the soup which they are being served from the eu soup kitchen is very, very thin. let me give some examples: the achievements with regard to the demands for openness, transparency and the principle of publication are unacceptable. first, people are given the right of access to all documents but then this right is withdrawn because the council of ministers has the right to restrict such access. each institution is also able to determine their own rules on openness. what does this mean? if you add to this the eu's archive regulation, it is easy to see that there will be nothing left of this openness. it will be just fine words and faint hopes. the same applies to the environmental guarantee which, having been defined in more detail, appears to have been improved. but a member state wishing to maintain or introduce tighter environmental requirements must notify their reasons to the commission who can then reject these on the grounds that they form a barrier to trade. we might just as well delete the issues of sustainable development and environmental improvements. i am, above all, obliged to the president-in-office of the council for having succeeded in a very difficult period in finding the time to justify himself because i think that this is the only place where he could do so. several points. concerning the igc, kitchens and a citizens' europe. perhaps ordinary people are not interested in the building of the kitchen but nonetheless would like to know whether the new europe is going to become closer to them. it can also be asked how that kitchen functions and if there are head cooks to make it work, a particularly relevant question. no doubt the process has been started but we still want to know the outcome. perhaps, therefore, we should not make immediate judgment. secondly. i think we all agree that the igc must make enlargement possible. we must avoid ioannina-type situations - which then was relatively simple - and we must make sure that enlargement will enable us to progress rather than retreat. i think that we can still give our approval to the german secretary of state, mr hoyer, who declared here, in the institutional committee, that the draft treaty will not enable us to have enlargement, for the time being. i am also of the opinion that we must not expect the situation to be simplified during the negotiations on enlargement. there is, therefore, a major problem which might not be resolved in amsterdam and that is why, despite the declarations made by mr van mierlo, i am still wondering about the way in which to react to this situation. thirdly: democratization. i admit that, in terms of the european parliament, considerable progress has been made in the texts. but there are still risks of regression. however, i am particularly interested in the overall situation of parliamentary democracy in respect of the draft treaty. in my view, there are still considerable risks that national parliaments will lose ground and that this will not be compensated by any ground gained at european level. finally, i should like to talk about the igc system. i think that this long-term negotiation has shown that this system could not function within this great community, which is increasingly resembling a sort of von mnchhausen strategy aimed at getting the community out of a tight squeeze. is it not possible to think up a new system? mr president, the draft treaty that we have before us has aroused in many of us mixed feelings of hope and fear. hope because the limited progress which has been made in the meantime will somewhat improve the former treaty. but also fear because some aspects are doomed to failure and we are probably going to end up with a failed treaty, just before opening up negotiations with future member states in central and eastern europe. as far as the limited progress is concerned i will be brief. this progress is not negligible but nor is it really significant. however, we welcome the fact that employment and the environment have been taken into consideration to a greater extent and that progress has also been made in the fight against international crime, that decision-making procedures have been simplified and that the european parliament will have more clout in terms of legislation. but we are especially concerned about what has not been achieved. i am particularly referring to the openness of administration, the democratic nature of the european union, foreign policy and the weighting of votes. as far as opening up administration is concerned it would be positive if, in the future, documents on union legislation were made available earlier. that is important for the public, for national parliaments and for us. what is regrettable is the absence of any prospects of opening up the council of ministers. it also means that, when the council acts as legislator, it continues to make laws in camera. in fact, this behaviour is an attack on parliamentary democracy and i think it is inadmissible - the council of ministers should put an end to this practice. we must also note that, in other areas too, some points of which mr dankert has just mentioned, this parliamentary democracy is ailing. when i see, in the file on internal security and the file on foreign policy, that national parliaments are losing powers which are not being transferred to the european parliament, i ask myself if we are not actually going backwards. if we cannot manage the budget problem or the budget as a whole - it is not always the case for 50 billion ecu - we still cannot say that we have filled in the democratic vacuum. this is one of my main concerns and i know that mr van mierlo has good intentions on this. what i would ask you is to fight in order to achieve this aim. we really cannot undermine parliamentary democracy at european level! i would just like a few more moments in order to look at the problem of the weighting of votes. i have noted in the proposals that the sum total of the points for big countries is larger than that of small countries. i think that it should be emphasized that the netherlands do not do too badly. however, i wonder whether this might not be a weak spot if referendums are held and when the new treaty comes to be debated by the national parliaments. i think that the compromise adopted in the days of ioannina was an excellent one and i wonder whether it might not be wise to retain the same ratio in the framework of the new weighting of votes. in other words, we have made progress on a certain number of points but not all of them. i wish the dutch presidency a great deal of strength, wisdom and a dose of good luck. madam president, the new draft treaty, despite its imperfections, contains many novelties. i think that the negotiations have taken new demands into account. what can we therefore do at this stage of the debate? at most, we could give it a few little boosts in the closing days of the negotiations, because they would make it easier for the public to accept the new provisions. i give three examples. the first, is the chapter on employment. that is the subject that concerns everyone. people are ready to demonstrate in the street. it is therefore a good thing for employment policy to be mentioned in the treaty. however, if we do not specify the practical means, in terms of economic policy, that europe is to give itself to contribute to an employment policy, the chapter will be more disappointing than rewarding. we should therefore welcome the commission's insistence, under president santer, and that of the french and other governments, to ensure that this aspect of the growth and stability pact goes through. second example: public service. the new article 7d is still fairly vague. there too, the expectations not only of public service workers but also their users are great. we should not go on dismantling the public service while spouting fine words about their social value. it should be made more specific, as the european parliament demands. third example: the serious crisis due to the mad cow disease still worries us. i have just left a meeting - that is why i was not here before and i apologize - with commissioner oreja, on the institutional provisions concerning the veterinary field and public health. this crisis could, unless the commission and the council take stiff action, lead to a major institutional crisis. there too we want more precise and more practical proposals. madam president, mr van mierlo has given us the picture that is emerging as the igc nears the end of its life, five days before the summit in amsterdam, and he has mentioned the endeavours of the dutch presidency. it would be amiss of us not to acknowledge them. however, we are not engaged in a race, for which endeavour alone can suffice. we are engaged in politics in which the thing that counts most is the outcome, and the best scenario of the amsterdam outcome is a modest common denominator if some compromise can be reached in advance with the french socialists who promised much before the election and are now having to face up to the reality of their pledges. that is yet another reason why we ourselves should measure our words carefully. as the citizens of europe struggle for employment, security and peace the challenges are truly historic. unfortunately, mr president-in-office, there is a severe lack of political will to rise to those challenges, and as we hasten to prepare europe for the twenty-first century we are just running on the spot with new and half-complete compromises. there is a very good case now for the new title on employment. it will certainly be useful. however, we should not engender in our fellow citizens the false belief that provisions of that sort suffice for combating the scourge of unemployment. big policies are required for that, and we seem incapable of getting to grips with and implementing such policies. we should be careful in particular about the question of institutional balance. it must not be thrown overboard at the last minute to the disadvantage of the smaller countries. the european union is made up of equal member states. if that equality is not retained at amsterdam our peoples will be very disillusioned. we look forward to economic and monetary union, which is a truly revolutionary development. its path must not be blocked at amsterdam. as chairman martens has said, we have already lost 10 years. let us make sure, madam president, that we do not lose any more. madam president, mr president-in-office of the council, surely there is still a rather serious void in the draft treaty of 30 may. all the european balances which are being drawn up will be no use, and a new equilibrium between monetary union and economic and social union cannot be established, without that profound institutional transformation which is needed and which was, moreover, in the mandate of the intergovernmental conference. i would like to underline two points. the first has already been stressed by others: it is the enlargement, the core of the intergovernmental conference's mandate. the president of the santer commission has said that if we do not prepare properly for the enlargement we may be heading for a rather negative situation. well, i ask the president-in-office this: what has actually been done about it, and what hope is there that something can still be done? i noticed that the subject of qualified majority was not even mentioned in the speech by the president-in-office of the council, except for the cfsp where it is substantially an illusory issue. we all know that the decision about the commission has been put off, but it is obviously essential to move forward on these matters with a view to the enlargement. the other point is the issue of democracy, mr dankert has already spoken on this. we appreciate more co-decision, but we also wonder whether this will be co-decision on the new policies. the whole question of the third pillar and the move from the third to the first pillar simply must not take concrete form in a weakening of the community pillar, because this would definitely be regression rather than progress. if you will allow me, mr president, i would like to make a final point about article 113. it is true that article 113 has increased the powers of the community, but at the same time it has reduced the powers of parliament, and reducing the powers of parliament in this respect strikes us as rather dangerous. madam president, three years ago almost to the day, on 12 june 1994, we held a referendum in austria on our country's accession to the european union. not all our citizens were satisfied with all the details at the time, and indeed not all our citizens were even told about all the details of that accession. even so, the citizens voted 'yes' in principle to the european project, and did so in the awareness that no ready-made, communal europe exists as yet and that we would all have to continue working to advance the progress of deeper and wider european union. today, new and important decisions about the future are being made. they are a challenge to us all. for some time now, and indeed for some time to come, our whole political system, our citizens and politicians, have been and will be confronted with the challenge of taking another important step towards europe by the introduction of the single european currency. so let us ensure that our economic policy, too, is in line with this stability pact! today, it is up to the european parliament to make its contribution to the intergovernmental conference. after the weekend, the heads of state and government will be called upon to put the successful finishing touches to the work they have done so far. the results achieved hitherto are far from valueless. some things have been achieved. some things remain to be done. let us all rise to this challenge! let us bring greater depth and breadth to europe, to enable us to meet our citizens' expectations. the question which elmar brok wanted to put to the president-in-office was as follows: if amsterdam really is not sufficient to allow full expansion by another eleven states, will there at least be a new article n as a result of this intergovernmental conference? i presume that, at the moment, the president-in-office of the council is especially concerned with the compromise to be reached between mr kohl and mr jospin, and i think that this is justified because this is, in some ways, at the heart of the matter. not because the problem is primarily political but because, in my view, these two figures represent two major responsibilities of the european union. the one, helmut kohl, who above all defends the purity of the emu, a strict stability pact which should make it possible to stimulate employment and growth and, on the other, lionel jospin, who says that all that is all very nice but 'nonetheless, i would like a practical policy to help the 18.3 million unemployed and 57 million poor people in the union' . i think that these points of view are not totally opposed but both of them lie at the heart of the union's political responsibility and one of the main problems is the fact that, in recent years, we have excessively focused on one position, one aspect of the debate, which is represented by the policy pursued by mr kohl and mr waigel. i would, therefore, urge the president to seek a substantial compromise which is not merely a symbolic gesture or an act of window-dressing but a real decision which can effectively correct this unilateral policy. i think that this is a vital aim and the only means of recovering public confidence. in my view that is the main objective of this igc. it is not preparing for enlargement, settling the final details of emu but actually how to recover public confidence, considerably shaken in recent years. for the first time, trade union movements have succeeded in bringing thousands of workers out into the streets: that is a sign that should be taken very seriously. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i congratulate the netherlands presidency on its constructive work. i note, however, that intergovernmental conferences are taking ever longer to decide ever less, proving that a long time spent cooking does not guarantee a good meal. that is perhaps one of the reasons why, in the course of this igc three governments have already fallen, even though they were achieving good results in the economic field. it might be symptomatic that this is the first time that europe and the single currency have been the main issue in national elections. such facts demonstrate that the first responsibility of today's leaders is to find a way out for this new european question facing new historical challenges which cannot be solved with the methods of yesteryear. in particular, making enlargement a viable proposition, setting the single currency on a legal and stable basis, negotiating about globalization on an equal footing with the major powers such as america. the progress already made in the intergovernmental conference meets these objectives. perhaps we are moving in the right direction but it falls short of the historic feeling that there would be political and pan-european union on the eve of the turn of the century. it is even feared that the draft treaty already presented by the netherlands presidency will make things even more complicated instead of strengthening fresh coherence. finally, we cannot have a europe which is united monetarily and economically yet divided in all other spheres, in particular on internal and external security, on which economic confidence itself depends in the first place. it is interesting to note that the greater the insistence on unanimity the greater the openness to flexibility either in fact or directly. the more we refuse to democratize the institutions the greater the threat to social and political cohesion. a lot of time spent cooking again, but a lousy meal. it does not seem to be far from maastricht to amsterdam. i hope, however, it will be understood that this road spans a century and a new chapter of history. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to make two requests for the council and the commission to take with them as they leave for amsterdam. the present draft treaty provides for a step backward in terms of freedom of movement. it no longer refers to freedom of movement but only to free movement of individuals, and that in turn is further differentiated into free movement of individuals for union citizens and for third country nationals - in other words, people who are living among us permanently but do not have naturalized status. if what we fear does come to pass, and a distinction is made between union citizens who enjoy freedom of movement and third country nationals who are legally resident here but have restricted freedom of movement, then we shall be in danger of re-creating a two-class structure within the european union in the area of civil rights, which is a dangerous business. i therefore ask that the conference should not lose sight of the approach adopted in the previous treaty and should ensure the implementation of that freedom of movement which was, in fact, guaranteed in the previous treaty of 1 january 1993. my second point is this: visa policy, customs policy, customs co-operation, asylum policy and immigration are to be communitized without full powers being given to the european parliament, but if powers are withdrawn from the national parliaments the result is a democracy-free zone in central areas of civil rights within the european union. ladies and gentlemen, please do prevent this, because it really would be a tragedy. madam president, i would never venture to criticize your handling of these proceedings, but i would like to make one comment. this parliament, too, has to undergo reform in connection with the revision of the maastricht treaty and the debate on revision. if, as i hope, this parliament is really to acquire additional powers, then this parliament must change its way of working. it cannot be right that men like mr brok, who represented this parliament at the intergovernmental conference for more than two years, and mr dankert as a former president of parliament are not allowed to finish what they have to say and are cut off on the pretext that we have to begin our midday voting orgy at 12 noon. i simply cannot accept that. we should be able to conduct a debate like this flexibly! thank you, mr schulz, for giving me the opportunity to explain myself. i cannot do any colleague a favour on this. there were 42 speakers on the list and if each speaker spoke only for an extra thirty seconds, the debate would not finish until 12.30. work it out for yourselves. the chair could not take that responsibility. you all know me and whenever we have the time i let you have as much time as you need to speak. in this case it was not possible and to make an exception even for mr brok would not have been justified, to be frank. we would have liked to have more time for this debate - starting with myself. i now give the floor to mr bourlanges. i think you have understood that you have two minutes and no more. that is how it is. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, we are worried. i think that the exercise that is being prepared at amsterdam is ridden with perils and makes us think of the famous andersen tale about the emperor and his new clothes. we have spoken of employment but, unable to pursue an employment policy, we decide to introduce an employment chapter in the treaty. that is all very good, but it does not take the place of a policy. it is preference for the nominal, as economists say. we spoke about fundamental rights, but the sanctions planned for applying fundamental rights are nonexistent. we have spoken about a foreign policy, but our byzantine procedures are such that even the president-inoffice of the council, this morning, felt that the procedures were too complicated to be intelligible even for a forum as specialized as our own. we have spoken of a defence policy, but are exposed to the contradiction of affirming that we want to have a community defence policy, that we have people who are in nato and people who are not, but that it is in nato that we shall pursue that community policy. work that one out. we have spoken of an economic government, but most of those in favour of it are not at all ready to transfer the matching powers. we have also heard of enlargement, but the matching measures, the necessary institutional reforms have not been forthcoming with the necessary vigour and, in particular, n the commission problem remains intact. the commission is the great source of coherence in the union. nobody, except itself, albeit timidly, has defended it during preparation of the igc. i am afraid that the commission, divided, broken up, weighed down, losing its second commissioner for the big intergovernmentalized states will be the big loser in the system. i cannot stand by and let that happen and am now sounding the alarm, ladies and gentlemen. madam president, i want to address the section on the cfsp. the presidency will be surprised to hear me say that i recognize the difficulties it has in this most sensitive area of national sovereignty. it is caught between those like me who believe we should learn to walk before we run and those who believe that we should be thrown in the deep end and either sink or swim. i, therefore, wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the dutch presidency to try to get agreement in this section. let me come straight to my most important point: my group attaches great importance to the interinstitutional agreement on financing the cfsp. we want to see that cemented in the treaty at amsterdam. if it is not, i suspect that my group will find it very difficult to support the conclusions of the amsterdam summit. i hope the presidency can take that message to any member states which have doubts about that area. on the other aspects, there are many positive areas in the cfsp: the petersberg tasks, the new arrangements for the troika, the policy and planning unit - all provide us with an opportunity for greater coherence. positive abstention and the greatest scope for qualified majority voting will lead the way to the development of the cfsp, although, of course, the section on qualified majority voting is really no more than a slightly more ambitious version of what we already have in the maastricht treaty and, ultimately, will depend on political will to see it carried out. reservations are clearly that parliament has almost no role in cfsp. there is no provision for the council to respond formally to our recommendations and, while the commission can make recommendations to the policy and planning unit, parliament cannot. i would like to see parliament be able to engage more fully. on the weu: clearly, we still have to work on that relationship. i would ask the council if article 7(3), means that non-eu members can participate in eu activities and decision-making. we do not have a single treaty, we are cooking a pig's ear. let us hope that afterwards we can turn the pig's ear into a silk purse. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, at this stage of european union, i think the institutional question can be summarised as the mother of all questions. perhaps the more complex points and sophisticated details of this may escape the grasp of public opinion, but like the governments, which must guide the people towards ever higher and more ordered development, we too, who are elected to represent those people, understand it very well and we cannot pretend that we do not. mr president-in-office of the council, certainly the product counts and there is no doubt that how the european union functions does not matter so much to people as seeing their own lives improve with the progress of the european union, in terms of own welfare, personal and collective security, the opportunity to work, social security, the extension of freedom, of expression, of movement, of initiative and so on. here i too find it positive that there is unanimous consensus about including the social protocol and new provisions on employment in the treaty. perhaps this will make it possible to relaunch, in a different institutional context and with a different perspective, the stability pact which president santer proposed in florence, but without finding the consensus he was hoping for. but in a europe where overall growth is slower than forecast and than was hoped, and which is not yet succeeding in fighting unemployment effectively, even at national level, this is an important turning point. yet we know that without real european democracy, without transparent and simplified decision-making processes, without an improvement in the procedures and methods of the community institutions to put them in a position to neutralize what has been very effectively defined as the renationalization of minds, the europe we want will not come into being. madam president, two matters that are of central importance and great sensitivity for europe's citizens have been dealt with completely inadequately in the present draft treaty. one is the new so-called nondiscrimination article, and the other is the future legal procedure on asylum, foreigners and immigration. the non-discrimination article is worded in such a way that it only takes effect if the council unanimously takes the appropriate precautions. the european parliament has only a right to be consulted. that means this article is virtually ineffective. but the democratic process does appear to have been abandoned in other areas, too - those areas which are now being transposed from the third pillar to the first. the national parliaments are being cut out, but they are not being replaced by the european parliament. this is a denial of democracy, and we will alert our colleagues in the national parliaments to that fact. it is important, though, for minimum standards to be safeguarded not only in respect of democracy but also in respect of the rule of law, and that includes ensuring that the european court of justice has full jurisdiction in the areas in question. however, there is one positive point i should make: the new provisions, especially in article 119 on equality for women, are much better regulated in the present draft treaty than they were in the dutch presidency's first draft. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, if i may i should like to comment on two essential points: the stability pact and professor monti's action programme. first, the stability pact. you will recall that the stability pact was the subject of very intensive negotiations between the european parliament, the commission and the council. i must say to president santer and the president-in-office that we had an exceptionally fruitful dialogue on this matter. parliament has proposed a few amendments, and i would like to recall the most important points that were made by parliament. the first is that we believe that the so-called golden rule whereby investment must be higher than new net indebtedness should be taken into account in the structuring of the stability pact. this rule is already enshrined in the constitutions of some member states, whereas in others that is not yet the case. those member states whose constitutions include this rule are currently experiencing certain difficulties with it, which shows that it is a strict rule. i believe that it will be valuable for this rule to be incorporated into the stability pact. i should also welcome it if this rule were to be phased in to the constitutions of the member states, because this would not only comply with the principle of subsidiarity but also offer an additional guarantee that all member states would pursue a course geared to stability. that is my first point, one demand made by parliament, and i must say that the president-in-office, mr zalm, basically took a very positive attitude to it. i should be very pleased if it were to be proved possible to achieve a result here. the second point, on which we are negotiating, is that we believe that money from fines that are paid must be treated in accordance with general principles of budgetary law, in other words it must go into the budget of the european community. i know that the finance ministers are looking for some arrangement outside the budget. but, gentlemen, i have the impression that no legal basis has yet been found for this. i do not know whether the council, in its search for the legal basis, has yet succeeded in finding a solution outside the european budget. we in this house are of the opinion that the solution must lie within the european budget. the european parliament's committee on budgets has again confirmed that very emphatically. as to how these monies are distributed, we can worry about that in due course. this is a question we can talk about. the european parliament is ready to play its part in a process of creative thinking. people like mr christodoulou have been involved in the negotiations, and he has already distinguished himself as the inventor of the negative reserve. there is a need for creative thinking here. i should be very pleased if we could achieve a result. madame chairman, in the igc document, employment is once again reduced to mere rhetoric, the social sector lacks method and democracy is hindered by bureaucracy. under these conditions, the union will not gain the confidence of the citizens. enlargement on this basis will not be possible. the euro will not become a stable currency if it is built on mass unemployment and inequality. it is quite essential to obtain socio-economic supervision over the structurally inward-looking european central bank. the european institutions are important when each nation of the union feels that it is represented. the parliament, which unfortunately has little power, is for ordinary citizens the only representative body whose activities they can pubicly follow and identify with. this should be the case in the commission too. if the small member states are deprived of the opportunity to have their own commissioner, the credibility of the eu will fall in the citizens' eyes. the euro-icon will be removed. tightening cooperation between the weu and the eu is appropriate when seeking to improve the efficiency of the common foreign and security policy. however, the rapid unification of the weu and nato is not to the liking of the finnish social democrats. military neutrality and credible defence have a longer and from finland's viewpoint just as successful history as military alliances. now the attempt is being made to adapt the alliance to nordic geopolitics, which under the current circumstances would create uncertainty in the latter. madam president, on principle and for the sake of sexual equality, i shall make no reference to kitchen equipment, cooking utensils or meals - i leave that to the men. all thirty or so speakers so far have said much the same thing. since we have no ratification power, you could say that after all you will not take it into account. i would say there are two reasons for taking it into account. the first is that we are very often in touch with the citizens and i think that what has been said here reflects what they want. they have had enough of a europe that gives them the impression that their every day problems are not taken into account. the second reason is that, while we have no ratification powers for the igc, we have to deliver our opinion on enlargement. furthermore, national parliaments will also have to ratify the enlargements. quite frankly, if the enlargements are not prepared in the right conditions, i am not sure that our public opinions will adhere to them. for these two reasons, i think that this final european parliament should be very useful for you. we are profoundly attached to democracy and the powers of the european parliament. if forty-two speakers are taking part in this debate, there is a good reason. i should like to say that we do not have enough legitimacy. quiet frankly if, when i stand for reelection, the voters had the impression that i had a real legislative power and genuine influence on european decisions, i would not have asked to speak here today. i would be able to say that the european parliament does represent something of importance for ordinary people. madam president, the proposal is insufficient and does not meet the slightest expectations. we cannot keep on condemning to the hold-up of unanimity the fight against discrimination suffered by european women. as for the treatment of asylum among the member states, in spain it was said that aznar had already achieved everything: that kind of bragging is soon cut down to size when we see the proposals and the texts. now we can see the substance of the new french socialist government - good french cooking - which is a macho stew, yes it is macho, mr president-in-office. what hypocrisy to say that european women are being defended! this is unacceptable: the texts condemn all these subjects to unanimity. this is disappointing and we can only hope that next week this text will be improved because otherwise the citizens of europe are going to be extremely disappointed. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, at the end of this debate i should like to make it clear, on behalf of the french socialists, that we are attached to european construction, we want to see amsterdam give it a new lease of life, and we hope that all of our efforts will make it possible to stick to the original timetables. it is absolutely vital to send a loud and clear signal to the people of europe, indispensable to include a social chapter in the treaty, indispensable to set an immediate priority for employment and against unemployment. it is also indispensable to strike a balance between monetary stability and economic growth. the dutch presidency - whom i thank - is making every effort and i hope that by the 16-17 june, we shall be able to overcome the final difficulties in order to be able to meet our people's expectations. i know and can tell you that the french government will do all it can. one last word. i welcome inclusion of the public services in the treaty while regretting nevertheless, at this stage, that they remain under the competition heading. a change there would be most welcome. i just hope that amsterdam will succeed and replace in europeans' hearts and minds the tarnished image of maastricht. madam president, allow me to use an expression from history: ' a spectre is rising over europe' - the spectre of changing economic policy. in the new european era which began after the british and french elections what should the new economic policy be? we say that it should have the following characteristics: it must retain the positive achievements of the policy that has been pursued up until now - because there have been achievements -, such as control of inflation and restoration of business profitability. those gains must be held on to. at the same time, however, it must throw off the one-sidedness which has led us to the present levels of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion. for that to happen we need to abandon our idolatry of market omnipotence and to restore a balance between the market and state intervention. in the new era that is beginning state intervention cannot have as its objective the achievement of full employment via wasteful consumption or via the packing of the public sector with pointless jobs. we do not wish to make civil servants of the whole population; that is not our thinking. what we want to see is a new flowering of productivity, and that can only come through concern for the needs of working people and greater justice in the distribution of wealth. madam president, it is clear that there will be a need to negotiate another treaty in the next five years. in fact, the text we have before us is just a pitiful cover for some of the inconsistencies and weaknesses in the maastricht treaty. the major problems still remain unsolved. there is not yet a political structure capable of controlling and directing the power of the future central bank: to say the european council will take on that role is, in my opinion, the wrong answer. there is no real complementarity at community level between economic policy and monetary policy, and one more declaration and one more protocol will not make the present construction any less lame. despite statements to the contrary, we still do not have a real common foreign policy. the idea of entrusting power in this field to the secretary general of the council is not only an anti-democratic solution - at least the secretary general of the united nations answers to the general assembly - but it is also unlikely to be effective. there is no real intention of reviewing the union's powers. the protocol on subsidiarity looks like a fine catalogue of principles but, despite the commitments made, the member states have not reviewed the rules on commitology, which means they will continue to be submerged every year by thousands of minute and detailed decisions. could a solution be found to these problems? theoretically, yes, in reality the national diplomatic services, and even this parliament, have never really believed it. i would like to close on a note of optimism: good news seems to be coming from social europe, to judge from the demonstrations in progress in the last few days. madam president, i would like to propose inviting the managing director of renault to amsterdam because, unlike this parliament, he succeeded in getting the provisions of the social agreement into the treaty. madam president, it would be helpful if the president of the commission could listen to what i have to say. this is an extremely important time for the european union. in the last couple of years the citizens of the european union. ladies and gentlemen, i should like everyone to listen to the last speaker, mr alan john donnelly, in the dignity of our assembly, followed by the council and commission's answers. i would also suggest to the conference of presidents that they look into the possibility of allowing more time in future for debates of such importance. i know how unpleasant it has been for you to be cut off and it has been no less unpleasant for the chair to do so. (applause) please return to your seats and listen to mr donnelly, the council and the commission without talking among yourselves. madam president, we all welcome that statement and hopefully the conference of presidents will address this matter. the citizens of the european union clearly feel that europe has moved away from them in recent years. therefore the igc in amsterdam is absolutely crucial so that we can return to the sort of agenda that people understand. that is why i say to the council that the chapter in the treaty that deals with employment policy must not be a cosmetic chapter. it must deal in detail with the sort of instruments the commission and the council will use to tackle the unacceptable levels of unemployment in the european union. linked to that we have to ensure that if there is to be a pact for growth and stability, like mr caudron said, it must be a balanced pact containing elements for stability but, more important, elements for growth. having passed through the amsterdam summit meeting we then need to have the council instruct the commission to come forward with measures that activate the policies that would be available to bring down the levels of unemployment. this house is desperately disappointed that nothing has happened since the essen summit meeting to tackle the problems of unemployment and while mr santer said we should do less better, the one thing we cannot renege upon are measures that will bring down the levels of unemployment. i would urge the council to instruct the commission at amsterdam, once we have the chapter on employment and once we have a pact that balances stability with growth, to come forward with a new model of development that ensures that we can tackle the unemployment problem and social exclusion and to try to help make this a europe worthy of our citizens. madam president, thank you for the generosity with which you are directing this meeting and the place that you have granted me in it. nonetheless, i am aware of my duty of discretion after this debate. i also know what your agenda is. i am very grateful for the european parliament's support for two reasons. first of all, because the statements by one member of your parliament, mrs dury, i think, are quite right: the european parliament is close to the ordinary people. it could grow even closer to the ordinary people but its members are still often far closer to them than members of the council of ministers. that is why i paid particular attention to what has been said here. unfortunately, it is not possible for me to give everyone a reply because of the time that we have available. but it is not really necessary. i have told you what i wanted to tell you and you have told me what was on your mind. i now come to the second reason for my gratefulness: the presidency must say that we feel very much comforted by the european parliament over various essential points such as extending codecision, extending the majority decisionmaking process, transferring the third pillar to the first, strengthening the role of the court of justice, the attention paid to fundamental rights, to employment and the environment, to mention just a few. you have mentioned them all. of course, the european parliament wants more. i myself have been a member of parliament for 30 years and it is precisely the role of the european parliament to demonstrate a certain professional dissatisfaction vis--vis the progress made in the process of forming europe. thank god, you have the magnanimity to recognize that progress has been made but you must also be dissatisfied because we are in a process of integration and we need the european parliament's pressure in order to bring down the difficult frontiers which separate the member states, of which today i have the honour of being president - but i am sometimes fenced in by existing frontiers. communitarization has to be achieved gradually by challenging the history of our states and that is a task in which the european parliament plays a vital role, not only today. i must also mention the role of your president and your two delegates who have followed the process almost constantly and who have been of precious help to us during the debates. i shall therefore just make a few general remarks. if we reach an agreement in amsterdam - and once again the situation does not seem so bad - it is possible that the results will not match our expectations as someone has already emphasized. but i would say, at once, that it will be more than expected. less than hoped for but more than expected. when we met six months ago the european parliament's tone was far more negative in terms of the expectations. i listened to you with humility as becomes an interim director, but nonetheless it was a relatively negative image that i was presented with. now hearing you today i felt relieved at hearing such encouraging attitudes and seeing that you support so many aspects of the proposals that are being made. you have all tackled a number of points. i am going to refer to the emu situation. i can perhaps once again repeat that the emphasis of emu has really been placed on the monetary aspect but it is obvious - and i should like once again to recall this - that, when we opened the debate on employment, two years ago, more than half the member states thought it was ridiculous that europe should even consider pursuing a genuine employment policy. that is how we started out. we have made considerable progress even though we have not yet reached a consensus; this is also, of course, explained by the terrible unemployment statistics in europe which now show us that we have no alternative. the question is obviously one of determining the degree of feasibility of a european employment policy. it would be a serious mistake to think that the european community is responsible for the high level of unemployment in europe. let us not forget that it is, above all, the duty of the states to tackle the problem of employment but that the community can help. i should again like to add that, if we are disappointed by europe, we should remember that the current european crisis is in many respects the sum total of all of the crises in the member states themselves. here the term 'crisis' means the ability to resolve one's own problems and i am not referring to all of the problems which cross our frontiers. because western european democracies have a problem of authority. the process of forming europe based on 'give and take' requires a great authority within nations. this authority is rightly controversial in all our countries and is not wielded in a very obvious way but it is has to be conquered from the public. that is the problem that we are currently facing in preparing the summit and we are trying to make progress on this. the french elections placed emu on the agenda. again i would like to emphasize that the french are not the only ones asking for measures to be taken in terms of employment but i think that this demand is now being made on all sides. in recent days, during my tour of europe together with prime minister wim kok i noticed that many other member states thought it would be good to put more emphasis on employment aspects. that is why yesterday we agreed with the french government and the president of france that emu measures, and in particular the stability pact, should not be withdrawn - otherwise we would just be messing around and lead to a very confused situation. but, even if france did not do so, other countries would ask for the same. nonetheless we have to add a counterweight to employment in the measures which means that it should not be regarded as an isolated fact but as a measure which is linked to the stability pact. everyone agrees with this, as far as intentions are concerned, and i hope that this is going to make it possible to complete all of the regulations, even if they do not have to be defined in amsterdam - we have another six months to do this. if the process is successful that will be very important psychologically. if it is not, then we still cannot say that the summit is a disaster because we still have six months to play with. but it is worth fighting and so far i have noticed that everyone is ready to do just that. i should also like to mention transparency which is a major point for all of you. everyone will have access to the documents in accordance with the rules worked out by the council and the european parliament. the european parliament plays a key role in the application of transparency. we would have appreciated more openness in council meetings. but we were unable to reach a consensus on this subject. nonetheless the outcome of the votes, the reasons for votes and other declarations will be made public. mentioning these two points i note that a certain progress has been made in terms of transparency. from time to time, the debate has had a culinary flavour because i used the image of kitchens. using images is not inoffensive: images plague us sometimes or come back to haunt us, so that we can even end up wondering why on earth we said this or that. mrs roth declares that all citizens want to cook. that may be a profound desire but i do not think that the food will be any the better for it. i understand what mrs roth wanted to say and i agree when she said that the citizens want to understand how the community in which they live actually works. i hope that we are going to be able to make a contribution to that which perhaps does not meet all of their expectations but nonetheless we are making progress towards that. a final remark on democracy, which has often been mentioned here. i have already said that i think a certain amount of progress has been made and a good many of you recognized that in your speeches. this is a process that can only make gradual progress. it is a fact that, in terms of strengthening the union's powers, the general thrust has been one of codecision, which is more democratic. when the european parliament's powers are not genuinely strengthened, there is nevertheless a relationship with national parliaments - i aim my remarks at mr dankert. then a lady said that the second pillar and the majority decision process do not come before the european parliament. but in the second pillar there is still the possibility of using the right of veto both in the european council and the general council, and failure to use the vote of veto may be submitted to parliamentary criticism and debate. in other words, there really is parliamentary control over this. whereas the third pillar is inclining towards the first, with asylum, immigration and visas, a transitional situation provides initially for national parliaments and consensus - and then a drift towards the european parliament, in the second period, during which decisions are taken on the subject by means of a majority decision process. in my view, it is more of a transfer of control than a reduction of it. mr president, i could go on for another half an hour if you wanted me to, but i know that you have other interests. i therefore propose stopping here. thank you very much, mr van mierlo. you have well interpreted our interest. i give the floor to mr santer. mr president, i shall try to be very brief after what we have heard from the president-in-office. i should like to thank everyone who has spoken here and shown that, over the question of the igc, the commission and european parliament are closely linked. i also noted, in the european parliament's resolutions and in what people have said here, that most of the factors of its position match the position taken by the commission in its opinion back in february 1996. on the other hand, i should like to pay tribute to you, mr president, to your predecessor, mr hnsch, and to your delegates, mr brok and mrs guigou, who have considerably influenced the debate and, i hope, the conclusions of the igc, at ministerial level but above all at the level of personal representatives. if we now have a fairly balanced package, it is certainly thanks to the insistence and cooperation of meps, your delegates at various levels, that that work has been achieved. now, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to concentrate on two essential aspects, which also were the main topics of your speeches. first of all questions concerning emu and employment. i said this morning in my introduction that emu, economic and monetary union, has two aspects as the term suggests: monetary and economic. it is important for emu to walk on both these legs. as we know the monetary leg is very well developed and for obvious reasons. it is centralized and the stability and growth pact usefully complements it, with the aim of ensuring lasting budgetary discipline. mr wilfried martens and, earlier, the president-in-office rightly said: pacta sunt servanda . the stability and growth pact was essentially adopted, substantially, at the last european council in dublin. you know that the negotiations were not easy and led to compromises. it was therefore the arrangements, not only aims, but the arrangements and the substance of the stability pact that were adopted. there is therefore no question of changing that stability pact. that would lead to a problem of credibility and confidence, and would have serious effects on confidence between member states and, no doubt, on international financial markets. it would be counter-productive, since a thorough policy and budgetary discipline are the guarantees for sustainable growth. on the other hand, the economic aspect must be decentralized. of course, the running of economic policies remains with the member states, but they are committed to coordinating their economic policies in the council, on the basis of articles 102a and 103 of the treaty and, no doubt, it can and should be regretted that that has not yet been implemented, just like the monetary aspect or the coordination of our economic policies. the instrument that is article 103 should be fully implemented, as the commission demonstrated in its report on europe as an economic entity after the rasmussen initiative. the potential of growth of the european economic and its huge internal market should be better exploited. the council will have to make full use of the possibility of addressing specific recommendations to the member states. it is not enough to have growth, although that growth is a job creator and bearer. economic policies should be focused on our main priority and you have all, without exception, stressed this morning that that is the aim of the whole policy. job creation is our first priority. if we manage to add to the growth and stability pact a new dimension, without modifying its substance, but alongside what was done on the basis of article 102a and 103 of the treaty, then we will have a complete instrument and emu will then be able to function properly. including the 'employment' chapter in the treaty should not be under-estimated provided, of course, that it provides for the necessary instruments for defining and implementing a common strategy for jobs. of course, i have said this to you many times before: social policy is still the competence of the member states. but, on the other hand, nobody now can imagine that the europe of 15 member states, with 370 million inhabitants, can remain neutral vis--vis the main concern of our people, i.e. unemployment. it is in that spirit that i launched, on the basis of and as a complement to, jacques delors' 1993 white paper, the pact of confidence for employment, and i am now happy to note that all the member states, without any exception at present, take the line i took. a year ago, on, 31 january 1996, when i appeared in this chamber, i had the very distinct impression that the fight had to be fought on two fronts: the emu front, which is not an end in itself - the single currency is only an instrument for developing an economic and social policy - and on the other hand, the employment front, against unemployment. those are the two axes of our activity and i hope, mr president-in-office, that this strategy will be turned into practical measures at the amsterdam european council, with the signing of the pact in the spirit that i have outlined. my second remark is that we must now prepare for enlargement. not enough has been said about the prospects for enlargement here today. we have to realize that enlargement to the countries of central and eastern europe is a unique opportunity and i said as much this morning - an historic chance, for reconciling, for the first time for over 500 years, the whole of our continent with itself, in peace and freedom. this historic chance - we should not miss it. that is why enlargement must be a success but it can only be a success if we prepare for it and carry out the reform of our institutions so that we can undertake enlargement. that is why i think that after amsterdam, we shall have the strong signal needed for the commission to continue, in accordance with the strategy that we adopted at the last european council, towards enlargement. if that is the case, and if that assessment is approved by you, then the commission will be ready. i can tell you today, the commission will be ready to present to you, on 15 or 16 july next, all of the necessary documentation, the opinions on the different member states, the financial prospects after 1999, the necessary reform of policies: cap, structural funds, cohesion fund, and their repercussions on the future enlargement. we shall be ready as long as amsterdam is a success. that is the challenge of amsterdam and i think that we must make sure that that challenge also responds to our expectations and aspirations. thank you very much, mr santer. i have received nine motions for resolutions pursuant to rule 37(2). the debate is closed. we shall now proceed to the vote. votes amendment 47 is listed both in our voting list and in the swedish translation as an amendment proposal to point 4 c and not to point 1 which we are now discussing. i apologise, and i ask the president to repeat the vote on this point or to check where the ppe group thinks that the proposal is to be found. mrs thors, there was indeed a mistake in the heading of the amendment, but the vote did take place in accordance with the corresponding text. once the vote has taken place, the result cannot be changed. mr president, please excuse me, but i do think it would be better if we followed the order of the amendments. amendment no 47 that you have just called a vote on refers not to recital c but to paragraph 4(c), if i have seen the texts properly. nobody seems to be following and it does not even seem to be of any importance to our colleagues. since the vote has taken place, but obviously not at the right time, perhaps you could have another vote? mr fabre-aubrespy, i am sorry but it was very carefully checked that this amendment did not refer to the paragraph in the heading but another amendment. that is why we voted on the text to which that amendment referred. mr president, as the author of this amendment, along with mr anastassopoulos and mr lucas pires, i believe that there has been some confusion in the chamber due to the fact that, in principle, our services had us vote on this amendment in respect of paragraph 4(c). although the mistake was rectified, it seems that various groups were not informed. in my opinion we should therefore vote again on this subject. i think that is pure common sense. mr president, there was confusion. i accept that because i had it out of order in my voting list, but we did find it and we did vote according to the way certainly my group wanted to vote. i do not think we need another vote. we found it in time thanks to you just giving us a few seconds to do that. as mrs green has just declared, this was no confusion. the vote was held on the amendment in question without the authors expressing the slightest objection at the time. once the vote has taken place, the result cannot be changed. on amendment no 50 mr president, we now come to paragraph 8. it contains an important demand of the european parliament, i.e. the demand to have a common electoral system in time for the european elections. amendment no 50 by the socialist group seeks to weaken our call for a common electoral system. i would point out to the house that yesterday, in the house of commons, the new british foreign secretary, mr cook, had this to say: ' it is our wish and intention to introduce a new electoral system based on lists and proportional representation for the next european elections.' . (applause ) in view of this important change on the part of the british government, will the socialist group agree to withdraw amendment no 50 so that we can adopt paragraph 8 undiluted? (loud applause ) mr president, i think mr de vries ought to understand exactly why the socialist group has tabled this amendment. every member of the british labour party in this house is aware of the policy of the labour party. that is not a problem for us. it may be a problem for the british conservatives but not for us. we are very happy with that position. i have to tell you that the reason we tabled this proposal is because the word 'essential' , in the view of the whole group, means that if these items are not covered in the treaty, we should not be supporting the treaty. we wish to be a little more equivocal about that and it is the position mr de vries has always accepted, not to threaten. mr president, in the house of commons the day before mr jack straw, the home secretary, and therefore responsible for electoral rules, said that there was no manifesto commitment to introduce pr or the regional list system by the 1999 european elections. so, with labour you can take your pick. good. now you all know what goes on in the house of commons. but this is the european parliament and we must now proceed to the vote. (parliament adopted the resolution) mr president, i am concerned that the leader of the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party in this house sought to misrepresent the position of the british government during that debate. the foreign secretary did not say that we will be having proportional representation in time for the 1999 elections, he said: ' it is our wish and intention to introduce a new electoral system, based on the list and proportional representation for the next european elections.' however, he said: ' i said at the time that the timetable is very tight and we will be examining whether this is possible. we have certainly not ruled it out.' so you ought to be clear about what the foreign secretary said. mr titley, that is not a point of order: it is a point of order inside your political group and not a point of order for the house. the european parliament must give its opinion, today, at second reading, on the common position on the eighth directive on summer-time. it is an important act for our fellow citizens, proof of practical construction of a europe of citizens. for my part, two points must be tackled: application of the subsidiarity principle and the implication of changing the clocks. the declared aim of this eighth directive is to harmonize the period of the application of summer-time. i subscribe to that. but it is also to assess time differences between the member states. that is where the subsidiarity principle comes into its own. the council and the commission must abide by it and let the member states decide whether they should change the clocks in their countries. i come to the second point: the implication of changing the clocks. as elected representatives of european parliament citizens, we are sent petitions, remarks, comments and suggestions on whether it is wise to change the clocks. to assess the wisdom of this measure, in particular in the perspective of enlargement of the european union eastward, to be accompanied by an enlargement of time zones, it is urgent to draft a detailed report, in consultation with all the interested parties. all aspects must be fully analysed in the light of experience. i think that before we impose any obligation, we ought to listen, we ought to look into the pros and cons. until then, let us just harmonize the dates of the beginning and end of summer-time. we are examining the beller report on summer-time at second reading. i wish to recall some of essential elements: until now the commission has always presented application of summer-time as the free choice of each member state, a perfect application of the subsidiarity principle. yet the latest developments of the debate on summer-time, launched recently by the last french government, seem to indicate that the commission is no longer content with indicating the dates and times for the switch to summer-time, but also is judging whether or not it should be applied to the whole of the union. the commission advances as an argument the difficulty of envisaging a single market where time would vary from state to state. yet britain, ireland and portugal would not accept that argument. since today the commission tell us that the european union must have a single time and that numerous expert reports have shown that the advantages of the switch to summer-time are marginal and the disadvantages substantial, i call on the commission and the council to think about simply abolishing summer-time in the european union completely. read report (a4-0171/97) . (da) the danish social democrats voted in favour of the read report today. securing access for citizens to high-quality telecommunications services at reasonable prices is of crucial importance to us. we are, however, concerned over how article 7(2) of the directive, the wording of which is not unambiguous, will be interpreted. if established telecommunications providers can be said to have 'significant market power' , according to article 7(2), they are subject to a number of restrictions and obligations which will create easier access to the market for potential operators. in denmark a number of established telecommunications companies can be said to have 'significant market power' , if we regard the fixed network and the mobile network as separate markets. if, on the other hand, we regard the networks as a combined market, the companies cannot be said to have 'significant market power' and will therefore not be subject to these restrictions and obligations, which might have helped to break up monopoly positions on the telecommunications market. it is thus important that article 7(2) be interpreted in such a way that fixed networks and mobile networks are regarded as separate markets. i am happy to support my british labour colleague mel read's call to approve this conciliation agreement with the council of ministers. whilst we should all look forward to the personal and business benefits which a more liberal telecommunications market will bring, we must be careful to guarantee consumers' interests. ensuring that a universal service is available to all our citizens and giving them the chance to take their number with them to a new address are practical benefits to the public. after all, the potentially great profits to be made by telecoms companies will be financed by consumers paying their bills. similarly, the idea that large telecoms firms should not be able to abuse a monopoly position is crucial. in return for allowing firms to compete in the new market, it is right that they should meet their responsibilities to their paying customers. it is nice to see the new british labour government's approach to markets and consumers gaining acceptance at eu level, another sign of the potential for constructive british involvement in the eu. european council point 4 c of the amsterdam resolution was passed relatively quickly. it was fortunate that it was passed, but we must gain a broader understanding of what is involved, both here in parliament and elsewhere. the most important thing that the union can do to create a solid, durable policy for more new jobs is to introduce measures which will increase competitiveness. we are talking about deregulation and increased flexibility on the labour market. measures which harm the investment climate in the member states would be devastating. europe must prove itself strong at a global level and must do away with out of date and obsolete policies. there has recently been an election in great britain based on this issue. flexible regulations for the labour market were discussed at the time. now it is up to us to fulfil them at a european level. there is a need for strong, joint measures, increased competitiveness and deregulation along with national measures to increase flexibility on the labour market. the two main subjects of the amsterdam european council, the stability pact for the single currency and the draft treaty emerging from the igc, concern different areas but tally perfectly in the search for the same objective: subordinating the nations, muzzling their parliaments, turning states into mere local authorities. the federalist orchestra continues to play, without stopping, and the boat is sinking. the federalist orchestra is still playing: in the draft treaty there is another increase in the areas where the council applies majority voting, there is a strengthening of codecision with the european parliament, a transfer to central level of various national competences until now regarded as essential - e.g. immigration and security, the abolition of all personal controls at internal borders, extension of the uncontrolled interpretative powers granted to the court of justice. as well as this locking up from on high, there are the underhand restraints imposed by the stability pact, imposing a 'corporalist' conception of europe and that the old nation states and their leaders are accepting without batting an eyelid. are we dreaming? at the same time, the boat is sinking, because our societies are turning their backs on that europe. why? all of these federalist measures just listed belong to a logic of coherence, on which president santer insisted this morning: ever more coherence, ever more convergence, ever more unity, so that europe can be stronger. this appeal for coherence is logical, but it is a dramatically partial logic, because it does not take into account the realities of our countries, their diversity, which is exactly what makes them strong, without any need for all these mechanisms of bureaucratic alignment that is being imposed on them. worse still, we can see that these mechanisms, in themselves, are distancing europe from people's real concerns. europe is as a result losing in the support of its citizens what it is apparently gaining in artificial coherence. the intergovernmental conference has demonstrated that the eu majority is not interested in real every day issues - the eu ideologues are more interested in turning the eu into an instrument of power politics. there may, of course, be some elegant words on equality, employment, sustainable development and openness. but elegant words are all there is, nothing more. there are to be no legally effective employment targets as a balance against emu's financially restrictive requirements. the text of the environmental guarantee is insufficiently clear to be of use to a member state wishing to impose tighter environmental standards than those established at eu level. the commission will continue to be able to prevent those countries who wish to impose tougher standards from proceeding. europol is to become an 'operational co-operation between police forces ' - not just an administrative co-operation between police authorities . police from europol will also be able to operate on 'another member state's territory' (and in so doing enjoy diplomatic immunity). so, a big step has been taken towards a federal eu police force, an 'eu-fbi' . the schengen agreement will be foisted on the eu, and the whole of this area of legal co-operation will be moved from the inter-state level to the supranational level. it will be the eu which will be making the decisions on everything connected with immigration, asylum, borders, passports and visas. at the request of spain, a protocol has been incorporated which dictates that asylum cannot be granted to a citizen from another eu state. but is it not possible for a democracy to oppress certain groups? is it reasonable, and in accordance with the 1951 geneva convention, that all eu states undertake never to grant asylum to basque, irish or corsican freedom fighters? is this regulation not the same as saying that the eu is a state? the eu will 'strengthen and develop its mutual political solidarity' , in other words, it will speak with a common voice on matters of foreign policy. the eu will have a foreign minister who will be called the general secretary and a foreign office which will be known as 'the unit for political planning and for early warning' . it will definitely be no longer possible for the small states to speak out loudly in world politics in defence of human rights above the noise of the super powers and their commercial politics. the objective of the eu is now being fine tuned to a 'gradual development of a common defence policy with a view to the development of a common defence system' . the military alliance the 'weu' shall 'gradually be integrated into the union' , and eu states 'shall support the gradual development of a common defence policy through co-operation in the armament's sector' . how is it possible for a country wishing to maintain a credible policy of neutrality to go along with this? for a swede this is unacceptable! it is claimed that openness will increase with the new treaty as all citizens will have the right to view all documents. but this right is then withdrawn because it will be up to each eu institution to determine which documents shall be available and to whom. as a log is not kept on incoming post it will be impossible to request a document - no one knows which documents exist. in respect of the above we wonder where the principle of subsidiarity and regard for the people of europe have disappeared to. so, we will vote against the resolution as a whole and will urge the swedish people not to ratify the results of the intergovernmental conference. the resolution contains a number of proposals which increase the power of the eu to the detriment of national parliaments. there is emu which will greatly centralise economic policy in the european central bank in frankfurt under weak democratic control. there is the strengthened common foreign and security policy with its majority decision making and the integration of the weu into the eu treaty. there is the integration of the schengen agreement into the eu treaty and the transfer of decisions concerning asylum, refugees and visa issues etc. from the third to the first pillar. instead, more emphasis should have been placed on enlargement and the democratic process towards an all european co-operation, towards employment, a better environment and long term sustainable development. the relationship with our people would have been greatly eased if the changes had been directed more towards these areas. in view of this, i have voted against the resolution. is this the last possible moment to persuade the european council to be sensitive to the needs of europe's citizens, or has that last possible moment already come and gone? at a period when there are 18.5 million people unemployed in the european union, the member states must accept a common european responsibility to create more employment. we christian democrats, in particular, as supporters of the social market economy, cannot allow social progress to be impeded, any more than sustainable economic progress. one of the most essential elements of the maastricht ii treaty, then, will be the employment chapter. it will only deserve that name if it consists neither of non-binding declarations nor of job creation programmes that would cost millions and are impossible to finance. it must point the way out of the community-wide employment crisis, without changing the principle that the member states retain the primary responsibility for combating unemployment and changing structures in the regions. the european union provides a synergistic effect by co-ordinating measures by the member states, allowing a regular and intensive exchange of experience and supporting the implementation of model projects. an essential requirement for success is that the member states should agree to secure a high level of employment and be willing to undertake regular evaluations of progress towards this common objective. a progress report is to enable an annual public debate to be held - in the european parliament and elsewhere - on what has been achieved and what has not. the european council itself has laid the foundations for the joint approach to combating unemployment. at the essen summit it adopted a comprehensive strategy for co-operation between the member states on labour market policy. the concentration of schemes on employment-intensive sectors - from investment in vocational training through the advancement of problem target groups to an increase in employment intensity - is to be continued. this specific policy holds out hope for the citizens of the european union. it comprises a political commitment by all member states to a long-term investment in europe's most important resource - its human resources. this could and should be the turning point needed to bring the past of the european union closer to the will of the people and to the real needs of today. we think that the fight against unemployment should be adopted unequivocally as the foremost priority. we need to fight against the most radical causes of unemployment, not merely to express some vague intentions, even if they are written in the treaty. it is therefore essential to finally turn away from the monetarist and neo-liberal lines currently being followed, in particular the nominal convergence criteria, and to replace them with guidelines centred on economic growth, job creation and social dialogue; on giving form to cohesion; on preventing speculative movements of capital; on preserving public services and environmental conservation. we are aware however of the indisputable importance of enlargement and the commitments made in this field, in particular in terms of the opening of negotiations. but that must not present any threat to the essential adjustments referred to above, which for their part need to be thought through thoroughly. we roundly condemn the introduction into the treaty of amendments in the institutional field which are harmful to the interests of the smaller countries under the pretext of giving specific form to that policy; similarly we demand that due account be taken of the economic indicators which that might produce in those very countries. the elections held in some countries recently, particularly the recent elections in france, leave no room for doubt about the deep longing for change in the different peoples of europe. the time has come to respond to that longing. since the joint resolution does not take that line we cannot support it. the amsterdam summit will be a low point in the recent history of european integration. none of the major tasks confronting the eu is even being addressed, much less solved: compliance with the rio commitments, defeating mass unemployment, preparation for the promised eastward and southward expansion, democratization of the eu, the socio-ecological regulation of the internal market - nothing can be done about any of them at their current state of preparation. in this situation, our parliament is trying to whitewash the increasingly critical situation into which the eu has manoeuvred itself under its neo-liberal leaders - instead of taking the historic opportunity to change course that has been offered by the elections in the united kingdom and france. once again, this house is undermining its own foundations! draft treaty mr president, the maastricht ii treaty, in the form to be adopted here on the 17th, at least if things go according to plan, is not a constitution for a new state, but it is close to that. maastricht ii is not a supranational structure for independent countries, it is a structure in its own right. an autonomous structure founded on democratic principles, which can punish countries that are not democratic. there will be human rights and freedoms, there will be non-discrimination on the grounds of sex, age, sexuality; these are things normally found in a constitution. there will be blanket authority for it to create new powers for itself. the individual countries will be authorized to regulate certain matters for themselves: wage agreements, culture, education and hospitals - also things that are in ordinary federal state constitutions - media, public service enterprises and freedom of speech. there is a subsidiarity protocol, in which the principle of precedence is established. there is foreign policy with majority decision-making, a kind of incipient common foreign ministry; defence is added; legal policy and the police; the states lose control of their territory. means of coercion are acquired, coinage, military and police. the only thing missing is democracy, and that is why i voted against it today. mr president, i have voted against because this text of the dutch presidency on which the amsterdam council will have the final say is a construct which leaves the people of europe out in the cold. they are not in the know. according to eurostat, only about 2 % of the people really know what is going on. furthermore, the text offers absolutely nothing. it is just talk, talk, talk. it mentions unemployment but promises shackles and deprivation. the representatives of the council and the commission have paid homage to employment a hundred times, but they have only just managed to insert some form of protocol, some form of provision, on unemployment in the treaty. as if the 20 million people who are out of a job are there because that word has not been in the treaty. but the reasons lie elsewhere: in the socio-political system to which the community is beholden. mr president, this text, this construct, proffers a rich menu for the multinational monopolies to gorge themselves on, and all the resolutions are like the waiters at the table, which is why i have voted against them as well. mr president, i voted against this text because it offers no prospect or contribution to a democratic europe, favouring an authoritarian centralized state. the text of the maastricht treaty constantly refers to an area of freedom, safety and justice. but we are offered no prospect of transparency in public life. not only are no new mechanisms for democratic control being introduced, but existing ones are being weakened. the language adopted is very interesting here: where the term 'freedom' always used to be used in european policy, we now have the term security - internal security and the foreign security policy. but security is being created not through more democracy, not through an employment policy or social security, but in a form controlled internally by the national governments, via schengen and europol, and guaranteed externally by a new foreign and military policy. mr x is not under the control of parliament but that of an inter-governmental machine, in which human beings - including members of parliament - are not involved. the superpower dreams of this integration reach their climax in the integration of the weu, and that too is not under democratic control. therefore, no democrat can vote in favour of such a text. faced with the draft treaty presented at the amsterdam european council, the european parliament is pretending to be sorry that the text is not sufficiently federalist. in reality, the european parliament is only resorting once again to its time-old tactic of asking for the maximum and then backing down, while protesting, at compromises which are nonetheless major federalist advances which secretly satisfy it. on their side, the national governments habitually fall into the trap with such unbelievable facility that it can only conceal voluntary renunciations. this is the exactly the case we are facing here. let us, for example, take the proposals in the draft treaty in the areas of security, justice and immigration. the european parliament's resolution declares that the draft treaty is not enough as it does not provide for the possibility of referral to the court of justice by individuals. but that protest serves mainly to distract attention from the federalist reality of this text; if adopted, the questions of the movement of persons, asylum, immigration, would be removed from national competences and fall within the community scope, with the commission holding the monopoly of initiative, the court of justice the power of interpretation and majority decision-making with the council (unless it acts unanimously with codecision by the european parliament). these proposals would represent an extraordinary federalist leap since, in future, for example, immigration issues would be decided in brussels. the french people could no longer decide for themselves their own policy in that area, and the parties could simply delete the 'immigration' chapter from their manifestos, with a view to national general elections. and how would that fit in with the french constitution. in order to make this huge pill easier to swallow, the dutch presidency is using a perfectly hypocritical strategy, but it has often turned out to be expensive in the past: a principle is inscribed in the treaty, by application is deferred for some years to give citizens the impression that they might, in the meantime, benefit from the right to repent, which in reality is absolutely no the case. the current draft text provides that the council, for matters of circulation, asylum and immigration which would be communitarized, would continue to decide unanimously, for three years after the treaty comes into force; personal controls at borders will be maintained, but for a maximum of five years; europol would receive operational powers on the territories of the member states but only after five years have lapsed. in other words, the lamentations of the european parliament designed to distract attention from the vital points are accompanied by the presidency's manipulations designed to have dangerous principles adopted, making us believe that their consequences would be far off or hypothetical. the great federalist strategy is under way, to hoodwink the peoples! . (da) we have certain objections to the resolution. recital c and paragraphs 1(c) and 12 read as though some would like to postpone enlargement, but we favour the timetable adopted. the real difficulties are the budget and agriculture, rather than institutional matters. subparagraph (a) of paragraph 1 is not entirely correct, (b) is tendentious and (c) is, as already indicated, a possible threat to enlargement. we cannot vote for paragraph 3, as it is affected by a danish reservation. we vote against paragraph 5, because it is affected by a danish reservation. we cannot vote for paragraph 6 because of the references to the third pillar and the allusion to the composition of the commission. despite this we vote for the resolution, because it supports the areas that are most important to us, namely openness, democracy, human rights, the environment, consumer protection and employment, and because we do not have a wholly negative attitude to a transformation of the eu that patently sets out to achieve transparency in so many areas. i voted against because the unanimity rule should not be abolished and parliament should not be involved in deciding where the seat should be, since things should stay as they are. as the president of the session deviated from the voting list which i had, i and many others in the chamber did not really know what we were voting on when amendment proposal 47 suddenly came up for discussion. so it was not clear in the vote that i supported amendment proposal no. 47, which stresses the importance of maintaining the balance between large and small countries, although this was my intention. i would also like to stress that the resolution which has now been approved should, in my opinion, mean that parliament can view the forthcoming enlargement negotiations positively. the amsterdam treaty does not mark a step towards a european democracy. quite the reverse: the revision of the maastricht treaty provides for a proliferation of procedures conducted between the member states without adequate parliamentary or judicial control. the principle of power sharing is being made a mockery of. without codecision, the otherwise desirable extension of majority voting in the council becomes highly dangerous. the treaty does not introduce openness of legislation, nor is the ep being given rights of codetermination and control in key areas of integration, such as monetary union. the new treaty does not create equilibrium between the union's political and economic integration. despite its protestations of being committed to sustainable development, the eu still cleaves to the logic of unrestricted competition. maastricht ii offers no guarantee that member states will retain or be able to introduce higher environmental standards. no mention is made in the draft treaty of the introduction of eco-taxes. the employment chapter is verbose and empty. no mention is made of the objective of full employment. the amsterdam treaty provides no financial or institutional instruments for carrying out an active employment policy at eu level. instead, it talks about co-ordinating the employment policies of the member states, but they have long since lost any budgetary room for manoeuvre for employment offensives because of the tight corset of the convergence criteria. in its present form, the treaty undermines democracy and civil rights, which are the true foundations of european union. now it is up to the ep and the national parliaments to cement an alliance for european democracy and take action to have the intergovernmental conference deferred. because, as the treaty stands at present, it is unacceptable. results should be more important than sticking to a timetable. europe is at a crossroads. the closure of the intergovernmental conference is the first main deadline. in order to pursue completion of the european union and its preparation in view of the next century, treaties, the rules and the institutions must be adapted. the outcome of the governmental conference will be judged according to three criteria: 1.the paralysing unanimity rule must be restricted as much as possible. the european union cannot act efficiently as long as one of the member states can put its national interests before the general interest of the inhabitants of the union as a whole.2.the social aspect must be reinforced. the european union must listen to its members and respond to the demand for employment dignity for all. that is why the social chapter must be improved. that is also why we are recommending integration of an effective chapter on employment into the treaty. the balance must be struck once again between monetary policy, on one hand, and social and economic policies, on the other.3.the european parliament's democratic involvement in the second and third pillars must be strengthened. the european union must be able to intervene in order to maintain peace and security both inside and outside its borders. the european parliament must take a more active part in this procedure and must be able to resume the democratic prerogatives lost by national parliaments in a certain number of vital areas.as far as we know, the dutch presidency's proposals offer too few prospects in terms of these three criteria. on behalf of the ps delegation, i would like to insist that efforts be made in amsterdam in order to improve the texts and for measures to be taken in order to come closer to the positions frequently taken by the european parliament, in particular in the resolution that we have just adopted. if not, if significant progress proved impossible because of a lack of time or political restraints, a slight delay will be preferable to a negative outcome. (the sitting was suspended at 1.35 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) progress in cfsp 1996 the next item is the report (a4-0193/97) by mr spencer, on behalf of the committee for foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on progress in implementing the common foreign and security policy (january to december 1996). we are very glad that the president-in-office is still with us, and we are glad to take this opportunity to hear mr van mierlo's views on this report by mr spencer, on behalf of the council. madam president, i am very much obliged to mr spencer for giving me the floor. it would be logical for him to take the floor first, but as often in the final days before a summit of this type, logic is overridden by the events and i must travel quickly to bonn in order to meet someone who is playing a key role in the problem concerning us just now. that is why i welcome this generous gesture and i am very grateful to it. since we are approaching the end of the intergovernmental conference, which is designed to prepare the european union to meet future challenges, it is vital not to lose sight of our current position and the results that we have already obtained, not only in terms of european integration in general but also in respect of its common foreign security policy. the reports which mr spencer drafted on 1996 and the draft resolution attached to it sketch a varied image on the ground. it is also pointed out that we need to improve the effectiveness and coherence of the cfsp. the council shares this opinion and that is why we are aiming at a structural improvement of the functioning of the cfsp and that this on the agenda of the igc. but we must not forget that the union still has a long way to go even if progress already made in recent years is not negligible. it is in accordance with this situation that we must express our expectations and form our judgment. as you know, the maastricht treaty threw down the bases of a common foreign and security policy for the european union. this matter also obviously confronts the traditional powers of national states with the reality of european integration. the modelling of the cfsp expresses that reality very well. a strong cfsp can be forged thanks to the feeling of proximity of the member states of the european union. fashioning a common policy on the ground means that reality is becoming aware of the need to express shared common interests. in certain areas this awareness is stronger than in others but a process of gradual evolution is clearly emerging here. this evolution is reflected in institutional terms in the growth of european political cooperation from 25 years ago until implementation of the cfsp following maastricht. the institutional reforms with regard to the cfsp, currently envisaged as part of the intergovernmental conference, are a further stage in this process and must be regarded as such. only ten years ago it was obvious that the economic giant that the european community was had feet of clay when it came to foreign and security policy and that that ground was insignificant. in reality this situation, inspired by geopolitical relationships, was an artificial one. however, the fall of the berlin wall and the wave of democratization in central and eastern europe have placed the community suddenly and unexpectedly up against new challenges. europe was, in any case, going to have to affirm its political identity and weight more markedly. the way of making progress is gradually emerging although it is obvious that this process is going to need more time. the igc is examining, as it were, the provisions of the maastricht treaty vis--vis the cfsp in the light of the experiences that we have gained over recent years and the needs that we have pinpointed in looking towards the future. it is true that the cfsp's tools have seldom been used and public opinion often had the impression that the union still cannot react firmly. let us be realistic! is this situation due to the instruments or to the will of the member states to use them? in fact an efficient and firm common policy in this area calls for a desire and will to collaborate, justified by an awareness of the fact that our common interests are at stake. the union is in full evolution and is preparing for its future, including that of the cfsp. our relations with associate countries in central and eastern europe and around the mediterranean are being strengthened. moreover, we are working on lasting relations with our neighbouring countries in eastern europe and around the mediterranean basin. as far as problems on our continent are concerned, such as belarus, former yugoslavia and albania, the union is beginning to play the role allocated to it and which it is its duty to play with increasing success. it is trying to fulfil this role in conjunction with organisations such as the united nations, the council of europe and the organs of the european convention on human rights, by implementing every available means. that does not mean that the union can advance or impose short-term solutions, but that it exercises an influence in terms of foreign policy in the respect of its own interests but also in the light of the importance of its economic relations with the countries in question. it is obvious that the rehabilitation and promotion of political and economic stability go hand in hand with this and are of major importance for the union and its member states. to this effect, tools such as the pre-adhesion strategy, phare and tacis are very important. recently the european union has also been very active in the field of relations with other neighbouring countries. for example, let us mention the pursuit of dialogue with mediterranean countries. the process begun at the barcelona conference has led to a system of closer economic links and a more intense political dialogue of strategic interest for the union, its member states and our neighbours to the south. links with eastern european countries have also been strengthened. on the basis of general action plans, the union is endeavouring for example to transform its relationship with the russian federation and ukraine into a lasting and significant partnership. the union is thereby contributing to the formation of a stable european security structure. the union has also made considerable efforts concerning developments in the middle east and the region of the great lakes in africa. representatives have been specially appointed for both of these regions, namely mr moratinos and mr ajello, in order to express the union's commitment and to pursue the union's policy more effectively. you will nevertheless understand that the union's role in these regions is limited to support. initially, conflict based problems have to be tackled by the parties themselves, but the union can lend support. arbitrage and preventive diplomacy can also complement support in terms of humanitarian aid and any other kind of aid. i myself was able to see the importance of appointing mr moratinos for the middle east question. in fact, at that moment, and following the very specific manoeuvres of the presidency, it was recognized for the first time that europe can play not only an economic role but also a political role in the peace process in the middle east. it is vital that we continue to try and complement efforts by the united states. too often and for too long we adopted a childish attitude aimed at sharing our powers - who could do what in the middle east. the middle east is very special for europe. i think that american diplomacy would fail unless europe were supporting it. in my view, we have exploited this point carefully and harmoniously. however, we could act even more coherently. relations between the union and its trans-atlantic partners have evolved. even though sometimes we have differences of opinion over the use of means - we often, for example, have different conceptions of the usefulness and efficiency of isolation or boycotts - we do share the same objectives, standards and values. this understanding may be seen in the extent of cooperation in the framework of trans-atlantic dialogue. only recently, at the summit, relations between european union and the united states led to good results. as i have just said with respect to the middle east, cooperation is called for. that was also important in the framework of the unfortunate story of a common resolution in terms of human rights policy over china but, as far as europe and the united states are concerned, there was excellent cooperation. in this case cooperation within europe was less evident. closer cooperation in the field of political dialogue has just complemented our economic relations with the countries of latin america as well as our main asian partners. the european union - asean summit is an example of the framework of cooperation which enables an exchange of open and constructive ideas to be held. no-one would have thought, at that time, that we could discuss the burma situation for two and a half hours in a very open way. we have managed to make some progress but not that much. i think that a well studied diplomatic manoeuvre might prove more profitable than we tended to believe. in other words, the union is no longer a simple trading partner but is also increasingly becoming a major partner in external political dialogue. it is obvious that the policy to be pursued must reach a consensus within the union. we will only be listened to if we adopt a single position. this unanimity, emerging from an awareness of shared common interests, cannot be obtained through institutional structures. that is why it is all the more important that we exchange ideas and try to reach an agreement on the external political challenges to be met by the european union and in the framework of the council, but also dialogue with you, representatives of the peoples of the union. the structures can, of course, help us in this process. so far we have chosen the least restrictive structures, intergovernmental decisions and consensus. everyone can, therefore, act as they wish and block the process at the last moment. we have to make this option more difficult and that is what we have tried to do in the new treaty. i admit that the structures are not decisive but they can help us to avoid weak points. that is exactly what we are examining just now and where all of our efforts are being placed. i shall stop here. thank you for allowing me to address the european parliament. i thank the president-in-office of the council for those remarks on the foreign and security policy. madam president, i thank the president-in-office of the council for his comments. i am always happy to oblige the presidency in the hope that we will see both the dutch presidency and other presidencies perhaps a little more frequently in front of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy. as you have indicated, this is the annual report on the implementation of the common foreign and security policy that is specified in the treaty. as this is the third such debate, i have this year provided comparative tables showing the trends - and in some cases the lack of trends - in the instruments of the policy. i am grateful to our excellent secretariat for the accuracy of this complex data. the third part of my report represents, for the first time, this data on a geographic basis, spiralling out from countries in the rest of europe and nearby to every other region of the world. i look forward to the time when we can lift our eyes from the institutional development of the cfsp to an undistracted debate on the substance of europe's relations with the world; a state-of-the-world debate on a par with our successful state-of-the-union debate. i was very pleased and attracted by the president-in-office's reference to kitchens and dishes in this morning's debate. that is absolutely right. on foreign policy we need to get to the food and stop worrying about the plumbing. sadly we are not yet in that happy position so the second part of my report lists, once again, our criticisms of how the cfsp has failed to develop as was anticipated at maastricht. it is a story of institutional timidity and occasional failure of european solidarity under commercial pressures. i would not wish to concentrate solely on the shortcomings and failures of the policy because we are making progress. twenty years ago our inability to act together on foreign policy matters was not regarded as either surprising or culpable. ten years ago we felt guilty about our failure. five years ago we had developed aspirations and rhetoric but had neither institutions nor ground rules. after maastricht we had some mechanisms but we have not been good at using them. we have played with them at the margins but we have not used them to guide our way forward on the great issues that confront the union. i am most worried by the impact of this failure on our public and in particular, the impact of that failure, both political and technical, in the wars of yugoslav succession, where our public expected us to save lives and we failed. the lesson of bosnia, it seems to me, is that in the last resort, the union must have the ability to intervene militarily. if we shy away from that responsibility we are doomed to being merely the paymaster for the peace-making efforts of non-european powers. it is in this context that we need to embark on a process of bringing the european union and western european union closer together. my report contains a section, again for the first time, on the role of this parliament, its president, its committees and its delegations. i am an unapologetic enthusiast for parliamentary involvement, both national and european in the cfsp. i do not accept the doctrine that foreign affairs is the prerogative of the executive. in my view, the executives of europe are already far too strong and parliamentarians too weak. this approach seems to be based on theories about the primacy of the crown in foreign affairs, an argument which was rejected by the us senate from the very early years of that great republic. it seems to me proper to aspire to such influence, but it requires us to be self-critical of our own performance as an institution, not least in our tendency to shoot from the hip in urgency resolutions in this plenary. i echo president santer's concerns this morning about attempts to restrict the coherence of the commission's role in negotiating on behalf of the union under articles 113 and 238. there is important foreign policy in the first pillar and we should not dismiss its usefulness. for me, foreign policy, as understood by the electorates of europe, is not limited to the classic diplomacy of the kind which absorbs the attention of those involved day-to-day in the cfsp. for any power, but especially for a predominantly civilian superpower such as this union, foreign policy must be a mixture of trade and economics, of environment and development, of security and human rights. it must grow and be rooted in the genuine fears and perceptions of our citizens. it is not just the completion of the technical process of treaty revision. it is not just a game for diplomats. it is about trade, jobs, drought and hurricanes. it is at least as much about what goes on in kyoto and geneva as what goes on in moscow and washington. we have hopes for progress in amsterdam. in the jargon we will not be holding our breath. but we will stand ready to do our part in making a political reality that lives in the minds of the people of europe of whatever the member states bring forward as a reformed and improved cfsp after the treaty of amsterdam. madam president, i should like, on behalf of my group, to thank the rapporteur, mr spencer. i think that he has emphasized all of the relevant points in this report and in the attached resolution. my gratitude also goes to the minister, mr van mierlo, for his detailed apology of the cfsp in 1996. i found it excellent. i also noted that the debate which has been held here today was a debate after the event and without conviction whose conclusions unfortunately have already been drawn. the cfsp is not going very well and the european parliament should try to influence to a greater extent its development rather than holding this kind of post mortem debate. this institution has no doubt about the interest of the common foreign policy. but now all that we can do is assess it. the members of my group would like to look at the various aspects of the policy. it must be said that, in terms of foreign policy, the union did not meet the expectations of 1996. it is true that, in a certain number of areas, progress has been made - especially in areas belonging to the first pillar - i am thinking of humanitarian aid and stepping up relations with central and eastern european countries, including the former soviet union. in various other situations, however, the european union has not been able or has not succeeded in contributing decisively to solving conflicts and tense situations. in many cases, a common human rights policy was out of the question especially since the larger member states in a good many major situations have remained faithful to their own conduct and orientations. furthermore, as has already been said, the united states have interfered on several occasions in situations that we ought to have been able to solve alone. it is a shame because the european union is a major factor and it is also an important sponsor of very many international activities and we do not reap the fruit of that enough. these actions are not sufficiently well known to the public. i am thinking in particular of the european union's role within the united nations. as far as security is concerned, we must await the outcome of amsterdam, but there too i find that the european union's image is a pessimistic one. what we see is that it is really nato which has been doing very well in recent years at the expense of the development of the european union. the spencer report clearly tackles those aspects which need to be changed. we support this approach. we need to create better institutional conditions for the european union's foreign policy, especially when it comes to conflict prevention. but that will only have any meaning and will only function if the member states also demonstrate more ambition when it comes to collaborating over foreign affairs. madam president-in-office, i very much welcome the publication of this report. it highlights the ineffectiveness of the european union's policy in this particular area. i find it somewhat ironic that we refer to the common foreign and security policy. on many issues we have no policy and when we do it is rarely a common policy. this report highlights a number of critical areas where we have failed. it talks about the failure to respond to the continuing problems in bosnia-herzegovina or taking any initiative on kosovo, the lack of effective response to the continuing problem of cyprus and our relations with turkey and the absence of a long-term policy for the middle east or africa. it must also be admitted with some shame and embarrassment that our response to the recent albanian crisis has been somewhat defective. various reasons are suggested for this. we often hide behind structural deficiencies and i would certainly acknowledge that there are structural deficiencies, not least the requirement for unanimity. however, that does not tell the whole tale. look, for example, at the failure of the european union to act as one with regard to the continued breach of human rights in mainland china - an issue which will be debated later on. there, economic interests have overtaken political principle and if we fail to act as one, particularly where principle is involved, then we will have no meaningful role in the geopolitical world. so certainly let us address the problem of structural deficiencies but let us also recognize that there is a lack of principle involved in some of the ways we shape our policy. i hope that this igc deals with the structural deficiencies, that we end unanimity and replace it with qmv, that we strengthen the relationship with the commission and the parliament in this whole area and move away from intergovernmentalism and that we promise to start a real debate on the framing of a defence policy, hopefully incorporating the weu and the eu pillar. i once again pay tribute to the rapporteur. the report shows where we are weak and let us hope that, especially in the rest of the week and in amsterdam, we will make a start on rectifying that. madam president, as everyone is aware the cfsp is a bone of great contention in the european union; not because of its existence, but rather because of its absence. the union's inability to implement a real common foreign and security policy, which has been lamented very often in this chamber, means that while it is always willing do its share of the paying it cannot act effectively in the international arena. the spencer report, which is meticulous, honest and clear-sighted, underlines that reality in many of its points. it also indicates what needs to be done in order for the union to be able to assume its role in this field at some juncture. it calls for the european parliament to be given a bigger say with regard to the adoption of common actions and positions and for it to be afforded a participatory role in international negotiations. it defines the concept of common security as having to do above all with economic and social stability, the defusing of ethnic tensions and the promotion of ongoing integration; a security, that is, which extends beyond military confrontation and conflict and must be the model for the twenty-first century. in addition, the report insists on the need to maintain parliamentary control of the financing of the cfsp, and it is a well known fact that not all of the member states agree with that. even so, it is an important general point which remains unresolved. madam president, i should like to congratulate mr spencer on his excellent work. unfortunately, the record of cfsp is rather disappointing and current events do nothing to belie that. mr spencer draws lessons from european powerlessness, not to say europe's absence from the international diplomatic arena. the crisis in former yugoslavia revealed the european union's inability to act. now the same is true with the albania situation. for the lack of a genuine common foreign and security policy, europe cannot play the role that should be its, including that of restoring peace. how could it be otherwise if the cfsp remains the expression of the member states at intergovernmental level? the igc must put that right by strengthening the principle of political solidarity, while enabling the member states not to take part actively in certain common actions. the council has so far resorted too seldom to common actions and positions and has demonstrated obvious sloth. i regret the weakness of community diplomatic action in cyprus and turkey, for example. i deplore our paralysis vis--vis algeria. our absence of a common policy in respect of africa is dramatic. i am afraid of what is in store in central africa. since the failure of the european defence community in 1954, for the first time, the basic conditions for the emergence of a european security policy now seem to be in place. let us not miss this opportunity. madam president, the record of the cfsp this year shows, as on previous occasions, that the european union's international activities are marked by a lack of political will, the non-existence of common aims and an insufficiency of institutional mechanisms. this was so in bosnia and more recently in albania. what happened there has led to dissatisfaction of public opinion despite some truly positive efforts, such as those of our special envoy to the middle east, mr moratinos. but the immediate future does not suggest that the situation there is getting any better. we saw how nato and russia signed an agreement over which europe simply applauded and waited. we will see in early july in madrid how nato, an institution with its origins in the cold war, is enlarging to the detriment - of whom? of the european union's own capacities in the security field. despite some positive aspects, what is proposed at the igc is clearly insufficient. we shall quickly have to change this situation. we lack an autonomous external policy, a european entity for its own, independent security and defence, an ability to prevent conflicts and take decisive action to narrow the gap between north and south. otherwise, we shall be forced once again to mouth immodest and unreal phrases, that could even be qualified as gracious, as presented by mr van mierlo, over the fact that us diplomacy is sometimes wearied when europe fails to act. that is not true. madam president, i should like to stress an aspect which seems to have been slightly overlooked. the spencer report on the cfsp is a very good one, but less than two hours ago, we approved an absolutely abominable document, which sanctions the absence of any hope that there might be in this area at the amsterdam summit. we already all know - and i disagree with my colleague and friend anne andr-lonard over this - that nothing will be done over the cfsp in amsterdam. we all know that the draft treaty presented to us will be adopted and it contains no significant progress in our foreign affairs policy. that is what has to be demonstrated. we have become a whispering parliament, professional whisperers, it is true, as mr van mierlo would say, but with no effectiveness vis--vis the other two institutions, especially the council. we whisper our disagreements, our wishes, but we are not convinced of what we want. i think that is especially serious. somehow, that disappointment is very great today. we have this report which proposes some very clear things. it proposes the political guidelines for a series of world regions; it indicates a series of one-off reforms of the cfsp; it proposes using the commission delegations to turn them into the diplomatic representations of the member states without any diplomatic mission in over half the world's states. those are practical avenues. they could be explored. last month we voted for a draft tindemans report demanding the creation of a european corps for the petersberg missions. we continually regret what happened in bosnia, rwanda and albania. we should start taking real action instead of crying over the fact that the weu was not integrated. let us begin with what we agree over. we know that in the european parliament there is a big majority for that. let us stop whispering and propose something positive! madam president, the annual report on the progress of cfsp, as my group deplores, is unfortunately more of an occasion for a ritual celebration of integrationist fundamentalism than a far-reaching examination aimed at confronting aims and realities. this report, despite its undeniable documentary quality and the wealth of its facts and figures, is no exception to that rule. it takes the same ideological approach as last year's, developing a conception of the cfsp that would set out to absorb all of all our nations' external means of action, constantly conceived in opposition to national diplomacies, as if a successful initiative by one or more member states could not, by its very nature, benefit europe as a whole. on the contrary, the competent and efficient national diplomatic services on which such actions rely are presented as an obstacle to the development of the cfsp and, during the debates, serious consideration has been given to their recycling, not to say their re-education. the lack of consistency in today's cfsp is attributed to the continuation of an intergovernmental dynamism reflecting the fear of the member states to relinquish the fantasy of national power. after mr lamers' empty shell, now we have mr spencer's fantasy. the national state now plays in the new dominant ideology the role that used to be attributed to the class enemy in the ideology immediately before it. setting the cfsp against national foreign policies, is condemning it to sterility. the cfsp will only be effective if it plays a complementary role and not that of replacing national diplomacies. when we have genuinely common interests, which are properly inventoried, acting together to make them work undeniably brings added value. in other areas, our attitudes differ. the cfsp process can then make it possible, by means of concertation, to reconcile to the maximum the diversity of our approaches. but we also have to recognize the existence of divergent policies linked, in certain vital areas, to the protection of vital national interests that are perfectly legitimate and respond to citizens' wishes. wishing, for the sake of cfsp, to deny those realities can only do a disservice to the very aim being sought: affirming europe's place on the new international arena. i regret that the spencer report has not taken the realistic approach to the cfsp which is a necessary condition for its success. that is why our group will not be able to vote for its adoption. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, every year since the maastricht treaty entered into force on 1 november 1993, our parliament has produced a report on the progress achieved in the elaboration of the common foreign and security policy, defined in article j7 of the treaty. every year, the european parliament has deplored a disappointing progress report, the absence of a common policy in international crises. the spencer report is no exception to that rule. according to its author, the beginnings of the cfsp are still unconvincing in the eyes of european citizens. reviewing the crises in 1996, the report regrets in particular the absence of common proposals and initiatives by the union for former yugoslavia, the enlargement of nato, and relations with russia, its ineffectiveness in albania, its diplomatic weakness over cyprus and turkey and its divisions over china. curiously, the report offers a positive appraisal of the action by the union's special envoy to the middle east and thinks that there are still possibilities to be exploited in central africa, zaire, or the great lakes region. no comment. the measures proposed, as usual, to remedy these gaps are the following: integration of the weu into the european union, inclusion in the community budget of cfsp operational non-compulsory expenditure, enabling the european parliament to exert controls, and systematic consultation of the european parliament by the council before the adoption of common positions. the committee on foreign affairs is relying on the igc to implement these reforms. whereas it increasingly dismantles member states' sovereignty in terms of foreign policy, it unfortunately brings with it hardly any harmony or peace between nations, and that is why we shall not be voting for the report. madame chairman, when three new member states joined the eu at the beginning of 1995 the tradition of military neutrality in the union was strongly reinforced. what is at issue here is a tradition, not the invalidity of security policy, as surprisingly often seems to be thought. in post-war europe the history of military neutrality is at least as long as that of alliances. this should be remembered. i should like to stress that finland, for example, does not wish to be politically neutral. we wish to support and strengthen the european union's common foreign and security policy. in this area, finland, together with sweden among others, has been very active in recent times. we do, however, wish to remain militarily neutral because this informed choice, in our opinion and according to our experience can best secure stability and peaceful development in northern europe. if finland and sweden now declared that they were going to give up their military neutrality, this would very probably result in the increase of military tension in our area and along the 1300 kilometre long border between the eu and russia. why should we pursue a policy which increases tension? it would, amongst other things, make peaceful border cooperation considerably more difficult. against this background, we have followed with some concern the calls for the unification of the eu with the weu. this would mean that we would have to give up our military neutrality. we understand that a majority of the eu member states have wished to resolve their security problems by entering into military alliances. we respect these solutions. we would wish, however, for our decisions too to be respected in the same way. the way from the division of europe towards more peaceful development has been be preserved precisely by good cooperation between militarily allied and neutral countries. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the credibility gap between the standing and economic strength of the european union and its weakness and impotence as regards external security and defence policy is ever more striking. this disparity arises because the treaty on european union was not implemented. the scant progress made with regard to implementing external security and defence policy is disappointing, as mentioned in the excellent report by mr spencer, which we should support and vote for. we do not in the european union possess any strategic information services which would enable us to make analytical forecasts of world political trends. in europe we do not have the power of decision on external policy within an acceptably rapid time. it is well known within the european universe that there is no operational capacity or resources within the sphere of security and defence. for the urgent implementation of these measures we need to set up a solid and coherent institutional framework, as this parliament has recommended and is still recommending in this report, which drew very little attention from the council. we are very concerned about the timid progress made in this matter and, i repeat, about the timid progress proposed in this matter proposed for the intergovernmental conference. madam president, we all know that the threefold strategy which could lend credibility to an external policy supported and framed in a common european union security and defence policy would be to provide a basis and knowledge so that we could decide swiftly then act effectively. without these structural conditions the european union will continue to lack prestige as regards external policy - it is a hard truth - and it will not in the medium term provide the appropriate support for the development of economic and financial policies and the relevant social progress. nevertheless, i hope that the operation of economic and monetary union as a whole, an operational central european bank, a single currency as a positive factor and a factor for greater cohesion will provide us with a basis for launching a european union (but that will certainly be a matter for a new generation of european political leaders - this one is already exhausted - and possibly within a new institutional framework - this one already being exhausted); the objectives should be, in addition to improving living conditions, a little more pride in the life of the european citizen. madam president, i too would like to compliment mr spencer on an excellent report, but i also want to express my disappointment at the fact that, once again, this parliament is just having a nice chat. and i want to say, once again, that a common foreign policy is needed, but the reality is we are not going to do anything concrete to achieve that objective. i ask myself - and i ask you - whether anyone still cherishes the illusion that, as mr spencer rightly mentions in his report, the old nation states can play a leading role in a strongly and sharply evolving international scenario. i ask myself whether europe, which certainly has a role at the highest level on the world scene, prefers to continue in the role of fifteen political dwarves, fifteen political gnomes who continue to argue about every important foreign policy issue which arises at international level. the events in former yugoslavia are an obvious case, but we can cite many others, like the policies on russia, china, which we shall be discussing later, and the mediterranean too. actual common actions and positions can be counted on the fingers of one hand. so i believe a specific and strong position should be taken after this debate through a specific intervention by parliament. madam president, mr spencer deserves our thanks for his efforts, if only because his report makes it clear that any report on the implementation of the eu's common foreign and security policy must, nowadays, quite simply amount to a list of missed opportunities and failures. and, since the intergovernmental conference is producing no genuine progress in this area, i fear that such reports are going to take the same form in the future. in order to find practical examples of this failure, we need not look very far afield: even among the member states of the european union, present or prospective, threats are being openly backed by military force. i regard it as an unforgivable failure of the european union that it has not been able to resolve the crisis between greece, turkey and cyprus. indeed, if we look around we can see economically weak countries investing economic resources in totally disproportionate armaments -resources that they urgently need elsewhere. i believe this should be a clear priority of all the european institutions, so that what is nothing less than a european scandal can be brought under control. madam president, the spencer report makes some accurate observations. however, i see things in a slightly harder light. it is, of course, true that the development of a common foreign and security policy is being impeded by an institutional deficit. but there are other deficits as well, and there is an absence of solidarity. we saw that in the essentially neutral stance taken by the european union during the crisis over the imia islands in 1996, even though one of its member countries was involved. secondly, the principle of equal treatment does not seem to count for much. the european union took one approach to the rights of the chechens and is taking another, at the present time, to the rights of the kurds, and it says nothing about incursions into the territory of other countries by the turkish army. thirdly, there is a lack of self-confidence. in foreign policy the union displays an enduring inferiority complex, and it has become reconciled to following in the wake of the united states. cyprus is a case in point. the union did whatever it could to downgrade the status of its special envoy vis--vis the united states and now the united states has just appointed mr holbrooke as its own special representative. i think that the tragedy of the union's foreign policy was illustrated also by the situation that developed in albania in 1996. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome this report because we want to see the swift implementation of the cfsp with regard to austria's accession to the weu and to nato. matters we regard as particularly important are improving the working conditions between the weu and the eu and the development of a european security system that is not dependent on the usa. the primary purpose and objective of a european security system must be the prevention of military conflicts; the resolution of conflicts, even by the use of military force if necessary, is a secondary priority. in view of its history during the present century, europe has a special responsibility to adopt an active security policy. that policy must not be jeopardized by a naive form of pacifism, because there is one thing that none of us here should ever forget: adherence to the principles of unilateral pacifism, anti-militarism and military neutrality would have meant that auschwitz was never liberated. madam president, i would like to say the same as everyone else here is saying that this is a very good report. it contains a good, broad concept of security policy and is not restricted to narrow military areas and military issues. i also welcome what mr spencer himself has said that there is a need for a long term strategy to tackle global problems including poverty, the environment and ethnic and social conflicts. i think this is excellent. above all, in the background documents for the report i see a good description of how a common security policy could be developed; there is an analysis of shortcomings but there is also a description of what could be done. they form a good reference book for anyone who is interested. even the sun sometimes has its spots. and so has this report in some places. i support instead what mr paasio said on the situation of the non-aligned neutral states. these spots are still present in points 15 and 19. i hope that they will disappear at the vote when we support amendment proposals nos. 1 and 2. otherwise: congratulations on a good report. madam president, congratulations are due to mr spencer for his report. the great absentee, the great unknown, the great guilty party: the so-called but, in reality, non-existent common foreign policy has been described as all of those things at one time or another, and not without justification. after the historic events of 1989 it should have become the dominant concern of our union, but still, today, on the eve of the revision of the treaty, it remains a distant dream - albeit an undesirable one for some people here. sad experience, starting with the gulf crisis and followed by the break-up of yugoslavia, the bosnia-herzegovina drama and the tragedies in africa - leaving aside the confusion with regard to turkey - should have taught us that the growing trend in european foreign policy is more towards renationalization than communautization. the biggest trading power on earth, as our union affects to call itself, seems to confirm the views of those who mockingly describe it as a voiceless diplomat, a blind general and a lame soldier. certainly, there is no lack of pious aspiration about the cfsp in the maastricht treaty, and nor will there be any lack of it soon in the amsterdam treaty. what is really lacking though is the unanimous political will to forge an effective foreign policy. various technical solutions are being searched for. there is, in fact, a desire, within the diffuse economic perception that grips us, to substitute money for our political and strategic absence. as mr van den broek said perceptively yesterday, in all of the trouble spots, from sarajevo to palestine, the europeans are doing the paying and the others are doing the action. if we want find the root cause of this inability we have to look back to the thing that in recent years we have been sedulously keeping quiet about: the abandonment of the federal idea. madam president, i too wish to congratulate mr spencer on his report. i agree with him that progress on the common foreign and security policy has been disappointing. it is true that the eu has been unable to implement human rights and democracy clauses in its agreements. the commission has, as mr spencer outlined, failed to make proposals as it could do under article j.8. i particularly welcome his reference to the analysis unit, which would assist the eu in drawing up a more effective common foreign and security policy and help with conflict prevention. it is true that we need a closer relationship between the eu and the weu. however, like mrs theorin, i disagree with paragraphs 15 and 19, on the integration of the weu in the eu and more majority voting in the common foreign and security policy. as mr lambrias said, the common foreign and security policy has clearly failed in certain areas, such as former yugoslavia, albania and other areas of the world. finally, i would like to congratulate mr spencer for including a reference to antipersonnel mines, and to ensure that we all work together to see that they are eliminated from the face of the earth, because they cause so much damage and hurt to people across the world. madam president, whatever the result of the intergovernmental conference may be, one thing is certain: applause for that conference will be muted. however important it may be to give our citizens the feeling that they live in an area of freedom and internal security, which includes social security and the right to work, external security is a necessity too. particularly for countries like austria, which are frontier states of the eu, it is important that the european union should carry weight in its foreign and security policy and so become a stabilizing factor in europe. so far we have seen mainly the shortcomings of the cfsp, in bosnia and also in albania and the middle east. the spencer report makes this painfully clear. let us not deceive ourselves: without the commitment of the usa in these crisis areas, nothing could be done. they show up the shortcomings of the european union. this makes it all the more important to us that, with regard to the cfsp as elsewhere, majority decisions should make it easier for the european union to act. the fact that the eu accepts the petersberg undertakings, peace-keeping and peace-making missions in other words, is positive. the fact that there is still no date for the integration of the weu, so that the military backbone is lacking, is negative. a clear cfsp line would also facilitate the national debate in neutral states such as austria. while uncertainties remain regarding the cfsp, it is an easy way out to take refuge in neutrality, which has lost its meaning as a result of the changed political scenario in europe and should be replaced by solidarity in favour of a common security policy. madam president, it is customary on these occasions to congratulate the rapporteur. what may be less customary is that in congratulating mr spencer i actually mean it, because previous chairmen of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy have produced the annual report on a very absolutist basis: they have talked about the world they would like to see rather than the world that exists. mr spencer's report, however, is practical and concrete, and that is precisely the basis on which we should address this subject. after all we have a common foreign and security policy not because we want some sort of status symbol to prove to the rest of the world we have grown up as an organization, but because we believe that our economic and political strength can, through cfsp, produce benefits not only to eu citizens but to citizens of the broader europe and, indeed, of the world, and it is on providing those positive benefits that we have to be judged. at the moment the cfsp is very piecemeal: it owes more to the inspiration of heath robinson than to the modern, computer-driven technological age. what we need is a clearer definition of what we want! what is a common foreign policy and what is it trying to achieve? we have no judgement of what we define as a common difficulty, a common challenge, and we have no idea of a common approach. how could anybody decide on a strategy for albania when the council of ministers had 15 different briefing documents? you cannot even begin to attack the problem. while national governments are still briefing their civil servants, we cannot have a common foreign security policy. that is why we need an analysis unit, which i hope we will see in amsterdam. it is also why we need more coherence in funding the cfsp. passing the hat round and trying to move things from pillar to post is not the model way of doing things. i hope that the interinstitutional agreement on the funding of the cfsp is cemented into the amsterdam treaty, and not before time! we need a decision-making structure which respects the sensitivity of national sovereignty and the sensitivity of some of these issues to our member states but still allows us to make progress. the idea of constructive abstention and more majority voting within commonly agreed strategies is a new way of moving forward. the igc will address some of these issues. what it cannot address is the lack of political will. the biggest disgrace of the common foreign and security policy is what happened in mostar, and what happened to mr koschnick, who was our administrator in mostar. the council of ministers betrayed him because of a lack of political will. what we have to build is a political will. we have to improve parliament's role in a common foreign and security policy. having said that, i am delighted that mr spencer has been critical of parliament. how can the council trust us and take us seriously if we are incapable of making coherent recommendations and produce urgencies which are inaccurate and contradictory? we have to look to ourselves if we are really to take a major role in the developing foreign and security policy. madam president, i hope that the compliments that i shall make to the spencer report and which will be added to those of former speakers will also be seen positively following mr titley's introduction. i think, in particular, that mr spencer has provided in his very serious report an almost perfect analysis of the lacunae in the european union's foreign policy and he has analyzed the possible improvements to it. in this sense and following this morning's debate on the intergovernmental conference, it might be said that there is a consensus emerging on possible improvements to the tools of the common foreign policy. on this score, we are also very anxiously awaiting, along with this institution, the outcome of the amsterdam summit and we will then see to what extent the treaty really has given us instruments and improvements to procedures and structures which might possibly enable us to reach a truly more effective and more dynamic common security and foreign policy, as has been demanded by so many speakers this afternoon. without wishing to undermine the just criticism of the common foreign policy, i should also like to issue a warning against the possible tendency to attribute, in some way or another, all of the international conflicts currently raging and all of the suffering still present in the world to the european union's inaction or the lack of means enabling us to bring them to an end within a reasonable time. unfortunately, there are still many examples of big countries, world powers still with considerable diplomatic, military and economic capacities, but unable to find an immediate solution to any conflict, be it the middle east conflict or the wars raging in central africa. the european union's foreign policy presents, happily i would say, a number of positive elements too: we are the world's number one donor, europe supports countries and people who are suffering throughout the world and we are also ready to explain to our publics that it is necessary to pursue the huge international effort in order to reestablish and reconstruct former yugoslavia, a situation which we did not sufficiently react to at the time, in terms of political and diplomatic activity; but, nevertheless, we are now genuinely trying to consolidate the dayton peace agreement. as for the global strategic environment, eastern europe, the former soviet union, the mediterranean and the middle east, we have reviewed our individual relations with each of these countries and strengthened our links with them. the same goes for a country which arouses so much controversy in the european parliament, namely turkey, with which we concluded a customs union, two years ago, and with which we are still trying to strengthen links; it needs to take clear and practical measures rather than condemning to 21 years in prison a political activist who did nothing more than lower a flag. in brief, there are also positive comments to make about the european union's foreign policy. however, i should like to come back to the beginning and the nerve centre of the spencer report - namely - as mr titley also just emphasized - that regardless of the structures of the procedures to be adopted shortly in amsterdam, they can never replace the genuine political will to defend common interests at community level. on this score, we obviously are lagging behind. finally, madam president, i should like to emit a cry of distress. i think that it would be beneficial if all our member states conscientiously re-read the existing union treaties in terms of a common foreign and security policy and that they echoed the words of the president of the commission, mr santer, namely pacta sunt servanda . they should remember that, in 1991, in maastricht, all of them declared that they should not only aspire to a common foreign policy but also to a security policy and, in the end, a common defence policy and all of the necessary tools for that purpose; their remarks made on this subject on strengthening weu and the acquisition of tools which might also be used or exert pressure when diplomacy looks like failing - that all of subjects - also ought to retain our attention. madam president, i should like to conclude by expressing once again my considerable regard for mr spencer and my hope to see, in the coming years, numerous debates on the european union's common security and foreign policy in the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, as well as in the plenary session of the european parliament. thank you very much, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. ep-national parliaments relations the next item is the report (a4-0179/97) by mrs neyts-uyttebroeck, on behalf of the committee on institutional affairs, on relations between the european parliament and national parliaments. since the maastricht treaty, the european union has made genuine progress in political terms. the ratification procedures which followed then showed the strength of the call for a duty to justify. this appeal has never been denied and the current changes to the treaty will only enforce it. given their status as elected representatives of the union's peoples, the national parliaments and the european parliament play a key role in the exercise of democratic control over activities, in particular the legislative activities, of the european union. the quality of the relationship between the european parliament and national parliaments is therefore of crucial interest for the democratic nature of the european union. if they oppose each other democracy will suffer. if they recognize that they have a common mission, democracy will be strengthened. that, ladies and gentlemen, was the thought that i have had throughout the year since i was appointed as rapporteur on relations between our parliament and the national parliaments. convincing you was not that difficult. on the other hand, obtaining the approval of the national parliaments was and still is harder. as the finnish parliament said, our relationship is both one of competition and complementarity. as for the latter aspect, the european parliament monitors the action of the commission and the council while the national parliaments monitor their national governments, especially when they are acting at eu level. that seems to be a matter of course but it is far from being the case since numerous eu legislative documents and nearly half the budget are passed without sufficient parliamentary controls, without mentioning the second and third pillars over which parliamentary - and, therefore, democratic - controls are virtually impossible, still today. consequently, my resolution contains fundamental demands, in the run up to the closure of the igc - firstly: integration into the treaty of openness and transparency as a general principle, valid for all of the european union's institutions. this simple fact, ladies and gentlemen, should lessen public mistrust and should even help to do away with it altogether. secondly: strengthening the european parliament's powers and introducing codecision into all council decisions taken by a qualified majority. thirdly: an obligation under the treaty to indicate all pre-legislative and legislative texts in due time to the national parliaments so that they have at least four weeks to express their opinion before the council takes its decision. fourthly: strengthening cooperation between the union's parliaments by means of a better definition of the cosac, by means of communicating in due time the commission's legislative programme to the national parliaments, allocating reciprocal facilities and organizing multilateral electronic communications. the igc's current proposals respond partly to this demand. i hope that, in the run up to the summit, these proposals will not be watered down but they will actually be strengthened. i am also aware of the fact, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, that my report and resolution are only one cog in a relationship between our parliament and the national parliaments, because they will still have some difficulties. that is why i hope that they will not be neglected but special attention will be paid to them. to conclude, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to use my remaining 30 seconds to thank everyone who has helped me in drafting this report because, of course, i did not act alone. i am very happy to have been able to count on the support of staff working for the institutional committee, my own assistants and a large number of colleagues. madam president, on behalf of the socialist group i congratulate the rapporteur. we have had excellent collaboration in committee, and the socialist group will be supporting her motion for a resolution when it comes to the vote. the role of national parliaments and of the european parliament are, and must be, complementary. attempts by eurosceptics and assorted nationalists on the extreme right to set the national parliaments and the european parliament against each other must be resisted. the role is complementary because national parliaments have a role in their national capitals in controlling, scrutinizing and monitoring the activities of the ministers who represent their country at council meetings in brussels. they all have different ways of doing it which they have developed in accordance with their own constitutional traditions. i have no doubt that some of these ways could be improved. that is up to them. but however good it is - be it the scandinavian model whereby the minister appears before the relevant parliamentary committee on his or her way to the airport when going to a council meeting and on his or her way back from the airport when returning from a council meeting, a very intense form of scrutiny - or one of the other methods which have been developed, the fact remains that, however good that national parliamentary scrutiny is, it remains separate scrutiny by fifteen different national parliaments, each over one member of the council. that is where the role of the european parliament comes in. somebody has to deal with the council as a collective body, as an institution that is taking decisions at european level as a european institution. and that is the importance of the co-decision procedure - to have a parliamentary body directly elected at european level to interact with the council. the two roles are therefore complementary, and care should be taken in the treaty to distinguish these two roles. we can support the compromises that seem to be emerging in the igc to take measures that would facilitate the national control that national parliaments must exercise through better time limits and better circulation of documents giving them the time to get stuck into issues. more important than that in the igc is a related matter, that of extending qualified majority voting. if you have unanimity in an enlarged union of 20 or so member states, there will be no decisions for anybody to scrutinize and control. there will be nothing for national parliaments nor for the european parliament to deal with because there will be paralysis. unless we extend qualified majority voting in the new treaty throughout the whole realm of community legislation at the very least, then there will be no point in discussing the best ways to carry out national or european parliamentary scrutiny. that issue must be tackled by this igc. madam president, i think that the success of mrs neyts-uyttebroeck's report, approved by a large majority in committee, lies in its appropriate focus. why? because it sets out from the premise that the european parliament and national parliaments both represent european citizens and, as mr corbett said, we must not fight in vain, we have to head in the same direction in exerting controls and conducting legislative activity. this report, which mentions the support of national parliaments - as the cosac also recognized at its dublin meeting - for extending european parliament codecision to legislative acts, heads in the right direction. what can we do to head in that right direction? i think that this report contains practical proposals that improve the political control that national parliaments exercise over community legislation in the scope of their own competence, that of the national parliaments, and the control that governments are subjected to, which as we know has its place in the council of ministers. the rapporteur also makes practical proposals on how the controls exercised by the european parliament could be improved and finally on cooperation between the european parliament and the national parliaments. the rapporteur recognizes in her report, madam president, that the proposals are not spectacular. they are not but they are governed by common sense, head in the right direction and are in keeping with what the national parliaments, with the representations of the european parliament, agreed on in the cosac - and here i wish to pay tribute to vicepresidents fontaine and imbeni. they head in the right direction i referred to earlier, in other words. i also wish to congratulate the rapporteur on her splendid work, her practical proposals in which the wishes of the national parliaments are reflected, as they were expressed at the hearing held in brussels a few weeks ago. with texts like this one, which are not spectacular, we make real progress, set by step, towards european construction. madam president, the proposal we are analyzing today is certainly not intended to transfer responsibilities or powers from the national parliaments to the european parliament, far from it! its logic is to develop better links and synergy between the two assemblies, with one specific objective: improving representation of the citizens, so that as well as having a national identity, they feel more european. inevitably decisions will increasingly be taken in strasbourg and brussels, but complementary and parallel to decisions taken in the individual member states. we want to associate the two institutions, community and national, in evaluation, analysis, objectives and especially urgent situations. within this framework the regions should take on basic responsibilities for their territories, and there should be better organization of their own institution, the committee of the regions. the european parliament is ready to work directly with the national parliaments. we hope this is mutual. for this to happen in real time, it would be very useful to have two-way electronic transmission between the european parliament and the national parliaments - as the rapporteur proposes in her report, and we congratulate her - for each political group and each individual member of parliament, together with the respective committees. we are working together to simplify legislative procedures, we are working together on common urgent intervention, we are working together, above all, to help the citizens understand why the two major institutions that represent them exist and how they function. madam president, i have just tabled an amendment taking up the main suggestion that i worded in a report dealing with the same issue and addressed to the luxembourg prime minister, i.e. granting a right of appeal to national parliaments for the purpose of annulling community acts for ultra vires or other serious reasons, according to the provisions of article 173(2) of the treaty. it must be noted that the national parliaments are very much excluded from european legislative procedures, including in areas within their remits originating in constituent powers, which sometimes causes serious problems in an atmosphere of defiance against the cause of european integration prevailing in most member states. my intention is therefore to propose what in german is called 'ein vorschlag zur gte ' , an idea that can cut corners, to counter the feeling of frustration and powerlessness that national parliamentarians often feel towards european construction. to the extent that we are in a system of delegation of powers, this is only a rightful reversal whereby those who delegate also have the means of checking whether or not those powers entrusted to community bodies are effectively used properly and in the framework of the delegations accorded. it is therefore essentially to avoid the undesirable inflation of a blank cheque that i am proposing that the national parliaments should become parties to the european union's jurisdictional system, alongside national governments and the union's institutions. madam president, we too appreciate the work carried out for the preparation of this report and we agree with much of what has been said up to now. i should, however, like to make the following point: i think that this report did not deal at the length required in particular with two aspects which i regard as crucial and which one day we shall have to solve. first: with the transfer of competence from national to community level we have the reversal of a situation which traditionally depended on executive power relative to legislative power. legislative power devolved upon the executives. this question must be resolved. the second and very real question is that of the effective isolation of the citizens from the centres of decisionmaking. so these two questions, which are closely bound up with what we want to call the 'democratic deficit' must be faced squarely and, in my opinion, require a strengthening of the role of the national parliaments. that should be complementary to, as already mentioned here and as is obvious, the role of the european parliament. there should be a strengthening of the role of the national parliaments, not only in fields where there is executive control, but also at the legislative level. i think that the question of the association of national parliaments at the level of the community decisionmaking process is a particularly pertinent question which needs to be considered. the main quality of the neyts report is the interest that it takes in the main function of national parliaments in the european union. as parliamentarians we should acknowledge that the citizens are, above all, attached to their national parliaments because they are close to them and have a historic and traditional role to play in their countries. that is why, if we want to strengthen democracy within the union, we must as a priority seek to enhance the role of national parliaments in the european system. although strengthening national parliamentary controls over european legislation is up to the parliaments themselves, a certain number of measures could be taken at european level in order to increase their involvement. for that purpose, the neyts report contains a large number of precious ideas. we welcome the fact that proposals such as improving the information of national parliaments in terms of european matters should be taken up in the protocol on the role of national parliaments presented by the dutch presidency, with a view to the amsterdam summit. we also note that the report does not sufficiently take into account the lack of democratic legitimacy of the european parliament. too much is expected of the strengthening of the ep's powers. although the european parliament is elected directly by the citizens, increasing the role of the european parliament does not narrow the gap separating the union from the ordinary people. ordinary people are hard put to identify with a parliament in which national political pluralism has difficulties in breaking through and where linguistic barriers prevent a genuine political debate from taking place. consequently, an effective democratic representation of a genuine diversity of citizens, languages and cultures in the european union in brussels and strasbourg will remain problematic by definition. as a result, the european union's political agenda should limit itself to tasks with obvious added value in terms of the national approach. that will be the best way of helping to bring ordinary people closer to european policy and filling in the democratic deficit. madam president, the rapporteur, our honourable colleague mrs neyts, whom i warmly congratulate from the other side of the barrier on her report which i disagree with, is wrong according to me when she states that the democratic deficit can notably be combatted by granting this institution, the european parliament, greater powers. i think that the european diversity of peoples, languages, cultures and political systems is so great - and i think that this diversity is a wealth that should be defended - that increasing this institution's powers or that of any other federal institution would only contribute more to the grey areas. i note, for example, in my country, flanders, that all the political parties in the flemish parliament are opposed to introducing the right of vote to all europeans. the protest of the whole people is not taken into account or even respected in the european parliament. that is a very good example of the democratic deficit in my view. that is why i recommend in particular maintaining all member states' right to veto in the hope that my country, flanders, can as quickly as possible become a member state of the european union in its own right. madam president, there is, we know, a kind of ill-feeling between the national parliaments and the european parliament. the former complain that they have been relegated to the rank of chambers for rubber-stamping decisions taken elsewhere, including the european parliament. the latter wants to preserve and even increase its democratic powers, something often taken badly by the national parliaments, which are afraid of losing even more of their own powers. faced with that ill-feeling, i think that the neyts report is an excellent clarification of this issue and shows that the european parliament and the national parliaments have the same fight to fight: that of democratizing europe. this report shows above all that instead of rivalry, we should talk of complementarity. the national parliaments have an enormous wasteland to cultivate. it includes all of the council's legislative activity, that of the national governments and the whole area of intergovernmental cooperation. having sat in my national parliament before becoming an mep, i can testify to the difficulty faced by national parliaments in committing themselves to european politics. apart from the small number of mps very much committed to european politics, most national mps are barely interested in it, not for lack of political will, but for a whole set of practical reasons. often, the national parliaments have neither the time nor the means to follow the development of european issues. many things are complicated, bureaucratic, in europe, and the simplification of the treaty, we can predict, is not going to be done straight away. transparency has never been the key word of european construction. all that could facilitate the work of national parliaments should be done, but i should like to put people on their guard against a recent trend in certain countries, in certain national parliaments, which consists in wanting to create a new institution out of the national parliaments. adding to the number of assemblies has always been a democratic retreat rather than an advance, as each assembly tends to develop its own lease of life and wants to assert itself to the detriment of the others. let us find ways of understanding each other, cooperating, respecting each other's competences, facilitating our respective work. once again, mrs neyts' excellent report is a major contribution to that. mr president, i cannot help getting the impression, when i travel around, that there are two europes. there is a europe of the institutions, i.e. the commission, the council of ministers and parliament, on the one hand; on the other hand, there is the europe of the people. i feel that here too, on the eve of the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference in the netherlands. thus the problem of understanding the interests of the general public is still there. also, what is often called eurospeak, now as ever, acts as a barrier to ordinary people. the language of the eu hardly catches the imagination, and it is full of acronyms of all kinds. one sometimes gets the impression that the institutions are in some spaceship far above the earth, communicating with one another in a special coded language. we can pick it up here on earth, but cannot understand what it is about. it is full of terms like subsidiarity, variable geometry, comitology and the like. the result is that people find it uninteresting and sometimes downright annoying. that is the reaction in news offices wherever you go. precisely in such a context it is important to highlight the role of the national parliaments: quite simply, they need to discover europe. the national parliaments are after all closer to the people than the european parliament, so the obvious thing is to use the national parliaments to make the whole system more relevant to the people. as has been so forcefully pointed out here today, it is necessary. and i say all of this in the recognition that what we regard as national home affairs policy has in crucial respects also become european home affairs policy. precisely as an extension to this recognition, it is important to involve the national parliaments in the european context, so that they do not just hover out there like satellite stations. hence my support for this report, which is a good and practical contribution to strengthening the role of the national parliaments, also in relation to the european parliament. mr president, of a report intended to be part of the grandiose work of european construction, we expected a hymn to joy. instead we have a pop song for school girls, with a fashionable refrain, repeated fifteen times over, about the democratic deficit! the old parties have just discovered the summer hit for 1997, just as last year they did the same in belgium, after digging up the bodies of four little girls - they discovered the summer hit for 1996, the breakdown of justice and its institutions. dear liberal colleague, dear compatriot, you know that it is pathetic to speak about the democratic deficit these days. when, for example, most european parliamentarians and federal parliamentarians in belgium tolerate the fact that, in our country, the elections, both national and european, are systematically fixed by taxpayers' money which all parties receive, apart from mine, the front national, by the media in belgium where the press is free but subsidized, by the courts which ban the front national list for the senate for no good reason - and tomorrow, why not, the list for the european parliament - and by the authorities which regularly throw my party's militants into prison just because they want to brush aside corrupt politicians and finally give people a say in things. i might still vote for the neyts report, however, because it is even more beautiful than it is useless. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, my ceterum censio has nothing to do with the destruction of carthage. it is, rather, directed against the lack of transparency in the union, its lack of closeness to the citizen and the existing democratic deficit. i should therefore like to offer my sincere congratulations to the rapporteur. even though i cannot share her opinion on everything, i have admired her work on this report in committee - her circumspection, her sharp eye for essentials and, not least, her stamina. in my opinion, acceptance of the european idea - and, of course, opinions may differ as to what form that idea should take - will be crucially dependent on overcoming the problems listed in the report. only an increase in democratic control, and especially a working involvement of the national parliaments, can ensure that the european idea is put across to the citizens of the various member states. but the absence of these proposed improvements will mean a further increase in the existing euroscepticism, even without any contribution from those right-wingers mentioned - perhaps by force of habit - by mr corbett. mr president, the european commission believes, and has already stated on many occasions, that the national parliaments must play a major role in the process of democratization, in particular of the european community. that is why the neyts report is of capital interest. the role of national parliaments is important primarily because they have to ratify any changes made to the treaty and they also have to approve the main decisions taken by the council. secondly, the national parliaments can help to reduce the democratic deficit by exercising democratic controls over their own governments. that is important in areas where the decision-making process is still essentially an intergovernmental matter, such as the common foreign and security policy, as well as justice and internal affairs where, like the european commission, i feel that the european parliament's role is still too limited. well-informed national parliaments can play a major and useful role in the current decisive debate on european integration. we cannot over-emphasize the importance of involving national parliaments more closely and especially not excluding them, and thereby turning them into precious and highly thought-of allies in terms of this process. that does not mean to say that we should further complicate the decision-making process nor slow it down by creating new institutions and structures. for all of these reasons, i go along with the political message contained in the neyts report which stems from discussions according to which a certain number of measures have to be taken at the intergovernmental conference and elsewhere in order to strengthen the role of the parliaments of member states of the european union and to optimize their collective influence, while respecting the single institutional framework, without creating new formal structures nor undermining the constitutional provisions or parliamentary traditions of each nation. i fully approve this point of view. by way of conclusion, please allow me to add a few words on the intergovernmental conference. it seems that the role of the national parliaments is to be extended by means of a protocol on two major aspects. first of all, national parliaments must be better informed of the union's activities by granting - as mrs neyts has already emphasized - a four-week period for them to examine the commission's white and green papers as well as legislative proposals. the second aspect concerns the consultative role of cosac which has already been mentioned. this structure must be strengthened, in particular in terms of subsidiarity, justice and internal affairs. we think that the measures aimed at strengthening the controls exercised by national parliaments should remain principally the responsibility of those parliaments and that they can help to fulfil their role within the european union with greater effectiveness. thank you very much, mr commissioner van den broek. the debate is closed. thte vote will take place at noon tomorrow. legal and judicial area to protect eu financial interests the next item on the agenda is the debate on the oral questions tabled by mrs theato on behalf of the committee on budgetary control and by mr bontempi on behalf of the committee on civil liberties and internal affairs to the council (b4-0168/97) and to the commission (b4-0169/97) on the establishment of a european legal and judicial area to protect the european union's financial interests against international crime. mr president, madam president-in-office, commissioner, these two oral questions follow on from the knowledge obtained during the hearing in april on the legal protection of the eu budget and therefore of its tax revenue. at the same time, they constitute an urgent appeal to the intergovernmental conference to adopt effective measures to combat the problem of fraud. that hearing produced conflicting information. first, there are already a number of instruments to deal with fraud, corruption and international organized crime. examples include the convention for the protection of the community's financial interests, with its first protocol on the corruption of eu officials and second protocol on money laundering. other proposals are on the table, such as the high-level expert group on international organized crime and the planned joint action by the commission against organized crime and corruption in general. i would remind the house of the reports by the member states on national legislation to combat fraud, and also of the notable study of a corpus juris on criminal law and criminal law procedures, which was produced at parliament's initiative. this makes it apparent that the ideal way of providing effective protection for the eu's financial resources would be a kind of european public prosecutor who could shift the obstacles to co-operation between the national legal institutions without violating the sovereignty of the states concerned. all these legal texts, proposals and studies show how sensitive the public is to the abuse of community funds and to international fraud. but if we turn to reality, we find it both disappointing and contradictory. although we have achieved a degree of protection in administrative law, through the regulation on administrative penalties and on-site inspections, we are lagging far behind in terms of criminal law. the convention i mentioned earlier, signed as long ago as 1995, and the two associated protocols have still not yet been ratified. indeed, i fear that it is becoming more and more improbable that they ever will be ratified by all member states. so these texts remain a dead letter. but even if all the member states were to ratify them, that would not automatically achieve balanced protection of the eu's financial interests. the fact is that some member states have let it be known that their legislation is already harmonized with the convention. that this is not the case is apparent from their own national reports. but even assuming that the convention were to be properly implemented, harmonization would still turn out to have feet of clay, because a number of aspects are not covered - such as the conciliation procedure, the limitation period, and the flow of information from administration to jurisdiction. clearly, we cannot sit back and wait for the possible ratification of what is in any case weak legislation. action must be taken, over and above the present framework. we therefore make the following demands. first, the member states must accept their responsibility and ratify the convention and the two protocols by next year; secondly, if this ratification does not take place, the commission should be called upon to propose more effective action. thirdly, the intergovernmental conference should, as previously agreed in dublin, reinforce article 209a of the ec treaty to give parliament the right of codecision. fourthly, the text of the corpus juris should enable the commission to phase in proposals on criminal law and the law of criminal procedure, having due regard to aspects of constitutional law in the member states. in conclusion, i appeal to the commission and to the member states, as a matter of urgency, to do everything possible under the existing regulations to combat fraud, so that the public -and we in this house - are not constantly being horrified by subsidy scandals, real or imagined. madam minister, madam commissioner, we tabled two questions to prompt this debate, which is really intended to raise another strong warning from the european parliament about the fight against organized crime, which everyone proclaims to be a priority, yet in practice little is done and what is done is not very effective. i think the reasons for this glaring contradiction between what is said and what is done are now clear. to put it briefly, we are in the presence of an international criminal situation, and the legislative, administrative and institutional framework designed to contain it has become generally obsolete. to counter this crime wave we find a static and alarming situation: fifteen national legal systems which are heterogeneous in substance and procedure, and between which there is no effective and rapid communication. and all the vast array of treaties and administrative and legal cooperation conventions that have been signed is not worth much if these instruments frequently remain the dead letters denounced by mrs theato. so on one side there is speed and incisiveness - unfortunately on the side of the criminals - and on the other there is delay, discontinuity and inefficiency. so, especially after the hearing we have held, and after the strong warning that has reached us from the seven european judges who launched an appeal from geneva just a year ago, it is clear that, given these difficulties and this powerlessness, we need to consider new instruments for a european legal area, new instruments for the european taxpayer where fraud is involved, but for the european citizen full stop in terms of the way this organized crime affects their safety. we have received suggestions and pointers. i think some of these absolutely must be kept in mind and we must seriously think about converting them into reality, into concrete provisions. i refer to lifting banking secrecy when international assistance is requested, introducing rules which would allow a european judge to talk directly to his colleagues, without going through tortuous, lengthy and wearisome procedures, and the importance of new common types of offence, especially where economic crime is concerned. in truth we have adopted plenty of instruments in recent times. i want to mention, over and above financial interests, that something interesting has happened: a convention on corruption has been approved, there is the commission's communication on anti-corruption policy in general, the council is making a major drive against organized crime, and, amongst other things, a convention on mutual legal assistance is also being discussed. we do not undervalue either the content of the political importance of these acts, but - i want to stress this - without a revolution, cultural as well, which goes beyond traditional instruments of international law and also beyond the historical nationalistic inertia which characterizes the legal systems, it will be very difficult for the measures, however good, to produce satisfactory results. the case of the conventions is a disturbing warning: we have so many, but there they are, they lie there, they await ratification, they are not operational. so i think the moment has come, with these questions, with this debate, but above all faced with the appointments which await us - the ratification of the conventions, but most of all the intergovernmental conference and then the opportunity offered us by the corpus iuris - for a great qualitative leap. it is time to move from declarations, from statements, to action. legality and protection, both of the taxpayer and the citizen as such, themselves indicate the path we must follow. there are four courses of action, which are clearly contained in the motion for a resolution. the first is reform of the third pillar: it is not very democratic and it is not very effective either. we expect important results from amsterdam on this, although the text we have seen is certainly far from satisfactory. the second is an extraordinary initiative that this parliament is ready to take to obtain ratification of the outstanding conventions. the third is experimental, at least as regards the financial interests of the community: drafting common legislation on law and criminal procedure contained in the corpus iuris . here too it should be stressed that this must operate with every democratic guarantee, the guarantee of parity for the prosecution and the accused, but certainly something must be done in the direction of common legislation. the fourth is giving the uclaf the functions of coordination and technical support to the national legal authorities. these are the four courses of action that the european parliament is indicating. we are not a parliament which just complains, we are also a parliament which believes it has practical proposals to make on these issues. madam minister, madam commissioner, please give serious consideration to the results of this debate and vote. debates have been held in the committee on budgetary control and the committee on civil liberties and internal affairs on setting up a legal area which would protect the financial interests of the european union against international crime. members of the european parliament, mrs theato and mr bontempi, have asked questions on this subject. you are emphasizing - rightfully - to what extent we need to combat fraud within the union. i support your position. this fraud costs millions of ecu every year and it is the member states and union citizens who pay. the council and european parliament support each other in the fight against fraud and crime. the council therefore thinks it is important to ensure a permanent exchange of ideas between the council and the european parliament. such an approach would be stimulating for both institutions. during the dutch presidency, this exchange of views has been fruitful. i have had the privilege of discussing on several occasions with the responsible committees in the european parliament the subject of progress made in negotiations within the third pillar, and also on the ground, in the fight against fraud. on this score, i have fortunately noticed that the european parliament also attaches considerable importance to this information and exchange of views. i am, therefore, happy to be able to discuss this issue with you here today. i shall also be willing to answer the questions put by mrs theato and mr bontempi. in my reply, i shall deal with the decisions taken under the dutch presidency and the council in the field of fighting organized crime in general. organized crime really is a growing threat to our societies. it is becoming harder and harder to maintain the values that we all find so important. that is being blocked by the fact that crime - as we all know - is increasingly transgressing the limits of the member states' jurisdiction. criminals are helped by new technologies. the free movement of persons, services and goods means that member states need to work out better methods to combat growing transfrontier crimes. however, we all have the impression, you and i, that we are going backwards. if we want to turn europe into an area of freedom, security and justice, we must all do our best to improve prevention and fighting organized crime. the council and the european parliament must throw themselves behind that aim. it is also with this in view that an action plan has been worked out at the request of the european council under the dutch presidency to take a european approach to fighting organized crime. this action plan will be subjected to the approval of the european council in amsterdam. on 28 april last, the justice and internal affairs council gave its opinion on this plan at an extraordinary sitting. this debate led to unanimous support for the content of this plan by the european union ministers responsible for justice and internal affairs. at this council meeting, i told my colleagues of the importance of proper parliamentary and judicial controls when measures aimed at combating organized crime are being worked out. i have conveyed to you the text of the action plan and held a fruitful discussion with the committee on civic liberties and internal affairs - as you recall - on the measures proposed in this action plan. it is now for the council to urge action on working out particular points in consultation with the european parliament. as you know, the action plan contains a large number of measures which should jointly help us to fight organized crime in europe effectively. it goes without saying that this european approach is necessary. you have insisted here on a rapid implementation of europol and i go along with that. i am not going to go into detail of the content of the action plan. you all know it sufficiently well, i think. however, i should like once again to emphasize the importance of this plan. it is a framework in which we should tackle fraud in terms of the european union's financial resources and as such i should emphasize the foundations of the european legal area within which the member states can cooperate in the best possible way, within the framework of their common approach to dealing with organized crime. the member states ought, of course, to be assisted in this matter by an effective europol. in my opinion, this is the framework and corresponding measures referred to by those two speakers. i should also add that they obviously know their limits, given the current structure of the third pillar. that also means that the council and the european parliament will quite frequently be discussing isolated measures worked out by the council and i hope that there will be a constructive and lasting cooperation between the council and the european parliament. i should like to add another word about the declarations made by mrs theato and mr bontempi on implementing these measures, something i have already said on several occasions: they are, of course, fine texts but what we really have to do now is implement them. the treaties must be ratified and the measures implemented. the states must therefore use these instruments. the questions put to the council refer specifically to the fight against fraud in terms of community funds. for many years now the council has been taking a great interest in the creation of effective tools. this interest is reflected in particular in the multiannual work programme on cooperation in the field of justice and internal affairs. in other words, the council really is taking this seriously. it also emerges from the fact that the most binding instrument in the framework of the current structure of the treaty on the european union is the conclusion of treaties. it is a great advantage for the judicial practice and relevant services of the member states. the precise definition of mutual obligations can only strengthen the effectiveness of that cooperation. however, there is a major disadvantage which has been highlighted by the members who put these questions. i repeat it here: entry into force depends on the state of completion of national ratification procedures. of course, it is a fact that these constitutional procedures are the very basis of our parliamentary democracies. that is a fact, but let us make it quite clear, you really must act quickly. on this score, the member states are consequently urged to speed up the ratification of the treaty on the protection of the community's financial interests by means of the first protocol. the council has answered this expectation by going along in full with the recommendations which emerged from this action plan. it is stipulated in practical terms that these instruments must come into force by mid-1998 at the latest. the second protocol to the treaty was examined at the meeting of the justice and internal affairs council of 26 and 27 may. we reached a political agreement on all the questions which were still outstanding. the second protocol i refer to contains regulations on the liability of corporations, criminal or administrative sanctions for corruption or fraud, sanctions applied to money laundering, the seizure and confiscation of advantages illegally obtained by means of fraud corruption and also encouraging cooperation between the commission and the council in this field of action. i must emphasize the importance of the liability of corporations, a novelty in european union regulations. consequently, this text is now ready for submission for signature and i hope that this signature will take place under the auspices of the dutch presidency. the judicial area cannot be achieved by treaties alone. both speakers also emphasized that. the council shares this vision which emerges from the action plan. i would not be fully performing my informative task unless i told you of the other achievements of the netherlands presidency. staff of the european community and member states of the european union have signed an agreement to fight corruption. they did so at the meeting of the justice and internal affairs council. this instrument is also a major weapon in the fight against fraud and corruption. activities on the draft agreement on mutual judicial assistance in criminal affairs - another important matter - have not yet been completed but we have made substantial progress on this. various detailed reports have also been drafted, for example on the treaty on the protection of the community's financial interests and the agreement on extradition, which should in any case make it possible to speed up ratification procedures. all the instruments i have just referred to are, together with the framework offered by the action plan, the best means of achieving an efficient protection of the union's financial interests. in this respect, measures aimed at fighting fraud and corruption are being complemented by other measures to fight organized crime. there is still a lot of work to be done but this does not seem to be close to changing. in my opinion, the european parliament is going to play a lasting role in these developments. mr president, minister, ladies and gentlemen, a great deal of work has been undertaken in recent years to improve the protection of european union financial interests. the fact that the fight against fraud in the eu is now considered a clear high priority task demonstrates that this work has yielded results. there is no common legal framework in europe which regulates all matters involving fraud. this, in itself, is only natural, of course. in many cases we are talking about areas where previously there has not been any particular form of co-operation at all. i agree with those who say that a lot can be done to improve co-operation between the existing legal systems but i am also convinced that we must be open to change where this is required. the agreements which have been concluded in recent years must be viewed as a big step forward in this area. i refer particularly to the convention on the protection of community financial interests. a great deal of effort was required to reach agreement on this issue. i am as concerned as mrs theato and mr bontempi about the fact that this convention has still not been ratified. after all, two years have passed since it was signed. i can assure this assembly that i will take every opportunity open to me to remind the member states how important this is. i will do this not only at council meetings but as a general rule every time i give an interview, write an article or give an address during a visit to a member state. of course it would help enormously if you, ladies and gentlemen, would also put pressure on as many people as you can in the course of your contacts with national governments and parliaments. as you know the slow process of ratification is a problem in other areas as well. so far only great britain and denmark have ratified the europol convention and only great britain has ratified the extradition convention. everyone is aware that both of these instruments will have an important role to play in the future in the fight against internationally organised crime in europe. so it can be very difficult explaining to people why it is taking so long for these conventions to come into force. it is my conviction that the methods of working which we have at our disposal are not effective enough. this is also the reasoning behind the commission's proposal to transfer everything except police co-operation and criminal law from the third pillar to the first pillar in the governmental negotiations which are currently underway. furthermore, co-operation on those areas which remain in the third pillar must be made considerably more effective. i have also seen, just as mrs theato pointed out, that there is also a proposal to the intergovernmental conference to give article 209a greater force. i expect and hope, just as you do in this house, that the summit meeting in amsterdam next week really will give us the tools we need. i also welcome the fact that the top level group, in their action plan on internationally organised crime, have strongly and clearly reiterated how important it is that the ratification process is finalised as quickly as possible, and that a timetable for this has also been proposed. this particularly applies to the three additional protocols to the convention on fraud on which there is now agreement and which concern corruption, notification and legal aid. this latter protocol was agreed, as minister sorgdrager said, at the meeting of the home and justice ministers on the 26-27 may. it concerns issues such as money laundering, legal aid and the opportunity to demand accountability of legal persons. this would mean that the commission, for the first time, would have a role to play in criminal law proceedings. although this is only a limited role i still see this as a big step forward. as far as the commission is concerned, we will of course continue to develop those instruments required to protect the eu's financial interests in the best possible way. we have already proposed regulations on the mutual recognition of evidence, direct co-operation between legal authorities, centralisation of the legal examination of fraud cases and the introduction of a register on fraud committed. all of these proposals will be raised for discussion during the autumn. the 1996 report on fraud to the council of ministers and the european parliament clearly shows how difficult it is to legally examine cases of cross border fraud. there is an obvious risk that the lack of proper co-ordination, both at a national level and between member states will lead to such divisions that a legal trial would be impossible in practice or in any case would not give a result. it is precisely for such cases of cross border fraud that the uclaf should strengthen their competence in criminal law. by introducing a legal co-ordination unit, what we would call a judicial interface, consisting of a judge, a prosecutor and other legal experts, uclaf would be able to exercise the current well managed co-ordination role and could also have a supportive and advisory function towards the member states. mr president, the commission will naturally examine the themes which are taken up in corpus juris, in other words in the study which has been carried out at parliament's request and in which the commission has been an active participant. the introduction of a european public prosecution function which has the right to pursue criminal cases involving the protection of the union's financial interests is an enticing thought. it goes without saying that there is room for further initiatives to improve the conditions for legal aid and in the exchange of information in cases of criminal law. mr president, thank you for allowing me the floor again. first, let me once again offer my sincere thanks to commissioner gradin - she knows how much we always value her support, and her resolute approach. rome was not built in a day. but i do have one specific question for the president-in-office, whom i also thank for her remarks. perhaps i did not fully understand what she said. mrs sorgdrager, can you assure us that you expect the protocols, and the convention too, to be ratified by mid-1998, or were you referring to the protocols alone? that would be somewhat unbalanced, because, in principle, the convention itself is the basis and the protocols are supplementary to it. perhaps you can answer that question for me. mr president, it is a fact that we have jointly agreed in the action plan that we will make sure that treaties and protocols are ratified by mid-1998. do you want a guarantee? i will have to answer that it is impossible. obviously, i have no control over the procedures in the other member states but we have reached a common agreement and i therefore hope that everyone will stick to it. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am most grateful for that frank answer by the president-inoffice, admitting that she can offer no guarantee of the implementation of her own programmes. that merely confirms what the previous speakers - the chairman of the committee on budgetary control and mr bontempi - have already said about this whole problem. commissioner, you need have no fear. we shall talk about this subject at every opportunity, because we as members of the european parliament do actually see ourselves as representatives of europe's tax-payers, and it displeases us greatly to see the hesitant and vacillating progress made by the european institutions towards completing a european legal framework. the european commission's 1997-98 anti-fraud programme uses a very cautious formula to describe the study of a european legal framework, a corpus juris , that has been called for by the european parliament, saying that it will examine what concrete conclusions can be drawn from this initiative for co-operation with the judicial authorities. we in the european parliament have known since the hearings by the committee of inquiry into the community transit system, if we did not know before, what conclusions we want to be drawn: we want a legal system which finally measures up to the needs of the european single market. i have heard a great deal in this house about europol and the treaties that are supposed to be coming, and i hope they do, and about the conventions between the european member states. perhaps i could quote a somewhat primitive example from the report by the committee of inquiry, which dates from may last year, so that it is quite up to date. it cannot be right that, as stated in this report, that people responsible for large-scale fraud - the sum involved here was 8 million - cannot be brought to justice because there are no arrangements for the mutual recognition of evidence. as there may be interested listeners and european citizens in the gallery, and perhaps this corpus juris should be delatinized to some extent, let me quote very briefly from the report: ' the first two counts in the indictment were dismissed because the judge did not allow the certified translation of the spanish law to be produced in evidence; this evidence was to prove that the accused had committed a serious offence against the spanish law, but the judge felt this was insufficiently clear.' the whole thing takes place at a level which is quite inconceivable to many of our fellow citizens today. nor, probably, can they imagine that, in a common internal market at the end of the twentieth century, attempts are being made to protect the interests of the market players, and of the tax-payers, which, when charges are preferred, involve requests for judicial assistance being circulated back and forth through diplomatic channels as they were a century ago. in the past, i think, the member states of the european union have stood idly by and watched as the european single market developed into a single market for fraud as well. today, when that single market is to be consecrated by the introduction of a single currency, those same member states seem surprised that our fellow citizens are less and less inclined to trust the problem-solving abilities of the european institutions. as the representatives of the european tax-payers, we are not going to give up - we are going to continue denouncing, more and more forcefully, the failures of the various institutions and of the member states. and we are not going to be bought off with vague, non-committal declarations of intent. anyone who is in favour of the single market has to go a step further and be in favour of protecting it! mr president, in terms of effective organization, the european community's efforts to combat organized subsidy fraud is roughly equivalent to michael schumacher trying to win a formula i race in a horse-drawn cart. this is not the fault of the european parliament. there are knowledgeable members of this house, notably mrs theato and mr bontempi, who have long been trying, with a wealth of knowledge and persistence, to make something happen. so this charge has to be laid at the door of the council. after all, it is really endearing when mrs sorgdrager refers to the mutual exchange of ideas between parliament and the council, but i cannot help suspecting that this cosy chat will leave organized crime somewhat cold, and will certainly have no impact on its activities. and it costs little to talk about europol at every opportunity, especially when the convention which is supposed to provide the basis for europol has not even been ratified yet. the reason why our organization is so wretched and so detrimental to the reputation of the european union is that we are talking here about system failure. we have vested the european community with powers of disposal over money. but we have failed to give it the authority to defend that power of decision against abuse, by making use of the criminal law where necessary. that situation does not exist in any member state. there, whoever has the power of disposal over money can haul the perpetrators of fraud before the courts and have them sentenced. the european community cannot do that; it has to rely on the council, on the individual member states, to do it, and that is precisely where the system breaks down. for the community to take action under the criminal law supposedly violates national sovereignty. since the most important power of government, the power to distribute money, has already been transferred to the community, it would only be logical if, in addition to that power, the community were to be authorized to protect that money by recourse to the criminal law. because any other approach is ineffective. we know that from experience, and from the comic if appalling example that mr bsch has just quoted. so unless we are prepared to ensure that the community has criminal law jurisdiction to act in certain areas where it already has responsibilities, then we are always going to be impotent to deal with the criminals. and that is a responsibility that no one can really take. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, yet again we are dealing with the scourge of fraud. we have set about this a hundred times over, but we have to admit that the results have been few compared with the size of the problem. i would even say, without irony, that the problem is so great that we cannot even assess the size exactly. what does fraud represent? 5-10 % of the european union budget, according to estimates, or even more. billions of ecu, in any case, which stray every year from the european union budget. we know that fraud can be found everywhere, that it rots away at community policies, especially the eaggf but also the structural policies, the union's internal policies, like tourism. the european parliament's ad hoc committee of inquiry into community transit, which conducted a remarkable piece of work, revealed that as the european union's single market works it has become the favourite playground for international crime. so who is to blame, you ask? it is sometimes hard to establish responsibilities, which lie in many quarters, but one fact seems significant to me. the european convention on the protection of the community's financial interests, signed in july 1995, has still to be ratified by the member states' parliaments. it is therefore not operational and even useless. at best we might expect it to be ratified next year. is that serious? the ambitious plan for combating fraud, indefatigably demanded by the european parliament and well defined by the commission has broken down because the council, by its attitude of profound inertia, opposes all progress. when it comes to fraud, the council and the member states are more concerned with protecting themselves from commission prerogatives than with the bold deeds of the fraudulent. they have chosen the wrong adversary and that error will cost the european union's finances dearly. the real difficulty is the absence of political will in the council. it is the member states which see to the execution on their territory of nearly 80 % of community expenditure and they should recognize that the union's institutions, the commission in particular, have genuine, undeniable rights to control and intervene in the running of the union's own resources, given that community money is going missing. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to hope today for once that the council will make an explicit and courageous commitment. europe's credibility in the eyes of its ordinary citizens is at stake. do we really want the sieve to be the image of europe? mr president, this debate is getting to be a wearisome business - after all, it is nothing new. i find it depressing to hear time after time 'we hope.' , ' we believe perhaps.' , ' we expect.' . our answer from the president-in-office today is that we will perhaps get the convention on the protection of the community's financial interests ratified in mid-1998, i.e. three years after it was agreed. i am sorry, madam president-in-office, but to me, it sounds like yet another in a series of poor excuses from all council members, including those representing both your country and mine, for having done nothing to ratify the conventions. the fact is that the governments are dragging their feet on the ratifications. it shows a lack of respect for what they themselves joined together in deciding. it is all very well to sit round a table and agree on something and then not bother to transpose the text into their own legislation. i think what we are witnessing is a show of contempt for the problems we are grappling with. this conduct is in my view disappointing, and, as things look now, when the intergovernmental conference is still in progress, we do not even see any signs that the governments seriously plan to do something in this area. we need to get a change in procedures. it may well be - as you pointed out, madam president-in-office - that parliament has an important role to play, but our problem is that we have no decision-making power. if we had that, we would ensure that serious efforts were made to control fraud. but this situation is embarrassing. in conclusion, mr president, i appeal to our colleagues in the national parliaments to take a closer interest in this subject and to put pressure on their own governments. my colleagues have already asked the vital questions. so i would just like to take up one additional detail. the basic problem is serious fraud. what is the reason for it? i think that one important reason is that there is no sympathy for the eu and its money. if you go out and talk to people in eu countries you get the impression that the most important thing is to 'milk' the eu of its money and to get hold of any eu subsidies available. this creates an atmosphere in which any method of getting hold of eu subsidies is permissible. soon the loopholes also become obvious. of course this cannot be allowed to continue. but is the cure for this to give the eu so much more power in this area, when credibility for the eu, for europol, for conventions etc. is already so low? i think instead that we should have a 'clear out' of some of the subsidy rubbish which exists, establish clear rules on how eu subsidies are to be granted and ensure that they are not granted so freely. i think that drastic action is required in this respect. i wish anita gradin good luck - her work in the eu is now concerned with managing this problem and it will be no easy task. mr president, the proposals under discussion today prefigure the inclusion in the treaty of a legal base for anti-fraud regulations, to give shape and effectiveness to the political will to fight against fraud, which is damaging the community budget in a truly impressive way. but in harmonizing the existing rules and community cooperation, we want to keep our feet on the ground and ask the commission if it really believes, itself, in the ratification of the 1995 convention, given that the difficulty of coordinating the political will of the fifteen member states is compounded by the fact that the ratification is linked to two additional protocols, which do not relate to the responsibilities of civil servants alone, but also commit governments, members of parliament and institutions. mr president, in expressing approval for the initiative by mrs theato and mr bontempi, i would like to emphasize the merit of certain essential points. first of all, the fact that our internal frontiers are now completely obsolete in the face of the phenomenon of community fraud and the phenomenon of large and small-scale crime which has considerable technical and financial resources available to make crossing them easy. that is what makes this initiative so very important. secondly, legal cooperation and even communitarization have now been superceded as regards the current problem areas, and as regards the substantial differences that exist in the legal and juridical systems of the member states. so a european corpus iuris , a european legal area, is needed. but what i want to know is whether it is possible to set clearly defined criteria and responsibilities for taking criminal proceedings and whether there will still be the principle of parity between prosecution and defence. as long as there is, we will be creating an effective magna carta of rights and freedoms, as well as, obviously, security for the citizens. mr president, mrs kjer hansen has said that we have been holding the same type of debate for some time now which is becoming quite depressing. i am somewhat tempted to go along with this point of view because i think that the way in which the european parliament deals with the fight against crime is quite different from that adopted by the european council. it is not my intention to say that these two attitudes are wrong or that both of them are quite correct. you must therefore try to find a way of developing appropriate instruments in order to fight organized crime. 'appropriate' does not necessarily mean that everything must be put at european level but that we should at least put into practice what we have already agreed - and that is far from being the case as i said. from that point of view, i think and can confirm to everyone who has been looking into this problem: let us try to keep our feet firmly on the ground. in my view the most important - and here my reasoning is part of the current structure of the third pillar - is that we should implement our agreements and common interventions, that everyone should ratify them and when people say here that it is too slow i would say to them: i agree entirely. i am using all of my powers to make sure that this situation can be settled as quickly as possible in my country. i also know that we are not the first to deal with this situation, but i am looking into it and i hope therefore that the other member states will do the same. of course, we only have a text. then we have a convention. we have a treaty but it should not stop there. it must be implemented by means of practical measures which must be taken - this is the work of the police - in particular, on the basis of the legal possibilities created for that purpose. it is the system which is currently being exposed. nonetheless, i hope that that will work but we are going to have to be realistic. the third pillar activity is quite recent. since the beginning of this pillar's implementation, in other words barely three or four years ago, we have made some progress. not enough, i grant you, but we must realize that some progress has been made. what makes me angry is to see that a majority of the over 200 decisions that we have taken have not yet come into force. i would like to be able to have a control system in order to monitor, quite independently, whether or not the member states are really honouring their commitments. for me this is a vital point at this time. fighting fraud is a very delicate matter. it is relatively easy to syphon off european union funds but there is also the matter of the quality of the regulations. i am not only referring to true fraud but also misdirected subsidies, european taxpayers' money which is prevented from being spent as intended. these are also aspects that we will have to monitor to make sure that everything happens as agreed. mr bsch was obviously right when he said that fighting fraud presents difficulties. you only have to think of how to recognize everyone's proof. of course, this is a problem that cannot go on in europe. i agree. there are obstacles that we have to eliminate. the same goes - i am not going to repeat to this here but i did refer to it in my introduction - for mutual judicial assistance in criminal cases. it is, however, inconceivable in europe that we should come up against so many procedural problems which prevent mutual assistance in criminal cases. i have spent a lot of time on this question. unfortunately, i hoped that we were going to reach a final conclusion, but it is not the case, although we have made some progress and i would like to be able to predict an agreement on this subject around the middle of next year. mr giansily asked what the extent of fraud is. we ourselves do not know. that is one of the special features of illegal acts. we can never know the whole situation but we do observe what goes on and in what conditions fraud takes place. mr president, i am putting a supplementary question to the minister because i understand the concern for realism - i am a realist - but not when it becomes an excuse for maintaining the status quo . i would remind him that scandals causing great popular outcry in other sectors, for example the dutroux case in belgium, have produced intense acceleration of the process of agreement and understanding at european level in the fight against paedophilia or the trade in human beings. we should not have to wait for another scandal to break: the scandal of fraud is already there. i really wonder whether the time has not come to make a qualitative leap. everyone has said so. in a system which seeks to protect our resources, i ask the minister whether or not it is realistic to face up to the problem as it is, and not as we would like it to be, in other words using methods which do not have any effect. i do not think that i recommended maintaining the status quo. all i said was that we have reached a good many agreements and established treaties and adopted decisions which have not yet been implemented. i expressed my dissatisfaction with this. this is what i wanted to say. there is an agreement on paedophilia, agreements on fraud. now we just have to put them into practice. thank you very much, minister. i have received a motion for a resolution tabled in accordance with the terms of rule 40(5) of the rules of procedure . the debate is closed. the vote will take place at noon tomorrow. question time (council) the next item is question time (b4-0170/97). questions to the council. as they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together: question no 1 by mr jan bertens (h-0379/97) subject: eu policy towards china the human rights situation in china has clearly worsened during the last year and the eu, despite this fact, has failed to back a draft resolution on the human rights situation in china at the 53rd un human rights commission in geneva, thus leaving the eu without a common policy on china for the first time since the massacres on tianenmen square in 1989. how does the council intend to react to the punitive actions of the chinese government towards the netherlands and denmark? what measures does the council envisage taking to ensure a strong and coherent union policy in the future, and to avoid a repetition of the events in geneva? does the council agree that we have to resist the chinese attempts to get the arms embargo lifted? question no 2 by mr per gahrton (h-0380/97) subject: eu policy on china the eu failed to unite behind a joint draft resolution on human rights violations in china at the recent meeting of the un commission on human rights in geneva. four of the eu's larger member states chose to allow their actions to be determined by commercial considerations. together, they form a blocking minority in the council, so that, if the eu adopted a more unified approach to foreign policy, they could have been able to prevent a resolution from being tabled. however, denmark, supported by the netherlands, which holds the eu presidency, has now tabled the resolution, as a result of which china has retaliated against both countries. what conclusions does the council draw from what has happened? if the eu is increasingly to speak with 'one voice', how will it be possible in future to stop larger eu member states preventing small member states from taking action to promote human rights? what can be done to prevent them from taking account only of their commercial interests, whilst small member states, which take democratic ideals seriously, face diplomatic and economic reprisals? here is my answer to these two questions. at the meeting of the united nations committee on human rights in geneva, the european union will submit to a far-reaching examination its current information sources concerning the human rights situation in china in order to adopt a coherent approach in the framework of future policy, thereby taking on board the various points of view of the member states. this process of evaluation of policy will take place over the coming weeks and months in the appropriate fora of the european union's council of ministers, such as the council regional working group, the council working group of human rights, the political committee and so forth. the questions put by the honourable members of the european parliament will be attentively examined during those debates. the european parliament will be informed in due time of the outcome of the debates held in the council of ministers on the assessment and drafting of a coherent european policy on the human rights situation in china. mrs van dok-van weele, welcome to the european parliament. we sincerely thank you for giving us this official answer. i would like to put a supplementary question: what genuine instruments does the council wish to implement in order to respond more satisfactorily to chinese economic pressure, which is genuine pressure? can you think of any other solutions apart from setting up various committees and working groups or study groups? i think that the chinese situation has already been studied enough. i would tell mr bertens that when we refer to assessing a policy it has to be examined as a whole. in the current circumstances i would not like to pre-empt the outcome of the assessment that i have just referred to. this was really not much of a reply from the council. first of all it ought to be possible to give a proper answer to this question, which is what do we intend to do about the fact that several eu countries, including the president's own, have been the subject of reprisals from china. what else is solidarity for if we cannot get an answer to this question? secondly, i would like an answer to my original question on what will happen if we move further towards a common foreign policy. what opportunity will the smaller countries have to do as denmark and the netherlands have done with regard to china and in connection with the un commission for human rights? the larger countries will be able to vote down the smaller countries. is there a policy to cover this? you must, after all, have considered this point! judging by the extremely weak and empty response which we received here, i must say that it would appear that the council representative has not thought these matters through. i think that that emphasis was already laid in the first part of my answer. i specified the idea of taking on board the various points of view of the member states. it is, therefore, a priority to respond within europe, in the manner described, to the various points of view which currently exist. it would obviously be wrong to envisage at this moment in time such a consensus on a range of actions and possible political positions when no agreement has yet been reached. i have a question i should like to put to the representative of the council: is the plan you have put forward, for a serious study of the human rights situation, an area where you will introduce general principles that apply equally to all? because i too often have the impression that there are some states, china for instance, which are unpopular here, so that things are applied to them that are not applied to others. what we need is a common european policy. are you prepared to devise a european policy of that kind, which would then apply to all countries, not just one in particular? in order to reach a policy and a common position we must have all of the ingredients and the basic arguments of the consensus and it is precisely for that reason that i gave you this answer. it is absolutely useless to anticipate the outcome of this type of study and debate since that would offer absolutely no solution to what you call a common policy. madam president-in-office, european union relations with the people's republic of china are complex. the burning issue at present is that of the forthcoming handover of hong kong to the people's republic. this is highly paradoxical since the chinese authorities are honouring the sino-british agreements of 1984, whereas the british authorities have not as they have developed democracy which did not exist before 1984. however, the new decisions by the chinese authorities may mean that a democratic handover of hong kong in respect of human rights on 1 july 1997 will be possible, if the letter of pre-existing agreements is respected. does the council intend to adopt an approach to this situation? has it undertaken any initiative in face of the decisions taken by the chinese national assembly on the legislation in hong kong? i would like to, mr president, but my answer is not yet ready. it is an interesting question. i would like to answer it later on, either during question time if that is possible or later on, in writing. question no 3 by mara izquierdo rojo (h-0384/97) subject: job protection under the proposal for a regulation on the com in raw tobacco will the council give priority to job protection in the new regulation on the com in raw tobacco? what specific improvements has it in mind for the benefit of producers in granada, extremadura and other highly disadvantaged objective 1 regions? notwithstanding the clear concern with tobacco-growing in austria, on which the attention of certain eu institutions is so intensely focused, will the mediterranean countries be treated fairly? in response to the question on the raw tobacco com, i would like to recall that the council discussed the commission report on the matter at the beginning of the year. that report includes an analysis of the social and economic situation of the market in question and the outcome of the reform of this regulation which took place in 1992. it also contains a certain number of possible scenarios for a new community policy in this sector. in the light of the debate held in the council of ministers, i would principally point out the following points: first of all, all delegations expressed considerable respect for the commission report and the analysis of the situation on the tobacco market contained in it. as far as the approach to be taken, the objectives and main elements of a reform of the raw tobacco com, it was virtually unanimous even if some different points of view did emerge, concerning the extent of the reform and the nature of specific measures to be taken. finally, mr president, the commission has shown considerable consideration for the comment on the basis by the delegation. it declared that it would study these remarks with all the necessary attention in the framework of preparations for its formal proposal. to conclude, the council urged the commission to introduce these proposals as quickly as possible, as soon as it had all of the necessary information and data, including the european parliament's point of view on the report. once these proposals have been made, the council would obviously then have to take due account of the european parliament's opinion on this matter. madam president-in-office, your answer was most improper. it is improper for the council to answer in this bureaucratic, descriptive way to a question not referring to the report presented by the commission but a question about jobs . i want to ask the council: what are we going to do with the southern farmers, if they can grow neither tobacco nor oliveoil? my question is about jobs: what you in your speeches call 'the first priority of our policies' : jobs. yet, when you are asked about a huge reform of tobacco-growing, your answer is just 'bla, bla, bla.' . do you not think that preserving jobs has to be the condition, the basic premise of any actions provided for by the regulation to be approved by the council? please answer that question. what impact is it going to have? do you have studies? have you conducted them? what will the social and economic consequences be? i can tell you that in granada over 2000 families live off this crop. they do not live in luxury but this is their mainstay. how can you just answer by saying that the commission report is 'bla, bla, bla' ? you are in charge of the european union and you are stopping the european parliament from having any further powers. i appreciate the member's heartfelt arguments in favour of this cause, which does indeed deserve all of the european union's attention and i hope that the european union will recognize this later on, when the igc discusses the matter. but i will only answer the subject contained in the question. it is obvious that employment is on the agenda of everything that we undertake. i think that an employment policy does not always have to be approached as an item in itself but should also be dealt with as a whole - otherwise, arguments are always put forward when we are dealing with the agricultural policy, to examine the available resources but also the corresponding market and labour possibilities, in the limited framework of the local and current causes of a strong competitive position and the difficult position of competitors on the market in terms of prices. i go along with your insistence that the union take measures in favour of employment, but i do not agree when you say that all we do is speak and do nothing. that is unfair to the way in which this subject has been dealt with, and at the same time you are not doing justice to the information that i gave you in my answer. madam president-in-office, the subject of the importance of jobs in relation with the future of tobacco-growing in the mediterranean countries of the european union is a recurring theme in the european parliament - i myself have already asked questions about it to the commission and the council. today i wish to raise this matter again, since we now have the opportunity to discuss the com on raw tobacco. this is a worrying matter for many modest families, for example in the spanish provinces of granada and cceres, we are waiting for the decisions to be taken by the european institutions. we think that the solution is to reject measures to abandon tobacco-growing, for the simple reason that it would not lead to a drop in tobacco consumption but an increase in tobacco imports, with perverse consequences and increased joblessness in european tobacco producing areas. we think it unwise to change the premium or take similar measures. however, it would be more proper to increase the percentage for research funds from 1 to 2 %. you mentioned measures to be taken by the council. what can you tell us, mrs van dok, about those measures? it is not my intention to hold up the procedure that i described. i have already said that the council has urged the commission to put forward proposals as quickly as possible in order to take note of the necessary information, and once those proposals have been introduced to take into account the european parliament's opinion on this subject. i do not think it is a good idea therefore to describe in detail what i have already mentioned in my reply, in accordance with the usual and precise procedure. madam president-in-office, in my autonomous community of extremadura, tobacco has been of considerable economic and social importance for more than half a century. it is an objective 1 region, with a gdp per capita of 7322 ecu, and tobacco offers the population high levels of employment, generating intensive labour for most of the year, during both the growing and processing stages. 1, 600, 000 direct daily jobs are generated by the growing process alone, to give some idea; that is without counting indirect jobs generated by related activities. my question to the council - although you have already given an answer and i am afraid that you will give the same answer again, but i shall still ask it any way - is: do you not think that reducing premiums, as the commission document proposes, would wipe out many small farms in the southern part of the european union and only lead to bigger imports of tobacco, with negative consequences for farmers, who have no other means of earning a living? this is a committee entrusted with regulating the market and therefore it examines the place of a product, the location of the production of that product vis--vis the market as a whole and the way in which premia function in case of differences. in this respect, as i have already emphasized, we are also looking into the question of employment. i would like to insist on the fact that we should not conduct a superficial debate here when in fact what we need is a proper analysis and proper proposals. i have clearly described to you the current situation and although i can well imagine that you are concerned with precise aspects of the possible outcomes, nonetheless i wanted to ask you to stick for the time being to the elements of my answer concerning the procedure. as they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together: question no 4 by mr hans lindqvist (h-0386/97) subject: closure of the ericsson plant in norrkping in sweden, as in belgium, the social responsibilities of major undertakings are under discussion. ericsson, whose products include mobile telephones, is planning to run down its manufacturing operation in norrkping and shift the production of printed circuits to two multinational companies, sci system and solectron, in scotland. about 1400 jobs are affected, 700 of which are directly threatened by the move. newspaper reports, in 'tt' in sweden among others, claim that the scottish undertakings were set up with the assistance of regional aid from the eu. have these undertakings in scotland received economic or other aid from the eu? if so, why, in what form and to what amount? question no 5 by jan andersson (h-0400/97) subject: regional policy aid and the relocation of industry the workers at the ericsson factory are justifiably uneasy about their jobs since the undertaking has planned to shift the manufacture of printed circuits to scotland. trade union representatives have approached us on the swedish social democratic delegation for help in clarifying whether regional aid from the eu has facilitated the shift of production from norrkping to scotland. can regional policy aid, or any other form of community aid, have helped ericsson to set up in scotland, and if so, what lessons does the council believe should be learnt for the future distribution of aid? the questions put by mr andersson and mr lindqvist concern the possible consequences of community support in terms of regional policy on the shutdown of undertakings in general and the ericsson factory in particular, with a view to relocating production plants. as the honourable member of the european parliament knows, the structural funds are governed by special regulations adopted in june 1993 by the council. according to those documents, the management of the structural fund is entrusted to the commission by the council. that is why the commission seems better placed to answer those questions. more generally speaking i would like to tell you that the danish delegation has sent a memorandum to the council asking it to take a closer interest in the effects of the structural policy and regional public support, in order to monitor competition within the european community. we could also define the best way of helping the less-developed regions of the community by means of a structural policy, without that having negative effects on other parts of the european union. for example, forcing factories to shut down. this question was therefore on the agenda of the industry council of 24 april 1997. at that meeting the council invited the commission to report as quickly as possible on the matter. i think that a debate has therefore been started and can be continued in the second half of this year. in other words, your question is on the agenda. thank you very much for the answer even if i am none the wiser. i can understand that there are divisions of labour between the commission and the council but i cannot understand why the council has not tried to find out what conclusions the commission have arrived at during the long months since the question was asked. i would like to know why we cannot get a proper answer on whether companies in scotland have received regional political aid or other aid from the eu. this is extremely important for the swedish economy and for the thousands of people employed at ericsson. if it is the case that regional political aid has been paid to a company in europe which has then attracted workers to it but which at the same time has led to unemployment elsewhere then i would like a general answer to a general question: does the council think this is wrong and how will the council attempt to prevent something similar from happening in the future? i would also like a proper answer to the first question since it is crucial for us. i am answering these questions as president-in-office of the council and i would simply say that his subject was on the agenda of the industry council meeting and - according to the normal procedure - the committee has been invited to analyze the situation and report back to the council so that a solution can be found. the council cannot act independently on this subject since, according to the normal procedure, we must submit a request of this type to the commission which the council may consider to be of extreme urgency. i think that it can now be made a priority thanks to denmark, as the question asked by denmark has been well received and again been placed on the agenda by the usual means. i would also to say thank you for the answer. it is a good thing that the question is now on the agenda but this hardly helps the employees in norrkping - a town which has experienced major structural change and has a high level of unemployment - if they cannot get an answer to the question which they have asked us and which we have tried to get an answer to, namely whether regional political aid has been paid out in this case. i happen to know that companies in scotland have previously received regional political aid of 10 million during 1994 from rsa, regional selective assistance. my question is: has aid been paid out recently as well and if it has, has it contributed to relocation? if this is the case it will be extremely serious. both i and the employees in norrkping want an answer to this. a considerable misunderstanding is likely to come about not only about the procedure and powers but also the analyses. europe has indeed foreseen a support, a structural policy for the weaker regions, which does not mean to say that you should necessarily establish a direct link between the reason why an undertaking relocates and the fact that subsidies have been granted because these subsidies are designed to offset other weak factors in a given region. that is certainly why it is not possible to say every time something happens: prevent the undertakings from relocating by granting them subsidies, but instead you should look into the extent to which excessive competition results from subsidies, regardless of the fact that the region is receiving those subsidies because it is relatively undeveloped. it is not therefore possible automatically to establish a cause and effect relationship between a subsidy and the disappearance of an undertaking. i know that this is not convenient. we also have the situation in the netherlands, and so i shall not answer the question as to whether subsidies have recently been granted. we know where the powers lie. it is far more interesting to know to what extent analyses enable us to conclude that competition really has been upset in this sector and in what specific location. i heard that reply from the council with considerable interest. mr smith and i have an interest in this, particularly mr smith's constituency. it is nothing new for this to happen. what i am concerned about is, while commissioners flynn and wulf-mathies are fiddling with the rules, the dole queues in sweden and elsewhere are getting longer and longer. it is small comfort to the unemployed workers in sweden to know that the commissioners are studying the problem. i do not think this is good enough. would the dutch presidency look at the change in the structural funds policy when they come to redraft the rules, or would they assist luxembourg and the united kingdom, by writing in some kind of guarantee in structural funds to obviate much of this development and try and make sure that there is proper worker consultation and work involvement? there must be basic minimum standards of wages and conditions. one of the firms, ici, has a very bad record in this respect. first of all, i would like to repeat that the shutdown of an undertaking providing jobs in a given region is always painful. in fact there is generally a tendency to examine the obvious reasons for the relocation of investment in another region. i already emphasized in my first reply that it was too early to condemn the structural policy. i find the industry council's approach far more balanced, in other words carrying out a serious inquiry on the basis of a signal that you have given and on the possible presence of elements which can distort competition and their origin, including subsidies. legally speaking, when we have a good report and examine distorted competition then we can adapt the situation. you are asking me to anticipate a debate which has not yet taken place whereas discussions have now been completed concerning the activity of the commission and the industry council. following on from what the minister has already said, i would like to put two propositions to her. first of all, the main reason why businesses relocate within the european union is not simply because of structural funds or other incentives but maybe because people in those areas have the capacity to work harder and more efficiently and perhaps there is less tax to be paid in those member states. secondly, with regard to the question of utilizing structural funds in the way that has been suggested, yesterday we had the commission reporting on the abolition of duty-free, saying that it would allow for state subsidy for certain regional transport sectors to ensure that they were not at a disadvantage. but we all know in this parliament that any kind of subsidy, whether it is structural funds or state subsidy funds, cannot last indefinitely in the near future. maybe the council should now look again at some of its own decisions, particularly with regard to areas like duty-free and other decisions to exempt those areas from attacks of this kind. i think that the honourable member of the european parliament has raised a very interesting point which also supports my answer and points out that we should adopt a more analytical approach to the matter. i go along with the idea that support granted to less well off regions should be seen as a catalyst which can help us achieve a europe in which there is no more major structural lagging. from that point of view, he is right in saying that we should not believe that this policy is going to go on forever. i hope not. i hope that we are going to reach a situation in which we will have competition 'on a level playing field' . i thank the president-in-office for her reply. there is a little confusion here. regional selective assistance - perhaps the council can confirm this - is not drawn from any european union fund. it is primarily united kingdom government money. that does not deal with the issue. is it not true that you cannot prevent this sort of issue from happening? the reason we cannot prevent it is because of the economic system we live under. we know why it happens. we know, for example, my area is supposedly the beneficiary of ericsson's decision. but we are pretty confident that ericsson is not coming to scotland because it thinks that it can do us the world of good. it is because erikson's profits motives demand that. in general, how does it profit any of us in the european community if we deal with unemployment in one area by creating unemployment somewhere else? that is surely not the answer. the question was the following: how to avoid doing away with jobs in trying to get rid of unemployment. the questioner was quite right in saying that this is not just a question of european subsidies. excuse me if i gave that impression but this is a question of support from states themselves within the limits granted by the brussels system. if we went further we could even talk about illegitimate government support. we are speaking here of legitimate support which may be granted in a certain number of regions. in certain cases, an assessment is carried out in order to determine whether there is still sufficient reason to maintain that support for those regions. this approach has been carried out quite regularly on the basis of strict criteria, in particular in the field of employment and the general situation's explaining the relative delay. i think that even in the absence of the aid system, jobs will continue to be relocated. that is what we have seen in europe but also even more clearly in the rest of the world. some people examine the immediate results of a relocation: it is, of course, distressful for a whole region. on the other hand, we note in the netherlands that the globalization of our undertakings has led to a considerable strengthening of general prosperity and employment. briefly, let us not directly link the relocation of jobs to the aid policy. perhaps we should not consider the effects of these relocations solely in a european framework but also in the light of globalization. i agree with the council representative that there is continuous relocation; companies move and rapid changes take place. of course there is not an automatic link, the setting up of new companies depends on the economic climate as a whole. i wonder how to find out the facts on whether aid has been paid out to the companies involved. one of the most important tasks of the eu is to defend competition on equal terms. if it is proven in the study which will be carried out that the current eu structural policy distorts competition, and it is proven that competition in this case has been distorted, are we prepared to make reductions in structural policy so that it covers fewer areas and there is less money to dispense in order to restrict the harmful distortion and avoid setting old structural problems in europe in tablets of stone? i go along fully with mrs carlsson when she says that we need to follow the situation very closely in order to determine the effects of aid granted to regions which are less developed to such an extent that they are unable to take part in what i call 'competition on a level playing field' . what needs to be defined is exactly when aid is justified, appropriate and admitted and when everything is balanced. that is when we must say: now aid will have a distorting effect. that is precisely the reason and i am also referring to the commission's policy for which the choice of regions is so often submitted to a very strict evaluation based on certain criteria, including unemployment and a weak economic structure. as they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together: question no 6 by mr tony cunningham (h-0388/97) subject: joint action of 1 october 1996 adopted by the council on the basis of article j.3 of the treaty on european union on anti-personnel landmines what is the council doing to enforce the joint action of 1 october 1996? what action would the council take if there were an infraction of the joint action? question no 7 by mr wilfried telkmper (h-0399/97) subject: mines what is the council position vis--vis the brussels negotiating session of the ottawa process? is it prepared to endorse the brussels declaration?question no 8 by mr joan colom i naval (h-0432/97) subject: eu ban on anti-personnel mines fifty countries are taking part in the 'ottawa process', with the aim of signing a treaty banning anti-personnel mines. has the council taken any steps to join in this process? has the council taken, or does it plan to take, any measures at union level to bring about a ban on the manufacture, export, import or transfer of anti-personnel mines?question no 9 by mr john iversen (h-0433/97) subject: landmines now that the uk government has decided to ban landmines, what is the council doing to bring about a comprehensive ban in europe? what efforts is it making in addition to reach a common position on a worldwide ban, in preparation for the ottawa conference in december? as all of you possibly know, a common position on antipersonnel mines was adopted by the council on 1 october 1996. it is in three parts, as follows. the first part concerns the total banning of all antipersonnel mines and the implementation of all means possible to reach as quickly as possible an international agreement stipulating a formal ban. the strategy then contains the idea of extending a european union moratorium on the export of antipersonnel mines to exports towards all destinations. the final part, and the most complex, considers the elimination of all existing antipersonnel mines. we wish to act internationally and 7 million ecu have been earmarked for this and should be paid by the end of 1997. since this common position was adopted, the european union has pursued its implementation dynamically and following this position all of the member states adopted an agreement in ottawa along with over 50 other countries, which consists in general cooperation in order to reach as quickly as possible a binding international agreement banning antipersonnel mines. since then other conferences have been held by austria and germany, in keeping with the ottawa process. the brussels conference scheduled for the end of june is the main follow-up meeting to the ottawa conference. the european union feels that it is important to take part in the brussels conference, which is an initiative that will mark the turning point in the developing of activities following the ottawa conference declaration, something which the european union heartily applauds. alongside these efforts, the european union is also trying to have the conference on disarmament adopt a mandate aimed at negotiating as quickly as possible a binding international agreement within the conference with the objective of banning the use, planting, production and transport of antipersonnel mines throughout the world. that would give us an appropriate set of measures. just a few more words on the european contribution to the elimination of mines in an international context. to this end the european union recently took a decision to earmark 3.9 million ecu to the benevolent fund for the elimination of mines, at the united nations. this amount will be spent on projects in angola, mozambique, bosnia, croatia, somalia and tazhikistan. and a further 3.5 million ecu have been earmarked for community action in order to meet demands from regional organisations or the authorities of other countries. it has been agreed to earmark 2.07 million out of this to a regional initiative on mines launched by the southern africa development community. ways of spending the rest, some 1.3 million ecu, are currently being studied. as far as the member states' obligations to fulfilling common action are concerned, members of european parliament will know that article j.3 of the treaty of the european union, in particular, stipulates that community action is binding on member states which must adopt positions and pursue the action undertaken. that article also stipulates that, in cases of serious difficulties in the fulfilment of a common action, a member state must submit them to the council which will debate them and look for appropriate solutions. question time has been going on for about an hour now and, in that time, four people have already been killed or maimed by a landmine somewhere in the world. that is how desperately serious it is. we talk about mine clearance which is vastly important, and i appreciate all the work that has been going on as far as the european union is concerned. however, 100, 000 mines were cleared last year and 2 million new ones laid. you do not have to be good at mathematics to work out that, unless we have a global ban, the problem will never be solved. the most important conferences in brussels and then in ottawa are coming up. this is a tremendous window of opportunity to do something about this horrendous problem. what will the council do to ensure that all 15 european union countries will sign up to a global ban in ottawa, and what will it do to promote the idea not only in europe but throughout the rest of the world? i am pleased that you have again emphasized the urgency of this problem and its consequences. that is why i gave a very detailed reply concerning the various aspects of european union strategy. let us add this: alongside efforts made in the framework of the ottawa process, the european union will continue to try and have adopted by the conference on disarmament a negotiation mandate in order to introduce a total ban on antipersonnel mines. the european union will continue to defend wholeheartedly the rapid creation of an ad hoc committee with a negotiating mandate compatible with the union's actions. the european union believes that international efforts made in the light of the ottawa declaration within the conference on disarmament must be complementary. the european union will continue to look for every means possible to come even closer to working out a truly effective agreement as quickly as possible. i have a supplementary question on the budget, with a number of different aspects. we know from information received from the un that it will take 4000 years to clear the land mines in afghanistan alone. so the financial resources available to us are a drop in the ocean here. is the council going to increase those resources? you have come out in favour of a specific prohibition, a total, universal prohibition. when is the eu going to set an example, and are there funds for companies which are still producing now to enable them to stop producing immediately? also, i have recently read that dasa dornier, a subsidiary of the armaments giant daimler benz, which produces mines, is currently benefiting, together with the french arms company thomson csf, receiving from the commission of the european union a contract worth dm 100 million for research into new military direction-finding and radar systems. the argument being that the systems can be used to pinpoint mines. we decided here that anyone producing mines, which includes daimler benz, should not receive any additional money for mine clearance. how can the council explain this? will it take action here to ensure that this money is not wasted for that purpose? i find that it is always very difficult to respond to questions that are so emotional by treaties. however, it is the only way of defining limits. why is the european union's strategy so good as a whole? because a various number of possibilities are allowed for. in the beginning you could say: you have to ban antipersonnel mines. but you must also ensure that they are no longer planted or used. a quite supplementary measure and one that can be controlled is to attack the trade in these mines, in other words the import and also export of this type of product. banning mines will indeed call for a great deal of energy. on that score, i think money but also technology and good organisation are extremely important. i am aware of the situation referred to by the member. i do know, however, that it is crucial for us to take advantage of all the experience that we have gained on the ground in europe and elsewhere in order to get rid of mines as quickly as possible and not waste any time on procedures. i think we really have to get down to work on this. madam president-in-office, it would be a good thing if the council were to turn to china in respect of the production of mines and their international trade. you said rather smugly that the european union has decided to spend 3 million ecu on this campaign. i do not need to remind you of the council's attitude over this matter for the 1997 budget and who it was who put in those 3 million ecu - the european union and its budgetary authority. i hope that the council will be more sensitive this year for the 1998 budget, at least your colleague in the finance ministry. i should like to ask whether, given that we are cutting back european armies, the council could not take the decision to send mine defusing experts into many of those countries. this is a constant demand, for example, in angola, where there is a lack of qualified staff to instruct mine deactivation brigades. could the council not take a decision to send that type of instructor to trouble spots? i must confess that i am not really au fait with the details of the systematic procedure for eliminating antipersonnel mines. in my reply i concentrated on our administrative activities - in other words, support for organisations which can act thanks to our financial support and other supplementary measures. please excuse me but i cannot give you a more detailed reply. as for your question about china. of course, it is important that the largest possible number of countries should subscribe to this agreement as was the case for chemical weapons and others. i will begin by thanking the president-in-office for her answer. i am glad that there is agreement in the council too that it is immensely important that these matters be discussed at the ottawa meeting. in relation to what has been said, i would like to ask: what progress has been made in the council in getting these things in place? as i understood it, you are agreed that we should have them in place, so what progress has been made in the negotiations on coordinating views so that it will be possible to arrive at a common position for the ottawa meeting? is it your view, madam president-in-office, that a situation will be achieved in which there actually is a common position in favour of a ban at the very important meeting in ottawa? briefly, with my approval and to my great pleasure, i can tell you that all the member states of the european union will be taking part in the forthcoming brussels conference. two of them, greece and finland, will probably be present as observers. all partners have approved the european union's coordination vis--vis the ottawa process. i should sincerely like to thank the minister for her enthusiastic reply. mr cunningham and myself are rapporteurs not for but against antipersonnel mines - or rather i would prefer to call them anti-people mines. you rightly refer to the ottawa initiative which will be continued next week in brussels and perhaps by the end of the year will lead to the signature of a 'wholehearted' convention, as it were. would the council like to comment on the fact that the true forum which should have been chosen, the united nations anti-nuclear conference, is still beset with differences of opinion between the united states and india over nuclear weapons? i hope that this is not going to be a bottleneck causing the ottawa convention to fail at the end of this year. i shall be brief for the interpreters. i go along entirely with your point of view and i too hope that this situation will not arise. question no 10 by mr arthur newens (h-0392/97) subject: the eu banana regime would the council make a statement about the future of the banana regime in the light of the latest developments? as mr newens knows, the wto panel recently made a negative declaration against the community in the framework of the dispute over the european banana import policy or the regulation of the markets. in accordance with existing procedures, the community has 60 days as of the date of the announcement of the panel report to all members of the wto to adopt a point of view. as you know, it is primarily for the commission to decide on the follow-up to be given to the panel report and in particular to decide whether it should be appealed against. the commission has already announced that it does intend to appeal against the wto panel's findings. as soon as the wto takes its final decision - because in fact it has not yet happened - the council will definitely hold - according to the applicable procedures - a debate on the consequences to be drawn from this final decision. of course, this is a matter of the main elements of the banana import policy, set out in the market regulation, while bearing in mind the european union's specific obligations towards the countries which signed the lom convention and, of course, the member states of the wto. in this respect, we should remember that the commission has already put two proposals to the council. first of all, the proposal of 8 march 1996 aimed at amending the common regulations governing the banana market. secondly, the proposal of 6 april 1995 which enables the acp banana producing countries to make provisional transfers of traditional category bananas and others between acp states within the same geographical region. this means - and here i am addressing in particular those who are not familiar with this jargon - that quotas can be modified. these proposals are still being studied by the council bodies, pending the outcome of the wto procedure. while thanking the president-in-office for her reply and expressing the strongest support for the decision to appeal against the wto ruling on bananas, in view of the devastating effect this decision could have on the fragile economies of caribbean and other countries, some of which rely in some cases for more than 50 % of their foreign exchange earnings on bananas, will the president-in-office do everything possible to ensure that we fight to the last ditch on this issue? is it not a fact that the real beneficiaries of the world trade organization decision, if it were implemented, would be american-based multinational companies which already control over 90 % of the world trade in bananas, and have we not therefore a duty, if we want to fight poverty in the world, to stand very firm on the agreement we made with the banana-producing countries? first of all, europe will do all it has to to defend its policy if there is complaint, a divergence of opinion or tensions vis--vis the wto panel. when you say 'pursue to the end' , i would nonetheless like to make a comment concerning the hierarchy of interests within the wto panel. we quite rightly set up the wto panel to deal with differences of interest, and i am not only referring to the interests of big countries but also to those of small countries such as honduras, guatemala, mexico or ecuador, in this case - so that they can have a reference in order to be able to react to any disturbance to their markets, in particular in order to face up to the bigger countries. in these matters, i attach considerable value to the fact that we now have a wto panel. that does not mean to say that because we are satisfied with the existence of that panel, we should not use it to defend our own personal interests. that is really the thrust of my proposal. madam president-in-office, i listened to what you said, and your words about the acp countries, but neither you nor mr newens mentioned community banana production, which now amounts to 720, 000 tonnes, produced in the canaries, madeira and crete, etc. for these regions, which have the scantiest means of defence, the disappearance of the banana would be like the disappearance of dairy cows in holland. i do not think that the dutch would like to see that happen any more than those regions would like to see the banana disappear. this matter is of important economic and social value. secondly, you know that the peaceful solution of conflicts at the wto is not carried out by a court of justice in the strict sense but the procedure seems linked to certain trade negotiations and i hope that the council bears that aspect in mind, i.e. the need for negotiations or compensations in order to solve this matter. i am sorry that i forgot european taxpayers even though i have just visited spain in order to discuss in detail this subject with my colleague there. i think that we are talking about two different issues, i.e. the status of the wto panel and taking into account wto declarations concerning market disturbances and the european union's position. the eu must still take a final decision in order to be able to defend its own interests through the wto panel. i think it is rather foolish to say: let us call into question the value of that panel. that is my opinion. i think by using a fairly good instrument our interests can be defended to the best possible extent. that will play a role in the case of bananas but also, increasingly, in the case of all products which are still protected throughout the world in the light of the agreements reached in marrakesh on the ending of subsidies, quotas and other limits and forthcoming negotiations on new tariff reductions in a whole series of areas. we must therefore be aware that international trade organisation is going to lead to changes in commercial relationships and new opportunities will arise on the same market. by referring to this specific situation i would like to repeat to you that we still have a possibility to appeal and we are still studying that. we do defend our interests on the wto panel, but the wto panel is a precious instrument in this area, not only for those who are accusing us today but also for the european union. i am somewhat bemused by the reply about the complaints and the appeal from the commission legal services because i have just done a bbc world service interview which says that the appeal has been lodged today. either the bbc is wrong or the council's sources of information are somewhat limited in this instance. i am very interested in what you say. i would like to know whether you consider that it would be a majority view in the council, including the view of your own country - the netherlands - that we should continue with a banana regime and continue to support the banana regime. i would also ask whether you think that it is appropriate that a country that has no direct involvement with the banana industry should be able to lodge a complaint in this way and to obtain a ruling of the kind obtained by the united states after they lodged their complaints. finally, i would also like to ask you whether you think it would be appropriate, now that apparently the appeal has gone in, for the acp also to put in a parallel appeal and for the european union to provide funding, resources and support for them in order that they can make their appeal as effective as possible. i emphasized in my reply that the commission has already announced its intention to appeal. i might imagine that you have concluded that this is therefore a decision. i have no other news. i do not see any major difference between mrs kinnock's conclusions in respect of the decision and my analysis of the situation. let us turn to the decision. at the moment - as i have already stressed - the complaints procedure is part of the commission's remit, which does not mean that the council should not take any decision nor that it should discuss any proposal. you would like to know the netherlands' point of view as a member state of the european union. i am afraid i cannot satisfy your demand, because i am not here to represent my country. i am trying to defend the interests of europe with a certain neutrality. the procedures for making a complaint or for appealing are carefully determined within the wto. they will, therefore, play a role in the new declarations to be made. you also mentioned the matter of funds, compensation, etc. this is a problem which calls for specific attention in the european union. it is not currently being dealt with by the wto panel's review procedure. question no 11 by mr felipe camisn asensio (h-0393/97) subject: 'open skies' air transport agreement between the eu and the usa can the council provide information, in view of the recent work carried out by transport ministers in this area, on the possibilities of reaching an 'open skies' agreement between the eu and the us on commercial air transport in the near future? mr camisn asensio's question concerns negotiations for an open skies agreement between the european union and the united states. my response is the following. on 17 june 1996, the council adopted the negotiation mandate enabling the commission to open, on the european community's behalf, negotiations with the united states on air traffic. one of the basic principles of these negotiations is the idea of a common air traffic area between the european community and the united states, and this agreement should ultimately replace the current system of bilateral relations between isolated european union members and the united states. since 1995, the united states has contacted several member states of the european union in order to reach so-called 'open skies agreements' , and some of those member states have reached agreements with the united states while others are still being negotiated. the european community's new approach, however, implies the organisation of structured negotiations with the united states which should in due time lead to an agreement aimed at setting up a common air traffic area. i should like to emphasize the fact that these negotiations will take place over a number of stages. initially the european community would examine with the united states the possibility of introducing a set of directives which would be applied to air companies based in the european union and the united states in order for them to be submitted to similar competition rules, the so-called 'soft rights' . if this led to substantial results, the negotiations could then move on to a second stage, that of regulating common air traffic as a whole, i.e. the so-called circulation or 'hard rights' . in this framework, the community, represented by the commission, and the united states held talks on 30 and 31 october in washington and 3 april in brussels. at the transport council meeting on 17 june, the commission reported on the results of the discussions which had been held so far. madam president-in-office, having listened to you, we are afraid that the negotiations are being stalled. secondary aspects are being dealt with and the real crux of the matter is being neglected, namely that of establishing traffic rights beginning, once and for all, with access to third markets, to benefit ordinary people. once again we see the overriding need for union in our european community - which you have begun and which i urge you to continue. it is obvious that if the 15 member states united their forces, the agreement would be a better one and strike a perfect balance between the united states and the european union, with neither winners nor losers. this is another great opportunity for the european institutions - especially the council - to show how agile and efficient they are. this agreement is urgent, especially with the possible - perhaps imminent - integration of american airlines with british airways, a group that iberia seems to be joining forces with, which is perfectly reasonable and understandable given the facts. could you tell us about this urgent matter? first of all, we need a certain dynamism in order to reach a good result on the basis of a 100 % win situation. i told you that the interest of these two stages is first of all to ensure that there are equal competition opportunities, the so-called 'soft rights' , before turning to a more extensive regulation which should enable us to reach an 'open skies agreement' . but quite a lot of factors have to be taken into account - as you very rightly stressed - including the question of the merger of airlines. that is one of the issues which comes into the first stage, i.e. the process of establishing equal competition opportunities. this is, therefore, one aspect which will definitely be on the agenda during the first stage. in order to give the whole process a boost, on 17 june 1996, we adopted the negotiating mandate and i have just pointed out that the transport council meeting of 17 june has already reported on the initial findings of the process. as the authors are not present, questions nos 12, 13 and 14 lapse. question no 15 by mr sren wibe (h-0406/97) subject: follow-up to future elections in albania in the recent parliamentary elections in albania held in may 1996 there was organized electoral fraud which clearly favoured the ruling democratic party. international observers at the elections protested but there has been no diplomatic follow-up by any other european country against the albanian government. the result has been an authoritarian regime which did not draw the line at machinating its way back into power and has also systematically been involved in corruption and out and out fraud throughout the country. armed insurrection has been the result. talks are now taking place between the political parties together with the rebels. there is disagreement over the electoral system and the timetable for the rebels to disarm has been ignored. strong feelings have also been aroused over the question whether president berisha should continue in office. will this situation be repeated? will the eu member states react and demand new elections if there are irregularities in the forthcoming parliamentary elections in june? what is our threshold of tolerance of future electoral fraud in albania? this is my answer to mr wibe's question. the council has often expressed a wish for free and honest elections held in albania. recently, the general affairs council, meeting in june, expressed its satisfaction on receiving the declaration by the albanian authorities on the holding of elections on 29 june, calling all parties to take part in those elections with the promise of respecting the outcome of the ballot. the council has also stressed that this country's future depended, above all, on the albanian people. nevertheless, it is our duty to assist the national reconciliation government in preparing free and honest elections in which all the parties will take place, if possible on the scheduled date. the european union fully supports the efforts of the council of europe on this score, in particular the framework of the common position adopted by the council on 2 june on the basis of article j2 of the treaty on european union. in it, the council urged the international community to support the electoral process in albania by supplying the necessary number of observers. the european union also emphasized its support for the multilateral protection force which during its mandate will ensure that the elections take place in full security. if the electoral process were to be threatened by a policy of internal pressure in albania, the european union and the international community should review their position in respect of that country without any question. i would like to emphasise to the council the importance of maintaining a high profile on this issue. exactly one year ago, just after the albanian election had taken place, i asked the same question of the italian presidency as it then was. as there were clear signs of vote-rigging, i asked whether we should introduce some form of sanctions. i received the response then that 'this was not necessary, albania was already on the way to a democratic government' etc. now we have the results to hand. there was almost a civil war in the country. we have already seen some indications of fraud here and there. for example, i think that the so called 'car accident' which president berisha is supposed to have had is the work of his own staff to draw public attention to him. i would just like to ask the council: can you give a guarantee that we will introduce immediate sanctions against the government, if we notice the slightest indication of vote- rigging this time? i think that mr wibe is warning us against being excessively or glibly optimistic about this process. on the other hand, it is obviously very positive that elections are being held and that a balance might be restored, so that something can be rebuilt in the country. that is why i gave a positive response, but i was also careful in pointing out in my first sentence - i might even say that it was the safety net of my pessimism - what you have just commented on. however, for the time being, i stand by the answers that i gave in respect of the support that might be given to the country. mr president, the written question is, in my view, not a question at all but a horror story. but i do have a clear question to put to the council. first, is the council not also of the opinion that stabilization in albania includes striking a balance between the re-elected president berisha and the former opposition, which, i am happy to say, now forms part of the coalition government? secondly, how are elections to be held unless these armed bands in the south of the country are disarmed? and thirdly, how can democratic local authorities be re-established there? there is a danger that massive economic interests which support those armed bands will simply seize power from the streets. that makes it very important to re-establish democratic local authorities. you might interpret that as a question, but what you are describing is our concern and yours that the electoral process should be carried out correctly and everything that is related to that. i share that concern, but i simply wanted to demonstrate how the position of the european union and other bodies might actually lead to conditions and circumstances which might allow these operations to take place properly. i also said that the albanian people have considerable responsibility. once again i agree with you, but i just wanted to try to follow up my previous thoughts. that concludes question time to the council. questions nos 16 to 31 with be answered in writing. (the sitting was suspended at 7.15 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.) china-europe relations the next item is the report (a4-0198/97) by mr mcmillan-scott on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy on the communication from the commission on a long-term policy on relations between china and europe (com(95)0279 - c4-0288/95). mr president, this evening we are discussing a document produced by the commission - a communication on eu relations with china in the long term. the european parliament has taken a close interest in china and over a number of years has adopted many resolutions, almost all of them highly critical of china in many respects. during the time we have been preparing this report we have tried to establish a new way of working with china, and in particular with the national people's congress, against a background of hugely expanding trade with the people's republic, where all our member states are closely involved in the economic development that has taken place in china since 1978. but we are also conscious that china remains a one-party state - in some ways a tyrannous regime - and has been justly criticised, both here and elsewhere, for its human rights problems. however, the theme we have chosen for this report is not just 'business as usual' but also 'politics as usual' , seeking to underline that while we welcome the development of trade, at the same time we are seeking to establish some form of political dialogue with the chinese political elite. so it was, for the first time, we gave the delegation from the national people's congress, which visited brussels in april, the opportunity to discuss in detail the draft report. i was pleased they were able to do so - we sent them an advance copy and they looked through it in detail and, of course, were highly critical of certain aspects. it is important to try to engage the chinese in some form of dialogue, and so we based the report on the maastricht criteria, which are democracy and the rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms, and we hope that over time all these four conditions will find their place in chinese life. the commission is involved in the promotion of democracy in china, through the village democracy programme. the commission is involved, as are member states, in the promotion of the rule of law, without which human rights cannot operate in any territory. as to fundamental freedoms - the most basic aspect of political life - these are still not available in territories such as tibet, and we deal in some detail with that question in the report. we seek also a more cooperative approach with china. for example, an eu-china summit, raising relations to a new level and not just through the asem process. we would like to see a new trade and cooperation treaty replacing that of 1985 and including the standard human rights clause. we would like to expand the european union's programmes in china. at the moment they are not significant in monetary or, indeed, in real terms, and they should be much more addressed to the size of china and its potential in the world economy and, indeed, in world politics. we would like to see an office opened in china for the european business groups which wish to take advantage of the trade. but, above all, i have tried to indicate in my report that there is a great deficit in china: the so-called internal market does not function - indeed never has. the commission has a great deal to offer the chinese in the experience we have had in creating the single market in europe and in converting the economies of the former soviet union to market economies. we look at the experience we have had in operating the cfsp: the failure, for example, of the european union in geneva this april. we look to the resumption of the troika discussions on human rights with china. we would like to see added to that a six-monthly report, not just on human rights, but also on the economic aspects of our relations, to look in particular at the approach of china towards wto and oecd membership. these are all aspects which are covered in the report. of course, we deal with the transition back to chinese sovereignty of hong kong. we say quite specifically that we repudiate the legitimacy of the provisional legislative council and we look forward to the chinese honouring the promises they have given both to us and the international community in respect of hong kong's civil and political rights. i am grateful for all the help i have had from academics, business people, colleagues in the european parliament, the commission and parliament's staff in the production of this report. mr president, as we debate in this parliament, the american congress is debating too. i want to highlight the symbolism of this coincidence: perhaps the conference of presidents of our parliament has not really understood the importance of this strategic definition of relations between the european union and china, probably the most important political and economic issue affecting development and stability in the world at this time. it has not understood, because we are being forced to have a debate under these conditions, to put it politely, while in the american congress it seems this is a subject which actually draws crowds. this means we still have a long way to go before our parties, this parliament and indeed the european union, achieve full awareness of the importance of defining a long term relationship with china which is effective and useful for peace, stability, cooperation and development. today, with this report, parliament has the opportunity to start pointing the way forward for a comprehensive organic policy which is long term and does not consist merely of occasional though often justified denunciations but which fail to take account of the whole range of issues involved in relations with such a large country. china is necessary to peace, stability and economic growth. the right line is not to isolate china, a position which would anyway be virtually unachievable, given the size and, now, the international relations of that country. the right line is one of dialogue and cooperation applied with sincerity and clarity, gradually leading that country to weigh up the advantages of cooperation to its development, growth and welfare and also the advantage, to obtain all this, of respecting international rules on agreements and treaties, human rights, and the solution of certain major problems still outstanding, like hong kong, tibet and taiwan. engagement with china is the only possible way. i see that in the american congress mrs albright has upheld this view, which is also our own, and has mentioned four areas - i do not have time to cover them all - where china is, to a degree, entering positively and constructively into international policy issues. a very important one is its contribution to the approval of the nuclear test ban treaty, a second is helping control the instability on the korean peninsula, supporting peacekeeping operations in cambodia and elsewhere, the beginnings of effective control over exports of important and dangerous technology, and positive discussions, according to the americans, about china's entry into the world trade organization. i could go on. of course, there is still the human rights chapter. i believe it is right to create a clear, open and fair policy on china, in which a will to cooperate is announced and sustained. action must follow this and not accusations about differences, because i actually think intensification of relations and development of economic cooperation will contribute to shifting opinion even amongst the chinese leadership and lead to political changes which are already partly in progress. so i believe this is an important report. it does not exhaust our drive to define the right policy, which, as a parliament, we have only just begun, but it is a good start. mr president, adapting something that heine once said about germany, ' to think of china in the night puts all my hope of sleep to flight.' that is doubly valid here. all our plans for the evening have been put to flight by this important subject, but the important subject itself causes us deep concern. and the topics of foreign policy and foreign trade policy, which create so much debate in the european parliament, also include topics connected with china, with china's role in the world, and especially matters relating to those regions that are politically and/or culturally connected with china. mr mcmillan-scott has presented us with a comprehensive report, covering many different aspects. i should like to confine myself to one: human rights, which after all is the most critical for us. the attitude of the european union is becoming a test case here, not just as regards a common policy towards china but also as regards its attitude in future negotiations with other countries. many countries produce a hostile reaction if tackled on the issue of human rights. they will see our attitude to china as a yardstick. the mcmillan-scott report imposes requirements in the human rights areas that make our principles clear. in this sensitive area, especially, we should not become entangled in contradictions and so weaken the demands we make on other countries. economic relations are also political relations. anyone who sets his hopes on contributing to the democratization of a country is supporting that precise argument, but human rights are part of democracy. good relations with china are something for which we all hope, including in particular greater openness towards people in china. china, for its part, has expectations to live up to. the handover of hong kong will show how far it stands by its obligations under the handover treaty, which will provide a pointer for international co-operation. no one would dispute that the restructuring of a gigantic empire into a modern state involves many problems, especially in the case of a state which is home to many nations. but china's government should have the courage, too, to proceed towards the rule of law, human rights and democracy. thousands of years of chinese culture can give it the strength to do so. the same applies to its attitude towards tibet and respect for an equally ancient culture. and it applies, too, to a peaceful settlement of relations with taiwan, which is an area where trade relations really should lead to changed relations. mr president, i greatly appreciated the report by mr mcmillan-scott, but i share mr colajanni's view that this parliament is not demonstrating a serious attitude in holding the debate on such an important issue before a half-empty chamber, in competition with football matches and so much else. i agree with mr mcmillan-scott that a framework agreement, for example, should be reached on economic and trade cooperation, because i also feel sure that human rights tend to be better understood and protected in societies open to free trade and free movement of investment, persons and ideas. but i think the importance of the human rights issue cannot be understated given what is happening daily: illegal practices, systematic violation of human rights, growing recourse on a vast scale to the death penalty, even for minor crimes. many people are detained just for peacefully expressing their own political or religious ideas. well, we cannot keep quiet about it, or we would be false to ourselves, just as we cannot keep quiet about the fact that hong kong will provide concrete proof of whether the intentions of the chinese government are good. we cannot relax our vigilance over the maintenance of the provisions in force on freedom of expression, of the press, of association and of the right to hold demonstrations. whether a framework agreement with china is seriously possible soon will depend on this. mr president, the liberal group is satisfied in general terms with mr macmillan-scott's report. we congratulate him on it. the report accords considerable importance to relations between the eu and china and they are looked at from many angles. we are pleased that human rights issues have a central place in the report. in this connection i should like to stress that we must also be consistent in these matters. what we demand from china we must also insist on from others. on behalf of the liberal group i have tabled two amendments to this report which concern environmental questions. in the committee after the vote, a recital was adopted on a proposal from the greens stating that the west, including europe, should reduce the use and pollution of natural resources. in my opinion it is important for environmental issues to be included in the operative paragraphs of the report too. my first amendment aims to do this. the substance of the paragraph is the same as that of the recital already adopted. in addition, i am proposing a new wording for paragraph 9. the form of words i am proposing places the eu and china on an equal footing with respect to each other and is more diplomatic than the original version. i hope that i will have wide support from members of this house for my amendments. mr president, the first paragraph of the resolution on long term relations with china rightly points out that they should be based on cooperation rather than confrontation. unfortunately, the rest of the resolution heads in the opposite direction, with heavy interference in china's internal and external policies. the starting point for any cooperation consists in considering the partner country as a sovereign state. this resolution does not do that, and demands that china make social choices that are not its natural ones, especially concerning its territorial integrity. without giving ground on the concept of human rights, which the european parliament upholds, it would have been possible - and, i think, far more useful - to deal with this matter in such a way as to contribute to a positive evolution in china in this field, rather than make demands of it which are not even always respected by the european union's member states or allies. an historic step has just been taken in the case of the handover of hong kong, in the conditions of a positive negotiated settlement of a difficult dispute. there is not a single word in this resolution to salute that smooth handover, alas so rare in the modern world. the pressure demanded of the commission in favour of taiwan's accession to international organisations and the plan to open an information bureau in taipei would be provocative and irresponsible rather than favouring normal and balanced relations with china. none of this is reasonable and has nothing to do with the desire for relations based on cooperation and mutual respect, which would only be beneficial in terms of economic and social matters as well as human rights, peace and security. a lot has changed in china since 1995, even though many problems remain, and it is quite regrettable that the update of the commission's communication dating back to 1995 should be done in such a negative way. i hope that sino-european relations, a major challenge for the 21st century, will soon be looked at from a completely different angle. mr president, i must congratulate mr mcmillan-scott on an excellent report which is in no way vitiated by the fact that practically all of the amendments from the green group were accepted by the external affairs committee. as president of the china delegation i often have to listen to the complaint, when i am in contact with representatives of the peking government, that we pursue a unilateral and unjustified campaign against china. i think that this report makes it clear that we are laying the foundation for constructive co-operation, that we have noticed the small but nevertheless real improvements which have taken place in china while at the same time we openly and without reservation level the necessary criticism, which is absolutely justified, against the very serious shortcomings in the chinese system when it comes to democracy and human rights. we must continue in this vein. this is why it is all the more regrettable that it has been impossible to co-ordinate a collective criticism at government level in our respective countries. it is particularly regrettable that some of the larger states, with france at the head, have put free trade before human rights. this must be severely criticised by parliament. mr president, there are not many of us here but we have the pleasure of having the commissioner with us, which i think is particularly important. i do not say this for mrs moreau, but i think that when we speak of human rights we also speak of democracy and our aim is also to ensure that the world does not become one big singapore, with development but no democracy. our work as parliament is therefore to define a policy that helps to bring about democracy in china as quickly as possible. this report is, i think, a first important step in that direction. it will also enable us to harass commissioner brittan, but that is only a tiny part of the problem. i think that we all remember the serious events that have occurred in terms of defining a common european police for external matters, and the respect of human rights in china. we all recall geneva and the disaster that befell the union's policy. then there was president chirac's trip to china, where promises that we are still awaiting were made, and last week the italian prime minister, mr prodi, also visited the country and repeatedly told us that he would be very firm and would demand specific commitments by china over human rights. we are still waiting for a practical outcome to that trip. what i mean to say is that what we are doing here is very important but we have to be very hard on the council in the coming months - the council announced earlier that it is redefining its policy on china. if that policy is based on the mcmillan-scott report, i think that that would be a first step in the right direction. on the other hand, if that new policy is a confirmation of mr chirac or mr prodi's approaches, then i think we are heading straight for disaster. mr president, mr commissioner, i would like to congratulate mr mcmillan-scott on his report, which has kept to a realistic line and avoided the usual mistake in dealing with china of taking an ideological approach rather than a political one. in general there are two kinds of excess: the mercantilist culture and the radical culture. instead a more pragmatic approach is needed, the one our rapporteur has adopted, which takes account of the different history and the different objective conditions of a country with one billion two hundred million inhabitants, the weight of its tradition and of its enormous contradictions. so we need to make an effort to understand and support a possible transition, trusting to the culture of development and freedom: this is a more difficult path, but a safer one, and anyway it is the obligatory path. in the next twenty years we will have to reckon with china, which will be the greatest factor for change but also for uncertainty, so there will either be strongly absolutist and nationalist growth which will constitute a danger for the surrounding area and for the entire world, or progressive movement towards the market and freedom. a great deal depends on us. head-on confrontation is a mistake, because in the chinese tradition it leads to them cutting off relations. it is also wrong to try to export the worst of our culture, like consumption, corruption, and the law of the strongest. we must focus on economic, technical, scientific and cultural cooperation to help china's development effort, and export the culture of freedom, of diversity understood as richness, of tolerance, pluralism, human rights, peaceful co-existence, and respect for minorities. if we gamble on cooperation and on the attraction of our values, then in time we shall certainly obtain political fallout. the policy of the chinese government - one country, two systems - will demonstrate the superiority of the market, but at the same time the cultural influence of the values of western civilization will convince the chinese people to take the road of freedom. mr president, there are some positive things in mr mcmillan-scott's report. there is the explanatory statement, and in the resolution there are between 30 and 40 points which are positive and underline china's enormous economic importance and its importance to the stability of the region in the more general sense. at the same time, however, there are about 20 points which negate all of the helpful things that are said. the rapporteur deems them necessary as a means to promoting constructive cooperation between the european union, in particular, and china. it is if china were a defeated country to which mr mcmillan-scott is dictating terms. at point 18 he gives full details of the type of constitution that today's china should devise. the chines people are to have constitutional democracy. i do not know where he gets his authority from. from the dalai lama? from god? i have no idea. secondly, he speaks about tibet and the dalai lama. but tibet has been an integral part of china since time immemorial. what happens in tibet is china's own internal affair, just as what happened and is happening in the eastern part of germany that united with western part was, and is, an internal affair. thirdly, he speaks about hong kong. hong kong has changed sovereignty. has mr mcmillan-scott not got wind of that yet? two sovereign states came to an agreement and hong kong is now part of china. (the president cut off the speaker) i would like to congratulate mr mcmillan-scott on an extremely useful and balanced report on relations with china. i very much agree with mr de luca that it is important when developing our policy on china to be realistic and to be pragmatic. as it happens, i do not think there is a conflict of objectives, as some have suggested. mr gahrton seemed to think that we were preferring free trade to human rights. i do not see that conflict because we are talking about an extremely large and important country, as many speakers in the debate have said. we have to ask ourselves a practical question: what is our interest as far as china is concerned? it is, of course, an economic one, but it is also that china should be a peaceful participant in the world and a major economic player, developing a free society and expanding the rule of law and human rights in china. that is our objective. now how do we achieve it? people talk about consistency. i do not think one can be entirely consistent because the way of achieving results in china will be very different from achieving results in other countries, which are smaller and perhaps at different stages of development. i have no doubt at all that the best way of achieving these common objectives is to develop the closest links with china economically and politically, to assist its development, particularly in the areas of special interest, but also to be forthright in our views on human rights. i do not think there is any contradiction in those objectives. in the long run the most likely prospect of improving the human rights situation is for china to develop economically and for us to encourage china in that development, not only internally, but towards the outside world through, for example, participation in the world trade organization; not a meaningless participation as if it were a club which we just wanted to give them the prize of entry to, but participation on the basis of acceptance of the rules of the wto which, on the one hand require china to open up and become a more liberal economy, recognizing its difficulties and its stage of development, while on the other hand, giving china access to the rest of the world. if that happens you will automatically open up economic freedom in china. in the long term economic and political freedom cannot be divided. the growth of economic freedom in china is the most certain, long-term way to achieving political freedom as well. but it does not follow from that that you say: let us trade with china, let us negotiate china's participation in the wto and hope that will lead in time to a freer society in china. that is not enough either. we have to work actively for that. we have to give the appropriate signs and signals. but we also have to give the appropriate help. i was glad to hear mr mcmillan-scott say that the cooperation programme should be expanded. parliament has an important role in enabling that to happen an it should be targeted in a way that helps the development of a civil society and encourages democracy. we have a programme which encourages, as has been said, support at village level for reform in the right direction. reference was made by mr vyrynen to environmental issues. there too we have much to offer china and china is interested in taking what we have to offer in terms of environmental programmes, training key environmental planners, supporting pilot projects involving technology transfer and assisting environmental planning and management in china. in addition to trade and cooperation there is the question of human rights. that has been central also in the most direct sense, and not just in the indirect way that i have described, to our policy toward china which is comprehensive and coherent. the commission has never hesitated to express our criticisms, both publicly and privately, of china's lapses on human rights. i have done so myself at the highest level, mentioning particular cases. i agree with those who have said, or implied, that the inability of the european union to reach a common view to put that view forward in geneva at the commission on human rights, is a great failing and a great weakness. i very much hope that the intergovernmental conference, in reinforcing our capacity to create a foreign policy, will enable us in future on this issue, as in others, to present a rather more impressive picture to the outside world and advance our interests in a more effective way. we should not hesitate to do that. hong kong is important. we are witnessing a unique experiment, an experiment to create one country with the two systems of hong kong and china proper. the commitment of the chinese government to do that is unique and we should observe and watch it with care, with interest, and with concern that it meets the commitments that have been made. there is a common european interest, not only because of our economic interests in hong kong, but also because hong kong itself can set an example, not as a base for subversion, but as an example which can lead people elsewhere in china and in the whole region to believe the route of economic freedom and political freedom is the right route forward, not just in western europe or in countries with a common tradition, but also in other parts of the world which have different backgrounds but where human values ultimately must prevail. i commend the report and believe that the policy that we are pursuing towards china is comprehensive and pragmatic, recognizing the importance of trade and economic development both for its own sake and as a point of entry towards the creation of a more liberal society in china, but bolstering that up with cooperation programmes pointing in the same direction and a robust expression of our views when human rights are violated in china as elsewhere in the world. thank you, sir leon. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. baltic initiative the next item is the report (a4-0196/97) by mr burenstam linder on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy on the commission communication on the baltic sea initiative (sec(96)0608 - c40362/96). mr president, the baltic sea region had the fastest economic growth in europe before the communist revolution. now that the planned economy has been scrapped, the former communist countries, together with the other countries in the baltic sea region, can once again develop this region into an economically flourishing democracy. this will also help to strengthen political stability. this stability can be improved through the fine web of co-operation at all levels which has developed and which continues to develop, in the public and private sectors for example, in business, administration, organisations and between private individuals. at an inter-state level this co-operation also includes non-binding support on defence issues and common efforts in international peace keeping missions. the work which is handled in the council of baltic sea states , in which the eu participates as a full member, is of particular importance for co-operation in all these areas. in this respect, the european union has an important task. further far reaching reforms are needed in the former communist countries which, in the short term, can prove difficult because change is often seen as arduous. the incentive to overcome short term thinking in politics has increased in those countries which have applied for membership of the eu. they know that further change is required for membership. the requirement for change gains increased acceptance in this way. it is therefore especially important that, before membership negotiations begin, the commission adopts the principle that new members will be accepted by order of merit , in other words, that objective qualifications will be the deciding factor. if a particular group of countries consider themselves chosen from the start, the enthusiasm for reform felt by them is reduced. if other countries feel that, even if they put more effort in than others and are really successful, they will still be left out, the desire to introduce reforms will be weakened, even if they should continue with the changes for their own sakes. the political leaders who have been particularly involved in pursuing these changes will be compromised if successful reforms do not meet with an appropriate response during the membership negotiations. it is particularly worth reminding ourselves of this view with regard to the three baltic countries, estonia, latvia and lithuania. they have applied for membership of both the eu and nato. i do not think that they should be made members of the eu just because they may not be able to become members of nato. they must fulfil the requirements laid down for membership of the eu, both with regard to the union and to themselves. but a particular country, or countries which are successful must also find themselves among the first new members of the eu and not left out in favour of another preselected group. it is in the eu's own wider interests to promote stability in this region which is sometimes the subject of threatening speeches arising from russian domestic policy. this is one reason why the commission should make greater efforts to get the four eu states which have not ratified the european agreement with estonia, latvia and lithuania to do so now; after all it is two years since this agreement was signed. furthermore, the commission ought to actively assist in concluding and approving border agreements with russia in all cases and in so doing eliminate this area of uncertainty. it must not appear appropriate for russia to create uncertainty because of a lack of clarity on border issues. one particular problem concerns the position of the russian minority in estonia and latvia and of the many russians who emigrated there during the soviet era. i think that we can take these criticisms which sometimes come from the russian side very lightly. this can be a difficult area but, in fact, the baltic countries have managed to establish a relationship between citizen and immigrant which, in many respects, is better than that in many eu countries, even despite the fact that the minority is so much bigger here than in any other country. of course it is possible to make further improvements. establishing domestic harmony is in the interest of the latvians and the estonians as well. co-operation in the baltic sea region as a whole can yield important results in a number of particular areas. the environment in the baltic region was badly damaged during the soviet era. there is now a huge repair job to be carried out with our joint forces. the joint fight against organised crime can also be mentioned as an area where combined efforts have been made and there is a strong chance that these will be successful within the framework of international co-operation. russia is included as an active and interested party in the regional co-operation in the baltic sea region and in the council of the baltic sea states . this gives the region and the co-operation there special significance and weight. successful co-operation between equal partners, with the eu as the driving force will in all probability yield significant benefits. the introduction of democracy in russia and economic reforms there would make the whole of the baltic sea region a new peaceful source of strength in europe, and this is what we have set our sights on. mr president, the accession of finland and sweden and the association of poland and the baltic states have meant that the baltic has become almost a european union lake. the european union therefore has a direct responsibility to gear its policies more closely to the baltic region as a whole, rather than to the individual states of the baltic seaboard. in doing so, we should make every effort to encourage the developing regional structures such as the council of baltic sea states - as mr burenstam linder just said - helcom, in the sector of environment policy, and other initiatives of a regional character. the aid framework envisaged by the commission should provide for 'help for self-help' , which is now a major issue in the baltic region, and should also make an effective contribution to the development of the private sector - small- and medium-sized enterprises, in other words. the committee on external economic affairs therefore emphatically supports the conclusions reached by mr burenstam linder's excellent report, which adopts this approach. we are particularly glad that our suggestions have been incorporated in full. there are three points of special interest to us here. first, there is the cross-border expansion of the infrastructures - roads, railways and ports. secondly, however, we do urge that this should be done in an environment-friendly and environmentally compatible manner. in case of doubt, the redevelopment of existing facilities and stretches of road or rail should take precedence over new building and new lines of communication. thirdly, co-operation between governments in the baltic region needs to be supplemented by a continuous parliamentary dialogue between the european union and the parliaments of the baltic states. we feel that the president of the european parliament and the presidents of the baltic seaboard states should take the necessary steps to ensure this. mr president, the initiative for the baltic sea region which was taken by the commission before the baltic sea council's summit meeting in visby was an important one. we must work towards creating closer ties between the eu and the central and eastern european states in the baltic sea region. the region is currently a unique platform for political dialogue and for the co-ordination of measures to promote democracy in europe. the region is also important from the point of view of political stability. the baltic states, for historical and geographical reasons, because of the occupation by the soviet union and the border with russia, form a region subject to potential conflict, which in its turn could have consequences for the rest of europe. this risk must be eliminated. this is best achieved by placing the countries firmly within the sphere of international co-operation. the role of russia is also important. russia must be integrated closely in the co-operation on the baltic sea region. currently existing co-operation instruments must be used to the optimum to strengthen democracy, political stability and economic development in this region. the eu is an important organisation in this co-operation. the forthcoming enlargement is of great importance to the whole of the baltic sea region, indeed for the whole of europe. this unique opportunity to unite europe socially, culturally and economically must not be ignored. all the applicant countries must have the same chance to qualify for membership. no one shall be excluded from the discussions at the start. everyone must start on one and the same starting line. in this respect it is important to view the baltic states as three separate states and to treat them as such. finally: the enlargement of the eu into a peaceful, united europe must be kept separate from the enlargement of nato's military defence alliance. international co-operation must be built on a peaceful note and must not remain in the shadow of the cold war. mr president, i should like to express my thanks to the rapporteur. the report approaches baltic cooperation in a very broad sense. economic and security cooperation in the baltic must stress the varied nature of security in the area. the political, economic and social situation of the states in the region varies, for there are both eu member states and future member states there, and the region is also an eu border region. stability and security can only be increased by cooperation networks, in which grass-roots influence is essential. the process of eu enlargement will only have a real democratic basis when ordinary people, and not just states, feel that they are in the same boat as other europeans. baltic cooperation considers not only the integration process, - common regional needs, - but also the northern dimension. a policy for the north ought also to be a part of the baltic strategy, because there are in baltic policy more multiplier effects and elements increasing cohesion than in what is generally termed, 'nordic policy'. however, this presupposes that it is understood that the baltic region comprises the states of the baltic together with their varying spheres of operation, including a northern dimension. mr vyrynen's amendments focus on the right issue, but approach the question from the opposite direction. it is easy to endorse the principles of the kalmar action programme, namely citizen participation, sustainable development and environmental cooperation in the region. more binding provisions are needed. in the baltic states region there are opportunities and threats, including environmental protection and nuclear safety. it is important that the meeting of the baltic council this month will also make evaluations of the implementation of the programme. the areas own cooperation and priorities are of primary importance. the union is only one protagonist in this cooperation. among the eu member states, ratification of the europe agreements is being held up by two 'snails', belgium and france. in evaluating the applicant states, the commission should realise that in the border dispute between estonia and russia the ball is in russia's court. the commission should also decide soon whether it will act on parliament's demands to begin negotiations simultaneously with the applicant countries, for the clock is ticking inexorably on towards july. mr president, just as membership of the european union has meant increased security for sweden and finland, it will also mean increased security for our neighbours along the baltic sea, estonia, latvia, lithuania and poland the day they become members of the european union. not only will their security be enhanced but also the security of europe which makes it extremely important for us all that these countries become members as quickly as possible. this is why it is also important that we do not place further conditions on those who are applying for membership other than that they must fulfil the requirements, the conditions of membership. this alone must be the deciding factor. it is in the interests of the security of europe that we open our arms to these countries. the european agreement is an important part of this and an important step towards membership. this is why it is incomprehensible that a number of countries - out of pure laziness as far as i can understand - have still not ratified the european agreement which exists with the baltic states. let me also point out that it must be an absolute requirement that those countries seeking membership - and that includes the countries surrounding the baltic sea which are currently applying - fulfil the requirements that we have stipulated on human rights. we will help them in this, but it is really important that we do lay down requirements which must, for example, include everything stipulated by the commission and also the requirement that they abolish the death sentence. finally, i would like to say thank you to mr burenstam linder for an excellent report. it is a truly high quality report well in line with that which his predecessor from the moderate coalition party, margaretha af ugglas gave to parliament on the same subject. mr president, it is important that the union gives its full support to regional cooperation in the baltic region, because it will create prosperity and stability for the whole continent. for example, trade between the eu countries and the 'transitional economies' is expected to quadruple in the next few years in the baltic region. the commission's role in baltic cooperation is currently too modest. it must move from observation and coordination to fully-fledged participation. the agenda 21 programme for sustainable development is currently under preparation in the baltic region, as the report mentions. the commission is also involved in the creation of programmes, but with a very small input. in my opinion, parliament should insist that the commission increase its input into the agenda 21 programme. the traditional concept of military security has lost its meaning in the baltic region as elsewhere. on the other hand, environmental questions, stable, democratic and socially just development in the 'transitional economy' countries, minority issues and the prevention of crime and terrorism are even more important. the development of cooperation in the baltic region calls for cooperation to be built up with russia, too. mr president, parliament should promote the conclusion of a border agreement between russia and estonia, because it is a precondition for the development of cooperation among the states of the baltic region. mr president, with the eu facing the challenge of making an effective contribution to the development and stability of the baltic region and the final abolition of frontiers within europe, the commission's communication falls far short of the mark, and to call it an initiative is an embarrassing misnomer. in an area where regional and local relations have existed for centuries the objective, now that the iron curtain has fallen, must be to pull aside the silver curtain too by making greater efforts to close the gap in living standards and strengthen democratic reforms, rather than setting up new frontiers by means of the schengen accords. what is needed here is a second stability pact to follow on from the one adopted in 1993, with a programme adapted to the new situation which will develop the baltic region as a model of stability, democracy and disarmament, and so provide an effective response to the security needs of the states of central and eastern europe, especially such small countries as the baltic states. let us put the clocks back to december 1995. the european council meets in madrid and decides that an approach be adopted to the preparations for eu enlargement guaranteeing that the applicant countries will be treated on an equal footing. i strongly supported that line, and still do. it is very important from the point of view of stability in the applicant countries that we do not start making pronouncements on which ones are more eligible than others and are more deserving of eu membership. in his original draft for the report, the rapporteur did advocate a strategy on those lines, which is neither reasonable nor well thought out. fortunately my swedish colleague, mrs theorin, made sure that the report in its final form would make it clear that only when all the applicant countries were lined up at the same starting point and the negotiations had got underway would consideration be given to which countries best met the conditions for accession. cooperation in the baltic sea region could be strengthened by a specific baltic sea programme. the council of the baltic sea states could be the focal point for such cooperation and could participate in the political process as a responsible partner. the many good initiatives for which budget lines already exist could be brought together in a proper baltic sea programme. the common economic objectives awaiting political implementation are obvious. they relate to energy, transport and the environment. the development of a pattern of trade is something else, but equally important. finally, i must stress how important i think it is that, if after the start of negotiations the conditions for accession are found to be met by one or more of the baltic countries and they therefore qualify for membership, existing eu members must not put obstacles based on historical considerations or strategic self-interest in the way of their accession. mr president, i too would like to offer my congratulations to mr burenstam linder. he has succeeded in producing a synthesis of penetrating analyses and far-sighted visions. and those visions can become reality if opportunities are consistently taken and risks are minimized. nor has the rapporteur disregarded the necessary next steps, and it is one of those necessary next steps on which i should like to focus. in paragraph 1, the rapporteur calls upon the institutions to promote the full ratification of the europe agreements with estonia, latvia and lithuania. when we vote on this report tomorrow, those agreements will be precisely two years old - they were signed back on 12 june 1995. so the rapporteur is more than justified in calling for ratification, and it is also in the interests of the european parliament. because, after ratification by all member states and the council, the existing delegations can be reconstituted as joint parliamentary committees, which is not just a formality but secures binding participation in a structured dialogue. it secures the participation of the european parliament and of the respective national parliaments in the structuring of the treaties, in the defining of political focuses and priorities, and in control. we thus secure the right to influence the complex processes of adjustment that are going to be necessary both in those states that wish to join the union and in the union itself. especially in the baltic region, there is a need both for closer co-operation and for the rapid acceptance of new member states. because it is precisely here that we have the opportunity, in the future, to involve russia, too, more closely in regional co-operation and so make an essential contribution to stability. mr president, mr burenstam linder has tabled a very good report on baltic cooperation. i congratulate him on it. on behalf of the liberal group i have tabled two additional amendments referring to cooperation in the barents sea area. they are based on the report by mr tindemans adopted in may. as mr tindemans said in his report, the baltic and barents sea cooperation areas partly overlap. in addition, all the member states of the barents sea council are also members of the council of baltic states and the commission is involved in both on the same terms. according to the tindemans report the union should have a comprehensive policy for northern regions, in the context of which cooperation in the barents sea region should be developed. my amendments seek to obtain a definition by the union of the position of barents sea region cooperation in the union's policy on northern regions and its relationship to cooperation in the baltic region. i hope my amendments will be adopted. mr president, i join the many members of parliament who have congratulated mr burenstam linder on his admirable report. i am extremely grateful to him for it, it is apt and comprehensive. i wish to begin by warmly endorsing what mr burenstam linder and mr gomolka, amongst others, have also said about the importance of the ratification of the europe agreements with the three baltic countries. i hope that can take place as soon as possible, and i can assure you that the commission will continue to press for that to happen. meanwhile we, of course, proceed on the basis of the free trade agreements, but it would be very much better to proceed on the fuller basis of the europe agreements which have been awaiting ratification for so long. secondly, a number of speakers have talked about the importance of close relations with russia for the coherent development of the baltic sea region. i agree with that. the encouragement of the reform process in the russian federation and the development of close relations with russia is an imperative. i myself will be going to moscow on sunday in order to discuss with the russian authorities progress in the negotiations for russia's participation in the world trade organization. that participation will itself engender further important reforms in russia, which are necessary for russia's participation and enjoyment of the benefits of the world economy in the fuller sense, and that will bring benefits in the baltic region and elsewhere. thirdly, i have great sympathy for many of the things that have been said about the criteria that need to be applied in considering the applications of the baltic states, as of other countries, for membership of the european union. we must be quite clear, as a number of speakers have said, that each country should be considered on its merits, that no country should be included in or excluded from the process of negotiation of membership because it is in any particular part of europe. we owe that to all the applicant countries. also, mr burenstam linder was very right in what he said about the importance of not discouraging countries that have applied. it has to be made clear that those countries that have applied will be admitted as members of the european union when they are eligible for membership, and that is as true of any who may not be eligible at the very outset of the process of negotiation as of those who are. so i hope that it will be possible to give reassurance in that way. but, of course, the bulk of the report and the debate ought to be about baltic sea regional cooperation. there i beg to differ from mrs ojala, who has somewhat understated the extent of the involvement of the european union in general and the commission in particular in that process. mr burenstam linder is right to point out that the key to what the commission and the european union can do to stimulate cooperation in the baltic sea is its membership as a full member of the council of baltic sea states. as such, the european union is able to play an important role in promoting stability and prosperity in the baltic region through political and economic cooperation and is doing so. of course the determination of the countries concerned to act together is decisive for success, but nonetheless the commission, through its participation in the various meetings that have taken place, has stimulated that cooperation and has shown a readiness to assist it in a practical way by using the phare and tacis programmes, as well as other community programmes, associating it with loans from the european investment bank and in that way encouraging a large number of programmes and projects in the areas identified in the initiative; democracy and civil security, economic cooperation, environmental and regional cooperation. that involves administrations, institutions and people, takes the form of technical assistance, supply of equipment or investment co-financing. the role of local authorities from all the countries bordering the baltic sea is also very important in the multilateral baltic cross-border cooperation programme and we in the commission seek to stimulate their active participation, along with their national colleagues, to promote region-to-region and people-to-people contacts. in these various ways the commission and the european union play a full, active and worthy part in the comprehensive process of encouraging baltic sea region cooperation, both economically and politically in the various ways i have described. thank you, sir leon. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. equal pay for women and men the next item is the report (a4-0143/97) by mr gonzlez lvarez on behalf of the committee on employment and social affairs on the commission communication - a code of practice on the implementation of equal pay for work of equal value for women and men (com(96)0336 - c4-0460/96) rapporteur for an opinion(): colombo svevo for the committee on womens' rights ( hughes procedure). mr president, i think that we should begin by thanking mrs colombo for her work, which complemented that done by us in the committee on employment and social affairs, and expressing our thanks also to members of that committee - waddington, wolf and schrling - who tabled amendments. these amendments definitely enriched this report and simply seemed very important to me. one of them referred to the effect of public spending cuts on aspects such as health and education, where female employment rates are very high, and the fact that those cuts can harm women's job chances. certain amendments provided for code measures to be taken not only in favour of a group but all workers, i.e. all female workers, who often have so-called 'rubbish' contracts or work part-time. susan waddington's amendment is also important - it analyses the effect of the code and looks at whether it might not be more effective to turn it into a legal instrument within three years. to sum up, the code is addressed to the social partners, governments and associations. it also sets down guidelines for analysing pay structures and assessing jobs and, as a prior step, the compilation of adequate information on pay systems - which differ from country to country - and the study of collective bargaining procedures, to determine where action must be taken to avoid wage discrimination. twenty years after the 1975 directive was adopted, it can be noted - as mrs colombo does and the european union's own statistics bear out - that there is still a 20-30 % wage differential between women and men doing work of the same value. according to other statistics, only 20 % of contracts deal with the problem of inequality between women and men. we still have a long way to go. i must say that i am slightly sceptical about voluntary agreements, because if we cannot apply compulsory legislation i do not see how we can be expected to comply with voluntary agreements, such as the code of conduct between employers and the various social partners. however, given that there are still salary differences and that legislation has been unable to reduce them, it seems that any measure that we can take might be of use. one formula that might be useful would be first of all to encourage training and information for women so that they can accede to collective bargaining. secondly, to foster the presence of women in company committees. at present it is men who discuss women's problems and defend their rights but it is really up to women to defend their own rights. the current precariousness of employment - as is stated in one of the amendments - and public spending cuts do nothing to help the situation. we believe that the public sector would probably give a good example to private initiative if it adopted measures to continue to reduce pay differentials. we think that transparency is needed not only for assessing jobs but also for collective bargaining. we must raise awareness of social partners and inform them, and disseminate the code, not only in large companies, not only among the social partners, not only among governments, but also among the smes which create more than 85 % of jobs in the european union. i should also add that women's associations should be informed. we rapporteurs shall do our best to make sure that women's associations hear about the code so that they can use it as an instrument to defend their rights. we should also consider extending article 119 now that the igc is coming to a close. if that article were to be extended, equal pay for work of equal value would then be enshrined in the new treaty. mr president, the committee on women's rights has obviously taken an interest in this report and thanks the rapporteur for having accepted a large number of its proposed amendments. our interest is clear because, as you know, this form of equality is to some extent the mother of all other forms of equality and it is on this form of equality that we have built all the others. so it is paradoxical that while it has served as the basis for greater equality in other fields and other rights, both social and political, equal pay for equal work is still not properly applied in our countries. just recently, at a trade union conference, it was confirmed that women are earning 20 per cent less on average in europe, and averages, as we know, very modestly conceal disparities which are even more serious in reality. worse still, because of casual work, wage differentials are now increasing in countries where they were previously less significant. as these unequal conditions are persisting despite the existence of laws on formal equality, while the committee on women's rights recognizes that the code is certainly a weak instrument, it nevertheless feels it may prove strong enough to reveal the mechanisms which conceal the disparities and thus help identify systems which could become more binding in the future. these hidden mechanisms are now going to be revealed: how a job is evaluated, how the evaluation systems come into being and how they are applied, how the payment system is constructed, and why this disparity even lurks in collective agreements. a second point is that the code will be part of the memorandum. it is one part of it, not the whole and it does not replace it, but although we think it can be improved, this code is not superficial, it is incisive because it leads to an analysis of the payment system ranging from collection of the relevant data to evaluation of that data. after analysis there is also corrective action against discrimination on pay, and, finally, it also provides an evaluation of the application of such action. the third point highlighted by the committee is that the code has its own internal logic and therefore operates in that logic. the committee believes this mechanism can only be effective and productive with one essential prerequisite: transparency. without transparency nothing can be achieved. there must also be widespread diffusion of information through an awareness campaign, training of experts, and above all an exchange of good practice including following an evaluation to completion, which will also reassure those of us who are a little sceptical that this is a useful initiative even if it does not solve the problem - as long as no-one cheats, of course! can i first of all also thank the rapporteur and the rapporteur from the women's rights committee, and indeed the commission, for the work that they have done on this important issue. there certainly is a great deal more work to be done because despite the fact that equal opportunity legislation on men and women in employment has been in force in the european union for over twenty years, women still earn less than men. for example in 1996 in the united kingdom, women who worked full-time earned only 72 % of men's average weekly wage. the pay gap between men and women full-time workers has narrowed in the last twenty years, but only very slowly. since 1992 it has closed by only 1 percentage point. for part-time workers the pay gap is enormous and has remained unchanged since the mid-1970s, with women earning only 58 % of men's average hourly pay. why is this? the main reason is that men and women tend to be employed in different occupations and men's jobs tend to be higher paid. men are also likely to receive bonuses and are less likely to work part-time where the wages are the lowest. can the code of practice help this situation? essentially the code is proposing two main things: firstly that employers and trade unions should carry out an analysis of the remuneration systems operating in the workplace and evaluate the results to detect sexual discrimination in pay structures so that remedies can be found. secondly, that a plan of action should be drawn up to eliminate any discrimination in pay structures. the commission's view is that when a women does a job which is as demanding as a man's she ought to receive the same pay and benefits, even if it is a different job. this is very fair and indeed this code has been welcomed by the social partners and the committee on employment and social affairs. but that committee has considered further amendments and we are asking for further action in the resolution. i will just mention a few of the proposals that we would like the commission to consider. firstly we are calling on the commission to undertake research on a gender-free job evaluation scheme and to prepare model job evaluation guidelines for use as a bench mark by the social partners. secondly, we want the implementation or non-implementation of the code by employers to be seen as part of the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on sex: we want the implementation of this code to be taken account of in tribunals. thirdly, we want the commission and member states to improve the collection and availability of statistics on wage levels so that progress - or the lack of it -is made more transparent. finally, since this code is a voluntary one, we want the commission to monitor its implementation. if in three years it has not resulted in a narrowing of the pay differentials between men and women, consideration must be given to making the code legally binding. remember the examples i have given you. the pay gap for full-time workers in the uk has narrowed by only 1 % in the last five years and for part-time workers it has not narrowed since the 1970s. this is a pattern which is common across the eu and one that we must be determined to change. mr president, commissioner, the report we are considering relates to the commission's proposal for a code of practice on the implementation of the principle of equal pay for work of equal value for women and men. it is a good report. i share the view of many other honourable members as to both the report and the code of practice. we have made no progress at all in recent years with legislation to ensure equal pay for men and women. the only reference to equality, in the european union treaty is article 119, which in fact is specifically confined to questions of pay. women are demonstrably underpaid in all member states, and this article has brought them nothing more than a gleam of hope. women are not asking for preferential treatment - they are simply asking to be paid the same as their male colleagues for doing work of equal value. surely that cannot be too much to ask! editorials and soap box oratory have achieved nothing, nor have applications to the court of justice. so something must be done, something to provide clear guidance to employees of both sexes - not just empty wrapping, not more theoretical protestations, but a genuine guideline. well, the code of practice can fulfil this need precisely and help bring about a genuine improvement in the pay principle. it will be a practical toolkit for the social partners, focusing on a form of job classification and evaluation that is nondiscriminatory and free of any misinterpretation regarding job content and performance. from the start, we have been very reliant on good co-operation from the social partners, without whose active participation the code of practice on equal pay is doomed to be yet another failure. a few points in the report make me uncomfortable, for that reason. if we start demanding the right to interfere in collective bargaining and the resulting agreements, and if we threaten sanctions if the necessary legislation is not complied with, i can only say that although we have to have control, we should ensure a form of communication based on mutual respect. there is another point i regard as largely nonsensical. up-to-date comparisons of pay levels are needed, but they can only be possible within one sector. inter-sectoral comparisons - which is what the report calls for - are totally unrealistic. you cannot compare a coal miner's job with that of a secretary or a care worker. it makes no difference whether the employer is the same or not. the critical point really is the job as such, and indeed the text states as much. you can only compare a female cook with a male cook, not throw everybody into the same comparison. i hope we shall find many allies to support this code of practice so that in this case women's hopes are fulfilled by genuine equality, even if only in matters of pay. mr president, the policy of equality must be pursued at every political level in national parliaments and at a european level. one of the most important issues of equality is equal pay for equal work. this ought to be taken as read now that we are approaching the year 2000, but it isn't. the code of practice proposed by the commission and the report drawn up by mrs gonzalez alvarez are important steps towards realising the objective of equal pay. unemployment affects women more than men. we must improve the opportunities for women to get and keep jobs. the labour market must be broadened for women. here are a number of suggestions which i think would facilitate such a development: longer parental leave and equal opportunities for paid employment and parenting for both men and women. the same social security conditions for part-time work as for full-time work are very important as is access to good childcare and care for the elderly which would improve equality, and active information centres at work and at school are a must. in sweden and in other countries the public sector is very important in providing work, equality and equal pay for both women and men, but particularly for women. cutbacks in this sector can have a negative impact on development which must not be allowed to happen. mr president, support this excellent report! mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i agree with the gonzlez report and i must congratulate her but the commission proposal on the code seems insufficient to me. according to the commission's annual report on equal opportunities, dating back to 1966, only countries that systematically and strictly applied systems to correct inequalities manage to eliminate those differences. that is the case of sweden. however, the code deals with equality in terms of women's and men's wages, but it is only voluntarily applied by governments, employers and workers' representatives. more radical action is needed in order to achieve wage equality and to eliminate labour segregation. let me give one example: information supplied by the staff dg and its equal opportunities unit, covering all european institutions. in its 1996 report, it says that in group a, there are 18.91 % women and 81.09 % men. in group c the figures are 71.16 % women and 20.84 % men. i would ask you to pledge that, in accordance with paragraph 16 of the motion for a resolution, if in three years' time the code has still failed to achieve the desired results, it will be transformed into a genuinely binding legal instrument. mr president, i should also like to thank and congratulate mrs gonzlez alvarez and mrs colombo on this magnificent report. i must say that i am not very optimistic that it will have the effect that most if not all of the european parliament would like it to have. i am not optimistic because, if a directive of over 20 months ago, which must be enforced, has not had the necessary effect, and would have ruled out the need for this report, a voluntary proposal is bound to have even less effect. this is a good report, even so; we must make the council, which represents the governments, more aware of the need for this initiative as well as other authorities, at regional and local level, and through public and private companies, to put this instrument into practice, as its application is fully justified in my view. we should also raise the awareness of the social partners: trade unions, businessmen, women's associations and others, which are already very aware and fighting for equal rights on a day to day basis. i hope that the commission will give this proposal support and follow it up. i would even go as far as to say that, if in three years' time the code is ineffectual, we should introduce binding regulations. i have a little less confidence in the council, as i said earlier. there are few things that affect the dignity of individuals and offend people as much as these. it is not right for women doing exactly the same work as men to be receiving 20, 25 or even 40 % less. it is for the european parliament to demand equal opportunities and i think that this is an interesting subject for us to follow up. mr president, at a time when the phenomenon of the new poverty, especially amongst women, is being discussed with growing concern, i can only agree on the need to inject a code of practice into the application of equal pay between the two sexes. i particularly agree if that code is not limited to general statements of principle, but succeeds in guaranteeing concrete application of national legislation on pay, and hence also provides real and appropriate processes and sanctions. i also believe it is important not to restrict the information and awareness campaign on this code to the social partners and large firms, but there should be maximum effort to publicize it amongst those women - and they represent the majority - who are employed in small and very small work places, women who are not in unions and are often forced into really casual work and precarious contractual conditions, which barely fall short of exploitation. the governments of the member countries of the union have the main responsibility for guaranteeing the success of this code, but too often they pretend not to know of the existence of such discrimination, or anyway fail to intervene positively to remove it. those who govern cannot have a clear conscience just because they have changed laws, codes or regulations, if they then do not have the political will to monitor their effective application constantly. as mrs colombo svevo has already said, and i compliment her, this code, like any other instrument or procedure, makes sense and can work only on condition that no-one cheats. mr president, i too would like to congratulate the two rapporteurs, mrs gonzlez and mrs colombo svevo. i am also pleased that there are male colleagues speaking this evening on this issue. but allow me to convey to them a certain sense of bitterness which i cannot help but feel. certainly, we can agree on the fact that there exists a considerable legal corpus in the european union on the issue of equal opportunities and equal pay: article 119 of the treaty, which we all hope will be improved in the next treaty, article 6 of the social protocol, numerous directives and judgements of the court of justice. we also hope that the council will quickly approve, on the basis of parliament's recommendations, the directive on the burden of proof, which provides a precise definition of indirect discrimination for the first time. finally, we have a series of relevant programmes financed from the union budget, which the member countries as a whole have promoted and contributed to, making the application of the right to equal pay and equal opportunities a general given. but i have this sense of bitterness because, despite all this, the code of practice we are discussing tonight is important because the fact is, women's pay is still lower than men's in europe by an average of about 30 per cent. in some sectors women receive a lower salary not just for work of equal value, but for the same work; there is occupational segregation, both horizontal and vertical, and discrimination, as others have mentioned, is on the increase because casual work with few guarantees is increasing, and this discrimination also exists in the pension schemes. so, if all this is true, this code of practice is welcome provided that it contains the features the two rapporteurs recommend in their reports and provided that, after three years, if the results are not good enough, it really becomes binding on everyone. mr president, commissioner, the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, as between men and women, exists only on paper. reality is something very different. even today, women earn on average 30 % less than men - even now, more than 20 years after a directive on equal remuneration was passed. women are over-represented in the low-pay sector, and the recent recession widened the gap between women's and men's earnings. the fact that women are disadvantaged is also apparent in the training sector, in the fact that they are diverted into so-called typical women's jobs - often part-time jobs offering no social security - and the prevention of career advancement and access to management positions. but complaining in itself achieves nothing. if change and effective action are to be achieved, specific analyses are needed. the commission has adopted the suggestions made by the european parliament in producing a code of practice as a basis for eliminating sex discrimination from the working world. the intention is to examine what kinds of professional inequality exist, whether discrimination is being disguised by paying men additional bonuses, or whether job evaluations are quite simply one-sided. the progress achieved is to be documented, as are successful model projects. the action plan is to be produced by stages, in co-operation with the social partners. they are to receive training and information and their awareness is to be improved so as to ensure precise compliance with the principle of nondiscrimination in future pay agreements. finally, women are to be much better represented than previously in collective bargaining, with full involvement to protect their own interests. the european commission's initiative, commissioner flynn, if you take due account of the suggestions made by the committee on women's rights and the employment committee, and this valuable report, is an important step towards a more just working world. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are happy to have this occasion to discuss this excellent report just before what we hope is going to be the conclusion of the final text of the new european amsterdam treaty. the code of conduct on equal pay for equal work will certainly gain importance thanks to the rewording of article 119 which finally takes into account the court of justice's case-law and recognizes the right to equal pay for equal work. i fully agree with the rapporteur when he declares that women should be involved in working out employment evaluation systems and collective bargaining negotiations. as long as wage negotiations are conducted by men, wage discrimination will continue to exist. as my colleagues have just emphasized, we should consider adopting a legally binding instrument if the voluntary code of conduct does not lead to the hoped for results. in my country, the minister intends to impose employment assessment on labour regulations. i think it would be a good thing if all the other member states followed suit. mr president, i would like to thank both rapporteurs for a really first-class report and at the same time also thank the commission for an excellent communication on a code of practice. those of us who have spoken here can testify that the legislation in place has been inadequate. legislation is important but, on its own, it is not sufficient. much more is needed alongside it. even in my homeland, sweden, which often congratulates itself on having made more progress than other countries in improving the participation of women in working life and reducing wage differentials, even here there are differences between the situation for men and women. these differences have tended to increase during the recession which we have experienced in recent years. many changes are needed. the labour market needs to change. currently it is women who have the low paid jobs, who work within the public sector, who have part time jobs and atypical work patterns. we must ensure that this type of work also brings with it social security as other jobs do. we must ensure that those women who work part-time have the opportunity to change to full-time and we must allow positive discrimination so that men can take on women's jobs but also so that women can enter the male-dominated professions. furthermore we must have gender-neutral job evaluation. i do not share mrs glase's opinion on this point. it is possible to evaluate work in different sectors. it must be possible to compare the work undertaken by a woman caring for the elderly with that of a builder. they are both equally hard and demanding jobs. although legislation is important, this is really a matter for the partners in the labour market. we must get them to take these matters seriously. only when we get the partners in the labour market to do this will we have any chance of success in this work. mr president, the communication is good because it draws attention to the fact that women have qualifications to bring to the labour market. but efforts over the years to define the concrete value of these more invisible or informal qualifications have come to nothing. if it is now made absolutely clear that these qualifications are indispensable and worth paying for, perhaps we can move a step further and release women from rigid pay structures. the communication rightly stresses the role of the social partners. it is important that the trade unions should play a central role in the achievement of equal pay and it is therefore crucial, as the communication points out, that women should be involved in the negotiation of agreements. the worst enemy of equal pay is a decentralized, fragmented and individualized labour market. experience in denmark shows that, when there is a move from central to decentralized pay negotiations, the pay gap widens. in denmark the pay differential is dkr 60 000 per year. only a committed male chauvinist or a bad employer can accept that. the trade unions are in a unique position to lead the way in laying the foundations for a more modern way of assessing men's and women's work. we hope that the commission communication may help to promote development in the right direction. in this matter we men must show solidarity with women. anything else would be disreputable. do you not think so, commissioner flynn? i am very pleased at the very strong support that has been expressed in the house this evening in support of the code of conduct. i want to take the opportunity to thank the committee on employment and social affairs and especially the rapporteur, mrs gonzalez alvarez, for the very important work undertaken in the preparation of the report on the code of practice in the field of equal pay between women and men. i also want to thank the committee on women's rights for their opinion, presented by mrs colombo svevo. the present report clearly demonstrates the interest which the members of the house attach to the issue of equal pay for women and men, a principle which has been enshrined in community legislation right from the beginning. however, as you are all aware, despite the fact that all member states have transposed the principle into national legislation, statistics still show that women in manual jobs earn between 69 and 90 % of men's average pay. for non-manual workers the difference in earnings between women and men is even greater. thomas mann summed it up: we have the legislation but in many cases it only exists on paper. i am well aware of the problem and to help to lessen the difference the commission has decided to adopt the present code of practice, which follows on from the memorandum of equal pay for work of equal value published in 1994. let me remind you that this code responds to your own request which was formulated by mrs colombo svevo's report on the memorandum. it is of the utmost importance that we give a very clear and simple answer to the one central question: what does the concept of equal pay for work of equal value actually mean? the answer to this question was stated quite clearly by mrs waddington. it could not be simpler. when a woman does a job which is as demanding as a man's, she ought to be able to claim the same pay and benefits, even if it is a different type of job, unless the difference in pay can be accounted for on non-discriminatory grounds. as we all know, however, this is not the everyday reality. it is for this reason that we have adopted the code aiming at providing practical guidance on how to secure the implementation of the principle of equal pay in all aspects of the pay package. the code is not legally binding, but it takes into account what any employer really needs to be looking at to ensure that the pay structure in the organization is not in any way discriminatory on the grounds of sex. the reason for pursuing such an aim is not based solely on fairness. it also takes into account the need to ensure that the contribution of everybody's skills to the economy in the throes of change is duly acknowledged. that is mr blak's point. this is why the code also provides guidance for the elimination of all kinds of indirect discrimination where grading, classification and job evaluation schemes are used on the basis of pay structures. the code proposes a two-pronged approach when dealing with the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. the first step is to collect all of the relevant information. this information can be obtained from collective agreements, employee handbooks and copies of the organization's rules. it will include elements such as hours of work, basis of calculating overtime, pay structures and so on. but having collected the information in relation to pay and conditions of employment, the second step is to evaluate all that information. the evaluation is done firstly by means of a general table indicating the relationship between sex and salary level and secondly by analysing those pay-related elements identified as potentially discriminatory. i should like, at this point, to stress the important roles played by both the employers and employees alike in negotiating equal pay. this led us to consult very thoroughly the social partners which have been mentioned centrally here on the whole draft code, before its final adoption, since our objection was to ensure that its application and practice met all the needs of the users. the code is ambitious. its ambition is to serve as a practical instrument. since equal pay is a cornerstone of equal opportunities for women and men, the proper implementation of the code will be the test case for the european community's strong commitment to women's full and fair integration into the labour market. a few points were raised which are worth mentioning here. to mrs gonzalez alvarez i say that we need now these practical tools which will help us to support the implementation of equal pay. that is why we should not forget that these aims are already enshrined in article 119, which constituted the legal base for action on equality issues in the labour market. hopefully it is going to be expanded upon in the revision of the treaty. in response to mrs colombo svevo, there are projects by the commission with the aim of detecting the problems which exist in the field of equal pay in the member states and identify the best practice that exists in the member states so that we can have that applied right across the union's territory. one or two member states have already done this by having equality officers appointed. i am hoping to get that expanded upon right across the union in the not too distant future. i say in response to mrs waddington's remarks that we have some research already under way through special projects that are being funded. the directive on burden of proof, which you particularly mentioned, if adopted, covers the directive of 1975 on equal pay which is the basis for having adopted this particular code. we should not forget that the court of justice has rulings on equal pay as well, which mrs ghilardotti referred to. i say to mrs martinez that mainstreaming is the basic principle underlying the fourth equal opportunities programme. there is, as you know, the commissioners' group set up on all equality issues and an interservice group is operating now to deal with the whole equality dimension in all of the activities of the union. what we are really talking about here is, very importantly, to raise awareness of the rights that european citizens already have. we are going to take the opportunity of distributing the code of practice as widely as possible. arrangements have been made to have it distributed in every member state, in all the outlets available to us. finally, in response to mr andersson, the problem of part-time work should be dealt with within the framework of the community legislation and act which will endorse the social partners' agreement on atypical work. i am extremely pleased that that collective agreement has been agreed now and will be converted into a legal text in the very near future. i thank everyone who has contributed so generously to this debate. thank you, commissioner. i can inform the house that eight women and six men took part in the debate. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. new information and communications technologies (ict) the next item is the report (a4-0153/97) by mrs plooij-van gorsel on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy on the development of new information and communications technologies (ict) in the next decade. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, my report and the resolution before us this evening are the result of an own initiative of the committee on research and technological development. this committee attaches considerable importance to the development of the information and communication technology sector in europe. despite the large number of documents already conveyed by the european commission to the european parliament on the information society, my committee had no clear analysis of the information and communications technology sector. given the importance of the icts for creating jobs in europe, my report contains recommendations aimed at stimulating a climate likely to help new ict products and services develop and, does so in keeping with the fifth framework programme due to run in this sector from 1999 to 2004. the economic sectors opening the most promising prospects for the coming years lie in the electronics industry, information technology and the services linked to these sectors. as far as job prospects are concerned, it is very important that growth in these sectors be monitored. europe is rapidly losing ground in the world ict market. in 1990, europe's share was 35 % but this had gone down to 28 % by 1996. europe is stuck in the middle , that is the conclusion of an assessment carried out under the dutch presidency on the european ict industries' competitive capacities. the fall in the market share is remarkable because europe could have an excellent scientific infrastructure. numerous new technologies have been developed in europe in recent years, but they have not been applied. we only have to think, for example, of high definition television. we could, for example, learn the following lesson: development does not only have to have a technical aspect. a great deal of technology fails to be introduced successfully onto the market. marketing remains the key to market success. ladies and gentlemen, we cannot leave everything to the market. this may not sound very liberal but, to begin with, the authorities must become good users of electronic services and products. both national and european authorities must act as catalysts and set good examples. in other words they must show the way. how can we convince european citizens to use ict products unless the authorities do the same. by setting themselves up as leading consumers or launching consumers of numerical services and products, the authorities can have considerable influence on certain local, regional, national and european segments of the market such as health care, the policy on the elderly, transport, education and encouraging the application of the icts. what important role can europe and the member states play? first of all we need a stronger legislative framework. at european and national levels. we must strengthen europe's position on the world information and communications technology market. this means that we must find legal solutions to solve problems linked to the unlawful use of software. standardization, legislation on patents and registered trade marks must also be better regulated. we must also inscribe into european legislation the fact that telecommunication technologies and information technologies are coming closer together. this development cannot be halted by legislative lacunae. in short, member states must improve the harmonization of their ict policy. only once this condition has been met can a european market come into being. r&d programmes currently being implemented under the fourth framework programme are not enough to strengthen the european position in the ict sector. in the perspective of the fifth framework programme, we must analyze the contribution of these programmes to the europe's economic well-being. these analyses should make it possible to work out the best practices likely to contribute to the strengthening of the effectiveness of future programmes. finally, i should like to come back to the importance of the ict sector for the job market. the ict policy should not only be aimed at large undertakings but also small and medium-sized firms. greater attention should also be paid to the innovative capacity of smes. i therefore hope, and i shall take a personal interest in this, that smes will not be left out when programmes for the fifth framework programme are being selected. mr president, congratulations to mrs plooij, who is a good speaker, but more importantly, a very good listener. she obviously listened during the debates in the committee on her report and has incorporated many of the ideas which came up. we have own-initiative reports because we wish to highlight issues often to do with forthcoming legislation. that is the case here, this is part of our committee's thinking process for the fifth framework programme. should we continue the emphasis on information and communication technologies which has been present in the fourth framework programme? look at the title of the own-initiative report, it is both the development and the application of information and communication technologies in the next decade and it is important that we look not just at the technology itself, but at the application. this is a well-focused report with concrete suggestions. first of all competitiveness of the european union. we are heartily sick of this syndrome invented in the eu, made in japan, and we have to change that mentality. mrs plooij warns us very starkly that our competitiveness is falling. i have recently been warned by research scientists in my own constituency who have visited south-east asia that we are kidding ourselves if we imagine that they are not about to overtake us. they send students to learn from what we are doing, go back and improve it. we are complacent and do not visit those countries to see what is happening. the united states, as a free market capitalist society, is very keen on intervention to help its industries. we should copy that too. some of the factors involved in competitiveness include - as mrs plooij has identified - the single market and coordination and compatibility between member states. but the single market on its own is not enough. we have to have regulation, to look at things like public service obligations, important in this field, our cohesion policies, support for smalland medium-sized enterprises. i am constantly visiting little workshops where people who used to work for big it firms like alcatel have gone off on their own and have decided to use their ideas - a huge growth area. we have to look at the societal implications of ict, the environmental benefits that can come from it with things like less travelling to work. and the societal implications include misuse, pornography, etc., applications, health, education. what a big advantage we have with our linguistic variety, including two world languages, english and spanish - and i must say french of course, with mrs cresson here. mrs plooij-van gorsel is right to say it is not just quantitative, it is qualitative much more than growth. this is the lives of our citizens. well done, mrs plooij-van gorsel. mr president, let me begin by congratulating the rapporteur on her report. the whole field of information and communications technology is vital to our lifestyle and economy. i realized that in a very practical way this week: the television monitor in my office was not working when i arrived. indeed, it did not work at the last strasbourg part-session either, despite the efforts of the services here. finally, yesterday evening, the picture and sound were restored. at last i could see where the meetings were that i was supposed to attend, and i could even see the news on bbc world, giving details of that most important election - the conservative party leadership. but while the equipment did not work, i felt severely handicapped. i reflected that the equipment was supplied by a nationalized company in a country which still has to address the imbalance of an economy where too much is in the public sector and protected from the pressures of competition. it is common ground that this sector - ict - is one of the most dynamic growth industries in the world. opening up the telecoms market to competition has contributed a great impetus to growth and innovation in the uk and will do the same for europe as a whole from next year. in this report there are calls for member states to coordinate their policies better, as well as calls for the commission to develop a new ict policy. why? i say: go with the forces of competition and innovation, do not try to second-guess the market or pick winners, because it does not work. it is better perhaps to focus public resources on identifiable challenges, such as planning for the enormous change and cost of introducing the single currency, or, even more important, finding a solution to the so-called millennium time-bomb of computers that will not recognize the year 2000 and then crash. on second thoughts, the markets could find solutions to the single currency issue, as we found in september 1992. i hear of enterprises in the uk already offering solutions to the date challenge. we live in interesting times. that is my speech. i now embark upon an exercise in dutch-english cooperation. my colleague mr van velzen apologizes for not being here and i speak to his notes, so please make allowances for my dutch-english. the epp group supports the main line of this report. we in the european union can draw lessons from the united states. that does not mean that mrs cresson must write a book about ict, but that the european union should play an active role in developing ict. the question is: what should this role be? mrs plooij-van gorsel gives some answers: better internal market rules, priority for ict in the fifth framework, priority for ict in the cohesion policy and better conditions, better priority, for investment in ict. yet, mr van velzen misses one thing in the plooij-van gorsel report: coordination. there is a risk of incoherent policies in member states and the eu. this report covers nearly every aspect of policy. mr van velzen wants to make one suggestion, and that is on the division of competences within the commission. why not appoint one commissioner responsible for ict policy in general but, above all, for general coordination between the different directorates-general? if we can organize our ict policies well, this could give us an important competitive advantage because we will have integrated european information and communication technologies. mr van velzen awaits the commissioner's response with interest. that concludes my second speech. mr president, madam commissioner, the report by mrs plooij-van gorsel returns to the theme of the information society, its applications and the development of the market. it is a balanced document, rich in ideas, which takes up virtually all the suggestions we made in the committee on research. i will dwell on just two points. my view, and i would also say my experience of the growth and spread of the information society, is that the most important limiting factors which need to be dealt with are essentially the cost of access to on-line information and the cultural factors. i will try to explain that better. on the cost side, i think the costs of equipment and services may come down thanks to the liberalization of telecommunications, but while it is true that computers are costing less all the time, i have yet to see significant effects on telephone bills. the gap to be made up by comparison with the united states in terms of the cost of services is really huge. as regards the cultural barrier, applications for direct purchasing of software, electronic commerce, are now appearing on the internet, but these applications are essentially american. the gap is increasing because of the language problem, and it now seems difficult to surf the internet without knowing english. too little is still done in europe about teaching so-called foreign languages in school, and not enough is being done to overcome the language barrier by using the technology of the information society. too little is also done on use of and familiarization with the computer in schools. my son started school in the united states and when we returned to europe he received letters from his 9 year-old american schoolfriends, all written on computers. those little boys found it easier to use a keyboard than a pen. european schools are not giving our young people the best opportunities in this emerging world of telecommunications, and i fear this will prove an important strategic disadvantage. european governments must respond decisively and urgently. mr president, as far as this excellent report by mrs plooij-van gorsel is concerned i would just like to stress seven points very quickly in my short minute. first, it must be used more in the peripheral regions of the eu. it is extremely important and it is also those living in these regions who will benefit most from it. second, it must also be used to support the elderly population. young people have already mastered it and communication technology very well. but it is elderly people who can also draw great benefit from the technology for example when they are unable to go out and shop and can instead order food via their computer at home. third, we must concentrate on small companies. large companies already have enough computers. fourth, it must be user-friendly so that the majority of the population can use it. fifth, we must, as mr chichester has mentioned, find out what is going to happen in the year 2000? what will happen then? sixth, bureaucracy in the eu programme must be reduced. seventh and last, the european parliament must set a good example. it is a disgrace that we do not make better use of it communications in this house. things cannot get any worse than they are currently, only better. i hope that things will be much better in the future. mr president, this report deals with a deeply interesting and fascinating subject. it clearly shows how far the european ict sector has fallen behind its non-european competitors, especially those in the usa. i hope this report will rouse the commission to action, because it will be an important function of the eu to take specific steps in this precise area and make selective use of resources to ensure that europe remains competitive. to single out a few important points: concentration on new products and vertical market segments, such as telemedicine, voice processing or distance learning, special consideration for smes, especially those in the tourist sector, for which additional market conditions and booking facilities are being opened up and in which jobs can be created with the aid of modern communications technology. the necessary positive motivation and favourable attitude can best be achieved by making greater use of information technology in the education and training sectors. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, this european parliament owninitiative report comes at a particularly timely moment for recalling the acceleration of the information and communication technologies, in particular concerning the economic and social dimension of their impact. the commission is fully aware of that and i should like to quote some examples. first of all, recent communications on the information society and the action plan, now in its second version. secondly, the activities that i have initiated in the field of education and which have been discussed by several councils of education ministers, in particular the programme on learning in the information society, aimed at making available to schoolchildren the necessary multimedia resources, based on examples already existing in certain countries, especially in scandinavia, initiatives that are now becoming more widespread. we insist very much on this point. most of the member states have now worked out school equipment programmes but the question of educational software is also posed. i have set up a task force on educational software programmes, bringing together producers, users, authorities and specialists. we have made a lot of progress on this over the last two years. the tools provided by the information and communication technologies, such as multimedia and the internet, are to play a vital role in daily life. in all our programmes, especially the local development ones, we are giving enormous help to local authorities using these arrangements in order, for example, to facilitate access to employment, and disseminating information needed by our fellow citizens. the fifth framework programme of research and technological development was transmitted at the end of april 1997. i am waiting for the european parliament to issue its opinion very shortly, at first reading. a swift reply would show the council on research the importance that it attaches to research. for that, we must stick to the codecision timetable for the fifth framework programme and the 'research council' must reach its common position by its november meeting at the latest. research plays a vital role in advanced technology and industrial competitiveness. this is especially true of information and communication industries. one of the three themes of the fifth programme is related to information and communication technologies, while the other two substantially refer to them. i should just like to mention the key actions that we have taken such as products, processes and organisations and key actions such as 'new prospects for aeronautics' or 'tomorrow's cities' . in all these sectors, we call on advanced communications technologies. piloting programmes and actions, in accordance with their economic and social impact, are inscribed in the very structure of the proposal relating to the fifth framework programme. the european parliament's message in its report is a clear one. the approach to icts must be comprehensive and it must be adequately effective. the commission shares this view point. the development of an information society, far from creating a two-speed society, can provide the means for narrowing the gap between different social groups or between developed and less favoured regions. the first experiments under way have shown that the gap can easily be narrowed between urban and rural areas, in terms of education and even health, and that these are instruments that can enable less favoured categories and regions to gain access to certain services. the commission goes along in particular with the final recommendation in the report, i.e. the need to see to sustainable, environment-friendly development and social well-being, alongside economic growth. those are exactly our aims and you have taken the words out of our mouths. i should like to conclude by saying that the commission welcomes all your recommendations, in particular those addressed to it, and will pay special attention to your report when carrying out those actions in this field for which it is responsible. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. research and sustainable development the next item is the second report (a4-0170/97) by mr marset campos on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy on the community policy for research and sustainable development. mr president, there are three starting-points to my report: first, the decisive will expressed in the treaty on european union and the current proposals on revising the treaty, in favour of sustainable development. in other words, the european union is proclaiming its unequivocal support for the sustainable development model, including respect for the environment, and expressing inter-generational solidarity. secondly, the fact that, despite all the declarations of good intentions, development in europe and the world is that of growing consumption of energy resources and prime materials and growing pollution and a subsequent exhaustion of natural resources. thirdly, the fact that market forces, left to free competition between supply and demand, do not guarantee by themselves the introduction of a model of sustainable development but require a conscious action by society which is decided voluntarily and democratically. it cannot be claimed that a miraculous technical discovery or a fiscal measure will solve the problem. the people's awareness needs to demand the set of values required by the sustainable development model. for those reasons, the report analyses the commission's concerns at the consequences of the current model of economic growth and makes 13 practical proposals in three main blocs. first of all, in relation to the need to conceive the transition to the model of sustainable development from the current social and economic model of unsustainable growth, it is felt that that transition will only be possible thanks to a broad social consensus, which in its time brought about the creation of the welfare state. in that sense, research can contribute by analysing the interconnections between social and economic processes and new forms of using resources, energy sources, etc. secondly, in relation to the revision of the treaty on union, incorporating the aims of sustainable development decisively into all significant areas: convergence criteria, functioning of european institutions, the relevant chapters and articles (vi, xv and xvi). thirdly, in the research and development policy - the fifth framework programme - through the following points: first, proposals to promote research teams in the areas of production, distribution and eco-sufficient consumption, in various countries. secondly, carrying out research into scientific and social areas of sustainable development such as lasting or biodegradable materials, climate change, sea and ocean deterioration, deforestation, social and economic analysis, ecotaxes, financial flows, etc. thirdly, research into the function of the citizens, municipalities and local authorities in a proactive participation in the sustainable development model, energy saving, the efficient extraction of prime materials, use of renewable sources, optimal use of distribution systems, non-intensive farming, etc. fourthly, research into the possibilities of global models for the use of energy. that is why it is necessary to pay more attention to energy sources distributed extensively and uniformly, permitting rational and responsible use by citizens in each location, together with democratic levies and new values. these are the main lines of the report which the committee on research, technological development and energy is presenting to the chamber so that, if it wishes to approve it, it can be converted into a more precise proposal for the commission, the council and ourselves to bring about a fairer society with greater solidarity, a society that is economically eco-sustainable and above all better for future generations of europeans - our own children and grandchildren - who are the ultimate targets of all our concerns and intentions. mr president, commissioner, the rapporteur, mr marset campos, has done us a service with his own-initiative report by prompting a discussion on the concept of sustainable development. this discussion, of course, is in its very early stages and will take up a great deal of time yet. that, of course, is inherent in the philosophy contained within the concept of sustainable development, a philosophy which calls on us to view all our actions and political decisions in the particular context of their future complex effects and side effects. an unending process of consideration and reconsideration! the rapporteur provides some of this service by rightly identifying the present economic model as detrimental to sustainable development. but from that point on our interpretations begin to drift apart, for example when we come to assess advanced technologies in the light of their consequential effects. our debate will and must continue. one positive point, at least, is that sustainable development has emerged as a guiding principle of one of the thematic programmes in the fifth research framework programme. we in this house will be alert and vigilant to see whether genuinely clean and intelligent products and processes are going to be promoted under this heading, whether intermodal transport and renewable energy sources really are given the opportunities they deserve, and whether the inner cities with their obvious problems become a focus of intense attention, together with the tragic deterioration of the state of marine resources and the much quoted greenhouse effect. at virtually every sitting in this house we have an opportunity to demonstrate, in the specific decisions we take, that this subject really is in the forefront of our thoughts. furthermore, we politicians are responsible for the public debate on what we are supposed to want politically. i thank the rapporteur for facing up to this responsibility. mr president, commissioner, a development intended to provide sustainable security for social and ecological needs is to be welcomed. this report, of course, goes far beyond matters of r & d, representing an unworldly attempt to replace the western social market economy with a green planned economy in which the european parliament would have the necessary powers of implementation and control. but the kind of sustainable development we imagine should not be based on utopian models but must take account of global reality. it can only be achieved, then, if the present situation is reformed. a revolutionary change in the economic model, which is what the report calls for, involves incalculable risks and is therefore irresponsible. the report postulates a dichotomy between technological progress and sustainable development. yet one is impossible without the other. sustainable development, then, is not synonymous with 'back to nature' ; that would simply be a romantic whimsy, divorced from reality. moreover, the rapporteur must acknowledge that the change of model for which the report calls is already taking place, though through a process of reform rather than radical action. the report also fails to take account of the fact that environmental protection measures can only be financed by a functioning economy. environmental protection demands great economic efforts. another point that seems important to me: for the countries of the eu and other industrialized states, the concept of sustainable development encompasses economic and social aspects as well as ecological ones. the most urgent problem of the present time - high unemployment - therefore requires particularly careful attention. but jobs can be created only where a policy of sustainability can be pursued without sacrificing economy. the report underestimates the benefits research and development can bring to the employment market and the welfare state. similarly, it is not realistic to hold science and technology responsible for wrong turnings in industry and society. this standpoint has long been recognized as outmoded and misguided. in actual fact, the position is that science and technology offer opportunities that can only be realized through political, social and economic decisions. there are many other points i could make. overall, the report contains a wealth of errors and inaccuracies. also, lengthy passages of it are couched in very general terms and confined to utopian demands remote from political and social reality. insufficient account is taken of the global character of science, technology, economics and environmental protection, and many of the proposals, if implemented, could actually be significantly disadvantageous to the eu without achieving that sustainable development at which we are all aiming. consequently, our group cannot vote for the report in its present form. mr president, mr marset campos' report is a response to a real need, the need to include considerations of sustainable development in our basic thinking on research and on energy policy. this approach finds wide support amongst public opinion and in the european parliament. some passages in the report are balanced and we support them, but we oppose a certain number of passages, and only if these fall will we be able to vote for the report. i agree with the report on the interconnection between social factors and the environment, where it is difficult to act on one point without influencing another. if i may digress for a moment, that view from space of the earth as a ship always remains with me, a noah's ark on a voyage through the cosmos where all the onboard systems must remain in equilibrium, including those which produce oxygen and those which produce carbon dioxide. but, turning to the report, i think our role should not be to regard technology with suspicion, but if necessary to establish rules guaranteeing universal access to new opportunities, rejecting public monopolies and exclusive positions. so i do not support some of the rapporteur's ideological statements which sometimes tend to demonize science and technology as consumers of resources and producers of social dislocation and risk to the very survival of humankind, all the more so because, instead, technology continues to be the driving force in communication, development, and the production of material and non-material goods which improve the duration and quality of life. mr president, the rapporteur rightly emphasizes the importance of a european sustainable research and development policy. europe's r&d policy must not only be based on economic growth but must also be based on ecologically and socially desirable principles. the liberal group therefore applauds this own initiative report on this subject. however, the wording of the resolution presented to us is unacceptable for my group. it gives off an atmosphere of the traditional struggle between labour and capital and old class wars. the market economy is referred to as a model for smug individualism and keynesian theories are rejected as incorrect. but, ladies and gentlemen, let us be clear, we owe our well-being in the european union above all to the market economy. my group therefore cannot support recitals a, d and f. if the amendments tabled by the liberal group on these paragraphs are not approved, we shall then be forced to vote against the whole report. given the current relationship, if the liberal group votes against the report, it will not be adopted. my group attaches considerable importance to the conclusion of this report. i took a constructive attitude to the committee of inquiry, and i hope therefore that we are going to be able to vote for it. mr president, the marset campos report examines an extremely important subject. now that we want sustainable development to be given a leading place in the new treaty, there will be a legal base for the purpose of this report: research serving sustainability. it is therefore useful to anticipate it. i am positively against the intentions of this report. we support the practical recommendations. it is necessary to increase research in fields such as recycling, climatic change and ocean pollution. however, the report still presents me with a problem. the concept of 'sustainable development' means something different for everyone. the rapporteur offers a reasonable representation and it is quite clear. he wants to create a new model of society. but this is only one vision among many others. and it is a radical one. but the rapporteur is not very practical, at least it does not seem so in the spanish footnotes which have not been translated in our version. there are still considerable divergencies of opinion on a number of major questions. mine concern, in particular, the three following points. first of all, at what rate should changes be made? secondly, who will be in charge of that? thirdly, how can we make them compulsory? i leave it up to the rapporteur to take responsibility for his own personal ideas expressed in the explanatory memorandum. but in my view, he is basing himself on an excessively positive image of mankind and society and expects too much of the authorities. i fear that the necessary changes to consumption patterns will come up against people's irresistible propensity to increase their possessions and pleasures. as far as the draft resolution is concerned, i would criticize in particular some of the considerations made and paragraphs 8 to 10 inclusive in particular. as far as i am concerned, the term 'social plan' and the european parliament's role have been greatly exaggerated in these paragraphs. that is why i shall be voting against the report. i will be supporting the amendments tabled by mrs plooij. as far as i am concerned, i fully agree with some of the practical recommendations made in the report, but i do not share its optimistic views. mr president, congratulations to mr marset campos, not least for his patience and persistence with this report. like the previous report, this is a very timely reminder to us as we consider the fifth framework programme of the rationale for doing research in the european union. it is sometimes forgotten that although the main justification for research is to become more competitive at international level, even in the current treaty we are told that we must promote all the research activities deemed necessary by the other chapters. those include the chapter on social and economic cohesion and the chapter on the environment. although the term 'sustainable development' is only now reaching treaty - and we are pleased about that - quite clearly there is an obligation on us, under the treaty, to take into account those other matters. mr marset campos does that. those are not in as an afterthought. they were deliberately included. it would be very dangerous indeed to concentrate simply on growth and competitiveness. if you had a scenario where more science equals more growth, more consumption of natural resources, more unemployment for technological reasons and an increasing divergence between poor and rich people, poor and rich regions and poor and rich hemispheres of this world, it would be completely unacceptable and very dangerous. mr marset campos' analysis is a very clear one and it contains many warnings. but it is not doom-laden. it is optimistic and it shows us the way in which we can make sure our work in research meets the requirements of sustainable development. he highlights many actions. a lot of them are present in the fourth framework programme already. a lot of the environmental work is done. less work is done on the socio-economic aspects of sustainable development. that is perhaps a lesson for the fifth framework programme. the fifth framework programme looks promising. it looks as though the commission, in its suggestions, is aware of the need to include the sustainable development dimension. technical fixes are not enough. it is not enough to develop technology. you have to make societal changes as well. jacques delors was aware of this when he wrote in his white paper that environmental technologies can create jobs and, in that way, bring about a much fairer society. the socialist group has some reservations about the wording of some paragraphs. we will, therefore, be voting accordingly. i must emphasize that we certainly support the tenor of this report and consider it to be extremely important in the opinion-forming necessary before the fifth framework programme. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, by deciding last year to dedicate an own-initiative report to the issue of research and sustainable development, the committee on research sent an important message to the european institutions and the scientific community. the expression 'sustainable development' refers to one of the major challenges facing the european union and the rest of the world at this moment in time. mr marset campos has prepared a report and i would like to make three remarks on it. the first will be to emphasize the commission's full support for the idea of the need to take the demands of sustainable development very much into consideration when defining the european union's research policy. research and technological development can and must play a decisive role. it gives us the means to devise and implement economic development that does not harm the quality of the environment or life, today and in the future. my second remark puts the first slightly into perspective. placing the european union's research policy under the same sign as sustainable development, as mr marset campos is not far from doing in his report, and proposing that the idea should dominate our research programme as massively as he suggests, would be a mistake. the european union must face many other challenges. it must meet the expectations of its citizens, especially in terms of employment, and we also have other objectives. in particular, we must resolutely put research to the service of the economy and business and help european industry to strengthen its competitiveness, a key factor of growth and employment. far from being opposed, these two aims mutually strengthen each other. on tomorrow's markets, the most competitive products will not only be the cheapest and most efficient; they will also be the 'cleanest' and those whose use requires the least energy expenditure, with fewer negative effects on the environment, and those that can most easily be recycled. europe must show that it is capable of producing and marketing such products. it must also carve itself a niche in the rapidly expanding market of environmental technologies. thirdly and finally, mr marset campos' report only takes very little account of the nonetheless decisive role played by the idea of sustainable development in the proposal for a fifth framework programme of research and technological development presented by the commission. yet that text quite clearly mentions it - in fact it is full of such references. two of the proposal's themes, no 1 on discovering living resources and the ecosystem and the third theme on favouring competitive and sustainable growth are good examples. in the latter case, the requirements of sustainable growth are quite explicitly combined with the imperatives of growth and competitiveness. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, you have been given a very clear opportunity to promote sustainable development in europe. it consists in supporting the approach developed in the proposal for a fifth framework programme and to ensure that it can be quickly adopted during the first quarter of 1998 and implemented on time, i.e. by the end of 1998. thank you in advance and i also thank mr marset campos for his help. thanks to his report we can bear in mind the fact that the research and technological development policy must first and foremost be of service to ordinary europeans, those of today and tomorrow alike. thank you too, commissioner. thank you for your excellent answer, and please excuse the lateness of the hour. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. international agreement on humane trapping standards the next item is the report (a4-0187/97) by mr pimenta on behalf of the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection on the signing and conclusion of an international agreement between the european community, canada and the russian federation on humane trapping standards. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, today we are dealing with yet another chapter in the long saga of leghold traps. i should like to concentrate on three aspects: the question of animal welfare, the institutional question of the decision within the european community and relations with the world trade organization - wto. finally i shall refer to the question of the indigenous people and the line taken by commissioner sir leon brittan. as regards the cruelty to animals dossier, there is no doubt that these leghold traps are cruel and do cause inhuman suffering. that is why parliament has repeatedly called for their abolition and that is why the european union has had, since 1991, a regulation in force banning them. as long ago as last century charles darwin stated that the use of this type of trap and this type of killing were incompatible with civilized societies. that was a hundred and thirty years ago! we now have to decide whether an agreement on humane trapping standards might be a good way of reducing cruelty to animals in the world. the answer would be yes provided we had a good agreement. unfortunately, this text is a poor one and does not go far enough. that is certainly not the fault of the officials who negotiated it; they were rather, as we say in portuguese 'bound hand and foot' because of what their boss, sir leon brittan, wanted and they had to reach an agreement at any price. there is no shortage of examples in the text. in the point on fatal traps the european experts proposed on behalf of the commission a time of 30 seconds to kill the animal. the agreement sets a time of 5 minutes. that is a long time - a very long time to die in agony - and it is a concession which increases the commission's figure by a factor of 10. but the great problem with this agreement is that it is not selective enough in the classification of traps in relation to the standards laid down. i do not want now to go into the type of standards, which in some cases i regard as fairly low. to define a criterion for the approval of each type of trap - as this report does, as a function of the results, not for 80 % of all animals trapped, but merely for 80 % of the animals of the species targeted by the said trap - is an insult to the intelligence. these traps are by definition non-selective. they catch all types of animals which suffer equally, even though not targeted, but simply because they have been unfortunate enough to roam where they were not supposed to roam or to drink water where they were not supposed to. but the most glaring example of the commission's bad faith is in the subtle amendment it made to article 4 (2) in annex i, where in the version agreed in january for the present agreement there is a marked difference. i shall in fact read the january version in the original english which said: conventional steel jaw leghold retaining traps to be prohibited within four years of the entering into force of this agreement. that, ladies and gentlemen, has disappeared from the version currently under discussion and has been replaced with unilateral statements by the countries wishing to accede to this agreement. that is a clear concession to the united states of america! what powers has the european union to control the unilateral statements of the countries who wish to accede to this agreement? there is a lot more which could be said about the rest of the text, for example, russia, in its unilateral statement, asks for money. the talk in the corridors is of ecu 30 million. we are going to buy the russians for ecu 30 million. there is more that could be said, but instead i shall put a question. what about the united states? if the united states had not signed this agreement and took europe to the wto, what would we do? we should be in the same position as we are today. i should like now to mention the institutional pact. the commission, at the instigation of sir leon brittan, blocked the adoption in 1995 of the regulations implementing regulation no 91. in january 1996, by means of a letter from two officials, it advised the member states not to apply the legislation in force. so can one simple letter prevent the application of legislation approved by the commissions and by the council? where is the rule of law, sir leon brittan? in 1996 a new version was submitted which parliament rejected on first reading. the council never re-submitted it. in january 1997 an attempt was made at a council meeting to pass a list of countries, including canada and russia, when there was no international agreement and these countries had not banned jaw leghold retaining traps, in clear violation of the european legislation. the council quite rightly rejected this kind of approach. it is now time to mention the wto. i should like to say, however, that the commissioner stated during the ratification process, that no further european legislation was at stake with accession to the wto, other than the legislation mentioned at the time - and i supported that. now it is the jaw leghold retaining traps which are at stake, the hormones in beef and who knows, mr commissioner, what it might be tomorrow? i should like now to mention the indigenous people. from the outset i did try to obtain a regime for the indigenous people; they are assured that this parliament will endeavour to find a solution which reconciles our legitimate right to demand less cruelty in the world with satisfying the legitimate need of those communities to make a living. unfortunately, i did not find any parties to instigate social dialogue either in europe or in canada. but i remain available for such talks. thank you, mr president, for bearing with me; i ask my colleagues to express their views by rejecting this bad agreement. mr president, the saga of the leghold trap is a sad and sorry one. quite honestly, parliament feels outraged at the pathetic stage we have reached after all these years. let me say first of all that i do not accept the validity of this so-called agreement which is being put before us because it has been negotiated by the commission without a mandate. i draw the commission's attention to the debate in this house on 21 february this year when a great deal of passion was expended on the issue. i suggest that sir leon brittan reads that debate since everything we said on that night still holds true. my group fully supports the mr pimenta's excellent report once again which also won the support of the vast majority of the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection. this inadequate and inoperable stitch-up of an agreement is so full of holes that a pack of polar bears could rampage through it. it does not achieve an end to animal cruelty through the use of leghold traps, in fact it allows their use for at least another four years. it does not even reflect the position of the european union's own scientific experts. we now have traps with some padding around them which are supposed to be humane. i suppose it does not hurt so much to chew off your own leg if you are caught in one of those. we have approval of traps which take five minutes to kill and of course these traps still catch at least 20 % of non-target species; but that is just too bad for these animals since they are not supposed to be caught in the first place. we have leghold traps which can be used under water and presumably these are no longer cruel. a lot has been said about the rights of indigenous people, especially by the canadian government, but this agreement is actually in itself pretty flimsy on including those people in negotiations. the deal with russia is not even worth the paper it is written on. it will only be implemented if we dole out lots of money. the deadline seems to have fallen into a black hole and there are no enforcement measures and no sanctions for non-compliance. there is no agreement with the united states, as the rapporteur has said, because they have admitted they cannot deliver anything through their federal system so their hunters can keep right on using leghold traps. we could go on with detailed criticism of the agreement but it really is just too dispiriting. the only sensible thing to do is to reject it and go back to the legislation that we have already agreed in this parliament which is perfectly defendable if canada were to take us to a dispute in the wto. for instance, no unfair domestic trade advantage to the european union can be shown and, because the driving force behind the legislation is animal welfare, it can be perfectly well defended as protecting public morals. this agreement is hopelessly bad and we cannot accept it. i call upon the commission to negotiate a tougher agreement and to ban the sale within the european union of fur from animals caught in traps which do not meet standards of a new, far tougher international agreement. mr president, commissioner, yet again the european parliament is being called upon to comment on the problems of leghold traps. we have before us the draft of an agreement which is supposed to prescribe humane trapping standards at international level. however, the draft has its shortcomings, even though we might be tempted to welcome the fact that after years of negotiation and deadlock a draft does actually exist. it is difficult, though, to vote in favour of this draft. if it proves necessary to reject the agreement and introduce a european ban on imports of skins, that will damage the european fur industry and, especially, the indigenous peoples in canada who earn their living as traders in skins. anyone who knows me will know that i have always taken these arguments particularly seriously. animal welfare, in my view, is not incompatible with sustaining the way of life and livelihood of many indigenous peoples - indeed, i believe they are mutually complementary. our common aim must be to strike a balance between the needs of animal welfare and the justified interests of indigenous peoples. in the past, i believe, there were two ways by which this objective might be achieved. one was the conclusion of an agreement on humane trapping methods worthy of their name - which the present version certainly is not; an agreement which lays down high animal welfare standards and at the same time takes due account of the justified concerns of indigenous peoples. alternatively, if that is unworkable, an independent marketing system could be set up for the skins of animals trapped by indigenous trappers. i believe that a result could have been rapidly achieved here if the representatives of the indigenous peoples had been involved in the negotiations. should the draft of the agreement be rejected, these points must be borne in mind during further negotiations. following my contacts with representatives of indigenous peoples in canada - and i did have such contacts, mr pimenta - i know that leghold traps must be abandoned; indeed, they are being abandoned in canada. in addition, the right conditions exist for independent marketing channels. but, in the long term, indigenous trappers and animal welfare organizations must work closely together and be jointly involved in the search for new, humane trapping methods. finding a substitute for leghold traps is the main task that will confront us in the coming years, even without a framework agreement. one way of solving the problem is to improve the selectivity of traps, in other words to develop traps that can only catch particular animals. this, of course, means providing trappers with better training. here again, and once again, i can only urge the advisability of taking advantage of the experience of the indigenous trappers. finally, there is one more question i would like to put to the commissioner: what is the status of the ban on leghold traps in the european union? according to my information such traps are being laid only a few miles from where we sit - i don't know why. did this fact influence the basis for the commission's negotiations with the countries concerned? mr president, mr commissioner, first of all i want to explain that i am speaking on behalf of mrs baldi, who could not be here this evening and has given me her notes, because she has followed this dossier. personally i just want to express my sympathy with mr pimenta, who is so enthusiastically committed to this cause. after a long series of obstacles and uncertainties, an international agreement on humane trapping standards was reached last december between the european community, canada and the russian federation. the agreement was the result of major efforts by canada and russia, but it did not satisfy the council, which asked for a series of improvements. the commission has therefore restarted the negotiations and has drawn up a new proposal for an agreement which will be presented to the council of environment ministers of the european union on 19 and 20 june. as mr pimenta did not consider the text satisfactory, we find ourselves faced with a report which is ahead of its time, which contests an agreement the council has not really approved yet. it is true that the united states has not initialled the agreement, so it is a partial agreement, a compromise, but it is a compromise which, according to mrs baldi, signals progress. our group therefore believes the agreement reached should not be rejected. mr president, it seems as if the debate on leghold traps will never finish. i could easily repeat what i said a year ago and two years ago. but one thing is certain: commercial interests are more important as far as the commission is concerned than the well-being of animals and democratic principles. along with a large majority of the eldr group, i think that it is quite deplorable that the commission should not have kept to its word and is now imposing an optional agreement on trapping methods. that is tantamount to emptying european democracy of all meaning since there was a council regulation dating to 1991 and we wanted to stick to it. the commission has decided to delay by one year the ban on imports of fur from countries using leghold traps and this is the second time that a one year delay has been decided upon. it is very annoying for commissioner bjerregaard that commissioner brittan should be here. you have won. your commercial interests have won the day over mrs bjerregaard's animal welfare. i must congratulate you, but i profoundly regret it. i find unacceptable any agreement which does not ban leghold traps in the short-term, and i fully agree with mr pimenta who said that that disagreement is quite inadequate and ineffective and that is why it should be rejected and i think that we should ban imports at once. mr president, i find this whole business quite incredible, for two reasons. first, because we have a regulation dating from 1991, which was supposed to apply from 1 january 1995. that date was put back by a year to 1 january 1996, and then again to 1 january 1997, and now, suddenly, we have nothing at all. this so-called agreement you have the nerve to present to us is just an insult. for a start, there is no such thing as a humane trap. try catching your finger in a car door - whether it has a rubber lining or not, it will still hurt just as much. and if an animal has to endure its death in agony and die a dreadful death in a trap that we describe as humane, that makes no difference to the animal. in any case, an animal will be unable to read where it says that a trap is suitable for this or that particular animal, and if it is a protected species, it won't be able to read that either. but what i find most incredible of all is this sentence, which i quote verbatim from the official journal: ' the welfare of animals will temporarily be reduced to a very low level in killing traps.' do you believe in resurrection? who would have thought a killing trap might, temporarily, reduce welfare to a very low level! are you trying to make fools of us by publishing stuff like this in the official journal? this is a total mockery of animal welfare as a whole. we are going to support mr pimenta's report, and we are not going to tolerate cynical performances of this kind. i regard it as an insult. first you overrule regulations and the wishes of parliament, making a mockery of democracy, and then you have the effrontery to publish material like this. mr president, on behalf of the socialist group and as president of parliament's inter-group for animal welfare and conservation, i want to say that i strongly support mr pimenta's report and hope it will be adopted by parliament. i can remember sitting here six, seven and eight years ago, talking about these issues. we thought we had got somewhere when we got the council regulation of 1991, disappointed though we were that it was going to be five years before it was implemented. now, two years after that date, we are still waiting for something to happen. today, in june 1997, the commission is asking the council to endorse a very inadequate and unsatisfactory agreement with canada and russia and nothing at all with the united states. the substantial derogations that have been accepted, the lack of convincing enforcement measures, the lack of sanctions for non-compliance all cast doubt on whether the small commitments made by russia and canada will in reality achieve anything. this means measures fail totally to tackle the whole question of animal suffering. we must reject them as they stand. it seems that the commission fears a challenge on the gatt to freedom of trade and that there would be an adverse decision by the wto on this issue. that need not be the case. after all, we were promised when the gatt agreement was supported by parliament that there would be proper provision for the protection of the environment and animal welfare. personally, i never put much faith in those promises, which is why i did not vote for the gatt agreement. i did not think they were adequate, but we were told they were. if they are, let us challenge the wto if they give an adverse decision. let us challenge them strongly. if we cannot win that then we must look at reform of gatt to ensure that trade, important though it is, does not take precedence over every other consideration such as animal welfare, protection of the environment and the wellbeing of our peoples. mr president, the debate on the prohibition of leghold traps is the unending story of animal suffering, animal misery, human cruelty and political incompetence. once again, we have an eu regulation which has been in force since 1 january 1996 and it is simply not being implemented! now we are served up with an agreement which is no such thing. leghold traps are to continue to be permitted for several years. death need only occur within 300 seconds - 5 long minutes of mortal fear, death agony, appalling pain! nor does the agreement make any provision as to how trapped animals may or may not be killed. many animals, commissioner, are killed by being crushed, the trapper simply standing on the animal and treading on it until it dies. we europeans want nothing to do with leghold traps, well and good. but apart from leghold traps all other traps are permitted in europe, irrespective of what injuries they inflict or how slowly they kill. we have a great deal to do, not just in canada but in europe too. i hope that, tomorrow, parliament will support carlos pimenta and reject the commission's proposal. if the council of environment ministers does the same on 19 and 20 june, then we shall have won. if it doesn't, that will not be the failure of this house, but the failure of the environment ministers. mr president, we all understand the depth of feeling on this issue that has existed for many years. however, what we have to ask ourselves is whether the latest agreement represents an unprecedented advance in international trapping standards which, if adopted, will improve the welfare of animals and alleviate the threat to our relations with our canadian and russian partners. i have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in saying that the welfare of animals will be significantly advanced if this agreement is implemented and if it is not and if a ban is imposed of a kind that the members who have spoken in favour of it want, then nothing will be done to advance the welfare of animals, because it would be a great mistake to believe that if that were to happen the countries concerned, faced with that prospect, would simply adapt their laws and change things in the way that the members of parliament want. that is wholly and totally unrealistic. it is for that reason that i agree with mr malerba that this agreement represents significant progress. i am pleased to hear that yesterday the committee on external economic relations adopted an opinion which clearly recommends the approval of this agreement. things have been said about the mandate and the objectives and the purposes. let us be quite clear that the regulation on leghold traps provided for two distinct options for countries wanting to avoid restrictions on the import of fur: either they could forbid the use of leghold traps or they could use trapping methods which comply with internationally agreed humane trapping standards. it was never the intention that both alternatives should be applied. in the absence of any agreement on trapping standards, obviously, the implementation of the fur embargo was provided. however, the regulation itself made it quite clear that an option - and, i would suggest, a preferable option - was for there to be an agreement on trapping standards. the reason why that option was put in was because such an agreement would secure an improvement in animal welfare, whereas a ban would totally fail to do so. that is why we make no apology for the fact that we have negotiated with canada, the russian federation and the united states. reference has been made to the united states. we do not have an agreement with the united states and, therefore, what we are talking about now is the agreement with canada and russia. negotiating directives were issued and the agreement obtained was consistent with those negotiating directives. although that is not in any way reflected in the pimenta report, which does not in any way give any credit to the fact that after the council of ministers asked us to do so we continued negotiating and obtained significant improvements in the agreement with canada and the russian federation. the commission reported the revised agreement to the general affairs council of 2 june, which welcomed the improvements achieved. the revised agreement has now been formally transmitted to the council for its approval, along with a list of third countries eligible to export furs into the european community, which includes canada and the russian federation, but does not include the united states. the european parliament will of course, as procedures provide, be formally consulted on this revised agreement before its final ratification. the improvements achieved in the last round of negotiations are significant and i am sorry that they have not been fully considered in the resolution proposed by mr pimenta. parliament's report does not take into account or give credit to the substantive improvements which are being negotiated. the agreement will now apply to all mechanical restraining or killing traps used for the trapping of 19 species for any purpose. traps that do not meet the standards contained will have to be phased out by the parties within a clearly defined timeframe. thus it is far more comprehensive than the regulation which deals with only one type of trap and covers for its external aspects only 13 species. it will relieve animal suffering, both in the union and in third countries to a much larger extent than would be the case if a ban was imposed. the standards have been set at a high level for the protection of animals, taking into account the scientific and empirical evidence that is currently available. to go beyond that could lead to a situation where most trapping methods, including those currently used in the european union, would not meet the standards. reference has been made to the killing time limit of 300 seconds. of course, it would have been better if we could have achieved more than that. but nonetheless that represents a significant step to improve killing trapping methods, including those currently used in the community. moreover, the agreement foresees that this 300 second limit shall be reviewed within 3 years in order to be lowered to 180 seconds. technical and safety considerations have to be taken into account. to kill an animal quickly a trap needs to be powerful and that can become dangerous for the trappers themselves or for any other person or pet that could set off the trap by mistake. the agreement envisages a phased implementation which progressively tightens its provisions. a first revision of the standards is scheduled three years after the entry into force of the agreement, which will take into account research carried out by the parties. it therefore represents a first and ambitious step to establish internationally scientifically-based performance standards which currently do not exist. the international standardization organization worked for almost ten years to define such standards without success. if it had achieved standards, they would have been voluntary. this agreement is binding under international law. the binding nature of the agreement has been reinforced in the revised text since it is now specified that the rulings of the arbitration tribunal are binding on the parties. derogations for indigenous populations have also been clarified and their scope further limited. last, but not least, one of the main achievements of the new round of negotiations was to reinforce substantially the commitments of canada and russia concerning an accelerated calendar for the phasing out of certain types of leghold traps. it is all very well to pour scorn on the fact that they are not being phased out instantly, but i have to tell you, in the absence of this agreement, even if there were a ban, there would be no phasing out at all. for canada there would be a ban on the use of all jaw type, leghold restraining traps for 7 of the 12 relevant canadian species as soon as the agreement enters into force. for the remaining 5 canadian species, the use of conventional steel-jaw leghold restraining traps will be forbidden at the end of the third trapping season after conclusion of the agreement by the community, in other words, by 31 march 2000, if the council approves the agreement before 1 october 1997. of course the other types of leghold traps, and indeed every other mechanical trap, will also be banned according to the schedule set out in the agreement if they are shown not to be in conformity with the standards. whereas i understand the focus upon leghold traps, let us not forget that there are other traps and what this agreement provides is a method of testing those traps and banning them if they fall foul of the agreement. for the russian federation, conventional steel-jaw leghold restraining traps, which are the only type of leghold trap that is used in russia, will be forbidden for russian species by 31 december 1999 if adequate financial assistance is provided to replace existing traps. i hope that parliament, concerned as it is about these matters, will use its influence to help us obtain the finance to do that. it is simply not true, as has been said during the debate, that if no financial assistance is provided the traps will not be replaced because there is a commitment in the agreement that if there is no financial assistance provided the traps will in any event be phased out, at the latest four years after the entry into force of the agreement. the key question when assessing this agreement should be: what is really the best option for improving the welfare of trapped animals in canada and russia? for us there is no doubt that the approval of the agreement is the option that will substantially improve the welfare of animals and preserve the wider interests of the european union. there is no conflict between trade and animal welfare. this agreement is one which advances animal welfare while, at the same time, protecting legitimate trade. for the first time ever an international agreement will establish binding rules to control trade on the grounds of animal welfare. i would appeal to anyone who is fair-minded and prepared to listen to the arguments that that is a remarkable step forward. the importance of such a precedent should not be underestimated. this is literally the first time that an international agreement will establish such binding rules on the grounds of animal welfare. an embargo on furs would achieve nothing, and certainly have negative economic, social and political consequences both within the third countries and in the european union affecting indigenous communities, but not only indigenous communities. as i have said the situation with the united states is different. we do not yet have an agreement with them. there is no alternative to envisaging the full implementation of regulation 3254/91 on furs from the united states. but i hope that a more satisfactory solution with the united states can still be found. i have no doubt that the best way of securing that, and therefore the welfare of animals in the united states, would be to obtain the approval of this agreement with canada and russia. it is reasonable to place this issue in the wider context of our policy on international trade, the environment and animal welfare. i do not believe that the multilateral trade system runs roughshod over the interests of the environment. that is quite mistaken and it overlooks the enormous efforts that the european union has made, and indeed has taken a lead, in developing work on the environment within the wto. i would have liked the wto committee on trade and the environment to have been able to go further but it was not because of the reluctance of the european union, still less because of the reluctance of the commission, to urge and to press in the direction of the environment that we failed to make that progress. it was because of the failure of the rest of the world to follow our lead. we have nothing to be ashamed of. in this light any attempt to use this issue to create controversy within the wto overlooks our honourable efforts and jeopardizes the steady progress on international trade and the environment which we all hope for and which would almost certainly lead to self-inflicted defeat and loss of credibility of the eu within the multilateral disputes settlement procedures, if we follow another route. those are the reasons why i strongly commend, as the commission does - and efforts to divide the commission will not succeed - that a positive attitude should be taken towards the agreement with canada and the russian federation. i urge the european parliament to take the latest text into account when expressing its view on this delicate and important issue. mr president, i wish to address sir leon brittan directly because it is the first time he has come to a debate on this subject in this house in at least the last two years. you read out your written speech. unfortunately you did not answer me, mrs pollack, mr eisma, mr flemming, mr schnellhardt. we raised substantial issues on selectivity, on lack of sanctions, on what would happen if the us took us to wto etc. it is too late to go into detailed articles. but when president santer came to the house to ask for approval for his team and programme, he undertook as president of the commission to give serious consideration, even outside the legalist codecision procedure, to the opinion expressed democratically by this house. when the house voted on this issue in february this year, the vote was 85 to 3. if we adopt this tomorrow by more than 75 % of those present, will you accept that we have the legitimate democratic right to disagree with your opinion? and even if you believe every word you said, would you, if we - the representatives of 15 countries of europe, from all political parties - reject your opinion by a huge majority, have the humility to accept that you are not the only soul on this earth and that you could be wrong? mr president, many thanks for giving me the opportunity to pass on a brief bit of information. i am the spokesman for the ppe group in the committee on external economic affairs. yesterday evening, by a great majority, we actually approved the commission's proposal on the grounds just put forward by sir leon brittan, which are the same arguments that were put forward by mr malerba in this house on behalf of mrs baldi. we know that the debate on traps is always a difficult problem. but we believe that the commission was right to decide in favour of a gradual progression towards more humane trapping methods. we voted in favour of the commission's proposal by a large majority, including the votes of mr ilaskivi and members of other groups though not the vote of the draftsman of the opinion of the environment committee. i know that this position may be a minority one even within my own group, but i should like to point out that in giving our support to the commission yesterday we acted with the best of intentions. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. (the sitting was closed at 00.25 a.m.)

enforcement of intellectual property rights (criminal measures) (debate) the next item is the report by mr zingaretti, on behalf of the committee on legal affairs, on the amended proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights - c6-0233/2005 - mr president, honourable members, infringements of intellectual property rights are on a continuing upward curve and now constitute a really serious threat to the european economy and to european society. the differences in sanctions applicable from one country to another not only interfere with the smooth functioning of the internal market but also make it more difficult to combat the counterfeiting and piracy of products. it is vital that the holders of rights should enjoy equal protection throughout the community. problems of consumer protection also arise in connection with health and safety issues. the internet helps counterfeiters, who can use it to market faked or imitation products around the world without any loss of time; it is evident that their schemes are increasingly tied in with organised crime, and i have to say that the number of products that have had to be taken off the internal market has recently increased to a disturbing degree, being, as a rule, faked versions of other products, so action to address the problem of counterfeit goods is of the utmost importance to the community, and the vote here in your house is an important step in getting it underway. the commission is glad that your house accepts and endorses the general principle underlying this amended proposal for a directive, and i should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the rapporteur, mr zingaretti. as long ago as 2006, when - on 7 september that year - it adopted a resolution on the need for immediate action against counterfeit medical products, your house has been supportive of the commission in its view that the sanctions available under criminal law need to be standardised as soon as possible. the commission is also glad to note that the committee's report envisages the same level of penalties as are already applied to serious crimes. the commission is, however, unhappy about a number of points that have emerged from the debate, firstly about parliament's desire to limit the scope of the directive solely to the ambit of the community's powers, and i have to say that that will result in serious difficulties when it comes to transposing the directive. it also has to be said that the definition of the concept of 'right to intellectual property' does not appear to be adequate, since a whole array of aspects of it have been left unclear. the definitions of the terms 'infringement on a commercial scale' and 'deliberate infringement of a right to intellectual property' do not ultimately bring any additional benefit; they are capable of being misunderstood and of undermining legal certainty. in the interests of consumer safety and of our economy's competitiveness, i urge you to vote in favour of the commission's proposal. rapporteur. - (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank the commissioner for his kind words about this report. this important directive is at last coming to the end of its legislative process, and i should first of all like to thank all those who have devoted their energies in recent months to a passionate and, in my view, extremely useful debate, starting with the shadow rapporteurs and all the staff, without whom it would not have been possible to address such complex subjects. much has been said about this directive; some of the comments have been well founded while others have missed the point, not least because these are highly complex subjects. i believe, therefore, that it is important to make it clear what we are talking about. this is a directive against organised crime and in the end, i must emphasise, against organised crime in both its traditional form and the form that it has recently been adopting. it is, then, a directive against the damage that crime does to europe through the counterfeiting of goods and the infringement of intellectual property rights. during these months, many members have asked me why we have to harmonise. my answer is that organised crime has long been a global activity that knows no borders and that can count on vast resources. the law, in contrast, is fragmented into many, sometimes contradictory legal systems, and is therefore the weaker for it. it has been calculated that over the last 10 years the volume of counterfeit goods has risen by 1 600%, and i believe that europe needs to do something, because we are talking about a vast market and very real, material things, such as toys, clothes, shoes, food, cosmetics, chemicals, gastronomic products with false designations of origin, spectacles, compact discs, dvds and other things, in other words all goods that european consumers buy every day. as i have said, this activity causes enormous damage. it damages europe's industries, because of course counterfeiting changes all the most basic rules of the market and competition, and it harms workers, because of course those who produce counterfeit goods do so with complete disregard for the laws that protect the rights of the people making them, and because the counterfeit markets resulting from these criminal activities cause recession and unemployment. counterfeiting is said to have put 125 000 people out of work in europe over the last ten years. as a result, it damages the economy because of tax evasion, and it harms consumers, because here in parliament we spend many hours writing regulations to protect european citizens but not fighting effectively against counterfeiting, and we have no means of enforcing these regulations. one form that i regard as particularly serious is the counterfeiting of brands of generic medicines, which are often marketed in developing countries, and i am delighted that the executive secretary of the world health organization's anti-counterfeiting task force has spoken out in favour of the report, since it specifically refers to the health risks and rates the counterfeiting of medicines as being extremely serious. i therefore believe that we have to go ahead with this. i think the text of the directive introduces some important new points even compared with the commission's text, and that we have reached a positive compromise. i think it is important that the scope of the directive has been made clearer and also restricted, by excluding patents, for example, for which civil law remains the most suitable instrument for resolving disputes. although this is a highly controversial text, my view is that we must not stop and that we cannot escape from the reality of these arguments. by harmonising our criminal measures we are taking a leap forwards in really developing the european single market, which is certainly helped by rules, but also by provisions like these which prevent the rules from being disregarded all the time. acting at this level therefore aids and strengthens europe as a political entity, but most of all it strengthens the idea of a europe that is useful to its citizens. we are coming to this parliamentary vote in the comforting position of having received very substantial support for the directive at the vote in the committee on legal affairs. that is why i hope that a large majority will support this compromise, because powerful interests and lobbies are now hoping that the european parliament will not do anything. i believe, however, that it would harm our image and damage us politically if parliament were to throw up its hands at such a devastating crime as counterfeiting and say that europe could not do anything to fight it. in the past, parliament has been in the forefront in developing the single market and political europe, and i am convinced that it will be there again this time. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on industry, research and energy. - (es) the text on which we are going to vote, the commission's text, bears no relation to the opinion of the committee on industry, research and energy and bears no relation to the legitimate fight against the fraud and piracy that affects the health and safety of persons. that is something on which we all agree. however, this amended proposal on intellectual property rights is intended to criminalise the exchange of information and culture. by voting in favour of the amended proposal on intellectual property rights, parliament would be treating mafias in the same way as ordinary citizens. neither the issue of the intention to make profits nor the degree of criminality are clarified. the scope of this directive is indiscriminate and it lumps everything in the criminal field, though the civil is generally working well. furthermore, great legal uncertainty is created, leading to a hysterical witch hunt which flies off in all directions, frightens the citizens and paralyses the innovation of thousands of small and large businesses which should not be living in fear of going to prison, and we have already seen a massive negative reaction to this directive on the internet. we cannot act in that way, contrary to the flow of information and culture. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs. - (de) mr president, the lead committee on this report is that on legal affairs and the internal market, to which i in fact belong, and which concerns itself primarily with the rights to intellectual property, but i am now the draftsman of the opinion on this matter of the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, and propose to limit myself to considering it from that angle. commissioner verheugen discussed our need for this piece of legislation, and it is indeed true that we do, but we should be doing more than merely constantly tinkering with the minimum penalty. at the end of the day, adding or subtracting a whole year or six months to or from the minimum or maximum penalty helps nobody. i am firmly persuaded - and the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs has come round to this view - that we have to make a start on working on the principle of precision. we have put the case for this directive ultimately to include - irrespective of whether patents are included, which is, in the first instance, irrelevant - a positive list of its scope, so that the public - for whom the legislation is intended - do not get to read of some vague concept, but can see a list showing where and in what ways they can expose themselves to penalties. in so doing, we are - as the commissioner said - entering the realm of definitions. if we now start, in civil law, to put together what is termed a toolbox, then we are also on the threshold of laying down similar definitions in the sphere of criminal law too. there is no use fiddling with the legal consequences unless we also work on the definitions; that is what we must do, that is why this directive is a first step, and that is why i do not quite see the point of the criticism. one starting point is the attempt at defining what is meant by 'commercial'. we are trying to define the term 'intention', but please can we do this not only with reference to this area of applicability, but . (the president cut off the speaker.) on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, speaking as a shadow rapporteur and on behalf of the committee on legal affairs, i would like to thank mr zingaretti for his successful report, and, above all, for his outstanding cooperation. i should like to emphasise that our intention with this report should not be to make criminals of the eu's citizens when what we want to do is to punish the criminal gangs, organised criminals, and professional counterfeiters. i myself see it as being of the utmost importance that there should be a derogation for private users motivated by personal reasons rather than by the desire for profit. the compromise achieved in the committee on legal affairs on definitions is, quite simply, a practicable solution, and, like my colleague mr wieland, i welcome the definition of 'infringement on a commercial scale' and of 'deliberate infringement of a right to intellectual property', as well as the positive list from which patents are excluded. it also proved possible to arrive at a satisfactory solution to article 3's description of the characteristics of offences, so that, firstly, every deliberate infringement on a commercial scale, thirdly, any attempt at such infringement of the law, and thirdly, aiding and inciting the committal of the act are considered as offences. since the oral amendment relating to incitement to the act originated from me, i should like once more to make it clear that the translations are problematic and that some of them are positively wrong. it is intended that the fines should avoid causing disruption to national criminal law systems in their applicability to bodies with legal personality, and it is for the member states themselves to decide whether they want to make such bodies liable to the sanctions of the criminal law or only to fines. these are european rules, and every member state may tighten them up, as some indeed already do, and we want to leave responsibility for that with the member states. on behalf of the pse group. - (es) mr president, the report by mr zingaretti on the amended proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights is a very balanced proposal that has obtained broad support in the committee on legal affairs and also, to a certain extent, in the other committees that have dealt with the issue. as mr zingaretti has pointed out, intellectual property deserves protection and i believe that what the committee on legal affairs has done by means of the various amendments that it has presented is perhaps to tone down some of the terms favoured by mr mayer, who has just spoken on behalf of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats. specifically, for example, it makes no sense to extend criminal protection to patents - to intellectual property - which in reality is protected in the civil field, given the complications that that may cause. neither does it make sense to criminalise a series of activities - those of critics, journalists, intellectuals or teachers, who, as a result of simple meeting, may end up 'behind bars' - or that of an innocent user of the broadcast media that internet technology provides us with these days, as a result of which, by pressing a key at a particular time, one may find oneself accused of a criminal infringement. i believe that it is important that we strengthen the criminal protection of intellectual property but that it should be done in accordance with certain principles so that criminal protection is not taken any further than is strictly necessary. criminal protection is always protection of an exceptional nature, since there are other legislative means for achieving that protection. i believe that mr zingaretti's proposals - the proposal taken up in the report by the committee on legal affairs and the amendments that in the end have been presented jointly with mr mayer - enable us to restrict the scope of this criminal protection and that this plenary should therefore approve this report and support the appropriate amendments in the corresponding vote. on behalf of the alde group. - (nl) mr president, i should like to thank mr zingaretti for his cooperation. we have spent many hours discussing this issue, which is, after all, a sensitive one. according to the oecd, counterfeit goods account for an annual amount of approximately eur 600 billion worldwide, and it is mainly criminal organisations, operating on a worldwide scale, who are responsible for this. counterfeiting represents a major drain on tax revenue in government tax departments, because legitimate businesses do, after all, among other things, pay taxes and employ staff, and governments put those taxes to very good use. levels of employment are good, and we seem to lack the courage to intervene sufficiently in imposing real criminal sanctions and tackling the problem head on. these criminal sanctions, however, should also, of course, be backed up by the raising of public awareness. customs should be able, in future, to put better and more effective controls in place, thus preventing sea-going vessels, such as the one in hamburg that was loaded with three million pairs of shoes - all counterfeits from china - from slipping through customs without anyone noticing. i think we should do something about this. by the same token, the consumer must gain considerably more awareness, and this is why i have tabled an amendment to introduce the concept of the intentional handling of counterfeit products, which means that if a consumer deliberately buys products that are too cheap, they should know that they are buying counterfeit products and by doing so, prevent our society from working properly, and also hamper our economy. it is unfortunate that we wish to spare consumers too much, because the funny thing is that in france and italy, handling and buying counterfeit goods is a punishable offence and is counselled against on huge billboards. regrettably, we did not dare go this far. it is also unfortunate, to my mind, that intellectual property in europe is still being insufficiently protected, that there is insufficient awareness, because at this rate, we will never achieve the lisbon objectives to become the world's most competitive, knowledge-based economy; i hope that we will carry on supporting customs and improving legislation. in this respect, i would argue in favour of identical definitions worldwide. if this is achieved, i will be satisfied; if it is not, we in europe will become isolated, to the detriment of our economy and employment. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that the mass importation of counterfeit products does a great deal of damage to the european economy, particularly to the production of quality goods, and i am indeed in favour of doing something to address this. what is needed most of all is that it should be made possible for the big criminal organisations to which reference was made earlier to be better punished or brought to justice by means of european law. on that much we all agree; it is on how this is to be accomplished that we have our differences. i would like to extend warm thanks to mr zingaretti for having worked very hard to bring about agreement, but we all need to bring particular precision to bear on this question, not least because we are standing, legally speaking, on really thin ice. further progress on this point was achieved by drawing on an environmental protection provision in criminal law, but that means that we bear a responsibility for approaching the matter with particular care and precision. the idea behind european law is that through it we should deal with matters that the member states cannot accomplish on their own, particularly in relation to criminal law, which means in this case the handling of the big criminal organisations. for that we need a precise definition of what the scope of this regulation is. if we leave it open - which is what some of us want - or if we include the consumers in it, we will end up taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut without being able to have any real impact on the big organisations that are doing european businesses so much serious damage, for the fact is that, in the absence of any precise definition, small-time entrepreneurs - who often do not know whose goods they are selling or from whence those goods come - can end up being clobbered by criminal sanctions. it will be young people who are most affected by this. most young people in europe cannot tell the difference between what may be downloaded from the internet and what may not, and we certainly do not want to criminalise the end users. we want to concentrate on those things that european law is meant to address, with everything else being left to national law. to mr manders, who wants to raise consumers' awareness, i should like to say that, if you get your hands on a gucci bag for ten euros, any consumer might realise what is going on, but that does not apply in the case of many other products. i do not want european law to be over-zealously applied where it does not make sense to apply it at all; particularly in the commercial sphere, the areas of application must . (the president cut off the speaker) on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i too should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, mr zingaretti, for his cooperation and for somehow having tried to mediate on this directive, which applies criminal law to counterfeiting. what it lacks, however, is a frame of reference consisting of the rules defining what counterfeiting is, and so it actually lumps together trademark, patent and copyright infringements. confusing counterfeiting and piracy with infringements of intellectual property is likely to make the fight against criminal falsification less effective. instead, it would have been more useful to limit the scope of the directive just to copyright infringements concerning the commercial production of counterfeit multimedia products, an area in which organised crime operates. extending it unduly to all copyright issues, however, may have a serious impact on the privacy of consumers of multimedia products. moreover, on copyright matters the directive abandons the concept of commercial scale and is liable to criminalise private, not-for-profit use by people who use the internet for peer-to-peer file sharing, video streaming and so forth. the directive forces member states to start criminal proceedings even without a complaint by the injured party and actually gives private individuals a direct role in the investigations, which goes beyond providing the authorities with technical support and ends up becoming a driving, guiding role. lastly, the directive lacks any economic or social analysis. imposing tougher penalties in italy has not had any effect. that is why our group proposes that this directive be rejected. mr president, i speak to record my opposition to the eu's meddling in the criminal law of member states to the monstrous extent of demanding new offences and dictating the level of penalties to be enforced in the united kingdom and other states. the nefarious court of justice decision of september 2005 gives rise to this intolerable infringement of national sovereignty. now we are seeing a programme of rampant expansionism of power by the commission. this directive is even more objectionable from the uk perspective because, for the first time, it would make breach of patent a criminal offence punishable by four years' imprisonment or more; not because the elected house of commons thinks that it is necessary or wise but because the unelected eu commission dictates it. i object, i reject this intolerable eu interference and i therefore reject this directive. (fr) mr president, we all want to make progress and successfully clamp down on counterfeiting, which is economically, socially and culturally unacceptable, and mr zingaretti has worked hard to come up with this compromise proposal. however, i am struck, in this debate, by the great confusion among those who, in defending consumers, scorn the rights of creators and performers and those who, at the same time, defend community competence and want the national judiciaries to remain sovereign entities. i believe that there are some real problems there that deserve to be looked at in more depth. i have clear ideas about one point, anyway, and that is the cultural impact of this text. i am referring to the amendments to articles 2 and 3 that were adopted by the committee on legal affairs. they propose definitions of intellectual property rights. that is not the aim of the directive. they propose a restrictive wording of intentional infringement and commercial scale. this goes against the discretion of the national courts and, above all, in fact, it falls short of making peer-to-peer file sharing a criminal act. the result is that the provisions, on the one hand, go against the acquis communautaire, particularly the 2001 directive on copyright, and, on the other hand, present a considerable risk for creation and cultural diversity, by undermining the national laws that curb such behaviour, prejudicing as it does the rights of authors and performers. that is why, in this instance, i support the wording of the original proposal by the commission and, in any case, in our debate, amendment 30 tabled by mrs bowles. we are on very serious ground as far as cultural diversity is concerned. (pl) mr president, the directive on criminal measures to be applied in order to protect intellectual property represents a change to the commission's stance to date on criminal law. the proposed document reflects the interpretation of the european court of justice's ruling of 12 september 2005 adopted by the european commission, and allowing the use of criminal measures at community level, if they are necessary for the successful implementation of union provisions. in view of the increasing problem of infringement of intellectual property rights the world over, the commission's proposed approach seems not only appropriate but also necessary. every year, the european union's gdp loses approximately eur 8 billion because of counterfeit goods. individual companies lose approximately eur 45 to 65 billion each year for the same reason. the scale of the problem is so great that it is estimated that about 40% of computer software in the world originates from illegal sources, along with 36% of the music on compact discs and cassettes. accordingly, we should welcome the fact that the maximum penalty for serious crimes committed as part of criminal organisations may be as high as eur 300 000 and/or a 4-year custodial sentence. it should be noted, however, that pursuant to parliament's proposal criminal measures will only be applied to individuals and entities who knowingly infringe the law for commercial purposes. the exclusion whereby the directive does not apply to infringement of the aforementioned intellectual property rights by private users who are not motivated by commercial gain is very important. in addition, it seems justified to exclude patent rights from the scope of the proposed directive, as this will make it possible to avoid determining the content of future provisions in this regard and will restrict the scope of the directive in question to intellectual property only. as i conclude, i should like to thank mr zingaretti, the rapporteur, for a very well-prepared document. mr president, i understand the purpose of this directive and the message that you wish to send out to other countries. however, extension of criminality beyond that envisaged in trips, that is significantly beyond counterfeiting and piracy, is a step too far, at least at this stage, and not one that any speaker has justified. many colleagues appreciate that infringement of a patent that has been assessed as invalid is a normal commercial activity. however, this is not unique to patents: it applies to designs and trademarks as well. i say this as someone who accumulated over 25 years as a patent and trademark attorney before becoming an mep. there are amendments that attempt to address this problem. my own amendment 31 restricts the scope to the trips criteria - counterfeiting and piracy - or to when there is organised crime or a risk to health and safety. amendment 33 takes account of assessment of invalidity. i can tell mr toubon that there will be separate votes on the individual parts of amendment 30, which is there for a purpose other than the one for which it perhaps appears to be there. to the commission, i say that this is an issue that is too serious to get wrong. i am afraid it is too serious to settle with 'there or thereabouts' compromises. therefore, i cannot vote for the proposal without the restrictions i have mentioned. (sv) mr president, there is a parallel proposal concerning serious environmental crimes - clearly defined crimes that do serious harm to people and cause death. in spite of the clear objective, the proposal is controversial because the eu is entering the area of criminal law. what we have here is a legislative proposal aimed at protecting commercial interests without risk to consumers and the environment. in spite of that, this definition is much broader and creates legal uncertainty. in its present form, the proposal is not about combating organised crime. on the contrary, this law is in itself organised crime. it is a crime against human freedoms and human rights and an attack on ordinary communication between consumers and companies. take the example of betamax. mp3 players can now be used for copying. is it, then, necessary to prove, before they go on sale, that mp3 players cannot be used to break the law? once the players are sold, will consumers be hit by technical restrictions and technical obstacles when they want to use the products, music and films they have bought? the proposal is an absurd attack on consumers' rights and should be rejected in its entirety. - (cs) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am among those meps who fundamentally disagree with the report on the proposed directive concerning the use of criminal measures to enforce intellectual property rights. i have three fundamental objections. the first is the fact that the legal basis of this directive has not been clearly defined. as everybody knows, we are still missing the long-awaited opinion of the court of justice, which should clarify the judgment of 13 september 2005. the second serious problem concerns the fact that in its definition of intellectual property for the purposes of the directive, the report does not include patents and types, which are an essential component of intellectual property law, and without which the directive would not incorporate the systematic approach that is required for this issue. the third reason is closely linked to the previous one. the criminal justice aspects of the directive ought to complement existing directive 2004/48/ec on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, which deals with civil liability and administrative matters, and which applies to the entire body of intellectual property law, including patents and types. there is room for wide-ranging discussion on the factors that led to the proposal to exclude technical solutions from criminal protection. i fear, however, that pressure from influential interest groups unfortunately played a part in this. thank you for your attention. (pl) mr president, despite what has been said by other members in this house, the proposed directive came about as a response to the increasingly widespread theft of intellectual property. we know full well that current union legislation does not provide for a community policy on penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting of goods. in addition, there are considerable differences between the systems applied by the various member states, as the commission has rightly pointed out. this obviously hinders effective protection of intellectual property, which in turn has a direct negative effect on the value of investment in innovation. i firmly believe that it is essential to counter these practices at the community level. if we also take into account that the counterfeiting of completely new products such as medicines or toys can be dangerous to life and health, the problem becomes even graver. clearly, counterfeiting products of all kinds also involves producing packaging and employing a range of individuals such as graphic artists and distributors. there is too much for a single person to handle. well-organised criminal gangs are involved, and it is precisely their activity that the directive aims to hit hard. the measures proposed in the proposed directive should be deemed beneficial. infringement of intellectual property rights is a crime that must be punished. there is, however, scope for argument about the limits of responsibility, and especially about who is to be held responsible. those who produce counterfeit goods and place them on the market must certainly be punished. on the other hand, it would be unacceptable to punish those who purchased or used goods or services unaware of their illegal origin. the commission's proposal does not define deliberate action in the context of infringement of intellectual property rights sufficiently clearly, and that should be remedied. to summarise, adoption of the text of this directive is essential, and we must only regret that we are not in a position today to take the next vital step forward. after all, it is possible to identify groups of crimes that it is particularly difficult to combat in today's globalised world, on the basis of dozens of different legal systems. i believe that greater harmonisation of criminal law in the european union would go a long way towards improving effectiveness, as today's debate confirms. mr president, it is 2007, so you can address me as 'miss'! i would also like to congratulate my colleague mr zingaretti, although he knows that we agree to disagree on this issue. the legal base of the proposal derives from the court of justice. the commission interprets this ruling to be applicable beyond the case, and sees this ruling as a legal base for the harmonisation of certain criminal sanctions in measures aimed at protecting the internal market. the reason i consider rejection of this directive as a whole is not because i do not believe in expanding the powers of the eu to include criminal sanctions. i do believe in that. however, i have serious doubts about the process leading to this increase of power, because a legal base is not the same as a political mandate. fundamental steps like this demand a thorough political debate and a clear choice on the matter in question. instead, we are about to take a great leap forward as a by-product of a single policy measure in a highly specialised and limited field. i do not think this is the best way of pushing integration forward. it also enforces the popular opinion held by many who see the european union as an organisation which caters mainly for the interests of big businesses, which is not the case. (es) commissioner, we should not play around with criminal law. the union can now exercise - and it is right that it should exercise - a new power that has been recognised by the court of justice: to take on the criminal dimension of competences that it has the right to exercise. i believe that that makes complete sense and we should all support it. but it must be done prudently, wisely and with legal skill. and the text that we are discussing here has none of those three qualities. it lacks prudence, it lacks wisdom and it lacks legal quality. i say that with the greatest of respect for all of those who have been directly involved in drawing it up. there is very little of it in this report. the scope is excessive. in an area as crucial as criminal law, the scope is entirely confused. notions of scopes are used that are not harmonised in the european union. combating piracy, yes, of course, and under criminal law. in that regard, we can support it. combating piracy in the criminal field. to extend that to issues that have never been outside of the civil field in the member states, however, makes no sense, especially when concepts are not harmonised and words do not mean the same thing, not even in the field of piracy. it makes no sense to send out the message that the citizen is the criminal even when they are not acting for commercial purposes and their activities are not of any scale. we must press forward, otherwise we will be guilty of fine words but no actions, commissioner. (es) following a long process, the european parliament will finally approve its position on the adoption of criminal measures intended to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights, measures that i believe to be entirely necessary. i would like to make a few comments from a cultural perspective. with a view to promoting the development of knowledge in general and of culture in particular, we must recognise the dual economic and cultural value of creativity as a motor for the development of the arts, of science, of cultural diversity and of research. furthermore, in this era of increasing digitalisation and commercial liberalisation - of cultural goods and services as well - it is important to achieve an appropriate and fair balance between the rights of authors and the rights of users or consumers with a view to ensuring effective access to this progress in the field of culture and knowledge, at the same time combating piracy and counterfeiting within a context of greater community harmonisation. in this regard, i would like to congratulate the rapporteur on his work, particularly on the compromise reached on excluding violations for personal and non-profit-making reasons, since they do not deserve to be treated in the same way as a deliberate infringement of an intellectual property right committed on a commercial scale, which i do believe should be punishable in the appropriate manner. mr president, honourable members, i am grateful to you for the many valuable and important comments and suggestions made in this debate, and i would like to say something about a few of them. the commission's view on the limitation of the directive's scope solely to matters over which the community has power is that this is essential if cases are to be covered both by community law and by the laws of the member states, for, if that were not to happen, the transposition of the directive could well meet with considerable difficulties in this area in which community and domestic law are closely enmeshed, and the danger might arise of the public not knowing which law actually applied, thus compromising the rule of law. the commission takes the view that all types of intellectual property rights merit the protection of the criminal law, and so it is in favour of patents being included, without, however, any intention that this should present any political obstacle to the transposition of the directive. while the commission can accept the removal of patents from the scope of the directive, it does reject any amendment along the lines of amendment 1 that might revive the debate about community power over criminal law measures relating to patents. with the exception of that of legal personality, the commission has dispensed with definitions on the grounds of their superfluity or of their potential for legal uncertainty, and therefore prefers to give the member states a free hand, allowing them to take decisions in accordance with their own laws and in the light of the measures they have already taken. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on wednesday at 12 noon. written statements (rule 142) (fr) faced with the increase in piracy and counterfeiting, it is essential that we work effectively to ensure that intellectual property rights are complied with. such protection must be accompanied by sanctions, because counterfeiting is unacceptable as much from an economic as from a social or cultural point of view. thus, by introducing criminal sanctions for all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right committed on a commercial scale, the european commission proposal is in line with the recommendations voted for in 2005 on the future of the textile and clothing sector after 2005. we can only pay tribute to the desire shown to fight to enforce intellectual property rights, which safeguard the competitiveness of our economies and the growth of industry and which drive the creative world. nevertheless, by proposing definitions of intellectual property rights, and by introducing a restrictive definition of 'commercial scale' and 'intentional infringement', the european parliament's committee on legal affairs is undermining the principle of subsidiarity in criminal matters and is challenging the acquis communautaire on this matter. the act of strengthening intellectual property rights within the european union must preserve the national courts' freedom to interpret the two aforementioned elements. we should therefore support the wording proposed by the european commission. (hu) the protection of intellectual property rights is a pre-eminent goal, especially since this sector contributes 5-7% of europe's gdp. counterfeiting, piracy and infringements of intellectual property in general are part of an increasing phenomenon today, one that has taken on an international dimension and represents a serious threat to states and to national economies. differences between the various penal systems of different countries render the struggle against counterfeiting and piracy more difficult. beyond the latter's economic and social consequences, counterfeiting and piracy also cause problems with regard to consumer protection, especially where health and safety are concerned. the growth in the use of the internet makes it possible to see the immediate and global spread of pirated products. finally, this phenomenon is increasingly linked to organised crime. the struggle against these violations is therefore of key importance for the community. there does indeed seem, therefore, to be grounds for a joint response at european level in the area of criminal law, so that perpetrators should not be able to take advantage of differences among the different national legal systems. generally and fundamentally i agree that the fight against the ever increasing and ever more serious acts in violation of intellectual property should make use of the instruments of criminal law. i also agree that a possible harmonisation of these criminal law instruments, which are to be used as a last resort, is an especially important application of the principle of subsidiarity. i consider it absolutely essential, however, that harmonisation at community level of the criminal measures which may be used as a very last resort should be underpinned by thorough impact studies carried out by the commission.

2. kazakhstan: the case of yevgeny zhovtis i have received five motions for a resolution concerning kazakhstan: the yevgeny zhovtis case (rule 122). author. - (fi) mr president, i would like to make a final comment on the debate we have just had and say that, as chairman of the subcommittee on human rights, i recently sent a letter to the conference of committee chairs, asking it to consider bringing these discussions forward, so that parliament may be fully attended and also so that the council can have a more prominent role here in the discussion. i hope that my fellow members in the various groups will discuss this matter with their groups' chairmen, as parliament's authority is continually being gnawed away at because there are so few of us here at any one time. now let us turn to the zhovtis case. kazakhstan is an important central asian country, and it will assume the chairmanship of the organisation for security and cooperation in europe next year. it is therefore not a matter of indifference how crimes are judged in a country that will be at the head of the democratic aspirations of all countries over a vast area of europe. accordingly, we should focus attention on the case of human rights defender yevgeny zhovtis. he was found guilty of manslaughter in very suspicious circumstances and sentenced to four years in an open prison for running over a pedestrian in july this year. we have to take into account the fact that the osce has been wondering whether the procedure to which zhovtis was subjected was possibly in violation of the principle of a fair trial, which is guaranteed in kazakhstan's constitution. the european parliament also needs to keep this debate going with the council and the commission, so that they might raise the issue of this case and demand a fair trial. mr president, the european parliament can have a powerful influence on the extent to which the countries of central asia endorse the principle of the rule of law by keeping a record of these individual cases, and the case of yevgeny zhovtis is without a doubt one of these. author. - (lt) as the time approaches when it will chair the organisation for security and cooperation in europe, sadly kazakhstan is distancing itself from commitments on alignment with european standards. unjustifiably underlining its unique and special nature, the country shows no regard for the osce's recommendations on electoral laws and freedom of the press. repeated violations of human rights and the direct persecution of human rights defenders increasingly raise doubts as to whether this state is suitable to head an organisation which fights for the implementation of democratic principles. we urge astana to make concrete progress in the areas of democratisation, the protection of human rights, the rule of law and freedom of the press. kazakh laws which are based on international law must be applied appropriately and transparently in legal proceedings against the human rights activists yevgeny zhovtis, yesingepov and dubanov. we must hope and demand that judgments are impartial and that the prisoners' involvement in the human rights movement does not influence the verdict. we urge the council to raise the matter of these human rights defenders' cases at the next eu-kazakhstan human rights dialogue meeting in october. we call on the european commission to offer intensive assistance to kazakhstan as it prepares to chair the osce, to ensure that this important international organisation is not compromised. author. - mr president, first of all i would like to express my sympathy to the family of the victims of the car accident in which mr yevgeny zhovtis was involved. a human tragedy which unfortunately occurred where a man lost his life. at the same time, please allow me to express my concern in relation to the current situation of mr yevgeny zhovtis. indisputably every person who commits a criminal offence must accept that legal sanctions will be applied undiscriminatingly and mr zhovtis, as an outstanding human rights lawyer, knows this better than anybody. but at the same time we want to make sure that the kazakh authorities do not use this unfortunate situation to punish mr zhovtis for anything else other than the car accident in which he was involved. mr zhovtis must not be punished for his human rights activity and for being a very critical voice of the kazakh government. therefore, i think it is of the utmost importance that the kazakh judicial authorities carry out immediately, and with full respect for transparency and the rule of law, a second full and fair investigation into the circumstances related to the incident and to a review of mr zhovtis' conviction and sentence. author. - (de) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to start by saying that my group was somewhat surprised to see the judicial evaluation of a dramatic car accident on the agenda as an urgent resolution on human rights issues. for the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) it is therefore important to establish that we do not in principle wish to question the judgments made by an independent court, unless we are talking about an obvious show trial that does not comply with any principles of law. we have already seen this in iran. there must be a clear line drawn here. as far as we are concerned, an independent judicial system is the key element of any democratic order. that being the case, we must first take account of the judgment handed down. we must also acknowledge the fact that a person has been killed in a car accident - and we should be saddened by that, indeed we are saddened by that - but also that a judicial review has been carried out. the fact that yevgeny zhovtis, a well-known civil rights activist, is involved in this case has brought it to the attention of the world and has prompted the response, as a result of which we are discussing this here today. the ppe group acknowledges kazakhstan's efforts and progress towards democracy and the rule of law. we would like to assure kazakhstan of our explicit support and encourage this country to continue resolutely along this path. with regard to this particular case, we urge the kazakh authorities, in their own interests, to provide the public with as much information as possible and to present their view on these events, and to enable a fair appeal or review procedure to be carried out for mr zhovtis under the rule of law. kazakhstan is to chair the osce. that will be quite a challenge! on behalf of the ecr group. - mr president, i have to agree with mrs jeggle. i am utterly astonished that, in front of the whole parliament here in strasbourg, we are having an urgent debate on a traffic accident in kazakhstan, albeit an accident where somebody was tragically killed and where the driver of the car happens to a human rights activist who has been duly sentenced in a court of law to four years in prison - but even in a low-security prison, which has suddenly become, in the terms of the resolution, 'a labour camp'. i am afraid that bringing this kind of matter before this house really brings the reputation of this house into disrepute and it means that the good work that we try to do in human rights is devalued, when we start talking about traffic accidents. are we seriously suggesting the kazakh government threw a civilian under the car wheels of a human rights activist? are we seriously suggesting that the sentence is too harsh for somebody who was convicted of manslaughter? we cannot go on traducing a country like kazakhstan, simply because of political motivation, to try and bring down their reputation before they chair the osce next year. this is politically motivated, and it is a disgrace that it is on the agenda. i hope the house will throw out these resolutions and support the amendments. (pl) mr president, i have similar doubts to the previous speaker, mr stevenson. kazakhstan is an important country. it is making a lot of effort in terms of its progress towards democracy. of course, at the moment, it is not a model of democratic freedoms, but the civil rights situation in that country - and i know kazakhstan a little, as i have visited it on a number of occasions - is considerably better than in most of the neighbouring countries in the region, and it fortunately does not have the sort of problems that exist in russia, for example, and which we have just been discussing. i share mr stevenson's view that the european parliament should not use all its authority to state its position on a single, dramatic court case. it may be the case that some clarification is needed in this instance, but certainly not a european parliament resolution. this would undermine the value of the resolution, and people will stop listening to the voice of the european parliament if it becomes distracted by issues that do not deserve a general debate or a parliamentary resolution. (fi) mr president, kazakhstan has an important role to play in central asia both economically and in terms of security policy, and the country's cooperation with the european union has grown. it was pleasing to hear kazakhstan's foreign minister marat tashin promise last year in anticipation of the chairmanship of the organisation for security and cooperation in europe, and again in may this year, improvements to the country's human rights situation. despite the international attention, however, there has been tighter control of the media and there are poor standards of freedom of religion. in addition, we have heard of several cases of the arbitrary arrest of human rights activists. the sentence handed down to the human rights activist yevgeny zhovtis also makes one wonder, and it is in the government of kazakhstan's own interests to lay these doubts to rest in every respect, and that is unquestionably the case in view of its forthcoming term of office chairing the osce. we hope for the best and look forward to seeing these matters cleared up. (de) mr president, first of all i would like to say that i am pleased to see mrs hautala back here. however, she has not been here for a few years and during this time we have had the council on thursday afternoons. the czech and the german presidencies were here on thursdays. i do not think that we should move the debate, as we cannot get through everything on wednesday, so we need to be here and we need to force the council to be here on thursday afternoons as well. that is the solution, not condensing the whole agenda into wednesday. this is actually a very difficult case. however, precisely because we cannot yet fully trust the government of kazakhstan in respect of the rule of law, we must insist that the case is investigated in an objective manner. in this regard, i fully support mrs jeggle. we have therefore signed the resolution. this matter must be investigated objectively and nothing must be covered up or glossed over. member of the commission. - mr president, the commission has noted with concern reports of procedural violations during the trial of kazakh human rights defender mr yevgeny zhovtis, who has been convicted of manslaughter following a fatal road accident. as you are aware, the kazakh authorities have rejected claims that the judgment against mr zhovtis was politically motivated. the commission fully supports the eu presidency statement on this case at the osce permanent council of 10 september. given the seriousness of the alleged flaws in the investigations and the court trial, we call on kazakhstan, which is the incoming chair of the osce, to ensure that the appeal is handled with full respect for national law and international standards. the commission will continue to follow this case closely. the debate is closed. the vote will take place at the end of the debates.

textile names and related labelling of textile products (debate) the next item is the recommendation for second reading by mr manders on behalf of the committee on internal market and consumer protection on the council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a regulation of the european parliament and of the council on textile fibre names and related labelling and marking of fibre composition of textile products and repealing council directive 73/44/eec, directive 96/73/ec of the european parliament and of the council and directive 2008/121/ec of the european parliament and of the council (13807/4/2010 - c7-0017/2011 -. rapporteur. - (nl) mr president, i want to thank everyone and, in particular, all the shadow rapporteurs for the excellent cooperation we have experienced. i want to thank the commission for the way in which we have worked together. i also want to thank the council, because i believe that, thanks to the hungarian presidency, we have broken the impasse on this particular issue. what i am particularly happy about is the fact that this is a regulation and not a directive. i take the view that regulations are the right tool for completing the internal market, which is, incidentally, what professor monti also clearly demonstrated in his research. we are producing too much legislation that is implemented at various levels, and because of that the internal market is failing to function as it should. i am happy that this issue is being discussed in this case and i note that we have, indeed, improved a number of things on that score. the proposal was dealt with by the committee on internal market and consumer protection. in the original proposal, there was, in fact, hardly any mention of the consumer; we, as politicians, understood that we also have to protect the interests of the consumer in this report, as, indeed, we have done. there are several important considerations and here i am thinking, in particular, of research into allergic reactions. the commission has indicated that it is prepared to carry out a study of these important issues. it will present the study by 30 september 2013 at the latest and incorporate the positive results from the study into additional legislation. the council has stated that it would be willing to help think things through, if the result is positive and attainable. let us consider allergic reactions and chemical substances - we are witnessing increasing numbers of consumers developing allergic reactions when wearing certain clothes or eating, smelling or inhaling certain products. we believe it is necessary to examine the possibility of warning consumers of such potential allergic reactions. very often, deceptive trade practices are also going on. in fact, they have been prohibited in the european union since 2005, but we can see that there is too little clarity about the country of manufacture when it comes to made-in labels. there is too little legislation available, which means that it is quite often abused. we have also asked the commission to examine the possibility of laying down clear laws and conditions, in order to ensure that manufacturers who claim a particular product was manufactured in, say, the netherlands, italy or germany can guarantee that that really is the case. we do not want situations where 99% of a product is made in china and only the finishing jobs are carried out in one of the member states of the european union, but the lovely 'made in europe' label is still attached to it. this would also cover counterfeiting, for example. what i am particularly pleased about is the fact that we are opening the door to modern technologies, that we are not sticking with simple old-fashioned textile labels in textile products and that we are actually going to look into the possibility of using modern technologies in order to provide the consumer with the best possible information. the council has already directly agreed to labels indicating whether garments contain animal products, because it is becoming more and more difficult to work out whether a piece of fur is real or fake, and there are a great number of consumers for whom that kind of information is important. the upcoming study by the european commission is particularly intended to eliminate barriers to the proper functioning of the internal market and to anticipate developments in the area of electronic commerce. because, if we want there to be more e-commerce, then we have to ensure there are european standards for labelling. i hope this study will lead to clarity on this. it also seems to me that, in the modern world, we no longer need to put 23 languages on a label, because modern technologies can provide improved solutions to this problem. i hope that the council's statement tomorrow will be a positive one and that it will assure us of a positive result, and i wish to thank everyone who has contributed to that positive result. president-in-office of the council. - (hu) mr president, commissioner, mr manders, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great achievement that a second-reading agreement has been reached on the proposal concerning a regulation on the naming of textile fibres and the related labelling of textile products. this would not have been possible without the close cooperation of the three institutions. allow me to convey the appreciation of the council to the european parliament for the excellent cooperation. i would like to thank especially the rapporteur, mr toine manders and his colleagues for the highly valuable work they have contributed to this process. i also appreciate the work of the swedish, spanish and belgian presidencies, because the current result is due to their work of superior quality. the commission has been a very constructive and cooperative partner throughout the whole period, and thanks are due to them as well. if all proceeds as planned, the council will be able to adopt the text of the regulation in early autumn, and therefore the legislation will be applicable from 2012. this regulation will significantly contribute to the operation of the internal market, and will strengthen competition in this important sector. the simplification and development of the present regulatory framework for the development and application of new textile fibres will motivate innovation in the textile and clothing industries. users of the fibres as well as consumers will be able to enjoy the benefits of the new and innovative products sooner. the hungarian presidency believes that the regulation will provide greater legal certainty for economic operators, and will improve consumer protection on the internal market. as a result of the provision on revision the co-legislators can make informed decisions because the commission will conduct an in-depth survey on further compulsory labelling requirements. these may include handling instructions, standardisation of sizes, indication of country of origin and allergens, electronic labelling and other new technologies. in their draft joint declaration, the european parliament and the council emphasise that they attribute particular importance to the traceability of textile products and the use of new technologies. we hope that the commission will pay special attention to these issues in its report. until then, this piece of legislation will allow rapid authorisation of new textile fibres. the regulation states that the label must include the accurate fibre make-up, but it also introduces a new labelling requirement concerning non-textile parts of animal origin. as mr manders has indicated, as a result consumers can make much more informed decisions. furthermore, the fact the legal instrument was created in the form of a regulation will improve legal certainty in this field. congratulations, once again, and thank you for your attention. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i thank the rapporteur, mr manders, together with all the other shadow rapporteurs and the committee on the internal market and consumer protection (imco) for their work towards reaching an agreement after difficult negotiations. i believe it is crucial to reach an agreement at second reading because it will allow citizens and businesses to benefit more quickly from new fibres and innovative products resulting from it, and national governments will be able to reduce costs. once again i thank the house for contributing to the interinstitutional debate through the amendments presented, some of which have given particular emphasis to the political dimension and consumer interest in this issue. in fact, at the first reading of this report when it was adopted by parliament with a large majority, it was stressed that we need to launch a broad debate on the labelling of textile products, including the issue of origin marking and we proposed to extend the scope of the regulation to certain sectors. as you all know, the negotiations with the council in the following months called for flexibility from all sides to identify workable solutions for the institutions. i believe that the agreed text is a balanced compromise that incorporates many of the amendments presented by parliament and leaves room for further developments in the near future, which - as mrs gyri pointed out during her speech - is very important. in the short term, or as soon as the new regulation comes into force, consumers will have more information about the presence of non-textile parts of animal origin and will also have access to information on the full composition of textile products. another immediate result of the new regulation is simplification, since the commission will turn a detailed technical attachment of more than 50 pages into harmonised european standards. however, even more importantly, the immediate results of this regulation are not the last stage of the process. on the contrary, they are a starting point for further analysis and for improving the legislation. in fact, in the short term the new regulation provides a comprehensive review clause which invites the commission to set out, where necessary, further labelling requirements in this area. the commission will then make suitable legislative proposals in the areas which require greater harmonisation. it is my intention - and i hereby take on the commitment before parliament - to deal with this review both immediately and thoroughly. we are already preparing for the task of consulting consumers on some fundamental questions, namely: what kind of information is important and how should it be made available; in what way should technological developments, such as electronic commerce, affect the purchase of textile products; to what extent does the growing need for traceability, sustainability and corporate social responsibility influence the textile fibre market; how can we make better use of available technology in the digital age; how can we, as institutions of the european union, adapt our laws to the growing needs of citizens regarding ethical, social and environmental issues. mr president, these are just a few of the topics on which work has already started. as you can imagine, origin marking will undoubtedly be one of the priorities and core elements of our work. the review will therefore provide an opportunity to reaffirm my support for origin marking and clarify this issue once and for all, as it is an essential instrument for the competitiveness of european companies and the health of eu citizens. we will examine this matter in depth in order to provide clear rules, prevent misleading information and facilitate responsible choices by consumers when purchasing textile products. as stated by the rapporteur, mr manders, the commission will also evaluate the link between allergies and chemicals used in textile products. specific analysis in this field will be able to indicate the best way to use existing legislation, such as reach. let me explain briefly: through the use of origin marking, buyers will be sure they are buying a textile product that is not harmful to their health nor that of their children because the labelling will comply with all the rules of this important regulation which, at the cost of significant sacrifices, european institutions have imposed on all industries in this sector. the review clause - and again i thank the council for having stressed its importance and declared their willingness to work with the commission immediately to transpose the regulation - requires the commission to submit a report, possibly followed by a legislative proposal, by 30 september 2013. i am determined to cut down the time required and have already instructed my staff to start work. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we have finally reached an agreement on this important dossier, thanks to a great effort from everyone to find common ground between the divergent positions of parliament and the council. my goal was, is and will be to ensure that binding rules are adopted on textile product origins, since consumers and businesses must absolutely be protected. i believe that the compromise reached today is a very good result. i urged my fellow members to fight the council, and i use the word 'fight' with good reason, because negotiations have not been at all easy. we fought not only to achieve origin markings but also for traceability. the latter represents a key piece of information for the consumer before a product is purchased. today, european consumers find textile products labelled 'made in italy', 'made in germany' or 'made in france', when in fact they have been almost entirely produced elsewhere. we also ask for new labelling technologies, such as microchips and radio-frequency identification (rfid), to be used in order to combat product counterfeiting. it is true that we have expanded the scope of the proposal for a regulation because we believe that the textile sector urgently needs greater protection. the joint declaration to be adopted by parliament and the council shows the importance of traceability and origin marking. i do not hide the fact that the council's volte-face makes me confident for the future. we await with great interest the study requested from the commission, whom we thank once again for their cooperation, and i thank the mr tajani sincerely for having just committed himself to reducing the timescales involved, because the textile industry is in urgent need. we cannot leave unheeded our citizens' need for truthful product information. after all, we are all consumers and reaching this objective is in everyone's interest. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would also like to say a very big thank you for the excellent compromise that we have reached. the rapporteur, mr manders, in particular has done some sterling work and he ensured that we experienced truly excellent cooperation here in the european parliament. we have come a long way since the commission tabled its original proposal. it was a mainly technical proposal and it was one that only contained benefits for businesses. fortunately, however, by working on the proposal here in the european parliament, we succeeded in incorporating elements that make this legislation beneficial for consumers, too. i believe that this is absolutely crucial. as a result, we will have better labelling and a higher level of safety for consumers once we have finally implemented this legislation. the most important aspect for me and for the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats in the european parliament was to ensure that the textiles that are sold on the internal market do not cause health problems. we are therefore very pleased that the requirement for there to be no residues of hazardous substances in our textiles that could give rise to allergies was successfully voted through - and, as the commissioner has just said, that we are to have a study carried out to ensure that this is the case. this is absolutely vital and it is something that we in the s&d group are very pleased about. we also agree that traceability and origin are extremely important, and this is also the type of information that consumers are very keen to have. personally, i also hope that we can achieve a little bit more than this and that we might also be able to have harmonised clothes sizes and use new technologies in our labelling of textiles in the future. i do think that we have achieved a great deal, however. it should be a lesson for us that, when we lay down legislation here in the eu, it is important for it to benefit both businesses and consumers at the same time. that is the best way to ensure that we have a well-functioning internal market. i would like to finish by expressing my sincere thanks once again to all my fellow members for their outstanding cooperation. i think we have achieved a very good result. on behalf of the alde group. - (ro) mr president, first of all, i would like to congratulate our rapporteur toine manders for the fine job he has done and for the perseverance he has shown in the negotiations with the council on this proposal for a regulation. i welcome the agreement which has been reached with the council at second reading. i believe that this is an agreement which, although it can be improved, will boost the competitiveness of the textile industry, while at the same time providing consumers with better information. this agreement has a large number of positive points. firstly, the procedure for including new fibres in annex i has been simplified. this will help reduce the administrative costs for the textile industry and allow this money to be reallocated to innovation. this measure will also benefit consumers as innovation is encouraged. i also think that this regulation will offer benefits to consumers due to the labelling requirements. providing consumers with sufficient information so that they can make an enlightened choice is a completely natural step. the discussions about the labelling have lasted longer than the commission initially proposed. however, i think that this can only benefit european consumers. i agree that we need more time to evaluate the impact of some additional labelling requirements, especially regarding origin, the care treatment method and the introduction of a harmonised size labelling system. this is why the study carried out by the commission marks a first step forward. finally, i believe that the labelling requirement for non-textile parts of animal origin is a sign of real progress as it is consumers who do not want the textile products they buy to contain such materials. i think that, as a whole, this regulation will help deepen the single market for textiles, a move which i fully endorse. mr president, simplifying the binding legal framework in respect of the labelling of textile products is intended to encourage the development of new textiles and their introduction onto the market. the proposal we will vote on tomorrow differs significantly from that put forward by the european commission, which mainly consisted in technical changes simplifying legislation already in force. the original aim of the report was to speed up the procedure for registering the names of new textiles, in order to provide effective support for innovation in the european textile and clothing industry, while at the same time making it possible for consumers to benefit more rapidly from modern products. despite the fact that work on the simplification of procedures has slowed down during the more than two years spent on this dossier, i would note that parliament proposed extending the original scope of the regulation, in particular to include provisions concerning the country of origin of textile products, so i am glad that a balanced compromise has been reached. i would point out, however, that my group decided to approve the proposal in its initial version, which provides rapid benefits for business and consumers. we proposed right from the start that work on these issues should not take place in the context of the technical report. the commission will therefore be asked to carry out a more in-depth analysis of the issue of mandatory 'made in' labels for textile products manufactured outside the eu, and by 2013 it will produce a report on the possible launch of a system for country-of-origin labelling for products. this report may be accompanied by a legislative proposal. the compromise between parliament and the council also guarantees that labels on clothing products will provide information regarding the use of materials of animal origin. if work is to be carried out in future on new opportunities for informing consumers about textile products, for example europe-wide size harmonisation or rfid technology, let us remember to take a pragmatic approach, in line with consumers' expectations and what industry can achieve. mr president, we say that consumer power is important, and if we are serious about this we clearly must also give consumers the opportunity to use their power. we must ensure that they have adequate product information etc. to be able to make wise and informed choices. i would therefore like to thank our rapporteur, mr manders, in particular for his persistence and commitment to ensure that the report includes the consumer perspective. i would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, who have shown a great deal of commitment to increasing consumer power. as shadow rapporteur, i have tabled an amendment on behalf of the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left concerning origin labelling, mandatory labelling of animal products and ethical and environmental labelling. it has not all been included, but i am very pleased with the compromise that we now have and i would like to express my support for it. there is a lack of information when it comes to chemicals and various products used in textile manufacture. the commission has promised to carry out a study of this, and i would simply like to emphasise how very important it is that we have such a study done in order to be able to protect public health and combat allergies, among other things, in which we have seen a significant increase. we need to be able to see, and, where present, substantiate the connections that exist. i am also pleased that parts of textile products of animal origin are also to be labelled, and i wanted to use my speaking time to say thank you to everyone for their excellent work to increase consumer power. thank you. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the measure in question is designed to replace three obsolete directives and relates to the labelling of textile products entering the european union and the registration and naming of the substances they are made of. a text was adopted at first reading which called for labels to indicate the place of origin as well as a complete and mandatory list of the product's composition. unfortunately, the council's position appears to contradict the text approved by parliament since, in particular, it is against any reference to origin marking and the introduction of traceability in textile product labelling. just to get the measure approved at the second reading, the internal market and consumer protection (imco) committee has agreed to a text which does not satisfy us because it does not provide for origin marking. we will therefore vote against it, because the aim of providing consumers with correct and accurate information about the origin and composition of the product has not been met. (it) mr president, commissioner, minister, ladies and gentlemen, through this new regulation on textile product labelling, which we will vote on in plenary tomorrow, europe will reach an objective it has been pursuing for years. however, it can only be considered a first step towards comprehensive legislation to protect all european consumers by indicating the country of origin and adopting a new and accurate traceability mechanism. i welcome the invitation to the european commission to draft a legislative proposal for the adoption of new, more accurate and complete labelling systems. these will offer greater information about the characteristics and origins of textile products imported from third countries and sold in the european union, thereby protecting consumers from false, improper and deceptive claims of origin. i hope it will encourage innovation in textiles and clothing, making it easier for consumers to benefit from innovative products. the proposal also supports the european manufacturing industry and guarantees its business in the global context. finally, through these measures parliament is sending the governments of the member states a positive message in order that they will consent to the introduction of textile product traceability. this will provide consumers with more comprehensive and truthful information than under current legislation on origin marking and avoid them being misled. we now need the regulations on textile product labelling to be extended to all other market sectors, thereby coordinating the various legislative proposals and insisting that the fibres and textiles proposal, as well as the general origin marking regulation approved in strasbourg last october, are adopted the council in short order. as mr tajani has already emphasised, the deadline of 30 september 2013 is too distant. we are therefore relying on his stated commitment to bring it forward. (es) mr president, i should like to start my speech by congratulating all those who have made it possible to reach an agreement. it is a report that we should all welcome because it affects the day-to-day lives of all members of the public, but, in the constructive spirit characteristic of me, i should like to point out a few things. to begin with, i should like to draw attention to the importance of providing consumers with information that is precise and relevant, but above all comprehensible and uniform, regarding the components of textile products: exhaustive information is useless if the public is then unable to decipher it. we have achieved a step forward that is necessary but not enough: we must make further progress and protect the most vulnerable members of the public. ladies and gentlemen, it is essential to establish a european size labelling system based on body measurements, because the first thing we look for when we go to buy clothes is the size. we must therefore be much more ambitious and seek the harmonisation of sizes. (sv) mr president, i would like to thank mr manders and offer particular praise for the fact that the request that parts made of animal fur be identified has now been included. labelling is good for consumers, as we all know. we also know how important it is to have freedom of choice, and in order for consumers to be able to make considered choices it is necessary to have good information that is truthful and easy to understand. in this regard, i have a problem with origin labelling. modern products are often made up of textiles and parts from different countries and it is almost impossible to correctly label an item of clothing with its origin. mr manders touched on this himself: where do we draw the line, what should we label and how much should come from a particular country? in the modern global world, origin labelling could be a way of enabling consumers to be well-informed and to make the right choices. however, it could also be a sign of hidden protectionism, and sometimes when i hear these speeches i feel that i can both hear and see this. it is open borders and free trade that has made europe rich and europe's consumers know that. thank you. (da) mr president, the textile industry is a global industry. the clothes that we wear have often been around the world before they end up with the eu's consumers as finished products. this report is comprehensive, thorough and very technical. finding the right balance between competitiveness, consumers' right to information and the possibility of traceability at global level is difficult. consumers have a right to know what chemical substances were used in the manufacture of a product, where the raw materials come from and other relevant information. however, how do we find the balance between an endless declaration in the collar of an item of clothing and a small label that simply says that the clothing should not be washed? labelling must be unambiguous and provide clear information to enable citizens to make their choice according to their own conceptions. this compromise is a step in the right direction. however, the study by the commission will not be carried out until 2013. this study is to form the basis for how consumers, via the labelling, can obtain 'accurate information on the country of origin and additional information ensuring full traceability of textile products'. i hope that this basis will translate into a sensible and useable piece of legislation. 2013 is still a long way off, so i am pleased that the commissioner wishes to bring forward the date for legislation that will provide full information for consumers. thank you commissioner. the european conservatives and reformists will vote in favour of the proposal. (fr) mr president, in 2005 the abolition of textile quotas left the doors of the union wide open to all kinds of dumping. that was disastrous for employment and the environment, and, despite appearances, it is disastrous in the long term for consumer health. it is high time that we introduced measures aiming to protect and develop jobs and to promote know-how among textile employees, as well as consumer health. even though we wanted to go further, we are approving the proposals that have been submitted to us concerning origin labelling, the study on hazardous substances and the mandatory marking of the fibre composition of textiles. we must still make sure that we have the resources to implement this protection and information in all the member states and to take action against offenders. yes, we must make sure that we have the resources to combat counterfeiting - at the borders of the union, for example, but also in the very heart of the single market. this is a question of political will. it has to be said that, unfortunately, more resources are being put into tracking down tunisians at the french-italian border than into combating the sale of counterfeits. if we consider that fact, then, it is clearly better to be a commodity than a human being in europe. we must change this. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, while thanking the president of the commission and mr tajani for their efforts, we of lega nord must say that we are completely and utterly dissatisfied. this debate seems surreal to me. it is a con, a downright con. some excited left-wing members are suggesting that we agree on uniform sizing, while we do not know the origin of the goods worn by consumers. so much for free market! i would like the surreal debate of this tuesday evening - which was held in a half-empty parliament - to be heard by a few thousand of the manufacturers that survived the crisis in the sector. i understand the logic of compromise, but the current text destroys the one which resulted from the first reading and was voted for by an overwhelming majority. it was a balanced text that took account of the needs of both producers and consumers. since then it has been a complete fiasco: if i am not mistaken only two out of the 27 member states have asked that the consumer be informed of the composition of garments, and the hungarian presidency of the council has ignored this fact. is this not yet another demonstration that europe is light years away from the interests of citizens, be they producers or consumers? (hu) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mrs gyri, please let me divide the topic of labelling textile products into two important issues. the first important issue is that it is necessary to indicate where, which country a textile product originates from. the other important issue is of course that the materials the textile product is made of should also be indicated accurately. a single system of regulations is of course beneficial in both cases. if we take a look at the first issue, namely, the origin of products, it makes sense to begin with the clich that there is an ongoing crisis in the european union that is due mainly to the fact that production industries, for example the textile industry, were outsourced to different countries in the far east for easy and quick profits, and therefore production in the european union has declined. we have to find the breakout points that will help the european union overcome the crisis. the textile industry is especially such a sector, along with, for example, agriculture, machine production or tourism. european manufacturers are at a marked disadvantage in the textile industry, because the dumping of cheap and poor quality products from the far east makes it impossible for european manufacturers to make progress. country of origin must be indicated, and i would definitely support even the indication of the eu member state, trusting the wisdom of costumers who support their own economies, as everyone will see, say, a bulgarian, a czech, a hungarian or a german person, that they are buying a product manufactured in their own country. we must protect our markets with new technologies, and the quality of materials must be indicated, backed by strict laboratory testing. - (cs) mr president, it was one year ago last week that a very comprehensive bill on labelling textile products, as tabled by our committee on the internal market and consumer protection, was passed by a large majority at first reading. i greatly applaud the work of the rapporteur, toine manders, and others who negotiated up to the last minute with the council on a compromise at the second reading, which allows the more rapid introduction of new fibres in european manufacturing and improves product safety. i must express regret, however, over the fact that the council has so stubbornly refused to introduce country of origin labelling and to harmonise size labelling. i am very disappointed with the approach of the council, which deprives consumers of the right to find out before purchasing where a significant part of a product was made. after all, this not classified information. it will reinforce the promotion of high-quality european brands, and will rightly inspire pride in citizens for what europeans still manage to produce, despite the competition from cheap labour. if consumers know where a product was made, they will also more easily avoid purchasing hazardous products, of which there are still very many, despite improved controls. this is absolutely not about protectionism. i am pleased that the commission, at least, is prepared to present an impactsassessment by september 2013, which, apart from country of origin, will also focus on harmonised methods for treating products, size labelling, and the inclusion of information on hazardous substances, allergens, flammability and so on. it remains to be seen whether this will have any effect in two years' time on the council, which protects the interests of businesses importing textiles from third countries more than it protects european producers and consumers. it is also up to us, however, to convince people about this, not only here in brussels, but also our governments at home, if we want to achieve these goals. i would like to end by thanking toine manders once again, as well as the commissioner and everyone else, for today's result. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, this proposal for a regulation is worthy of support because it helps to simplify and harmonise the different laws in the member states. the proposal sends out a signal that is in line with the commission's proposals on small and medium-sized enterprises and the strategies to stimulate european competitiveness in the manufacturing sector. the regulation also implicitly rewards product innovation and contributes to greater transparency in the process. however, i would point out that the compromise reached with the insertion of the review clause and the joint statement by parliament and the council on origin marking - the political significance of which is not lost on me - could set a precedent and compromise the outcome of the difficult negotiations between the commission, parliament and the council on the complex issue of origin marking for non-eu products, which parliament approved at first reading last october and which concerns non-textile products also. it is high time that the council acknowledged once and for all the democratic will expressed here by the majority of meps. however, despite these concerns, we will vote in favour of the proposal for a regulation. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, while on the one hand this report contains useful measures designed to simplify and harmonise this area, on the other hand i oppose it because we did not manage to include a reference to origin marking within the text. this measure would have been of fundamental importance for the textile sector, and would have provided a guarantee for european citizens and consumers. our main competitors, such as the united states, japan and even china, have already been applying a similar rule on imported products for some time. who knows why, but europe seems to consider this point to be completely irrelevant and extraneous. the issue, however, is anything but trivial: labels with origin marking can help prevent fraud, as well as protect quality. just last week in prato, my hometown, more than 73 000 counterfeit items were seized and the majority of them were textile products. counterfeiting, imitations, extremely low-cost manufacturing in the far east, and so on, have brought our textile and manufacturing sector to its knees, and europe ignores our every request. forgoing origin marking is, sadly, only the latest terrible idea. (the speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under rule 149(8)) (it) mr president, i am addressing the members from the lega nord party to ask what their party has done during the negotiations and the trialogue, since i personally, together with the group of the european people's party (christian democrats), asked them to make an active contribution. it is right to criticise, but it would be better to work together to achieve tangible results and not just reel off slogans. (it) mr president, during the first reading in committee, a completely different text - one including the product origin certificate - was approved. it is not clear why the council and the commission gave up on this point: we do not intend to give up, and so we are voting against the report precisely because the origin certificate has been omitted. (it) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are all here to assess a text that certainly contains a few gaps, since i think that - as is often said in this house - we all wanted something more ambitious. however, we are also all aware that we are on the right track. obviously, a clear and mandatory labelling system for all items of clothing allows for greater control and means that fraud and illegality can be combated more effectively. for example, there was practically unanimous praise for the fact that this text makes it obligatory to indicate where trimmings are of non-textile animal origin. we hope that this will make for a more effective fight against the heinous trade in dog and cat furs, which are used as trimmings on garments placed illegally on our market. we had hoped for a more ambitious plan including an indication of the place of origin, or at least immediate origin marking for products from those third countries that are notorious for not respecting any rules or regulations protecting consumers, workers, the environment or children - rules and regulations which are now established practice in europe and represent a genuine guarantee for our consumers and citizens. i should like us all to remember, however, that this is a battle we must win together and by working as a unit because, as mrs comi pointed out, this fight began a long time ago and today we are marking important progress. the consumer consultations that the commissioner has pledged to carry out will be a fundamental step, not only for the textile sector but also for all those sectors in which parliament has often questioned the general public's desire for information concerning place of origin. i think that this information will be at the top of consumers' list of preferences, and i acknowledge the efforts made on this matter by all those members who worked personally on this important text. (hu) mr president, we must pay particular attention to the interests of consumers during the discussion of the report. accurate indications and labelling must be sought, because these are the measures by which the added value of the european union can be displayed for consumers. the current legislation in force allows for derogation. this means competitive disadvantages for the european union, so the time has come to a legislative revision in line with the present market relations. the rapporteur may be right in that there is no sufficient evidence for the potential effects of hazardous materials applied. conversely, maybe the rapporteur is not right, and it would be advisable to examine this issue more closely. it is also important to assess cause and effect relations, if any, between allergic reactions and synthetic fibres and colourants used in textile products. therefore the issues concerning quality, origin and traceability must be given even higher priority. mr president, eu citizens have a right to know the make-up of the clothes they wear and this regulation will allow them to avoid purchasing products containing non-textile parts of animal origin, whether for health, ethical or other considerations. when used in garments, for example as trimmings, such materials are currently not subject to mandatory labelling; most consumers are unaware of this and may not know the exact make-up of the textiles they buy. eu legislation providing for this already exists for footwear, and it makes sense to provide our consumers with the same level of information when they buy their clothes. allergy sufferers in particular stand to gain from this proposal, as fur is potentially hazardous to their health, and the commission must also study the possibility that potentially hazardous materials and chemicals used in textiles may lead to allergic reactions. future applications of new textile fibre names must include available scientific data on possible allergic reactions and other adverse effects on human health. it should be stressed that these are balanced proposals which exempt clothes made by self-employed tailors from such labelling requirements. vice-president of the commission. - mr president, rather than a technical debate, i think this is more of a policy debate within the context of decisions made by the institutions of the european union - in this case parliament, the commission and the council - to boost the real economy. the european commission and the commissioner for industry and entrepreneurship intend to carry on supporting industrial policy and small and medium-sized enterprises, partly so as to provide answers to our citizens on the issue of the quality of the products made by our businesses. the competitiveness of the european economy is also measured in terms of product quality as a factor in the protection of the health of our fellow citizens. that is why this evening, at the end of this debate, the european commission is renewing its desire to press ahead with origin labelling. as i already announced - and in order to reassure mr cancian and all the other honourable members who have voiced concern about the overly long timescales - i can confirm that we will try to present our work ahead of schedule. in this regard, i confirm that i have authorised my staff to continue down our chosen path, because the commission has always supported origin labelling both for products made in the european union and for those that are imported. this evening's debate has certainly not been fruitless, because mrs gyri clearly stated that the council sets great store by the clause we are discussing - which is the key to today's policy debate - and that it is ready to reach a forward-looking rather than a backward-looking agreement with the commission and parliament in order to provide our citizens with real answers. i continue to believe that the traceability issue affects the competitiveness of smes and - just as my top priority since being appointed as a european commissioner has been sme policy, so continuing the work of my predecessor - i intend to continue protecting the health of consumers through quality products which will be the only competitive ones on the international market, because the competitiveness of european union products is measured in terms of quality. that is why i think it is important to continue working in this direction. i am satisfied with the agreement reached between the co-legislators. as you well know, parliament and the council have to assess it at second reading, but the european commission intends to seize back the policy initiative and reinvigorate it. in other words, the commissioner for industry and entrepreneurship intends to start work immediately on ensuring the protection of our products, for the sake of the competitiveness of our businesses and the health of our citizens. before concluding, i should like to mention our commitment to supporting innovation in the textile and clothing sector. adjusting legislation is one way of defending our competitiveness, but there are other industrial policy initiatives in the works as well. i will mention just two of them. we are developing measures to support the transfer of research outcomes and their transformation into tangible, marketable products and services. we are also preparing a communication on the fundamental aspects of competitiveness in the fashion industry. all of this goes towards underlining the need to protect european businesses and the fact that there can be no growth and development, and above all no jobs, in a social and market economy situation in which the market - which is also a fundamental instrument of our european union - does not pursue a higher and more important goal, namely social policy. president-in-office of the council. - (hu) let me respond in a few words to the questions concerning the indication of the country of origin, because this was the most exciting part of the debate, and i must say that this issue generated a lively debate not only during the consultation with parliament but also in the council, and we discussed this issue at great length. since consultations on the horizontal proposal concerning the country of origin in trade policy have not ended yet, it did not seem appropriate for us to create a precedent that would jeopardize the proposal and prejudice the outcome of that debate. we also considered the possibility of establishing a system operating on a voluntary basis for indicating the place of manufacture. in practice this option is already open to operators. but if we laid down this voluntary system in a regulation, without a proper implementation mechanism, it would lead to unjustified burdens and distortions, and that is something we wanted to avoid by all means. i am positive that the commission report will assess the effects of a possible system for designating origin, so that the legislators can make a sound decision at a future point. (it) (.) i must also express my gratitude to mr tajani for his willingness to speed up the work in the commission aimed at finding a solution on this highly important matter. (hu) so at the end of the day, it seemed to be a practicable solution to include a review clause in the text, and also settle the topic in a paragraph in the preamble, and it is a great pleasure for me that mrs lara comi, who was the most important representative of the topic today and who is also a pioneer of the issue, has also said that this solution is an acceptable and good solution and can serve as a basis for joint work in the future. so i would like to thank everybody for this useful debate once again, it is good that now we have a schedule concerning the future as well, and it is very important for us that, as several members have indicated, we can combat counterfeiting as efficiently as possible and that the european consumer can trust the traceability of textile products. so on behalf of the presidency i would like to once again thank the rapporteur, the shadow rapporteur, the chairman of the imco committee and his colleagues for their joint efforts aimed at reaching an agreement on this piece of legislation in the second reading, through which the internal market of textile products can operate even more efficiently. rapporteur. - (nl) mr president, the committee on internal market and consumer protection stands for free trade and against protectionism. protectionism was never the intention behind this proposal, but what it is intended to do is to ensure that modern technologies are used to provide adequate information for the consumer and also to provide accurate information. i also find it nonsensical that some members should say, after the first reading, 'well, that is over, so now we can carry on regardless', because we in this house know that if we want to carry on as we were and if we want something other than what the council or the commission wants, then we will be thwarted in that aim. it is easy to call your attention to this now, but i do think this is the right way forward. i have seen how strongly mr tajani has supported our compromise and i call on minister gyri to be just as strong in his attempts to persuade the council to accept the positive elements which the study produces and enshrine them in legislation. if that happens, i think that we will be able to show that we are making laws which are beneficial for our industry, for our consumers and also for us, because we do need to retain public support in europe. i thank everyone for their support and once again, mr tajani, thank you for your support and i hope that we will have the results of the study as soon as possible. i also hope that the president-in-office will succeed in persuading the council that we can set to work in a positive spirit. i think that the future will show that the course we are now taking is a template, an example for a great number of sectors, a course that is worth the trouble we are taking. no legislation should ever be based on emotions, because that is not what anyone wants. on the other hand, legislation which is underpinned and supported by scientific arguments, with input from all parties, and which will eventually lead to legislation that is acceptable for all, whilst still being workable - now, that will lead to greater prosperity in europe. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on wednesday, 11 may at 12:30. written statements (rule 149) we know that on 30 january 2009, the commission adopted the current proposal on a regulation on textile fibre names and related labelling of textile products. the aim of the proposal is to simplify and improve the existing regulatory framework for the labelling of textile products with a view to encouraging the development and uptake of new fibres. the proposal facilitates the process to adapt legislation to technical progress by transforming the three existing directives into a single regulation, which would avoid transposition of merely technical updates, and shortens the time between the submission of an application and the adoption of a new fibre name. the majority of parliament supports the simplification of the existing regulatory framework, which encourages innovation in the textile and clothing sector, whilst allowing fibre users and consumers to benefit more readily from innovative products. in its position at first reading, adopted on 18 may 2010, parliament approved 63 amendments with a very large majority, including rules on origin marking, indication of animal-derived materials, use of language-independent symbols and a review clause, but the council did not accept everything. it is important that it accept several proposals, particularly those on origin marking. therefore, we support the majority of the positions adopted here.

agreement between the eu and the usa on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the european union to the united states for purposes of the terrorist finance tracking programme (debate) the next item is the report by mrs hennis-plasschaert, on behalf of the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, on the recommendation on the proposal for a council decision on the conclusion of the agreement between the european union and the united states of america on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the european union to the united states for purposes of the terrorist finance tracking programme (05305/2010 - c7-0004/2010 - 2009/0190(nle)). as you know, the european parliament has been very active in this matter. our parliament is composed of members directly elected by the citizens of europe. our main responsibility is for citizens' rights, and we must guard these rights. we are fully aware of this. this is our first and greatest responsibility. at the same time, we realise how important the swift agreement is - for completely different reasons. therefore, finding the right middle ground, here, was important. while this was happening, in recent months, the treaty of lisbon has come into force. in november of last year, i wrote to mr reinfeldt, who was president of the european council at the time, with a request to postpone the decision and for the european parliament's decision to be taken into account, in accordance with the treaty of lisbon. as you know, this did not happen, and on 30 november, the council made a decision on the matter and adopted the swift agreement. on 21 december, i sent another letter to mr reinfeldt. parliament expressed two expectations in this letter: inclusion of our position in the negotiation mandate for a permanent agreement, and also full information for parliament during future negotiations. on 21 january, i wrote a similar letter to mr zapatero, who currently leads the rotating presidency, and sent the same letter again on 8 february. i have also written a letter, saying the same things, to mr barroso. i have also been in touch with representatives of the american government and with mrs clinton. i have also received a letter on this matter, which sets out the position of the united states government on the swift agreement. perhaps you know all this, because the documents are all available - i have sent all the documents to the political groups, so that you can use them at any time. this is important. we must have full information, so that we can make decisions on this matter in a responsible way. the measures we have taken will also be helped by our discussion today. that is why this discussion about swift is so important. i am extremely glad that we have representatives of the council and of the european commission with us, who will be able to speak, and then we come to our discussion and our responsibility for a decision on this matter. rapporteur. - mr president, i shall start by saying that i, too, support a strong, outward-looking eu that is capable of acting shoulder to shoulder as a true counterpart to the us, and in that framework, i think it is of crucial importance to be open, fair and transparent if we are to address the issue of how europe should cooperate with the us for counter-terrorism purposes, including law-enforcement use of data collected for commercial ends. without a doubt, the targeted exchange and use of data for counter-terrorism purposes is, and will remain, necessary, but let me be clear: european citizens must be able to trust both security and data claims. getting it right first time round should be the objective and, with all due respect, the council has been insufficiently strong to do so. indeed, the proposed interim agreement is a significant departure from european law in how enforcement agencies would obtain financial records of individuals, namely through court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, but with the proposed interim agreement, we instead rely on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records of european citizens. by the very nature of swift, it is not possible to refer to the so-called 'limited' requests. for technical reasons, swift has to transfer bulk data, thereby violating the basic principles of eu data-protection law such as necessity and proportionality. this cannot be rectified ex post by mechanisms of oversight and control. at all times, it must be clear that parliament is not out there to just passively take note of the actions of the council and the commission. the fact is that this house is always being promised jam tomorrow if only we would be patient. however, we cannot keep falling for fake promises of jam tomorrow. we need clear commitments now and the ball was in the council's court. i made that clear last week, but so far, it has failed to act accordingly. the council states that it wants to ensure the utmost respect for privacy and data, but fails to address in particular the rights of access, rectification, compensation and redress outside the eu for data subjects. the council states that it shares parliament's concerns and therefore calls on the commission to adopt draft negotiation guidelines. why hide behind the commission? it is council that will adopt the negotiation directives in the end; why have the negotiation guidelines not already been submitted? council states yet again that it wants to ensure that the tftp will continue. however, it fails to address the fact that in this way, the eu continues to outsource its financial intelligence service to the us. the lack of reciprocity is not being addressed. true reciprocity would allow the eu authorities to obtain similar data stored in the us and, in the long term, consider the necessity of building up our own eu capacity. the council does not show any commitment to line up with existing legislation such as the data retention directive for the telecom service providers, which does deal with specific and targeted data. the council fails to clarify the precise role of the public authority. a 'push' system does not mean anything if, in actual practice, swift has to transfer bulk data. transfer and storage are, in other words, by definition disproportionate under the terms of the interim agreement and the council does not address a european solution for the supervision of data exchange. president-in-office, tell me how on earth i can tell 500 million european citizens that we are selling out on important safeguards and principles just because we are not able to put our foot down, because council is not able to get its act together. tell me; i am all ears. (applause) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to begin my speech with an unequivocal statement: spain has shown clear, unreserved support for the treaty of lisbon, and it has done so from the very beginning. we did so in the certainty that the implementation of the new treaty was going to mean, inter alia, that the european institutions would be brought closer to our citizens. this is an objective that the treaty of lisbon entrusts largely to parliament. giving parliament a bigger role and greater participation in issues such as the area of freedom, justice and security is the way in which this treaty has tried to bring the citizens and the institutions closer together. let me begin, then, by assuring all the honourable members that the council is committed to working closely and honestly with parliament. for the spanish presidency, this conclusion is the result of our firm commitment to the treaty of lisbon and its aims. the council also shares parliament's concern to ensure the security of all european citizens, for security means the guarantee that they can fully exercise their freedom. that is the context in which, together, we are fighting terrorism - all forms of terrorism. as stated in the resolution adopted in this chamber on 17 september, the european parliament 'recalls its determination to fight terrorism and its firm belief in the need to strike the right balance between security measures and the protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights'. i agree wholeheartedly with this statement. this is the framework within which i would like to see this debate conducted; it is a new framework under the treaty of lisbon, and it is based on honest, interinstitutional collaboration and a shared desire - and this is not a new desire - to fight terrorism while respecting the principles of proportionality and necessity, which are also critical if we are to fight terrorism effectively. mr president, it is widely acknowledged that international terrorism has brought new challenges to our societies. this is a relatively new form of terrorism which has no clear organisation, is extremely deadly and operates at a global level. a global approach is therefore needed to eradicate it. it lacks a rigid, hierarchical structure and so can only be combated with an extraordinary intelligence effort. it is so deadly that we are having to be on maximum alert in places where large numbers of people gather. prevention, coordination and intelligence are the three words that sum up our strategy for tackling this huge threat. all countries have endeavoured to improve internal and external coordination, to be better informed and, ultimately, to cooperate with those who are engaged in the same struggle. the european union has also increased its joint investigation bodies and teams, information exchange and shared analysis. this is the context for the agreement we are examining today between the european union and the united states concerning the transfer of financial messaging data. data exchange without an agreement has worked uninterruptedly for many years. when i appeared before the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs two weeks ago, several members asked me about the outcomes of that data exchange. it is a pertinent issue which i think has been taken up and answered in the second report by judge bruguire, which has been referred to this house and from which i shall now quote: 'during 2009, the tftp has been a highly valuable tool used by intelligence and law enforcement agencies to help map out terrorist networks, to complete missing links in investigations, to confirm the identity of suspects, to locate the physical whereabouts of suspects and to identify new suspects as well as to disrupt attempted terrorist attacks'. i would also add that this not only applies to 2009 but earlier, in the united states, europe and all over the world: in barcelona in january 2008, in germany in the summer of 2007, in london after the 7 july attacks and in the investigations into the 11 march attacks in madrid, the bangkok killings of april 2005 and the bali bombings of 2002. these are just some of the examples judge bruguire cites in his report. data exchange has therefore delivered positive results. it has allowed us to investigate and prevent attacks. it has enabled us to arrest terrorists after they have committed attacks and, most importantly, before they have succeeded in committing them. even though swift indicated in 2007 that it had made a decision to change its databases, it did not actually do so until just a few months ago. this meant we had to review the protocols which, up to then, had enabled us to exchange financial data. that had to be done in a very short space of time. the mandate was approved by council in the summer of 2009 when there was still uncertainty over the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon. the decision that was taken is well known. we signed an interim nine-month agreement which should be ratified in this chamber: an interim agreement lasting nine months, during which this parliament, the council and the commission should establish a new negotiation process to set out a definitive agreement. that was the decision taken. it may not have been the best decision. however, it is important to say clearly to this house that, in terms of privacy protection, the signed ad referendum agreement that we are debating here today is a great improvement on the protocols in place prior to this agreement. it is an improvement because this interim agreement has additional guarantees, among other elements, that were recommended by parliament and set out by the rapporteur in the report that has been presented to us today. at this stage, i would like to say that the spanish presidency of the council has taken full account of the resolutions adopted in parliament and the letters sent by the president of the parliament, as well as the report that was drawn up by mrs hennis-plasschaert and voted on in the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs on 4 february. for this reason, the council approved a statement that was sent to parliament yesterday and whose key points i shall now summarise for you. firstly, the council is committed to incorporating into a definitive agreement the sound guarantees that will strengthen proper protection, the deletion of data and greater precision with regard to the exchange of data obtained by the tftp with national authorities and third countries. we are also committed, of course, to strengthening the guarantees contained in the current agreement; these should remain - and be strengthened - in the definitive agreement, as should a strict limitation on the end use of data and an absolute ban on extracting data and using profiles. finally, the council, in response to the new context created by the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, is committed to negotiating an interinstitutional agreement in order to enable easier access to classified documents relating to international agreements. in this regard, and i wish to reiterate this point as clearly as possible, the spanish presidency is totally committed to the treaty of lisbon and the charter of fundamental rights of the european union, particularly article 8, and fully recognises the legitimate concerns expressed by parliament. we now know that the commitment i have just set out is possible. in a letter sent to the president of parliament by the secretary of state of the united states, hillary clinton, and the secretary of the treasury, timothy geithner, the united states government has expressed its commitment to incorporating the requisite guarantees in accordance with the position taken by the european parliament. ladies and gentlemen, it is possible that in the approval process for the agreement we are debating today, the council could have done things better. what is certain, however, is that in this process, the council has learned lessons and taken due note of parliament's concerns. it is also certain that the agreement we are debating today has contributed - and i hope that it will continue to contribute - to improving the security of citizens all around the world and, of course, in europe. thank you, mr rubalcaba. i would like to remind everyone, as i said earlier, that i have received a reply from the council to the letters which i sent. they are available in the political groups for you to see at any time. in its reply, the council has responded to our expectations, the expectations of parliament. thank you, mr rubalcaba, for making this declaration and for explaining the council's position on this. it is very important to us. member of the commission. - mr president, let me start by thanking everyone for yesterday giving us and me your trust and confidence by voting 'yes' for the new commission. it is an interesting first day at work and i am grateful to share with you the important issue of sharing information with the us for the purpose of combating terrorism, this time in relation to the terrorist finance tracking programme (tftp). the european parliament has, of course, shown great interest in this matter. this is quite right, since the tftp confronts us again with the challenge of reconciling data sharing with data protection and, if we take up this challenge, this helps us to give citizens security, privacy and data protection. one of the aims of the interim agreement has been to ensure implementation of the conditions in the european parliament resolution of september 2009. we firmly intend to strengthen further the data protection part when negotiating the long-term agreement, particularly concerning the right to receive information about whether one's rights have been respected under the agreement, and stronger guarantees about effective redress, lawful data processing and the deletion of data. the second bruguire report was made available to meps on monday last week, and it demonstrates the significance and the value of tftp in the investigation and disruption of terrorism, including in the european union. the report confirms that tftp has been used to identify and arrest individuals who have subsequently been convicted of terrorism within our member states. the report also highlights that tftp is a valuable source of reliable information necessary in the fight against terrorism. there are specific examples and the council referred to a few of them. we know that the threat of terrorism in some of our member states remains as high as ever, and i am sure that you can see that rejection of the interim agreement by this house would represent a serious blow to eu security. some of our member states have made it very clear that they want the tftp to continue because they have benefited from it in the past and will continue to do so. they have told us that the reliable information that the tftp provides on known and suspected terrorism is an important source of legitimate intelligence needed to address the complex threat, notably from al-qaeda inspired terrorism. the interim agreement is not only a favour to the us; it is in our common interest. much has been said about the level of protection of data in the interim agreement and this is, of course, a key concern. i encourage members - and i am sure most of you have already done so - to look closely at the interim agreement. you will see that it contains significant and detailed legally binding commitments on the way that the us treasury department can process data under the agreement. they include, for example, a strict limitation on the purpose of processing, which is limited to the investigation, detection and prosecution of terrorism. it includes an absolute prohibition on data mining - searches of the database can only be undertaken where it is possible to show a reason to believe that the subject of the search is engaged in terrorism. that means that the data held on the tftp database are effectively anonymous. only if there is a reason to believe that one identified person is a terrorist can the data of that person be seen and extracted from the database. this is important. the interim agreement obliges the treasury department to delete data within five years of receipt - a period which is in keeping with the retention period in eu legislation on terrorist financing. the agreement also provides for a detailed eu review in which some of our own data protection authorities will participate to ensure that these and many other data protection obligations are complied with. the agreement does not involve the transfer of virtually all swift data to the us treasury department. i can assure you that only a fraction of swift data will be transferred under the interim agreement. it does not in any way affect the powers of data protection authorities with regard to processing activities performed in the eu by swift or financial institutions. refusal of consent will bring to an end the interim agreement, including the significant data protection safeguard it contains. if the us is able to access data by other means - for example through bilateral relations with the netherlands - those safeguards will no longer apply. if the interim agreement falls, it is likely to take considerable time before any alternative can be put in place. so refusal of consent risks leading to both a data protection gap and a security gap. finally, the interim agreement is only an interim agreement. it might not be the best agreement in the world. it can - and it will - be improved. the commission is now finalising the draft mandate and the guidelines for the long-term agreement and we will adopt them swiftly. i give a personal commitment to you to ensure that the european parliament's concern will be addressed and that we shall seek a strong protection of privacy and data protection in the new agreement. the european parliament will be fully informed at all stages of this procedure. i hope that this answers a few of your questions. thank you, mrs malmstrm, for your explanations. they were, truly, very important for us. the council and the european commission have just made certain declarations in relation to our expectations of the negotiation mandate and about keeping parliament informed. in what we are doing, there is also another important element: the european parliament has become jointly responsible for european legislation. we are also responsible for international agreements, such as the swift agreement, and we are giving a strong signal that the situation has changed, now that the treaty of lisbon is in force. this is important. i think the recent signals from the american government show that it has become clear that the european parliament is, today, fully responsible for legislation. we wanted it to be a strong signal. however, we know we are responsible to our citizens. we are directly elected members of the european parliament. our responsibility to defend citizens' rights is of fundamental significance and we always stress this. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, i would like to welcome you on your first working day and assure you that you have the full cooperation of our group. at the beginning of this debate, we would like to say that we want a good partnership with the americans, in particular, when it comes to combating terrorism. secondly, we strongly support security for our citizens and also citizens' rights and data protection. thirdly, we have worked very hard to ensure that the guidelines for the negotiations and our position were in place as early as mid september and we now want to see these implemented. fourthly, mrs malmstrm, i would like to say with respect that it is not that parliament had a strong interest in this area, but rather that we regard the legislative process as our responsibility, as the president has said, and we want to be involved in this process on an equal footing with the council and the commission. our response to the text for the negotiations is to make two very clear points. firstly, we cannot accept the way in which this text has been produced. secondly, although the council maintains that 'the points from parliament's resolution have been fully taken into account', in fact, some of the points have not been included, in particular the right to take legal action, the deletion of data and some others. these are the main reasons why we said in the subcommittee on security and defence that this was unacceptable to us. it also became clear that it was only after this that things started to move. the us secretary of state has not agreed to anything, unless the council has received information which is different from the information given to parliament. this has allegedly happened on some occasions. the council has sent out encouraging signals this week, but has not given any guarantees. i would like to make that very clear. this is why we are saying that we want to discuss this further, that we want a good agreement and that we are very much in favour of more discussions, if there is a guarantee that this will result in a good agreement. mr president, the irish author jonathan swift in his famous book 'gulliver's travels' sent his hero gulliver to the land of lilliput, whose inhabitants were only six inches high. however, gulliver believed that he had arrived in the land of giants. to me, it seems rather as if american diplomacy has followed gulliver and believes that it can treat the european parliament as if it were an organisation of little people. that is a mistake. mrs malmstrm, i would like to congratulate you on your election and your move from one bench to the other. however, you should be aware that it was not just an error committed by american diplomats, but also by the governments of the european union who believed that an agreement of this kind could be pushed through parliament and did not realise that we cannot vote in favour of such a defective agreement. this agreement embodies the spirit of the security ideology of the united states of america, but it does not embody the protection of fundamental rights, which we as members of the european parliament must guarantee for the citizens of europe. the possibility of transferring large volumes of data without specifications and without specific details in individual cases is in fundamental conflict with the data protection legislation that we have adopted in europe in all our parliaments, including the national parliaments. the serious problems regarding data protection have already been referred to. you have done so yourself. how long will the data be stored? who is storing it? who is passing it on to whom? what options do i have for finding out about what is happening with my data, who is accessing it and whether it is correct? what legal protection do i have to ensure that incorrect data cannot be gathered about me and passed to third parties, whoever they may be? when will my data be deleted, if it has been collected and stored? under the terms of the homeland security act, data can be stored for up to 90 years. if this includes a guarantee that i will reach the age of 90, then i'm happy to discuss it. it is worth repeating that this data can be stored for up to 90 years! all of these factors represent serious failings in this agreement. for this reason, mr rubalcaba, i have to say to you that this is a bad agreement and we cannot vote in favour of it. if we reject it, then it is your job to negotiate a new and better agreement with the united states that respects the interests of security but, at the same time, also respects the security interests of citizens with regard to their freedom. if you can do this, we will support the new agreement. the objective of a new round of negotiations must be to find a compromise between these two things. i cannot recommend to the members of my group to vote in favour of this agreement at this point and in this form. this evening, i will suggest that my group votes against this agreement. on behalf of the alde group. - mr president, i should like to welcome my former colleague and good friend, cecilia malmstrm. it is a pleasure to see you here. this is a first key decision for the european parliament to take with its new lisbon powers and expectations are high, but we need to keep a clear head. we owe it to our citizens to make a well-considered decision, free from outside pressures or scare tactics such as false claims of a security gap, because data, and we know this, can still be obtained by the us without disagreement. let us not forget that the member states were not unanimous on this agreement either. we can only give our consent to an agreement that has full democratic legitimacy, on grounds of substance and procedure. this is not about a battle of wills between the council and the european parliament nor is it about transatlantic relations. this is about european citizens being entitled to a proper democratic and transparent procedure. the answers of the council so far are utterly inadequate, and the democratic rights of european citizens cannot be bargained away with promises of trips to the us or vague promises by the council for future agreements. the council has had countless opportunities since 2007 to handle this in a proper manner and ensure security, as well as protection of personal data and civil liberties, or ensure proper democratic scrutiny by national parliaments or, since 1 december, the european parliament, but the council has been incredibly stubborn. parliament cannot and should not take a decision if it does not have access to all relevant information and documents. our voters have a right to know that we consider all elements very seriously and that we do not simply rubber-stamp council decisions. finally, the european parliament has been very clear for years about its concerns and expectations and, instead of coming up with more vague promises, the council should finally provide us with the opinion of its legal service and the requested information demonstrating the use of the data for counter-terrorism purposes. i do not consider that the second bruguire report is sufficient. so, if the council wants the consent of this house, it will have to meet our demands. that, council, is the only way. (applause) mr president, firstly, i would like to comment on the meetings with the experts and the us ambassador. in the two meetings which i chaired, i did not feel in any way as if i were being regarded as a little person from europe, quite the contrary. during these meetings with the experts from the us, i learnt a huge amount about the very different legal systems relating to the protection of fundamental rights in the us and in europe. i am grateful to the americans for taking part in this far-reaching dialogue. the nature of the task which lies ahead of us has become clear to me. the council has not done this task justice in the past. the nature of the task facing the europeans has also become clear to me, if we want to combine an effective fight against terrorism and effective protection of fundamental rights in the same agreement. i actually find it embarrassing that people have had to come across the pond to explain this controversial area to us and that the council has not so far been able to have an honest debate of this kind with parliament. the rapporteur has made it entirely clear in which areas fundamental rights, which enjoy the highest levels of protection in europe, will be breached. i would like to make an additional point that i regard as a major problem from a legal and political perspective, if we look at the issue in more detail. the us and europe have completely different definitions of terrorism and this is a problem which pervades this agreement. as has rightly been said, the members of this house are accountable to the citizens of europe for ensuring that their rights are preserved. in my opinion, we should not vote for an agreement which many of us, including mr weber, mr langen, who is not here at the moment, and mr schulz, have said repeatedly in public is in breach of current law. we must take action now. we have told the citizens of europe in the course of the public discussion that we would do so. we must vote against the interim agreement and we must not postpone our vote. parliament must not evade its responsibilities again as it did in november. then we had the option of bringing everything to a stop, but the majority did not want to do so. now we must take action and - i am saying this after the consultations with the americans - this will put us in a better negotiating position and on an equal footing, which will enable us to improve security and the rights of citizens in the european union and perhaps even in the us. on behalf of the ecr group. - mr president, like my colleagues here, i have been hugely frustrated and angered by the council's treatment of and substandard consultation with this house on the agreement. parliamentary consultation and consent should not be a retrospective tool. the reciprocity of data protection should be beyond reproach, and the manner in which the agreement has been negotiated and concluded must never be repeated. however, i have been reassured at least by the united states authorities and by the multi-layered data protection systems and judicial safeguards that are in place through this interim agreement. so our poor treatment by the council should not compromise the eu's agreement with the united states, or any future agreements on the security of europe. we are now receiving loads of assurances and promises from the council and from the commission. i cannot yet judge whether these answer all the reasonable requirements we have laid down, so in my opinion, we now need some time before proceeding further with our consideration of this vital measure. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the swift agreement was negotiated on the basis of a dubious procedure and quickly pushed through only one day before the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, in order to circumvent parliament. however, i would like to focus specifically on the content of the agreement. we have big brother's little sister waiting for our approval. mrs clinton believes that she can persuade the members of this parliament to do something which we would not accept from our own governments. from my point of view, it is fundamentally wrong for alleged terrorism investigators to have such extensive access to databases, because this undermines people's self-determination over their own personal data. personal data will be stored for decades and no one will have any control over how it is used. in addition, the data can still be retained after the agreement has come to an end. it will not be possible to take legal action to discover the whereabouts of the data or to claim damages for its illegal use by third countries. this gives the state precedence over its citizens, who will all be reduced to the status of objects of suspicion. the member states are allowing other governments to spy on our citizens indirectly via the eu. to give some examples in germany, should deutsche telekom, deutsche bahn or the schlecker drug store chain still be worried about collecting information on their employees? will it now become the norm for the german government to buy from tax investigators data that has been obtained illegally? we find ourselves in a situation in which parliament must stand up for its beliefs and make a decision. why should google be able to set data thresholds in future? it is important to combat terrorism and, in particular, its causes, and i believe that we all agree on this, but not at the cost of fundamental rights. in this context, i have heard many speeches which refer to the eu as a community of values. we are just about to sweep one of these values under the carpet and my group cannot vote in favour of that. (mt) let me make it clear that the european popular party is in favour of this agreement. it is all for the swift agreement and tomorrow will vote in favour. let me explain why: the european popular party is going to give its backing because its primary concern is the safety of people, the security of our citizens. the security of our citizens will be improved as a result of this agreement, and this is why we support it. this is not simply my own opinion, but it is the expert opinion of those whose specific task was to research and evaluate whether or not this agreement enhances the security of the citizens whom we all, in this chamber, represent. there will be an improvement in the level of security throughout europe and this will be extended to the security of other citizens worldwide, including the united states. now i agree with those who stated that the council did not act appropriately with the european parliament, but i believe that the message sent out by the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs last week taught the council a lesson, a lesson that was clearly understood. i also sympathise with the concerns of my fellow members on the issue of privacy, but here we must again recall that this agreement is an interim one. this means that a new agreement will have to be drawn up that will provide better guarantees regarding security. mr president, in your introduction you mentioned responsibility. i appeal to my fellow members to use the powers of this parliament, the new powers that we have, with full responsibility, in order to truly be able to face 500 million citizens and tell them that we were defending their security. if possible, in order to retain more unity in this chamber, tomorrow's vote should be postponed. we are ready to consider the postponement of the vote but if it is not granted, then we should vote in favour. mr president, we, too, in the socialists and democrats, want to fight for the european citizens and we want to fight against terrorism, so that is why we will be recommending, as my leader said, a 'no' vote tomorrow to ensure that we vote in this parliament on the first consent procedure under lisbon against a bad agreement for this whole parliament. this is not a sectarian issue for us but a factual issue. this is an issue about whether a badly drafted agreement serves the interests of security and anti-terrorism. as one of my advisers once said - and he is a lawyer, i used to be a lawyer and mr kirkhope was also a lawyer - quoting benjamin franklin: he who would put security so far before liberty deserves neither. so we all agree that, for the eu citizens, a good agreement is what we want. now in coreper, it is absolutely true that the council came up with all the issues that we as a group regarded as the important issues. mrs clinton, too, in her letter acknowledged that parliament had a point, but neither of these documents went further and gave us a blueprint for solving this problem, and that is why a 'no' will, in our view, push towards a better agreement for the whole parliament. so we, in our group, are appealing across the house and not just within our group, to support the rapporteur in what she is trying to do, a better agreement to fight terrorism. no one has the moral high ground here; we want an effective fight against terrorism, that means a better agreement and that is what we will be recommending to the socialist and democrats this evening in our group. (es) mr president, i reject the methods and the time used for this agreement. parliament's role is an essential part of the treaty of lisbon and it should be respected by all parties concerned. moving on to the substance of this issue: the greatest damage a democratic society can do to terrorism is to cut off its financial resources. that is why the interim agreement should remain in place while the definitive agreement is urgently negotiated. on at least nine proven occasions, swift and tftp have demonstrated their effectiveness and value in preventing and suppressing terrorist activities in europe, asia, africa and america, in relation to the text of the interim agreement and data protection. which report should prevail, ladies and gentlemen? that of the european data protection supervisor or those of the special judge, for both are well-founded yet contradictory. no, ladies and gentlemen, we have neither held a debate nor reached a solution on this issue. the wording of the interim agreement guarantees rights. it states that data provided shall be processed exclusively for the prevention of terrorism or its financing; that no copies of data provided shall be made; that data provided shall not be interconnected with any other database; and that only public security authorities shall have access to data. i trust the government of the united states and the great democracy by which it is established. we have an obligation to strengthen our relations with that country, for we are natural, mutually reliable partners. for all these reasons, i support a house vote in favour of the interim agreement and i welcome the very positive move parliament has made to assert its authority, and the fact that mrs clinton and mr geithner have acknowledged that authority as an indispensable element now and in the future. finally, mr president, the council and the commission know what is expected of them. an interinstitutional agreement is urgently needed. mr president, a simple letter from the council that the negotiation guidelines will fully contain parliament's concerns, that negotiations will begin immediately with the united states and not at some point in the future, and that parliament will be fully involved in these negotiations might have sufficed, and it would not be that difficult to give in order to alleviate this parliament's concerns about the way it has been treated, ignored and played with in the past. but you could not do even this today. the bulk transfer of data, the commissioner said, is not a problem. only some data will go there. swift tells us that is not the case. the united states administration tells us that is not the case. there is no proof of what you say in this statement. you mentioned the negotiating guidelines that you are nearly done with. where are they? given the pressure that exists today, why can you not tell us exactly where you agree and where you disagree with parliament, instead of making general statements? i feel it is extremely important to fight together with the united states against terrorism. i urge the united states and council to work very seriously together with us after our vote tomorrow, and not to choose bilateral routes or dream about breaking the solidarity, but to work together to protect fundamental rights while we protect security. (de) mr president, anyone who has followed the many discussions about swift over recent weeks might get the impression that without swift, we would descend into chaos and that rejecting the agreement would bring an end to the transatlantic relationship and the joint war on terror. these attempts to threaten us can be described in one word: ridiculous. the us and the council are not trying to rescue an essential tool; they are simply saving face. there are many agreements and measures in place to combat terrorism. swift could be a useful addition to these. the failed attack on 25 december has clearly demonstrated that it is not data we are lacking, but the ability to make effective use of the data which we already have. the idea is to divert attention away from this fact. the interim agreement simply could not be worse. it is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. instead of suitable precautions being taken to ensure that only data relating to people who are actually under suspicion is transferred, huge volumes of data will be sent to the us every month. the agreement represents a flagrant breach of citizens' rights, data protection and the principles of the rule of law. if the council and the us were really prepared to take on board this criticism and to incorporate these points into a new agreement, then there would be no need for us to accept this dreadful agreement. in the interests of the citizens, we must say no to the interim agreement and we must start new negotiations immediately, so that we can put in place a really good agreement which acts as an additional, effective tool for combating terrorism and which preserves our fundamental rights. (es) mr president, the treaty of lisbon has opened a new chapter for this parliament, but also for the council and the commission. in his speech, the president-in-office of the council has taken note that this parliament should be listened to and that its concerns and demands should be taken into account. he has also noted that the negotiation of this agreement was not conducted very well, or well enough. above all, however, he put forward a future commitment: to urgently negotiate a definitive agreement that meets the demands set out in the rapporteur's report, which include the demand for a guaranteed right to appeal, to information and to the subsequent modification or deletion of private data. we therefore have to strike a new balance between privacy, citizens' freedom, and security, which is also a fundamental right of the citizens we represent in this parliament. so, whatever the outcome of the debate, parliament urges the minister to begin that negotiation as soon as possible and to thereby satisfy the treaty of lisbon, the charter of fundamental rights of the european union, and the 500 million citizens that this parliament represents, who have a fundamental right to security. (de) mr president, in the era of mobility, we cannot have security without an effective and rapid exchange of data and our job is to protect our citizens against terrorist attacks. therefore, we must find a balance between security and privacy. this balance must be reflected in the agreement that we are currently debating. however, given the importance of this issue, the council has taken a really amateurish approach in this case. therefore, i would like to see more concessions made to the rapporteur, including some specific help, so that we can perhaps achieve a majority in parliament. if we do not have this, then the terrorist finance tracking programme will remain a single central programme and it will be important for us to ensure that swift only transfers individual items of data. if we do not have this, then the full agreement is the right thing and the current agreement remains important. therefore, i believe that we should aim for a postponement and then ultimately . (the president cut off the speaker) colleagues, this is a very important discussion. i do not want to disturb you but you are all talking half a minute longer than you should. there are 11 people on the list. if you all talk for such a long time then i cannot give the floor to the others. (de) mr president, no one has any serious doubts about the need to combat terrorism. however, the question for advanced democracies based on the rule of law always concerns what should be done and how it should be done. in this case, this question is easy to answer. we must not act in such a way that 500 million people are placed under suspicion and that there is a massive intrusion on their rights, without giving them recourse to legal protection. in particular, these measures must not be put in place with a total disregard for existing democratic regulations. now parliament is in the position of having to carry the can for the actions of the arrogant swedish presidency. we must not do this. therefore, i am in favour of voting against this agreement tomorrow. (sv) mr president, i want to say that nothing will be stopped - no terrorist act will be stopped - by this proposal. none of the four attacks mentioned by the council presidency would have been stopped, although perhaps the subsequent investigations would have been made easier. this agreement reduces security in the same way that any total surveillance law on the internet reduces security, because if there is total surveillance, people will try to avoid it - even honest citizens. then anonymisation services are created on the web, just as now in the banking sector. if terrorists can hide among ordinary people, security is reduced. it is a poor agreement. instead i call for a complete review of all these anti-terrorism laws. what do they cost and what is their collective effect on privacy and liberty? only then will i even consider voting in favour of even more anti-terrorism laws. show us how effective these measures are using open documents, not secret ones. (pl) mr president, i would like to draw attention to two matters, which, in my opinion, are very important. it is indisputable that we should fight terrorism, but the discussion is about how this should be done, and what kind of agreements should be signed with the americans on this. i would like to raise two matters. the first of these is that the agreement affects only one of the parties - it is a one-sided agreement. have we thought that the appropriate services in european states could also obtain data from the usa, and that this would facilitate the fight against terrorism here in europe? the second matter - the basic objection concerns the fact that it will be possible to obtain all financial data. i strongly emphasise the word 'all'. i think we should work towards allowing american and european special services to obtain data only from those entities which are under suspicion. (ro) the council sent the agreement to the european parliament very late, which is extraordinary. i hope that there will be no more recurrences of incidents of this nature. on the other hand, i have been very pleasantly surprised by the intensive cooperation between the us authorities and the european parliament. unexpectedly, they have listened to this institution, something which i hope will be repeated in the future. i am expecting the same level of interest from the us authorities as well regarding the equal treatment of member states in relation to the visa waiver programme. the united states have yet to introduce clear, transparent criteria for refusing visas in certain member states. nevertheless, i believe that the temporary agreement must be supported because it will contribute to the security of european citizens. however, the approval of this agreement must not halt the negotiations with the united states on a long-term agreement, which will include all the objections raised by this parliament. (de) mr president, today, the council has admitted that the results of the negotiations may not have been as good as they could have been. we should pick up on this and take the opportunity to improve the agreement. however, simply postponing matters will not help, because the postponement process is not governed by any conditions. we will therefore find ourselves in exactly the same situation again during the next plenary session. i do not believe that this will change anything. secondly, i would like to say that we have already had enough promises that things will be better during the next round of negotiations without the involvement of parliament. we have already been promised before this agreement that this time things would be quite different. once again, postponement will not help. the only thing that will help in this case is to send out a clear signal. thirdly, the security loopholes which people have repeatedly claimed will be created if we do not vote in favour of the interim agreement simply do not exist. we have legal reports that prove this and we have agreements on mutual legal assistance. mr president, the security of our citizens is of paramount interest to us all, and it is all too easy for us to be painted as soft on fighting terrorism when we stand and ask for the civil liberties of our citizens to be protected. i have seen that happen time and time again by many national parliamentarians when it comes to actions that this house takes. swift has, of course, many examples of success, and we support all of those examples, but it is equally important also to concentrate our minds on those instances where swift has failed or let us down. there have been many failed or bad investigations in the european union. in my constituency alone, 12 innocent people were detained and were not able to be charged. at the time they were detained, we were informed that financial transactions were part of the substantial evidence against them. what can we learn from those bad instances? council, let us step back. we have time. our backs are not against the wall. there is a way forward. let us defer. council, go back; do this properly - not for the sake of this house, but for the sake of our citizens. (pt) mr president, in my country, if a police officer wishes to gain access to a bank account, he has to have a warrant. i cannot accept an agreement whereby thousands or millions of bank details are transferred to an american police officer for perusal without requiring the permission of a court. the interim agreement that was negotiated lacks data protection. data protection is not a luxury - it is a prerequisite of our freedom. there is a lack of reciprocity and a lack of proportionality. we cannot allow this. we certainly hope that the final agreement will be properly negotiated. how can it be negotiated? is it negotiated from a poor basis or a reasonable basis? i believe that it is better for us not to have a bad interim agreement than to have any agreement at all. if we refuse the interim agreement, it means that we have a good base for negotiating the final agreement. (sk) the saying goes that good agreements are made by equal partners. the agreement being drawn up at the moment, however, does not indicate that we are an equal partner but rather that the united states is making demands of us and is expecting that we will comply with its views. following the lisbon treaty, however, the european parliament has much more power and the task as meps sitting here is really to defend the interests and rights, the fundamental rights, of the 500 million citizens of the eu member states. i therefore also support the motion for this agreement to be reworked and for it to incorporate the proposals that we, the members of the european parliament, who are the only directly elected representatives in all of the eu institutions, expect to be incorporated into the agreement. i know that there are countries in the european union that have enormous problems with terrorism. finally, spain is one of the countries that have been fighting terrorism for a long time and i believe that in this case, the council will be the partner of the european parliament and not the partner of the united states of america. president-in-office of the council. - (es) mr president, first of all, i would like to say that i have listened with great interest and appreciation to all of the speeches made by the honourable members, speeches of both support and criticism, although admittedly, the latter were in the majority, but i welcome them all. i would like to say firstly that i am very pleased to have confirmed once again during the debate in this house that parliament, the commission, and the council are all perfectly in tune when it comes to defending our shared values and, as i said in my speech, to taking a determined stance against any kind of terrorism. in my opinion, this consensus is extremely important, and we should not forget it. i want to make a distinction between the two radically different strands of criticism that we have heard with regard to the swift agreement which we have examined this afternoon: criticism on the grounds of procedure, and criticism on the grounds of substance. it is true that there has been constant criticism of the substance of this agreement, even by those members who explicitly supported an agreement such as this. i reiterate what i said in my earlier speech, that things could probably have been done better; in fact, they could certainly have been done better. however, i also said, and i reiterate this too, that as the honourable members know well, the time limits were as they were, so that the council and the commission had to take action within a very short time frame. in any case, let me be very clear that as i said earlier this afternoon, it is the council's wish that things be done differently from now on, and not as they have been done in the past. certain members have said, probably based on their experience, that this is a promise, a commitment, which has been broken repeatedly in this house. i would like to say in support of the council that it is a commitment born out of a fundamental commitment within the treaty of lisbon, which sets a core objective that this house should play an increasingly important role in the institutional life of europe, so that the citizens feel better represented. this commitment from my country, which is a fundamental commitment within the treaty of lisbon, is the reason why i want to state here categorically that during the spanish presidency, the council will do things differently. in case some people do not trust the council's word, and they would be within their rights not to, they should remember that the treaty forces us to do things differently. therefore, if the political will of the council does not suffice, the treaty is in place within the law to ensure that things are done differently in the future. it is reliant on this house working with the commission, and naturally reliant on the united spirit shown here by our members, a spirit that seeks a balance between defending security and maintaining our core values; it is a pan european spirit, with which the council is fully in tune. i would like to make three comments regarding the issue itself. i will not address some of the more specific issues that have been the object of criticism, some of which is unfounded in my opinion. for example, it has been said on various occasions that the swift agreement, as it now stands in this house, permits the bulk transfer of data. it has not been said, and it should be stated clearly however, that this is not the logic behind the agreement, and that bulk transfer is only allowed by the swift agreement in exceptional cases, always and only when there are legal suspicions (article 4(6) of the agreement). this is just one example. there have been other somewhat superficial accusations about the content of the agreement, which i believe would respond well to scrutiny, but i am not going to address them at this point. i would like to make two more points on this matter. firstly, along with the commission and some of the members of this house, i would like to stress that the agreement has been useful in the fight against terrorism. i have given some examples, and there are more in judge bruguire's report, which has been given to the members. i can provide another example, or even better, two, which i previously referred to from my own country. it is true that the swift agreement was used to investigate the 11 march attacks in madrid, with good results. it is also worth remembering that the swift agreement was used to prevent an attack on the city of barcelona just over a year ago. the perpetrators of these attacks are all currently serving sentences in spanish prisons. therefore, we can say that yes, it has worked, and yes, it has allowed us to get results. this being the case, then surely the honourable members will agree with me that a suspension of the agreement will effectively mean at least a slight lowering in standards of security for european citizens. surely, you must accept that if the agreement is working and has been working for us, then its suspension would leave us somewhat less secure, and i am choosing my words carefully so that no one can accuse the council of being overdramatic. we would certainly be a little less secure; it is as simple as that. that is why i want to emphasise on behalf of the council, and i think that the commission also agrees, that it is vital not to suspend this agreement. it may be that this agreement warrants criticism, and i want to stress once again that we acknowledge the tough criticism that we have heard here this afternoon. however, the honourable members will surely agree with me in saying that this agreement is a lot better than the protocol over data exchange that the united states and the eu have had to comply with for years. the agreement under debate today is probably not perfect. improvements could certainly be made, and i can even agree with some of the criticisms made from certain quarters, but i ask you to acknowledge, as i do, that it is an improvement on what we had before. the eu, council, and commission have introduced several motions into the agreement, which are causing concern amongst some members, who are trying primarily to guarantee that security is not at the expense of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and rightly so. this is why i want to reiterate what the commissioner said, that it is important not to suspend the agreement. i also want to reiterate to parliament that the council's sincere wish is to negotiate a new agreement - which will be a definitive one - an agreement which will incorporate many of the issues mentioned here this afternoon, issues which the council agrees with and would like to publicly endorse. the council is making a commitment to do this. the fact is that the president-in-office of the council has already made this commitment in a letter to the president of parliament, but we will still have to uphold it when the time comes to negotiate. therefore, we are debating an interim agreement today which improves the current situation. we are debating an agreement that will last for nine months, which is the time it will take for the commission, the council, and parliament to reach a new agreement - which will be a definitive one - an agreement that will most certainly address all the very reasonable precautionary measures discussed in this afternoon's debate in parliament. the council cannot ignore this afternoon's debate. we cannot ignore the fact that this agreement has come in for a great deal of criticism. as i said, some of the criticisms have certainly been more founded than others, but criticism there has been, and i think that this deserves serious consideration. i am asking on behalf of the council, that parliament give us this time for reflection. time, naturally, to analyse and discuss this debate with my colleagues in the council, time to discuss it with the commission, and time, essentially, to explore the possibility of making a better agreement with the us, which i think is a real possibility. we are asking for time, ladies and gentlemen, mr president, to allow us to come back to parliament within a few weeks, a few months, to be able to guarantee that we have created the foundations for the signing of a definitive agreement that adequately addresses the concerns expressed by certain honourable members today. concerns, which, i repeat, echo the council's concerns in many cases. member of the commission. - mr president, this has been an extremely important debate. that is totally accurate because we talk about such important matters as how we can maintain the security of our citizens but also maintain good information and exchange systems with a high level of data protection. there have been, as the president of the council said, a few questions, and a few misunderstandings, i think. some of them are answered in the bruguire report, so i would really encourage you to read that. but i think we need to understand and remember why we have an interim agreement. why do we have it? well, it was because swift was moving and we were finding ourselves in a situation where we did not have a regulation on the transfer of data, so the council and the commission moved swiftly to arrange something. we did achieve certain concessions from the united states and some very good data protection mechanisms. also, two member countries concerned asked the commission to be involved in order to have a european approach on this and avoid bilateral agreements. this is important to recall. now this is an interim agreement, as i said; it can and it will be improved. it is the full intention of the commission and the council to involve the european parliament under the lisbon treaty in the permanent agreement. we need to have more clarification concerning redress, lawful data processing and deletion of data. the permanent agreement will also include guarantees of rectification, access to information. mr lambrinidis asked why the commission does not have that. well, mr lambrinidis, the commission has been in office for 16 hours and 20 minutes. this is an extremely important negotiating mandate. we need to be able to discuss this together, within the new commission, before we formulate the full negotiating mandate to discuss with the european parliament. we have only very recently taken office so you could not expect us to have done this. but we will make sure - and mr barroso expressed this very clearly in the letter to mr buzek - that we are working on the negotiating mandate; we will present it to the european parliament as soon as possible and make sure that you are fully informed the whole way on this. it might be a very good idea to postpone the vote and we might need more time to discuss the mandate. you will see the negotiation mandate; you will have time to look at the papers, the reports and so on, and the commission is willing, as i said, to work together with you and the council for a good - and much better - permanent agreement on this. colleagues, the blue card rule does not operate during presentations by the council and commission, but this is an extremely important discussion. we must take a decision tomorrow. this is not according to the rules, but could i ask you, mr president-in-office, to take two short - and i emphasise short - questions from mr schulz and mr lambrinidis - nothing more, as we could discuss this for another two hours. (de) mr president, mr rubalcaba, i have listened carefully to what you have said, along with all the members of this house. you have used the following words: 'give me more time to discuss this with the other members of the council. give me more time to come back to you with a better agreement.' i would therefore like to ask you very specifically whether it is the case that the council is no longer insisting on this agreement and on the vote on this agreement and whether you want to have to time to negotiate with the us on a new and improved agreement. have i understood what you said correctly? mr president, is the council aware of the fact that in the past years, swift has never once transmitted specific data because it cannot extract it, and always transfers bulk data? is the council aware of the fact that, precisely because of that, there is an agreement between the us and swift that stations swift personnel in the treasury department in order to ensure that the bulk data the treasury gets does not get searched in a bulk manner? is the council aware of the fact that the interim agreement does not include even the slightest concession to parliament? if i am right - which i hope i am - are the council and the commission committed to taking the bulk data issue extremely seriously in the mandate of the negotiations? mr president, the council would like to reiterate once again how important it is that we do not cut off the flow of financial data exchange between europe and the united states. however, the council is also mindful of the fact that the precautionary measures, criticisms, and suggestions of the honourable members must be the subject of serious consideration. for this reason, i have asked for time to work with all the countries of the european union, with all the member states, to look at whether we need to incorporate this type of consideration into the new agreement. even more importantly, i have asked for time to consult with the united states. i believe that the usa is willing to incorporate into the new agreement many of the precautionary measures, reservations, and restrictions expressed here today by the european parliament. in short, it is willing to seek a greater balance between security and freedom in the definitive agreement, which is essentially what we are talking about today. i would like time to explore this possibility so that i can come back to parliament and say, in a session such as this one, before proceeding to the vote, that the commission and the council have a commitment from the united states to incorporate these suggestions from the european parliament into the new agreement. under these conditions, i think that we would have a very different debate from the one we are having here this afternoon. (de) mr president, that is very helpful. thank you very much for making this possible. if i have understood things correctly, because this is a sensitive issue that we are discussing, then mr rubalcaba cannot assure us that the existing agreement will not come into force. in other words, if we postpone matters and give ourselves more time, it will come into effect. therefore, my next question is: can mr rubalcaba assure us that, for example, a long-term agreement will be in place within a month with higher standards or is the council telling us that we must still wait nine months until the end of the period? it is very hard for parliament to accept an unconditional assurance. therefore, we must have clear conditions relating to the council's assurance, in order to be able to decide tomorrow about a possible postponement. (es) mr president, thank you for applying the house's rules of procedure with generosity, and allowing the two representatives to speak, firstly from the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats, and secondly from the group of the european people's party (christian democrats). mr rubalcaba, you have put your finger on it. most of the arguments put forward for debate in the house have been fair ones. i have great respect for everything that has been said. however, these words should have a documental and informative component, with full knowledge of the facts, and frankly, i have been very surprised to hear certain statements that suggest otherwise. such statements give the impression that very few people have actually read the agreement that they are criticising, since having read it, there is no way they could have come up with some of these arguments. that is why i want to ask you, mr rubalcaba, about the matter mentioned by my colleague, mr manfred weber, and by mrs hennis-plasschaert in her letter (as you already know i am in favour of keeping the interim agreement whilst negotiating a new agreement). in her letter, mrs hennis-plasschaert asks the same question as manfred weber. can the council guarantee to parliament that with the participation of this house, it will present the final text of the new agreement, in committee in june, and in plenary in july? president-in-office of the council. - (es) mr president, some of the honourable members are calling for an interim agreement and others for a permanent agreement. with regard to the timing, it is clearly not the same to bring to this house the foundations of a definitive agreement, or in other words, to bring a commitment from the united states to include some of the precautionary measures and suggestions put forward by this house, as it is to bring a new agreement to the table. if the honourable member is asking me whether we can bring a new agreement to this house in one month's time, the answer is no. if you are asking whether, within a deadline of a few months, we can bring to this house the results of dialogue between the united states and parliament, whose participation is very important, so that we can debate whether we are right in thinking that the definitive agreement will be much better than the present one, my answer is yes. in my opinion, we are capable of achieving this. this is precisely what i am asking for. therefore, i am not specifically referring to the rapporteur's proposal, which i admit i have not seriously considered this afternoon after assessing the general mood and the multiple actions and speeches against the signing of the interim agreement. let me reiterate my opinion that things being as they are, it is a much more realistic option to ask the house for a deadline of say three months, to give us time to bring forward the foundations of an agreement with the united states for debate in parliament. in other words, this agreement would include the elements that we in the eu (commission, council and parliament) and the united states believe should be incorporated into the definitive agreement that would subsequently be negotiated. i believe that in these circumstances, the debate we are having today would be radically different. rapporteur. - mr president, a lot has been said. let me underline to mr busuttil and the president-in-office, in particular, that by our withholding our consent on the interim agreement, the security of european citizens is not being compromised. i think it is very unfair to use that as a form of argument. other legal instruments remain available for targeted transatlantic data exchange and, as stated by claude moraes, nobody has the moral high ground here. with regard to the usa letter, that letter is obviously appreciated, there is no doubt about that, but to state that parliament's views will be heard, considered and responded to is a bit weak, is it not? it is very non-committal. also, it is stated that this is only provided this interim agreement remains in force, which i consider as pure blackmail. i am getting angry and i am sorry for that, but this debate is slowly getting on my nerves. tftp is not, and cannot be considered to be, consistent with the strongest european traditions on civil liberties. it must be seen, and i want it acknowledged, as a departure from european law and practice. i said this before and i want to hear it again clearly. i also want to say that nobody doubts the necessity for continued and stronger cooperation between the us and the eu, though the eu and its member states, in the council in particular, must be strong in setting their own objectives. in that respect, parliament and the council are not in tune yet. finally, let me stress that it is all about european responsibility, and a european solution is to be found. the netherlands and belgium cannot end up being the 'dupe' of all this. i listened carefully to your statements, to the request for more time, and i am willing to refer that request to the conference of presidents, but you did not give me the reassurances i was looking for: it was too vague. i will, however, refer your request to the conference of presidents which will meet later this afternoon. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday, 10 february 2010. written statements (rule 149) cooperation with the united states to combat terrorism is important, but not at any price. the agreement with the united states on the transfer of financial data rather comes down to opening and reading the personal mail of all european citizens or monitoring all their e-mail exchanges on the pretext that terrorists are likely to send each other letters or electronic messages. the agreement we are talking about does not guarantee respect for personal data and still less for the use to which they may be put. the risk of meddling in the private lives of millions of innocent citizens or in the perfectly legal financial transactions of european companies, simply on the orders of an administration, is unacceptable. i still remember the 'echelon' affair, that listening system that was allegedly intended for military and security purposes and which proved to be an alarming potential commercial and political spy system directed against the allies. we can accept an exchange, that is to say, a reciprocal transfer, of targeted data on request from a judicial authority in a specific context. we certainly want to help swift break the technical deadlock that prevents it from carrying out anything other than mass data transfers. however, we cannot accept this agreement. mr president, we are recommending to our fellow members that they vote against this report with the aim of giving the members of the council and the commission the opportunity to make some adjustments and thereby alter their position. we very much hope they will seize this opportunity. for the rest, france has just decided to sell a mistral class warship to russia; we believe that it will sincerely regret its action. the threat of terrorism is not getting smaller. the recent attempt by a suicide bomber to blow up an aircraft flying from europe to the usa shows there are people who are ready to kill hundreds of innocent people in the name of fanatical convictions. it would, however, be a mistake to view acts of terror exclusively as the deeds of desperate individuals. for behind all terrorists is an organisation which trained them, supplied them with explosives and financed them. terrorism has to be well organised to survive, and for this it principally needs money. we must not stop in our efforts to track financial movements and establish the source of funds used to support terrorism. efficient exchange of information between governments and mutual assistance in identifying suspicious people and organisations is a matter of paramount importance for ensuring security for our citizens. we should make every effort to ensure that the final agreement guarantees the necessary protection of personal data. we must not forget, however, that our primary objective should be to limit terrorism, because terrorism is still a real threat, including in europe. when we are talking about security, political games should be set aside. the european parliament should not make a show of its authority by rejecting the interim agreement with the usa on the processing of financial messaging data, because this agreement improves the security of our continent.

voting time before we start the vote, i should like to inform members that we are today introducing a new information system for the votes in the chamber. the main feature is the display, on one of the large screens, of the official voting list prepared by the tabling desk. the display will highlight each single vote as it is announced, thereby making it easier for all members to follow the vote. the next item is the vote. (for the results and other details on the vote: see minutes) on behalf of the alde group. - mr president, i seek clarification. is it the case that the president has ruled that we will apply the recast procedure to the vote on the krahmer report today and the vote on the cashman report tomorrow? if that is the case, my group requests that we delay the vote on the krahmer report until tomorrow, so that we can investigate the implications of the application of the recast procedure to that vote. the president is considering these two points. when we get to the krahmer report, we will take your procedural motion. (de) mr president, i congratulate the house on this new information system. it would seem, though, that a couple of bits of information in the everyday routine do not work. i am very pleased, meanwhile, that, on the 50th anniversary of china's occupation of tibet, many of us have managed to display tibetan flags. it has come to my attention, however, that the bureau had said in advance that certain flags may not be put up, meaning that meps are unable to display them on this important day. is there any up-to-date information on this issue? i understand that there has been some confusion about this point, but the president has said that for the sake of good order today - and i am pleased to see so many flags in the chamber; i am actually wearing one in my pocket here - the tibetan flag may be displayed. this gives me the opportunity to welcome to the chamber mr tashi wangdi, the representative of his holiness, the dalai lama. (sustained applause) mr president, i would like to say a few serious and important words, if you will allow me. we have just passed the anniversary of the barbaric murder, by a shot in the back of the head, of 20 000 polish officers and intelligentsia in katy in 1940 on the order of the 'father of nations', joseph stalin. this meant the elimination of the leaders and elites of a nation fighting for its own, and europe's, freedom. four years ago, i asked for a minute's silence to commemorate them, but the house refused. therefore, i will not ask for this today and will free the presidency from what appears to be such a difficult decision. instead, i want to remind us of this tragedy and to express the wish that our common efforts can prevent genocides of this kind on the european continent in the future. (applause) thank you, mr zaleski - the applause speaks for itself.

reduction in unwanted by-catches and elimination of discards in european fisheries (debate) the next item is the report by carl schlyter, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on a policy to reduce unwanted by-catches and eliminate discards in european fisheries (2007/2112()) (6-0495/2007). rapporteur. - (sv) madam president, i am grateful to the shadow rapporteur for helping us to end with a good report. i also want to thank commissioner borg for at last - at last! - proposing powerful measures to deal with the discarding of fish and unwanted by-catches. today we have a fisheries policy which is emptying the world's oceans, ravaging seabeds, destroying ecosystems and causing fish stocks to collapse. even seabirds are killed by our current fisheries policy. if this destruction had taken place on land - if we had treated our forests in the same way as we are now treating the seas - we would have had rioting on the streets, but the destruction of the oceans is happening out of sight and in silence. rachel carson's book, silent spring, had a powerful impact in 1962 and was a wake-up call for many to become committed to caring for the environment and to nature conservation. we are now in the time of the silent sea. in fact, last year, the journalist isabella lvin published a book with that very title. let us now put some life into the fight to rescue future generations of fish and fishermen. the commission's proposals will in fact mean an end to quota systems and detailed regulation, which have in practice encouraged fishermen to empty the seas and throw back unprofitable fish dead, and under which the development of fishing equipment was aimed mainly at taking more and more from the seas. faced with the threat of having to fill their vessels with unprofitable fish, fishermen in the eu are getting an incentive to fish more selectively. but a successful policy needs carrots as well as sticks. we can, for example, allow more fishing days for vessels with selective gear, or give them access to areas which are closed to vessels without selective fishing gear. it is important, for each type of fishery, to set annual reduction targets for by-catches and discards and to have a dialogue with interested parties in order to achieve best results. positive examples are the bay of biscay, the kattegat and the skagerrak. in those areas french and swedish fishermen have used sorting grids with great success in the norway lobster (nephrops) fishery. these have in practice completely eliminated by-catches. with a little more freedom and accountability for the fishing fleet, perhaps cooperation can grow between the research community and fishermen, and that can lead to positive development. this goes together with better data on what fish are caught. we need to look at systems using electronic logbooks and possible video surveillance to see whether we can devise a good solution for maintaining personal integrity. another important aspect is what we are to do with fish landed in the form of by-catches when there is a ban on discards. it is important that it should be possible to use it in some way but at the same time that the level of compensation should be so low that it does not provide an incentive actively to seek by-catches. i hope and believe that the commission will quickly finalise a proposal that can be implemented. it would then become an important element in the fight against overfishing and in achieving a sustainable fishery. but of course that is not enough - we also need general reductions in fishing effort where currently endangered species are concerned, but perhaps we shall be able to debate that another day. member of the commission. - madam president, first i would like to thank the rapporteur and all the members of the committee on fisheries for the excellent work. we all share the view that discarding is, to say the least, an unnecessary waste of good natural and economic resources that should be stopped. however, each fishery is different and requires tailor-made solutions. we have therefore chosen a results-based approach which implies that we set targets to reduce the amount of discards over a timeframe and then leave it up to the fishermen concerned to choose how to reach the targets - such measures could include an increase in mesh size, the use of selectivity devices, real-time closures, spatial changes of activity or any other possible measure or a combination thereof. turning now specifically to the report. concerning community action plans on seabirds and sharks, i can inform you that the latter is under way and that, on the former, my services are gathering information and scientific advice with a view to completing the plan by the end of 2009. i particularly agree that the discard policy should not be seen as an isolated action but as part of the general approach to move towards the msy objective. we are also in agreement concerning a case-by-case approach and the importance of participation and consultation of the sector at all levels. here i note with interest your proposal to test new uses of monitoring of discard practices as was done in some third countries. in addition we must ensure that incentives reward a real reduction in discards. they therefore need to be assessed carefully so as not to lead to adverse effects. indeed, member states already have possibilities to favour cleaner fisheries through the allocation of quotas. having said this, i am of the view that incentives should accompany the various phases of implementation, in order to boost a change in behaviour until the final objective is reached. concerning policy implementation, i generally agree with your suggestions, with a different focus, however. we should set the goal of a discard ban in a fishery wherever this is possible from the outset and not as a last resort measure as you seem to suggest. i need to clarify here, however, that in certain instances the set target may be that of reducing discards to the absolute minimum possible. so where are we in the process? on the basis of scientific advice expected soon, we will choose fisheries for specific legislation during the course of this year and at the same time plan a roadmap with a timeframe for the subsequent proposals covering - over time - all european fisheries. in parallel, as decided at the december council, member states will trial discard reductions in the whitefish fishery in the north sea in order to reduce discards of whiting by 30%. for cod, the commitment with norway is to reduce discards to less than 10%. other activities include the proposal on technical measures in the atlantic, the proposal on a revised cod recovery plan, the revision of the control regulation and several studies and impact assessments for the legislative proposals. finally, i can agree on amendments 1, 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10 to 12. amendments 2 and 7 are related and i can agree to them with a slight change. on amendment 9, some cautious thinking is needed since these techniques need further research. there are problems with high costs and reliability. finally, i cannot support amendment 4 as such. with respect to amendments 13, 14 and 15, i need to reflect further, since the whole question concerning appropriate incentives for fishers to encourage them to adopt an effective discards policy needs to be further studied and assessed before a definitive position is adopted. let me conclude by restating the urgent need for legislative action on this file, and i look forward to your continued cooperation in developing this policy. on behalf of the ppe-de group . - madam president, the discarding or dumping of fish in european waters destroys over a million tonnes of fish a year, particularly in multi-species fisheries. globally, according to the fao, millions of tonnes of unwanted fish by-catch are thrown back into the sea each year. this has a very negative effect on the economy of future fisheries and on the health of marine ecosystems. the practice is amoral, unethical and completely unsustainable and results directly from the common fisheries policy, which criminalises fishermen for landing by-catch, thereby forcing them to discard - fishermen who are desperately trying to make a living while faced with ever-depleting levels of fish stocks. our ultimate aim has to be the reduction of these unwanted by-catches and the virtual elimination of discards through a discard ban, with incentives in place to ensure that all unwanted by-catch must be landed. but how and when we get to this point of a ban should be a matter for all stakeholders involved, including the commission, the regional advisory councils (racs), the fishermen, the scientific experts, the national governments and ngos, and fishery by fishery if necessary. the negative micro-management spiral has to be avoided and the common fisheries policy needs to be fundamentally altered, as the discard issue seriously discredits it. solving the problem of discards is beneficial for all actors concerned, particularly the fishermen. it is possible to implement bans, as the examples of norway and iceland show us. i am pleased that the report emphasises that fishermen and other stakeholders need to take responsibility and ownership concerning any policy to eliminate discards. new ways to monitor fishing vessels could be used, such as electronic logbooks and the use of cctv on the perimeter of fishing vessels, which has been piloted in canada and new zealand with some success. the only successful way to achieve implementation of any eventual discard ban will be through the involvement of the fishermen in monitoring and controlling and, above all, by peer pressure to ensure a level playing field. i thank the rapporteur for all his cooperation and this balanced report, which i commend to the house. on behalf of the pse group . - madam president, discards are an appalling waste. vast quantities of fish are thrown away every year in european fisheries around the world: as much as seven to eight million tonnes. doing nothing to reduce discards is not an option and we now have the schlyter report as an own-initiative response to the commission's 2007 communication. the commission's communication is welcome, despite the delayed action, and the commission now intends to act quickly, with certain aspects to be included in a new technical measure regulation in 2008. in an ideal world we would move straight to a complete and instant ban on discards. but the reality is more complicated. mr schlyter's report recognises the complexity of dealing with the problem of discarding fish and i really welcome his inclusive approach. it highlights practical aspects including the cost of dealing with discards and what to do with landed discards, the costs of introducing more selective gear, the implications for the total allowable catches and quota regime if discarding is banned, and the need to give fishermen incentives to fish in a more sustainable way. it acknowledges that, since both the causes of discards and the measures needed to reduce them vary from fishery to fishery, no single solution will work throughout the community. an amnesty on discards is not the solution as it may create a market in discards instead of encouraging fishermen to fish in a sustainable way. given the levels of overfishing and concerns over fishing stocks including cod and bluefin tuna, we still need good management of existing stocks. the report also places the discards issue in the broader context of the problem of by-catches of seabirds and of sharks and it calls for a significant range of pilot discard projects with a geographical spread. i call on colleagues to support this report which makes an important contribution to dealing with the disgrace of discards. on behalf of the alde group. - madam president, the alde group warmly welcomes the content of mr schlyter's report, which is to be commended for its sensitive, yet highly practical, approach. members of the public find it almost impossible to understand just how it is that we can allow fish to be caught and then thrown back dead into the sea. fishermen too have major concerns with the fact that this kind of action is, to some extent, forced upon them, for the current combination of rules and technical possibilities means that some fish are simply not wanted on board. sometimes this is because they are of insufficient economic value. we must make an early and concerted effort to prevent the kind of discarding that results from attempts at high grading. i suspect that there is already less temptation to this practice in those fisheries where days at sea are limited. sometimes, though, discarding is the outcome of conditions we ourselves impose, for example minimum landing sizes, and restrictions on quotas. of course, if we are serious about conservation, we need total allowable catches. but, in my own view, we need to look seriously at the methods we employ to keep fishing within the limits that are set by those tacs, to determine amongst other things, just how far there is an interconnection between the establishment of quotas and the problem of discards, particularly where mixed fisheries are concerned. this, as well as the adoption of the measures suggested in the report, must of course be undertaken with the full engagement of stakeholders. without that, we cannot hope for success. the industry is already leading the way. i am particularly proud of the scots, for their voluntary system of real-time closures. we need proper incentives to positive actions of this kind for a great deal remains to be done. i trust that parliament will give its full support to the report and that the commission and council will take matters forward in the manner it recommends. on behalf of the uen group. - (ga) mr president, i should like to say that i approve of this report; to my mind, the rapporteur has worked out a practical, comprehensive approach to the problem of fisheries discards at sea. but things are not so easy, and everyone is thinking about the new methods to be applied. it is time to put an end to the volumes of talk about this matter and take action. there are plenty of practical suggestions in the report and they could be put into operation. the one thing that we definitely cannot do is to do nothing. we have to act for as long as fisheries discards pose a problem. i should also like to ask the commission ensure that small fishermen do not incur any additional cost on account of measures to resolve the problem of these discards. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - madam president, the common fisheries policy (cfp) has been a miserable failure. it has failed to conserve stocks, it has failed to sustain our fishing-dependent communities and it has failed to win public support or credibility. one of the main reasons for that is the scandal of discarding. the cfp quota system itself is a direct cause of discarding. it does not measure the amount of fish caught; it only measures the amount of fish landed. that said, i broadly welcome this report by mr schlyter. in particular, i strongly agree with the principle of positive incentives giving some reward to those fishermen who take steps to reduce or eliminate discards. i also agree that measures must be tailored to different types of fishery. it has long been a major flaw of the cfp that it has been over-centralised and inflexible. i draw attention to paragraph 15, which welcomes the voluntary real-time closure scheme introduced by scotland, an excellent example of the kind of initiative which should be encouraged and incentivised by the cfp at least for as long as we are stuck with it as a management measure. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - madam president, discards are just one aspect of the nightmare that is the cfp. the eu, through its ill thought-out policy, is destroying livelihoods in developing nations across the world. the export of fish is significantly more important to the developing world in trade terms than other commodities such as rice, coffee and tea. mauritania, for example, is dependent on its fishing industry for half of its exports, which represent 15% of its gdp. but, having devastated mauritanian waters, the commission now wants to dump its deal. it does not think that these now sterile waters are worth eur 86 million a year. this denunciation of a fisheries agreement is supposed to be a secret; well, it was until now. i think african people should know about the eu's shabby and dishonourable plans. it is colonialism at its most vicious, and i accuse these institutions of racism and exploitation of vulnerable societies. president barroso's non-imperial empire is not as benign as he would have us believe, so, if you want to move forward, discard giscard and dump the lisbon treaty as well as the cfp. madam president, the scandal of discards is one of the eu's own making. impossible quotas and restrictions are imposed in mixed fisheries, prohibited stocks are inevitably caught and in consequence they are dumped back - dead - into the sea. and all this while hunger prevails in many parts of the world. for years the eu has wrung its hands over this but, frankly, has done nothing to stop it. such fish, i believe, should be landed; they should be sold at a fixed price, sufficiently low to discourage deliberate catching and sufficiently high to make their landing worthwhile. also, it is sensible and right that we should reward the use of more selective fishing gear. but i do most positively reject any blanket discard ban as translating into yet another device of driving more of our fishermen out of business. we have ruminated on this issue for years. now is the time, at last, to do something about it. (es) madam president, in general terms i support the rapporteur's report as an expression of the long-standing concern about the rigidity of the common fisheries policy when it comes to tackling problems which are entrenched in our fisheries management system, of which discards are simply another example. in particular i support the paragraphs advocating a fishery-by-fishery introduction of reductions in unwanted catches and discards, and their gradual elimination, and for any ban to be introduced only when it has been ascertained that there is no alternative, as the council and all the regional consultative committees have said. we could not adopt another approach and we could not move to a full blanket ban on discards within a management system which encourages them, both through the rigid tac system and quotas in force, and through the absence of adequate technical measures which constitute a fundamental factor in preventing by-catches, the review of which we have been waiting for years so that they can be adjusted for the atlantic. what i cannot accept, madam president, is amendment 10, which would allow the creation of a parallel fishery market based on discarded fish, which would therefore be unlawful. i think we should remain firm in defending the principle of non-commercialisation of discards as set out in paragraph 32 of the report, as have countries with a longer history in this matter such as norway. incentives to prevent discards must be of a different kind: for example, incentives aimed at reducing them to a minimum through the use of more selective gear. it is much better for a juvenile fish to continue to live in the sea and grow up to feed people or other fish instead of being discarded and the subject of negotiations on fishmeal production. (el) madam president, i should firstly like to express my satisfaction with the draft report on fish discards and to stress that this is one of the most important problems in european and international fisheries. allow me to make a couple of points about the report. i believe that, apart from the points suggested, a common policy for the final elimination of discards must be implemented. this policy should emerge from a study of the problem in all the fishing countries of the eu, and should incorporate all national studies and global research. in order to tackle the problem in a radical way, the eu must immediately finance a study on all fishing equipment, types of fishing and kinds of catch. the eu must also commission specialised research institutions to conduct it. this will enable the eu to impose the best and most efficient solutions centrally, through regulations, on member states. if this does not occur, i fear that the problem will be considered and then shelved, while all the fishery stocks are devastated. (fr) madam president, i should also like to say how much i approve of the approach suggested by our rapporteur to remedy the rightly criticised waste of resources in the current practice with discards. whilst drawing up his report, mr schlyter has been conscious of the effects that the immediate implementation of a total ban on discards might have, first of all, on the fragile financial equilibrium of those working in the sector and, secondly, on monitoring of its implementation by the member states and the commission, obliging them to tighten up methods of supervision that do not conform to the budgetary rigour required of them. for that reason, he thought it more appropriate to propose the gradual introduction of a series of measures to encourage the fishermen themselves to alter their fishing methods and equipment, an approach strongly approved of by the commission. (inaudible) . from the outset, i think that is highly ambitious. can i also congratulate mr schlyter and mrs doyle for the great amount of work they have both done on this report? i am delighted to support mrs doyle's land-all policy, whereby fishermen will be compelled to land everything they catch. it has many benefits. scientists will get a much clearer picture of what fish are being caught and where, which will enable more accurate conservation and recovery plans to be devised. also, when young, undersized fish are landed, fisheries inspectors could immediately call for a temporary closure of specific fishing grounds to avoid further pressure on immature stocks. under this policy, undersized fish and other species which previously would have been discarded could be sold to the processing sector, which is desperate for raw material to supply the fishmeal and fish oil industry. they would be paid - through a regional compensation fund - a token amount, say about eur 50 a tonne, which would not be enough to encourage targeting these fish and creating the black market that ms fraga estvez fears, but would be too much to throw them, dead, back into the water. the whole operation could be policed by attaching weatherproof cctv cameras to every vessel. in an industry already constrained by limitations of the number of days that can be spent at sea, time spent catching and sorting fish of no commercial value is regarded by fishermen as valuable time lost. so i think fishermen will support this proposal. (es) ladies and gentlemen, i would like to thank mr schlyter for his work and i am particularly glad that several of the amendments i put forward have been incorporated into the text of the report we are debating today. i refer in particular to the amendments stating that discards are not only to do with the use of a particular gear type, but are also influenced by the nature of the fishery concerned, as in the case of european fisheries, almost all of which are multispecies in nature, where the risk of discards is higher. therefore, any measure which is adopted must be case-specific. also thanks to my amendments we can see from the report that discarding is caused by a range of factors, including excessive fishing effort, and the current tacs approach requiring fish for which there is no quota to be discarded. measures must therefore be taken to prevent species of legal size which are inevitably caught from being compulsorily discarded owing to the lack of a quota for them. having said this, i would like to warn mr schlyter to tread carefully, because after the criticism he made in his speech of fishermen and the selfless, age-old tradition of fishing, i am not sure what we are doing here or if mr schlyter is going to put the commissioner, the members of the fisheries committee and fishermen out of a job. (that's a joke, madam president). madam president, i thank mr schlyter very much for his report. i think it is excellent. can i also thank the commissioner for his points at the beginning, where he is moving towards a discard ban, because he is very well aware that i have seen him many times, as many other members of this house have, about bringing in a discard ban, and i think it is high time we did it. i also think that, at the end of the day, if we can protect fisheries' stocks, then actually it is better for fishermen in the long run, because we do have to have sustainable fisheries. of course the scientific advice that we are using can very often be flawed. therefore, the landing of all catch and by-catch so that it can be thoroughly investigated will actually give us a much better idea of what is in the sea. i also think that some of the practices, such as pair trawling and others, which do have an awful lot of by-catch, again, will emphasise what is happening. of course, a lot of trouble catching dolphins, sharks and porpoises and many other things will be highlighted in the by-catch that is landed. so, if we can bring in the right amount of carrots to encourage it to be landed and not too much to encourage by-catch, then i think this is the way forward. so i welcome the commissioner's support for this report, i welcome the report itself, and we should all support it. member of the commission. - madam president, first of all i would like to thank members for their interesting comments, which demonstrate once again that we share the common objective of eliminating this appalling practice. as i stated before, our proposal will be gradual but effective. realistically speaking, we simply cannot bring about a discard ban overnight. however, as one speaker said, doing nothing is not an option. and, undoubtedly, during the course of this year we will be coming up, hopefully, with three legislative proposals on reducing discards for specific fisheries, apart from incentivising and encouraging member states to come up with pilot projects, by virtue of which we could achieve the introduction of a reduction in discards or even, possibly, discard bans. the example of scotland, which was adopted by the council in december, was a very laudable one. concerning the point that was made on positive incentives, i agree that these are important, but we need to find the right mix and the right levels, because otherwise they could be counterproductive, and we could end up with a situation whereby we encourage more catches when, for sustainability reasons, we would want to reduce them in order to reach msy levels. i would also like to point out that i could not agree more that our proposals must be tailor-made to the specific fisheries and must contain in-built incentives, as i said, and support for the changes in behaviour that fishermen will have to adopt. indeed, already, in our tac and quota regulation, we adopted incentives for fishermen to adopt more selective methods, thus avoiding discards. in the very first intervention and in others that followed, the point was made that discards are caused by the common fisheries policy. i would like to state that this is not really correct, because the causes of discards can arise form the high grading of fish by fishermen for the purpose of getting better quality fish, which is done independently of quotas, and the catching of juveniles, which is also independent of quotas. it is only where there is exceeding of catch quotas, and again this depends, because if it is a clean fishery and the quota is exceeded, then the quota is set for purposes of sustainability. it is, in reality, where you have a mixed catch, and you have one of the types of catch which has a low quota for sustainability reasons, and the other catches targeted, that you have discarding of fish as a result of the tac and quota regulations. these are the aspects which we would like to address in order to introduce more selective gear, so that the catches can become even cleaner - which is one of the methods whereby discarding could be effectively reduced. i would also like to point out that, according to fao estimates, discards within community waters are around one million tonnes. worldwide they are around eight million tonnes. these are very conservative estimates. when one takes into consideration that the system that we operate is producing less than one tenth of all discards - taking into account the tacs and quotas - i think that there are various other factors which contribute to discarding apart from the system operated by the common fisheries policy. having said that, we are actively seeking ways and means whereby we improve the management so that the tacs and quotas operate in a way whereby discards are reduced to an absolute minimum or are completely banned. finally, on the point raised concerning mauritania, i would like to say that we have just signed a new memorandum of understanding with mauritania, and this will lead to a new protocol which will guarantee for mauritania the same amount that they have under the existing protocol but which will reflect the actual fishing possibilities in a more realistic way. so we will be paying mauritania to help it strengthen its fisheries infrastructure and its economy in general under the development funds, so that, in that way, mauritania is guaranteed the full amount. but at least what we pay for fish would reflect the actual amount of fish that it is possible to catch in mauritanian waters. rapporteur. - (sv) thank you, madam president. yes, commissioner, clearly there are many reasons why fish are thrown overboard, but i still think that this has been exacerbated by aspects of our fisheries policy. there is one thing i want to ask you: i do not really understand why you are against amendment 4 when it points in the same direction you yourself want to go in. the report currently states that a discard ban should only be adopted after other measures have been tried. the amendment means that the implementation of a ban on discards would only take place after other negative incentives had been applied. thus we start from the same premise if amendment 4 is approved, namely that we have a policy on the banning of discards but that its implementation is dependent on the conditions in each individual fishery. i do not really understand why you said you were opposed to amendment 4, but perhaps we can talk about that again later. what makes me optimistic is that in spite of everything we have a kind of consensus. i have spoken with both research workers and fishermen. there is a good consensus here on what needs to be done. the commission and parliament are on the same lines and the fishermen and environmental organisations are also on board. it gives me a certain optimism. perhaps all the interested parties will cooperate and we shall indeed get a result. a split vote has been requested on amendment 10. it will therefore be possible to take account of what mrs fraga estvez said if we can vote for the first part and against the second part. i thank you and i thank all of you who have taken part in the debate and in the work. it has been a pleasure to work on this report. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow, thursday 31 january 2008. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - (pl) ladies and gentlemen, the amount of fish discarded, which the rapporteur estimates as possibly a quarter of the total catch, is a serious environmental and economic problem to which we cannot remain indifferent. the scale of the phenomenon points to an enormous waste of resources and serious damage to biodiversity caused by irresponsible human interference. tinkering with the rules will not achieve the desired result. the situation requires much more wide-ranging action - a complete change of approach and thinking on the matter. we must clearly define our aims, adopt correspondingly coherent cfp instruments, and ensure the necessary funding. we must avoid a situation like the present, where the side effects of certain legal instruments are simply ignored. the imposition of total permissible catches or minimum sizes of fish that can be landed (especially in the case of mixed catches), is a case in point, since it leads to discards. i fully agree with the rapporteur's view that our approach to limiting discards should largely consist of incentives to fishermen to look for new, innovative solutions in fishing methods and gear. greater use should be made of their experience and the knowledge of the scientific community. i would emphasise that an effective information campaign will be crucial to the success of this strategy. without understanding on the part of the fishing industry of the fundamental importance of eliminating excessive discards, and without the general support of fishermen, the strategy is doomed to failure.

middle east (debate) the next item is the debate on the middle east, with statements by the high representative for the common foreign and security policy and by the commission. mr president, we, as members of the european parliament, have decided to express our solidarity vis--vis our palestinian colleagues imprisoned by israel. symbolically, 45 meps demonstrated this support by collectively sponsoring the 45 palestinian members of parliament. as elected representatives, we cannot but condemn the imprisonment of the president and of one third of the members of the palestinian legislative council. we ask for their immediate and unconditional release. we continue to appeal for a european parliament delegation to be sent and for all the necessary steps to be taken in order to achieve this aim. (applause) i must inform the honourable member that last wednesday - a week ago today - i made a similar request to the knesset. making such a request before the knesset is something that takes a great deal of prior thought. let us hope that we reach a solution on all the issues, including the release of the three captured israeli soldiers and the bbc journalist alan johnston. movement is needed on all sides. high representative for the common foreign and security policy. (es) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to begin by saying that exactly a week ago, the quartet was meeting in berlin. since i am sure that you will have read the document that was made public that same evening, you may be aware of our solidarity with the members of the palestinian authority, of the parliament, who have been detained and, as the president of this parliament has quite rightly said, with the other people who have been detained against their will in israeli or palestinian territories. mr president, i would like to make a brief statement. i have been asked to speak for no longer than 10 or 15 minutes - i shall try to do so i would like to tell you that i have just returned from a long journey throughout the region, and i have been able to meet with the most important regional leaders and to carry out an analysis of the situation so that i could report also to the quartet, which met last wednesday. i was pleased to make that trip at more or less the same time as the president of parliament, with whom i spoke by telephone, and also a distinguished group of meps, who have written me a letter to which i have not yet replied. i would like to meet with them personally, because, please believe me, i have not been in brussels for a single day since then. i shall see if i can do so so that i can meet with you to talk calmly about the issues that you have raised, which i believe to be extremely important. mr president, i believe that this sitting is of particular importance. it is also being held on a very important date for palestine, for israel and for the citizens of the world in general, and of the arab world in particular. it is currently the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of the 1967 war, the many tragic consequences of which we are still suffering. when we look at the last forty years, it undoubtedly sends a shudder right through us. they have been forty years of occupation, of suffering on both sides, of violence, during which the citizens - both palestinians and israelis - have suffered greatly, and also forty years during which there have been an excess of israeli settlements in the occupied territories. given this forty-year situation, we have two opportunities or ways to look at the situation: to look back in order to try to learn lessons regarding mistakes that must not be repeated or to look forward and try to see whether we can learn the most important lesson of all - that the only solution to this conflict that has now lasted for forty years is peace. a rapid peace process that leads rapidly to peace. there have been many processes, many opportunities for peace have been missed. i believe that we should now all have the will - the will to act, not just the will to think and speak, but the will to act - so that we can truly make peace a reality in those lands that are so dear to many of us and to europeans in general. i would therefore like to look forward, but i must make a brief comment on this journey, since the areas that i have visited are all areas which are unfortunately not enjoying the best of times at the moment. in the occupied territories, in palestine, we are witnessing a difficult situation, with violence amongst palestinians and also renewed violence between israel and palestine. the parties' appeals for a ceasefire have not been heard, either in palestine or between palestine and israel. i would like to send an appeal today to everybody with responsibilities in this area for a ceasefire as soon as possible, so that a favourable climate can be created for progressing towards peace. i had the opportunity to visit gaza. so did the president of parliament. visiting gaza at the moment is a truly significant experience. this is not the first time i have been to gaza, but i believe that going there at this point in particular and meeting with the president of the palestinian authority was a moral obligation in order not to give the impression that the world has completely forgotten about what is happening in gaza. gaza is in a difficult situation, with violence between palestinians, violence which will lead nowhere if it continues. the first thing we must do is therefore to try to quell that violence, to bring about a ceasefire, so that the palestinians can finally begin to work together for a common cause, which is of course peace: peace with their neighbours and peace amongst themselves. we are doing everything we can in relation to that policy, both from my position and from the position of the commission, which is helping generously. i would like to tell you that the situation in palestine, from economic and social points of view, is a dramatic one. i therefore believe that, as soon as this period is over and we can meet again with the political leaders in a clearer and more transparent way, we shall have to think about drawing up a special plan of aid for gaza. otherwise we may be faced with a truly difficult situation in gaza, and it will be difficult to recover for the purposes of a genuine peace process. i would also like to say that i believe that president abbas's solemn appeal yesterday, on the anniversary of the beginning of the 1967 war, deserves to be read and analysed by everybody, because it shows a moral courage that is worthy of note. i would like to say that i was also in israel. i met with the prime minister, with the minister for foreign affairs, and i was also in sderot, the area suffering the most kassam rocket attacks. i also felt it appropriate to express our solidarity european solidarity with all of those suffering any kind of violence, including kassam rocket attacks. it was a difficult and tough place to be, but in any event, experiencing it on the ground gives us a clearer picture of what is happening. in our statement last wednesday, the members of the quartet called upon israel to show restraint. israel is also experiencing a difficult political situation. the primary elections in the labour party are not yet over - they are about to conclude - and we shall see what form the next government takes, if there are any changes, after the elections in the israeli labour party. i would also like to say that the quartet's statement contains a clear - and vigorous - appeal for israel to transfer resources to the palestinian authorities. the international community can do a lot, and we are doing a lot in fact. we europeans are probably doing more than anybody. the arab countries have also started to give money to the finance minister, salam fallad, and today we can say that the possibility is beginning to emerge of creating a budget for the palestinian national authority. without the transfer of resources from israel to palestine, however, there is little else the international community can do. improving the economic conditions is essentially linked to a transfer of resources from israel to the palestinians. i would like to make a few brief comments on the quartet and then on lebanon. i believe that the meeting of the quartet last wednesday in berlin was, in my experience - and we have belonged to the quartet for many years since i participated in setting it up - surely one of the most important meetings we have held so far. it was a quartet in which we were able to give serious thought to how the peace process can be implemented. if you read the final paragraph of the statement you will see that it truly looks to the future and commits the members of the quartet to beginning to work hard, in cooperation with the parties - israel, palestine and arab states - to initiate a peace process, to initiate a process with a political outlook. i would like to inform you that, for the first time in its history, the quartet is going to make a joint visit to the region, it is going to hold a meeting over the coming weeks with the palestinians and with the israelis and it is also going to hold a meeting with the arab countries, who i believe, with the arab peace initiative, are also cooperating in the beginnings of a normalisation of life - or the beginning of the possibility of normalisation - in the territories between israel and palestine. i therefore believe that, at this time of dejection amongst many people, of dejection amongst the palestinians and also within a certain sector of israeli society, the international community, by means of the quartet, is reacting in the opposite manner: it is reacting with hope, with the sense that, after forty years, we have the moral obligation to make every possible effort to make progress towards the formalisation of peace, towards a peace process. i would like to say to you that these coming weeks are going to be absolutely crucial in terms of setting in train a movement that can take us from the current situation to a peace process that leads to peace. it is not so difficult to identify the elements that can lead this process to peace. almost all of us have a notion of the parameters required in order to achieve peace. what we now need to do is to get to work on it in cooperation with all of the members of the quartet. i would like to stress that the secretary-general of the united nations, the us secretary of state and the russian foreign affairs minister were very cooperative with regard to our proposal, and they expressed clear support for the ideas that it was my privilege to present to the quartet on europe's behalf. we are therefore at an extremely significant crossroads, ladies and gentlemen, in terms of the situation on the ground, but also a positive crossroads in terms of moving towards a peace process that we can begin to see sketched out on the horizon. ladies and gentlemen, i cannot let this speaking time that the presidency has allowed me to go by without saying a few words about lebanon. lebanon is once again in a situation of profound crisis. the honourable members are well aware of this. these are moments of profound significance, and some of them have been going on for some time. from the murder of former prime minister hariri, the whole situation that they experienced over the summer, the current situation of political paralysis, which has become even more serious with the movements that have emerged, with acts of terrorism, in the refugee camps, in two refugee camps, specifically: one in the north and the other in the south. as you know, the lebanese army has reacted in a way that i would describe as patriotic, and the support for the lebanese army from all of lebanon's political factions has also been patriotic, which is truly extraordinary given the differences that have existed amongst them over recent months, weeks and days. we also hope and pray that peace will also come to lebanon, and that the special circumstances that have arisen over recent days - which were also accompanied by the united nations security council's approval of the international criminal court to try the crimes that were committed in lebanon - will make it possible to reach an agreement amongst all of the political forces in order to unblock the political process in lebanon. that is what we want, and we are cooperating in the best possible to way in order to see it come about. mr president, i shall remain within the speaking time available to me and i would like to end by reiterating what i said at the beginning: we have a moment of hope, a moment that we must be able to exploit, which in one way or another must complete the circle that was begun forty years ago and which we hope to see completed by means of peace, by means of a life lived together by two states - israel and palestine. that peace must include the other countries - syria, lebanon - so that we can see the re-emergence of a middle east that can offer more hope to everybody, which is prosperous and which makes a constructive contribution to peace throughout the region. we europeans cannot close our eyes to this task and you may rest assured that mine at least will always be open. (applause) thank you, dr javier solana, for your statement but also for your untiring work and deep commitment. let me say that my experiences were the same as yours. we must not let ourselves be discouraged from continuing along the path of peace. mr president, as we all know and as mr solana has just said, the atmosphere in the region is extremely tense. i would even say that there is even a sense of despair. my director is still there and he has just called me. unfortunately, security has deteriorated and we are witnessing a vicious circle of violence, particularly in the occupied palestinian territory, in israel and in lebanon, as mr solana has just said. if the causes of this despair are not addressed, we may very soon witness the consolidation of more radical groups throughout the region. i think this is the great danger there. in lebanon, as mr solana has just said, fighting has now spread to other palestinian camps. we are therefore deeply concerned that the confrontation between the lebanese armed forces and the islamist insurgents is there. this has turned out to be the most serious internal conflict since the end of the civil war and has already cost over 100 human lives. i would like to stress once again our full support for the legitimate government of lebanon. i would, however, repeat our position that everything possible has to be done to avoid further casualties among the civilian population. the relief agencies must be able to carry out their work. on the other hand, i would also like to express my satisfaction with the adoption of un security council resolution 1757, which secures the establishment of a special tribunal on the assassination of former lebanese prime minister rafiq hariri. i think this will allow the people of lebanon to affirm respect for the law and the rule of law in their country and to turn a page on one of the most tragic events in lebanon's recent history. the meeting due to take place in gaza tomorrow between president abbas and prime minister olmert has unfortunately been cancelled, but at least the leaders of the g8 will tomorrow be tackling the issue of the palestine-israeli conflict, as we did at the g8 foreign ministers' meeting. there was the greatest concern about the political and security developments both in gaza and in israel, but also recognition that there is no alternative to continuing this humanitarian support and, on the other hand, to exploring how to support this arab peace initiative. even at this very delicate and difficult time, we believe that there is still some reason for hope, because the israeli initiative is a unique opportunity for a comprehensive solution. we know that the egyptians too are trying to broker a ceasefire with all the palestinian factions. us involvement, particularly the involvement of condoleezza rice, is very valuable at this difficult time. our eu presidency is also very committed. the quartet has done exactly as mr solana has said, i think it was a very good meeting and the idea is there for both the bilateral track and the regional track. hopefully the meeting can come about in egypt with arab league interlocutors and hopefully also with the two parties. two days ago i spoke to the jordanian foreign minister, mr abdel ilah al-khatib, who is planning, with his egyptian counterpart, to visit israel before the arab league meets with the quartet at the end of june. we hope that this will help to further engage israel and encourage it to respond positively to the arab peace initiative. last week i also attended a conference in vienna on the role of women leaders as contributors to peace and security in the middle east. prominent women, such as tzipi livni, hanan ashrawi, condoleezza rice and others, discussed the potential contribution of civil society, of women in society, to peace. even if it is a small contribution, this was the first time that tzipi livni and hanan ashrawi had held discussions at the same table. i must say that there was quite a lot of mutual understanding and there was even a friendly atmosphere. the initiative proved to be another useful part of this very difficult process. i plan to organise some sort of follow-up meeting in brussels, perhaps next year. we very much appreciate the european parliament's involvement: the visit by the ep delegation for relations with the palestinian legislative council was followed by your visit, mr president, and by your very balanced speech in the knesset on 30 may. it is encouraging that the speech, as you said, was quite well received by the knesset. this is not an easy opportunity. the palestinian people desperately need a political perspective. we, the members of the quartet, are all clear on that. this is why we must press for negotiations on a final status issue, cooperating with the structures set up by the arab league. the arab league asked israel to free certain measures also related to the occupation, for instance the settlements and the separation barrier. i was very encouraged by president abbas's call for an immediate end to this internal violence, because qassam rockets from gaza have to stop once and for all. the ceasefire should indeed be extended to the west bank. i very much regret that tomorrow's meeting between prime minister olmert and president abbas had to be cancelled, but we apparently have to realise that the two sides could not reach agreement on abbas's plan for a ceasefire, in particular on linking the ceasefire in gaza with the cessation of military operations in the west bank. no agreement was possible, either, on unfreezing palestinian clearance revenues withheld by israel before the release of the kidnapped soldier gilad shalit. we had hoped for some movement on this. the palestinians decided that they could not risk this meeting, but of course we had all hoped that this would give a little more progress on the dialogue on the ceasefire, progress on the transfer of revenues and on movement of access. regarding the national unity government, in my opinion now is certainly not the time to give up on it. i can agree that it has not yet delivered everything we were hoping for, but there are no attractive alternatives. if we allow this government to crumble, the implications for the institutions of the palestinian authority are very grave and radical splinter groups may be strengthened as a result. i think this is the last result we would want. as you know, within the limits set by the council of ministers, the commission has responded quickly to the national unity government and to the increased needs of the palestinians. in the first half of 2007 alone, we committed eur 320 million of community funds, which almost equals the total amount of funds committed last year. this exceptional effort shows that, since the formation of the national unity government, we have stepped up our emergency assistance to the palestinians. but the financial situation of the palestinian authority is extremely grave, as salam fayyad told my colleague yesterday. they still need us to go on even with this mechanism. israel must release the withheld clearance revenue to the palestinian authority. i think we therefore will have to go on encouraging them to do so via the temporary international mechanism or through the plo account. we reiterated this request at the last association committee with israel in jerusalem on 4 june. the quartet has also noted the importance of the resumption of transfers to improve economic and humanitarian conditions in the west bank and gaza. as i said, movement is of course essential in any case. since the formation of this national unity government, we have been working very closely with the minister of finance. because the socio-economic situation is so dire, we will extend the tim until 30 september and we must look for fresh funds for this new extension. i will soon ask the european parliament and the council to make another effort and to find additional resources in the budget. i thank you for whatever you have given as support in the past and do hope that this support will also be extended to us in the future, because our priority task should be to help restore the institutions of the palestinian authority so that it can then deliver services to the palestinian people. we are trying gradually to shift towards a resumption of institution-building and development projects, and to decrease our current concentration on emergency and humanitarian aid if we can do so - of course, this condition is still there. we look forward to new palestinian proposals. they said they would come up with ideas for specific international support. the palestinian authority is currently preparing an operational plan which could then be a useful tool for identifying development activities, particularly in gaza, that we could support. i would also like to say that the financial deficit of the palestinian authority is so large that it would be impossible for the community to shoulder the burden alone. arab states also have to deliver on their commitments to help the national unity government. i was encouraged to see that the plo account established now was at least used by saudi arabia, qatar and the united arab emirates. this will help but it is not sufficient. (applause) thank you, commissioner. may i also thank you very sincerely, mrs ferrero-waldner, for your commitment to this difficult peace process - if we can still speak of a peace process. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (es) mr president, i would like firstly to thank the high representative for his tireless efforts in the quest for peace, and you yourself, mr president, for your visit to the region, for its symbolism and the solidarity it demonstrated; and commissioner ferrero-waldner, for the immense job that the european commission is doing in the midst of a serious political crisis, with the factions making up the government of national unity now in confrontation and in the midst of an extremely serious social, economic and humanitarian crisis. what can be done in this situation? little more than what mrs ferrero-waldner and mr solana have told us, i believe: to redouble the european union's diplomatic efforts and to act on the basis of two premises. the first is a halt to the internal fighting between the two factions making up the government of national unity, which are waging a vicious battle for power, which is having a dramatic effect on the civilian population. secondly, mr president - and we must also state this very clearly - a permanent and explicit commitment from the government of national unity to democracy and the renunciation of violence. what can we do in the meantime, mr president? commissioner ferrero-waldner has explained it very clearly: to try to apply the humanitarian aid mechanism as flexibly as possible, to increase the sums allocated to it and to redistribute it amongst the other priorities. mr president, the maximum sentence according to my country's penal code is thirty years and one day. mr solana reminded us today that it is forty years since the six day war, which led to the occupation of gaza, the west bank and the golan heights. and the situation remains stagnant and bogged down. forty years of suffering and death is more than a society - or two societies, as mr solana pointed out - can tolerate. i believe that this parliament must respond in a united fashion in support of the representatives of the council and the commission so that the european union, within the international community in general and the quartet in particular, can do everything possible to bring about - as mr solana and mrs ferrero-waldner have said - a new opportunity for peace for a society and a region that has already suffered too much. on behalf of the pse group. - (it) mr president, mrs ferrero-waldner, mr solana, ladies and gentlemen, as has been pointed out, this debate is taking place on the 40th anniversary of the occupation of the west bank and gaza. what was supposed to be a lightning strike has turned into a never-ending nightmare: 40 years is such a long time that entire generations of palestinians have never known anything but occupation, humiliation, checkpoints and then the wall and almost total imprisonment. movement is now all but impossible in the occupied territories. over these 40 years, israel has certainly not found the guarantees of security that it was looking for, either, and it has experienced worrying erosions of democracy and the rule of law. these are two peoples exhausted by endless war and violence. for our part, we would like to emphasise - as the socialist group in the european parliament has long been saying quite clearly - that the only possible way to inject any form of a constructive approach into a constantly deteriorating situation is to openly support the palestinian government of national unity. we should add to that the commitment that the international community should consider making to send in a peace-keeping force to prevent the violence of recent weeks in gaza from degenerating even further, to re-establish the basic conditions for people to lead normal lives and for international law to be respected, and above all to break the vicious circle of endless violence. from israel we expect gestures other than the murders and indiscriminate arrests that came in response to the qassam rocket strikes on sderot. the occupation, the settlements, the wall and the status of jerusalem are making the prospect of a two-state solution more unlikely every day, as even united nations sources are now saying. the united nations, the united states, russia, europe and the entire international community have a responsibility to act before all chances of coexistence are gone for ever. lastly, i would remind you that there is an arab plan that offers israel a prospect of peace, not only with the palestinians but with arab countries as a whole. that is something that needs addressing with more conviction. prime minister olmert himself said the other day that that plan could provide a basis for negotiations. i hope he did not say so just because his government is particularly weak. the situation in lebanon is equally serious, as you have pointed out. i believe that the unifil forces on the ground should be supported and reinforced. lastly, we should like to call on president poettering to take steps to call an extraordinary meeting of the euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly. on behalf of the alde group. - (nl) mr president, high representative, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, around this time, we commemorate the six-day war, which, on the one hand, established israel's military supremacy, but which also ushered in the start of the occupation, confrontations, violence and endless bloodshed that have lasted 40 years. anyone in israel who was born in the occupied territories after june 1967, in other words anyone who is 40 years or younger, has known nothing but uncertainty and anxiety about the future of their own country, their loved ones and their own lives. after 40 years, it is really time to say enough is enough. peace should now be brokered as a matter of urgency: sustainable peace, on the basis that two countries recognise each other's right to exist and need to be left alone by their neighbouring countries. all previous speakers have taken great pains to explain how complicated, difficult and complex this is but, ladies and gentlemen, there is one ingredient without which it will never work, namely political will and political courage. without the kind of political will and political courage that was evident at one time in south africa, for example, in both camps, to end apartheid - a brutal regime - it will not work. the unfortunate thing is that nobody can have political will and political courage for the protagonists. it is they themselves who will need to muster this political will and this political courage. tomorrow, a human chain of jews and palestinians will be formed around the berlaymont building who will all say together: 'after 40 years, we have really had enough. after 40 years, we must work on peace.' sadly, though, the conflict between israel and palestine is not the only one fermenting trouble in the region. fresh violence has flared up in lebanon, in which some see the hand of syria, which wants to avoid an international hariri tribunal at all costs. on behalf of my group, i should like to welcome the decision by the un security council, which has had the courage to say that such a tribunal will be set up. as you know, this will be a mixed tribunal, involving both international and lebanese judges and a mixed public prosecution, which will function according to the principles of lebanese law. in lebanon, too, though, political courage will be needed in all camps finally to give the lebanese what they are entitled to as well: peace and security. on behalf of the uen group. - mr president, i should like to thank the high representative and the commissioner for their presentations here today. rather than speak about all the countries in such a short time, i shall concentrate on palestine, because everything that happens in every other part of the middle east relates to the situation in israel and palestine. looking at the debates that took place at the special session of the un security council 40 years ago in 1967, after the start of the six-day war, it is interesting to see that the potential solution or plan considered was a guarantee of israeli security and borders based on a withdrawal by israeli forces from the occupied territories and a two-state solution. forty years later, the quartet has failed to deliver on what should be the simplest of all goals: to bring people around to this way of thinking. we have made mistakes at european level with our negative reaction to the election of the hamas government in palestine, which sent out the wrong signal, allowing radical groups to take control on the ground and leading people to say 'there is no point in voting for these people or bringing these people in because the europeans will cut off the money'. that is why it was so important, as the commissioner rightly said, that funding was restored through the emergency mechanism. that work must continue, because only by building relations and building dialogue between the peoples can we guarantee that there will be a resolution. that resolution must be predicated on the same principles as 40 years ago: a two-state solution, a guarantee of secure borders and justice and equity for all peoples in israel and in palestine. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (es) israel won the six day war, but it has lost the peace with forty years of occupation. we are now seeing a dangerous tendency towards the iraqisation and tribalisation of violence in the middle east. the emergence of fatah al-islam in the palestinian camps in lebanon and the increasing fragmentation of the civil conflicts in gaza do not bode well for the future of the region. we are seeing the impact of the palestinian problem spreading throughout the middle east and becoming mixed up with the interests of the different players. we are running the risk of hitting rock bottom very soon. are we going to wait around doing nothing until the palestinian authority collapses? as i have said, we cannot allow that to happen. how can we ensure that it will not? is the chaos and violence of war by everybody against everybody a 'death foretold'? gaza cannot wait any longer. the european union cannot carry on turning its back on the democratically-elected government of national unity. this european policy has contributed to the popular discrediting of any hint of moderation on the part of hamas and fatah, because it demonstrates that the acceptance of the mecca agreement does nothing to change the embargo or improve the terrible living conditions in the huge prison known as gaza. firstly, the european union must begin a dialogue with all of the parties, including hamas, in order to promote a stable unity government. secondly, we must restore direct financial aid to the palestinian authority and ensure that israel returns the money from palestinian taxes that it is keeping. finally, we must work to extend the gaza ceasefire to the west bank, with the creation of international guarantees, sending european and arab troops under a un mandate to gaza and, if necessary, to the west bank. at the same time, we are calling for the release of the forty-five members of parliament and of the israeli gilad shalit and for a halt to the launching of kassam rockets and israel's devastating responses. (applause from the left) on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (fr) mr president, mr solana, commissioner, my group was very keen to hold this debate, particularly today, 40 years after the start of a war to which the international community, including the european union, has shown itself to this day incapable of imposing the only just and lasting solution, that is, an end to the occupation, to the colonisation, to the oppression by israel of the palestinian territories conquered in 1967. mr president, i welcomed, in their form and substance, the strong words you spoke about this in the knesset on 30 may. i particularly remember three key sentences from your speech. you stated that, 'international law is binding on us all'. you are right. we ask no more of israel than that it should respect the security council resolutions, the geneva conventions, the opinions of the international court of justice and humanitarian law, as the united nations organisation (uno) has just pointed out. the violations of the law are flagrant, constant and massive. they are in relation to settlements, refugees, prisoners, the wall and, primarily of course, the occupation of the territories and the annexation of east jerusalem. you have also pointed out, mr president, that, i quote: 'a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders is and remains the only way to a satisfactory solution'. it is a fundamental truth. the multiplication of settlements, the construction of the wall, the isolation of palestinian areas of jerusalem, however, serve precisely to make this solution impossible. the israeli authorities' disregard for the arab league's peace plan confirms this strategy of making things worse. you have rightly reminded us, mr president, of this obvious fact: there is no peace without justice. the famous israeli historian, tom segev, recently echoed the thoughts of those of his compatriots who, for 40 years, have believed that, i quote, 'in 1967, israel laid the foundations for future terrorism'. great men of state, such as yitzhak rabin, understood this, but the israeli peace forces, who are a credit to that country, are marginalised by the current regime. the conclusion to be drawn from this tragic experience of 40 years of blindness is, in the opinion of my group, as follows: laisser faire amounts to us making ourselves guilty. let us dare to stand up for truth. i quote your words one last time, mr president, you said, 'let us have the courage to make a new start together'. (applause from the left) thank you, francis wurtz, for the reference to what i said before the knesset. mr president, i should very briefly like to reply to the contributions from the honourable members representing the different political groups in this house. i think that most of the speeches followed a line which is in a sense the same one that we have been defending for a long time: namely, the time has come to move on from the policy of crisis management - which is very important, but it is not enough. we need policies, together with crisis management, to solving the conflict. we need to work towards a political horizon to really begin to get into the business of solving the conflict that started 40 years ago. that is basically the view everybody has expressed, and it is something that we will be trying to do in the coming days. i told you that last wednesday the quartet met in berlin, and i said that for the first time the quartet is committed to starting a debate with the parties in order to begin to work towards a political horizon. this means that, before the end of this month, the quartet will meet with the palestinians and israelis in order to push forward the dialogue - which is still in its preliminary stages - that has begun between president abbas and prime minister olmert. they are the two people who must find the way towards peace. it is our obligation to push and to provide a catalyst for this process. that is what we are going to do. it is written very clearly in the statement produced by the quartet last wednesday. i think that this is a profound change, and i would like to underline that, because someone asked whether we are going wait passively for a catastrophe to arrive. the answer is no: we do not want to do that; you do not want to do that; the people in the region do not want to do that. therefore, under the leadership of the quartet, we are trying to put forward this mechanism in order to move towards peace. a few other ideas were put forward by some of the honourable members representing the political groups, including the suggestion of an international force. i would like to say that, for the first time in many years, the idea of an international force is not out of the question. as you know, the idea was brought up in the knesset by two members of the parliamentary groups, saying that this may be the time to call for an international force, at least at the beginning, in a peacekeeping role or to control the border in the south - the so-called 'philadelphi corridor' - where the rafah crossing is situated. we are working on that, as you probably know, because information has already been published. the israelis are also considering that possibility, as are the palestinians. the egyptians are also considering that possibility with different intensity. for the egyptians it would probably be very difficult to have an international force there, as it may give the impression that they are not able to control that part of the border. however, i think that we can still begin discussions on these issues and perhaps eventually reach a solution. this also ties in with what mrs napoletano said about the success of unifil. the fact that the international force has been responsible for unifil - i.e. for the application of the un security council resolution on lebanon - and the manner in which it has been perceived - i.e. the efficiency of the force, of which the backbone is european - have also caused some in the israeli government, the knesset and israel as a whole to think that it might be possible for a force of that nature also to be applied elsewhere. in a way, we have to link all the issues together. it may be possible for us to use what we have learned from our presence in lebanon in another place. that opens the way to a monitoring presence which will be absolutely necessary if we want the peace process to come to fruition. i would like to stress again that, as regards lebanon, the resolution creating the tribunal is very important. the tribunal is not against anybody. there has been a very negative reaction in syria, but i must stress that an international tribunal is not against anybody, any country. it is a tribunal that is organised in order to see who is responsible for the killing of a good man - a friend of many of ours, mr hariri - who was assassinated in a manner that has to be clarified if we want peace and reconciliation in lebanon. therefore we in the european union have been working towards this, and last wednesday the security council came to another important decision on setting up an international tribunal. i would like to say once again that what we have striven to do in taking the quartet in the direction that we are now moving is something that has many fathers - or many mothers - as always, but you can be sure that the europeans have been working very hard from the very beginning to arrive at this moment. let us hope that we are able to continue working in that direction. it will be difficult, but for the future i hope to have the support, help and understanding of the european parliament, as always. (applause) mr president, yesterday i met a delegation of israeli citizens from sderot who related to me first-hand the terror in their civilian population from 300 random qassam rocket attacks launched at them from hamas-controlled sites in gaza, which clearly constitutes a war crime in international law, with two dead and many injured to date. last week 33 people were detained by the idf in the west bank, including the palestinian education minister nasser al-shaer, allegedly for their overt support for these rocket attacks. the detention of an education minister is interesting as it tends to support the repeated allegations in this house that the palestinian textbooks and school curriculum supported for years by eu funds are still aimed at fomenting a climate of hatred and distrust for israel and a glorification of terrorist violence. many of the hamas ministerial components of the unity government - like the hamas 1988 charter inspired by egypt's muslim brotherhood - still believe strongly that the state of israel has no right to exist, that all terrorist violence is justified through so-called armed struggle, and that they are not bound by previous plo-signed international agreements. therefore, in my view at present the pa unity government clearly does not comply with the quartet criteria, and the eu must not yet lift the ban on hamas as a designated terrorist organisation, or directly fund the pa government. neither should the tim be abandoned for the delivery of humanitarian aid, which now totals over eur 500 million yearly and has actually risen over the last three years, contrary to popular opinion. i too support the arab league's new proposals for a negotiated solution, although the right of return is totally unrealistic. but again, and curiously, hamas rejects their proposals for israel's recognition. some hardliners on all sides reject peace or a two-state solution, but on the 40th anniversary of the six-day war it is clear that this is the only viable long-term solution for a lasting peace in the region. but first the pa must ensure law and order on its territory and stop the dissent into virtual hamas-fatah civil war in gaza, which is also being stirred up in lebanon. once again i would like to call upon the house and the international community to put pressure on all those responsible for the release of the bbc reporter alan johnston, who we now know is alive and well, and the kidnapped soldier corporal shalit. this will create a climate conducive to restarting the vital roadmap for peace talks. (fr) mr president, at the time of the legislative elections in 2006, i asked a palestinian: 'do you think that these elections will bring peace?' he replied: 'no, not peace, but democracy. and we are going to show the world that, even in the occupied territories, we are capable of holding free elections'. our response was pathetic. our disregard for the aspirations of a people, including their right to make mistakes, introduced just a bit more chaos still into a region that is now in ferment. the establishment of a national unity government and the mecca agreement have not sufficiently altered the european union's hard line or its sanctions. despite your efforts, mrs ferrero-waldner - and i appreciate those efforts - in spite of what you have said to us, and it is encouraging, mr solana, i believe that we have not yet radically changed our policy towards the middle east and that we have not properly understood that we are damaging the very notion of democracy with our response to these elections. it is an attitude that has persisted for 40 years. i believe that we are partly responsible for having allowed, for 40 years, a situation of total lawlessness to take hold in palestine, with extra-judicial executions, theft of land, kidnapping, now, of legitimately elected representatives and ministers, the existence of a wall considered illegal by the court in the hague and the geneva conventions flouted, francis wurtz spoke about it: more than 400 children still held in israeli prisons, more than 400 young palestinians. the united nations organisation (uno) resolutions ignored the sealing off of territories and restrictions on movements. and what else? of course, mr tannock, we condemn violence, we condemn the firing of rockets, we condemn the kidnapping of the soldier, shalit, but there is at present an imbalance. look at the figures. they are, alas, dramatically unfavourable to the palestinian people and, i repeat, there is no equidistance. international law - that is not equidistance. nothing today justifies our silence and i should like to salute, here, these new just men, those jews who, in israel and elsewhere, speak out and say 'that must be stopped'. they say it amid the sniggering, the sarcasm, and sometimes the threats of their fellow citizens. i see myself as a supporter of all those people, as i see myself as a supporter of our palestinian colleagues who, regardless of parliamentary immunity, have been imprisoned. i should like to say to you that in belgium, all the leaders of the political parties are to meet tomorrow, at 1 p.m. at berlaymont, to make a chain for peace and to ask the european union to take on its responsibilities, not only humanitarian responsibilities, but real political responsibilities which are a credit to the european union. (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, none of us questions israel's right to exist. we are aware of our political responsibility. at the same time, i would like to remind the house of the message from a peace conference held in palestine in the last few days. women, who are, after all, part of civil society, palestinian and israeli women, delivered a clear message to us. you speak, they said, of the coexistence of two states. that is good, but please take note that our existence is threatened in palestine and in gaza. i believe that the crux of the matter at this time is the existence issue. for this reason i am glad that javier solana said we had to consider whether we should not review the lebanon experience as quickly as possible and possibly become involved in gaza. we must act before the situation slides completely out of control, because there will not be many more opportunities. what you described as courage, dr solana, namely the hope we must have if we are to remain committed and explain our commitment to the people on the ground too, that hope has faded to a shadow in the region itself. i wish to thank mr poettering on behalf of my group for having made that journey. you said that the situation in gaza is intolerable. it is our duty to become more heavily committed than ever before to the right of people there to live in peace, and of course that also means criticising hamas for its duplicity. the statement made by hamas to mark the 40th anniversary of the six-day war is unacceptable in our view. at the same time, however, we must cooperate actively with the government of national unity. we shall not get a second chance. i second the criticism voiced by mrs de keyser just a few moments ago. we in the european union have indeed made mistakes in that region. we have bitterly disappointed people's hopes and have failed to harness their willingness to look to the future. i hope that the middle east quartet is now roused from slumber. i hope it will go into action, and i hope there will be trips to the region. it may be a last chance before we can no longer speak realistically of any hope of peace. mr president, i would like to begin with some quotes. on 2 april, prime minister haniyeh said on al-jazeera: 'as far as we are concerned, the issue of recognition of israel has been settled once and for all. it has been settled in our political literature, in our islamic thought and in our jihadist culture, on which we base our moves. we will declare a truce, but never recognition of israel'. on al-jazeera on 27 april, he said: 'if the siege continues beyond a certain time, we will be forced to make a decision and there is no doubt that we will act'. on 5 may, in a prayer, he said: 'i reiterate, on behalf of the palestinian government, that the security plan will not hurt the resistance. we will give allah the opportunity to grant us one of the two mercies, victory or martyrdom'. as a fluent speaker of arabic, i can assure you that the translation is correct. the situation is grave. we face not only the 'iraqisation' of gaza but the 'iranisation' of the whole middle east. this is not just a threat to the middle east. this is a serious threat to our own security. europe must be a player and we must be absolutely unified. therefore parliament should remain unified, supporting the council, the commission and the quartet. the temporary international mechanism must go on. we have to continue humanitarian aid. we may even use the plo account. however, the key issue is to bring the palestinian national unity government to renounce violence, to recognise israel and to honour international agreements. only then can we return to un resolution 242, clearly asking israel to withdraw from territories, so that there are no 'deterritories' or occupied territories. i therefore ask the council and the commission whether they consider that the preconditions for the recognition and direct financing of the palestinian national unity government have been met. (fr) mr president, commissioner, mr solana, when 40 years have passed since the six day war and the nations of the middle east are still suffering now from its tragic consequences; when reports by amnesty international and the united nations now seriously question the viability of a palestinian state because of the persistent israeli policies of occupation and colonisation; when unbearable misery is rife in gaza and on the west bank, feeding the fire between rival palestinian factions, and the national unity government, the last rampart against civil war, is hanging by a thread; when the whole region is in ferment from iraq to lebanon, we can say that compassionate speeches are no longer enough and it is urgent to bring about change, an upheaval, a revolution, dare i say, in our middle east policy and to take on the full extent of our responsibilities. first of all, by recognising the palestinian national unity government on which we have pinned our hopes and which has declared willingness to respect all of the un and plo resolutions, all of the previous resolutions, as well as the demands of the quartet to restore credibility to the two-state solution. next, by reinstating our direct aid to this government, because it is unrealistic to count on the israelis to release the tax revenues that were collected by right and which remain confiscated and because the temporary mechanism has fizzled out. furthermore, by deploying an international interposition force at the border between gaza and israel, the only measure that is likely to bring about a ceasefire the effectiveness and endurance of which have been demonstrated in lebanon. finally and above all, by showing considerable ambition, perhaps, by taking the initiative for a european camp david that has become necessary since the roadmap brandished by the quartet comes down to nothing more than a pious hope. since 1967, we have lost our way in mistakes and injustices. do we have to wait another 40 years. (the president cut off the speaker) (da) thank you, mr president, and thanks also to the commissioner and the high representative. simply put, however, i have my doubts. we, in the group of the greens/european free alliance, have attempted to discuss amongst ourselves what it is we have learnt here. it is a top priority for us that we now recognise the palestinian government and that action be taken again. i am quite simply unable to tell whether that is what we have been told is to happen. it was not what mr solana told us; but was it what mrs ferrero-waldner said? that is - did she say that we would now grant recognition and go on from there? it seems to me that we need a clear answer to this question because what frustrates the whole system is the fact that all we get is endless talk and no action. the double standards and the paralysis of action are on the point of wrecking not only the middle east but also the eu. the other matter about which we need clarity is what is meant by the fact that we are now to support the arab initiative. i was unable to conclude from mr solana's presentation that this is actually what we intend to do. all i could make out was that it was said that we must now engage again in negotiation. we are well aware, however, of where we need to go. it is a difficult process to turn this into a reality, but we know what has to be brought about, and we cannot allow ourselves to become notorious for mentioning the arab initiative over and over and then letting all the steam out of it by saying 'now let us see what happens'. we need to say that this is the point at which we are making a start. we have, set out before us, the final result that we are all well aware is the only acceptable outcome if we are to make progress and that, to top it all, is what both the west and israel have long been calling for. it has suddenly been put on the table. can we not have clear answers? that would be nice. (de) mr president, commissioner, high representative, the fact that the quartet now intends to act jointly in the region is good news. that is an important message, because, as we have often said in this house, it is only through concerted action that the quartet acquires the credibility it needs to be able to give all parties the essential security guarantees. in the eyes of the region, no member of the quartet can do that on its own. may i congratulate you on this development and also on the fact that it can be combined with the arab initiative. if we want to advance - and we have discussed this so often - and avoid giving in to hopelessness and despair, we must be clear about one thing: the moderates on both sides must be able to create conditions in their own territories in which the foundations can be built for a peace process that will not be demolished by the provocations of the extremist minorities on the other side. this must therefore be the starting point. it is true, of course, that israel must release the money. it is also true that this patchwork situation in the west bank, with checks and settlements everywhere, which nips any economic development in the bud, must be ended, and that conditions must prevail in which economic development is possible again. we can pump as much money into the west bank as we like, but the right conditions simply must be created there. it must also be said, however, that what is happening in gaza is a civil war between palestinians. the answer is not an international force deployed between israel and gaza but meetings between the warring factions to bring about a satisfactory end to the conflict. all of these issues are plainly interconnected, but please let us remember that everyone is responsible for his own domain. we cannot take over this responsibility. accordingly, we must demand an end to the civil war. anyone trying to resolve conflicts between the rival groups by military means is destroying the future prospects of his own people. for this reason we must take care to seek our starting points here and thus create a platform from which the quartet can operate successfully and give us a genuine chance of progress. mr president, sometimes i get very dispirited when listening to the debates in this house on this issue, particularly when i hear mr tannock and mrs hybkov, who seem intent on laying down conditions in this house for a solution in the middle east. it is not for us to set preconditions for the israelis and the palestinians in terms of how they will address each other in the peace negotiations. the only preconditions necessary for successful peace negotiations are a demonstrable commitment to peace on each side, a mandate to negotiate on each side and the capacity to deliver on the commitments made in the negotiations. all other preconditions which meps in this house seek to apply to israelis and palestinians are so much hot air. they have no effect and there is no possible likelihood that they will be met in a situation in which the palestinian authority, in particular, is at the point of collapse. if that authority, that unity government, collapses, then nothing we say and nothing the european union does will prevent the appalling bloodbath that will follow, for the israelis and for the palestinians. the role of the international community is to ensure that the patrons of each side in this conflict - the quartet and the arab states - set aside their immediate short-term interests and put the interests of the palestinians and the israelis first. we must seek to ensure that they come to the table and address the outlines that are already there, and which have been for some time, as regards the possibilities and conditions for peace. it is time we stopped talking and started to act in the interests . (the president cut the speaker off) (sk) as mr solana and commissioner ferrero-waldner have told us, the situation in the middle east is indeed critical. the situation is critical in lebanon, and it continues to be critical in palestinian-israeli relations. the very notion of 'critical', however, is dramatic, since it implies a situation of financial, economic and social decline, accompanied by terror attacks and activities, kidnappings and the death of civilians. the mounting resistance and attacks against the state of israel and her citizens breed fear and concern, resulting in measures which we find incomprehensible. the region is a mess, conflict is intensifying and the ceasefire is not being abided by. the meeting of the quartet last week pointed out that our active involvement in the peace process was essential. however, the degree of frustration on either side, be it palestinian or israeli, is just as great as our endeavours to further the peace process. it is imperative, therefore, to beef up our diplomatic efforts, to make them more dynamic and, in particular, to make them balanced. our activities should not generate the impression that we stand on one side of the conflict. it is our duty to demand that israel release the funds; by the same token, it is our duty to ensure that the funds are indeed invested in economic and social development. it is also our duty to guarantee for the citizens of israel basic protection of their lives and the basic defence of their state. (pt) this issue of the middle east, and in particular the tragic situation in palestine, has resurfaced several times in recent plenary sessions. this should come as no surprise. we have all seen on the ground what goes on there. we have all seen the same thing, we have come to parliament and reported a terrible and explosive humanitarian situation. we have all seen israel's illegal retention of some eur 700 million in taxes - money that does not belong to israel and that is generating interest by the day. we have all seen in the eyes of those people - human beings with the right to justice and dignity just like us - the hope for a future in which they can live in peace. this is a hope that remains alive despite the constraints, a hope that every day is severely put to the test by a lack of mobility and by the wall. this is a wall that puts paid to any kind of local economy, either in its purest meaning of subsistence through farming, or in terms of something more ambitious like having enough produce to run a small shop. in the face of the continuous erosion of that hope, despair takes hold and, as members of this privileged club of countries that won peace after enduring the bitter taste of war, we must not think that we can solve problems by throwing money at them. helping the palestinian people is very important, crucial in fact. much more important, though, is helping them realise that their voice makes a difference in their country and that the credible manner in which they ran their elections and sought a solution to present to the world counted for something. authority must be restored to the palestinian territories. let us hope that finance minister salam fayad can become one of the main spokesmen on matters of financial help to the people. it is therefore vital to normalise institutional relations. we must demonstrate that we are actually prepared to resolve the conflict. we europeans have a vital part to play in bringing peace to the region and to the world. (the president cut off the speaker) mr president, we must give peace a chance in the middle east. we know how difficult it is and we all know about the challenges, but we all know about the new hopes and we have clearly explained the situation. what is necessary is, on the one hand, to achieve a certain level of security, and a better security situation first to the palestinians within gaza, but also in the west bank. that is very true. both we and americans are working with the palestinians to come to such a solution, but unfortunately we are not yet completely there. second, there needs to be greater economic freedom in order to improve the daily lives of the palestinians. this is also what we are trying to do. we also said very clearly that we want to engage with this national unity government according to the actions and the programme. salam fayyad is, therefore, our preferred interlocutor to see what else can be done. i have very clearly said what could be done. i would like to repeat to you that in addition to from our continuous work with the temporary international mechanism - that i would have liked to phase out as soon as possible, but i cannot do so because there humanitarian assistance is still necessary - we offered salam fayyad technical assistance in the area of audit, revenue collection and customs. we are currently working with the ministry to define the delivery of assistance, but we are also resuming institution-building where it is important. we are trying to go for development assistance in order to give more hope to the population, but it is true that a lot of political courage and political will is necessary, first and foremost on the part of the parties to the conflict. we members of the quartet can only support them, we can push them, we can encourage them and this is what we are trying to do, but we cannot, unfortunately, take the decision for them. that is the limit of our action. i hope that the next meeting in the region will be a positive one and will be the trigger to this political vision and political horizon that we all have so much in our minds. we hope and plead for the release of all the political prisoners. that means the abducted israeli soldier and the bbc journalist alan johnston, but also all the members of the palestinian government and all the others that are still imprisoned. i think this would be very good momentum that could be brought about in order to find the next steps towards this two-state solution that we all so clearly wish for. mr president, i am not going to repeat what i and others who have contributed to the debate have already said. i would first of all like to thank all the members of parliament who contributed, those who are still here and those who have left. i think it has been a very interesting debate, and i would like to make an observation on it. when i come to the european parliament to discuss the middle east, i have the feeling that emotions run high, starting with my own. but i think that our debates have to be about the events which are important at a given time. today we are in a very difficult situation, but at the same time, as has been said, it is a time of hope, which did not exist for a long time. i have been involved in the middle east for many years. i was at the madrid conference and at the last conference at camp david. not since camp david have i perceived us to be any closer than i feel we are today to the beginning of real, meaningful communication and exchange and therefore the beginning of a political horizon, and a debate and negotiations about that. there are three reasons for this. one is that the arab league initiative is something that was missing at the time of camp david. we have it today, and we have the engagement of the arabs to embrace whoever the palestinian negotiator is going to be, in order to sustain him and to give the support which, as you know, was not there at the time of camp david. secondly, 40 years have elapsed. i think everybody is exhausted: psychologically, physically and politically. out of this exhaustion i think that we have to muster new psychological and political energy in order to move forward. thirdly, we have a mechanism - the quartet - and sometimes we do not realise how much effort goes into that. for the first time we have the united states and the european union at the same table negotiating with the parties, which has never happened before. we have to recognise that. this is the first time that the european union has been at the negotiating table. the russian federation was in madrid and then disappeared. there was also the secretary-general of the united nations - imagine for a moment what that means - the united nations negotiated in this conflict. it was impossible to imagine at that time. i believe that to a certain extent all these elements change the horizon of what can be done now. we must now try to move on, try not to falter and try to continue working in that direction. conditions have changed and therefore we have more hope that it can be achieved. will it be achieved in 24 hours? no. if you think that we will find the solution to all the problems by the end of this month, you are wrong: we will have to wait a bit longer than that. but let us see whether we have the opportunity to move the process forward. as a final thought, i would like to stress that we are europeans here. everyone here is a member of the european union. sometimes we have to be a little proud of what we do. if you go to palestine, as you do, you hear the criticism. but probably, if you really talk in depth to the palestinians and israelis, you will find a growing sympathy and understanding - you have to agree with me about that - for the way in which europeans are doing things. i think that we europeans have to recognise that every now and then. otherwise we will never move forward collectively, as we need to do. moving this process forward is not an effort for one or two: it is an effort for everybody. we have an opportunity. let us see whether next time we meet we see progress. we will not see the solution, but let us see whether we make progress. the debate is closed. the vote will take place during the next part-session in strasbourg. written statements (article 142) in writing. - (pt) this week marks the 40th anniversary of israel's illegal occupation of the palestinian territories of the west bank, the (now violently under siege) gaza strip and east jerusalem, the syrian territories of the golan heights and the egyptian territories of the sinai peninsula, which egypt has since recovered. 40 years of. violations of international law and non-compliance with countless un security council resolutions by the israeli authorities; criminal and brutal occupation, colonisation and repression, and denial of the palestinian people's legitimate rights by the israeli authorities; oppression, plundering, exploitation, unemployment and poverty, the imposition of the most degrading humiliation and inhuman living conditions on the palestinian people by the israeli authorities; actual support and collaboration, or at least connivance and tacit acceptance, by the usa and its allies in europe in the face of the israeli authorities' considerable responsibility. june 2007 is a time to reiterate the call for an end to the occupation of the territories that israel occupied in 1967, for compliance with international law and for the implementation of the relevant un resolutions, such as the palestinian people's inalienable right to a viable, sovereign and independent state. in writing. - (fi) mr president, the six day war took place in 1967 and it had its winner. in the last 40 years the loser has been human dignity. the humanitarian crisis in the middle east is one of the most tragic in recent history. there is a vicious circle of violence in the region which no one has yet been able to break. generations of israelis and palestinians have lived with instability, violence and war. crisis management has been the tool used in practice to seek a solution to the middle east conflict. step by step the aim has been a move towards permanent peace. a ceasefire has been reached which will soon have collapsed and a new conflict begun. it is difficult to believe in a successful path as long as the parties fail to understand that each act of violence destroys the future of a section of its own people. there is also a lack of comprehension among the palestinian groups. there is a civil war going on in gaza. scores of palestinians have died in clashes between fatah and hamas. israel's military actions and human rights violations are to be condemned. each country must comply with international obligations and international law and should respect human dignity, something that can never be surrendered. we cannot demand israel's immediate withdrawal from the palestinian territories, however, as long as the palestinian authorities do not recognise the state of israel. the quartet, the united states of america, the united nations, the eu and russia, must obviously continue with their efforts to achieve a lasting peace. parliament's job is to demonstrate european consistency and support the commission and the council. there is one thing we surely cannot do: we cannot make the parties accept our desire to achieve a lasting peace. we can encourage and put pressure on them, but we cannot force our will upon them.

8. single european railway area ( mr president, i am the liberal shadow rapporteur on this report. the liberal group would like to make an oral amendment. in the last sentence of article 6(4), we would like to improve the text, adding only four words. after 'capital employed' we could add 'except from public funding'. i think that the other rapporteurs of the big groups are in favour of this.

implementation of directive 2002/14/ec establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the european community (short presentation) the next item is a short presentation of the report by mr cottigny, on behalf of the committee on employment and social affairs, on the implementation of directive 2002/14/ec establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the european community. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would first like to thank the various shadow rapporteurs for their open-minded work during our collaboration on this text in the committee on employment and social affairs. the member states must improve the implementation of the directive on informing and consulting employees, particularly in the current context of the financial crisis and of its consequences for companies as they restructure, merge or move abroad. this is the message the committee on employment was seeking to send out in this initiative report. the european union has 23 million companies with fewer than 250 employees. they represent 99% of companies and employ over 100 million people. workers' rights to information and consultation are essential components of the social market economy. the transposition of directive 2002/14/ec has been considerably delayed in some member states. in this own-initiative report, we point out that the impact of this directive is evident in the countries where no general system of worker information and consultation existed. i am calling for an improved transposition of the directive in the member states. we ask that the commission takes measures, as soon as possible, to ensure the proper transposition of this directive by the member states, and to bring infringement proceedings against those that have either not transposed it at all or have done so incorrectly. the report also emphasises that, in their transposition measures, some member states have not included some young workers, women working part-time or workers employed for a short period on temporary contracts. we ask that the member states define precisely the term 'information' by allowing workers' representatives to examine the data supplied and not to content themselves with awaiting the end of the information procedure if the companies' decisions have direct consequences for the workers. member states without effective, proportionate and deterrent sanctions are asked to introduce them. finally, in an improved coordination of the different legislative instruments, we also invite the commission to examine what is required to coordinate the six directives and the regulation on informing employees, so that any amendments to get rid of overlaps and contradictions can be made. as this type of advance in workers' rights is more than beneficial, the union owes it to itself to guarantee that the member states transpose the obligations of the directive correctly and in full. it is essential that all european workers know that europe supports them in their involvement in the life of their company, in their daily lives as workers, and especially at the present time. member of the commission. - mr president, i take due note of mr cottigny's report on what is an important directive which consolidates at european level a fundamental social right of employees. the commission attaches great importance to informing and consulting employees at both national and transnational level, particularly in the current difficult context of the financial crisis. we proposed the recasting of the directive on european work councils. this has been successfully completed. we are continuing our work on the anticipation and socially responsible management of restructuring and the questions arising at european level from the negotiation of transnational agreements. as explained in its communication of 17 march 2008, the commission's prime concern for the implementation of directive 2002/14/ec is that it should be comprehensive and effective in collaboration with the member states and the two sides of industry, which have an extremely important role to play, as you know. it should be borne in mind that the directive only establishes a general framework that can be implemented and expanded by the two sides of industry, particularly at company level. the commission conducts and supports activities for raising awareness, promoting the exchange of best practices and boosting the capacities of all the parties involved by means of seminars, training courses, studies and financial aid for projects particularly under a specific budget line. the commission also monitors the correct application of the directive in its capacity as guardian of the treaties: for example, if complaints are made by trade union organisations. so far, however, the commission has received very few complaints concerning the implementation of this directive. the item is closed. the vote will take place on thursday, 19 february 2009. written statements (rule 142) the transposition of directive 2002/14/ec establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the european community has been subject to considerable delay in certain member states. i feel that there is a need to increase the democratic involvement of workers in making decisions which have an impact on the company, bearing in mind the global nature of the current financial crisis, which is affecting member states indiscriminately in their economic network and is generating fears about restructuring, mergers or relocation. in the case of restructuring enterprises, i would call on european funds to be made available and for assistance to be provided to workers, not only enterprises. i also feel that it must become an obligatory practice in the situation where a multinational company is being restructured for trade-union representatives from all branches of the company to be invited to negotiations and consulted, not only those from the member state in which the company has its head office. i feel that it is important to regularly update the legislation concerning the rights of workers to be informed and consulted and include this item on the agenda for european social dialogue, both at an interprofessional and industrial level.

mr president, a rather serious problem arose this morning when the assistants were suddenly prevented from boarding the coach to bring us here from the hotel monopol, despite the fact that this practice has been applied without a hitch for the past 21 years. i should like to protest because there would have been five members in the coach and the assistants would have been late for work. it is a stupid regulation because the bus carrying five passengers could have been replaced by two cars, meaning that there would have been two drivers instead of one. this bureaucracy must have been thought up by our quaestors and we urgently need to abolish it so that members can take their assistants with them to work. mr posselt, we will pass on your arguments to the college of quaestors so that they can adopt the resolution that they think best and so that it will be known to all members. approval of the minutes of the previous sitting the minutes of yesterday' s sitting have been distributed. are there any comments? mr president, i just wished to point out that i forgot to sign the attendance register yesterday evening. we will take note of it. (the minutes were approved) vote on a request for urgent procedure mr varela, chairman of the committee on fisheries, has the floor to give his opinion. varela suanzes-carpegna (ppe-de), chairman of the committee on fisheries. (es) mr president, i would like to inform you that the committee on fisheries has decided not to accept this request for urgent procedure, as we were not aware of the commission proposal until 20 november, when we no longer had time to include it on our agenda. it was therefore not possible for us to deal with it with the urgency that was asked of us. however, we will do everything we can to ensure that we will be able to debate it here in the next part-session of the new year. thank you very much, mr varela. as there are no other speakers, the commissioner has the floor. mr president, ladies and gentlemen. the regulation on control measures in the area covered by the convention on future multilateral cooperation in the north-east atlantic fisheries stipulates that the provisions governing the application of these control measures only apply for the year 2000. the council was unable to agree on a longer regulation at the time and the rules in question therefore expire at the end of this year. if we delay in amending this regulation, we shall have no legal basis for european union control ships in the international waters of the north atlantic after 1 january 2001. this will undermine the whole control system and the regional fisheries organisations, which will be weakened as a result. the control system has proven to be a first rate system and we should spare no effort to strengthen and develop it further. the commission therefore supports the council's request for urgent procedure and calls on the members of the european parliament to support this urgent procedure. mr varela, chairman of the committee on fisheries, the committee responsible, has the floor again. mr president, i regret very much that the commission did not take all this into account before and did not inform us in sufficient time so that we could work on it in committee. however, the international measures mentioned will remain in force because this is an international agreement. they will not, therefore, be affected by the delay. moreover, as i said before, i hope that we will be able to vote on this proposal during the january part-session. in any case, it is regrettable that they are asking us for an urgent procedure now, at the last minute, because we have had all of 2000 to process this proposal for a regulation. i think that the institutions, in this case the commission, should work more responsibly to ensure that proposals reach this house in due time so that a rapporteur can be appointed, the commission proposal can be examined, amendments can be tabled, they can be debated in committee and they can then come to the plenary, which they have asked us to do in a single plenary sitting, which is impossible. having heard the speeches from the commissioner and the chairman of the committee on fisheries, i put the request for urgent procedure to the vote. (parliament rejected the request for urgent procedure) 2001 budget the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: a5-0380/2000 by mrs haug and mr ferber, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on the draft general budget of the european union for the financial year 2001 modified by the council (all sections) [13830/2000 - c5-0600/2000 - 1999/2190(bud)] and on letter of amendment no 2/2001 to the 2001 draft general budget [13833/2000 - c5-0653/2000] section i, parliament section ii, council section iii, commission section iv, court of justice section v, court of auditors section vi, economic and social committee section vii, committee of the regions section viii, ombudsman a5-0391/2000 by mr colom i naval, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on the proposal for a decision of the european parliament and the council concerning the use of the flexibility instrument (paragraph 24 of the interinstitutional agreement of 6 may 1999 on budgetary discipline and improvement of the budgetary procedure) [sec(2000)2167 - c5-0665/2000] madam president-in-office, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to start by thanking the president-in-office, who negotiated with us, with parliament, in a shrewd and tenacious manner, often without the support of her colleagues, by thanking the commissioner, who never once lost sight of global european interests, both on and off stage, and by thanking all my colleagues who backed me at the most crucial moments, even where they were of a different opinion, and who were supportive and joined forces in order to defend parliament's position. my sincere thanks to one and all. without such teamwork we could never have arrived at what is now a relatively comfortable, by that i mean perfectly tension-free situation. there now appear to be no further obstacles to parliament's passing a resolution on the european union budget for 2001 on thursday. the chairman of the committee on budgets tells me that this is the very first time that agreement has been reached between the council and parliament at conciliation. so well done everyone! there is a proverb which says that money makes an evil master but an excellent servant. as the elected representatives of the people, we parliamentarians have acted in accordance with this proverb. we have not harped on about principles. we have not set budgetary objectives in advance and then tried to tailor our policy to them. we wanted a proper, economical, logical budget which would allow us to honour our political commitments and really help those who need our help. so we agreed with the council during the night of 23 to 24 november on the main points of what is a perfectly reasonable, although by no means brilliant budget. whichever way you look at it, it is reasonable not to give up in the fight against unemployment in europe, which is why we keep insisting on the need for action at every political level - at local, regional, national and at european level. the european budget will include eur 450 million to promote employment over the next five years by supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. if we implement the action lines described in the charter on smes and help smes to apply new technologies, we shall, i think, have found a way of creating jobs. the agreed eur 450 million is more than four times what the commission proposed in the preliminary draft budget and frontloading eur 100 million next year should get us off to a flying start. the committee on budgets proposes that plenary remove the reserves set up at first reading. this applies both to the performance reserve under the heading foreign policy and the administrative expenditure reserve. we have stated time and again that we support the reform of the commission and that we agree to the 400 new posts, combined with a new early retirement scheme, but only subject to certain conditions. some of these conditions have now been met. the commission has submitted its analysis of outstanding commitments and its strategy for eliminating abnormal outstanding commitments. we put the final touches to a joint declaration by the council and parliament in a trilogue last tuesday. we all agreed that the commission should draft a report by the middle of next year on progress made in phasing out commitment backlogs, implementing programmes and simplifying project cycles, a report on how comitology is working, on progress made in implementing the reform package and on the performance targets of the main programmes under category iv, to mention just a few aspects of the joint declaration. we now expect the commission to start work at soon as possible. apart from a few minor skirmishes started or continued by the council at second reading, our second reading has been stripped of most of its contentious points, mainly because we have stated that we are prepared to help the council achieve what it sees as the extremely important objective of reducing the increase in payments to 3.5%. this will be achieved mainly by removing the structural funds reserve set up at first reading and making fewer payments for community initiatives, which need to be rebudgeted anyway. the commission's letter of amendment no. 2 which, following renewed calculation, has deducted around eur 900 million from the sum needed for category i, was also extremely helpful here. this letter of amendment is most welcome and i imagine that parliament's consent to it is most welcome in the council, because it also contains an estimated surplus for the current budget of eur 900 million, which can be entered straight away under revenue for 2001. what worried us most right through the budget procedure was how to fund our foreign policy. our financial perspective for category iv was clearly way off target since the war in the balkans. the commission therefore suggested revising the figures by eur 300 million. the council fought against this tooth and nail and it was impossible to reason with it on this point, just as it was last year. for the council, the financial perspective is a monstrance and must not be changed. it has made it into its evil master, to continue the proverb which i quoted earlier. we were therefore forced to do a deal with it on the eur 200 million flexibility instrument, as if this did not represent a change to the financial perspective. but at least we now have a further eur 200 million at our disposal, although we did in fact need another eur 300 million. but we can at least fund what we think is the most important task, i.e. the democratisation and reconstruction of the western balkans, from a total of eur 839 million, including eur 240 million for serbia. we refused to allow our other foreign policy priorities to be whittled away still further. we can finance cooperation with the baltic region and our crisis reaction forces and we have given meda eur 40 million more than the council provided. so, as you can see, we have cobbled together a solution for the 2001 budget. however, this solution is weak on political and budgetary planning, because it takes no account of the fact that money is needed over a period of several years. i should like to have responded to long-term requirements with proper multiannual planning. all this means, of course, is that we shall face the same mountain of difficulties during the next budgetary procedure. i hope that the person who succeeds me as parliament's general rapporteur and the belgian presidency of the council, which will be taking over in the second half of next year, enjoy their discussions. i know from my own experience just how difficult it is to keep all the groups in parliament together. however, i also know from the discussions that it is far more difficult to formulate a negotiable council position, obtain a mandate and accommodate pure national chauvinism in a fairly reasonable and tenable overall european decision. naturally, that does not only apply to purely budgetary processes, as the nice summit so graphically demonstrated yet again. so we stand once again at the end of a year and ask ourselves how, in heaven's name, we can make the council see reason and make a good servant out of an evil master. mr president, madam president-in-office, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i must, of course, start by joining mrs haug in thanking all the officials and members and the commission services, although the words do stick in my throat somewhat when it comes to the council. i have the honour of dealing with the minor budgets: here the procedure is relatively straightforward and we all know who has the final word. they may treat us shabbily in nice but to reverse everything parliament has done, as in the case of the european court of justice, knowing full well that we shall correct it all again this week, is just a waste of resources and we could have helped protect the environment by using less paper. meeting parliament half way would not have come amiss here and would have saved us some work, although i have no objection to the work because what i want for the future is an efficient european court of justice which can do its job and, more importantly, clear the backlog of translation work. if the council had shown itself to be more accommodating, we could have brokered an agreement back in october. having been allocated so little time, which is a pity because the budget - and the rapporteurs - deserve more than a derisory two and a half minutes, i must confine myself to just a few comments. we must consider internally how all the present requirements can be developed into transparent procedures in the area of promotions policy. i am delighted that not only the court of justice and the court of auditors but also the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions have already started to review their promotions policy and develop a transparent, merit-based procedure in which individual performance rather than seniority is the deciding criterion. i think that we are on the right path and, as part of the budgetary authority - in this case as the budgetary authority because the council does not play the most decisive role here - we shall help to ensure that this continues in the future. we here in parliament must also check to see that our budget still meets the criteria of honesty and clarity. let me be quite clear here: we have a number of vacant positions here in parliament, which save us several tens of millions of euros from one year to the next. we must therefore consider if the whole way in which we draw up our own budget is still correct, which is why our resolutions will call on our own administration - and i hope that the house will come on board here - to submit a full report on the vacant positions in the house, so that we end up with a budget which meets the criteria of honesty and clarity. i hope that work will progress on a european recruitment agency - or "joint recruitment office" as we call it in our very best german - so that we can jointly overcome the problems which all the institutions - the council, the commission, parliament and the other institutions - will face over coming years, i.e. the problem of staffing over coming years. i trust that we shall make real progress here. i have overrun by one minute and it was a pleasure to do so. have i now been allowed more time? if so, i shall gladly give it to the group because i only prepared for two and a half minutes and intended to overrun by one minute. i have therefore met my personal target. i should like once again to thank all my colleagues. as far as the other institutions are concerned, we have worked together to achieve what i think is a good result which cuts across all party, group, country and other divides. if the council were prepared to follow suit next year, if it listened to parliament more readily, it would be even easier to achieve a good result. ladies and gentlemen, do not think that my heart has been softened by mr ferber' s arguments, but he actually had five minutes to speak and the services had only indicated two and a half minutes. sorry, mr ferber. and if you wish to add anything later - because you had one minute left - i will give you the floor. mr president, when a delegation from this parliament was visiting the people' s republic of china some time ago, we were in xiamen, in the south-east of china, and there was an island visible on the horizon. we asked what is was called and they said, "it is the unmentionable." it was taiwan and its name cannot be mentioned in china. here the thing that we are not allowed to mention is 'revision of the financial perspective.' ladies and gentlemen, i think that we should almost be kneeling down to deal with this matter, because it is a religious one. in the council' s religion it is forbidden to mention the word revision. that is crystal clear. but i challenge my esteemed colleague, the president-in-office of the council, to explain to me what the difference is between the revision of the financial perspective and the use of the flexibility instrument: the majorities are the same, and the amounts can be the same. apart from it being taboo, it is really difficult to explain why the council refuses to recognise the need for a revision of the financial perspective. what is more, of the thirty-eight revisions that the community has had since 1988, which is when this system was set up, twenty-odd have been annual revisions. so not even the argument for annual or multiannual revisions is an excuse. perhaps another reason why we should discuss this on our knees is the attitude of some members of this house, as all they seem to want to do is blindly obey the instructions of the council. we have really fought a great battle in order to achieve a 0.02% increase in the council draft budget. i do not know whether this is a great success for this parliament. it can even be seen in the structural funds, where the commission told us that 8 000 million additional payment appropriations were needed, and the result is that we have cut them by 340 million, which is, of course, the request of the council, not of parliament. i wanted to briefly point out that, when we adopted the financial perspective in force, in 1999, we were still - i say 'we were' due to the involvement of the union - bombing the balkans, particularly serbia. and we left it that when the conflict ended we would revise the financial perspective. we agreed this between the council and parliament. the council refuses to carry out this revision - it seems that now we should have the information - and i want to warn you: using the flexibility instrument two years in a row, two consecutive years, in fact, in less than fifteen months, and the first time less than six months after the adoption of the perspective, is financially draining the flexibility instrument because it prevents it from being replaced and from possible accumulation, which is planned for up to 600 million. but it is also draining it politically and this is much more serious, ladies and gentlemen, because it could lead to parliament having a complete lack of confidence in the very system of financial perspective. to be honest, the council is leading us to believe that the system is not satisfactory because one of the contracting parties is not fulfilling the political requirements involved in signing an agreement. the needs of the balkans have not come to an end, they are multiannual. so now what are we going to do? at the moment we are beginning to sacrifice meda, which went down from eur 980 million in 1999 to eur 741 million in 2001. it is the first victim of not having a revision. i wonder who will be the next victim? i would like to know, mrs schreyer, what is going to be done with the initial proposal for revision of the financial perspective. the commission has not withdrawn it. i would therefore like to know what you are going to do. are we going to continue to fund the balkans with juggling, as we have done now, at the end of 2000, "pre-budgeting" things and then introducing eur 200 million in the 2001 budget? what are we going to do in march? i know that it will be the job of the swedish presidency, but in march we need to look at the perspective for 2002, and what are we going to do? the matter of the balkans will not have been resolved. to be honest, i think that i have to recommend to this house that it approve the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument because, in short, it enables us to solve the serbia issue and because it is a revision that no one is daring to call by its name. ladies and gentlemen, the emperor is not wearing any clothes. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, following the nice european council, where european integration made significant progress, which the president of france will shortly present to you, i am delighted to present you with the second reading of the draft budget of the european union, as established by the council on 24 november. it is a pleasure, but also an honour and an emotional moment for me to be here with you, at the heart of european democracy. the council' s second reading was preceded on 23 november by a conciliation meeting between the european parliament, the council and the commission. the outcome of this long meeting was, i believe, a twofold success. it was a success for europe because we were able to overcome our initial differences of opinion and a political success because this budget is an expression not only of a compromise, but also - especially - of our priorities. indeed, the representatives of the three institutions spared no effort to conclude an overall agreement on the 2001 budget and i wish to take this opportunity to thank, on behalf of the council, both the members of the parliamentary delegation and mrs schreyer. the council has therefore proceeded to its second reading of the budget, taking account of the agreements concluded with the delegation from parliament, with the ever-present desire to vote for a budget that will enable us to fund all of the european union' s priorities and a budget that matches up to real needs and to our true ability to make use of appropriations. this budget will also enable us to implement the reform of the common agricultural policy and to carry out the programming of structural actions as defined in 1999, as well as all of the major programmes decided on jointly by parliament and the council. i am thinking specifically here of research, the trans-european networks and culture or audiovisual creation, with the media plus programme, on which an agreement was concluded on 23 november. i should now like to focus on the main progress made at the second reading in council. the first point of agreement between the council and parliament concerns external action, that is, heading 4 of the budget, on which our institutions shared a common goal, which was to release substantial funding for the balkans region in 2001, given recent developments in serbia' s political situation, and to do so without passing the costs of this on to the other geographical priorities of the union' s external action. the agreement reached on 23 november therefore defines an overall allocation for the balkans of eur 839 million, of which eur 240 million are earmarked for serbia. this very considerable amount, which matches the heavy requirements for 2001, will be largely funded by mobilising the flexibility instrument for an amount of eur 200 million. parliament thereby retains considerable room for manoeuvre at second reading to fund all its other geographical priorities and to do so within the ceiling of heading 4, as the council had hoped. the second important aspect of the council' s second reading concerns letter of amendment no 2, which enables the commission' s new provisions in the field of agriculture to be implemented. the council has accepted this letter of amendment in its entirety and, out of the same concern to act in accordance with the most recent data available, the council has also accepted the european parliament' s amendments on rural development expenditure, which demonstrate the progress that has been made in the adoption and implementation of national programmes. finally, the council voted, as had been arranged at the conciliation meeting of 23 november, in favour of additional credits to the value of eur 60 million, for the funding of screening tests for bse. this sum of eur 60 million is a preliminary, rapid budgetary response to the council' s decision to extend tests carried out on cattle. it must therefore be seen as a provisional sum. the bse crisis will indeed require other measures, for which a budgetary assessment has not yet been completed and when a system has been more precisely defined, we will, of course, have to take account of its potential impact on the budget and to release the necessary appropriations whilst, as a matter of priority, studying the possibilities of redeploying funds within heading i. additional funding can then be provided through a supplementary and amending budget within the financial perspective. i am delighted that our institutions have been able to reach agreement on adopting, at only one reading, all aspects of this letter of amendment no 2, which concerns not only agricultural expenditure but also the fisheries agreements and the inclusion of an estimated balance for the 2000 financial year in the preliminary draft budget for 2001. the third important aspect of this council second reading concerns the agreement reached on the allocation for the "spirit of enterprise" programme, which continues and complements the "employment initiative" for the years 2001 to 2005. the council and the president have agreed on a very substantial allocation of eur 450 million for this period and on an allocation of eur 100 million for 2001. the credit for this result, which is proof of the priority given by the european union to the development of small and medium-sized businesses and to employment must be given to your rapporteur, jutta haug, who is in the chamber today. this action is also one of the council' s political priorities, as expressed at the luxembourg, lisbon and feira summits. lastly, agreement was reached on 23 november on an increase in payment appropriations for the 2001 budget, which is an increase of 3.5% over the 2000 budget. as you all know, this aim is particularly "dear" to the council and i wish to emphasise that an increase of 3.5% will require a considerable effort on the part of the member states, given that this is slightly above the increase in their national budgets. however, i am, of course, aware that this agreement will also require a considerable effort by parliament, because it will require you to arbitrate on sometimes sensitive issues in your first reading. this agreement on the increase in payments has been made possible by the commission' s proposal to rebudget an amount of eur 1600 million in commitment appropriations for community initiative programmes for 2002 and for subsequent years. this proposal, which is the result of the time limits necessary for the adoption of these programmes, has been accepted by the council and by parliament. it therefore means that payment appropriations requirements for the preliminary draft budget will be reduced by eur 700 million. when the council voted at second reading for a budget increase of 2.5%, it took due account of this new factor. for its second reading, parliament therefore has the considerable margin for manoeuvre of around eur 1 billion to fund its budgetary priorities, whilst remaining within an overall increase of 3.5%. the council did not, of course, limit its second reading to the four points that i have just mentioned. it also accepted several european parliament amendments in heading 3 on internal policy, particularly in order to take account of developments in legislation. furthermore, the council accepted certain preparatory actions and certain pilot projects within the limits laid down by the interinstitutional agreement, having consulted the commission on their feasibility. finally, the list of points of agreement between the council and parliament would not be complete if i did not mention two important texts that have been adopted this year. first of all, a joint declaration on improving the information provided to parliament and the council on the commission' s financial programming, which was adopted in july, on the initiative of mr colom i naval, which i welcome. secondly, a joint declaration has just been adopted, quite recently, on the progress report on the reform of the commission, on the initiative of mr elles. these two declarations improve the transparency of the budgetary procedure and of the reforms currently taking place in the commission. i think that they are bound to improve the efficiency of these procedures, which is, i believe, an objective shared by all our institutions. personally, i consider this to be extremely important. more generally, i wish to emphasise that the budgetary procedure that will be completed in a few days has clearly demonstrated the interest in the interinstitutional agreement of 6 may 1999. it is as a result of the consultation between the three institutions, which is provided for and regulated by this agreement, that we have been able to work together on this draft 2001 budget. mobilising the flexibility instrument, which is one of the key innovations of the 1999 agreement, has therefore enabled us to conclude an agreement on the funding of the european union' s external actions in 2001, whilst taking account of factors that may occur along the way. these additional appropriations will enable us to speed up the european union' s aid programme for the western balkans in 2001. by the same token, within this interinstitutional agreement, the council has left substantial margins within the ceilings of the financial perspective established in 1999, largely for heading 3 - internal policy - and for heading 4 - external action. these margins will give the european parliament the opportunity, at second reading, to set its own priorities within the various community policies and actions. lastly, before you proceed to the final adoption of this budget, i wish to stress the importance the council attaches to some of the fundamental budgetary rules, in the field of entering appropriations in the reserve, the legal basis and the classification of expenditure. first of all, the entering of appropriations in the reserve can only be carried out by the budgetary authority if the corresponding legal basis has not yet been adopted, in accordance with the provisions of the financial regulation. the council therefore, at second reading, re-established all the appropriations entered into the reserve by parliament for reasons other than the absence of a legal basis. in this respect, i welcome the agreement that has been reached at first reading by our two institutions to abolish the conditional entering of appropriations in the reserve, which had been carried out by parliament, for heading 4, the performance reserve, and for heading 5, with regard to appropriations relating to the reform of the commission, under letter of amendment no 1. secondly, i should like to insist on the respect for the rules that is incumbent on the institutions with regard to classifying appropriations as compulsory or non-compulsory expenditure. your committee on budgets has proposed to change two budget lines by amendment at second reading, one concerning the early retirement scheme and the other expenditure relating to the fisheries agreement. i wish to draw the european parliament' s attention to the fact that, under the terms of the interinstitutional agreement, these budget lines constitute compulsory expenditure, which was, moreover, acknowledged by parliament at first reading. consequently, appropriations included in these lines must be considered to have been definitively adopted following second reading in council, in accordance with article 272 of the treaty and cannot therefore be further modified. to conclude this overview, i wish to join those who have highlighted the excellent climate in which this budgetary procedure has taken place. the discussions were at times frank, but were always relevant and underpinned by ongoing exchanges of views, which enabled us better to understand each other and therefore to more easily conclude an agreement, which i hope everyone will find satisfactory. a good budget is a budget that has been thoroughly discussed. this budget should therefore be born under the best auspices. i wish to personally thank terence wynn, chairman of the committee on budgets, and the three rapporteurs, jutta haug, markus ferber and joan colom i naval as well as all the members of the committee on budgets that i have had the pleasure of meeting during the six months of the french presidency. i can assure you that the council' s objective, throughout this budgetary procedure, has been to produce a budget for 2001 that will enable the european union to respond to the crises that affect it within europe itself but also those occurring beyond its borders. i think that, together, going beyond the priorities of each of our institutions, we have created, step by step, a budget for the 2001 financial year, which reflects the ambition that we all advocate, of a europe at the service of its citizens. you must now give this outcome your approval. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, unlike the negotiations in nice, a substantial result was achieved on the 2001 budget in a single joint night sitting. unlike nice, all three institutions - the european parliament, the council and the commission - are, i think, well pleased with the final result. it provides a good basis for community policy next year; to be honest, the community approach has been most productive throughout the year, throughout all the preliminary discussions and, on behalf of the commission, i really must thank you and your colleagues, mrs parly; you proved to be a very skilled midwife at the birth of this 2001 budget and focused the debates and negotiations on the core issues. i should also like to thank the rapporteur, mrs haug, for her highly original combination of total determination and willingness to negotiate which culminated in this good result. i should also like to thank the rapporteurs, mr ferber and mr colom i naval, the chairman of the committee on budgets, mr wynn, and the members of the committee on budgets for being so committed. it was thanks to their commitment that negotiations were brought to such a successful conclusion. the 2001 budget which we now have before us gives us funds of eur 96.2 billion for new commitments next year and eur 92.6 billion for payments. that translates into a rate of increase in the budget, as you pointed out, of 3.1 and 3.5% in comparison with the previous year, roughly in line with the rate of increase in the national budgets. one very important point is that the total budget only accounts for 1.06% of the joint european gross national product and, in terms of expenditure ratios, is lower than this year's budget. this illustrates that we have applied budgetary discipline, but it also illustrates that the financial planning concept decided in berlin, i.e. that expenditure for the current member states is being cut back in order to find room to fund enlargement, is being taken into account and is working. however, we must also note that the figures before us today do not include the supplementary budget which still needs to be addressed in the wake of the bse crisis. i shall come back to that in a moment. first: what is so special about the 2001 budget? in the commission's view, it is the fact that the second pillar of agricultural policy, namely promoting rural development, shows the highest rate of increase at 10%. i think this is worth mentioning because it means that we have a total of eur 4.5 billion at our disposal. i really must disagree with the chairman of the committee on agriculture, who stated recently in a newspaper interview that this amounted to no more than a toothpick, never mind a second pillar, because this fails to do justice to the size of the sum in question: 4.5 billion is a considerable sum of money - it is almost as much as we have for the whole of foreign policy and the size of this sum and this ratio need to be highlighted. we really can say, in foreign policy, that the policy of the european union is having a huge effect, even with this budget, and i am positive that it is thanks to community policy that we now have democratisation in the balkans and a chance, hopefully, of stability in the near future. i am positive that no such success would have been possible with the old concept of bilateral friendships, with member states being played off against each other. it is the outcome of community policy and it is therefore excellent that we have again managed to include eur 839 million in the 2001 budget for the balkans. it was no easy task, but we managed thanks to the agreed use of the flexibility reserve, which was used to provide funds over and above the sum provided for or decided in nice as a basis for the balkan policy - namely a total of eur 4.65 billion over the period up to 2006. in providing the eur 200 million emergency package, the union has also proven that it is perfectly able to act quickly and take full account of its foreign policy responsibilities. what is important is that no country in the balkans will now be offered less aid than originally planned before developments in serbia due to the democratisation of serbia. i think it is also important to signal that we fully support the new potential for cooperation which has arisen at last. i should like at this point to take the opportunity to thank mr kouchner for his splendid work in kosovo; we were also able to provide huge support here from our budgetary resources. the process of reforming the commission is also extremely important, particularly with a view to good financial management. good financial management needs sufficient, well-qualified staff. allow me at this point, on behalf of the commission, to thank the budgetary authority for its support and for approving 400 new posts. you have linked this with a call for a concerted effort to bring about improvements, especially in areas in which financial support programmes have been implemented late or badly and i can assure you, ladies and gentlemen - especially you mr elles - that the commission will do everything it can to improve its past record on the implementation of financial programmes. but let us not delude ourselves: we need both good financial management and the corresponding means of payment if we are to eliminate outstanding commitments. nearly a third of the budget is set aside for structural policy, in order to help regions in economic difficulty overcome their problems and make up economic ground, especially through the cohesion fund. the court of auditors recently confirmed in a special report that this objective is being achieved and that the money from the cohesion fund is being put to good use. here the community is demonstrating solidarity by using community funds to provide real support for economic development and it goes without saying that the regions and countries which are now on the receiving end of our solidarity will be prepared in the future to demonstrate their solidarity with the new countries, as and when we enlarge the european union. ladies and gentlemen, with the new outbreak of bse in cattle, immediate action was also required in the budgetary area in order to protect health and consumers and help the farmers affected. the budget being voted on today includes eur 6 billion to subsidise beef production, in addition to the eur 60 million budgeted in order to cofinance bse tests. the agricultural ministers meeting in emergency session have proposed new measures in the wake of the bse crisis, but we are all agreed that it makes no sense to postpone the resolution on the budget in order to include these new measures and that a supplementary budget will be submitted post haste in order to fund the necessary measures. a considerable amount of money will be needed, which is why i think that the ecofin council needs to address the budgetary consequences as a matter of urgency, because there are still points at which there is a discrepancy between our claims, or what we have in mind, and the funds at our disposal. plus - and this was again stressed in nice - we have to comply with the financial regulations and ceilings for the agricultural budget. here we are in the peculiar situation of having even less room for manoeuvre because of the change in exchange rates. i was therefore most annoyed when the agricultural ministers, whilst fully aware of the bse situation, rushed and served themselves from christmas tables piled high with fruit and vegetables, bananas and nuts which required a total of 85 million in increased subsidies. i think that when a new emergency arises - and with the bse crisis new priorities obviously need to be set in the agricultural budget - then certain consequences also apply and clear resolutions need to be taken and the core issues defined for the agricultural budget, which does, after all, total eur 44 billion. as the commissioner responsible for the budget, i am completely behind the emergency action which needs to be decided, including support for the beef market, but the fact that we subsidise beef production to the tune of eur 6 billion on the one hand and must now pay out thousands of millions to subsidise its destruction is proof positive, in my opinion, of the urgent need for action in the whole agricultural policy sector. i trust that the european parliament will support me here. several decisions taken at nice are highly relevant to the budget and the budgetary process. all the institutions will have their work cut out here. all the more reason to rejoice in the fact that negotiations on the 2001 budget were conducted in such a good atmosphere and led to such good results and, on behalf of the commission, i should like thank everyone involved. mr president, as the rapporteur i thank both the president-in-office of the council and the commissioner for their kind words, but i did ask a concise question in my previous turn. it was asking for someone to explain to us rationally, if not in a cartesian manner, the difference between an annual revision of the financial perspective and the use of the flexibility instrument. i would like to have an explanation. if not, i will have to interpret that silence is the response. mr president, i should like to answer mr colom i naval on the issue of the use of the flexibility instrument in revising the financial perspective. in fact, the repeated use, two years in a row, of the flexibility instrument could be considered, wrongly in my opinion, to be a form of revision of the financial perspective. personally, i think that this is not true in terms of procedure and certainly not in terms of substance. the procedure for the flexibility instrument was laid down in the interinstitutional agreement for the purpose, in exceptional cases, of funding specific expenditure over and above the ceilings agreed in berlin, without calling the financial perspective into question. i therefore think that, with regard to content, there is no contradiction between the two approaches, but rather a form of complementarity. with regard to the specific cases that we have experienced for the last two years, in other words, kosovo and serbia, mobilising the flexibility instrument has enabled us to fund exceptional expenditure through an exceptional effort. in both of these cases, the flexibility instrument has enabled us to anticipate needs. in kosovo, for example, there was a need to implement aid more quickly whereas in serbia, the need was to commit a significant sum, even before a definitive assessment of needs was carried out and even before the distribution of roles between the various donors could be defined. from the council' s point of view, therefore, mobilising the flexibility instrument does not represent a challenge to the viability of the financial perspective laid down in berlin. furthermore, the council has defined a multiannual sum, admittedly indicative in nature, which is compatible with this financial perspective, for the framework programme for aid for reconstruction in the western balkans. i hope that i have answered mr colom i naval' s question. after this illustration, which i am sure will be very useful to all members, we are going to do the round of the opinions of the various parliamentary committees. mr president, i wish to begin by thanking mrs haug for her hard work and her success in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises. that has been a high-order issue for the committee on industry, and we are very pleased with the success that she has achieved. however, it is not just a success for the committee on industry and for parliament; it also reflects the priorities of governments in europe. that is the point that causes me some consternation in relation to the position adopted in this process by the council. my committee is very interested in the research area. we praised commissioner busquin, who has exceeded our expectations in that area. we have heard the council say on many occasions that it wants to ensure that europe becomes pre-eminent in research. then we see the council make a significant cut in payment appropriations, so that mrs haug then has to make some changes. we have heard from the council today that it is prepared to improve the record by 3.5%. that is the context of the process we are engaged in. i congratulate our rapporteur. however, our committee is somewhat disappointed by the approach of the council. mr president, i would like to thank the rapporteur, mrs haug, for the outstanding cooperation, and also the chairman of the committee on budgets, mr wynn. i have two comments to make in connection with the document now on the table, and these are directed at the council and the commission. to start with, i want to talk about the overall agricultural budget. of course we know that it comprises almost 45% of the eu budget, but if you add up what the eu member states contribute and what the european union contributes to the agricultural budget, you arrive at 1.9%, and a substantial amount of that is spent on the development of rural areas and environmental development. that is a mere pittance compared with what other trade blocks in the world spend. if you consider that american companies receive the equivalent of three times as much aid and a capricious country such as turkey spends in excess of 10% of government money on agriculture and horticulture, then it is europe that wants something for nothing. my second point concerns bse. i think you should know that on the night of 23 and 24 november, when we sat round the table with mrs parly, we fought like lions to get more money for bse. the committee on agriculture and rural development told us to use the financial leeway between the financial perspective and the final budget, which amounted to upwards of generous eur 900 million at the time, eur 600 million of which was to be used for bse. we fought tooth and nail to add a few extra million euro. a week further down the line and two cases of bse have come to light in germany. this means that in actual fact we already need a supplementary budget of eur 900 million. this would suggest that the committee on agriculture and rural development in this house was keenly aware of what needed to be done and was also fiercely critical of the council and the commission in this respect, for their handling of bse policy. swifter decision-making based on tests as opposed to draconian measures after the event would have cost considerably less and it would be too stupid for words, regarding this political policy, also on the part of the council and the commission, to say that from now on we will include the bill in the agricultural budget. that is impossible because we have an agreement with the council and the commission for the remainder of the agricultural budget, for all the necessary allocations, and that means supplementary budgets. it also means that this extra money must come from the member states, and not be plundered from the existing agricultural budget, because - and i am addressing this comment to both the council and the commission - i assume you have given your word on this, regarding the agreement we reached. mr president, i too would like to thank mrs haug for her excellent work in preparing the budget. mrs haug and the committee on budgets have taken account of the proposals by the committee on regional policy, transport and tourism. our committee' s main objective was to see that there were sufficient payment appropriations in next year' s budget. in this way, we ensure that problems with last year' s arrears are resolved and new programmes are introduced effectively. if necessary, the matter of payment appropriations must be examined in the supplementary budget in 2001. the amendments to cross-border cooperation are justified, but we were slightly off target with regard to interreg and urban. the focus for transport is the development of the trans-european transport networks. i am grateful for the investment in sustainable transport, but it has to be said that transport and tourism appropriations are little more than token gestures. in the years to come we will need considerably more in these areas. our committee will be monitoring the implementation of the budget. the effective use of resources will serve to improve the employment situation, particularly via smes and new technology. mr president, as draftsman of the opinion of the committee on development and cooperation, i would like first of all to say that the european parliament has scored a major victory in as much as the cuts in the latin american, asian and african poverty programmes have been made good. i would particularly like to extend warm thanks to the commission and the council for this. latin america, asia, africa and the balkans should be regarded as pillars of equal standing in our external policy and not played off against each other. this must shortly find expression - as is clear from the debate - in the multiannual programme. secondly, it gives me great pleasure to note that there is support from the whole of parliament, right across the political spectrum, for the concrete objectives for tackling poverty, as have been proposed by the committee on development and cooperation in the 2001 budget, partly on the basis of the historical data provided by the european commission; in particular, the doubling of the budgets for basic education and healthcare in the regional programmes for latin america, asia, africa and the european development fund, amounting to a total of around eur five million, is a huge step forwards. output instead of input. we are counting on robust instructions and spending from the european commission, in line with these objectives. i would like to thank mrs haug most sincerely. mr president, i would also like to thank the rapporteur, mrs haug, for the magnificent work that she has done as the rapporteur responsible for the budget and for her efforts in dealing with the requests that the various committees have made. as far as the committee on women' s rights and equal opportunities is concerned, the final result is not exactly the one that we would have liked. the quantities budgeted are very far below what we had requested, but we accept that this has been a general practice and we therefore accept the result as it stands. this does not mean that in next year' s budget we will not once again be determined to obtain what we think is fairest and most appropriate, and what will enable us to achieve the objectives of the committee on women' s rights and equal opportunities. mr president, first of all i support the overall budget. it operates within the financial perspective. we have no more important obligation than to live within our means. i speak on what is probably the smallest line in the budget: eur 2.9 million for the ombudsman. that is a very small sum of money. it constitutes less than one cent per inhabitant of the european union. let us regard it as the "citizen's cent". we have to make sure that we listen to the citizens and if they have complaints, that there are procedures to redress them. that expenditure is well-spent. the committee on petitions very much hopes that its budget will now provide for a proper database so that citizens who are interested in pursuing their petitions will be able to see what progress is being made. we hope that will be achieved. finally, information is an important concern for this parliament. we must see that we keep our information programmes. in particular i would cite euronews so that people can see in the media what parliament and the union are doing. mr president, i would also like to thank mrs haug for her excellent work. i fully agree with the comments made by our colleague joan colom on the revision of the financial perspective. the amount for the common fisheries policy is scarcely 1% of the community budget. however, this small quantity, which is essential for maintaining the activity of the sector and the economies of areas that are dependent on fisheries, is a very appetising snack, despite being small, each time we look at where to find money to fund new policies. commissioner, fish is an essential element for a healthy, balanced diet that is rich in proteins. when european consumers go to the market with concerns about what they can buy, in fish they find a safe, quality product. they will therefore think that this 1% of the european union budget is being very well used. the 2001 budget gave rise to a fair amount of indignation among the members of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, the main reason being that 50% of the prince information campaign was entered in the reserve. this decision would have prevented us from running the information campaign on the introduction of the euro in the year which matters, i.e. in 2001, at a time when uncertainty due to the fall in the value of the euro against the dollar and the need for information on the introduction of coins in 2002 are at their height. the committee on budgets decided during the last few days to propose to parliament that the 50% be removed from the reserve and allocated to these lines. our warmest thanks therefore to the members of the committee on budgets. the committee on economic and monetary affairs is satisfied and the commission has the necessary planning security. mr president, no great drama has been acted out around the debate on the budget this year. that does not mean, however, that things have been easy. the matter-of-fact approach of the rapporteur, mrs haug, has nevertheless shown its strength. the chairman of the committee, mr wynn, also deserves our thanks. it is a positive step, as far as culture is concerned, that the financing of multiannual programmes, i.e. socrates, culture 2000, youth and the new media plus programme, are in order with regard to the budget. hopefully, the problems that occurred in the implementation of the programmes are over. it is important that the union should serve the needs of its citizens well. in the budget there is direct financing for european culture networks. there is no doubt at all that they need it. but the rules for financing are not yet working properly. there is too much that is arbitrary about all this. the committee on culture, youth, education, the media and sport intends to look into this matter early next year. the modest sums involved must be spent well and fairly. mr president, i speak for the european people's party and european democrats. i would like, in introducing our group's position on this, to welcome the work done by mrs haug and by our own rapporteur, mr ferber, to thank the commissioner, mrs schreyer, and also the council president, mrs parly, for their significant assistance in achieving a budget on 23 november which, as the presidency has rightly pointed out, was a landmark in the way in which parliament, the council and the commission have been able to help decide collectively a budget for the european union. we have a budget which is under 1.06%, we have a budget, mr colom, which is within the financial perspective. i suspect that, to put it simply, flexibility is for small amounts and revision is for large amounts, but we will see in the next few years how that will go. but i would like to thank both the commission and the presidency-in-office of the council for their remarks about the joint declaration which we have put together, because that is also a first indication of how we are going to monitor improvements and performance in the running of the programmes, particularly in category 4. turning to that for a moment, we have a lot of work in front of us and we await with interest the report by mrs schreyer, preferably before 30 june, so that we can use its contents for shaping up the 2002 budget. but in thinking about the question of the backlog on commitments and how we limit the duration of new commitments - obviously this comes into the domain of the financial regulation which we will have to negotiate. we believe it is absolutely fundamental that this progress report should be seen to restore the confidence of our citizens in the way in which the european union institutions operate. a word on the reserve, madam president-in-office of the council. you said, if i understood you correctly, that we should not be using the reserve because it was against the rules to do this. we use the reserve, particularly on first reading, to draw attention to particular points of weakness in the way in which policies are operating. the information policy in the institutions at the moment is a scandal and therefore, rather than putting money on the line for information policy when we know it is not being used effectively, we are going to be keeping much of that money in reserve waiting for the commission to come up with the right proposals. of course, the solution would be to allow us, as a joint budgetary authority, to lift funds being spent during the year and that may be an invention which we can insert into the revision of the financial regulation. lastly, i would say, looking to the future, that nice has shown us that there is perhaps a feeling that we are shifting a little bit towards intergovernmentalism, with the council deciding on the numbers of our parliament without our being consulted beforehand. our confidence as one of three institutions, will only be maintained - and therefore the institutional agreement and the financial perspective maintained - if we manage to create mutual confidence and if we are consulted at every stage on our fundamental interests. mr president, my thanks first and foremost to florence parly, who is just leaving but who, i think, is still within earshot. after the experiences of last year, i think she has created a very good atmosphere, both here and in the council, with the active commitment which she has shown throughout her presidency. i should also like to thank mrs schreyer, who has continued to help us with her highly constructive approach and, of course, my friend jutta haug, who has done an excellent job, not forgetting joan colom i naval and markus ferber. we are now at the point at which we must decide whether or not we can vote in favour of this budget next thursday. obviously we need to take a very close look at it and this is exactly what parliament in general and we social democrats in particular intend to do. we believe that we managed to do a great deal of good during the discussions, both retaining and extending crucial priorities. with unemployment still at over 8% throughout europe, the european union needs to use the budget at its disposal to send out a clear message and to set about fighting this scourge in the economy to our citizens, which is why it is important that we have this 450 million at our disposal next year, starting with 100 million this year. it shows people that we take their problems seriously and are doing something about them. i am delighted that we have managed in category iv of this budget to show those living in the greatest need or in the process of democratising their countries throughout the world that this european parliament and this european union has not forgotten them, even if we have our own problems to resolve, and that here too we are making sure that there is enough money to go round. it is important for the people in the balkans to understand, following the long period of hostilities during which our side presented a united front, that they can also rely on us when it comes to reconstruction. there are people sitting in this house who are at pains to ensure that the money needed will in fact be provided as and when it is needed and that flowery words will be accompanied by specific actions. so i think that, along with much else which there is too little time to mention, we have a great deal to be pleased about. we have also passed a number of resolutions containing instructions. allow me to say to the commission, by way of example, that we have agreed to the 400 additional posts because we want to improve how various programmes are implemented, because we want you to be able to work better than you have been able to do in the past. but we also say in no uncertain terms that this implies a responsibility and a commitment on your part, because we shall be watching over you throughout this process. we shall be checking up, we shall be in contact with you and we shall be keeping tabs on what is happening, ensuring that there really has been an improvement before we are prepared to go even further with you. it is also a commitment vis--vis the council. i have a couple of questions to put to the council - not that i am questioning the compromise. but should we really have to try year after year to see what is left over from the previous year, what can be carried over to provide enough money for regions such as serbia and the balkans? should we really have to check first and see what is left over? is our message to these people: we will give you what is left over and then we shall see if we can add anything to it? should that be our message? no it should not! by refusing to discuss the specific long-term aspects of this challenge with us, you have brought the whole spirit of the interinstitutional agreement into question. you keep saying that the financial perspective is sacrosanct as far as you are concerned. but the interinstitutional agreement between the three institutions is also a valuable item and should help us to achieve joint planning security. the balkans and other regions need planning security. repeated use of the flexibility instrument also contradicts the interinstitutional agreement, because it was an instrument which this european parliament secured in order to pay for contingencies and so that it could let it run up to eur 600 million. it was never meant to be used for firefighting every year in areas which we have to fund in any case. you are undermining the interinstitutional agreement and let me assure you that we shall consider whether or not we intend to have a part in this next year. mr president, firstly i would like to thank the budget rapporteurs, mrs haug and mr ferber, for their excellent work. the same goes for mr wynn, the chairman of the committee on budgets, for the splendidly accomplished conciliatory work he has done and for his constructive leadership of the committee. next year' s budget will be very much based on strict budgetary discipline. although agricultural expenditure, which accounts for almost half the entire budget, will increase by more than 5%, when the letter of amendment has been taken into account, the overall increase in the budget is just 3.5%. this means that great restraint has been shown in the use of funds in the other categories. this makes just 1.056% of gnp, which must be considered very low as the ceiling for the financial perspective is 1.11%. this means a saving of more than eur 2 billion. this, however, conceals a danger. the budget will be seeing a structural distortion, as money spent on payment commitments comes to over eur 3.6 billion more than that for appropriations for payments. this means that there will be an increase in arrears. for that reason, parliament' s concern that the problem of arrears will have to be dealt with is a justified one, and that is why there has been a very real need for a joint declaration by parliament and the council. furthermore, the fact that the council and parliament reached agreement regarding the eu' s budget for next year is to be greeted with satisfaction. it shows that both budgetary authorities are taking responsibility for the administration of the eu in an appropriate manner. however, it is unfortunate that parliament once again had to fight with regard to funds for the west balkans. regarding other matters, i would say that for my group it is a positive move that a 450 million euro multiannual programme was agreed for the employment initiative; and, moreover, that it was agreed that funds remaining unspent from community initiatives - totalling eur 1 600 million- would be budgeted in the years to come. we failed to fill a considerable number of parliamentary posts throughout this year. this shows that in future there must be better use of personnel resources. with these observations, my group is prepared to adopt the draft budget. mr president, i too wish to thank the rapporteur and, of course, the commissioner and the president-in-office for their excellent work. our group will also vote in favour of this budget because it shows that, once again, we have reached an exemplary compromise, despite being under increasing pressure. the main sources of this pressure are unemployment, the bse crisis and the balkan stability pact. we have resolved and reached satisfactory compromises on all these urgent problems - and never once to the detriment of the interests of the eu. we wanted to secure the eu's ability to act and the confidence of the people. nonetheless, i should like expressly to agree with mr colom i naval, who said earlier that the financial perspective has become more and more of a straightjacket, preventing any real planning, any real long-term planning. constant use of the flexibility reserve is undermining the transparency of the budget and in time this too will lead to a loss of credibility. even the notenboom procedure, whereby funds are transferred to critical regions, in this case to fund the balkan stability pact, does not really guarantee a transparent budgetary procedure. it already looks likely that the huge risk of a clash between meda, mediterranean rim projects and the balkans will increase over the next few years, despite the fact that we all know that this is where money is urgently needed. on the other hand, we are also aware that the council is perfectly capable of suddenly questioning the financial perspective when it comes to bse, when it comes to national interests. i found mr chirac's statement at the nice council extremely interesting. i think the council urgently needs to consider how it, for its part, intends to handle the financial perspective. in all events, parliament will be a much tougher negotiating partner next year. ladies and gentlemen, we are suspending the debate at this point in order to hear the president of the republic of france and of the european council. the debate will resume when appropriate according to the agenda. european council/ french presidency ladies and gentlemen, i wish to welcome mr jacques chirac, president of france and president-in-office of the council, and the next item is the joint discussion on the report by the european council and the commission statement on the european council meeting in nice and the statement by the presidency-in-office of the council on the french presidency' s term of office. i am delighted to give the floor, without further ado, to president chirac. madam president, ladies and gentlemen of the european parliament, i am delighted to be with you here today to present an assessment of the french presidency of the union and also to consider the progress that has been made over the last few months. you are all familiar with our aims. i discussed them in this chamber on 4 july. i think that we have been able to fulfil our commitments, although you will be the judges of that. i am also aware that this outcome certainly owes a great deal to the contribution made by the european parliament. i have just returned from nice after four days of intense negotiations, led by my prime minister and the members of his government. today i join you, the representatives of the european peoples, to tell you the results of the intergovernmental conference on institutional reform. the stakes were high and we feel satisfied that we reached an agreement that would have been impossible three years ago. we feel satisfied that we overcame the difficulties blocking the path towards the much sought-after aim of fulfilling the commitments that were given at helsinki to the candidate countries without destroying the union, of enabling tomorrow' s europe to continue to function effectively. i think i can say that we met these conditions. i am quite aware that the treaty of nice does not fulfil all of the european parliament' s desires, but i do believe that this treaty is the best agreement possible, given the existing constraints. it responds to the challenge we were presented with, which was to provide the union with the ability to take decisions and to act once europe has gone ahead with enlargement on an unprecedented scale. it is a balanced agreement and although the negotiations were tough, as you know, there were neither winners nor losers. in amsterdam, three and a half years ago, it proved impossible to achieve the tricky balance between being representative and being effective. we were able to achieve this at nice, as a result of the efforts made by all the member states. it must be said that some agreed to make more of an effort than others and we must pay tribute to them for that. we must also pay tribute to the european spirit, which finally enabled us to leave nice having resolved those issues left over from amsterdam and having paved the way for the future. as we promised, there are no leftovers from nice. we were concerned that the commission should remain a strong institution within the union, capable of making ambitious proposals. in deciding to abolish a second commissioner, and in deciding on a varying upper limit for the number of commissioners when there are less than 27, with a scrupulously fair system of rotation, the treaty of nice guarantees both the commission' s task of embodying the interests of the union and also its effectiveness. this effectiveness will also be achieved by means of the new powers that have been given to the president, who will now be elected by qualified majority, which constitutes real progress. i know that parliament considered the number of areas in which qualified majority voting will apply to be one of the priorities of these negotiations. this also proved to be one of the thorniest issues, but progress was made. i am talking about real progress, even if it does not go as far as the presidency - which, i should point out, has shown great openness at national level - would have wished. when you consider the results of the nice summit, i would ask you not to underestimate what has been achieved. thirty or so additional measures were switched to qualified majority voting and we made progress on justice and home affairs, external trade and cohesion, all chapters about which several member states had major reservations at the beginning of the negotiations. the presidency regretted the fact that the same consensus could not be achieved in the fields of taxation and social affairs. the agreement reached on the issue of the number of member states' votes within the council is a balanced one. reweighting was made necessary by enlargement, but it also takes account of the legitimate concern to see member states with a smaller population continuing to make their full contribution to the workings of the union, a contribution that is crucial. i would add that the democratic legitimacy of the council' s decisions will be guaranteed and that the council will be able to function properly. the mechanisms that are implemented, be they the demographic verification clause or the so-called "majority of states" clause, will not affect the union' s decision-making abilities. i now come to one of the most positive outcomes of the igc. this concerns the procedure for enhanced cooperation, which has, to a large extent, been made possible under the first and third pillars. this cooperation will always be open to everyone. it will, of course, take place in full respect of community legislation and the institutional framework. by making this cooperation more flexible, however, we are enabling it to be used properly. this therefore provides us with a guarantee that europe will be able, no matter what happens, to forge ahead rapidly. the opening up of enhanced cooperation under the second pillar is also a step forward. i would also highlight the fact that this igc resulted in an extension of the powers and competences of the european parliament. the new mechanism provided for in article 7 on the warning procedure in the field of fundamental rights gives a major role to your institution. a new legal basis has been laid down for the status of european political parties and parliament has been given the status of institutional plaintiff laid down under article 230 of the treaty. these are notable advances, even though i acknowledge that progress in extending codecision falls short of your expectations, and of those of the presidency. finally, in addition to the igc, the need was felt to engage in a rigorous debate on a few issues that are crucial to the future of the european union. the further ahead europe moves, the greater duty we have to strengthen its democratic legitimacy, the clarity and transparency of its institutions and to clarify the distribution of competences between the union and the member states. only by so doing will europe be able to respond to the aspirations of its citizens. with a view to achieving these objectives, a study on the future of europe will be carried out, as decided by the european council. the european parliament will, of course, be closely involved in this. this study should be concluded in 2004. we will thereby be responding to the concerns that have been expressed very forcefully in recent times. this process will by no means constitute a precondition for enlargement and will therefore not delay this project. these are, in short, the results of the institutional work carried out in nice. they will take europe forward and i am delighted that the candidate countries have welcomed them so positively over the last few days. this positive response bears witness to the fact that we have met their expectations. after all, enlargement is clearly the major issue facing europe today. it is both a huge challenge and an historic milestone on the path towards the reunification of our continent. the french presidency has lent all its support to the progress of the negotiations. thirty new chapters were closed, including some in the most complex areas of community legislation, and some countries, which have only just entered into negotiations, are already demonstrating their ability to catch up with the longer-standing candidates. in nice, on the basis of the excellent work carried out by the commission, we gave ourselves a travel permit for the next eighteen months. this is proof that the union intends to forge ahead. this is a powerful signal, which was given a very positive welcome at the meeting of the european conference last thursday. in the last six months, europe has also made progress in the field of growth and employment. we have continued to deepen economic and monetary union, we have improved the coordination of our economic policies within the eurogroup and have speeded up our joint preparation for the entry of the euro into the daily life of the european public. in the last three weeks, progress has been made in three major areas. first of all, the conclusion of the long-standing and difficult negotiations on the tax package, including savings tax and, secondly, the adoption of the european social agenda following a lengthy consultation procedure, particularly with our social partners. the union has thereby given itself a working programme that sets objectives and meetings for the next five years in the fields of employment law, social protection, mobility, lifelong training and the fight against discrimination and exclusion. finally, the adoption, not without difficulty, of the social chapter for european society took place at nice. this is the culmination of a project that dates back thirty years. the french presidency is delighted to have been able to unravel the threads of these negotiations. next, the union has begun to implement the feira decisions on the new economy and growth. we agreed on a significant lowering of internet access costs. this has been done. the union decided to divide up access to the local loop. we wanted to introduce a community patent and the union has given a commitment to establishing one and is including the necessary legal measures in the treaty. ladies and gentlemen, france' s ambition for its presidency was also to respond to the concerns of the european public. in nice, we proclaimed the union' s charter of fundamental rights, a text of very great political importance. its significance will be assessed in the future and i wish to pay tribute to your parliament which contributed so greatly to its drafting. as a result of this charter, our union will be stronger and have greater guarantees of the values of dignity, freedom and solidarity that are its cornerstones. we shall now echo this as widely as possible and very shortly consider its status. i realise how much importance your parliament attaches to this charter. under this presidency, the union has also given a new boost to cultural and student life in europe. two months ago, our education ministers adopted an action plan for mobility - a forty-two point action plan - and we agreed on a substantial allocation of eur 400 million for the media-plus programme, which is so important for european cinema and audiovisual services and which - as you will be aware - the whole profession was hoping for. perhaps you remember that i mentioned in this very chamber france' s desire to ensure that the union took greater account of the specific characteristics of sport and its social function. this is the purpose of the declaration adopted at nice and of the study that has been commissioned to coordinate the fight against doping at european level. if we are to instil the adventure of european integration in people' s hearts we must also ensure that this union that we are building keeps its human face. we must preserve the things to which every citizen is legitimately attached: a familiar environment, the balance of our territories, and a good quality of life, by which i mean services of general economic interest. the presidency welcomes the fact that the discussion started within the commission and the council led to the adoption in nice of a declaration that emphasises the crucial role of these services in maintaining europe' s social and territorial cohesion. finally, in the course of the past six months, the presidency has firmly committed itself to making europe respond better to the security needs of our citizens. the presidency has one ambition, which is to be more protective, in the best sense of the word. in nice, therefore, we laid the foundations for an independent food safety authority. the consequences of the mad cow epidemic are, of course, on everyone' s mind. what was needed first and foremost was to re-establish consumer confidence by means of immediate measures, which were vigorously advocated by france and adopted at the last agricultural council, such as the ban on meat meal in animal feedingstuffs and the widespread use of screening tests for bse. nor should we forget breeders and all the professions in the cattle industry that have been profoundly affected by this crisis and we have clearly highlighted this fact. something else that is also on everyone' s mind is maritime safety. a year ago, the erika ran aground off the french coast and despite the amazing mobilisation of charities and the authorities, the coast is still suffering the consequences of this shipwreck. a few weeks ago, the chemicals tanker, the ievolo sun, sank just off the channel islands. there must be no more occurrences of this type of disaster, which is caused by human negligence. over the last few months, the study of the commission' s excellent proposals has made considerable progress. your parliament gave a firm commitment, on 30 november, to a preliminary package of measures which, next week, will be submitted once again to our transport ministers. the swedish presidency, one of whose priorities, i would remind you, is the environment, now has the task of concluding the second batch of proposals, which includes in particular, the creation of a european maritime safety agency. as a quite exceptional case and in view of the urgency of the situation, the nice council urged the member states to implement, in advance and as a preliminary stage, the aspects of this mechanism which will be subject to a political agreement. as everyone knows, another threat we face is global warming. at the hague, the european union rallied together to reach a credible and effective agreement, in line with the urgency and the importance of the issue. we were able to demonstrate our coherence on the kyoto commitments. we will ceaselessly continue our efforts to convince our partners to commit themselves too. next year, we are due to conclude an agreement which will finally stipulate the necessary reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. the union has also made progress in the fight against organised crime: we now have a directive on the fight against money-laundering, concerted action has been taken against non-cooperating countries and territories identified by the financial action task force, europol' s competences have been extended to the fight against dirty money and a european police college has been created. these are the main aspects of a coherent and broad range of measures. this is the backdrop against which the provisional judicial cooperation unit "eurojust" was created, foreshadowing the body for judicial cooperation in criminal matters whose creation, due to take place next year, is already included in the treaty. finally, the french presidency fostered an international ambition for europe, a long-term ambition, which was to give the union the means to assert itself in major world affairs, to have its voice heard and to be able to act. this is the draft common foreign and defence policy. the french presidency also fostered a more immediate ambition, which was to show straightaway the political determination of the fifteen to assert their own interests when european issues are at stake, and i am thinking here of south-eastern europe in particular. with regard to these two aims, we have indeed made progress. first of all, at nice we concluded the round of negotiations begun at the cologne and helsinki european councils. we set objectives for ourselves and they were achieved. a year ago, we defined the military capabilities that the european union should have by 2003 in order to be able to prevent and manage the type of crises envisaged by the treaty. the member states then committed themselves to providing a contribution in terms of armed forces and military resources. in addition to the troops themselves, the european union will have the necessary resources for command, planning and intelligence gathering to lead complex joint army operations. the union intends to use this military wing in complete harmony with nato facilities and, if necessary, with their support. by making itself stronger, europe will clearly be strengthening the north atlantic alliance. furthermore, at nice, the european union established the permanent bodies necessary to define and conduct a common foreign and security policy, which are: a political and security committee, a military committee and a european defence staff. the decision was taken to include the creation of the political and social committee in the treaty, as this is the real mainstay of the system. through delegation, the committee will be given decision-making powers when crisis management so requires. the revision of the treaty on this point confirms the importance and the irreversible nature of the decisions taken in nice. we were also concerned, even before these bodies were created, that the union should have a greater say on the major international issues affecting its interests. first of all, with regard to south-eastern europe, we had to state more clearly what the aims and expectations of the european public were. i think that this message was fully understood at the zagreb summit, which, for the first time, brought together the countries of the western balkans and the fifteen. the prospect of membership of the european union was offered and every country saw that this path was also the path of peace, of human rights and of regional cooperation. admittedly, the zagreb summit did not solve all the problems, but it set a course to follow by means of the process of stabilisation and association; it consolidated the progress of democracy and defined a prospect which is in line with the values underpinning european action. furthermore, the euro-mediterranean summit in marseilles demonstrated, despite, unfortunately, the crisis is the middle east, the importance attached by all the participants to maintaining and renewing the barcelona process. we can welcome the fact that the union was able to announce that it would be dedicating some eur 13 billion to the process over a period of seven years, including, of course, the loans from the european investment bank. madam president, ladies and gentlemen of the european parliament, i think that today i can say that in the last six months, our union has gained strength from the process of preparing to welcome new members, to reunite the family now that we are all assured of being able to work together, to gain a firmer place in the hearts of our citizens in the fields of values, growth and employment, of solidarity, security and the preservation of the european social model and finally, to grow stronger and gain support on the international stage. credit for this progress must be given to all of the institutions. i wish to pay tribute here to the quality of working relations between member states within the council. i wish to pay tribute to the commission and its president, romano prodi, and to his determination to bring the initiatives and projects listed in the presidency' s programme to a successful conclusion. here, however, in this chamber, on my own behalf, on behalf of the french prime minister and government, i wish first and foremost to thank this house for its contribution. it was crucial that the european parliament, which is the mouthpiece for the european public and its ambitions, played a full role in taking the decisions that will affect the future of all of us. france has been particularly aware of this. you have often seen mr moscovici and the other ministers because the council presidency spoke 68 times on policy during your part-sessions and to the committees. the french presidency thanks you, madam president, ladies and gentlemen, for this cooperation, for your support and also for the warm reception you have given us. i wish to thank president chirac and i shall give the floor straightaway to mr prodi, on behalf of the commission. mr president, i give you the floor. . (it) madam president, mr president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, the december 2000 european council will be remembered as particularly lengthy and particularly complex. this was always likely, given its agenda and indeed that is precisely what happened. positive decisions were taken at nice, some of them long-awaited. the charter of fundamental rights was solemnly proclaimed. i personally have no doubt that this is a seminal text and i would like to remind those who feel that it does not go far enough - and i know that many in this house are of this opinion - that it was drafted and conceived with care precisely with a view to giving it legal status. parliament and the commission have already made it clear that, for their part, they intend to apply the charter in full. ladies and gentlemen, the original foundations of a european company statute were laid over 30 years ago. it is a legal instrument of obvious value which our operators had long been pressing for and which was sorely lacking during the major company restructuring we have experienced recently. i am happy to say that now there is no longer anything to prevent us from implementing it rapidly. with regard to enlargement, the strategy proposed by the commission was endorsed. the social agenda was also adopted, the fruit of productive cooperation with the presidency, as has been pointed out. the commission's proposals on maritime safety and the creation of a european food safety authority met with strong support, as did the decisions on our seven outermost regions. these are some of the issues which were put before the heads of state and government. i would mention one other issue which i can sense will be of considerable importance: the council also discussed the way in which the summits are organised. these events involve a huge amount of work, they are complex and they are held in a different place each time. the european council took the wise decision to move gradually towards holding them all in brussels. this will further reinforce the city's status as the capital of europe (applause) and, once the summits which have already been scheduled have taken place, one out of every two summits will be held in brussels. once the european union has grown to 18 member states, the decision will apply to all the summits. i sincerely believe that we should welcome this convincing initiative from mr chirac. (applause) moving on to the intergovernmental conference and the treaty of nice, i would first of all like to pay heartfelt tribute to michel barnier for his work. (applause) he worked, as i did but to a greater extent, in collaboration with parliament, particularly with giorgio napolitano and his committee, with the two rapporteurs, mr leinen and mr dimitrakopoulos and, of course, with mr brok and mr tsatsos, whose commitment was total and absolute. finally, madam president, i would like to praise the truly exemplary clarity of your own speeches to the meetings of the council. as you will remember, madam president, the last time that i addressed this house, just before the summit, i said that we needed a treaty with genuine added value. in particular, i promised to return to this house with a frank assessment of the outcome. moreover, in your own address at the beginning of the summit, you said that parliament would judge the success of nice in terms of quality as well as quantity. it will be a little while before we can make a full, accurate assessment of the progress made at nice, but we can at this stage hazard a few observations. the first relates to the extension of qualified majority voting. this is a quantitatively important step forwards because it has brought 30 or so new chapters under this umbrella. as a result, qualified majority voting will increasingly become the general rule at the council, and this must not be underestimated. qualitatively, the same cannot be said. little or no progress was made on the sensitive issues of cohesion, tax regulation and social legislation. (applause) in fact, in these areas, the conference came up against the intransigence of some member states. this is something which deeply disappoints me, not just because of the short-term consequences but because the attitude behind it shows a lack of openness and understanding. anyone who sees europe merely as a "clearing house" (applause) to approach when necessary and to stay away from when they cannot get what they want or once they have got everything they want from it is not just making an error of historical analysis but is cheating future generations, who have the right to expect much more from europe. this inward-looking backdrop of reciprocal failure to make concessions does offer some small progress on justice and home affairs, however, although it has to be said that most of this progress has been deferred until after 2004. this is not to belittle it. it does, however, mean that the speed of development of the major new policy area of legal matters and cross-border crime, which was adopted in tampere, is now under threat, and that the tampere "scoreboard" will start to show delays. i hope that these delays will not be blamed on parliament or the commission. lastly, i would like to take this opportunity to thank president chirac and the french prime minister, mr jospin, for making it possible to put paid to the main ambiguities of our commercial policy. a good balance was struck between the legitimate concerns surrounding issues such as cultural diversity, in particular, and the effectiveness of our powers of negotiating with our trading partners. another source of satisfaction lies in the result in the field of closer cooperation. ladies and gentlemen, i feel that what we have here is a tool that is vital for the enlarged union, one that the commission will make use of while taking care to play its "guarantor" role fully, firstly to make it possible for countries that wish to work together more closely towards major new common goals to do so, and secondly to counter any risk of fragmentation that unregulated use of such cooperation might bring. on the subject of the institutions themselves i would like to say three things. where the commission is concerned, there has been sweeping, far-reaching change. the commission will be able to grow to 26 members. after that, the necessary and much hoped-for alterations will be made. these changes have been accompanied by the launching of major reform of the way in which the commission is organised. the president will be appointed by majority rather than unanimous vote. after the vote of the commission, the president will have the power to dismiss commissioners and a wide degree of discretion regarding the actual organisation of the commission itself, for example in matters such as the assigning of portfolios and the appointment of vice-presidents. parliament's main gain is a statute for political parties at european level. the commission defended - unfortunately with no success although the matter has not yet been closed - our shared concerns regarding the protection of the union's financial interests by proposing that a prosecutor should be established. however, it is worrying that mep numbers are being used essentially to counterbalance the equilibria in the council. much greater attention will need to be devoted in the future to this and other related problems, and we must move from a defensive role to a more strongly proactive one. lastly, it was the weighting of votes in the council that gave rise to the most difficult debate and the most difficult decision. this was inevitable given the approach taken, but the outcome was regrettable for two reasons: firstly because it made a qualified majority more difficult and a blocking minority accordingly easier, whereas logically, in an expanding union, the exact opposite is required; (applause) and secondly because it has made the decision-making process even more complex, which runs counter to the legibility and transparency for which the citizens are calling. (applause) to respond to our citizens' demands, we had advocated a double majority as the only solution which is objective, comprehensible and widely supported by smaller and larger countries alike. (applause) at this juncture, we must pay particular tribute to the belgian prime minister, guy verhofstadt, who fought to the very end for a more equitable presence for the candidate countries and to set the qualified majority threshold at a less unreasonable level - although one that is still too high. he thus confirmed belgium's great historic role in the european union. (applause) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, we must recognise that the hard-won conclusion of the nice summit was an achievement in itself. a conclusion had to be reached and, thanks to the efforts of the presidency, we got there in the end. there are no leftovers from nice. the next step is to work realistically towards ratifying the treaty as soon as possible. this will enable us to move on to welcoming the new members, in line with the helsinki conclusions. we must proceed resolutely in that direction. ladies and gentlemen, i feel - as president chirac remarked - that the nice summit was characterised by the efforts of many to defend their own immediate interests, to the detriment of a long-term vision. nice does, however, include a declaration on the future of the union which gives me cause for some optimism. the commission is aware of the importance of establishing a more precise division of competences between the european union and the member states. incorporating the charter of fundamental rights into the treaties, simplifying the layout of the treaties and reviewing the role of our institutions. this review must be an open, thorough discussion on a vast scale, involving the governments, parliaments and citizens of the current member states and the candidate countries and demonstrating the dynamism of a europe which is still being built. there is a great need for such a discussion for the experience of nice shows that the current method of reviewing the treaties is no longer a valid one. (applause) like the community structure itself, the process being used to produce institutional change is under stress and needs to be changed. the commission will come up with proposals for improving this process, and i am counting upon your participation and support. madam president, mr president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, after these initial, incomplete remarks which i have tried to put to you objectively and with conviction, i would appeal to everyone to remember that the final objective of the nice summit was, and still is, the unification of europe. the new millennium has given us an unprecedented opportunity to bind together the countries of our continent in a wide area of peace, stability and economic growth. nice is a step in this direction: a shorter step than we had hoped for, or indeed, could have made, but a step in the right direction all the same. i therefore ask you to lend us your support. (loud, sustained applause) mr president, mr chirac, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, mr chirac, our group of the european people's party and european democrats has always received you here in the european parliament with the greatest respect, open-mindedness and esteem. the same applies today because we value you as a person and because your office so demands. we appreciate the fact that you were here in july and have returned here today, but the esteem in which we hold both you as a person and your office does not absolve us from honesty and we have a duty to express our convictions loudly and clearly today in your presence. you said at the end of the summit that the nice summit would go down in the history of europe as a major summit. unfortunately, our group cannot concur with that. (applause from the right) we witnessed an intergovernmental conference which dragged on for months, followed by a summit in nice at which we felt, even as we watched on television, that the heads of state and government - and this is a perfectly human trait - had reached the end of their physical and mental resources. allow me to cite an example: thank god, the awful proposal that poland should have fewer votes than spain, despite having the same population, was revised. what sort of impression would poland have had, with its experience of national socialism and communism, had it not been treated on a par with spain. thank god this has been corrected. mr president, i mention this because proposals such as this arise in the maelstrom of a summit such as nice but should never be repeated in the history of the european union. we say today to the people of central europe: you are welcome in our european union and it was alain lamassoure's proposal, which then became our group's proposal, parliament's proposal, the commission's proposal - and thankfully you too have adopted it - that we ensure that the first central european countries are able to take part in the next european elections in 2004. (applause) unfortunately, we also witnessed the contrast between large and small countries over recent months - and this too should never be repeated, because it acts as an insidious poison in the european union - with many large countries behaving most meanly and many small countries behaving most generously. (applause) and we have seen with great concern over recent weeks and months, that governments are taking ever greater recourse to intergovernmentalism and governmental cooperation and i can only hope that the spirit of pierre pflimlin, robert schuman and jean monnet will be the spirit and vision which determine the future of europe . (applause) . because we are firmly convinced that only a europe of communities with strong european institutions can safeguard law, democracy, solidarity and peace for us on our continent. nice obviously had its good and bad points; unfortunately there were a great many bad points. however, our yardstick for nice from the beginning was the european union's ability to act. commission president prodi, whom we thank, together with michel barnier - because we have not forgotten, mr president, that mr barnier is a member of the commission on your recommendation and we do not only want to criticise - has pointed out that it is precisely in the fundamental areas that qualified majority voting has not been extended in the council of ministers. for the european parliament, which was the winner in amsterdam, there has been no increase in codecision by the european parliament and this is one of the great failings of the nice summit. (applause) i do not intend to comment further on the complexities of the decision-making process because elmar brok from our group will certainly do so directly. but we have not achieved greater transparency. we have hope for the future and we do also see the good side, such as your commitment to the foreign, security and defence policy and the increase in commission posts. we take you at your word, president chirac, and i was delighted to hear that you want to involve the european parliament closely in the post-nice process. we expect all the member states of the european union and their governments to configure a conference in which the european parliament is involved and helps to set the agenda and the procedure. we take you at your word that this will happen and then we shall perhaps move together towards a brighter future. we have heard many fine words. you rightly speak of transparency. above all, we need transparency in the council of ministers and we are most concerned to see that even the secretary-general - mr solana is more of high representative than a secretary-general - is prevented by the community procedure from performing his duties as secretary-general as he would perhaps like to do. we were delighted to hear that the european parliament will be fully involved in the post-nice process. on this depends our final answer, whether we say yes or no to nice. we want a post-nice process in which the european parliament is involved both in setting the agenda and in the decision-making process. if you secure this then we shall have the chance to work together in a spirit of trust. we shall have to keep a very critical eye on the council over coming weeks and months in order to ascertain if it too is in a position to safeguard the transparency of which you spoke. these will be our yardsticks and, like you, we hope to be able to do our job so that we, the european union, with our values, are truly open to the people of central europe, who suffered a long time under communism and who now wish to join our community. we must open the door, but decisions must be made so that the european union is also in a position to enlarge. (applause) madam president, mr president-in-office of the european council, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, finally the summit concluded with a result. for now we have got out of the tight spot. now we need to look at the text carefully in parliament. for now, mr president-in-office of the european council, i can tell you what is on the council web site, or at least what was on it at 10.00 this morning: the treaty will be available when it has been approved. please ask the council staff to at least update the text. i think that 'something' was approved in nice. in any case, the fact that an agreement has been reached is an achievement in itself. because it was not about residue, leftovers or ends to tie up from what was discussed in amsterdam and not agreed on. it was about fundamental issues for the governance of europe, and we can now start working on this. we are taking your word on the content of the agreement but, from what we are gradually discovering, there is not much cause for satisfaction. it should be pointed out that, in principle, the aim of the intergovernmental conference was to improve the functioning of the union in order to achieve enlargement. i am afraid that we have before us a compromise between national interests that has been hammered out all in one go, at night, which will make it even more difficult to make community decisions in the future. not only is the unanimity rule being maintained in a few crucial areas, but we also now have three types of qualified majority. the level of 62% of the population has been replaced, according to some, by 71% and, according to others, by 73.49% in order to achieve a qualified majority. the percentage is so high that it amounts to re-establishing a veto, especially for the largest countries. this is a step backwards that applies to all areas of community life, and i predict, mr president-in-office of the european council, that our fellow citizens - and i am afraid also the members of parliament and the heads of government - are going to have to go back to school for lessons in arithmetic. (applause) we will have to look very carefully at the role that has been allocated to the commission and parliament in the union' s decision-making process. if we want the union to reflect the interests of all of its member states and all of its peoples as a community of values, according to the community method, the institutions that can guarantee this are the commission and parliament, acting within the framework of the charter of fundamental rights. if those institutions are weakened and the charter remains outside of the treaty, how are we going to bring europe closer to its citizens? at the same time, the declaration on enlargement - which is a positive one - says that the applicant countries will be able to join the union at the end of 2002, and the heads of government of the countries that are in negotiations have welcomed nice. now we have to take something into account: this is like when a child invites his friends to a birthday party and it is not sure whether there is enough room in the house or whether there is enough money for the food. we have to be responsible in our commitments. how have we come to this situation? it is too easy to blame the president-in-office of the council, especially as the majority of the political families represented here are also represented in the council. and we have come to this situation because the method of the intergovernmental conference no longer works. how can the union make constitutional decisions by staying up for three nights? what was the point of eleven months of intergovernmental conference, two conclaves and countless meetings of the general affairs council? (applause) i would like to point out, by the way, mr president-in-office of the european council, that this is paid for by taxpayers. how can decisions that reflect the dual legitimacy of the union be made by only one side? i would like to make an appeal to you: no more intergovernmental conferences behind closed doors. (applause) in the declaration on the future of the union - which i welcome on behalf of my group - for the first time there is a mention of the need to renew its working methods: the need for a wider debate in which all the parties involved can take part. there is already such a method. it is the convention method: nine months, a happy delivery. (applause) .while in nice, we still do not know what the child is like. and i really think that we should use the convention method to determine the future of the union. to conclude, mr president-in-office of the european council, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is certain that, as far as the subjects of nice that you yourself, mr chirac, pointed out - the european company statute, the social agenda, mad cow disease, maritime safety - there are sufficient causes to say that the summit was a success. as far as the institutional matters are concerned, however, we will have to study them and make a judgment. today, we cannot take a decision. we want to make a positive contribution, but now - and i will now conclude, madam president - in order to live up to our ambitions, what we have to do is ask the swedish presidency to initiate the process of debate, in which we need precision timing, because it is what this union needs, positively affirming our defence policy and developing the community method. this is the challenge that we now face. (applause) madam president, mr president-in-office and mr president of the commission, colleagues, my group welcomes the fact of the treaty at nice. that is my point of departure, because without a treaty at nice we would be in a significant political and institutional crisis; without a treaty at nice we would send a clear signal to candidate states that there were indeed serious obstacles in our path. therefore the outcome is to be welcomed. with regard to the content of the treaty of nice, as others have said here today, we must reflect, we must see the texts, we must form a considered judgment. i can say that there are parts we like and much about which we are concerned. the ambition which was taken to nice was the greatest european ambition for a summit meeting now for many years. it was the ambition to prepare the way for a continental-scale enlargement in europe and that is the test by which we must judge the content at nice. is it capable of delivering an effective operational continental-scale enlargement? that was the ambition, and many in this house fear that it may have fallen short of what was required. my group has nonetheless reached one definitive conclusion which others have also referred to today. that is that the current intergovernmental model of deciding these things reached and passed its sell-by date with nice. after nine months, more than 330 hours of preparation in formal sessions, thousands of hours of preparation surrounding those sessions, it ended up in the spectacle of the extraordinary difficulty of the negotiators being stuck at the end still having to try to resolve everything because in all that had gone before, nothing of substance had been decided. that is not the way to do business for europe, nor, in fairness to the french presidency, is it the way to ask any presidency to have to conclude such a complex process. we believe the time for change has come. (loud applause) i should also like to comment, albeit at second-hand having followed in the media the detail of what happened at nice, about the general atmosphere surrounding the discussions. when we look at the progress which has been made on the reweighting of votes, clearly it is complex and difficult to explain, but the emphasis that was coming out of nice in reports to the media from the various national delegations was how things could be blocked rather than how things could be promoted. the atmosphere had more to do with the negative aspects of a great european project and vision than a positive promotion of what is deep and good about the european dream, and that is a disappointing feature of nice. i want to salute the work of the european commission. i want to salute the european fortitude of romano prodi. i want to salute the detailed work of commissioner barnier. i want to salute the european spirit of mr verhofstadt, the belgian prime minister which held up to the very end at four or half past four in the morning. but those who stood up most for europe, i think found it rather a thankless task and that is greatly to be regretted. i want to say for my group that when it comes to dealing with the european commission, when it comes to the model that has made europe achieve what we want to see, when we look at the dual legitimacy of the european process based on a monnet method with a strong intergovernmental input, we do not see the european commission and their advisers as petits fonctionnaires. they are central to our european politicians' mission and they are essential to that task. (loud applause) there are tensions now. there is a creeping tendency towards intergovernmentalism. but the schuman-monnet method has helped us not only to create but to deliver the european dream. i would say to those who trample on that: do so with great caution because you trample on our dreams when you break up a method which has worked so well. i know some sceptics do not like it but they never will. the substantial majority in this house, however, believe in it and the substantial majority in this house appreciate why it has worked. finally, to contemplate the next phase 2004. i am pleased to hear president chirac remark it will not be an obstacle to enlargement. i believe it will be an opportunity and we must grasp the opportunity also to raise the questions of reforming the council, of reforming the method that we bring to these important tasks and to make sure that the charter on fundamental rights becomes meaningful as law and not simply as a proclamation. this will give us a real opportunity to address the perceived shortcomings of nice. i have listened carefully to what romano prodi has said. he said we must be ambitious but temper our ambition with reality. it is an important message and it is understood. madam president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, i should like to give you a little history lesson, concerning a famous french doctor, whose name was cou and who invented a method - the cou method - based on the principle of autosuggestion and self-hypnosis. this doctor suggested that every one of us should say the following to ourselves, when we get up in the morning: today i feel better than i did yesterday but not as well as i will feel tomorrow. (laughter) i think that in politics, this is a valuable principle, but it should not be used too liberally. i welcome the fact that the various members present today have not done so. i therefore welcome their speeches. i do not often feel this way but i am actually very happy with what has been said so far. my personal view of the nice summit is that it was a failure. i consider it to be a failure not only in terms of the european union' s stated ambition to change the institutions so that they are capable of properly receiving the new member states by improving the european union' s efficiency, but i also consider it to be a failure in terms of another important aim, which has perhaps not been sufficiently highlighted, which is the rapprochement of the european union and its citizens. with regard to my first point, i think that everything necessary has been said on the matter. i would nevertheless like to mention a number of factors that concern the european parliament, the european parliament to which president chirac very kindly paid tribute, but which has largely been forgotten in the treaty of nice. (applause) for the first time - and i would remind you that i took part in maastricht and in amsterdam - parliament has been given less weight in the european decision-making process. this is a very serious matter. granted, the number of members of the european parliament has increased in relation to what had been envisaged, which goes a little way to allaying some of our fears, but the result will be more members with fewer powers. i am not sure that this is a good thing. (applause) i now come to my concerns for democracy and transparency. i should like to give an example with regard to transparency: article 133 on commercial policy. i have not seen the definitive texts - no one here has - but i have seen three pages, annexes 5 and 6, on commercial policy. i read them three times and i promise you that i did not fully understand them. perhaps i am not clever enough, but the truth is that i could not fully understand them. nevertheless, i did understand one thing: the european commission would gain power; the council would increase its control and parliament would be left out. in an area as sensitive, as politically sensitive, as this, for which there is popular support, i consider this to be a serious political mistake. i felt the need to say this. (applause) there are many things i could say about codecision. where is this codecision? almost no progress has been made on this. this is also extremely serious. i therefore believe that, on this point, as members of the european parliament and as representatives of the public, we have a genuine obligation to show our annoyance and, politically, to translate our annoyance into positive action. this is what i shall be taking a few words to do. i think that what was lacking at nice was a european vision. (applause) this was completely absent from the nice summit. it is national governments that are responsible for this and i am not blaming any particular government here - and i am not blaming the french presidency more than any other presidency, as this is not the time or the place to do so. mr barn crespo was quite right when he said that we must challenge the whole intergovernmental method. governments are responsible for their image in international national public opinion and must look after this image. this is quite reasonable, but nevertheless, they do not bother about their image where international public opinion is concerned. a few do, but many do not make any effort. we should be aware that this leads to considerable nervousness in european thinking. we must therefore find a new method. we have seen the limits, which have become clearer and clearer. we now have the beginnings of a process. i am somewhat less enthusiastic than others about the charter of fundamental rights. this has been described as a baby that is delivered at full term, but which is nevertheless a puny little thing. i had hoped for a healthy baby, and that is why we would need a method which is probably based on that of the convention, but which has a much more ambitious mandate for the reform of the european institutions and above all, which functions more democratically. we cannot escape from having a widespread debate on the european union' s objectives, on the european union' s ambition on the world stage. (applause) that is what i hope for. i take genuine pleasure in the consensus that i feel exists in this house. this is the first time that our analyses of the situation converge so strongly and i think that this is a positive indication for the years to come. madam president, mr president of the republic, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, my group takes a very dim view of the fifteen following the rather unappetising spectacle they put on for the european people, who were probably amazed to see on that occasion, and at first hand, the real common vision, sense of solidarity and mutual trust that exists between the major european leaders. although, despite everything, i welcomed the conclusion of an agreement with a certain amount of relief, i did so because, as mr cox said, a failure at nice would have been used by the shameless opponents of enlargement if not to sound the death knell, at least to call for the indefinite postponement of this great project. we would then have sent the peoples of central and eastern europe a signal of incalculable political consequences. there is nothing less secure today than a successful enlargement but at least the way remains open for action in favour of such a prospect. besides, what a cruel illustration of the crisis which is not only institutional, but which, at a deeper level, is an identity crisis for european integration in the face of the titanic issues confronting the european union! the problem facing the fifteen lies, i believe, less in their difficulty in providing sound responses, than in their refusal to address the right questions. we feel that the right questions are those on the lips of the impressive human tide which converged on nice from all over europe on the eve of the summit. this was not a handful of troublemakers from the margins of society but workers who were uniting with the most representative waves of public opinion in their respective countries. some of them were supporters of the beginnings of european integration and probably voters - men and women - from most of the political families represented here. beyond their differences, all their questions in one way or another concerned a fundamental issue: the purpose of this integration whose institutions we wish to reform. for whom is it designed? what is its point? where is this europe of the fifteen headed today, and even more to the point, the great europe with twenty-seven or thirty, tomorrow? is it condemned to collapse under the current system of liberal globalisation? is its purpose to speed up the process of deregulation? to make competition the be all and end all of their economic policy? to try to destroy everything that is the essence of our societies through the rationale of commerce, to the point that people need to rally together to achieve a few exceptions and to concentrate all the power at the top, far from everyday life and far from the people? is there any more relevant question than that of whether other choices are conceivable? choices in which most members of the public can recognise themselves? major joint projects in europe itself and on the international stage, in which they would find reasons and pleasure in committing themselves together, projects designed to achieve a shared dominance of the markets, a common, proactive political approach in the economic, social and cultural fields, real access for social actors to the necessary information and to the decision-making and control procedures, from their company to the institutions. what preliminary answers to these legitimate questions did the nice european council give the public? the charter of fundamental rights, which was supposed to be a figurehead for this summit was dispatched without ceremony. neither is the european defence force, along with the military language that has accompanied its miraculously rapid creation, able to give the european adventure the boost that it needs. symptomatically, it is in the few areas in which the demand for concrete measures had been clearly demonstrated in our societies that a few positive agreements have finally been reached between the fifteen. i am thinking of food safety, maritime safety, the declaration on the specific nature of sport with regard to competition rules or even the european company statute. with regard to the social agenda, although we would be hard pushed to find the specific objectives that we hoped for, at least it offers elements that will provide support for action in the next five years. that may be true, but this does not make a project and unless there is a common project, institutional reform could only lead to a form of soulless and unceremonious inter-state horse-trading. to conclude, i share my group' s view that the nice european council will ultimately have been the turning point for a kind of institutional and political construction that has shown its limitations and has reached the end of its useful life. the absence of a coherent, comprehensible, and inspiring common project, the refusal to hold a public and transparent debate on the various options due to an apparent consensus, which is inevitably liberal and hostile to any sign of independence from the established order, the exacerbation of violent relations between partners from the same community and the excessive concentration of power in the leadership of states over the heads of their citizens - these are all issues that are not recent but which are now undeniable in the open debate on europe' s future. thank you. mr president, i should first of all like to congratulate you on the marvellous stamina that you demonstrated at the nice marathon. my congratulations must end there, however, as i am sorry that you did not apply this stamina to the subjects that were entrusted to you. you said that the nice summit was a success because it finally led to an agreement. i would say to you, "big deal!" because everyone knew from the outset that the french presidency was set on doing everything to ensure that an agreement was reached in nice, largely for reasons of domestic politics. i wish to say, at the risk of destroying your illusions, that no one here has been fooled. the obstacles between the fifteen that multiplied during the summit are symptomatic. any clear-thinking person can see that they herald the very serious consequences to which the project of a federal europe of 27 or 28 member states is leading us. the most astonishing thing is that you are cobbling together this pipe dream at a time when the opinion polls suggest that the majority of europe' s citizens are against this. speaking mainly on behalf of the french members of my group, i will say that there is a permanent contradiction between the virtues attributed to this europe and the aberrations seen in the daily workings of the union. europe' s leaders, of which you are one, are reduced to carrying out increasingly frequent operations to manipulate the media and public opinion. the technique is now tried and tested: always put off for another time the burden of proof; take decisions that are void of content or which will not be implemented for a long time and finally present the whole business as a magnificent success. the nice summit is to some extent the apotheosis of this sleight-of-hand strategy. first of all, the fifteen signed the agreement on the sly and under the smokescreen created by the charter of fundamental rights. this document is a monument of ambiguity and was presented by some people as a crucial text, which would be a prelude to a future european constitution, and by others, as a simple declaration of intent with no legal force. this text has been exalted as the democratic progress of a citizens' europe but no one has bothered, of course, to find out what the european public actually wants. you yourself, mr president and your prime minister have presented this text as the triumph of french secularism and by chancellor schrder as the victory of german religious sentiment. all it took to achieve this was quite simply to have the french and german versions of the charter not say the same thing. we should have thought about that! the nice summit then adopted a european social agenda, but this document has no binding power. it simply sets a handful of objectives for the next five years, which the member states are free to decide whether to pursue or not, depending on the policies they choose. then the summit announced that an agreement had been concluded on maritime safety. hallelujah! is this a decisive agreement? not at all. it is simply a decision inviting the member states' transport ministers to agree on the measures needing to be taken. let us add to this list of triumphs the announcement of the creation of a food agency that will not come into operation until 2001. to crown it all, the european leaders who met at nice decided to open a new institutional project in 2004. this will - apologies for it being so minimal - clarify the european treaties, the precise status of the charter of fundamental rights and lay down the distribution of competences between the union and the member states. there is clearly something rotten about the whole business. from evasions to pretences and from hypocritical agreements to sermons on the future, this federal europe is beginning to look like a house of cards whose roofs are growing higher and higher but whose foundations are quaking, because the real lesson of the nice summit is the enormity of the historical misunderstanding in which our continent has been mired since the treaty of maastricht. the member states do not have the support of the people because there is no such thing as a european people and they are therefore forced by public opinion to advocate their national interests with increasing fervour, even if this means changing the maximum number of members of the european parliament set by the treaty of amsterdam, which is already out of date, and even if this means increasing the number of european commissioners to 27, even though the current commission of fifteen does not work. mr president, i also wish to emphasise that, after nice, france appears once again to have been the clear loser. because you are paralysed with the fear of having fewer seats than germany in the council of ministers, you have definitively capitulated on everything else: on the number of french members in this chamber, which is reduced from 87 to 74 - oh, i agree, this would not be a big loss - whereas germany will keep its 99 members without losing a single one: at least for the sake of those who believe that this house serves some purpose, the number ought to have been maintained; on the so-called "demographic slice" principle, which gives a considerable advantage to germany; on one of the two commissioners in brussels and on our right of veto in the very many areas concerning our vital interests. the final result is preposterous. no one understands the operating rules of this labyrinthine system any more. it upsets almost everyone, beginning with those known as the smaller countries. the only clear outcome is that the european nation-states are on their way - unwillingly - to becoming nothing more than provinces within an authoritarian federal state, whose strategic and military objectives appear to be those of the united states. this will happen unless we oppose it. we must bring an immediate end to this insane abdication of the sovereignty of the european nations. this is why, as far as we are concerned, we will ask the president of france to consult the french people at the appropriate time by means of a referendum on this treaty. (applause) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the masochism with which french political leaders have, once again, allowed themselves to be ensnared in the trap of a europe obsessed with complex, intricate manoeuvres is incredible. having wallowed in cohabitation, these professional politicians have lain down in resignation over a treaty that they just had to sign in nice as if germany' s fate depended on it. portugal and belgium have, on this occasion, had a greater influence than france, which conceded on everything and obtained nothing apart from preserving a vague cultural exception, which is a pretext for a new concept, which mr vdrine has invented, for the sake of the cause, of a sovereignty that would be both national and exercised jointly. even edgar faure must be turning in his grave! at a time when these so-called leaders are incapable of transposing fifty or so directives except by edict, in other words, by decree-law, they are accepting, with straight faces, to reduce french representation in the european parliament by around 20%, despite having given these representatives the task of protecting french interests under codecision. as far as france is concerned, each of these treaties is, unfortunately, worse than the one before, but they confirm the rationale of maastricht, a fine example of mitterrandesque finagling that is likely to end badly. and what about poor mr chirac, who believes what gerhard says, in the same way that jaurs believed in world peace! into what situation will all these people have dragged france when the european bubble bursts and the french have nothing in their mouths but the bitter taste of having been conned once again by their mediocre and self-serving leaders? madam president, mr president, the group for a europe of democracies and diversities regrets the fact that the presidency has not followed up the message that was sent to it in july. at nice, it simply boosted the power of the technocrats. the crisis within the commission has not led to any reform of its role or of the way in which it functions. all that has been proposed to us is an increase of its president' s powers and i doubt that even this would have prevented the dysfunction demonstrated by the santer commission. the negotiations of the last few days have proved that it was nothing but a laughable process of haggling. people are fighting over power of influence and postponing the distribution of competences and the clarification of the european union' s objectives until 2004, even though making everything uniform is still clearly the order of the day. we are told of parity between the larger states but the division is confirmed with 27 additional seats being allocated to just one country. enough hypocrisy! the right of each member state to be heard within the council should have been recognised in nice. for this to happen, one vote is enough and would enable us to avoid the countless calculations of weighting imposed by qualified majority voting. taking into account these interests and differences within the council would have avoided the debates on the number of commissioners to which each state is clinging. when i hear a commissioner calling for an end to the cultural exception and for the extension of qualified majority voting to article 133 in international negotiations, i must state that, personally, the loss of one commissioner would not be particularly serious. this house ought to represent the expression of an elected majority that backs the decisions of ministers who, i would remind you, are answerable to their respective national parliamentary representations. you chose to follow another path. we find this truly deplorable and it will benefit neither europe itself nor any member state. with regard to the summit' s conclusions, i am stunned to see the discrepancy between the proclamations on the services of general interest and the dismantling of the postal service, which is on the agenda for this part-session. my fear is that the objective of full employment, which is part of the social agenda, may suffer the same fate. as far as europe' s image is concerned, this presidency has been a failure. the common interest appears to diminish the signing of a treaty that is designed to provide solutions by transferring ever more sovereignty against the wishes expressed by the public. furthermore, we could adopt the formula suggested by the economic and social council and say that europe is experiencing a serious lack of public debate. sometimes out of convenience or as a matter of urgency, the issue is dodged or cut short and sometimes a debate does take place but the experts and the elites are often the only players that are heard, that are listened to and who really influence decision-making. the danger of this is that the public will feel alienated from the decisions that actually concern them directly. my group is disappointed by this treaty and is worried about the future that it holds for us and we will therefore use all our power to oppose it. madam president, president chirac, i am delighted that you have found time today, in contrast to the previous occasion, to listen to my speech. i take it as a welcome sign of the fact that tensions have eased since then. while waiting for the outcome from nice, i was put in mind of my old mathematics professor. two out of four problems unsolved elicited a pitiless "unsatisfactory" from him. until late into sunday, it looked like nice too might earn such a mark. then a compromise was found. in essence, the total compromise is less than the sum of its parts. nonetheless, from an austrian point of view, it is a result we can live with. i personally welcome, above all, the juridification of all stages of the sanctions procedure, especially the facility for the court of auditors to exercise control. as an austrian i know what i am talking about. the rule of law has triumphed here over political arbitrariness. many have complained about the lack of progress on qualified majority voting. i take a more relaxed view. the heads of state and government may have exercised restraint in certain areas, but at least they did not use their right of veto after long hours of negotiation just for the heck of it. on the contrary, their restraint was driven by serious problems and concerns and the result of informed national opinion, which cannot be swept to one side and must be taken seriously. how can we make our citizens identify more closely with europe if we do not heed their concerns? for many citizens, things are simply moving too fast. many still have no sight of the port into which the european union is supposed to sail one day. as far as i am concerned, deliberate, considered action makes far more sense than rushing into the fray. however, what is worrying in this situation, and this is something which both i and mr poettering have warned against, is that the instrument of reinforced cooperation may be used as a circumvention strategy in areas in which no decision can be reached by a qualified majority. this sort of approach would not only contradict the ultima ratio clause; it would, in my view, also represent a serious threat to the development of the union. thank you, mr hager. at this stage in the debate, i shall give the floor once again to the president-in-office of the council, president chirac, who would like to respond to the speeches by the group chairmen, following which, president chirac will leave us and mr moscovici will take over. mr president, i give you the floor. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i have, of course, listened with great interest to the comments made by all the groups through their chairmen' s speeches. i shall simply make a few comments and then leave mr moscovici the task of answering all the questions dealing with specific matters. having heard what mr poettering had to say, i wish to make a general observation. i understand and share the ambition of a chamber such as yours, which is by vocation, by definition, to assert a vision of the europe of tomorrow or even of the more distant future, and to ensure that ongoing impetus is given to these changes and to the implementation of this vision. i understand this perfectly as it is your role and i would even say, your function. then there is also, of course, the reality of the situation, the daily reality, the opportunity for the public represented by their governments to accept the pace of these changes and even their objectives. in the framework of european integration, i have been struck several times by the claim by a head of state or government that, "of course, we could take that path, but the fact is that the public in my country would not accept it" . incidentally, the political position of my own government is at stake in this matter. beyond that, however, and more seriously, the accession process, whether adopted by means of a referendum or by parliament, risks sanctioning changes that have not been approved and which would consequently bring european integration to an end. that is the danger. i shall not mention any names of course, but certain heads of state or government say, with regard to sensitive issues, and rightly so because they are in the best position to understand them as the democratically appointed representatives of their people, what is acceptable or not to public opinion in their countries. it is all very well to integrate europe as quickly as possible, but if we come up against a refusal that threatens the whole structure and which leads to everything grinding to a halt, then this is not what we want to see at all. we must move ahead as quickly as possible, but we must take care to avoid obstacles that would drag the process out indefinitely. there is therefore a trick to carrying off this process, in which everyone must play their role. it is up to the governments, which are - i repeat - representatives democratically appointed by their citizens, to lead them and to see the limits that they can or cannot exceed and the pace that they can accept as a whole. it is up to others, mainly parliament and the commission, to provide the necessary impetus and to convince the public. in other words, we must make our minds up but we must also convince, as decisions that do not convince are not particularly useful. i have simply tried to highlight all of the negative comments made about the outcome of the nice summit, because i know very well what would have happened if no agreement had been reached, which was a possibility right up to the last minute. enlargement would have been halted, which would have been the worst situation in which we could have found ourselves. our objective was first and foremost to put ourselves in a position in which we could enable enlargement to take place. well, we achieved that objective. it is true that this does not fulfil all the ambitions that we might have, which are legitimate, noble, and justified and which i share, but the time also comes when realism must be applied, in one way or another. this was a general observation, to which i shall add two more specific observations following on from what mr poettering said about the shortcomings of majority voting and the development of qualified majority voting. the presidency regrets these shortcomings and itself had reservations and made a considerable effort to ensure that france made progress in areas about which it is particularly sensitive. i am sorry that not everyone was able to adopt the same attitude. here too, however, there is the problem of the citizens concerned and of the responsibilities that their representatives may or may not assume. let us not forget that, with regard to referendums, some countries have voted against whilst others voted in favour - i am referring here to maastricht - and rightly so. there are, therefore, also constraints that must be appreciated. secondly, i do not want people thinking they can put it about - i do not know where you get your information, mr poettering - that one draft gave poland fewer votes than spain. there was a technical error which meant that, momentarily. (mixed reactions) no, no, please, i was in charge of it. irony on a matter like this is misplaced. there was a technical error on one paper, momentarily. actually it was a typing error, and the paper was immediately withdrawn and of course the right figures were put in. nobody could have imagined that anyone - certainly not the french presidency, everyone knows what close ties france has always had with poland - was suggesting handicapping poland by comparison with spain, when their populations are just about the same. i needed to say that to stop false information getting about. mr barn crespo mentioned the charter. the french presidency is absolutely open about incorporating the charter into the treaty. some countries are not in favour of that, as you know. it was never envisaged that this would be an item on the nice agenda. from the start the issue was always to be held over to the next presidency. like a number of other speakers, mr barn crespo also mentioned the defects in the method. first, i entirely endorse your support for the convention method, and i will tell you the whole truth: when i heard that the convention method had been chosen for drawing up the charter, i was sceptical. i have to say that the facts have proved me wrong, because it has been a great success, and that means the method was a good one. i think so and i have taken the opportunity to emphasise that, at nice especially. it should also be said that the way the convention is being chaired by president herzog is absolutely exemplary, which also makes things easier, of course. no doubt we do need to reform the method. and i know the commission - president prodi mentioned this just now - should be making some proposals on this. certainly something needs to be done about it. it is not normal to work day and night, keep staff working when they have hardly had a wink of sleep for three days, and still hope to draft decisions or take decisions in a calm atmosphere. i think that is right. obviously, there is all the advance preparation. it was not wasted because it meant a whole series of issues that had been dealt with earlier did not have to be raised at nice. i am thinking of the tax package, the social agenda, and lots of other things. but in the end, on the essential points - and this is in the nature of things - the heads of state and government reserve the right to wait till the last minute to take decisions or accept compromises, and they will never allow staff to deal with those issues at an earlier stage. so there is a problem with the method and, as several speakers have said, it ought to be reformed. mr cox paid warm homage to the commission and i naturally endorse that homage. he also mentioned something president prodi said, which i particularly endorse and which brings me back to my first remark: we must be ambitious, president prodi said, but we must temper our ambition with realism. that is wise, and we must always remember it. (laughter) mr lannoye talked about a setback for enlargement. what would have happened if there had been no agreement on enlargement? i think it is a bit extreme to talk about a setback there. anyway, all the countries concerned were unanimous in approving what was done in nice. he also mentioned reversal for the european parliament. i listed the areas where progress has been made earlier. i am not going to go over that again. perhaps we did not make as much progress as you were hoping for, but you know, there again, some countries had reservations. still, there has been no reversal and the european parliament can never have been - i think this can be said, i am speaking under the eye of the president and those responsible - can never have been as much involved and consulted as it has been during the french presidency. i would just like to make that point. mr wurtz mentioned the human tide in nice. not counting certain irresponsible troublemakers who, of course, turned up with intentions which had nothing to do with the progress of human thought, there was indeed excellent and extensive participation, for which the european confederation of trade unions was largely responsible. that was not a problem; i think it was a form of participation in the general debate. indeed, we should try to ensure better conditions for a more general debate, which is more inclusive of civil society, if only to give our thoughts some oxygen. that is often difficult to do, precisely because people do not necessarily always have the same ulterior motives. but when it comes to globalisation, which calls for very broad public debate, we need to find ways to allow everyone to express their views somehow, in a calm atmosphere. globalisation is inevitable; it means considerable progress in terms of standards of living, social advances and economic development, which determines everything else. but if we are not careful, globalisation will also entail grave dangers like exclusion: exclusion of some countries, indeed a growing number of countries, and exclusion within the countries of a growing number of men and women. it will also entail considerable risk to the balance of our ecosystem, our ability to bequeath a suitable environment to our successors; it will entail dangers for development, notably because of modern communications techniques and cyber crime. these are serious dangers and it is our duty to control and humanise globalisation. it is true that some leaders are getting a bit carried away here by the cult of theory and, one way or another, all shades of public opinion need to be expressed. on this point i recognise the value of the arguments set out by mr wurtz. i am grateful to my friend charles pasqua who was kind enough to compliment me on my physical prowess. that does not surprise me and i thank him for it. what does surprise me is the philosophical direction of his criticism, because what is he really telling us? he is telling us that within these walls and at nice we have taken empty decisions or decisions which will not be implemented for a long time. and he adds that we have decided on a handful of targets which the member states are free to apply if they want to. so that should not worry you. (laughter) . and that does not justify your claim that those empty and distant decisions, or those targets, whether applied or not, amount to an insane abdication of the sovereignty of the nations of europe. there seems to be a contradiction there. (applause) . that i cannot entirely resolve. but, after all, i do know and appreciate the subtlety of charles pasqua' s thought, i have known him a long time and consider him a friend. so i will have a good think and try to understand his argument. (laughter and applause) coming to mr de gaulle' s speech, i have to say that i am simply not capable of penetrating the subtleties and nuances of his remarks. so i leave the full responsibility for his assertions to him. mr saint-josse said there is a lack of public debate. i have already responded on that score and i fully endorse what he said about the need to improve public debate considerably. i will not repeat what i said, but it is true that citizens too often feel alienated from decisions taken in forums they do not know. that is one of the challenges we must take up. finally, i would say to mr hager that in my view the instrument of enhanced cooperation is a useful instrument giving europe a dynamic, and lighting the way ahead as mr romano prodi said just now, i think. personally, i am very much in favour of it. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, thank you. (applause) i want to thank president jacques chirac for being here this morning, and for his speech and his replies to the group chairmen. (the debate was suspended at this point and resumed at 3.00 p.m.) vote (parliament approved the commission proposal) recommendation for second reading (a5-0349/2000) by mr liese on behalf of the committee on the environment, public health and consumer policy on the common position adopted by the council [8878/1/2000 - c5-0424/2000 - 1997/0197(cod)] with a view to adopting a european parliament and council directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the member states relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use barnier, commission. (fr) mr president, on the liese report, i would like to confirm what my colleague erkki liikanen explained yesterday during the debate. the commission can accept compromise amendments nos 28 to 43. it can also accept amendments nos 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23 and 24. the commission can also accept amendments nos 5, 11, 15, 17, 25, 26 and 27 in principle, but cannot accept amendments nos 4, 18, 20 and 22. mr president, could we please check before the vote that enough members are present in the chamber to give us the 314 votes needed or if the other two reports should perhaps go first, because there has been some confusion as to how long this break is supposed to last. in all events, we must be careful not to upset the compromise which we have now reached simply because some members are unaware of the fact that we are about to vote. on the subject itself, i have just one brief technical comment. this is a complicated subject. we must back medical progress and, at the same time, ensure that subjects are protected during trials. the committee accepted the report unanimously. nonetheless, a number of proposed amendments have been tabled, as the commissioner rightly says. they are compromise amendments designed to bring about agreement with the council. the council has asked us to accept the spirit of the report but to change the wording here and there. hence these proposed amendments, these so-called compromise amendments from three groups. i think they reflect the views not just of these three groups but of other groups which have refrained from putting their name to them for technical reasons. i therefore call on the house to accept these compromise amendments and to reject the new proposals which have now been tabled by other groups so as to avoid jeopardising the compromise with the council. not because i am opposed to the proposals in principle but because i want to safeguard the compromise with the council and avoid risking a complicated and tricky conciliation procedure for the sake of an amendment. in order to make full use of this compromise, i should like to ask the presidency to vote on proposed amendment no 22, which is scheduled right at the beginning of the vote, after amendment no 43, because amendment no 43 reflects the compromise with the council, while amendment no 22 reflects the committee's original position and should only be adopted if the compromise does not win a majority here in the house. before the vote on amendment no 22: mr president, i just want to avoid any confusion. as we have already accepted the compromise, i recommend that the house vote against amendment no 22. that will keep us in line with the compromise with the council. apart from that, thank you all for your support. (the president declared the amended common position approved) report (a5-0356/2000) by mrs honeyball on behalf of the committee on regional policy, transport and tourism on the proposal for a european parliament and council directive on summer-time arrangements [com(2000) 302 - c5-0322/2000 - 2000/0140(cod)] mr president, i should like to know if the european parliament's jurisdiction for summer time has been newly acquired since nice. my dear sir, i have not yet gone through the text finally adopted in nice with a fine toothcomb but, off the top of my head, the answer is no. (parliament adopted the draft legislative resolution) report (a5-0355/2000) by mrs cerdeira morterero on behalf of the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs on the initiative of the portuguese republic with a view to adopting a council framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal procedure [9650/2000 - c5-0392/2000 - 2000/0813(cns)] (parliament adopted the draft legislative resolution) explanations of vote - liese recommendation for second reading (a5-0349/2000) mr president, i voted for the report on regulations relating to the performance of clinical trials with a view to finding new medicinal products. before i left bergamo for strasbourg, i told mr giuseppe rossi, a pensioner from bergamo about this, and he said that he was very happy about this regulation. however, he urged me to draw parliament's attention - which i am very willing to do - to the fact that, when selecting the diseases for which it is intended to find complete cures by performing clinical trials on new medicinal products, priority should be given to diseases affecting the elderly, in particular, who do not have time to wait for trials to be performed, unlike youngsters who have all the time in the world. therefore, priority must be given to the diseases affecting the elderly. the union for a europe of nations group has supported mr liese' s report. it was really necessary to simplify the plethora of legal and administrative arrangements applying to clinical trials in the member states. promoting the development of medicines in the community is desirable because that makes it possible to give patients a better chance of benefiting from high-performance treatment. research also needs to be promoted into medicines for children, and the health ministers of the various member states must rally behind it. two-thirds of children' s medicines were in fact designed for adults. for lack of data, their marketing authorisation (ma) does not provide for use with children. so use in paediatric medicine sometimes falls under the heading of empirical individual prescriptions, and we need to promote the development at pharmaceutical laboratories of specific products prepared for children and their pathologies so that the doses and forms of the medicines are suited to their bodies. dr liese' s report means we can establish shorter time periods, harmonisation of procedures, and above all, a high level of protection, especially for children. as a result of the determination shown by both the member states and parliament, laboratories previously discouraged by the complexity of clinical trials will perhaps find the courage to develop the market for children' s medicines, even if it is not yet big enough to provide a return on the investment! furthermore, the legitimate determination to protect patients who take part in trials at union level is inseparable from respect for the principle of subsidiarity. so the conditions for consent must be very strict. in our view, trials on people incapable of giving their consent should be banned. here dr liese' s determination to lay down stricter conditions for consent by persons incapable of giving it is interesting. we think consent should be governed by national legislation. while it is appropriate to establish a set of rules to be taken into account, the member states must retain the power to adopt stricter legislation, as france has done in this respect. that would merely be an intelligent application of the principle of subsidiarity. honeyball report (a5-0356/2000) mr president, when mr enrico perniceni of locatello imagno in the province of bergamo, my home town, discovered we were going to debate this directive he said: "mr fatuzzo, i know that i am a very old man but i would like my time never to come. if my time does have to come, i would like it to be the same time throughout the european union! i therefore ask you to vote for the motion" - which i did - "because it is right for europe to have a european time to go with the european currency, the european parliament and the european flag. in fact, i feel that it is right for all the states of the european union to be on the same summer time" . i congratulate my colleague mary honeyball on her first report for the european parliament. summer time should be a matter for the member states but it is right that the eu should harmonise the start and end dates. i welcome the agreement to continue to begin summer time on the last sunday in march and to end it on the last sunday in october. given the planning needs of certain sectors such as transport, communications, tourism and computer and other technology i welcome the proposal to make these arrangements permanent subject to a commission review every five years. summer time has, in practice, become normal time. there may therefore be cause for questioning the concept of 'summer time' when it relates to seven out of twelve months, that is to say the majority of the year. do we really have to carry on with the change to summer time? it was brought in at the time of the oil crises, to save energy and has been extended to 2001? first we should recognise that the advantages and value of the arrangement have largely vanished: the energy saving it was supposed to produce is completely unproven and merely symbolic. on the contrary, in addition to atmospheric pollution problems, the profound disturbance to human beings, especially children, of this double time-change, taking place in march and then in october, is clearly established and greatly resented by the people, many of whom are calling for the cancellation of this arrangement which upsets the rhythms of life. the report financed by the commission to justify its proposal merely notes the inadequacy of the consistent data available and the contradictory nature of existing studies: so it does not provide any relevant grounds for maintaining the time change system. now, the commission proposes to make the change to summer time, and then back to winter time, permanent with no limit date. it means to impose this on the member states without the option of exemption, and on the candidate countries, without taking account of their specific geographic position. nothing, not even time, must escape its standardising will! it must be the same time in brest as in brest-litovsk. the advantages of time zones cannot possibly outweigh the benefits of standardisation! long live the single federal time! yet the choice of time applicable in each of the member states is always a purely national decision, by virtue of the principle of subsidiarity. the national governments must not give up that right. they must continue to be concerned about representing the will of the people who have elected them. instead of the one proposed by the commission, the best solution would undoubtedly be to give up the summer time arrangement and keep gmt + 1 hour for the whole year, at least as far as france is concerned. from this angle, i am glad two amendments were adopted by parliament, one rejecting the commission' s plan to apply the summer time arrangement for an indefinite period, and the other allowing the member states, like the european institutions, to retain the option of reviewing this arrangement. mr president, i should like to give an explanation on the honeyball report. i am sorry, madam, but i have no record here of your application to give an explanation of vote. as you know, an application must be submitted in writing in advance. it is obviously an oversight but, as i am sure you will understand, i cannot make an exception, otherwise we shall get embroiled in rules of procedure. that brings us to the explanations of vote on the cerdeira morterero report. somewhat surprisingly, mr fatuzzo has the floor; i wonder which pensioner has said something to him this time. cerdeira morterero report (a5-0355/2000) you are going to be surprised, mr president, for this time, before i left for strasbourg, it was mr carlo fatuzzo the tourist who said to mr carlo fatuzzo the mep - we talk to each other sometimes in the mirror - "seeing as you are going to debate the issue of the protection of victims, remember that last year i went to spain on holiday and, when i got out my wallet in front of the sagrada familia to make a donation in order to make my humble contribution to the conclusion of the work on this structure, both wallet and all the documents inside disappeared. i went to the spanish police station immediately and reported the incident before you could say 'jack robinson'. but when i got back to italy, mr fatuzzo," continued carlo fatuzzo the tourist, "in order to obtain another identity card and another driving licence, i had to report the incident again, this time to the italian police. i had to report the same theft twice. therefore, roll on the advent of this directive which will simplify the procedures!" the status of the victims in criminal proceedings is not always properly protected. this matter has been taken up in several council of europe instruments since the early 80s, but within the european union it was not debated in the council until 1998. since then, there have appeared first the commission proposal, in the run-up to the 1999 tampere european council, which put forward a number of measures in the fields of the prevention of victimisation and victim aid and support and upheld the need to draw up minimum standards especially for victim protection and for the access of victims to justice and their right to compensation for damages, including legal costs, and secondly the portuguese presidency' s draft framework decision on the status of the victim in criminal proceedings. this latter proposal is the subject of this report, which essentially warrants our approval, particularly as regards the simplification of access to rights, courts and legal information, and the promotion and protection of victims' rights in matters of compensation for loss and damages through redress mechanisms. we are very much in favour of strengthening the position of victims of crime and therefore welcome in principle the draft framework decision presented by portugal. above all, we are in favour of setting up, at european level, principles for how the victims of crime are to be treated. nonetheless, the member states ought themselves to be responsible for working out the details. we believe, however, that a couple of questions need to be analysed more thoroughly and would present the following points of view. freedom of association is of fundamental importance in a democratic constitutional state, which is why we oppose a demand for non-profit-making organisations to be approved by the state before they are allowed to offer support to victims of crime. we also believe that transparency is a prerequisite if authorities and courts are to inspire confidence in citizens, which is why we oppose general rules limiting the press' s ability to write about what has come to light in the course of a public trial. only in a few clearly defined cases (relating, for example, to sexual crimes and crimes involving child pornography, where secrecy is required) may there be exemptions from holding open proceedings in court. finally, we think it may be a good idea for there to be video conferencing and other such facilities if there is reason for thinking that a witness or plaintiff might, out of fear or for some other reason, not speak the truth freely in the presence of the defendant. . i welcome this report by my colleague carmen cerdiera. the report aims to ensure that all victims of crime in any eu member state should receive the same minimum treatment. appropriate measures should be taken to provide crime victims with the following rights: to provide and receive information; communications facilities; participation in the procedure and access to free legal aid; a suitable level of protection and privacy; the possibility to seek compensation under criminal procedure and to dispute settlement through mediation. the victim must be treated as a person in a particular situation of disorientation and distress - factors that are likely to be all the more acute if the crime happens to the victim in a member state other than his/her own. . although we support the content of the report and are very sympathetic to victims of crime throughout europe, i, as a british conservative, have reservations regarding certain aspects of the report. i believe we have adequate protection for such victims under article 6 of the council of europe's convention on human rights, and this report is yet another example of unnecessary proposed european interference into an area which is already covered by agreements between member states, as well as 25 other non-eu members of the council of europe. the british conservative party does not support eu prescriptive measures to harmonise criminal law in the eu which must remain the competence of the member state. madam president, i wholeheartedly support this report on better protection for victims of crime which demonstrates yet again in the eu's commitment to combating crime and protecting our citizens. we are trying to ensure that the rights and interests of victims of crime are better respected in all eu member states, even when the crime itself has been committed outside the victim's usual country of residence. consequently, many travellers and holidaymakers will benefit from this european initiative. this measure will help allow victims of crime to be able to claim full, immediate and effective compensation for any damage suffered, if possible to be paid by the perpetrator of the crime. combating crime is crucial for my constituents in the north west. the labour government is cracking down on crime and disorder. with labour, crime is already down 10% since 1997. domestic burglary is down by 21% and vehicle crime by 15% - their lowest levels for a decade. the six-year decline in police numbers has been halted - 9000 extra recruits will take police numbers to their highest level ever. the queen's speech spells out that our next step is to cut violent crime and disorder by working together. the tories, on the other hand, offer nothing but rising crime and falling investment. the tories, on the other hand, offer nothing but rising crime and falling investment. their record on law and order speaks for itself: during their time in office, the chance of being a victim of burglary increased from one in 32 to one in 13; the chance of being a victim of violent crime trebled. madam president, the labour government is determined to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. by introducing greater protection for victims of crime across europe, our citizens will gain confidence in the judicial system and the police, not just across britain, but right across the european union. (the sitting was suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) european council/ french presidency (continuation) the next item is the continuation of the joint debate on: the report by the european council and the statement by the commission on the european council meeting of 7 to 10 december 2000 in nice; the statement by the officiating president of the council on the french presidency. mr president, on a point of order. this has great relevance to the matter we are discussing since it touches on the freedom of the press and the independent ownership of the media in russia. a few hours ago the owner of most of russia's independent television, mr vladimir gusinsky, was arrested in spain. i am told he is due to be deported to russia. i should like to protest at this most serious development and ask that investigations be made. mr gusinsky is presently in an aircraft on his way to madrid where he faces deportation to russia for criticising the russian government in his media activities. lord bethell, i think we would agree with you. we will look into the matter. we will make a note of it now and naturally we feel like you that the freedom of the press must continue to be observed in that part of the world. mr president, it is my turn to salute the president of the commission, who is here, and the presidency of the council, which is coming, and to underline that there has probably never been such unanimity expressed in this parliament on the results of a summit. this morning we heard every group speak of failure. if we look for the causes of that failure, the main reason seems to be that in nice we saw the european project suffer a little more damage and the european dream recede a little further. what is that dream about? it is not about a trading area. it is not even about a cooperation area. the european dream is about a continent with common values building itself into a political power. put another way, it is about neighbours who regard each other as members of the same family, and decide to build a ship together to weather the storms. but that would mean recognising that the common project is more important than selfish interests. now, in nice - and this is the criticism we all have - the project was not being considered, only the interests were being considered. it is as if the ship were already built and we were at the stage of sharing out the cabins, the officers' uniforms and the cargo. that explains why many of us found nice heartbreaking. it was heartbreaking to see the debates concentrating on who would get one vote more or one vote less, and who would gain - germany or france, the netherlands or belgium, portugal or spain. the only question that was never asked was whether or not europe would gain. the results were heartbreaking. in future it will be necessary to assemble three different majorities for a decision to be taken - 75% of the votes, 50% of the member states, and 62% of the populations. that is inexplicably byzantine for the citizens. heartbreaking results for the commission which was regarded, not as the guardian of the general interest, but as yet another intergovernmental body, wrenched away from the collegiate rule and symbolically excluded from the 'confessionals' . heartbreaking results for parliament: the refusal to see majority decisions seriously extended; the exclusion of parliament from codecision and - i say this in passing - the shocking fact that the composition was fixed without parliament even being consulted on that composition. finally and above all, heartbreaking results for the citizens, who find themselves excluded once and for all from these carpet salesmen' s debates about a europe where they are condemned never to understand anything. the european dream must be relaunched and the european project rebuilt. that will be the whole purpose of the third stage, the new stage we are entering. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, one image strikes us as we leave nice behind. there are basically two europes: one that works and one that asks itself questions. the one that works is the one that has after all, it seems to me, spent the six months getting the work done in six essential areas, under the leadership of the french presidency. let us just note for the record the social agenda and the european company; strengthening euroland and the tax package; the conference on commitment capability and the progress of defence europe; safety, whether in food or at sea; young people' s mobility and the recognition of the specific features of sport or the media plus programme; and the important statement on services of general interest. yes, practical europe continues to make progress, but what struck our fellow citizens at nice was that the europe asking itself where it is going and what it wants sometimes looks all at sea. there is one piece of good news, certainly. europe is now ready, thirteen years after the fall of the berlin wall, to welcome the central and eastern european countries knocking at our door. but as we said in this parliament, a narrow agenda means the issues on the table have to be dealt with. it does not offer a way out. at maastricht, we had the euro to dream about. at amsterdam, we had the area of freedom, security and justice, and the employment chapter. but at nice, there was nothing but the crude sharing out of power and then we saw national egoism on parade. there will be no nice leftovers, but was there a european spirit at nice? we are not sure there was. we all know there is a collective responsibility for this sad balance sheet, be it that of the 'small countries' or the 'big countries' , be it that of the founding countries or those joining later. nice will make enlargement possible, but without a plan, without a soul, without ambition, without vision. we can say what we like about the state of mind of our fellow citizens, but the responsibility is ours and they expect us to deliver this european project, this european dream. i have a few comments to make, and the first is on the charter. the heads of state and government sometimes give the impression that they almost took themselves by surprise at the cologne european council when they initiated a process whose results, in the end, would frighten them. how can we accept the fact that this charter, which carries our dreams, hopes and ambitions, should in the end be proclaimed on the sly and that, at the end of the day, the only thing proposed for 2004 is an examination of the status of the charter? there is no longer even any mention of its possible incorporation and, in the final analysis, the only institution to emerge from this exercise strengthened is the court of justice, which will be able to incorporate this charter into community legislation, even before the heads of state and government. then there is the issue of chief concern to this parliament, qualified majority voting. how could we not express our disappointment? the scope of qualified majority is narrower than expected. on the essential issues of tax and social affairs, there is no progress. things are more difficult because instead of just one criterion, there are three criteria to be fulfilled. things are more complicated because there are these appeal clauses in the new treaty, making the process even more incomprehensible to our fellow citizens. from parliament' s viewpoint, alongside qualified majority there is still the issue of codecision. for us, that is essential. it is sometimes caricatured as not being democratic, as taking too long, but democracy takes time, and time is necessary for debates. we call for that debate to be launched. sometimes, it has seemed as if, at the end of the day, in the conference, at nice, the european parliament was serving as an adjustment variable. but yes, mr bayrou, let us admit that we also bear the responsibility for that. we were not capable of expressing how we wanted parliament organised. on method, i think the nice perspectives, from that point of view, are very interesting. the heads of state and government have just recognised at nice what we were saying after amsterdam: the intergovernmental conference method is no longer successful for europe. so we welcome the prospect of a new method and we trust that, with the hope offered by the possibility of enhanced cooperation, europe will continue to advance and will be capable of drafting a constitution for tomorrow which restores our fellow citizens' confidence in this tremendous project that is the european adventure. mr president, despite what the president of the republic says about the problems faced, in view of the spectacle at nice, one must question whether the union is really and truly prepared for enlargement. the candidates cannot have been pleased at the sight of the scramble for national power and status among the prime ministers. sadly the common cause of europe was a marginal factor. for the decisions on council voting and seats in parliament a more suitable venue would have been the casino at cannes rather than the acropolis at nice, with mr chirac playing the role of chief croupier. particularly regrettable was the failure to make reference to the charter - a failure that will bring legal uncertainty and political frustration. however, my greatest fear is that britain, france and germany will now be able to subvert the delicate balance developed between states of various sizes and between the institutions over several decades. we will resist this forcefully. mr president, commissioner, mr president-in-office of the council, as far as we are concerned, the outcome of the nice summit has not prepared the eu sufficiently for enlargement. in the twelve candidate countries, people prefer to talk in terms of the unification of europe. that is quite revealing. we, i.e. many european citizens, grew up after the second world war hoping that a united europe would be able to play a part in the world some day for the sake of the freedom and welfare of humanity, of its own citizens and peoples. yet this seems to be an even more distant dream than we had hoped now that nice is over. after all, nice was primarily an attempt on the part of the member states to reach a settlement behind closed doors on the amsterdam leftovers, with the safeguarding of national interests uppermost in their minds. but what they did not do was endeavour to equip the eu to pursue enlargement. quite a number of speakers have made the same point this morning and i wholeheartedly agree with them. as representative of the parties united in the european free alliance, i would like to alert the commission, but particularly the council, to the dangers, should the eu wish to be no more than an intergovernmental association. the states preparing for accession will copy the example of our own member states' egoism. the regions and peoples that do not have their own state will also weigh the situation up. they will work out what they stand to gain in scotland, catalonia and flanders if, instead of playing the federal game, they opt to become a member state themselves, with a guaranteed commissioner, guaranteed clout in the council, and a larger number of seats in the european parliament than they can hope for at present. must we give up the dream of a united europe? i think not. we are obliged to put our hopes in the post nice process. we want this to be a real process in which the balance between the institutions of the union and those of the member states and the constitutive regions must be defined with respect for the subsidiarity principle. mr president, there is a quotation from george orwell' s book, animal farm which, in a way, describes what happened in nice. it reads, 'everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.' translated into what happened in nice, this could read, 'all eu countries are equal, but it is the large countries which decide' . what happened in nice was not only that the european union' s large member states set the agenda, but that they also brought about treaty changes which guarantee them the same power in an enlarged eu. on the basis of the treaty of nice, an enlarged eu will become a union which is more centralised and in which the small countries pay the whole price of enlargement. for the swedish negotiators, it would appear to have been more important to please the large member states than to fight for our own influence. sweden is therefore to be given fewer votes than comparable member states. it is hard to see what there is in the nice decisions which really makes enlargement of the eu any the easier. the decision-making process in the council is to become more complicated, at the same time as it is to become more difficult to take decisions. nice means more supranationalism and centralism, which are precisely what the eu did not need. the eu' s real problems are the lack of democracy and grassroots support, but those questions were not dealt with at all at the nice summit. i can also inform this assembly that the results of a swedish opinion poll were published today, showing that only 38 per cent of the population want to remain in the european union. mr president, mr president of the council, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, we should honour the french presidency, we should honour president chirac. he was at the coalface, he fought and conquered for his vision of europe - because he did have a vision. congratulations too, to president aznar, who won the 'bingo' at the nice council. congratulations to the british, who do not have to thump the table any more because they have found out how to stay close to the leader as we were taught to do by the great dutch cycling champion, zoetemelk: they cashed in too. it is our parliament and our commission, mr prodi, that lacks vision. it was our parliament and our commission that failed to realise there was a plan to assassinate the commission: the assassination of the commission will take place in a few years' time. a commission with a commissioner for each member state sanctions the transfer of all the commission' s important issues to the council. that means the death of the commission, and our parliament would rather gnaw on the bones thrown to it at the cologne council than confront this fundamental problem: without a supranational commission, the europe we want will not come into being. there will be a europe of nations, there will be no federal europe. this is our last chance. if we want to get back on the federal track, there is only one solution, mr prodi. it is the election of the commission president by universal suffrage and powerful legitimacy for the commission, and unless there is a real alliance on specific aims like those, between the commission, parliament and member states like belgium - which fought hard during this council, represented by mr verhofstadt - then there will no longer be a federal europe, there will be the europe of nations which we have never wanted. mr president, the fairly unanimous message from the president-in-office of the council, the commission and heads of government is basically that the treaty of nice secures the framework for the unification of europe. some are happier than others about this, but the main message is clear: europe can now be unified in an enlarged democratic eu which is also close to the people, thanks to the treaty of nice. these messages contain such huge and monstrous distortions of the truth that we have to go back to history' s most famous propagandists in order to find exact comparisons. for the fact is that what has been decided in nice is enhanced cooperation, superpower domination, a charter of fundamental rights, military development and the monitoring of democracy. what has been decided is unnecessary to enlargement, and what is necessary to enlargement has not been decided. the treaty of nice contains a series of quite decisive steps towards an eu of lites, together with corresponding steps away from a europe of democracies and of the people. centralised power and superpower dominance are increasing drastically, as if we had not already had enough of these. is this a unification and democratisation of europe? no, it is an extension to the power of the lites and, in reality, the unfortunate agenda for eastern europe is, of course, subjection. it is we who decide about the applicant states. the eu does not negotiate with them. they are not involved in deciding what the treaty of nice will contain, and the eu dictates all the conditions of participation. moreover, none - and i repeat, none - of the crucial problems associated with the enlargement project and involving the integration of incompatible social and economic systems are recognised as problems. the eu and the eu' s policy are not the solution, but the problem. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i have little to say today. just under a year ago, you sent mr tsatsos and me to attend preparations for this intergovernmental conference. today i can tell you that our mission was a failure. our remit was to help make the european union more democratic and more capable of action so that it would be ready to cope with the enlargement which we so long for. it is not more capable of action - on the contrary. the decision-making mechanism in the council of ministers has become far more complicated and the hurdles have been raised. it will now be much easier to form a blocking minority in the council of ministers. in the decisive areas in which we require qualified majority voting if the european union is to be capable of action with 27 member states, we failed dismally. on several counts we even lost ground. we have to admit that we have not complied with the principle of amsterdam from the democratic viewpoint. where qualified majority voting is enshrined in legislation, we have qualified majority voting. there are four fundamental areas, including structural policy, article 133 and two other instances in which the european parliament has been excluded from policy-making. in other words, the democratic deficit is now even greater. plus, the number of seats in the european parliament has been laid down against our own wishes and without consulting us. i find this situation intolerable. individual interests have prevailed. the winners are those who asserted their national interests. and they have all gone home to celebrate. no-one claims to have done anything for europe; on the contrary, everyone is saying: i blocked something to protect my own national interests from the veto. this method has seen its heyday, this system of a europe of chancelleries is on its last legs. we need a transparent, democratic, citizens' europe if we are to have any chance of developing. our method must be a method which allows us to set up an intergovernmental conference through a convention at which parliamentarians, not chancelleries have their say if we are to take this continent forward. for the rest, when it comes to law-making, the future council of ministers must be an open, parliamentary organisation in which transparency and scrutiny have their place, because we cannot carry on as we are. the only consequence which i can draw from all this is that, when it comes to voting on the treaty of nice, my vote will be a no vote. mr president, in the coming weeks we shall have to carry out a rigorous, in-depth analysis of the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference and the fundamental questions which it has thrown up. i will not go back to the comments of the different speakers regarding the method nor the other subjects such as those covered by mr brok just now. of the fundamental questions, the first is that the nice conclusions do not guarantee on an institutional level the necessary continuity and the necessary development of the process of integration into the larger union which is about to come into being. therefore, even though we may not call them leftovers, the issues which were not adequately resolved in nice will inevitably arise again. i refer to the changeover in qualitatively essential areas to qualified majority voting and to the very procedures for taking majority decisions. time will show us which issues we need to return to, whether we like it or not. the second fundamental issue is political rather than institutional. the atmosphere of the nice council, the lack of openness, as president prodi said, the blinkered vision characterising the attitudes of the different governments - the narrow-minded defence of national interests or policies - explain, it is sad to say, the root of the problem: a serious loss of the sense of shared european interest, of a common european vision. well, the appropriate responses to both the institutional and political fundamental questions, which are our most negative legacy from the nice council, must be sought in dialogue, in the evaluation and development process which must be pursued under the title "the future of the union". we must reflect seriously on what has happened. we managed to avoid an open crisis which would have threatened enlargement by coming to a last minute agreement on the treaty, but we are left with a latent crisis which will have to be dealt with. building a unified europe requires far-sighted vision and coherence. in response to president chirac, we are not calling for haste; we are asking not to have to take one step forwards and then one backwards, not to call for promotion of the drafting and proclamation of the charter when we do not then dare to include it in the treaty, not to call for the new wording of the convention to be produced when we then do not even dare to suggest it as a potential post-nice procedure. we want the objective of constitutionalisation to be called by its name; we are asking for a response, with a clear, coherent vision of the future of europe, to the disappointments and fears which are spreading amongst the citizens over the current or future nature of the union. mr prodi, commissioner barnier, this is our task. we have every confidence that parliament and the commission will proceed together in this direction, as they have done throughout this difficult year 2000. mr president, the most important result from nice was that, in spite of everything, there was a treaty, so that a place can now be prepared for the applicant states. otherwise, the summit was neither especially historic nor successful. on behalf of the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party, i should like to discuss five points in the brief minute i have: 1. it is not acceptable for the large member states to employ blackmail tactics against the small countries. this is contrary to the whole idea of the eu. 2. it is tragic that no further progress was made on the issue of qualified majority voting. now, the eu is to become sluggish and powerless to act, and decision-making is to become more complicated. 3. closed and exclusive, the intergovernmental conference is an old-fashioned and undemocratic method. the people must be involved in future. 4. the forthcoming constitutional debate must lead to simplification, distribution of powers and increased democracy. the eu must acquire a common constitution. 5. a new intergovernmental conference must not be used as an alibi for postponing enlargement. our new colleagues must be allowed to participate in the discussions as new members on equal conditions. mr president, president chirac has played down the negative reactions of many of the members to the outcome of nice, describing them as unrealistic and not pragmatic. in reality, it is the president who is being unrealistic if he thinks that it will be possible to enlarge the union with such a treaty. in my opinion, it is not more realistic to fight for one's own national prestige than to fight for the efficient functioning of the union, and i would not say that huge numbers of european citizens came out to follow the naval battle fought by their leaders at nice. my feeling is that the french presidency's most serious error was to run the debate along the lines of a battle of powers between states - a mean, shameless fight over details - rather than as a relevant debate on the union's policies. terrified of jeopardising france's equal voting rights with germany, the presidency docilely allowed its proposals to extend qualified majority voting to 40 or so subjects to be knocked down to less than half this number. yet even the pro-europe- states did little to fight for its cause and, in the end, bowed before a disappointing compromise. as for the european parliament, only the commission defended its legitimacy and i therefore thank president prodi and commissioner barnier for this, but they were alone in their endeavours and this was reflected in the final compromise. we truly hope this will be the last intergovernmental conference, considering that the summit revealed a breakdown in community solidarity. the real winners in this conference were blair and aznar, the euro-sceptics. it is their europe, the europe of the market and the right to veto which has won the battle. our europe, the europe of democracy and a sustainable future, lost. there is one small ray of light although even that was mortgaged to the hilt by the french presidency, and that is what is known as the post-nice process. however, there are ambiguities which require urgent clarification. first of all, 2004 is too far away: we need to act sooner than that. we want a democratic process with the objective of a european constitution to be defined by june and launched at the end of the year: the charter took 8 months to draw up so a constitution can be produced in less than 4 years. this is our next battle. i hope that, this time, the governments will fight with us rather than on the opposing side. mr president, we had said that a failure would be preferable to a disappointing conclusion. in practice, we did not fail completely, but neither did we reach a conclusion. what came out of the summit were contradictions and deferrals. the charter of fundamental 0rights was proclaimed but has not been included in the treaties and it will therefore not become legally binding immediately. the need for a european constitution is greater than ever. the principle of european military defence was accepted but, for now, its function has not been clearly defined. that can only be guaranteed by making it autonomous from the united states and moving on from nato, which is now completely outdated. the need for a social agenda covering employment, health, education, the environment and rights was mentioned, but nothing concrete was specified, not even the barriers to be overcome or how to overcome them to guarantee justice and freedom. finally, enlargement to the east and to the south was planned and promised. that is all well and good, but the institutional rules to make it operative have not been decided upon with certainty. individual interests and privileges prevail. we are even further from achieving the europe we want after nice than we were before. the council must start to take notice of the european parliament, leaders must start to take notice of the national parliaments and the national parliaments must start to take notice of the views of their citizens. mr president, nice was, and should have been, a historic date, the kick-off for the new europe, the europe of the new century, the great europe, the europe of all the europeans. and what a fine project, eleven years after the fall of the berlin wall! but for that, we would have needed vision, ambition, endurance, generosity of spirit, audacity. alas, alas, alas! we have long known that the great europe could not be introduced through the institutions of the little europe. we know we should think about europe differently and we know we need new institutions. but, without a vision of the future, without knowing how to ask the right questions, we ended up with dithering, horse-trading and, finally, tinkering in nice. before the nice summit the french presidency was saying 'better no agreement than a bad agreement' , and this morning, unless i misunderstood, we were in essence told 'better a bad agreement than no agreement at all' . certainly, the nice agreement opens the way to membership for the candidate countries, but we are advancing down that road in the fog, foot on the brake, certain the european vehicle will not reach its destination in good shape. so let us forget about nice now, and think about post-nice -and you will forgive me if i pin my hopes on the plan for a grand convention advanced by belgium for its presidency, because the evidence is there, we must do something new, we must change the method, we must accelerate history: 2004 is too late, it is too far off, it is too dangerous. yes, a grand convention including the european institutions, the governments, the parliaments of the member states and the candidate countries which absolutely must be associated with this common house. that is my hope. mr president, the results of nice are disappointing, unsatisfactory and petty. the union's ability to act on decisive matters has not been improved. the outcome of the compromises brokered in nice is not more transparency, it is more cover-up. the democratic credibility of european policy has not been enhanced; on the contrary, the door has been opened to the insidious intergovernmentalisation of european policy and, by extension, to even greater bureaucratisation. we shall, of course, have the post-nice process - that, at least, is a faint light at the end of the tunnel and we must not underestimate it. enlargement has given you, has given us all the same task as monnet and schuman had fifty years ago: the task of developing a method, structure and vision for the future of europe. at that time, this applied to half of europe; now we must develop it for all of europe. enlargement would be a chance to do so, a chance, mr president-in-office, which you missed in nice. that is my main criticism of you. it may well be that nice prepares the eu for enlargement numerically. but the historic failing of nice is that your resolutions are not based on any identifiable vision for a union of 27 member states. it is this spirit, the spirit of monnet, schuman and others, which was missing in nice and which was sorely needed. instead, the spirit of nice clearly amounted to wondering how to block, how to intergovernmentalise, how to be feted at home as the defender of national interests, rather than how to take the european union forward. if monnet, schuman, adenauer, de gasperi et al had acted thus, we would never have had european communities and, as a result, we would still not have european union. president chirac referred to heads of government who point out that public opinion still does not understand or accept more or a different sort of progress. that may well be. but that is because, that is mainly because none of the heads of government has the courage to lead and educate public opinion pro-actively, rather than running along behind it. what is heart-breaking about europe is that so few of its many leaders are prepared to risk their political career by standing or falling by the unification of europe. mr president, i am one of those who had for some time been placing their hopes in the miracle of nice: an intergovernmental conference, a summit, a treaty which would both reorganise the european institutions and further the process of enlargement. but the miracle did not happen! the clearest gauges of its limited success are the announcement of another intergovernmental conference in 2004 and the quality and import of the subjects at the centre of the post-nice debate, which range from the distribution of competences within the union to the value of the charter of fundamental rights. the miracle failed to materialise in the substance of the decisions on institutional reform. this failure was due essentially to the defensive tactics of the governments and their powers of veto, not to mention the limited involvement of the european parliament. this is a sign of short-sightedness in that, today, parliament is the only union body which legitimises the will of the people. the miracle did not come to pass in terms of the organisation of the shared legacy of the charter of fundamental rights either. parliament and the commission have declared that they would abide by it. what is preventing the council from deciding to do the same? there is just one small satisfaction: enlargement. thanks to nice, the institutional barrier can no longer be invoked. the winners at nice, the only winners, were the candidate countries, whose path towards the gates of the european union is being cleared. only those who have always believed in the strategic value of enlargement have a genuine right to rejoice with them. mr president, the main aspects of european integration remained unresolved in nice and will remain so for many years. however, the national governments' claim to be the constitutional legislator of europe has finally been laid to rest, as has the hope that the heads of state and government think of themselves as the trustees of the idea of european unification. no, what they have done is to turn europe into a bazaar at which nationalistic, national interests are bartered. amsterdam and nice have given us a europe of imperial rulers, a europe of national administrations, not a europe of political unification. what were they supposed to be doing? according to article 1 of the treaty on european union, they were supposed to be creating an ever closer political union. but no, the heads of state and government blocked the idea of european unification. back home from nice, they are priding themselves not on what they have given europe, but on what they have withheld from europe. they are holding the flags of national veto, hindrance and delay high. this is not the europe which we have been talking about for decades. it is a europe of administrations. now it is the turn of the parliaments, now the time has come to show that the purpose of parliaments is to tame the power of governments and . (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, it was the task of the nice summit to develop a union capable of absorbing twelve new member states. a european union which can function efficiently, transparently and democratically. after all, the countries from central and eastern europe want a robust union, a union capable of taking decisions. it is to be welcomed that the timetable adopted in nice, with regard to the accession of the first countries from central and eastern europe, is in line with parliament' s timetable. but what is striking is that the council spent four days in seclusion in nice giving more attention to its own concerns. there was no answer to the question as to how the institutions of the european union could function more effectively in an enlarged union. the council really looked after number one; to be sure, it improved things for the commission to a certain extent and put a little sweetener parliament' s way, as befits a father. but it all compares most unfavourably with the attention the council gave itself. four main problems loom large. firstly, institutional imbalance: a great deal for the council and not much for the commission and parliament. secondly, national interests have triumphed. only the belgian head of government, mr verhofstadt, was a notable exception. thirdly, a democratic deficit. old deficits have not been made good and now new ones have come along. fourthly, and finally, the decision-making mechanisms cannot be explained back home. it all gets very complicated. when mr prodi says there are no more leftovers from nice, i would make so bold as to doubt his word. we must introduce qualified majority decision-making for the essential topics, or else the situation will become untenable. nice will go down in history as the summit of lost opportunity, the summit of lack of leadership in europe, the summit of opposition and the summit in whose wake the people felt even more isolated from the european union. mr president, the purpose of the intergovernmental conference was to prepare the european union so that it would be able to operate after enlargement. i think the european parliament is right to base its evaluation on two criteria, namely efficiency and democratisation. as the european parliament's representatives, mr brok and i fought for both, but without the required results. we do, of course, admit that some progress was made on both counts. as far as efficiency is concerned, qualified majority voting was introduced in several instances, parliament was granted the right to litigate in matters of a constitutional nature and the system of reinforced cooperation was made more practicable. similarly, a number of positive moves were made as regards the european commission. as far as democratisation is concerned, the points worth noting are that codecision has been extended on several counts and the european legislator has been authorised to define the status of european political parties and crucial preventive measures to defend democracy and freedom in the member states. unfortunately, however, for the european parliament, the shortcomings in the treaty have been exacerbated. unanimity has been abolished for a whole series of legislative issues, but without giving parliament codecision powers. the charter of fundamental rights has not received so much as a mention in the treaty. the european parliament has too little say in the reinforced cooperation procedure. fundamental areas still require unanimity. the decision-making system in the council may well incorporate the principle of a double majority, but it has become somewhat complicated and has upset the balance between large and small member states. finally, the european parliament will face a huge dilemma when it comes to make its final appraisal of the treaty at the beginning of next year due to the clause on post-nice developments. this clause adopts the european parliament's opinion that further development of the european union will be impossible using the intergovernmental method applied in the past. this method has had it. the clause on post-nice developments, for all its exaggerated and wholly inaccurate eulogy of the treaty, does give some light at the end of the tunnel, to quote my friend mr hnsch. given the procedure described, new proposals for the europe of tomorrow need to be drafted by political and social bodies - mainly the national parliaments and the european parliament. without this clause on post-nice developments, the european parliament would, i think, have been unable to accept the treaty. with this clause, it is simply a poor treaty. however, careful thought and consideration are needed before the european parliament decides to reject it. mr president, first i would like to join in with the praises you have heaped upon mr brok and mr tsatsos. i think all of us, from our own positions, worked as well as possible with commissioner barnier to contribute to this treaty of nice. it is true - i shall paraphrase mr bayrou - that i have been sitting here since this morning; first next to the president of the republic, then by myself, and the criticism has struck me as moderate and friendly, but criticism all the same. failure, disarray, skimped treaty, i do not want to summarise everything that has been said. anyway, i notice that they reflect a contradiction we all live with. europe is our common heritage, but all of us here belong to different nations and different parties, and the criticism of the treaty of nice - criticism of the european union in general - is unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, utterly contradictory. some people want more of this, some people want more of that: some people want more europe, some people want more social europe, some people want more liberal europe, some people want less europe full stop, and we have had some very fine samples of all that this morning. some people want more federalism, some people want less and that is where we have to understand that no one can be completely satisfied. i think that deep down it is in the nature of a european compromise not to be satisfying. i am not saying the treaty of nice is exactly what we wanted but, to summarise what i think, it is the best possible treaty given the state of our institutions, the state of our vision of europe and indeed the state of our ideas, and the state of europe itself. like the president of the republic this morning, i too try to imagine what would happen if we had arrived here without a treaty of nice. the consequences of that for europe would have been totally incalculable. i think it would have complicated enlargement and i do see satisfaction amongst the candidate countries. i think confidence in europe would have been shaken in economic terms, and operationally we would have lost several years of ground. the french presidency takes some satisfaction in having carried out its task, which consisted quite simply of achieving closure three and a half years after amsterdam and five years after we began to think about institutional reform. i would just like to take up some of the criticisms, or lessons, i have heard here and there. first on the reweighting grid which has shocked franois bayrou, for instance, and bothered pervenche bers. we should not forget that this is actually the first time since 1957 that the grid has been genuinely reformed and revised. we failed in amsterdam, despite excellent work by the dutch presidency. here we succeeded, although it is an extremely sensitive and complex issue. no, we were not playing roulette. i do not think the president of the republic has a croupier' s temperament. we could not make everyone happy, so we tried not to make everyone unhappy. it was a bit like squaring the circle. we had a system which was actually simple, but from our point of view - which was not necessarily the commission' s, and it will perhaps set that out for you - it produced excessive distortions, that is, the principle of the double majority. we have tried to work on a principle of simple reweighting in this squaring of the circle, and i think that on the whole the result is balanced. i would say to mrs sjstedt that i sincerely believe the agreement has not been made on the backs of the 'small countries' . there is real redistribution in their favour, plus guarantees. for example, in the early days of the european union, as you know, two so-called 'big' countries could achieve a blocking minority, and today it takes three. in a europe with 27 countries, at least one additional member state will be needed, so no longer three, but four countries will have to join forces for a blocking minority. anyway, before nice we had the opposite situation where the 'big countries' were under-represented and redistribution was needed for them. in addition during the debate we added two so-called 'safety nets' . a safety net of member states: any qualified majority must include a majority of the member states. there was a strong demand for that from those calling themselves 'small countries' . then, the 21 least populated countries, representing 30% of the population, will have 50.7% of the votes in the council. there is also a demographic safety net. i honestly believe we have a balanced system - though i will not claim that it is simple and straightforward. lots of speakers have mentioned the post-nice process. apparently that is an essential subject for members of the european parliament, which is not surprising. we often talked about it here, in october and november. the presidency has never denied the importance of reflection - as you know - but do recognise that we had to concentrate on the difficult issues, and before we could have post-nice, we had to have nice. but i do not think we have ever smothered post-nice, we have been keen to think about it. other methods will be needed. several people have mentioned it here and besides, you will have noticed that the conclusions on the post-nice process include wide consultation of all sorts of players in society, including parliament, and concluding with what we hope will be a short igc. but, at the same time - and i say this amicably to elmar brok - i do not think the council can meet under the control of the european parliament. yes, it can be involved, but i am not sure that more control or presence would facilitate matters. we operate under constitutional systems and the powers must not get confused. it is difficult. i belong to a country that invented separation of powers and i think what we sometimes suffer from is insufficient separation of them. but it is a good system which has stood the test of time. we need to think in depth about the future - and again i note the same contradictions in passing: those who want a post-nice review are not necessarily in agreement about its objective. take, for example, the debate on the constitution, where some want a federal constitution and others want a constitution based on subsidiarity. before agreement is reached, the european union must continue to operate. it is a thankless task. it is a painful, difficult task, but it needs to be done. this reform has been in construction for five years. the french presidency has carried it out without self-satisfaction, but with satisfaction in the work done. later we will see, together, all together, how to proceed. the milestones are in place, enlargement is possible, the european parliament will have its place in the debate and in going deeper into the routes and ideas. i also want to say to giorgio napolitano - who has done a lot of work on this issue - that in the end the atmosphere at nice, the spirit of the heads of state and government, and the spirit of the commission was not defensive of national interests, but seeking a common direction within those national interests. one can understand that heads of state and government are preoccupied with the sensitivities of their own public opinions and parliaments. but i say this sincerely to the european parliament - we cannot build europe on the backs of the citizens or behind their backs. this will be one of my last speeches to you and i would like, in conclusion, to say first what a pleasure it has been to speak here on so many occasions, with the commission - the president of the commission - but also to reflect on the role of the european parliament itself. this will be the only time and i hope you will not mind. when you criticise the nice european council and the future treaty of nice - the criticism, though varied, is unanimous - be aware that you are also addressing all your governments and all the peoples of europe they legitimately represent, who have also elected you. i think you should be aware of that because the three institutions, the commission, the european parliament and the council, all represent them, each in their own way: let none consider themselves the sole guardian of the higher european interest, while the others are just traders and shopkeepers. i believe deeply in the community method, and when we say community method we mean balance between three institutions which need to coexist and get on well together. that is what i will take away from this debate, this presidency and this intergovernmental conference. the work has been difficult. i am sure it will be useful for the future of europe. this is ongoing work, but it cannot continue unless we all work together to uphold the european ideal. thank you very much, minister. i am sure parliament will go on to consider the relationship between the institutions. mr president, mr prodi, mr barnier, i would like to speak on two points. my first point is that, contrary to what mr chirac and mr prodi have claimed, there are nice leftovers, not just for the fifteen but also, even more so, for the twenty-seven. in effect, the question is: are we ready for enlargement and what are our objectives? and not only is the issue of the commission a leftover, but the lack of extension of qualified majority voting and codecision strengthens competition between the member states, between the fifteen and a fortiori between the twenty-seven, and undermines the future of the european social model. as regards post-nice, the following question has to be dealt with: do we want to continue at the same pace as fifteen, and a fortiori as twenty-seven? i do not think that will be possible. we must lift the consensus rule, including in a future convention. the european public interest, of which none of us is sole guardian - mr moscovici is right about that - cannot be based on the addition of national interests which are growing and becoming neutralised and in that regard prime minister verhofstadt had a salutary message for us all. mr president, there is an expression in my language 'to take french leave,' which is what the president-in-office has done, leaving without saying goodbye. therefore, my first words should be to thank mr prodi, who has stayed. the commission is showing that it is interested in the debate in this parliament. as far as the treaty of nice is concerned, we can say very little, because we do not yet have the conclusions of the european council, and therefore, until we see them, we cannot add much. i think there are two matters in which the european parliament plays an important role. the first is the charter of fundamental rights. the charter has been proclaimed and that is a good thing. but it has neither been incorporated into the treaties, nor has a reference to the charter been put in paragraph 2 of article 6 of the treaty on european union. and, above all, i have the feeling that the proclamation was not a solemn one. it was a proclamation on the quiet. i would therefore like to thank our president, mrs fontaine, and president prodi for what they have said: for the european parliament and the commission, the charter is law from now onwards, and it is going to have an effect from now onwards. i think that this is positive. the other point from nice on which parliament will judge nice is the extension of qualified majority voting and parliament' s codecision. on this subject - from what i have been able to hear here this morning - the news is vague and does not seem to be very promising. we will have to wait before we can establish what parliament' s opinion is. i remember that when dimitris tsatsos and i drew up the report on the treaty of amsterdam, we talked about ortega y gasset, who said, quoting old cervantes, that often you have to choose between staying at an inn or continuing with the journey. nice is the road to two important things, one of which is enlargement. enlargement is going to take place - now we know it. this is also the case for the euro. i think that a collapse at nice would have been a punch below the belt for the euro. therefore, perhaps in this parliament we are in a paradoxical situation that is completely different to amsterdam. perhaps, for this parliament the european council of nice has not been positive, as it was in amsterdam. but perhaps, for the european union, the european council of nice is opening up the way for hope and for the future. we will see, mr president, when we read the conclusions. until then, the group of the european people' s party (christian democrats) and european democrats reserves judgement on what its position will be. mr president, after the single european act, after maastricht, after the treaty of amsterdam, this parliament had to judge the results. in all those cases we reached the conclusion that those treaties were not entirely satisfactory, did not respond to all of our aspirations, but nonetheless represented a step forward and were at least better than the status quo. we recommended that they be ratified. this time we have a treaty which, at least on one point, represents a step backwards and is arguably worse than the status quo: that is, the new system for qualified majority voting in the council, which makes reaching a decision even more difficult than it is at present. it introduces a triple threshold: number of states, population, and the percentage of the votes set at a higher level than is the case at the moment. at the moment it is 71% of the votes. that is already very high. it was set high to make sure that under any permutation such a qualified majority represented a majority of the population. now that we have a population criterion in there anyway, it should have been possible to lower the threshold in terms of the number of votes. instead it seems that it has been raised, although i speak while waiting to see the final text: apparently there was an adjustment in the last hour of the igc on that. i will evaluate that outcome when i see the text. nonetheless that is a very worrying situation. for the rest the treaty is a mixture of unsatisfactory and positive things - unsatisfactory but nonetheless better than the status quo, i suppose, at least as regards the extension of qualified majority voting, the extension of the codecision procedure for the european parliament, and the provisions for enhanced cooperation. that is all better than we have now, even if not all of our requests and desires have been met. finally, there are a few positive things: the new version of article 7 of the treaty; the article on political parties and their statute; the right of this parliament to take the other institutions to the court of justice - that is also an important factor of political control; the new formula for the european commission, putting the so-called "lex prodi" into the treaty, strengthening the president and the new composition of the commission - a reasonable compromise which i accept and will work over time; and, as my colleague, mr tsatsos pointed out, the way forward to the future. this is not the end of the story. new reforms will come and we must take advantage of that. to sum up, we have a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. we will now evaluate this in detail. i believe we will recommend ratification and moving forward to a new reform, but we must look at the small print to decide whether that is the right way forward. mr president, i apologise because my remarks are slightly ill-prepared. i have come straight from a meeting and, because there are no televisions in the meeting rooms in this building, it is very difficult to keep in touch with what is happening in the chamber, a deficiency which i hope will be corrected in due course. many of us regard the treaty of nice as unacceptable but for many different reasons. the great difficulty concerning the treaty of nice - as many people have already commented - is that the lack of any text at this time makes it impossible to make a considered judgment. we do not know whether the carpentry shop in nice has produced a pandora's box for commission activism or a coffin for democracy, but - whatever has emerged - it is being french-polished and we hope the final result helps the european union. i believe that two failures are the lack of democracy, because the opportunity to open the council up to public scrutiny has been ignored although many of us feel that this was the time to do it, and the illogicality of the re-weighting of votes, with one approach for the council and another for the european parliament. many people looking at the treaty of nice will wonder why it was done in that way. i personally believe that the re-weighting of votes must take account of population, as is done in the european parliament and should have been done in the council also. a further reason for opposing the treaty of nice is the development of greater bureaucracy in the european union. who can genuinely argue that the thirty areas now under qmv are essential to the enlargement process? i think most of the enlargement countries - while accepting the treaty as it stands because it exists and opens the door to their accession in due course, sooner rather than later i hope - will look at those points and, like most of us, realise that they have no relevance to the day-to-day affairs of their lives. no reform of the common agricultural policy, no reform of the development policies which are vastly wasteful. then there is the incorporation as a mandatory mechanism of the charter of fundamental rights: in itself as in the united states today, a recipe for confusion between the courts in the european union. there is the fact that under enhanced cooperation the european parliament has no role, although certain leaders of national parties - including the leader of the labour party in his warsaw speech - promised no reform of the structural funds in real terms until 2013. this is not a recipe for enlargement, it is a recipe for more bureaucracy, less democracy. mr president, we have already made a thorough assessment of what happened in nice, but we should remember that nice began with a very restricted agenda. the council asked this parliament not to broaden the agenda because the intention was to concentrate exclusively on the amsterdam leftovers. the council said it wanted to do this in order to make the european union's institutions operationally efficient so that it could work better with 27 member states than it does today with 15. what was the result of this exercise and this work? the result was, in fact, that the most fundamental and important factor for introducing operational efficiency, decisiveness, flexibility and workability into institution operations was not dealt with at all. what the council concentrated on most were questions of power; in other words in nice there were too many calculators and not enough policies. the images coming out of nice showed a europe in which every country was trying to look after itself, suggesting that the europe of the future will be a battle between the large and small countries. i wonder whether these might not be arguments that better serve the interests of the euro-sceptics and europe' s enemies. i wonder whether this image we have been given of nice might not be an appeal to the conscience of convinced europeans, those who do not just want a single market, those who do not just want a single currency, in the face of what i regard as this "non-time" for europe. in my view, nice was the second part of amsterdam and we are now in a phase, an interval, between amsterdam and an igc to be held in 2004 but with an unknown end-date. right now it is the duty of convinced pro-europeans to counter the image that came out of nice and say that solidarity for us has a meaning and that it is possible to build a europe in which large and small countries can coexist peacefully; in other words, there are no expendable countries in this european project and national egos are nonsense in this europe. so i should now like to appeal to the house and the commission: somebody has to put the case for this european project. the case for the european project is that it is not the sum of national interests but a joint project, as president romano prodi has said, and the institutions must now look to the future and join hands so that enlargement can take place, so that the citizens can look on europe as we would like them to and so that politics can go back to building the european project rather than just upholding power, particularly the power of the larger countries. mr president, it has been said, and i think rightly so, that europe is born out of necessity and that only when necessity knocks at the door does europe decide to take a step forward. and necessity gave an urgent knock at the door of europe in nice, in the form of sclerosis as a result of the prospect of an enlarged europe. there can be many evaluations of what happened in nice, and we have had ample proof of that this morning and this afternoon in the continuation of the debate. but the european council in nice, like many other summits in the history of the european union, represents a triumph for reality, a triumph of pragmatism over utopianism. although we would all have liked to increase our powers in codecision - and despite the disputes between large countries, between large and small countries and between small and medium-sized countries - it is obvious that the following, although not spectacular, are all steps in the right direction, as president prodi said this morning: a commission whose president has his powers increased; a decision-making process in which more decisions - not all those that we would have wished - are taken by qualified majority; a clarification of the role of enhanced cooperation; and also - why not come out with it? - a reweighting, imperfect though it may be, of the votes in the council of ministers. but nice, mr president, is not the end of the road, but the starting point for a new phase with many challenges. we have to successfully complete accession, consolidate the internal market, deliver the single currency, develop a real common foreign and security policy and open up a new debate on the future of europe. these are challenges that cannot be overcome, mr president of the commission, with our backs to the people. and in order to do this we will need more generosity, more realism, a greater involvement of the institutions that defend the community interests, and in this type of conference, everyone will need to seek, as jean monnet said, and i will finish with this, their interest in the common interest. mr president, mr president of the commission, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are winners and losers, but europe cannot claim to be one of the winners and democracy and transparency certainly cannot. that is, in fact, the gist of what president prodi said today in a commendably clear and unequivocal manner. let us take one thing at a time: the charter was not included in the treaty, not so much as a mention. progress was made on security and defence policy, it is true, but it has no parliamentary dimension. as far as qualified majority voting is concerned, it has only been extended slightly and the procedure is now even more complicated and less transparent than before. we do, of course, have reinforced cooperation, but how it will work remains to be seen. the ratio between large and small was, in the end, regulated in a perfectly reasonable manner, following a number of totally obtuse and unacceptable suggestions, and the commission has been strengthened, even if the link with the number of members is not necessarily an overly reasonable or clever decision. mr moscovici is without doubt quite right to say that talking about it among ourselves is not enough; we must tell the people about it. it is true that the people are probably more critical of integration more often than we here in the chamber. and with a better result, we would probably have had more trouble persuading the people, but then again we would have had more persuasive powers had we been able to bring a better result home from nice. we would have been able to convey a better, stronger european result to the people with a better and clearer conscience. i should therefore like to come back to something which has been touched on a few times today already. yes, we need to analyse the result. but i think that we should not do so until we have a clear and unequivocal promise from the council as to how the process will operate from now on, i.e. with the close involvement of the european parliament. what was found and said in nice is too vague for me: yes to parliament's involvement. what involvement? i think it is a disgrace if we have to fight yet again for perhaps two representatives to attend as many meetings as possible. it is totally unacceptable. this parliament must play a leading role in this process, just as it did at the convention. we want to prove to the heads of government that we know best. if we compare the convention with what happened at the intergovernmental conference, admittedly with less serious problems than at the intergovernmental conference and with fewer national interests than at the intergovernmental conference, then the convention and the modus operandi and methods of the convention clearly come out on top. i therefore take the view that we should only apply ourselves in detail to what has come out of nice once it is clear that the european parliament will have an important and decisive role in the future process. we want to prove to the heads of government that we know best. mr president, mr president of the commission, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, all my colleagues have stressed the expectations that surrounded the nice summit, which was intended to allow the european union to continue operating effectively, democratically and transparently after the historic enlargement we are awaiting. certainly, the nice summit has made it possible to achieve significant progress on all the issues that directly affect the lives of our citizens, whether it be the preservation of health, the protection of the environment, social policy or indeed the adoption of a european company statute. another positive point is that the charter of fundamental rights has been officially proclaimed, even if it is not intended to be binding at this stage. finally, the decisions taken in the area of the common foreign and security policy represent undeniable progress. this summit would have been a triumph if the crucial revision of the treaties had been crowned with as much success as the areas i have just mentioned. in fact, while we seem to have succeeded in avoiding total paralysis of the future enlarged european union, it has not been possible to convert the ambitions of the french presidency into a new draft of the treaty. be it the excessively limited number of areas transferred from unanimity to majority voting, or subject to codecision, be it the upward revision of the number of members of the european parliament in the europe of tomorrow, or yet again, be it the uncertainty over the number of commissioners after the enlargements, the treaty does not come up to scratch, far from it. beyond the technical aspects of that reform, what concerns us most of all is the growing difficulty the member states of the european union have in making joint decisions, in accordance with the common interests of their citizens. let me conclude, as rapporteur for the outermost regions of the union, by expressing deep regret at the rather disappointing conclusions of the nice summit, which do no more than acknowledge the commission' s work programme. the outermost regions deserve better and parliament will continue to work flat out - with commissioner barnier' s help, i am sure - to give them all the space they are entitled to within the union. mr president, nice was no success. notwithstanding all the self-congratulation by the french government this morning, the igc simply did not finish on a good note. admittedly, reinforced cooperation and the european defence force got off the ground, the english having imposed quite a few restrictions on the latter. the most essential issue, i.e. the switch from vetos to majority decisions, was not applied to the very areas where it was most needed. taxation, social security, justice, asylum issues, agriculture, structural funds; the very areas that ought to have been provided for before enlargement, were left out. the summit simply failed on that score. national interests took precedence over the interests of europe as a whole. and what makes it more serious still is that in a number of cases where majority decision making was introduced, no provision was made for parliament to have authority as colegislator. so the democratic deficit has grown a little larger. what possessed the summit to have so little feeling for democracy? then there is the position taken up by the netherlands. during the summit it seemed as if the netherlands was only out to win a kind of football match against belgium. the result of this outpouring of energy was 12-13 instead of 10-10 in terms of points in the vote weighting. what is that against 300 votes? anyway, why was france so dead against counting in population density? surely it is a very common democratic principle? so the netherlands got one more vote than belgium in the council. but if we look at the number of seats in the european parliament then the netherlands drops from 31 to 25 and belgium from 24 to 22. so the netherlands paid a price for gaining a toehold in the council. at the end of the day, it is clear that the traditional igc format no longer works. when the time comes to make preparations once again for a summit in 2004, it would be better to use the convention format. leave it to the 15 governmental representatives, 30 national and 15 meps to prepare for the igc. it worked well for the charter and it will also work better than a traditional igc. and it is more democratic to boot. mr president, as far as i am concerned, the nice summit simply failed to make the grade. mr president, according to a press report, the initial comment by the finnish prime minister, paavo lipponen, after nice was: "this agreement must be remade" . we must surely agree with him, although we know that this desire will only be able to be realised after many years have passed, if, as i believe will happen, national parliaments ratify the treaty of nice. hopefully, however, nice showed finland and other small countries that emphasising the intergovernmental european nature of the council' s role will mean a continuous cycle of defeats for small countries in decision making. no one at the meeting spoke for europe. when the commission then tried to do so, its president, as we saw, was literally thrown out of the door. i would like to say many thanks anyway for the gesture it is nonetheless sad for the future of europe that no european statesmen were in evidence. almost every country brought its own internal political problems to the meeting. when they got back home, the prime ministers then emphatically pointed out how they had achieved victory with regard to these internal problems. "we were able to keep matters under our own control" or "we were able to block european decisions" , they said in their own countries. the candidate countries were thus presented with a very bad example, which must have astonished the whole region, from tallinn to prague and budapest. it is obviously a positive matter that enlargement can now go ahead. that message must be clearly sent to the candidate countries. after enlargement, meetings like nice and the igcs as they are at present will be impossible; integration will either really make headway or simply fall apart. things cannot stay as they are now. it is to be hoped that europe will yield statesmen. the difference between politicians and statesmen is that politicians know well enough what people want today, while statesmen know what they will actually want twenty years from now. mr president, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, i am not one of those clever members who can already weigh up everything decided in nice in detail, because i have yet to see the texts. but if we have learned and must learn anything from nice, then it is that europe is far too valuable to leave it solely in the hands of the heads of state and government. the model of the intergovernmental conference has had its day. that is the first and most important lesson to be learned from last week's negotiations. on the positive side, we have managed to break through the power boundaries. this is an old demand which we bavarians have made time and again and for which we were ridiculed years ago; now it is the basis for council resolutions. i see this as a huge success. but when i look at the wrangling which took place in nice, it would perhaps have been more important to start discussing power boundaries straight away. that might have made it easier to find reasonable compromises here. in theory, the amsterdam leftovers have been dealt with. in practice, however, compromises have been found on the basis of the lowest common denominator. europe cannot be operated in the long term by working solely to the lowest common denominator. i only hope that parliament will learn the right lessons from all this. this parliament must become more self-confident, especially when dealing with the council of ministers, if we want to prevent bureaucracy and secret diplomacy from taking over europe permanently. mr president, it is not easy to criticise the french presidency during this debate as it is not present. i understand that president chirac, mr vedrine and mr moscovici have other important meetings to attend. however, i am sure that the president of the european commission, mr prodi, has important meetings to attend as has commissioner barnier and yet they have done us the courtesy to wait for the end of this debate. mr moscovici says we should not blame him, we should blame other governments at the council. it is deplorable that he has not found it possible to find a deputy to wait for the end of our deliberations. we are after all hoping that we shall be joined by applicant countries from central and eastern europe who have been used to the arrogance of government and people not being present, to people giving speeches and then disappearing. i deplore the fact that mr moscovici has found no deputy. has nice been a success? mr moscovici says that we must turn to our own national governments and criticise them. i am happy to do that. mr blair returned to great britain as a conquering hero because he had not surrendered this, had not surrendered that and had fought for britain's interests. well, of course, i support him in that but what has he actually achieved? he tells us that he has ensured that enlargement will take place. i do not know whether the commission will reply at the end of this debate but i wonder, in the absence of the council, whether the commission is equally confident that by 2004 this european parliament will contain czech, hungarian and polish members of the european parliament and members from the baltic states. mr moscovici says that of course you must temper your idealism with realism. i just ask him: did general de gaulle temper his idealism with realism, or winston churchill? "public opinion will not wear this." "we cannot get this through the house of commons." "oh, there is a referendum." is there? have we no leadership in the european union? where is the council? where are the governments? it is deplorable and the only hopeful sign is that the european commission has clearly recovered its sense of self-confidence. this european parliament will join with the european commission in insisting that our demands are met. mr president, the nice summit has shown that intergovernmental conferences have reached the end of their useful life. we are on the eve of eastward enlargement, a turning point which is throwing the strategy of doing things step by step into crisis. if a response is not found to the democratic deficit of the european institutions, the union will not be able to count on the support of the peoples. the list of problems tackled in nice is long but, as president prodi made quite clear, there was insufficient focus on the institutional reforms and the role of parliament. it may be that we went to nice with too many ambitions. parliament's ambition does not, however, mean that it lacks a sense of responsibility. if we gave in to the realists, we would sweep the charter of fundamental rights under the carpet and be content with a free trade area governed by the large corporations and national interests. something is wrong. the young federalists who called upon the heads of government to be more courageous, to have the courage of the fathers of the european community, have understood this. we need to set in motion a large-scale debate on the future of europe: this must be the post-nice process if we want to revitalise europeanism in a profoundly different environment. mr president, i will be very brief because the purpose of my speech is to thank you, to thank you not only for your kindness to us but also for what you have said. it is not courtesy which has prompted us to stay until the end of the debate, mr beazley: commissioner barnier and myself have stayed to hear your opinions, your convictions and your feelings, for it is my opinion that, if we are to build europe, parliament and the commission must do so together. we have been quite frank with each other in today's debate about those parts of the treaty of nice which give us cause for satisfaction and even more open about those with which we are not content. our reasons are different in some cases but we share the same feelings and concerns. we have made no bones about the need to continue with the same force and the same determination as before nice, to achieve our objectives along the road to enlargement, which will be our greatest historical moment and which it is the responsibility of parliament and the commission to bring about in the coming years. we have also been completely clear, ladies and gentlemen, about the need for parliament and the commission to work together to build the new europe, for this arduous task is our responsibility, but ours is also this great mission and this great potential. thank you very much, mr president of the commission. i have received six motions for resolutions from the members, tabled in accordance with paragraph 2 of rule 37 of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday at 10.00 a.m. 2001 budget (continuation) in accordance with the agenda, we will resume the debate on the 2001 budget. mr wurtz has the floor. mr president, at first reading, my group performed the symbolic political act of tabling a resolution rejecting the budget. we wanted to draw attention to the characteristics, unacceptable in our view, of the draft submitted to us at that time. we stood by the principle that there should be new appropriations for new policies. instead of the intended redeployments, detrimental to the traditional priorities, we called for the multi-annual revision of the financial perspective, especially for external actions, although a similar problem arises for expenditure on employment and environmental protection. we decided - and we make no bones about it - that we did not want the council putting us in a position tomorrow where we have to choose between two priorities that are equally legitimate in our eyes: the balkans and the mediterranean. we are now in precisely the situation we wanted to avoid. under the terms of the compromise concluded between parliament' s delegation and the council, euro-mediterranean cooperation suffers a cut of eur 200 million compared with the budget for 2000. a fine signal to send our close partners in the south. as for the balkans, they have given rise to an arduous and very precarious financial set-up. this includes a transfer, to the 2001 budget, of 2000 budget appropriations for aid to latin america, or appropriations for morocco under the draft fisheries agreement and not used this year. in addition, and above all, the problem of financing for the balkans will still be there in its entirety for the years ahead. heading 3, internal actions, also warrants a comment, since the 'employment initiative' , re-baptised the 'spirit of enterprise programme' has been amputated to the tune of eur 87 million, the trans-european networks by eur 23 million, and environmental protection by eur 42 million. in total, with about 1.09% of european gross domestic product, or even less, the 2001 budget will be one of the lowest of the last ten years, in relative terms, since it is well below the already very restrictive ceiling established under agenda 2000 in berlin in march 1999. that is why the confederal group of the european united left/nordic green left unfortunately cannot support mrs haug' s report. mr president, i would like to start by stressing the fact that this year's budget is due in particular to the work of all the members of the committee itself, in addition, of course, to the work of the committee chairman, mr wynn, who has steered us with wisdom through the various situations, and tense moments which we have experienced. i would also like to thank commissioner schreyer. however, this does not mean that we could have done more or better. i will focus on one aspect at a time. firstly, the positive side: the approximately eur 60 million of agricultural funds allocated for testing, which is a significant although, in my opinion, not conclusive step; the earmarking of around eur 450 million for small and medium-sized businesses, for we have at last realised that the european economy is not based on multinationals but on small and medium-sized enterprises, which will give new impetus to development and employment; then the fact that the increase in expenditure is only 3.5%, and the increase in appropriations for the balkans, which is of political importance. in this sense, our committee has made a fundamental achievement. i would now like to focus on two points which i feel require some attention and give cause for concern: firstly, the possibly excessive use of flexibility which, like all excessive things, is a negative factor, which means that we must not use it as a safety net; secondly, the fact that the creation of the new jobs is simply due to early retirements. this must not become a precedent in our institutions. finally, i urge the committee to adopt increasingly a budgetary strategy aimed particularly at strengthening and protecting our currency, the euro. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, and i would have said madam president of the council, but i do not see her among us. it is true that the chamber is pretty thin, but unfortunately the debate on the budget lasted longer than planned and we - i and the speakers who follow me - will not have the opportunity to raise the matter with the presidency. i, in my turn, would like to congratulate the rapporteurs, the chairman of the committee on budgets, the council and the presidency on the work that has been accomplished, and the conclusion of this agreement which will allow us to vote for the budget for the year 2001. but i endorse all the comments made, especially by mr colom i naval, on this extremely delicate issue of the financial perspectives. an agreement has just been concluded in nice to make enlargement possible. now, the previous enlargements gave rise to major financial allocations. the member states were not afraid of public opinion at home then and the enlargement to spain and portugal was accompanied by a major mobilisation of resources. when i see that our budget is down by comparison with the year 2000, both in real terms and in terms of percent of gnp, and that we are so very far adrift from the objectives set in edinburgh, i recognise that as the real problem. refusing to harness ourselves to them means undermining the credibility of the construction and enlargement of the union. mr president, in the course of the budgetary procedure for the 2001 budget, the debates in this parliament focussed on a limited number of issues. one of these issues was, and still is today, the increase in the financial perspective for foreign policy. the council is right to reject this revision because there is no point in putting a ceiling on the expenditure in berlin for a period of six years if these ceilings are going to be called into question every year. these maximum levels force the commission to set priorities within the confines of a budget, in the way that every government has to. another issue to be given an airing once again this year was the flexibility instrument. an instrument of eur 200 million that has now been earmarked, in agreement with the council, for aid to the balkans. as mr colom i naval rightly commented, using the flexibility instrument in this way misses the whole point, i.e. the assuaging of unforeseen budgetary need. to be perfectly honest, i do wonder whether he would have said the same if this instrument had been used in the same spurious way for meda, as proposed by parliament. it so happens that i voiced this criticism during the first reading of the budget, and i do not recall anybody applauding it. needless to say, i am not against giving aid to the balkans. the union as an association of nation states, born of the need for peace in europe, has a duty of honour to finance the process of peace and reconciliation in the balkans. however, i feel that when it comes to mounting such an extensive operation, we must take stock of the need for aid before opening our wallet. the zeal shown by the commission and parliament to equip the balkans with aid reserves, contrast sharply with the cuts in aid for the candidate states. mr president, we probably ought to reserve the flexibility instrument for the 2002 budget now for the candidate states. they might wish to join the eu earlier, completely out of the blue. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the principles of thrift and social and economic balance have been taken into account in drawing up the budget and the rapporteur must be thanked for that. it is also good that, as the main source of employment, small and medium-sized enterprises have been allocated additional funds. this will help to create new jobs and continue the fight against unemployment. we are also aware of the assumption behind the commission's letter of amendment no. 2, i.e. that around 900 million can be saved in category i. however, this assumption no longer holds true. first, the euro has now gone up in value, thereby reducing any potential savings, and secondly, we must now assume that insufficient funds have been earmarked in the budget for dealing with the bse crisis. we shall therefore be forced to accept a supplementary budget which will again seriously reduce, if not eliminate any potential savings in this category. mr president, commissioner, i should like to begin by congratulating our colleague, the general rapporteur jutta haug, on the way in which she has done her job, which has contributed immensely to the constructive atmosphere in which our work has been carried out in committee and in parliament in general. the vote that is to follow this debate will mark the end of the long, complex process of approving the european union budget for 2001. as a result of intense negotiations and successive compromises among the various institutions, the chances of its approval are reasonable. however, i should like to point out certain aspects that carry over to subsequent years. the budget represents, in payment appropriations, just 1.056% of the community gdp. the financial perspective forecast 1.11% for 2001, which is not to mention the 1.27% that was being mentioned a few years ago. on the other hand, external cooperation programmes are still not multiannual, the difference between commitments and payments is still growing, some projects are still implemented very little or badly, there are unjustifiable and unsustainable payment delays, and parliament has been confronted with faits accomplis with budgetary implications. whereas there is no solution as yet for the first aspect mentioned, the gdp, and i am sure that parliament will soon demonstrate its persistence with regard to the second, i must say that with regard to the third aspect that i have highlighted, i believe that the great novelty in the budget process in coming years is the agreement reached between parliament and the council for the commission to draw up a report by 30 june 2001 to be submitted to the first two institutions regarding the progress achieved in a number of basic fields, such as the reduction in the amount outstanding, the simplification of the project round, improved programme implementation, a commitology review, the reform of the commission, the definition and execution of implementation objectives, particularly in external cooperation, and the provision of more thorough information for parliament in several fields. if the submission of such a report is not seen as just one more formality, the hopes that many of us have placed in this new step will be justified. mr president, at times we have sounded like a mutual admiration society in the way in which we have congratulated one another on this. i may just deviate from that trend slightly in relation to the council - not necessarily the french presidency - but the council in general. let us not kid ourselves, this is a good budget. it is not the budget that i or many of my colleagues would have wanted. however, we can be satisfied with it. in football terms it is like a l-1 draw. however, because of the flexibility instrument, we think we have won the penalty shoot-out. the commission's original proposal for a revision of the financial perspective to take eur 300 million from category 1 for category 4 was a worthy idea: worthy of support and eminently sensible. unfortunately, a majority of my colleagues did not agree with me and therefore we could not go along with it. neither was there a qualified majority within this house to revert to article 272. therefore, we had to find a solution within the means that the interinstitutional agreement affords us so that we could get a decent budget. that is what we have done: we have avoided a budgetary crisis by going to article 272; the financial perspective has been maintained, even though we have used the flexibility instrument. the result is the best that we can hope for without either a revision or article 272. mr colom i naval made his remarks this morning because it was clear to those of us who were present when the iia was agreed that the flexibility instrument should not be used for the same purposes in consecutive years. i admire the answer mrs parly gave this morning but we have turned a blind eye to that. kosovo and serbia are in effect the same thing. we have ignored what we agreed. we have also said that the flexibility instrument would not be an annual reserve for category 4 but that is exactly what it has become. that is why it is not only mr colom i naval who is frustrated at the way things have developed over this budgetary procedure in the last two years. it must be said, and i put it on record, that the french presidency has been a good partner in trying to find solutions. on classification, i have no problem with the two points that were raised: pensions are compulsory expenditure. what we are talking about is an early-retirement scheme which as yet has no legal base; no one knows whether what will be proposed is compulsory or non-compulsory and it is, after all, a p.m. that is on the line. on the fisheries agreement, we have only changed the remarks for the a lines. in other words, the remarks which concern non-compulsory expenditure. in both cases we have not changed any figures. there should not be a clash on that. just because we have a budget and we have agreed a deal at conciliation, let us not imagine that all our problems have disappeared. the problems will remain until we sort out what we are going to do about external expenditure. there are times when i foolishly assumed this year that once the commission had made its proposals for a revision we could reach an agreement with the council. i was wrong. then when i discovered that there would be no discussions on that revision regarding article 25 of the iia, i was, to say the least, somewhat disappointed. the council's attitude in this game of football seems to be not to worry about the ball but to get on with the game. let me just say to the council that, as far as this game is concerned, we have not run out of balls and this side intends playing until we get the right result. finally, i thank all those who have been involved in this - not just the rapporteurs - but also the secretariat of the commission, parliament services and the political group staff. mr president, firstly, i too would like to thank all those who contributed to the determination of the budget, the commissioner, the council and the rapporteurs. i would also particularly like to thank mr wynn, who, i believe is seeing out his first full year as chairman of the committee on budgets during a budgetary procedure, and i think he has made an outstanding job of it. i am satisfied with this budget. i am particularly satisfied because we stayed within the financial perspective again. i believe parliament must uphold its agreements, and they can only be broken in cases of extreme need. i have not identified any such cases this year. the commissioner is still proud of this and says that the agricultural expenditure will increase by an enormous percentage this year as compared with previous years. that is indeed the case but then these are agreements that must be kept. they were concluded before she became commissioner and i think it would be to her credit if she were to uphold the berlin agreements. what else has a bearing on the agricultural budget? we are all familiar with the content of the letter of amendment in october and if all goes well, if the dollar stays at 91 cents, then we could end up with a surplus of approximately eur 1.3 billion in category 1a. suppose that does not happen and mr duisenberg says it is not going to happen, how are we to finance the bse crisis? that is what i want to know. are we going to make cuts in other agricultural expenditure, are we going to defer it to other years, is it still possible to use the surplus for 2000 or can we devise an insurance system, which already features in an earlier parliamentary resolution? mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, representative of the council, rapporteurs, each budgetary year the european parliament gains budgetary importance. we do not gain this importance out of nowhere, but from the treaties, although sometimes the council finds it hard to admit it. last year, with the bourlanges report, the flexibility instrument was mobilised for the first time, and an institutional declaration was also obtained recognising the possible financial insufficiency of category 4. this year, the haug report has taken advantage of this institutional declaration last year to discuss the need to revise the financial perspective. it has been demonstrated that it was not the right time for a revision, that there was enough margin to fulfil the commitments to the balkans and to the meda programme without altering the forecasts of berlin 1999, and it has been shown that the compulsion to have a revision is only in the intentions of those who voted against agenda 2000 in its day. however, the european parliament cannot carry on forever reducing its external commitments. this year the flexibility instrument has been used again, but we should not continue down this road. we do not want there to be a proposal for revision for next year in the colom resolution, because we want to wait for the world bank evaluation, but we share his criticism that this method of resolving the financial insufficiency in category 4 distorts the multiannual nature of the major external objectives of the union and the very definition of the financial perspective. this time, more than ever, the secret of success will be in correctly implementing the budget. mr president, commissioner, i must first congratulate the general rapporteur, mrs haug, the president of the commission and my colleagues who have been involved in negotiations on the excellent work that they have done. the final outcome of the negotiations is positive, which shows that in order to achieve some objectives, what matters is not getting there alone and early, but getting there altogether and on time. we wanted a budget that would combine our efforts with those of the member states to contribute to economic growth and increasing employment, and therefore the agreement that has been reached on the multiannual amount for the small businesses programme is a good thing. however, sustaining this and parliament' s other political priorities needs to be compatible with budgetary stability in spending. it is true that the union is in its most favourable economic situation for 10 years, as is proved by the fact that the net balances have improved a great deal. but, precisely for this reason, i think that the agreement reached on payment appropriations is reasonable, because it combines efforts in the right direction for sustained growth. parliament' s budgetary strategy marks a before and an after at this start of the millennium. because the negotiations not only lead to the final amounts and their distribution, but also to the implementation of instruments which are going to enable us to measure to what extent the political will of this parliament translates into facts. and i am going a little further, because it is not enough to have strict and transparent rules for implementing the budget, such as the cancellation of commitments if they have not been implemented after two years. this should go hand in hand with a commitment from the college of commissioners to a fair and efficient distribution of human and material resources for the management of the various policies, that is, they must remember the political priority of parliament and the management priority of the commission. mr president, now that we have arrived at the final decision on the eu' s budget for 2001, we can say that we have come through a year of constant struggle to produce the budget successfully within the framework devised when the financial perspective was adopted in berlin in march 1999. we can now say that this struggle has been successful. we shall be able to adopt a budget within this framework, which is a great success. i believe, in actual fact, that both the member states and the taxpayers are grateful that the charges are not still higher. i also see it as a clear success that we are able to go into a new budget year with a greater margin than in the past. when we make use of 1.06 per cent of the member states' gdp, this gives us a margin greater than ever before and greater than that predicted in berlin less than two years ago. this gives us an opportunity to be an active partner where enlargement to include the countries in central and eastern europe is concerned and when it comes to helping establish peace and prosperity in serbia and the former yugoslavia. for all this to be possible, there will have to be extensive prioritising in the future, too. this will be necessary if we are successfully to honour our long-term commitments, something which is clearly possible if our objective is to work for an eu which is strong but, at the same time, circumscribed. as i see it, there is a major threat in the present-day situation, namely bse. it is nonetheless important to note that we must cope successfully with this too within the current budget framework. this means that, if the solution to the problem requires still more money, this must be provided by means of other savings in category 1 or through the member states' accepting a larger portion of the cost. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i intend to focus on one fundamental point in my comments on the budget lines for environmental, public health and consumer protection policy. generally-speaking, the proportion of the budget earmarked in order to safeguard and maintain the environment is far too small. this is particularly annoying in that environmental policy is a horizontal policy because environmental policy - or at least successful environmental policy - must be applied as a cross-border policy. we all know that. which is why safeguarding and regenerating the environment is a job which has to be done at european community level. but this also means that we need to be given proper funding once and for all. we cannot just keep on issuing endless directives and regulations, often without sufficient background information, scientific basis and generally to unbelievably short deadlines. allow me to make a comment: i am not the only one who constantly has the impression in these circumstances that my only purpose in sitting on the committee on the environment, public health and consumer policy is to prevent the worst in the frenzy and rush of regulation which is thrust upon us. we must not lose our sense of environmental direction by promoting small, local measures, however badly they may be needed, or by blindly shelling out money to institutions which appear to produce little in the way of results, which applies, in my view, to the european environment agency in copenhagen. what european environmental policy needs is a scientifically-based framework for action. that is something we do not have. and that is because we lack the foundations. we need to invest in scientific research and analysis. only then shall we be able to work out realistic prospects, prospects for linking environmental and health policies to other policy areas, prospects for what promises to be a successful and realistic approach to problem-solving. that is the only right and the only sensible way of investing the money at our disposal on behalf of our fellow citizens. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i have three comments to make on what has been said during this debate. the first relates to something which you reminded us of this morning, mrs schreyer. compared with many national budgets, the increase in the community is somewhat higher but, in relation to expenditure ratios, it is still very low and sets an excellent example for many national budgets. we must tell the public that, if the national foreign or other secretaries of state keep handing work over to be carried out at european level, such as the whole balkans programme, then we must also bear in mind that this work requires money and that funds must be made available. my second comment relates to the common foreign and security policy. tremendous progress was made here during the 1990s. during the conflict in bosnia, europe was still not in a position to speak with one voice: one country was purported to be on the side of the serbs, another to be on the side of the croats. we almost seemed to be back in the policy of alliances of the 19th century. now, at the end of this century, at the end of the 1990s, europe is speaking with one voice, europe is the biggest civil reconstructor in the balkans, bigger than the united states, and is doing a good job; through its budget and its policy it really did help to make peaceful revolution possible in serbia. this needed to be said quite clearly about european policy at the end of this financial year and after this decade of confusion in the balkans. foreign states are becoming more important to us and we hope that, with the new posts provided, the commission will do the job which we expect it to do. we are being up front with our praise and you may be sure that we shall seek to exercise strict control in the future. there is much talk of post-nice. nice was yet again the scene of national haggling for individual states. we have overcome this to a considerable degree in foreign policy and i hope in the forthcoming budget debates that we shall take more decisions of substance and spend more time on the problems and less time haggling over national interests in this budget. mr president, honourable members, i only intend to comment on certain aspects raised during the debate. first, the structure of the budget in 2001: one speaker said that the agricultural budget would not rise sufficiently. however, i must stress that the agricultural budget has a very high rate of growth, namely 5.7%. if we include the expected supplementary budget, it comes out at nearly 8%, while other areas, such as training policy, the whole of internal policy - including research -, foreign policy, administration and accession aid have together only risen by 1.1%. we really must stress, therefore, that parliament too has exercised immense budgetary discipline in the areas in which it has the last word but has, i think, brought about an excellent result with clear priorities nonetheless. on mr mulder's comment: you noted that, because the budget at second reading was below the margin in agricultural policy, the risk of a change in exchange rates needed to be included in the calculation, because it would be not unwelcome if the euro were to rise against the dollar. i would draw your attention here to the rules of the interinstitutional agreement, which state that a "currency risk" of up to eur 200 million must be financed from the agricultural policy and that only then can recourse be taken to the currency reserve. however, my view is that we should in fact take care in the supplementary budget to keep this reserve at eur 200 million so that we do not have to take other measures if there is the slightest change in the exchange rate. to mrs sommer's comment that too little account is taken of environmental aspects in the european union budget, allow me to point out that one third of the budget is spent on structural policy and that we have mainstreaming in structural policy; we have gender mainstreaming to ensure that structural policy measures provide equal opportunities for men and women. the money must be used in order to increase employment and - and this is the third mainstreaming - it must be used in order to improve the environmental situation. that gives us an enormous amount of money to play with. may i also point out that the eur 4.5 billion under agricultural policy for developing the countryside, which we discussed this morning, includes numerous measures to promote environmental protection. in addition, agricultural policy also includes something in this area which is not standard practice in environmental policy and which fundamentalists may occasionally take a dim view of: namely that compensation is paid for refraining from taking environmentally damaging action. here are your measures which quite explicitly promote environmental protection. i should like to comment again on the charming question put by mr colom i naval this morning. he asked what was the difference between revising the financial perspective and using the flexibility instrument? you are, of course, quite right to keep reverting to this question. i see it like this: revising the financial perspective means that if we make an increase on one side, we must at the same time decide where savings can be made. this requirement does not apply to the flexibility reserve. in this respect, the finance ministers' reluctance to revise the financial perspective is even harder to understand. oh well, we live and learn. i guess this example also illustrates the fact that sometimes principles count for more than budgetary intentions. i think it is a good thing that we have succeeded in activating the flexibility instruments and giving serbia the help it needs on this occasion, although i fully agree with you that our strategy must be such that we prevent the phenomenon from arising whereby a european flexibility instrument wanders from one region or country of europe to another, depending on where it is needed. in closing, i should like once again to stress that, in the commission's view, the 2001 budget provides an excellent basis on which we can together forge a good community policy for europe and i should like to thank you for the excellent cooperation. and we shall have the opportunity of continuing this excellent cooperation on the supplementary budget in january. but first i should like to wish all those involved in the budget a happy christmas! thank you very much, commissioner. parliament also wishes you a happy christmas. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday from 10.00 a.m. common strategy towards the russian federation the next item is the debate on the report (a5-0363/2000) by mr oostlander, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy, on the application of the european union' s common strategy on the russian federation [2000/2007(ini)]. mr president, our relations with russia underwent a fundamental change when the cold war ended. fear of military violence or of a dictatorship that might advance further, is a thing of the past. the attitude of the european union and its member states is now more one of a feeling of joint responsibility for the restoration of russian society. it can be regarded as a kind of moral duty but also as being in the interests of the european union, which, of course, has nothing to gain from lawlessness and poverty in a very large neighbouring country. yet for many of us, the development of the russian federation is still a dubious matter and that is why i can imagine that people sometimes have their doubts about it, even in this parliament. in any case, the best thing we can do in our strategy towards the russian federation is to follow a twin-track strategy. on the one hand, we must indict those who violate human rights and wield a disproportionate amount of power, clearly and forcefully, and on the other, we must enter into cooperation in a variety of sectors. both approaches are necessary if we are to help russia become a flourishing, democratic constitutional state. this is in our mutual interest. that means condemning the gross violence in chechnya and looking for ways of helping to end the war and assuage the suffering. so it is necessary for the european union and the oecd to be present there. we know, i am happy to say, that people in russia are not indifferent to our criticism of what is happening there. that comes up in quite a few conversations one has in russia. after all, russia too wants to be assessed by the same standards that we apply to ourselves. we would also do well to be severely critical of the visa measures vis--vis georgia that have recently been undertaken, and provided for in amendments. i am expecting a more extensive discussion to take place next month via the topical and urgent debate, and would suggest that we only give a limited preview of this debate in these resolutions. in particular, i hope to be able to adopt half of the amendment tabled by the greens on this issue. it also behoves us to criticise the relations between russia and the baltic states, which are still to be regularised. it will not be the fault of the latter. they need russia to regularise and establish its affairs with them effectively. as far as cooperation with russia is concerned, the russian response to the strategy document of the european union offers some good starting points. the entry into force of scientific and technological cooperation with the russian federation is a good example. in retrospect, the interruption of this cooperation was not a success, particularly as there appears to be little coordination in actions of this kind, between the european union on the one hand and other major players, such as japan and the united states, on the other. we must take this lesson to heart for future reference. the northern dimension is a clear example of cooperation that is to be put into concrete form. in point of fact, this concept is underused, politically speaking. it is an important concept, particularly in the fields of energy provision, care for the environment, the clearing up of nuclear waste, and the decommissioning of nuclear submarines. in addition, it is possible to achieve various forms of cross-border cooperation that will prevent sharp disparities in wealth from arising. initiatives concerning cooperation with the region of kaliningrad fit into the same framework. we would argue in favour of having a separate budgetary line for developing this northern dimension in a coherent manner, along the lines of the one that we already have for cooperation with the three baltic states. however, i am of the opinion that the importance of russia is not really reflected in the budget, but we disagree with the social democrats on that score. if you take a close look, then roughly speaking, russia is slightly ahead of morocco in terms of budgetary importance, which cannot be right to my mind. i could live with it though, if recital g on this aspect were to lapse, and in so doing if it were to be possible, with the support of the social democrats, to achieve a broader majority for this resolution, because this would send out a clearer signal to russia. we are hoping that the cooperation will extend to external policy. the resolution refers to the commission as the initiator of policy and to the high representative as the coordinator of policy. there are various regions where we could start the ball rolling, such as the balkans, the caucasus region and central asia. a more relaxed discussion of mutual security interests would also have its uses, bearing in mind that, naturally, from my point of view and that of others and the majority of my group, nato, and within this framework, our bond with north america, are absolutely paramount in matters of security. we will follow the developments in russian society and internal politics with great interest. we hope that a truly civil society will soon flourish there and form the permanent basis for a real political democracy. i hope that links will be established at all levels between organisations, individuals and associations in the eu and their counterparts in the russian federation. this will help to spread awareness of the values we all share. mr president, russia has yet to come to terms with herself, to decide what sort of society she wants to create and define her position in the world. for over seventy years, her development was distorted and held back by the monstrous experiment of communism which grew to threaten us all. i must say i very much welcome mr oostlander's report for its very reasonable and balanced approach, praising constructive reforms while criticising blatant human rights abuses. but let me say a couple of words about our strategic relationship. while encouraging a strong economic relationship between the european union and russia coupled with efforts at political cooperation, we must take care that we do not create for ourselves some sort of strategic dependency. for example, it has been suggested in the context of european defence policy - about which i have to say we continue to have reservations - that the european union might turn to russia to provide strategic airlift capabilities to complement the arrangements already in place between the weu and ukraine. now i am in favour of encouraging russia and the ukraine to move in our direction and cooperate with other alliance countries in crisis-management tasks, but i would not be in favour of us moving in their direction or adjusting our policies in order to accommodate them. it would be a very dangerous situation if the europeans were to become logistically reliant on russia. if we do not have our own strategic airlift then we already have a tried and tested ally in the united states - and in this context i am sure that mr oostlander has no desire for russia to supplant the united states as a strategic partner for europe. we must work in the closest possible harmony with the united states in our dealings with russia and certainly must not give russia the impression that there are divisions to be exploited. this would be in no one's interests. secondly, we must take great care to ensure diversity of production and supply in terms of energy. already some 40% of natural gas supply for the eu comes from russia, and an increasing proportion of oil imports now come from the cis countries, where known reserves are larger than those in the united states and north sea combined. many of the transit routes for these are through areas of great conflict. it is in our interests to do all we can to help stabilise that region by economic and political means, ensuring that we do nothing to encourage or sustain instability in the caucasus and the southern regions of russia. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the common strategy towards the russian federation was the first common strategy in the history of the european union. that alone illustrates the importance which the eu attaches to its relations with the russian federation. the dual strategy of cooperation and criticism which mr oostlander develops in his report is, in the opinion of my group, eminently suited to the situation in the russian federation. however, this sort of strategy is a complex subject and all the institutions and the member states must approach it in a strictly coordinated and circumspect manner. as the oostlander report demonstrates, this is not always easy and parliament must ensure that it works in a very orderly fashion here. now to the most important points in the report: the russian federation is important to the union for both security policy and economic reasons, of that there can be no doubt. the pca provides the necessary contractual basis here and - if it is applied fully - the instruments needed in order to react to a whole spectrum of developments. the agreement contains a human rights clause and provisions governing the establishment of democratic rule of law. our economic relations with the russian federation have fluctuated enormously over past years, depending on various crisis situations. but, most importantly, there is a lack of foreign investment in the russian federation, coupled with a huge drain on the profits of russia companies. unless the russian federation rectifies this situation by creating, post haste, the necessary legal and security framework and hence a more friendly investment climate, there would appear to be no way out of the economic crisis, high oil prices notwithstanding. and programmes such as tacis can only be of limited help here - more to the point, they barely scratch the surface. the commission's priority task should therefore be to improve the effectiveness of the funds deployed under the programme and, more importantly, to enhance its visibility. what is important, i think, is that it should continue to be the political responsibility of the administrative staff and should not turn into project management. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i think we often underestimate the fact that a balance struck with the russian federation is a guarantee of peace in europe. this highlights the importance of the strategy towards the russian federation and, at the same time, the importance of your report, mr oostlander. however, as we have already said, the russian federation is a difficult partner. even if president putin guarantees the democratic development of his country, that does not automatically guarantee a stable and democratic russian federation. basic democratic order is not a fact of life in the russian federation and this is a problem, especially when it comes to cooperation with the european union, because, for us, any such cooperation must be based on respect for human and minority rights, and we have made that clear. this means that the twin-track strategy posited in the report is very, very important. we want outstanding cooperation with the russian federation, but we cannot accept the russian federation's continuing to wage war on its own people in chechnya, a war which has continued uninterrupted for a year now. we are also hugely critical of the russian federation's provocative visa policy towards georgia and call for this decision to be revoked at once. nor can we tolerate the manner in which the freedom of the press is trampled underfoot in the russian federation. i think the prodi plan may bring a new dimension to cooperation with the russian federation and provides an important basis. let us not forget the basis we had in the european union, with the coal and steel plan guaranteeing lasting peaceful cooperation between france and germany. and look where we are now. the energy community with the russian federation may well take on a political dimension in exactly the same way. that means that we have a joint responsibility for peace in the caucasus, for environmental protection in the russian federation and for the rights of its indigenous people. mr president, we must establish cooperation with russia, a country wounded in its statehood, so that she can become a european state that aspires to education and culture. mr oostlander' s report is crucially important and it sets out to achieve this cooperation. we have to use our combined powers to heal the wounds that ten years of crude capitalism have inflicted on russia. boycotts will not resolve the problem. things are now going badly for russia. there is no middle class: there are just the super-rich and the super-poor. half the population live below the poverty line. the country is in sharp moral decline: it is almost like sodom and gomorra. there are fears that the number of hiv-positive cases will rise in the next few years to close on 600 000, and the disease is also beginning to hit young people hard. eighty per cent of new infections concern people under the age of 25. the birth rate is dropping, the mortality rate is going up, and the net loss in russia' s population amounts to a million a year. that goes to show just how bad things are for the people there. the country is also burdened by the need to protect nature and human beings from old mistakes. there are still 300 tons of anthrax bacteria manufactured for purposes of biological warfare in existence there, and just a small dose is lethal. dozens of tons of waste plutonium have to be destroyed as a result of disarmament negotiations. the eu must help russia, because in that way it is also preventing risks that would threaten itself. the most important area of cooperation is energy policy, which is connected with superpower politics, which governs, for example, the transportation of oil and gas from the east to the west. today 30-40% of eu gas comes from russia, and in ten years' time the eu will be almost totally dependent on russian gas. there is no northern, western or southern alternative for this. the eu countries should not be a geopolitical extension of the united states in matters of gas and oil pipelines. the eu is no threat to the russians, but a unipolar world under the leadership of the usa is. the russians cannot, at least not yet, oppose nato' s sly expansion through the militarisation of eu structures. slyness does not become us: we must build a europe of economic cooperation. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i think we should pay tribute to mr oostlander for having stressed the importance of the role of the commission and, in particular, of mr patten as the commissioner responsible for external relations, in the implementation of this common strategy. contrary to what previous speakers have said, i do not believe that this strategy has been successful to date. unfortunately, the major financial scandals which continue to punctuate relations between russia and international finance, and a number of projects involving the international community, clearly illustrate as much. i cannot really agree with mr oostlander' s approach to the issue of human rights and democracy in the context of the russian federation. i have put forward a number of amendments intended to place rather more emphasis on these issues. mr oostlander does not customarily welcome my amendments and i was not therefore very surprised to see that they had not been included. regarding chechnya, in particular, i do not think it is possible to say, mr oostlander, that the solution cannot be purely military. i think that the solution cannot be military, as the situation clearly demonstrates, and that it can only be political. mr putin himself - and we would not even be going as far as him - said that the issue of the future status of chechnya is not the main issue. yet we do not dare say as much in our report. this, i believe, is not acceptable. nor do i think it acceptable, moreover, to fail to state that it is absolutely intolerable, after one and a half years of war in chechnya, that our commissioner for humanitarian aid, mr nielson, has not yet truly set foot in chechnya. nor do i think it acceptable that the european union should fail to respond to the murders of journalists covering the war in chechnya. these are not isolated instances but repeated occurrences. a member of my party, a radical militant journalist, was murdered several weeks ago in tbilisi, a city clearly under the control of russian troops. i do not feel the commission and the council can fail to respond to an event of such seriousness. mr van orden is quite right in what he says regarding the caucasus. we are currently witnesses to an absolutely dreadful deterioration of the situation in georgia. the country is completely destabilised, literally strangled by the russian federation. it is on the point of collapse and the european union is offering no practical response to this rejection, this ban by the russian authorities regarding the introduction of visas. it could respond by cancelling visas for georgians travelling to the european union. it could and should start to consider georgia' s accession before it is too late, before there is another balkans situation at the very gateway to europe. mr president, the current line taken by the kremlin does not give the least cause for optimism. on the domestic front, president putin has explicitly opted for an enforced recentralisation policy, his watchword being 'all power to the kremlin' . when it comes to overseas affairs, moscow does not wish to comply with international obligations. the attitude of the russian diplomats at the osce summit held in vienna at the end of november, spoke volumes in this respect. there is to be no withdrawal of russian troops from moldova, nor are the russian military bases in georgia to be closed. incidentally, how does the eu view the latest russian manoeuvre against georgia? i am referring to the introduction of a visa obligation for georgians, with the exception of the abkhazians and the south ossetians. surely that is completely out of kilter with the rapporteur' s idea of a certain degree of convergence between the foreign and security policy of the european union and russia in the caucasus? after all, that would be sending out the wrong signal to kremlin boss putin at entirely the wrong moment. the famous russian opposition politician, grigori jawlinski, has made it into western newspaper columns again lately. using cutting words he condemned the uncritical stance of the west towards the occupant of the kremlin. he said western politicians do not understand russia. indeed, they fear russia. hence they choose the line of least resistance. they want to have a friend in the kremlin. it makes no odds to the west what is happening with russia, its people and society. mr oostlander' s report contradicts the latter sentiment and i would like to compliment him on that. and yet jawlinkski' s portrayal of europe' s struggle with the phenomenon of russia is very apt. mr president, may i, on behalf of the european liberal democrats, thank and congratulate mr oostlander. his was a well prepared report. the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, and common security and defence policy got its most important proposals approved and in the final vote we supported the adoption of the report. mr oostlander' s report clearly denounces the excessive use of force that russia was guilty of in chechnya. failings in the implementation of human rights and democracy have also been clearly brought to light. on the other hand, the report supports a strategic partnership between the eu and russia. cooperation with russia needs to be reinforced. a separate budgetary heading is being proposed for the northern dimension and increased aid to russia, in general, is being recommended. the report also supports the development of energy cooperation between the union and russia. it is important for the union that the availability of oil and natural gas is secured by creating alternatives. moves to exploit the gas and oil resources in the barents region should be speeded up, while, at the same time, production in the komi and caspian sea regions and the infrastructure for transporting the products out of those regions should be improved in terms of technology. now that the nice summit seems to be opening up the avenue towards swift enlargement of the union, it is important to show determination in getting to grips with those problems which enlargement threatens to create for relations between the member states and russia. we need flexibility, particularly in arrangements regarding trade and the mobility of people. however, the main solution is for cooperation between the union and russia to be enhanced, bringing down the barriers between us. as the union expands it will also be important to think about its internal differentiation, which might, for its part, ease border area problems. on the other hand, there is reason to hope the russian federation will also consider decentralising the power of decision and the issue of internal differentiation, allowing the possibility of abolishing borders. by this i mean, for example, making special economic areas of kaliningrad, murmansk, karelia and other parts of russia bordering the union. mr president, i should like to thank mr oostlander for his outstanding and comprehensive report, for the extraordinary amount of time which he has invested in it and for his receptiveness to suggestion. anyone looking at russia from the outside and with the odd personal experience from visiting the country itself and speaking to russian counterparts will soon be in danger of selectively tailoring reality in the russian federation to fit his personal image. current discussions on the russian state symbol show that there are several takes on reality in the russian federation. the national flag of peter the great flutters alongside the army's red flag and the national coat of arms showing the tsarist double-headed eagle is displayed while stalinist national anthems are being sung. these symbols are perhaps not as contradictory as they first appear, each reflecting as it does a facet of an authoritarian state. but a whole spectrum lies between these diametrically-opposed historical perspectives and pro-active russian society will certainly refuse to be reduced to or guided towards any of these authoritarian alternatives. i personally become more and more enthusiastic when i meet young, open, well-educated russians and more and more depressed by russian structures, be they state, economic or even mafia structures. the best way we can help the russian federation is, on the one hand, to refrain from wholesale damnation and clearly address unhealthy structures or individual policies, such as the chechen policy and, on the one hand, to value positive developments, without talking up, writing up or thinking up the russian federation as a whole. we can contribute towards stability from the outside by sending the russian federation clear and specific signals as to how we wish to configure our cooperation. once poland and the baltic states accede to the eu, we hope to use the greater geographical proximity to the russian federation to strengthen cross-border cooperation in the area of saint petersburg, nowgorod and kaliningrad. transport, energy, the environment and internal security are right at the top of the list of possibilities. negotiations to find creative solutions as regards the future freedom of transit for the people of kaliningrad through lithuania and poland should also be completed before poland and lithuania accede to the eu. why not make the oblast of kaliningrad a pilot project on two counts: first in relation to the potential for economic cooperation between the russian federation and the eu and, secondly, to test the russian federation's ability to implement fundamental reforms such as rural, fiscal and administrative reforms in advance in this area with our support? that is the way to bind the russian federation to the eu. mr president, in recent years the european union has finalised various documents relating to the russian federation which form a good basis for close relations with it. the common strategy is one of them. despite all its contradictions, europeans clearly see russia as part of europe and have a huge interest in a stable, democratically-organised russian federation with good economic prospects which plays a confident part in and helps to shape international policy. the west also needs the russian federation as an important international partner if europe is to be reshaped after the change. it is this interest which has led the union to develop specific fields of activity in numerous areas in the common strategy towards the russian federation and other documents. they include consolidating the rule of law and strengthening government institutions. they also include developing a civil society as an important precondition to consolidating democracy. in the economic sector, the union is endeavouring to integrate the russian federation into a common economic and social area. the union is already the russian federation's most important processing, investment and trading partner, accounting for over 40%. but there is still huge potential here. experts have calculated that trade between the european union and the russian federation only accounts for one-third of what might be expected, given the russian federation's gross national product and its proximity to eu markets. in the political sector, the common strategy towards the russian federation proposes entering into a standing dialogue on policy and security and creating a permanent mechanism for such dialogue. it would be interesting to expound on this, but time is too short. the eu sets great store in its russian policy by environmental protection and nuclear safety. unfortunately, this momentum in relations between the russian federation and the eu has come up against a counter force - cue chechnya, which has seriously hampered relations. the substance and methods of the internal consolidation being pursued by the putin regime will have a significant influence on the nature of our relations. we can only hope that the current pragmatic and realistic partnership will perhaps one day become a real strategic partnership. mr president, given the economic and geopolitical importance of russia, the european union believes it must seek a common strategy on the subject. the report contains many empty phrases and, in particular, pious hopes. it is not just because each of the major european powers is primarily concerned with safeguarding the interests of its own capitalist groups, but in the final analysis, what does capitalist europe have to offer russia? economic growth? yet for the last ten years the russian economy has done nothing but collapse. an end to the preponderance of queues? yet what use are more or less well stocked shops if, with unemployment, and retirement pensions and wages at a low level or not even paid, one third of the population is living below the poverty line and does not have any money to buy the goods? democracy? yet under the guise of democracy there is domination by official and unofficial mafias. freedom? yet the freedom which the reintroduction of capitalism has brought russia is freedom only for a narrow range of bureaucrats left over from the previous regime to pillage natural resources and transfer the proceeds to western banks. and indeed, what does freedom mean for the chechen people? in voting against this report i wish to stress the inability of the capitalist economy and the western world to bring progress and prosperity to the peoples of the russian federation or indeed to the majority of peoples on this earth. mr president, i should like to thank mr oostlander for his sterling contribution as rapporteur. as a swedish christian democrat, i fully support the two-strategy model which mr oostlander presents, involving vigorous, consistent and sustained criticism of all crimes, especially crimes within russia against human rights, but also involving close and intimate cooperation with russia, our large neighbour in the east. recital kk in the report states the following: 'given that russia is in a political union with belarus, it is appropriate in the interest of russia' s democratic legitimacy for president putin and the russian government to point out clearly and consistently the comprehensive need for democratic progress and reforms in belarus, not least in the light of the report submitted by the parliamentary troika from the eu, the council of europe and the organisation for security and cooperation in europe (osce) in minsk on 16 october 2000' . i am the author of that paragraph, which has been applauded in the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy. i should here like to highlight the value of our really emphasising the seriousness of russia' s in actual fact being in a political union with belarus. with reference to the report we presented in minsk, we first of all emphasised that the belarus parliament is at present lacking in powers, cannot legislate, does not have the right of veto against presidential decrees and cannot adopt budgets. secondly, we pointed out that electoral law has disqualified a quarter of the candidates in this so-called parliamentary election in october. thirdly, we discussed access to the media, which is unfairly organised in a state-controlled system. fourthly, we discussed the administrative criminal law which makes it illegal to urge a boycott of elections. belarus is therefore in political union with russia. it is important for us to emphasise the seriousness of this for russia too. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, questions of human rights are important to us, and they are not the private affairs of any one country. the war in chechnya is a case in point, and, for example, this labour legislation now under discussion will reduce employees' rights quite drastically. we have, however, tried a boycott policy, and that had no effect on this war. the twin-track strategy proposed by mr oostlander offers a way out, for which i thank him. this is the first strategy on russia in our history. multi-faceted cooperation will help to stabilise conditions in russia. that will be the first step, after which attempts will be made to achieve respect for the law, which will be the second step, and then, economic development will bring more stability, all of which will bring about the features of civil society we expect. the result will finally be more human rights, which we all desire. this report thus creates the possibility for constructing a multilayer structure. for this reason i think it will be an important breakthrough. we have already laid the foundations of a period of cooperation with russia during which the political leadership has changed. we uphold the criticisms, but we will not sever our contact as we did after the civil war, which was followed by stalin' s persecutions and all the terrors. the northern dimension, which is important, will receive its own budget funds under this proposal, which is a very important issue. i, myself, suggest that energy should be made the driving force behind this important project, as that is something we need, that is where the money is, and since we have the money, we can also spend it on the infrastructure, on hospitals, environmental issues and so on. money from energy: both sides need cooperation for that, and especially in parts of northern russia, which i would urge russia to turn to. it is peaceful there and soldiers are not needed to guard the pipeline. do you intend to support a project such as this, commissioner patten? mr president, a few days ago, the duma decided that the soviet anthem would be russia's national anthem. the music and words and the decision by the duma are not overly significant. what is significant is that the majority of russian citizens supported this move. what i want to know is why these people did not choose the marseillaise or god save the queen as their anthem of hope for a brave new world, preferring instead to turn the clock back to a regime which many of my fellow members have described as inhumane, criminal and so on. what is the significance of the ten years since russia was suddenly catapulted into the free market and into contact with western values? do we not know what their significance is? the responsibilities are, of course, mainly russia's, both for the past and the present. but do the european union, the united states and the other powers bear no responsibility? this is the mafia we are talking about. where does the mafia have its roots, if not within the kremlin itself? who were yeltsin's protectors and agents all that time? who fought tooth and nail to support yeltsin inside russia? this is power hijacking we are talking about. which banks is the money from foreign loans and/or the money hoarded inside russia paid into? is it the bank of havana or the bank of algeria? it is paid into the large western banks! and how is it controlled? and where are the prostitution networks operating? what i am getting at is that someone must take responsibility for what has happened over the past ten years, including the european union. from what certain speakers have said, the winner-takes-all model obviously applies. the cold-war model has been replaced by the winner-takes-all model. what are we afraid of? dependency on russia? can the entire european union, with germany, the united kingdom, italy, spain and everyone else present in nice really depend on russia? or will we opt for mutual dependency as we do with every other large power in today's world? the point at issue here is russia's role. what was russia's role when nato was taking decisions on a neighbouring area, on the balkans, without so much as a nod to the un, to which russia belongs, or to the organisation for security and cooperation in europe? how come this power was not terrified? what i am trying to say is that we need to change our stand: we must not feel and we must not sow the seeds of fear; we must look for a partner which needs our help and support. i very much welcome this report and i should like to pay tribute to mr oostlander for producing it. his report has been welcomed by all parts of parliament except, perhaps by those who look back with nostalgia to the not-so-golden days memorialised by a very large number of brave soviet dissidents. but it is an excellent report which, like the common strategy itself, underlines the importance that we attach to the relationship - the strategic partnership - between the european union and russia. the report endorses what is being called our "double track strategy" towards russia, a strategy that combines plain speaking on issues like chechnya - to which i will return in a few moments - with a continuing effort to build an effective relationship based on shared values and cooperation. the common strategy and russia's medium-term strategy for relations with the eu have created a new dynamism. the common strategy identified initiatives in foreign policy, security and the fight against crime. other areas where we seek to bolster european union cooperative efforts towards russia are the rule of law and democracy building, civil society, twinnings as well as regional and cross-border cooperation and, above all, the northern dimension initiative, to which a number of members referred. we strongly support the russian government's economic reform programme which is vital to improve the investment climate. in this context, as parliament will know, at the last summit between the european union and russia, romano prodi launched a far-reaching dialogue on energy. these are all areas in which the commission has a powerful contribution to make, as the report repeatedly makes clear. our technical assistance programme - in particular tacis - already responds to many of the priorities identified by this report. the core tacis programme, worth eur 34 million, focuses on education, the rule of law, democracy and civil society development, including regional media freedom, protection of individual rights and support to self-government. the subsequent action programme - to a value of eur 58 million - focuses on institution-building, on the rule of law in the economic field and on improvements to the business and investment climate. the honourable member's report rightly stresses the need for our moscow delegation to play a bigger part in the management of our financial assistance, and i am determined to see significant progress in this direction as part of our wider reform of european union external aid programmes. the report comments on the northern dimension. we too see this as an important mechanism for regional cooperation for the development of the north-west russian regions as well as kaliningrad. i am anxious to work closely with the incoming swedish presidency to make concrete progress on the northern dimension. this means concentrating our efforts on key areas like the environment - which has been referred to by a number of members - and nuclear safety, on kaliningrad itself and on improving coordination between different sources of funding. we are acutely aware of the urgent need to tackle environmental threats from nuclear storage facilities and rusting decommissioned submarines, especially in the north-west part of russia, for example, around the kola peninsula. this is a formidable task. it requires a combined international and russian effort. the commission has taken a leading role in the negotiation of an international agreement establishing the multilateral nuclear environment programme for russia. those negotiations are now at a key stage and we hope for significant progress by march 2001. there is also a pressing need to raise environmental awareness in russia. this is exactly the objective of the environmental work programme for the russian federation, initialled last june in the framework of our partnership and cooperation agreement. just a word on kaliningrad: the partnership and cooperation agreement already offers an institutional framework for our dialogue with russia on trade, visa and border issues. at the same time the development of the region has already benefited from tacis projects amounting to about eur 30 million since 1991. we are now finalising a communication to the council on kaliningrad. we are in the process of opening an office in kaliningrad. i very much hope to visit kaliningrad myself in the early part of next year, and not just because immanuel kant spent the whole of his life there. it is a serious issue that we need to address as part of the northern dimension. in all of the areas i have outlined we are working closely with russia to our mutual benefit. we are working to strengthen russian democracy, reinforce the rule of law and transform the russian economy. that is all to the good, but there remains one serious impediment to further improvements in the ties between russia and the european union: i refer, of course, to chechnya. at the last european union russian summit in october, president putin acknowledged the urgent need for a political solution to the conflict. i have to say to honourable members - and i will abbreviate what i might have said at much greater length - we are profoundly concerned about the humanitarian situation in chechnya. we are concerned about the continuing reports of human rights abuses, for example from ngos like mdecins sans frontires and human rights watch. we hope that we will be able to make a great deal more progress with the russian authorities in addressing those issues in the months ahead. we are profoundly concerned about the likely fate of thousands of refugees in ingushetiya and chechnya this coming winter. it is because we take our relationship with russia so seriously that these issues matter. they cannot just be brushed under the carpet. we have to return to them again and again, but we must also continue, as the honourable gentleman's report wisely recognises, to engage with russia. we must avoid the mistake to which an honourable gentleman referred earlier, which was made at the start of the last century, when russia was effectively excluded from european affairs after the leninist revolution in 1917 with disastrous consequences. we shall therefore persevere with the common strategy to build on the progress achieved to heed many of the points raised in the honourable gentleman's report, and above all to strengthen the hands of the russian federation. just one further word about a point that was raised by a couple of speakers in the debate - and that is the question of georgia and visas. we have already expressed serious concern over the way in which russia unilaterally introduced visa requirements for georgian citizens on 5 december. the entire international community, not excluding russia, is committed to supporting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the independent states. actions by any country in the region which could have the effect of undermining that sovereignty carry significant implications. if more favourable visa requirements are applied to the inhabitants of secessionist regions or if they are exempted altogether, this would imply support for the legitimacy of their regimes. georgia is a member of the united nations, a member of the osce, a member of the council of europe, and it has a partnership and cooperation agreement with the european union. it deserves our support. we call upon the states of the region to use the osce mechanisms to resolve their disputes quickly before real damage can be caused. i congratulate the honourable gentleman once again on an extremely good report on a very important issue, to which i am sure we will return in this parliament over the next few years again and again. the honourable gentleman has given us a very important and useful political and intellectual infrastructure for our future discussions. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. question time (council) the next item is questions to the council (b5-0559/2000). question no 1 by (h-0864/00): subject: genetically modified organisms and crops since the spring of this year there have been many cases of the release into the environment in various eu countries of genetically modified organisms and crops, namely cotton, oil seed rape and maize. in some cases measures have been taken, but not in others, and in certain instances no official announcements or findings have been made. it should be pointed out that in many cases directive 90/220/eec has clearly been repeatedly breached. what action does the council intend to take to address these problems and, in particular, what position does it intend to adopt in the short and longer term? as you know, the council adopted a common position on the revision of directive 90/220/ec. the new text provides for much stricter conditions on the use and marketing of genetically modified organisms. the commission considers that once this new directive has come into force, it will make it possible to improve the current situation. the council, meanwhile, wishes to see this directive adopted rapidly in order to provide a stricter framework for the introduction of new gmos onto european union territory. the council also wishes to point out that it is in fact up to the commission to monitor the implementation of community legislation. in transposing the directive into their national legislation, member states will have to ensure that the directive in question is properly implemented and will have to send the commission a brief factual report at each year end on the monitoring of the use of all products placed on the market, in compliance with article 18 of the directive. moreover, the member states and the commission meet regularly in order to exchange information on experience gained in the area of risk prevention related to the spread of gmos in the environment. finally, at the internal market, consumers and tourism council on 30 november 2000, the commission presented an information report on the labelling and traceability of gmos. the council will examine the commission proposals at the environment council on 18 and 19 december. thank you very much, minister, for your answer. the question was as follows: there have been cases where this directive has been breached and gmos have been released into the environment. i gave examples in my question. you are placing me in a very difficult position. it is the task of the commission to ensure that the directive is adhered to. it has probably not done so or has done so inefficiently, i do not know. it is the task of member states to implement the directive, transposing it into their national legislation. in the case in question, the member state has not done so. i should like to think this was an oversight. in greece, we have been told, in the case of modified cotton, that it would be exported. the commission' s answer to a question similar to the one i have asked was that farmers were to be compensated and that the genetically modified cotton was to be exported. will the council be able to help me out of this difficult position? to whom should i turn for information? is it really legal to export this type of material? i still find it hard to believe, minister, and i should like an answer. i would remind you that the council has determined its common position on this proposal and that conciliation therefore is drawing to a close. the entire procedure should be concluded by 4 january 2001 at the latest. this common position sets much more stringent requirements for the member states. i therefore believe that this is where you will find an answer to your questions. mr papayannakis, i have given you all the information i have. could the president-in-office agree that there can be substantial benefits for the environment, human health, developing countries and european science and business from gmo crops? is there a risk that europe could miss out on the benefits if we respond to hysteria rather than to scientific fact? the lisbon summit declared that the european union was to be the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world. is the council prepared to give a lead by championing the biotech industry with a faster rate of field trials and product approvals by the member states? i fear that you are taking us into a fundamental debate which we do not have time to go into here and now. i believe we must assess both the scope and the limitations of any scientific progress. mr president, this debate is already overdue because the bse crisis has huge implications for feedingstuffs, both home-grown and imported. we currently have a ban on animal and bone meal, which is why we need to find a clear position here. it is because of the bse crisis that we are pressed for time. when, do you think, we shall be able to say that we can supply 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs in europe? will this label be available shortly so that consumers can rely on there being a supply of 100% non-genetically modified feedingstuffs? i must answer the honourable member in the same way that i answered the previous questioner. this is a debate which needs to take place, but i think that question time is not the right place for it. this is quite unsatisfactory. that is what question time is about! we have a question, we are entitled to ask a supplementary question and we certainly expect to have a proper response from the council of ministers. that is why we have come here. mr president, i hope you will remonstrate with the council. i should at least like to respond to the honourable member' s lack of satisfaction, so that these remarks may be entered in the minutes, as i cannot allow him to get away with saying something as unfair as that. we are involved in a highly regimented procedure here: the council is required to give answers to a great many extremely specific questions in a very short period of time and there is, i believe, no one here who would claim to be able to expand upon extremely complex social issues in just one minute. it would be both unwise and foolish for the council to attempt to do so. i am therefore perfectly willing to propose that such a debate be held, on condition that the most appropriate forum is chosen. i feel that it would be irresponsible of me to give impromptu answers regarding gmos in only a minute, and that would not be in keeping with the policy of this presidency. question no 2 by (h-0871/00): subject: situation in chechnya how does the council assess the present situation in chechnya, and what efforts has it made in the last six months to try to stop the bloodshed? the council continues to be deeply concerned by the situation in chechnya, where violence continues and the humanitarian situation continues to be very worrying at the onset of winter. for the moment there are no signs of a political settlement to the conflict. the council has expressed its concern at many meetings with russia at all levels, particularly seeking to induce russia to avoid the excessive use of force and to avoid any extension of the conflict, to carry out independent and efficient inquiries into human rights violations, to support the osce assistance group in fulfilling its mission and, finally, to ensure that humanitarian aid is distributed properly. in particular, the council has pointed out that only a political solution could bring this crisis to an end. at the last eu-russian summit on 30 october 2000 in paris, the matter was raised by both presidents. mr putin agreed that there was an urgent need to find a solution of this kind. for the first time, russia accepted wording to this effect in the joint declaration issued following the summit. in this context, while remaining resolutely opposed to talks with what he refers to as "terrorists" , mr putin has indicated the need to distinguish between terrorists and those who have fought in good faith for chechen independence. indeed, mr putin has stated that the assistance group may in the near future return to chechnya. i would point out that this has not yet come about. mr president, two brief supplementary questions. first: did the council contact president maskhadov, who was democratically elected under the supervision of the osce, and other forces of democracy in chechnya in a bid to find a peaceful solution? secondly: has the council obtained information from the council of europe's commissioner for human rights, who is well represented locally? i do not have information exact enough to enable me to answer your supplementary question. all i can say is that we shall continue to liase closely with the commissioner for human rights. mr president-in-office of the council, we in parliament have tried in vain to urge mr nielson, the commissioner responsible for humanitarian matters, to visit chechnya, not just for the sake of an official visit but to carry out a serious survey of the humanitarian situation. we have not succeeded in convincing him. could the french presidency take the baton from us and contact mr nielson, urging him to go to chechnya in the near future? the commission will, naturally, be informed of the content of our debates. mr president, a point of order: it is standard practice in the house for questions which cannot be adequately answered orally to be submitted in writing. i would ask the president-in-office to at least answer our questions in writing if he cannot do so orally. as you know, we are studying ways of reorganising our work. one of the points covered by the document presented by vice-president provan is the form to be taken by question time to the council and the commission. effectively, we have noted that council, commission and members of parliament have all been somewhat dissatisfied on several occasions. therefore, if the council so wishes, it can reply in writing, as you request. however, it must be borne in mind that it is, in effect, sometimes impossible, sometimes difficult and rarely a simple matter to reply to supplementary questions. mr president, i just wanted to say that it was standard practice under the other presidencies to give a precise answer to a supplementary question. the president-in-office must know if he met mr maskhadov or not. how can he say he does not have any precise information? i would like to state that i am in complete agreement with what the chairman said just now. this question time is clearly not satisfactory. i have attended the european parliament on many occasions and have been involved in all sorts of very interesting procedures. this is not one of them. you can see for yourselves that the chamber is far from full. there are perhaps a dozen people here. i say that this is not satisfactory either for the council or for parliament. please do not get agitated. (interruption by mr posselt) please, that is enough; this is really a trivial issue. i am simply trying to present a procedural issue. indeed this is something about which i have written to your president, nicole fontaine, and she agrees with me. i feel that the procedure must be reformed in a quite simple way to enable members of parliament to receive more specific answers on subjects which must be better organised. the council presidency, sir, is not a government or a single person, but a country working together with the departments of the general secretariat of the council, and here we give you the precise answers which we have to precise questions. if you are going to indulge in filibustering, then it is going to take hours. the procedure must therefore be amended or reformed. this is something i must stress and, sir, it has nothing to do with totally misplaced value judgements. question no 3 by (h-0876/00): subject: council's position on the problems linked with alcohol shipments subject to excise duty this serious issue is a problem in many member states (belgium, the united kingdom, denmark, germany, the netherlands and italy). is the council aware of this, of the costs involved for companies which ship alcohol and of the very high risk of fraud and smuggling? what improvements does the council intend to make to the basic directive, 92/12/eec, to ensure that the shipper' s and recipient' s responsibilities are precisely apportioned, precluding any possibility of fraud? what is the council' s opinion of the possibility of eliminating this serious problem through computerised monitoring operated by customs authorities in the dispatching country and in the country of arrival or transit? could this possible solution be put into practice very rapidly, in view of the fact that the commission has shown particular interest in solving the problem through proposals and high-level groups, and is clearly ready to take firm action in this area? the council would remind the honourable member of the conclusions adopted at the council meeting of 19 may 1998 regarding fraud in the alcohol and tobacco industries. on that occasion, it stressed the need for members states and the commission to tackle fraud in the area of excise duty on alcohol and tobacco. it also approved the summary of the report from the high-level group on fraud in the alcohol and tobacco sector. finally, it stressed the importance, subject to the results of a feasibility study proposed by the commission, of a computer-based monitoring system as a long-term objective. the council also undertook to make provision, in the meantime, for the immediate implementation of an efficient selective early warning system. since then, the commission has worked to achieve this. the council urges the honourable member to address that institution on the subject directly, in order to ascertain the details of the above-mentioned measures and the state of progress in implementing them. mr president, i think the question was quite specific. the member in question, that is yours truly, did attempt to approach the commission, which informally provided him with information regarding a situation which could be described as a deadlock. this directive dates from 1992. the problem is well-known - common knowledge in fact - and it is part of the more serious issue of tax evasion, to which we are all extremely sensitive, but it is also extremely damaging to the firms which have no way of coordinating or monitoring it at all. this is why i have had to approach the council. i now take note of the fact that you have spoken of an undertaking. as a supplementary question, i would like to ask whether you are in any way able to forecast your action, seeing as the commission appears to be ready and willing whereas, if i am not mistaken, there seems to be some reticence or disagreement within the council. i would be extremely happy if you could dispel this doubt, for i am sure that all will then proceed very quickly. i can give you the council position, which is that, in general, the current situation regarding fraud in the area of both indirect and direct taxes and the possibility of stepping up administrative cooperation in these areas were discussed quite recently at the ecofin council meeting of 5 june 2000. on this occasion, a report from an ad hoc group on combating tax fraud commissioned by coreper on 8 september 1999 was referred to the council. this report shows, as you quite rightly state, that tax fraud within the community has reached worrying levels. all the member states have confirmed their determination to intensify the fight against fraud both internally and in their relations with others. the council has asked the commission to present at the earliest possible opportunity proposals based on all the recommendations which met with unanimous agreement in the course of the work of the ad hoc group. this also refers to measures which might be undertaken in order to solve the specific problems of excise fraud. this is the context in which i informed you that, without my being aware of any particular disagreement, the commission has worked to this end and i think you might therefore safely ask questions of the commission without fear of any divergence of opinions with the council. are you under the impression that the member states now have the means to achieve the objectives? i tend to feel that we need to put a lot more community power behind the fight against fraud, and i think that the coordination between the member states has failed to come up with the goods so far. will the new measures do the trick? you are right, the fight against fraud is never sufficiently well developed. as you know, over the years we have set up various instruments which are starting to work, but i quite agree that this is a fight which we must wage ceaselessly. this is what we should be striving for. question no 4 by (h-0881/00): subject: increased carrier's liability the french presidency has proposed in council that carrier's liability be increased. this would mean that a carrier, for example an airline, would be penalised if it brought persons without valid visa or identity papers into the eu. in many member states carrier's liability requires the carrier to arrange or pay for immediate return of the persons concerned, combined in some countries with fines. the presidency now wishes to introduce mandatory fines. carrier's liability is an effective method of preventing asylum seekers from reaching the eu. many refugees with grounds for seeking asylum cannot obtain the passports or visas required for entry into the eu. carrier's liability means that their requests for asylum cannot be examined in the eu. instead they are dealt with by airline, airport and other transport staff. does the council consider that the latter are competent in practice to decide the future of asylum seekers? the proposal the honourable member refers to is an initiative from the french presidency with a view to the adoption of a council directive on the harmonisation of financial penalties imposed on carriers transporting third country nationals to member states' territory without the necessary documents for entry. this text, which was presented to the european parliament for consultation on 6 september 2000, is currently being examined by the competent council bodies. the aim of this initiative is to implement a european-wide coherent policy against illegal immigration and the trafficking of human beings, which is a real scourge. increasing carrier liability is one of the essential aspects of this. moreover the proposed directive introduces a minimum instrument common to all member states regarding carrier liability, setting requirements for checks to be carried out by carriers and harmonising the penalties currently laid down by member states. it is not a matter of establishing new penalties against carriers but rather of harmonising those already provided for under the terms of the schengen convention. i should like to draw the honourable member' s attention to the fact that recital 3 of the draft directive does indeed stipulate that application thereof shall not be prejudicial to the commitments arising under the geneva convention of 28 july 1951 relating to the status of refugees, as amended by the new york protocol of 31 january 1967. the european union has, on many occasions, stated its absolute respect for the right of asylum. this has to be reconciled with effective action to combat illegal immigration and the trafficking of human beings. this is imperative and is something that was explicitly called for at the feira european council following the tragic events in dover. mr president, i want to thank the french minister for his answer. i nonetheless believe that the proposal tabled by the french presidency is completely unacceptable and that it really has only one aim, namely to keep asylum seekers out of the eu, something which may in practice lead to an increase in illegal immigration. it is also the case that it is not only refugees under the geneva convention who may be granted asylum but also significantly larger groups. these groups are obviously not excluded under the new proposal. i also asked a specific question concerning the powers of airline and airport employees to make actual decisions on asylum matters. if it is true that those who are regarded as refugees under the geneva convention are to be excluded, what actual powers do check-in staff at an airport in istanbul possess to decide a refugee' s fate, for that is what this issue is about. i think it is a very relevant question because the fate of refugees is being placed in the hands of, for example, airline and airport staff. in my opinion, such staff are not competent and are lacking in training in this area, and it is therefore basically irresponsible to give them this power. that is more a statement of opinion than a question. i would repeat that we are bound to take effective action against this scourge which has given rise to tragic events, and we must do so while ensuring that the european union continues to respect the right of asylum entirely. let me stress that: absolute respect. individual countries may have problems. we are working on that. it is up to that country to voice its concerns. this is, however, i believe, the road we must take. thank you for your answer. i should like to ask the following supplementary question. how major and extensive does the council consider this problem to be, and how seriously does the council view the fact that transport companies organise travel to the eu for persons without valid visa and identity papers? that is precisely the question which i was attempting to answer. let me repeat that it is a subject of the utmost, the very utmost gravity. question no 5 by (h-0882/00): subject: everything but arms proposal is the council content that this proposal from the commission - which may well have dire consequences for already hard-pressed sugar beet farmers in the european union - should be passed without any consultation of the directly-elected european parliament? the proposal for a council regulation amending council regulation (ec) 2820/98 so as to extend duty-free access without any quantitative restrictions to products originating in the least-developed countries, which the commission put forward recently, is the result of community initiatives to improve market access for the least developed countries. in this respect, the acp-ec partnership agreement signed in cotonou in june 2000 stipulates that the european community shall by 2005, at the latest, allow duty free access for essentially all products from all ldcs. in view of the ongoing reform of the common organisation of the market in sugar, rice and bananas, the commission proposal stipulates that market access for such countries will be gradually liberalised over a period of three years from january 2001. the proposal provides for granting products from ldcs duty free access, amending the generalised tariff preference scheme currently implemented by the community. insofar as this proposal relates to common trade policy, it is covered by article 133 of the treaty, which does not call for the european parliament to be consulted. i can assure you, nonetheless, that the council is examining this proposal with a great deal of interest, and is in particular looking into the potential implications for community producers of the proposed duty free access and into whether this proposal is consistent with ongoing plans to reform the common organisation of the market in certain industries such as sugar, for example. last month when i asked a supplementary question in question time, this president-in-office simply avoided giving me a supplementary by saying: "i can only repeat my previous answer" and reading out the previous answer again. this time i will give him a chance not to read out the previous answer but ask him for an undertaking and an agreement. does the president-in-office agree that there should be no decision made on this proposal until there has been a full impact assessment of the effect on the union, the acp countries and the ldc countries? yes or no? the presidency and a number of member states have already received various letters from the comit europen des fabricants de sucre (european committee of sugar manufacturers) regarding the commission' s proposals, which they will take into account in their deliberations. the real impact of the duty free access proposed for european producers will be a key factor in the council' s final decision. i should like to repeat a question which i asked mr moscovici last week in plenary. perhaps he had too many questions to deal with to be able to answer me then. perhaps you could answer me in these more intimate surroundings this evening. it is about the role of the european parliament's in-trade policy, which is the spirit of mr newton dunn's question. do you think that it will be possible for you, me or anybody in europe to advocate greater transparency and accountability in the wto in-trade policy as long as this place has no formal and serious role in scrutinising and vetting trade policy decisions taken by the council of ministers and the european commission? to cite my dear friend, mr newton dunn, perhaps the best way to answer this is: yes or no. i should just like to make you see, on this, my last visit here, what the point of this exercise actually is. the presidency is not here to express the opinions of any given individual or any given government but rather to state what the position of the council is at any moment 'x' or time 't' . so, while i may have my own personal opinions as a political leader - and i do have opinions on the subject, believe me - i shall confine myself to expressing the council' s current position. you mentioned the cotonou agreement. are you aware that the cotonou agreement also expresses a commitment to undertaking impact studies which might affect non-ldc countries as well as to have consultation? neither of those two things has happened. it is not good enough to have consultation after the events. are you aware that apart from sugar producers in europe, concerns are being expressed, especially by countries that are commodity-dependent - particularly in the caribbean - on sugar, bananas and rice, as you have mentioned? i can assure all the members of the european parliament who have asked me questions that the council will take their comments into consideration. as they deal with the same subject, the following two questions will be taken together: question no 6 by (h-0886/00): subject: measures for the prevention of mad cow disease has the council looked into the possibility of a temporary blanket ban on the use of meat and bone meal, with a view to preventing the spread of mad cow disease? what measures will it be proposing in the immediate future for those countries which have been declared high-risk? and question no 7 by (h-0932/00): subject: immediate danger from bovine spongiform encephalopathy the continuing cases of 'mad cow' disease have made consumers, as well as livestock producers, extremely worried. the decisions taken by the recent agriculture council enraged the citizens of the member states, whose health is being jeopardised by continuing consumption of meat that is unfit to eat. when does the council intend to take effective measures to protect consumer health by changing organisational methods and development conditions for livestock rearing, through the use of livestock feed containing protein of plant origin, such as legumes, through radical reform of the cap, a ban on beef exports from france and any other countries where a similar problem appears, universal inspection of cattle and a ban on the production and use of meat meals for feeding ruminants? the council wishes to point out that its policy is always to afford consumers the highest possible level of protection. in particular it has sought, by means of its recent decisions, to ensure that the meat available to consumers is guaranteed to the maximum in this respect, especially by means of its decision with a view to guaranteeing the improved traceability of the origin of meat and elimination from the food chain of a list of specified at-risk materials, which now includes bovine intestines. as a precautionary measure and in order to eliminate risks of cross-contamination, the council has decided to suspend, as of 1 january 2001, the use of meat meals in feedingstuffs for production animals. finally, non-tested animals aged above thirty months may no longer enter the food chain. a purchase and destruction system is to be set up for such non-tested bovine animals, in order to compensate livestock farmers at the market price. the council considers that this package of measures should make it possible to avoid the risk which the honourable members have decried. regarding the method of organisation and the criteria for the development of livestock farming, the council would point out that, in the context of its decisions taken under the agenda 2000 reform, emphasis has been placed on greater incentives for extensive production, particularly by means of bonuses. furthermore, on 4 december 2000, the council noted the commission statements on the cultivation of protein-rich crops and called upon this institution to look more deeply into this matter in the near future and to draw conclusions with reference to current policy in this sector and with regard to set-aside, including, if necessary, by presenting appropriate proposals. the council' s objective in all these decisions is to restore consumer confidence within the european union. however, in consideration of the need to uphold the principles governing the internal market, it aims to favour community-wide measures over measures concerning specific member states. first of all i have to say that, in my opinion, the president-in-office of the council has not yet answered mr korakas' question. secondly, and with regard to my specific question, i thank the president-in-office of the council very much for his answer. i think that the council has been bold and has been quick to take some important measures. however, we are faced with the very serious problem of the failure to comply with the measures agreed. the council knows that in 1989, both the production of feed with animal proteins for feeding ruminants in the united kingdom and for the production of meat meals were banned. this indicates that the measures that we adopted at the time were good and have guarantees. but our problem is that they are not applied, that there is fraud in fulfilling them. i would therefore like to ask the president-in-office of the council if the council of ministers is going to give guarantees that the community rules will be complied with, if it is going to give guarantees that the existing measures banning meat meals are going to be complied with. which inspectors are going to deal with it? what checks are going to be made? is this a concern that has been latent in the council of ministers? answer me please, specifically: what food safety guarantees are going to be given that all these measures are to be applied? mrs izquierdo rojo, i have outlined the decisions that the council has taken. as you yourself stated, these are bold decisions of recent date, the latest of these being from 4 december, that is a week ago. the french presidency has, from the very outset, been concerned to bring about a european response to this crisis, which is a crisis in terms of foodstuffs, society and health. right up to the end, the presidency has stressed and urged that measures be taken, and you may be sure that when france resumes its position as a simple member of the european union at the end of the presidency, it will continue to stress that this must be done. at any event there is now, i believe, a general increase in awareness throughout europe which will enable whatever measures necessary to be taken in order to combat this disease. i wanted to ask if there has been an evaluation of the measures that have been taken. i tend to feel that if drastic measures had been taken earlier, we would not be facing such a disastrous situation now. is that how the council sees it? as you know, we continually act according to the latest state of our knowledge, and so i cannot completely endorse this analysis. i believe, moreover, that we should improve our knowledge, and that is also the point of establishing a european food safety authority, on which the nice european council took a decision in principle at last week' s meeting. this authority must now be set up, and i think the european authorities have now become very aware of the issue, and that we must forge ahead. mrs maes, i am told - for none of us knows the rules of procedures off by heart - that you were not entitled to ask this second question because the members are only entitled to ask one supplementary question during question time. as the author is not present, question no 8 by mrs mckenna lapses. my understanding is that the services were told two days ago that i would be taking over the question for mrs mckenna because we knew then that she would have to go back to dublin on urgent business. i have not been informed of this by any of the assistants and i cannot accept the proposal made now. question no 9 by olivier dupuis (h-0890/00): subject: algerian ban on wafa party the international press reports that the algerian minister for internal affairs, mr yazid zerhouni, refuses - in violation of the procedures provided in law for setting up political associations and parties - to recognise the wafa party led by the former minister, ahmed taleb, which has been set up in full compliance with current legislation. this party, which aims to reconcile islam and the modern world and which could make a significant contribution towards reviving the country's ailing democracy and, therefore, strengthening the rule of law, finds itself subjected to a ban on the well-worn pretext that it would represent 'a threat to state security'. what initiatives has the council taken, or will it take, to persuade the algerian authorities to respect their own laws and thereby also promote the revival of democratic debate and the political process, thus enabling algeria to emerge from the serious crisis in which it finds itself? under the barcelona process, algeria endorsed a number of principles including respect for the rule of law. the presidency conclusions adopted at the end of the fourth euro-mediterranean conference in marseilles on 15 and 16 november 2000 explicitly mention the need to boost political dialogue among the 27 members, including at ministerial level, particularly on the following subjects: the process of consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights and democratic principles. the bilateral political dialogue which the european union is conducting with algeria does indeed focus on the objectives you stressed in your question, i.e. restoring debate and a democratic political dynamic. in fact, three years ago, the european union initiated this kind of political dialogue at ministerial level on the basis of specific guidelines: firstly, condemnation of violence and terrorism, solidarity with the algerian people, the need for the algerian authorities to undertake political and economic reforms, the need for dialogue between the government and the opposition, the european union' s goodwill with regard to developing relations and cooperation with algeria, and, finally, the wish to see an open comprehensive political process implemented in algeria. these are the initiatives which the council has taken or intends to take with regard to the algerian authorities. i can assure you that the european union intends to continue and step up its political dialogue with the algerian authorities, especially involving the ministerial troika. has the presidency representative, in this instance the french ambassador to algeria, actually met mr ahmed taleb? have either the french ambassador or other council leaders initiated talks with the algerian authorities in order to ascertain how they might get around this situation? according to the information i have, i just wish to state that the european union did indeed initiate political dialogue at ministerial level in 1997 and that, in principle, the french presidency is to have a meeting between the troika of ministers and algeria, but as yet no date has been set. as far as i know, the council has never so far discussed the matter of refusal to recognise the wafa party or issued any statement. i am told that it was noted within the working party that this measure indicated a power struggle within the algerian administration. as you can see, i do not have any inside information or, unfortunately, any more specific information. i, or rather the council, will answer your second question in writing. question no 10 by (h-0892/00): subject: un special session on children the un general assembly's special session on children, in september 2001, will discuss the situation of children world-wide, and consider adopting a new plan of action to make children's rights a reality across the world. would the council outline its policy priorities for the un general assembly special session on children? does the council intend to consult widely with civil society organisations, as requested by the un secretary-general, in the setting of its future policy priorities for children, both within the european union and in the developing world? . (fr) i have already had the opportunity, a few weeks ago, to express my comments to you on the preparations for the un general assembly special session devoted to reviewing the results of the world summit for children which is to take place in september 2001. at that time i stressed the importance of preparing thoroughly for this event and the truly fundamental role which the european union should play in these preparations. consequently, on 20 november 2000 last, on the anniversary of the adoption of the convention on the rights of the child, the ministers of the members states with responsibility for matters relating to children and a commission representative met in paris and adopted shared commitments which will contribute to enhancing european union action in making preparations for this special session. i should like to answer your first question and inform you of the political priorities we identified as part of our preparations. the chief objective of the special session will be to renew the international community' s commitments to children' s rights and children' s welfare. to this end, an assessment of the last ten years must be made with regard to the commitments and objectives set at the world summit. the commitments expressed in the millennium declaration, which complement the world summit, should also be taken fully into account. these commitments concern access to education, reducing maternal mortality and under-five child mortality, and combating transmissible diseases, especially aids. as regards your second question, the council is in complete agreement with the point of view of the general secretary of the united nations that all the institutions concerned and also experts, research bodies or academic institutions which have a special interest in children' s issues should be involved in this exercise. the involvement of non-governmental organisations in the preparatory process and in the special session would seem to us to be a basic condition to making this meeting a real success. we welcome the arrangements proposed in this respect by the preparatory committee and adopted by the general assembly regarding procedures for the registration of non-governmental organisations for involvement in the preparatory process and the special session in september 2001. we are in constant liaison with the representatives of the non-governmental organisations, including by means of seminars. in the course of such exchanges, we have benefited from their experience and their commitment to children. we can congratulate the french presidency on taking this initiative to prepare for the un special session. you obviously have made a commitment to involving civil society. will you also make a commitment to actually consulting children, since the events involve them? i hope that their views will also be sought in the months ahead. secondly, it is also the case that while many member states are very active on the issue of children's rights it is actually much more difficult in a european union context to be as proactive. what progress do you think we might make in securing a legal base for the european union's work with children and the promotion of children's rights? . (fr) indeed, mrs kinnock, sweden is also going to organise a conference on refugee children in stockholm in the spring of 2001. question no 11 by (h-0894/00): subject: turkey's obligations under eu-turkey partnership arrangements in its proposal regarding partnership arrangements between the eu and turkey, the commission indicates that the european council is to re-examine the situation regarding unresolved differences, particularly with regard to their impact on accession procedures, so as to help ensure that they can be resolved within the international court of justice before the end of 2004 at the latest. in its own resolution (a5-0297/2000, minutes of european parliament sittings of 15 november 2000), the european parliament also points out that the judgment of the european court of human rights in 'lozidou v turkey' (no. 15318/89) has not yet been implemented and calls on the turkish government to comply with the decisions of the european court of human rights. does the council intend to include in provisions regarding partnership arrangements stipulations regarding acceptance by turkey of the jurisdiction of the international court of justice at the hague and compliance by turkey with the decisions of the european court of human rights, in accordance with the unanimous wishes of the council of europe? yes, political agreement was reached within the general affairs council regarding the text of the accession partnership agreement for turkey and on the framework regulation which defines its principles and conditions. the presidency is very pleased with this result, which marks a significant stage in the implementation of the pre-accession strategy for turkey defined last year in helsinki. the council has not radically changed the initial commission proposal as adopted by the commission on 8 november 2000. there have just been some amendments to the priorities relating to political criteria and to reinforced political dialogue. regarding the reference to the jurisdiction of the european court of human rights, there has been no change to the commission proposal. the partnership agreement contains a number of references to the european convention on human rights. in addition, it stresses the need to enhance the legal avenues for remedying human rights violations. it moreover stresses the importance it attaches to improving the judicial apparatus and the training of turkish magistrates, particularly in the field of human rights. regarding the peaceful settlement of disputes, the text of the accession partnership agreement points out, in accordance with the conclusions of the helsinki european council, that this issue is an important matter, to be dealt with in the context of the political dialogue between the european union and turkey. like the other candidate countries, turkey must make every effort to resolve any outstanding border disputes. i thank the minister for his reply. this question was submitted while the issue of the partnership was still pending. i appreciate how tiring the past days must have been and i shall therefore focus my second question on the subject of the lozidou case, i.e. the judgment against turkey by the court of human rights in strasbourg in the matter of the seizure of the property of greek cypriots in the occupied section of the island. the lozidou case has already given rise to two judgements against turkey. does the council intend to discuss this issue with the turkish government within the context of this partnership which you have referred to? . (fr) i have quite simply pointed out, mr alavanos, the general and specific conditions under which this accession partnership agreement was adopted. this is the context in which negotiations with the candidate country will be going ahead. we have accepted its candidacy and now we have specific requirements and expectations of that country. as the author is not present, question no 12 by mrs karamanou lapses. question no 13 by (h-0897/00): subject: fundamental rights and justice with reference to mr moscovici' s answer to my question and supplementary question of 14 november (h-0854/00), it remains entirely obscure why the council thinks that the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of judgments will in itself do anything to secure due fulfilment of the guarantees contained in articles 5 and 6 of the european convention on human rights, now repeated in articles 48 and 49 of the charter. i refer to guarantees such as the right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of one' s own choosing or, if one has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; to have the free assistance of an interpreter if one cannot understand or speak the language used in court; right to trial within a reasonable time, or to release pending trial. with regard to individual cases such as those mentioned in my supplementary question, how can the council claim that a process of mutual recognition will of itself make any improvement at all? . (fr) as the council has emphasised to the honourable member in the previous answer, the process of the mutual recognition of judgements will afford better protection of individuals' rights. the mutual recognition of judgements will in fact make it possible to better guarantee personal security as it will facilitate the fight against crime on european union territory by improving judicial cooperation. in the long term, the conduct of inquiries and the prosecution of offences will cease to suffer from the limitations due to the diversity of national legal systems. next, mutual recognition affords improved legal safety within the european union in that as it ensures that a judgement pronounced in one state will not be called into question in another member state. this is application of the non bis in idem principle: the same case may not be retried, final judgements cannot be called into question. this is a very important aspect of the protection of individuals. it seems to me, with great respect, president, that the council has yet again failed or refused to address the particular problem which i asked it to address. last time council might have claimed it lacked notice of that question. this time i put essentially the same point for the second time in one month and hope for some kind of an answer. citizens of this union are detained pending trial for totally unacceptable periods of time, their detention is extended and extended. this occurs particularly in longuenesse jail in france and applies to truck drivers from the united kingdom and other countries. i find it wholly unacceptable that this problem should be simply swept under the carpet, and we are assured that the mutual recognition of judgments will help in some way. i want to know why this question, this very plain and simple question, is not being answered. are the rights of defence being adequately honoured and will mutual recognition do anything to help? let me give you the council' s interpretation of your question, and its answer. regarding the specific cases you mentioned, mutual recognition will not lead to validation of a judgement which flouts essential rights such as the right to legal representation of one' s own choice or the right to the free assistance of an interpreter. on the one hand, these are rights which all the states have endorsed and which constitute the shared foundation of our criminal justice systems, and, on the other hand, mutual recognition is a process which is by no means automatic and which depends on the nature of the judgement in question. so, as the council stated in its previous answer, the programme for mutual recognition can only bring improvements in terms of fundamental rights. mr president, i have to say that the president-in-office is turning not answering questions into something of an art form. i would like to press him further. what will the council do to ensure that the states do the kinds of things he has just been setting out? what guarantee do we have, that the theory that you have just stated will actually take place? i have no further information to give you. i think we simply have a little misunderstanding here. what i am in fact trying to explain to you is that the council is indeed taking action to meet your expectations. question no 14 by (h-0899/00): subject: mandate of the rapid reaction force an eu rapid reaction force is currently being set up. what has been decided about the mandate on the basis of which these troops will be deployed, and for what purposes will they be deployed? it is up to the council to decide upon the possible launch of a military operation conducted by the european union as part of the petersberg assignment. in accordance with article 23 of the treaty on european union, the council shall adopt this decision unanimously, as is the case, moreover, for any other decision with implications in the area of defence. it is, furthermore, up to each member state to take a sovereign decision at national level whether or not to commit their national forces to the operation. the nice european council recorded the conditions which might lead the council to take a decision in a crisis situation. according to these, with a view to setting up an operation, the political and security committee (cops) may submit a recommendation to the council on the basis of advice from the military committee. the council, whose deliberations are prepared by coreper according to the customary procedures, may take a decision on the basis of this. the decision to launch an operation would, in principle, take the form of a joint action. the cops, as the kingpin of european security and defence policy and the cfsp, has a central role in defining the european union' s response to a crisis. in particular, it provides the political scrutiny and strategic administration of a military crisis management operation. the option of deploying a rapid reaction force exists for the whole range of crisis management missions, the petersberg missions as defined in article 17(2) of the treaty on european union, humanitarian and evacuation missions, peacekeeping missions and combat troop missions for crisis management, including peacemaking missions. mr president, minister, i would like to ask if any decisions of principle have been taken regarding whether there should be a mandate from the un or any other international organisation in discharging such tasks as these, as, under international law, a mandate from an international organisation is needed before any country' s territory can legally be attacked in this way. furthermore, i would ask what sort of legal definition has been presented or made in the council regarding tasks connected with the deployment of crisis management troops? there is a report available which was appended to the presidency' s report at the nice european council on european security and defence policy. this will give mr seppnen all the answers he requires. it is a rather long document, but all the information is laid out there in precise detail. as the authors are not present, questions nos 15 to 21 lapse. question no 22 by (h-0918/00): subject: bearing of taxes on the operation of the internal market in an article in the financial times in november this year, the commission president, mr prodi, affirmed that he does not want to see tax harmonisation and common tax levels in the eu by stating that tax rates 'are in the hands of the national parliaments and must remain so'. at the same time, in the same article, he considers that, in order for the eu to become dynamic and competitive, there is a need to switch to majority voting on taxes 'where necessary for the internal market to function'. which taxes does the council consider to have no bearing on the dynamic and competitive operation of the internal market? with your permission, mr president, that will be the last question that i shall be able to answer during this question time. the honourable member' s question concerns the unofficial opinions expressed by the commission president. it is not therefore up to the council to state an opinion on this matter. i should just like to point out that the treaty system differentiates between taxes and indirect taxes which must be harmonised in order to ensure the proper establishment and smooth running of the internal market - according to article 93 - and the approximation, laid down in article 94, of legislation which has a direct bearing on the establishment or running of the common market, including legislation on direct taxation. the decisions taken by the council on the basis of articles 93 and 94 were taken according to the rule of unanimity. following the treaty of nice they will, unfortunately, continue to be taken according to the rule of unanimity. i should like to thank the french presidency for its answer. i nonetheless want to ask whether the council welcomes this type of very contradictory and unclear statement from the commission' s president. it is nevertheless the case that, if the desire is to create close cooperation between the council, parliament and the commission, it is unfortunate if the commission' s president produces vague statements of this kind, for his statement can only be interpreted in terms of his wanting to open the way to tax harmonisation despite creating a smokescreen for this. i must repeat that i cannot comment on statements attributed to the president of the commission. however, the matter of whether decisions on taxation should be taken by majority vote was examined in the context of the intergovernmental conference. as you know, it was not possible, unfortunately, to make any progress in this area at nice. question nos 23 to 32 will be answered in writing. that concludes question time. (the sitting was suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.) stabilisation and association agreement with the republic of croatia the next item is the report (a5-0364/2000) by mr baltas, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy, on the commission report on the feasibility of negotiating a stabilisation and association agreement with the republic of croatia [com(2000) 311 - c5-0506/2000 - 2000/2244(cos)] mr president, i have great pleasure in presenting the report on the stabilisation and association agreement between croatia and the european union to this part session of the european parliament. croatia has made considerable progress in the economic, the political and the social sector and the stabilisation and association agreement is the next logical step. allow me briefly to summarise these three main sectors. first, the economic sector. obviously, huge efforts are still needed before the croatian market functions in line with the acquis communautaire. however, efforts are clearly being made and the results of structural and economic reform can already be seen, especially in the transparent procedures being used for privatisation and the protection being offered to foreign investment. the stability, or rather stabilisation and association agreement, which provides for financial aid and general financial assistance through the relevant community programmes, will strengthen this progress in the economic sector and speed up preparations for croatia's accession to the european union at a later date. the progress made by croatia is evident not only in the economic sector but also in the political sector. the new coalition voted in during recent elections in croatia has decided to put its money on democracy and the rule of law. this embracing of democracy and the rule of law go beyond mere words to daily actions: institutions are being created and legislation - such as the legislation on protection for refugees, the right to asylum and immigration - is being reformed. also worth mentioning here are the attempt by certain representatives of the croat community in bosnia to destabilise the government in order to recreate the wartime statelet of herzeg-bosna and the government's compliance with the terms of the dayton agreement and collaboration with the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia. progress has clearly also been made in the social sector and at this point, i need do no more than read you an extract from the conclusions of the council of europe: "croatia has made significant progress in fulfilling its commitments as a member of the international community, in particular with its ratification of the european convention on human rights, the european convention for the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the framework convention for the protection of national minorities, the european charter of local self-government and the european charter for regional or minority languages." with the changes and democratic developments in yugoslavia, the stabilisation and association agreement between the former yugoslav republic of macedonia and the european union and the present motion for a resolution on the stabilisation and association agreement with croatia, there are good prospects for democratisation and stabilisation in the western balkans and croatia can play a specific and decisive role here. the stabilisation and association agreement between the european union and the republic of croatia has come along at just the right time. parliament also has cause to congratulate itself on rushing approval through before the end of the year. just how right it was is confirmed by the summit in nice which ended just yesterday morning. the following is an extract from the chapter describing the western balkans: "the zagreb summit of 24 november, which brought together for the first time countries in the region which had returned to democracy, welcomed the historic changes which have occurred in the western balkans, initially in croatia and then in the fry. . it confirms that the process of stabilisation and association is at the heart of the union' s policy vis--vis the five countries concerned, which each receive individual treatment." mr president, the report on the stabilisation and association agreement takes account of the new democratic developments in croatia and highlights the european prospects for this country, which has managed in the course of the past year to achieve its aim of joining the international community of states. its membership of the nato partnership for peace and of the world trade organisation, its bilateral agreements with the efta states, its free-trade agreements with the cefta member states and the negotiations that began recently, on 8 november, on a wide-ranging stabilisation and association agreement with the european union are all evidence that croatia has embarked on a clear change of course since the elections of 3 january 2000. the european union emphasised this again by the summit held in zagreb on 24 november. however, it also became clear at this summit that the situation inside yugoslavia remains as brittle and strife-ridden as ever. if this pattern of behaviour continues, where in case of doubt each party fights the other, it could break up the stability pact for south-east europe, which is based on regional cooperation. for even now states like croatia are asking whether the obligation to cooperate on a regional basis might not end up delaying their own accession to europe. croatia, like a more democratic serbia, where i hope that democracy will be consolidated on 23 december, could become major factors of stability in these regions destroyed by wars and ethnic conflicts. it is important for the european union, as also the european parliament, to do their utmost to provide economic protection and support for the democratic process in these countries. even if they still have a long way to go before they can join the european union, economic and political help quite simply offer the principle of hope, and mr baltas' report takes that principle into account. but we should also apply the principle of differentiation in this region. croatia has made significant progress, especially by ratifying the european convention on human rights, the european convention for the prevention of torture, the framework convention for the protection of national minorities and the european charter for regional or minority languages. the european parliament's report rightly notes that. another point in croatia's favour is the changed attitude of the newly elected croatian authorities to the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia. croatia has always felt part of western europe, western culture. it needs all our support and encouragement along its chosen road to economic and political reform. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first let me congratulate mr baltas very warmly on his report, in particular for the fact that he drafted it so quickly, for it was both important and correct to react quickly to the changes in croatia as mr stenzel said. i also had very good talks with members of the former government. some were very useful, but the whole thing always had to be seen in the context of extreme nationalism, of very sluggish cooperation with the international criminal tribunal and a very hesitant approach to bosnia and herzegovina. that has changed. the new croatian government has not only recognised but actually supports europe's balkan policy. and that is why it was right to react quickly. i can see no contradiction between the one-to-one relations between the european union and croatia and the various balkan countries, and regional cooperation. we need regional cooperation. we need it, for example, with bosnia and herzegovina, and it is most welcome that the government has said it will support the idea of bosnia and herzegovina as a single state, which has not always brought it friends among the croatians in herzegovina. but that is a bold, clear and definite step and it must be followed up. in the end we also need cooperation with yugoslavia, meaning cooperation on both sides. on the one hand we must continue to insist that the ethnic serbian refugees who have fled croatia can return there, that this is not just the will of the government but can also be achieved against quite considerable local resistance in individual regions, villages and areas. but of course we also need cooperation with yugoslavia not just for this process but also in order to stabilise the region. even if we are being a little cautious and reticent at this point we and mrs pack is here too have told mr kostunica quite plainly that we must also require the new yugoslavia, which we hope will emerge stronger from the elections on 23 december, to cooperate with the international criminal tribunal, to cooperate on a regional basis, to be prepared to resolve the conflicts peacefully. my third and final comment is this. the zagreb summit sent out a clear message. we in this parliament have already incorporated the further developments clause in the agreement with macedonia. now, however, we must also prepare the way carefully. that makes the decision, or non-decision, of nice rather disappointing: the complexity of the majority-voting system makes things difficult enough for the current round of enlargement, but they will become much more difficult when it comes to enlargement towards south-eastern europe. here the union still has much work to do. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we too can answer yes to the question whether croatia deserves a stability and association agreement. croatia is increasingly becoming a factor of stability in the region. it is making positive progress towards democracy. however, let me emphasise that even though we welcome this progress, this does not mean we think croatia has reached its goal. it must now take the next steps towards legislative reform, especially in relation to minority rights, freedom of the press and an independent judiciary. it is up to the commission to take a very critical look at precisely these aspects now in preparation for the stability and association agreement. let me also stress that croatia is endeavouring to put its relations with neighbouring states in good order. that means it really has made quite positive progress here. it is particularly important to show croatia that we regard it as quite crucial what role it takes on with regard to stabilisation in bosnia and herzegovina and the federation there. indeed, that is the precisely the yardstick by which we must measure croatia's progress towards stabilisation. i think it would be a disaster for the eu to tie economic support to an agreement on the return of the refugees in the association and stabilisation agreement. that issue must be based on other conditions, namely whether access to asylum in croatia is compatible with international standards and whether it is a humane access to asylum. i believe this question has to be treated separately and must not be part of the agreement. mr president, our group supports the work done by mr baltas on the report on the feasibility of negotiating stabilisation and association agreements with the republic of croatia. we also think that the commission has acted at the appropriate time to launch this proposal. we think that the work has been done in record time, and we congratulate mr baltas on his efficient work in committee. we think that it is timely because, although at the time, we, as the european left, criticised some countries of western europe for their role in the break up of the former yugoslavia, through encouraging, facilitating or instigating hatred and aggression, both ethnic and of other kinds, which resulted in the emergence of croatia, at this time, when its recent past has also changed, i think it is a very good sign that the european union is taking a step forward to help recover the mood of tolerance, democracy, respect for human rights and living in harmony with other republics and areas in the region, because it is of vital importance for the european union. we should not forget the suffering of the almost three hundred thousand people, of serbian origin, who were violently expelled in a week, by terrorist methods, from krajina, and had to flee to serbia. i think it is important to recognise that it was wrong and that those people be helped to return, if they wish, to their homes. that would prove that tolerance, living together in harmony and respect for different opinions are possible in the balkan region and it would improve the prospects for our future in the area. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i particularly welcome the start of the negotiations on a stabilisation and association agreement, which will at last open up the prospect that country deserves. unlike its neighbour slovenia, immediately after independence in 1991 croatia was not able to develop in a way as to allow it to become a candidate for accession at this point. for at the time, in 1991, one third of the country was occupied. at the time the croats were driven out. in 1991/92 more than 250 000 croats were expelled from kraijina, from western and eastern slavonia. they were not able to return to their homes until the, to my mind, justified recapture of these areas. there they found their property and possessions in ruins. unfortunately, during this recapture serbs who had the right to live there were expelled in return, not just by the croats but sadly also by their serb ringleaders, who, of course, did the same in bosnia and herzegovina and in sarajevo. unfortunately, we also saw serious attacks carried out during this recapture. but we should not confuse cause and effect. we then punished croatia for this recapture by denying it our friendship. we refused to grant it any aid. and because we refused to help, many things then started to go wrong in croatia, with wrongful privatisation, corruption and so on. the new government has now taken a european line in many policy areas. it is seeking to cooperate with the hague. it has stopped supporting separatist movements in bosnia and herzegovina. it is currently adopting difficult austerity measures in order to meet the preconditions. so i believe croatia has deserved this support. it can become a factor of stability throughout the region. mr president, during the years when i was president of the parliamentary assembly of the council of europe, i had the opportunity to support many croatians in their efforts towards the freedom and prosperity that they, like other peoples on our continent, identified with their integration into the european institutions. in the 20th century, croatia has gone through the same stages that many of us that are now part of the european union had to go through. in the last 60 years, croatia experienced a particularly awful form of fascism. a fascism like that in germany, austria, italy and spain: a characteristically european path, therefore. then the croats, through a particularly militant anti-fascist resistance, freed themselves from nazism. this journey of resistance is part of the best of european heritage. after a new and long period of authoritarianism came the outbreak of independence, led by nationalist forces and others based more on purely democratic aspirations. in the struggle between them the croatians had to go through a new chapter of ultra-nationalist authoritarianism, supported paradoxically by their serbian counterparts, through the occupation of part of their territory and through the war. with peace and the consolidation of democracy, the croatian people have chosen the path of moderation and tolerance, freedom and respect. and they have clearly identified that choice with their full participation in the project for european construction. the entry of croatia into the council of europe made a decisive contribution to the positive developments that have been taking place in the country, and was a step further along the road to the stabilisation and association agreement with the european union, which we are debating today and which we want to become a reality as soon as possible. this agreement is nothing if not a step further towards croatia' s accession as a full member of the european union, and there is no place on that path for any conditions other than those that the other applicant countries have to comply with. the croatians have a right to that accession, but, moreover, i think it is obvious that the european project would be incomplete as long as croatia was missing from the mosaic, along with its other neighbours from the former yugoslavia. we will therefore vote in favour of the proposals put forward by our friend mr baltas and we commit ourselves to continuing to support croatia in its efforts to become one more member of the european union. mr president, i am delighted to be able to comment on the excellent report by the honourable gentleman, mr baltas - produced, as several honourable gentlemen have said, with considerable expedition - on the commission's feasibility study for a stabilisation and association agreement with croatia. this has of course been a historic year for south-east europe. it was croatia - we should not forget - that got things moving with its elections under a year ago. so i am delighted that we celebrate the end of the year by launching negotiations with croatia for a stabilisation and association agreement. we initiated those negotiations appropriately enough at the zagreb summit a fortnight ago and the first full negotiating session takes place on monday in brussels. we hope to make swift progress in these negotiations and to be able to conclude them rapidly. how rapidly depends to some extent not just on us but on the croatian negotiating team who are extremely well prepared. i have to say that, on the basis of croatia's performance this year, i have every confidence that we will be able to set a brisk pace. certainly that is what croatia has done during the course of the last months: setting an example to its neighbours, demonstrating how rapidly it is possible to turn a country's political fortunes around, given sufficient vision and political courage. i want to pay a warm tribute to croatia's leaders and to her people for what they have achieved. croatia has, for example, bravely transformed its relations with the hague, based on the wise assertion of her president that it is only by establishing individual guilt that a country can truly be absolved of collective guilt. wise advice, applicable not just in croatia but wherever war crimes are alleged. as mrs stenzel pointed out, croatia has joined the pfp and wto, and it has taken on a host of other international obligations. the new government has made radical changes to croatia's relations with bosnia and herzegovina, clearly distancing itself from extremists in herzegovina and instituting a more open financial relationship with the croat components of the federation army. it has pioneered free trade agreements with fyrom and slovenia and now with bosnia and herzegovina. it played an extremely helpful role in supporting the democratically elected government of montenegro in withstanding pressure from the milosevic regime. at the same time, the government has started to make real reforms at home - politically and economically - that have led us to conclude that croatia would be able to uphold the substantial obligations which a stabilisation and association agreement entails. last month, as the house knows, croatia hosted, with extremely impressive efficiency and diplomatic finesse, the historic zagreb summit. i do not think that is a bad record for a year. so i am pleased, if not surprised, that parliament backs our judgement that it was right to proceed quickly to begin these negotiations with croatia. i share many of the observations in the report. i strongly agree, for example, that we need substantially to increase our financial support for croatia under the cards regulation. we have a team of officials in croatia this week to look at programming for next year. i strongly endorse parliament's view. i know that it is the strong view of the croatian government that countries participating in the stabilisation and association process must be judged on an individual basis on their own merits. the agreements must be tailored to their particular circumstances and adjusted to the rate of progress that they have made. that is certainly our approach, and the speed with which we have adjusted our policy towards croatia in recent months testifies to that. we also naturally want to see countries participating in the stabilisation and association process taking the lead not just in establishing closer relations with the european union but with each other too. this is not - and i want to emphasise this point - a sort of back-door attempt to try and recreate yugoslavia. it is an underlining in our relations with these countries of what has been our own experience. we coped with appalling political division. we coped with turmoil by coming together, by trying to work together economically and politically. it should not come as a surprise to countries which want a better relationship with us, which want a closer relationship with us, which want to join us in the european family, when we insist on exactly the same for them. in the last year croatia has embarked boldly and decisively on the road to europe, but there remains, despite recent progress, some way to go. we will need to see a strong continuing commitment on the part of croatia and on the part of other governments in the region to refugee return - a point which a couple of honourable members referred to. above all we will need to see continuing economic and institutional reform, the establishment of a genuinely free economy, reform of property law, the strengthening of the independence of the judiciary and the protection of the rights of minorities. there will also need to be serious reform of the media, with a real effort to create a genuinely open and pluralistic media environment, living up to the highest professional standards of impartiality and independence, especially in television. so we will continue to need the support of this parliament as we urge our croatian friends to press on with these reforms, many of which will bring pain before the gains are evident. we welcome parliament's support so far, not least on the important question of the legal base for the stabilisation and association agreements. this is an important point for us and we will, i hope, be able to count on parliament's support when we come back to consult you formally once we have negotiated the agreement. the conclusion of the stabilisation and association agreement will, of course, be subject to the assent of this parliament. with the start of these negotiations, croatia has embarked on a new era in its relations with the european union. croatia has won many friends in europe for the role it has played in the last year and for the progress it has achieved. of course, in many respects the hard part is only just beginning, but i have every confidence that the people of croatia are equal to the challenge, equal to the difficult path of reform, the path to europe that now lies ahead. we in the european commission look forward to helping croatia to meet that challenge and to helping croatia along that road. as i said at the outset, this year began with the people of croatia and their new democratic government lighting a candle. i think it was remarkably important for the whole region. we owe it to croatia to give the government and people of croatia every help in the years ahead and we are extremely grateful to the honourable member for his wise advice in ensuring that we pursue this route. that concludes the debate. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. i should like to thank all colleagues who contributed to the debate and kept so well to their speaking time. it is unusual for this parliament. i will be severe from now on. developing closer relations with indonesia the next item is the report (a5-0323/2000) by mrs maij-weggen, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy, on the communication from the commission to the council and to the european parliament on developing closer relations between indonesia and the european union [com(2000) 50 - c5-0288/2000 - 2000/2152(cos)]. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, when the commission issued its communication on relations between indonesia and the european union a year ago, indonesia seemed to be on the way to a true democracy under the wahid government, which had newly taken office. a year on, the picture looks far less optimistic. the road to democracy, to respect for human rights, to a sound administrative and legal system, to the eradication of corruption, seems to be a long road beset with obstacles. here is a great deal of opposition to the wahid government and the process appears to have come to a standstill. this opposition to the democratically elected government comes from various quarters, from military circles, from the supporters of the corrupt suharto regime, from groups of fanatical muslims, and from armed militia circles. the president is also still under fire over the bulog and brunei affair. however, it is important that the vice-president and the president of parliament have declared their loyalty to the president. the problem the government is struggling with is seen most clearly in the regions that were used as migration destinations owing to over-population, and that were also misused as conquered land. worst of all is the situation in irian jaya and the moluccas. it is incomprehensible, in this respect, that the laskar jihad was given the chance this spring to go to the moluccas in their thousands, in order to stoke up the conflicts there again. this has left the moluccas with thousands of dead and several hundred thousands of refugees. people are very afraid at present - and that includes the 50 000 moluccan citizens in the netherlands - that the situation will escalate further around christmas. we have received reports to the effect that the laskar jihad is preparing to launch a new offensive, in west-irian among other places, but also in small countries such as gorom and lusalaut. people are being killed because they are christians. people are being locked up in churches and forced to convert to islam. there are even reports that the laskar jihad has banned all christian church bells from ringing at christmas. what we are seeing is religious terror. as rapporteur i find that intolerable and i would therefore ask the commissioner what the european union can do with respect to the wahid government in order to prevent further bloodshed. then there is irian jaya. the violence is escalating there too. more people died this weekend. last week, hundreds of students were picked up and four of them were returned to their parents as corpses. there are still some papuan leaders under lock and key too. we expressly wanted to respect the territorial integrity of indonesia in our resolution, but surely that cannot mean the people of irian jaya having to renounce their own culture and identity? that sort of violence only stirs up feelings of hatred. i would like to lend my voice to the warning issued by the united states government to the effect that the violence must stop. the eu ought to take the same line. peace is very far from being restored in timor and aceh. in timor, the militias block the return of the refugees and relief workers are besieged. and the murder of the dutch journalist thoenes has not been investigated yet. three more relief workers died in aceh last week and fifteen died at the beginning of december. mr president, these regional problems are the worst in indonesia at the moment. as such, the plans to give these regions more autonomy are to be welcomed, as are the undertakings to leave more revenue from raw materials to the regions. as far as the overall approach in indonesia is concerned, things are in fact heading in the right direction. but it is precisely these problems in the regions that are still very much apparent. what can the role of the european union be? indonesia is one of the most important countries in the asean area. it is important for the whole area for indonesia to be a stable, democratic constitutional state with good relations within and outside asean. the european union must support the democratic and socio-economic developments, but not unquestioningly. we must attach conditions to our aid and support. we must see signs of progress in the democratisation process, the human rights situation must improve, the violators of human rights must be tried, corruption must be tackled and the power of the army must be further reduced. should this fail to happen then aid will have to be suspended if necessary. there should also be far more coordination of aid at european level. the eu embassy in jakarta could assume a coordinating role. we also ask the european commission to follow this policy line in our resolution. lastly, with all due respect for the sovereignty of indonesia, if violence erupts again in the moluccas and on irian jaya around christmas, then international action should not be ruled out in our view. i have in mind sending un observers to the crisis areas, where action is urgently needed, but also humanitarian relief action if necessary. the murder really must stop. certainly that committed by army units, militias and militant muslims. otherwise, what is the difference between the wahid government and the old suharto regime? we are very concerned and expect the european commission to respond to these developments. mr president, i would like to compliment mrs maij-weggen on her excellent report, and thank her for the pleasant cooperation we have had. political stability and respect for human rights and the constitutional state are key to economic recovery following the asia crisis. they are also pre-requisite to closer cooperation between the european union and indonesia. on behalf of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, i will restrict what i have to say to three points. we are concerned about the high degree of corruption and nepotism in the indonesian economy. too many members of former ruling families still wield power. this is a major obstacle to economic recovery and social stability in the region and therefore needs to be tackled. secondly, it is essential for the private banking sector in indonesia to be restructured. the agency for the restructuring of the indonesian banks, the so-called ibra, has so far been unable to allow the merchant banks to resume their loans service. what is more, the ibra has considerable financial interests in various enterprises. it is even the sole shareholder in a few companies. these enterprises ought to be privatised. at the same time, this would create new opportunities for much-needed foreign investment. finally, economic relations with indonesia are now based on the asean agreement. so far, the asean countries have made little progress as regards economic integration, even though the establishment of a free-trade zone between the members has been mooted for years now. my committee has therefore asked to conclude a bilateral cooperation agreement between the european union and indonesia. i will take this opportunity to ask commissioner patten to investigate this possibility, along with his colleague mr lamy. mr president, the positive developments that have been seen in indonesia are unquestionable, to the extent that they suggest that a new relationship and effective cooperation with that country are in order. thus the terms of the commission' s communication at the beginning of the year are justified, even if it is marked by a certain euphoria surely resulting from those changes. the internal challenges facing indonesia are, however, enormous and complex, as revealed by more recent events. there is the explosive situation in irian jaya, exacerbated by the use of repressive methods; there is also the difficult situation in aceh and the moluccas; in addition there is the dramatic situation experienced by refugees in the camps in west timor - and the lack of measures that could change it - where the militias still act with impunity; and all this is tied up with the pressure from the former suharto regime and the significant capacity for manoeuvring of military groups clearly identified with it and openly linked with integrationist and nationalist movements. these facts can only concern us, and therefore the initial optimism that was so clear in the commission' s communication should be reconsidered and tempered to some extent. there is no doubt that cooperation with indonesia should be strengthened, and it should be directed into support for the authorities of this country in fields such as improvements in administration, the fight against fraud and corruption, the judicial system, environmental protection and improvements, or humanitarian aid for the displaced and refugees. but the level of this cooperation must take into account the effective progress the country may make in solving regional problems and the methods used for solving them, its respect for human rights, and also the country' s collaboration in the positive development of the timor lorosae independence process, particularly in solving the problems faced by the west timor refugees and in prosecuting and sentencing militia members who have behaved criminally and only recently murdered three united nations workers. i believe the report by our colleague, mrs maij-weggen, who in fact knows the situation well, satisfactorily addresses these aspects and therefore deserves our full approval. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to begin by congratulating mrs maij-weggen on the excellent job she has done. the democratisation process in indonesia deserves due recognition and therefore support. one of the clearest expressions of this process, but also of the contradictions that make it so fragile, was what happened in east timor. when the right to self-determination had been accepted, in the time between the popular vote and the recognition of the result, armed militias supported by indonesian troops executed a detailed plan to destroy public infrastructure and thousands of homes, ruin crops and farming implements, and persecute the population, which, in terror, took refuge in the mountains and in west timor. as part of a delegation from this parliament, i was one of the international observers of the ballot and witnessed the timorese people' s amazing thirst for freedom, but i also had the impression that as soon as we had gone nothing would be left standing. there are still contradictions like this in indonesia, whether in the moluccas, aceh or irian jaya, and they are still manifest in east timor too. the prosecution of those who committed crimes in east timor and are now in indonesian territory has yet to take place. it is unacceptable that they should escape justice because of a recently enacted law. more than one hundred thousand refugees remain in west timor, virtual human shields for the originators and perpetrators of crimes in east timor. i was in these refugee camps earlier this year. in them are those who committed crimes and those who witnessed them. the justice which is not being done and the refugee camps which are becoming permanent are areas for confrontation between the old and the new powers in indonesia and reveal the fragility of the democratisation process. only this week, top untaet officials were at serious risk when they left the indonesian parliament building in jakarta after meeting the country' s president. we can support the democratisation process, as we have been doing; what we cannot do is take the place of the protagonists in this process. mr president, indonesia is struggling but is emerging victorious. the revolution in the country and the way in which it took place, remain the basis for cautious optimism. but the excellent report by mrs maij-weggen also underlines the fact that indonesia' s problems have increased rather than decreased. the country is not unique in that respect. after all, these problems are characteristic of a country that is having to undergo a multifaceted transition. it must develop a new identity with a better balance between the centre and peripheral areas. on the economic front, the market must throw off the shackles of far-reaching state interference and attract new investment. the poverty issue is extremely pressing. a hybrid society must be turned into a transparent one. corruption must be tackled. the eu could lend a hand there, by talking to european companies. old structures must be dismantled so that indonesia can at last get a grip on itself. many current problems are down to a lack of democratic control, for example over those parts of the army that resist change and loss of privilege. in many places, violence prevails over dialogue. what gives most cause for concern is the situation in the moluccas, where jihad fighters are left to their own devices in a manner which is insupportable. the government in jakarta should do far more to get a grip on the situation on the ground, and the eu must continue to bring the necessary pressure to bear, partly as an expression of the increased responsibility that the european union must take for the region. if these efforts should fall short of the mark, then we cannot afford to rule out the possibility of the international community becoming more actively involved. when a country starts functioning as a constitutional state again, it must also settle old scores. this process is moving very slowly. the old structures resist the due process of justice. this is hardly surprising given that they have been accessories to crimes in many cases. we ask, and demand, that the culprits be tracked down and tried, be they the suharto family or the murderers of the dutch journalist sander thoenes. relations between indonesia and the eu can only improve further if we know that our allies really hold sway there, and that the constitutional state is functioning properly. mr president, the traces of suharto are very far from erased in indonesia. military influence may have been reduced but is still far too great. corruption is still rampant. ongoing violence on the moluccas, in aceh and in irian jaya is causing great suffering among the people. president wahid and vice-president sukarnoputri have been unable to demonstrate a great deal of governmental power so far. it is very important for europe to support the economic and democratic developments in indonesia. but as mrs maij-weggen has already said, this assistance comes at a price. it must benefit the poorest sections of the population. the violation of human rights must stop, the proceeds from corruption must be traced, and above all, wealth must be far better distributed. it is very difficult to hold this immense realm together. fortunately, the time when a handful of dutchmen were able to do so is now past. but poor administration, where the military are left to wreak havoc undisturbed, feeds the desire for independence. the origin of the conflict on the moluccas mainly lies in suharto' s ill-considered migration policy, which disturbed the population balance. the situation on these islands is still alarming. only if an impartial army steps in will there be a chance of peace. the international community must bring maximum pressure to bear on jakarta in order to put an end to the violence on the moluccas. more humanitarian aid must be delivered. the same applies to echo, which, i might add, is doing a first-rate job out there. irian jaya is also suffering the effects of migration policy. here too the local people are frustrated by the immigration of muslims and the hard line taken by the military. it is of paramount importance that those guilty of human rights violations are not allowed to get away with it. i concur with those of my colleagues who are demanding an immediate judicial inquiry into the murder of sander thoenes. mrs maij-weggen has written an outstanding report and i would therefore conclude that europe must do all it can to support the country on its way to democracy, but at the end of the day, it is up to the indonesians themselves to erase the traces of the suharto regime. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i shall begin by bringing two dates to your attention. here, tomorrow, we shall have the presentation of the sakharov prize. a year ago, this prize was, in fact, conferred on president xanana gusmo. at that time, we honoured the efforts, the courage and the example of the timorese people. in february this year, the commission embarked on a new political initiative with regard to indonesia, to which we also gave our approval here. in my view, i am sad to say, i think we were all a little hasty. i am sad to say this because i too would have liked things to have turned out well in indonesia. i too would have liked to see the benefit of the doubt that we hastened to give reciprocated. but, unfortunately, this year has shown that it was not to be. as mrs maij-weggen pointed out here in her introductory statement - which i emphatically support, together with the force of her report - the situation in indonesia is deteriorating. we must learn from this lesson by sending indonesia clearer and unambiguous signals, not contradictory ones. i believe indonesia is a great country, but it is at a crossroads, and it depends on the efforts of the international community and the european union whether, at this crossroads, it will swing for good towards democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law, or whether the disorder will increase. to this end, we must learn to choose priorities: we cannot mix environmental issues, social policy issues or economic policy issues all at the same level as the key problem of respect for democracy and human rights, which clearly has to be a political priority in our relationship with indonesia. i also say we must give a clear signal, because we cannot have a two-speed policy: sometimes we seem to criticise but then we seem to do nothing. we must learn from this year' s experience, which has been a beneficial experience, and give a very powerful signal indicating the change that we want for indonesia. mr president, the rapporteur, mrs maij-weggen, makes crystal-clear what the real political problems are in indonesia. she is quite forthright in naming the opposing forces of the essential and exacting process of reform. she rightly refers to them in her report as still being very powerful. however, following the latest reports from the indonesian archipelago, we are compelled to ask whether the situation does not in fact look more serious, more precarious still for president wahid and his brothers-in-arms, than the report would suggest. yesterday, an insider summed up the situation in the indonesian archipelago with the following sentence: 'the reformation is stagnating and the restoration minus the suharto family promotes stagnation.' stagnation of the reformation in no way implies that the way to a democratic constitutional state - and i quote the rapporteur - 'is truly leading nowhere' . hence now is the time for the european union to carefully support, as far as it is able, the democratic forces, which are neither numerous nor strong. in view of the historical burden that sits on the shoulders of two present-day indonesian regions, the moluccas and irian jaya, indonesian and western understanding for this distressing historical millstone alone would relieve a great deal of political tension and suffering. this is most definitely a task for the european community. the report that winged its way to me from indonesia offers a ray of hope. despite these uncertain times, a growing number of people within the christian churches out there are calling for people to do some soul-searching. they want people to stop working to secure the interests of their own groups and show sympathy towards their fellow human beings, including muslims, out of the love of christ, which offers hope of reconciliation to the entire, and sometimes sorely afflicted, archipelago. mr president, i congratulate mrs maij-weggen on an excellent report. i know she has great experience of indonesia and, in particular, the indonesian moluccan community living in holland. the position we have to take regarding the territorial integrity of indonesia is simple: we have to abide by international law and by the united nations resolution 2504 of december 1969. that resolution categorically affirms that irian jaya is part of indonesia. it is something that all our countries have agreed to, have signed up to, and have a responsibility to support. it was a recognition by the global community of the legality of the vote in irian jaya to become a permanent part of indonesia and reaffirm united nations declaration 1514 of 1960 which prohibits any act aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a country. the situation in irian jaya is totally different, legally and constitutionally, from the situation that pertained to east timor. parliament should not confuse the two. irian jaya is an integral part of indonesia historically. east timor never was. the rule of law must therefore prevail. yes, of course we must ensure that indonesia maintains its progress in the prosecution of those members of the security forces accused of human rights violations. in this case we must wield the carrot and the stick. any outside intervention other than support for democratisation and the rule of law can only be seen as counterproductive and inflammatory to all parties. there will be no winners if we take an imperial stance on this issue. i use that word advisedly. what we can do in the european parliament and the eu is to ask the new democratic indonesian government not to over-react. over-reaction will play into the hands of the separatists, turning terrorists into martyrs and heroes. the other activity we can undertake immediately is to give massive support to good governance projects in indonesia: support in terms of manpower, money, ngo activity, setting standards and criteria so that the devolved administrative arrangement now agreed by president wahid can be underpinned by creating lasting democratic and civil society institutions. if we want to help indonesia we must act now with money and deeds, not merely words. mr president, i should like to add my words to those of my colleagues, regarding both the content of the report and in congratulating mrs maij-weggen on her realistic approach to it, and especially for being true to the values and principles of our european union. i believe it is essential, when stating the route to cooperation with indonesia, to be vigilant about the application of values and the establishment of the rule of law. this commission proposal has come at a crucial moment, since indonesia is at a crossroads in a serious economic crisis, and our help in encouraging the establishment of the rule of law and in encouraging support for those interested in setting up a democracy and making indonesia a strong country but one that respects human dignity, is fundamental. if i may, i should like to make two proposals and one request to the commission. the first proposal is that parliament sends a delegation specifically to visit the refugee camps, not only in west timor but everywhere, because according to the maij-weggen report there are about a million refugees. it is important that we should not confine ourselves to approving the report but that we should follow it up. secondly, it is important that the indonesian authorities allow non-governmental organisations free passage to get medical and humanitarian aid to the inhabitants of indonesia and to the timorese who are in a situation of such human misery that these organisations should not be denied access. it is absolutely essential that humanitarian principles are adhered to and respected. lastly, i should like to ask the commission, through mr patten, to be vigilant in enforcing these principles, because, although i support the idea that the european union should encourage cooperation with indonesia, this should not be at any cost, and i therefore call for detailed monitoring of the allocation of this aid. mr president, i welcome this report but i feel it is a little up-beat. the situation has improved and we must encourage president wahid, but there are still horrendous problems. the government is weak and constantly under attack, the military resists civilian control, the economy is fragile and, above all else, human rights are poor. that is why we must link development aid to progress in human rights abuses. we must make sure, also, that the murderers of the financial times journalist, sander thoenes, are brought to justice; and the murderers of the three humanitarian aid workers and one torture victim killed only last week by indonesian security forces in aceh are brought to justice, also the perpetrators of past crimes. that should include a new trial for president suharto. i am pleased that the un issued indictments today because of crimes against humanity in east timor, and indonesia should be aware, with or without cooperation, that those trials will go ahead. mr president, i wish to begin by congratulating my honourable friend mrs maij-weggen on what is generally regarded as an excellent report. it is a very comprehensive report and particularly useful in updating us on developments since the adoption of the commission's communication last february. since then time has certainly not stood still in indonesia. i sometimes reflect on what a great american friend of mine, who was once ambassador in indonesia, said: he thought that of all the most important countries in the world indonesia was one about which we knew all too little. i think the report is extremely valuable in shedding light on what has been happening. so i am grateful to her and the committee for the motion for a resolution. in particular i am pleased that the points made generally seem to be supportive of the action of the european union and in particular of the action of the european commission. the key message of the commission's communication was the need to recognise that indonesia was undergoing a difficult period of transition in which the forces of reform needed our support. that support is to be provided through an enhanced political and economic dialogue, as well as enhanced targeted development cooperation. the communication was written in a positive spirit, reflecting the new dawn in our relationship. it is fair to say - i suspect in the presence of the indonesian ambassador - that indonesia recognised and welcomed that. almost a year later it is useful to consider whether our proposals and analysis are still valid, given recent political developments in indonesia. in particular this last year has seen growing and worrying unrest, instability and human rights abuses in the regions and, in particular, in aceh, irian jaya and the moluccas, where the commission recently adopted a decision for a further eur 2m from echo to help the displaced persons in both provinces. the situation is far from stable in all three areas. only this weekend, as a number of honourable members have reminded us, three local employees of a danish non-governmental organisation were murdered in aceh. i strongly condemn these murders. they are a reminder of the extremely dangerous conditions faced by all aid workers in many parts of indonesia. i want to pay tribute to their bravery and dedication. i know that the house would want to do likewise. the commission and the council have reconfirmed their support for the territorial integrity of indonesia. i am glad that parliament is doing likewise. however, at the same time we have also underlined the indonesian government's responsibility to maintain law and order and to protect human rights in its territory. it is a challenging task for the democratic government of president wahid, not least to combat what he has called the dark forces of the past that are trying to play out a national struggle for power on distant battlefields. it is essential that he rises to that challenge. at the same time he needs to meet the genuine aspirations at local and regional level for a fair share in economic growth and greater autonomy. a special case is the still unresolved question of west timor. clearly it is unacceptable that tens of thousands of east timorese refugees are still held hostage at the mercy of armed bandits who, in the name of indonesian patriotism, try to get away without punishment for their criminal past. the government of indonesia has undertaken some steps, but much more needs to be done and much faster. i listened with interest to the proposal made by the honourable member towards the end of our discussion. the extraordinary transition of indonesia is far from over: democracy is still young and very fragile. only two years ago indonesia was still ruled by a military-backed authoritarian leader. the massive economic collapse in the wake of the 1997 asian financial crisis has aggravated social tensions and ethnic conflict. it is clear that indonesia's difficulties will not be solved overnight. the key challenges are still those which we identified in the communication. first, the consolidation of the rule of law, including civilian supremacy over the military and the combating of corruption; second, the implementation of regional autonomy in a way that reduces the incentives for separatism; and, third, economic restructuring. so what does the future hold for our relations with indonesia? above all we must continue to express our support for the necessary but fragile democratisation and reforms and we must ensure, as we did throughout the crisis, that our markets remain open. an honourable lady earlier in the debate referred to our relationship with indonesia as part of our relationship with asean. i must say that what is noticeable in our relationship with indonesia is the extent to which that country has profited from our generalised system of preferences. it was the fourth greatest beneficiary in 1998. while eu exports dropped in 1997 and 1998 and have only stabilised since, european union imports from indonesia have surged significantly providing indonesia with a trade surplus which has cushioned them against the crisis. how should we engage indonesia in the coming years? the main mechanisms for doing so have been outlined in the communication: more and more open dialogue both political and economic. the senior-official meetings launched this year will continue with our second consultative forum in early 2001. we also want to see enhanced contacts with the forces of reform and the reorientation of our development cooperation. on this last point i am pleased to inform parliament that the commission has launched a new programme under the title of "good governance" which tries to help overcome structural weaknesses in the management of public affairs. furthermore a country strategy paper, outlining our long-term development strategy, will be discussed with our indonesian partners in 2001. like parliament, the commission has also identified corruption as a continuing problem. the support we are currently giving to the office of the attorney-general in jakarta is intended to help him in his attempts to combat corruption. one last word: i believe that there is reason for cautious optimism as regards our long-term relationship with indonesia, but we - that is the european union with all our institutions - need to keep up our support. indonesia matters hugely to us. it matters because of its size - the world's fourth largest country in terms of population; it matters because of its economic scale; it matters because of its regional role; it matters because of its environmental impact. in between a previous colonial occupation and taking this post with the european commission, i wrote a book and made some television programmes about asia and i remember visiting indonesia shortly after the riots there in 1998 and interviewing the then president habibie. i remember having the distinct feeling that this great country was poised somewhere on the high wire between riot and reform and that we would be very lucky if the democratic process produced a government such as the one that has been produced today. it is our task to help that government across the wire to the other side of the chasm. if it does not make that journey successfully, the consequences for all of us, the consequences in particular for the region and the consequences for indonesia, would be dire: either the largest islamic democracy in the world and one of the most successful democracies in asia, or very considerable problems for the whole region. it is important that parliament continues to show an interest. it is important that parliament continues to press the european union as whole to give a helping hand to indonesia, but it is particularly important that the government of indonesia - the president and his followers - take the brave but essential decisions that are required to ensure that indonesia can go forward respecting civil liberties, guaranteeing and consolidating democracy and giving the people of indonesia a prosperous and stable future. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. protection of communities' financial interests the next item is the report (a5-0376/2000) by mrs theato, on behalf of the committee on budgetary control, on the commission communication 'protection of the communities' financial interests - the fight against fraud - for an overall strategic approach' [com(2000) 358 - c5-0578/2000 - 2000/2279(cos)]. mr president, in its communication the commission writes that the protection of the communities' financial interests concerns us all, the bodies and their members at political level, the european and the national public service and their staff. but the need to guarantee equal, effective and deterrent protection throughout the european union particularly affects the chief contributor, namely the european taxpayer. that is whom we represent here and to whom we are accountable. so i welcome the fact that the commission document presents an overall strategy showing how it proposes to tackle the misuse of eu funds. however, i think the proposed period of five years, 2001 to 2005, is too long, for if we look back we will see that the issue of fighting fraud has been on the table for a long time now. a constantly growing budget has, unfortunately, also led to more irregularities and fraud. the single market has also opened the borders to fraudsters, while they remain closed for investigation and criminal prosecution. it is true that the regulations for the protection of the communities' financial interests and on-the-spot checks were adopted, uclaf was set up and then, one and a half years ago, olaf was created, and articles on fighting fraud were enshrined in the maastricht treaty and then in the treaty of amsterdam. these were all good measures, but they are not enough. the fraudsters are still one step ahead of us if not more. the enlargement of the community and the introduction of the euro could bring further risks with them. that is why we must bring together police, administrative and criminal law resources and instruments, both between the member states and with the eu. the commission's four guidelines set out approaches that i find very welcome. first, an anti-fraud legislative policy. here we must apply article 280 of the treaty of amsterdam as the legal basis and develop it further, in order to bring the different national legislations under a common denominator and accordingly standardise penalties and procedures. the commission intended to submit a document on this at the end of november. i have not received it so far. but above all, the legislation must be clearer, to prevent law-breakers from exploiting any loopholes. secondly, a new culture of operational cooperation. it is important that all the member states pull together. after all, more than 80% of the fraud in eu monies is carried out in these states. so far it has not been the case that they have joined forces, because otherwise they would all have ratified and therefore enforced the 1995 convention long since. meanwhile parts of it have become out-dated and the nice summit has not improved matters either. but the commission also wants to create a new internal culture, as president prodi promised. it is to be implemented through internal reform. we are keeping a watchful eye on this process. the third guideline is a supra-institutional approach to preventing and fighting corruption. what is at stake here is the credibility of the european bodies. that is a most important point, and here we must emphasise the importance of setting up olaf, the european anti-fraud office, which is not so very new any more, and of its activities. we must finally remove the obstacles that prevent it from acting independently, especially with regard to recruiting staff and to its own structure. that is equally necessary for the office and for the commission. we propose appointing a hearing officer to give some protection to the rights of the accused. we call on the eib and the ecb finally to accede to the interinstitutional agreement relating to olaf. the system for fighting fraud must finally be perfected by enhancing the penal judicial dimension. we support the commission's proposal to appoint a european public prosecutor as a first step towards creating a european judicial authority, given that this is something parliament has long been calling for. this public prosecutor, assisted by deputy public prosecutors in each member state and supplemented by a judge in investigative procedures, in accordance with the 'corpus juris' expert report, would satisfy the principle of legal certainty and subsidiarity by acting as a kind of investigative and coordination office, without encroaching on the powers of the competent national courts. his remit must be limited strictly to the protection of financial interests; the rules and mechanisms governing his operation can then be regulated by reference to secondary legislation in the codecision procedure. i am aware that there are still many reservations about this. they need to be allayed, because it is only through constitutional and uniform regulations and measures, which the nice summit did not, alas, produce, that we can tackle these kinds of crimes. i thank the commission for its efforts and its work . (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, when it comes to money, we all know it is no joke. the same applies to the european union. that is why we and the other eu bodies agree that we must give priority to protecting the community' s financial interests. however, we are of different minds on the question of how and by what means we can guarantee this protection. if we are to fight fraud efficiently, we must bring together all police, administrative and criminal law resources, for this is a matter of the european taxpayers' money and indeed of far more than that. it is a matter of trusting in the care taken by the european institutions, and above all of trusting the way the commission handles the monies entrusted to it. indeed we know this trust may be failing somewhat in view of the sum the commission itself named in its 1999 report on fighting fraud, namely a loss of some eur 850 million as a result of fraud and irregularities. so the commission must carry out internal reforms so as to finally make good its announcement that fraud will no longer be tolerated and that it will consistently follow up all cases of fraud. olaf, the european anti-fraud office, must operate alongside it. the report before us rightly devotes most space to that institution. the conclusion of the olaf supervisory committee of 5 december makes it strikingly clear that olaf is still far from being independent or functioning properly. it says that the obstacles the commission sets in the way of recruiting olaf staff can under certain circumstances constitute an irreversible risk to the fight against fraud. i expressly call on the commission to refrain from any interference in olaf's activities. finally, i am in favour of appointing a european public prosecutor, so that those responsible for fraud face criminal prosecution. mr president, this is the commission's big moment that is what i would like to call out to you. the nice summit brought no progress in the protection of the union's financial interests either. it is now crucial for the commission very rapidly to put forward resolute and imaginative proposals so that we can move ahead within the existing legal framework. mrs theato's excellent report points to a number of options. it once again confirms the proposal set out in the report by the five independent experts on the reform of the commission, namely that it is possible to set up a european public prosecutor's office on the basis of the treaty of amsterdam. as early as may, this parliament called on the commission to present proposals for a first stage, during which the european public prosecutor would be responsible only for offences and crimes committed by members and officials of the eu institutions against the financial interests of the union. its task would be to direct the relevant olaf investigations and to make it easier for the competent national courts to prosecute these crimes. i am sure, commissioner, that once this first step is taken, the discussion about the european public prosecutor's office will no longer seem like a religious war between those for and those against, which has blocked all progress so far. and the commission has this chance to take a first step, especially after nice. mrs schreyer, you have our full support if you take this first step. the previous speakers have already had quite a lot to say on the question of olaf. the supervisory committee's latest and very serious opinion on recruitment has also been quoted. mrs schreyer, you have repeatedly emphasised to this house that as the commissioner responsible for fighting fraud you see it as your special task to guarantee olaf's independence. please tell us whether you do or do not support mr brner on this crucial issue. we know that the commission discussed this question at its last meeting, without coming to a decision. do tell us what you think will happen now on and how we can get out of this impasse! mr president, i can be very brief because this is not the first discussion we have held on the issue. in this context i would therefore also like to thank the rapporteur for her persistence in entering this item on the agenda again and again, for her persistence in repeatedly calling for a european financial public prosecutor. i think precisely that should be the end result, of nice too. we must continue to work towards it with perseverance. we can see that there are major deadlocks in the council, that some member states have made no progress since 1995, that there are still deadlocks. however, we also see, and that is something i really welcome, that the current commission has taken up this issue and endeavoured to draft a document for nice, and that it is working on this issue together with parliament. i believe that is an opportunity for us in this situation, because parliament and the commission can achieve something jointly. and the only way to break the member states' resistance is by working jointly. above all, we must seek to create openness. we held a hearing a short while ago. i believe we should continue with this. we also have to convince the members of the national parliaments, because that is the only way we can go on working and make progress. we urgently need a step in this direction, in order to persuade our electors, and especially our taxpayers, that the fight against fraud really is taken seriously at european level too and that we shall seek to ensure that the same criteria apply at european as at national level. mr president, my group has a lot of sympathy for ensuring that the efforts to combat fraud, corruption and money laundering are more efficient, and we find it completely unacceptable that cross-border crime is increasing alarmingly and that the money which the member states' tax payers hand over to the eu is administered so badly and is to such a large extent channelled away from the purposes for which it was intended. if we are nonetheless to vote against this report, it is because we do not believe in the effectiveness of the resources proposed by the report for combating fraud and crime. despite our having every possible sympathy for the rapporteur, mrs theato, and for her sterling efforts, we are opposed to establishing an independent european prosecution authority because it is a staging post towards the federal europe we oppose. it is the very establishment of a form of economic administration at eu level that creates the problems, because those models for redistributing eu taxpayers' money which have been established by the so-called 'community' are poorly designed and in many cases quite unwished for. the less money there is in the eu' s coffers, the less fraud there is. in her speech at the meeting last month of the justice ministers of germany' s constituent states, mrs theato expressly said that the open frontiers facilitate criminal activities. i agree. the schengen agreement is a catastrophe for probity, but who has created schengen? the eu has done so. we do not believe that more solutions at community level can improve the fight against crime because the efforts will be characterised by just as much indifference, slovenliness and secrecy as the eu' s administration in general. we can clearly see from the treatment of recent years' auditors' reports that powerful forces here in parliament too are busier preventing the clearing up of fraud than in prosecuting the people responsible. we welcome negotiations between the member states concerning uniform legislation in the area of crime, but we shall not submit our countries to a federal eu prosecution authority. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i voted against the theato report in committee and also in my group, the radical group, and i will vote against it tomorrow because of the manicheism and inward-looking attitude characterising both this report and the activities of the committee on budgetary control in general or, at any rate, some of its members. anything that is good derives from the committee on budgetary control and all that is bad comes from elsewhere; this is why the report is full of references to the previous resolution. as we said three months ago, you would think that the whole world were under the rule of the committee on budgetary control alone. mr president, we will vote against the report for two reasons: firstly because there used to be uclaf, and you would have thought that uclaf were an avenging angel come down to earth. uclaf could do not wrong and we forced a commission to resign on the basis of uclaf's inquiries. now - for some strange reason - the former uclaf officials are no longer in favour and we have to banish them and give an olaf director the power to decide the life or death of these hard-working officials; upon the decree of the committee on budgetary control, these officials have to leave olaf, being originally from uclaf and uclaf was all that is wonderful for some people, to the extent that we forced the commission to resign. the other reason why we will vote against the motion is because, with regard to the request to establish the post of european public prosecutor, it is not enough to have included a reference to the juge des liberts but we must ensure, once and for all, that there is a system of guarantees: indeed a prosecutor alone with no system of guarantees is a step not towards democracy but towards an inquisition-like system which is likely to be dangerous, so much so that the proposal was not adopted at nice. mr president, it is always a pleasure following mr dell'alba, because he makes a british euro-sceptic sound very sensible in this place. i would very much like to congratulate the rapporteur - someone i like and admire as a person and politician - on this report, but unfortunately i cannot. had it not been for the amendments concerning olaf being adopted at the committee stage, i would have struggled to find any part of this report to support. fortunately this idea found very little support at nice last weekend. the council - as pointed out so eloquently by mrs rhle earlier - does not like this idea either. my personal view is that the european public prosecutor is just the first step along the road to corpus juris, a body of common law across the continent. indeed i believe that is what the commissioner feels too. perhaps, commissioner, you would be so kind as to let me know whether that is the case - whether this is the first step to something that would be a common body of law across the continent. i thought i heard you say something similar to that in committee. i should also like to know why the commission's paper on this subject had its release delayed until the day after the danish referendum on the euro. perhaps the commission knows that whilst this proposal has some support in the political classes of europe, its support stretches no further than that. often in argument for a european public prosecutor, you hear that these proposals are only to protect the community's financial interests - something that everybody should agree with. interestingly though, they are often sold as being a small step - there is not much behind them. so why all the concern? well, for those of us who are still wading through the court of auditors' report, we will find that one definition of fraud against the community is the black market - paying for goods la belge, as they say in brussels. this is fraud against the community because the eu takes a small percentage of all vat transactions. so another question springs to mind: if the european public prosecutor is allowed to investigate every vat transaction across europe, how big will that office be? there are so many other questions - the relationship with olaf, who appoints the european public prosecutor, who they report to and how it affects the member states - that i am afraid i am urging the british conservatives and others to vote against this report. mr president, i have to follow mr dell'alba and mr heaton-harris and this will be tough. i would like to congratulate mrs theato on her report and in particular for making the effort to come here as i know she is not feeling very well tonight. the report deals with the protection of the community's financial interests and how we deal with that and these are the major questions. it is always the area where we see hugely inflamed headlines in the papers and we need to tackle these issues seriously otherwise we are going to continue with a largely eurosceptic public like the people represented by mr heaton-harris. we must not forget that 85% of the money is spent within the member states and we must also not forget that parliament' s and the commission's role is to take a pan-european approach to these things. we must also remember that fraud also concerns money that is not collected, something that happens very often. we lose serious amounts of money because it is not collected by the member states. it is interesting that several countries, however much they protest about fraud, still have not signed up to the convention on the protection of the communities' financial interests. i put an amendment down to name these countries because it is about time they were named and shamed. we need to bring these countries out into the open to reveal their hypocrisy. it was quite interesting to hear what mr prodi said today because he sounded quite enthusiastic about the european public prosecutor which is quite a shift from what we have seen in the past. i must emphasise, from the point of view of the political group, the amendment that was tabled by mr bsch was critical of the report because it talked about concentrating on the institutions of the european union, the public prosecutor being relevant only in that sense. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against fraud detrimental to the european union is a high priority of the commission's activities and is an important aim for the reform of the commission's overall financial management. today we are debating mrs theato's report on the commission's report on its strategy for fighting fraud. the commission presented its report in june this year and i welcome the fact that we can debate the reports as early as today. the commission takes an overall approach in its strategy for protecting the communities' financial interests and fighting fraud; overall means that it involves all levels of activity and also all the players, all the players in the european union institutions as also in the member states as also in the candidate states or third countries that are responsible for dealing with european money. the strategy is built around four main lines of action: an anti-fraud legislative policy, operational cooperation between the relevant authorities, an interinstitutional approach to combat fraud in office and enhancement of the penal judicial dimension. since time is short i will present the individual points briefly. the first strategic line of action consisting of comprehensive legislation to combat fraud includes legal provisions to prevent, detect and prosecute cases of fraud. for if a policy to protect the communities' financial interests is to be effective, it must be based on clear and easily applicable legal rules that contain provisions on efficient financial management. the second line of action relates to operational cooperation with the member states and the candidate states and third countries. it is precisely in this area that thanks to the creation of olaf we have a very powerful instrument. we are expanding its field of application step by step, which means first and foremost making greater use of olaf for the collection and evaluation of information, as a kind of intelligence service for the fight against fraud. the next step will be to organise olaf's working methods in such a way as to turn it into a real platform of services for the member states and for the authorities involved in the fight against fraud. as mrs theato rightly points out in her report, olaf occupies a crucial position in the commission's anti-fraud strategy, which is why, and i want to stress that very strongly, the commission is extremely keen to see this authority built up rapidly. there are, however, a number of difficulties with regard to the legal basis for setting up olaf. you know that the commission would have preferred olaf to be set up as a totally independent authority. but, and here i am addressing mr bsch, a different legal basis was created. olaf is independent in the operational field while on the other hand it has to carry out tasks for which the commission is directly responsible. that is bound to create difficulties, which must of course be resolved. i can only assure you once again, in regard also to the issue of the recruitment authority: the director of olaf is entirely independent in the appointment of staff, and that applies not only to the lower level but also to the more senior and top levels. what you are addressing now is the following issue: will olaf also use an advisory committee in order to bring more transparency into the selection process for senior officials? actually i am sure that it is also in olaf's interest to make the selection of senior officials transparent. i just want to point out the following: we now have to live and work with this legal basis. the supervisory committee is constantly putting forward interesting proposals and considering the further development of the legal basis. in this regard the commission is very open to proposals and reforms. the third line of action is common action by the european institutions to fight and prevent fraud in office, and here let me point out that the commission's complaints against the eib and ecb because of the disputes about olaf are still pending and that the complaint by 70 members of this house against olaf's investigative powers is still pending. finally, the fourth line of action concerns the penal judicial dimension, and along with it, the penal judicial consequences of established, detected or presumed fraud. here the overall situation remains as unsatisfactory as ever, especially as regards cooperation with the member states, not because of any unwillingness but because of the structural inadequacies and difficulties that exist in this field. that is also why the commission took the step of submitting a draft document on establishing a european public prosecutor's office to the intergovernmental conference in nice. more and more countries took a positive view of this proposal during the preparatory discussions for nice. that did not give rise to any hope that the treaty would be amended accordingly, but did justify the hope that a decision would be taken in nice on how to move forward on this issue. unfortunately, no such decision was taken in nice on the saturday evening, because of the objection of one state, which i find most regrettable. nonetheless, the commission will not be discouraged and we will ensure that there is a public debate. the next target date is 2004, the next intergovernmental conference. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. reform of budgetary control procedures the next item is the report (a5-0383/2000) by mrs morgan, on behalf of the committee on budgetary control, on reform of budgetary control procedures and institutions [2000/2008(ini)]. mr president, i am more than aware that this report will not rate amongst the greatest, most radical contributions to the european debate. the fact that there is such a "huge" turnout here tonight is a recognition of that fact by others. nevertheless there are a number of factors and issues within this report. it should be seen as an opportunity for parliament to reassess its work in relation not only to budget control but specifically to the discharge procedure. we must not forget that it was the reluctance of parliament to give the green light to the way euro-taxpayers' money was spent in 1996 that precipitated the fall of the commission in 1999. what we are seeing as a result of the resignation of the commission is a radical reform process. however, we must be careful within the european parliament not to miss seeing the log in our own eye because we are concentrating so hard on the splinter in our neighbour's eye - the commission. we have problems as well, perhaps not quite as big as the commission's, but it is important that we recognise we also have problems. it is clear that the nuclear button in the shape of the discharge procedure cannot be pressed at the first sign of trouble. so the european parliament needs to use this powerful weapon at its disposal in an extremely sensitive manner. the discharge procedure gives parliament an opportunity to assess the financial management and financial resources of the european union, to propose measures for its improvement and to express an overall political judgement on its quality. it is clear that the main focus of our work, within the committee on budgetary control, will be on commission management, and that ultimately we recognise that the commission bears responsibility for implementing the budget. however, we must not forget that 85% of the money is spent and misspent within the member states of the european union. for far too long the member states have hidden their guilt behind the complex mass of commission officialdom who cannot answer back. let us take one example: late payments. if eu money does not arrive on time, people lose their jobs. this has happened on several occasions in relation to the structural funds, for example. we have eu laws to protect business from such mismanagement and the commission has now promised to introduce its own regulations to ensure prompt payments. but if the commission coughs up money just to see it sitting in a member state's coffers gaining interest, the problem persists as far as the end-user is concerned. so, where are the reforms from these guilty member states? here we have a problem, because we as the committee on budgetary control and as a parliament are only as good as the information we have to work with. we depend on the court of auditors to provide us with the ammunition to fire at the problem areas. however, the reluctance of the court - and for that matter the commission - to name the guilty countries impedes our work. we are trying to extinguish a fire and are suffocating in the smoke. we need to know the source of the flames. the court of auditors and the commission can hide behind the complication of the statement of assurance, but we will not be steered off our course. we have heard that, because spot checks are involved, it would be unfair to name the member states. my colleague, mr van hulten drew an interesting parallel with spot checks on athletes who have had their whole careers ended. if they are guilty, they are named and shamed. we should do the same within parliament. we also need to be given the complete picture when the annual report of the year under consideration is published. that means we need to know which countries paid back what. we need to know what is happening in terms of recovery. it is imperative also that we stick to the remit required of us and that we concentrate exclusively during the discharge process on the year in question. we have other mechanisms to highlight previously undetected instances of fraud. another key recommendation in this report is to try to expand the responsibility of the discharge beyond the exclusive domain of the committee on budgetary control. controlling the commission's management and spending is the main justification for the existence of the european parliament and the discharge procedure is the chief instrument by which this is done. we have tried to get other committees involved in the past but they have not responded, so we want to try to change the regulations within parliament. we are trying to watch the commission and the member states and this report is an attempt at doing that. mr president, i would like to start by protesting at the fact that this debate is being held at night. it is shameful that we have to debate this and other important matters at night. it is shameful. and no one can understand it, including myself. mrs theato has come to this night sitting despite being ill and i have left a dinner with the representatives of "basta ya!", winners of this year' s sajarov prize. this situation has to change. next i would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her report, which is so important and, contrary to what has been said, so necessary. moreover, i think that her report is part of our new way of understanding what should be politically correct in the institutions, and that is transparency. in this morning' s debate on the european council in nice we criticised the fact that the meetings were held at night and behind closed doors. it would be good to know what goes on there and perhaps, if the doors were open, the member states would behave differently. that is precisely the major contribution made by the morgan report. its aim is that in this whole process there should be transparency, that we should not beat about the bush, that fingers should be pointed and that it should be made clear that the services are doing things badly. for example, i would like to criticise the fact that, when the report of the court of auditors was presented, the council was absent, as if it is not interested in this parliament. i also think that it is worthy of criticism that the council is not present at the meetings of the committee on budgetary control, which is precisely where the faults that arise in 80% of the budget, which the council spends, are discussed. one day we will have to change this sort of absence of the 'innocent hand' of the council, which is never guilty of anything. mrs schreyer, you have just mentioned the council, saying that there was a member state that opposed the creation of a european prosecutor. it is time for the politically correct thing to be to say which member state it is and to give its full name. this also happens in many reports. this very morning, for example, in the debate that we had in the committee on budgetary control, we saw how the representative of the commission, when we asked him to indicate the member states that do things badly, answered: "look, the monitoring of what the member states do is done through sampling, and there is no reason to penalise the member states whose irregularities have been revealed through sampling." well i do not care. they should say that, according to the sample, such and such a member state is not doing things right. i would like to finish by saying that it is important for there to be monitoring of the approval of the accounts, and for me this is the most important thing, that is, that there is reason for amendment not only by the commission but also by the council. it is also important to include observations in the reports on the member states about how they comply with or fail to comply with the conclusions on the approval of the accounts. i would like the member states, at least the presidency and the representatives of the member states being discussed, to be present for debates in plenary, and also in committee. mr president, i would like to start by commending the timeliness of this initiative and the diligence with which our rapporteur, eluned morgan, has carried it out. the aim of the discharge procedure is to analyse processes and procedures in force and to detect any inadequacies in them so that the institutions can then proceed to reform them. to achieve this aim fully, i shall highlight four requirements that i consider essential in the work of the budgetary control authority. first of all, balance in considering all the budget headings: it is unacceptable that the analysis of own resources performed by the court of auditors should explicitly exclude all revenue from undeclared economic activities, in contrast to the zeal with which it treats many administrative elements, sometimes with no substantive content, of various forms of expenditure. secondly, transparency with regard to cases and events: whenever the court of auditors refers to specific cases it should identify the institutions involved, thus taking responsibility for the claims that it makes. thirdly, thoroughness of analysis: it is incomprehensible that a large number of high quality special reports by the court of auditors are omitted from the annual report in favour of other matters treated without any prior analysis and on the basis of debatable criteria of political timeliness. fourthly, accuracy in the use of statistics: statistics can be a valuable tool for analysis but they can also be a dangerous tool for distorting reality. using statistics to compare irregularities detected by different institutions as a result of strict or not so strict controls may be more liable to hide what is happening than to expose it. high rates of detected irregularities may just as well indicate the zeal of enforcement authorities as suggest corruption in the regulatory system. mr president, even though the rapporteur has stated modestly that the report could have been better, i would still like to offer her my compliments. as has already been mentioned, the instrument of discharge is one of the most important weapons that parliament has. it is therefore absolutely vital that we treat it with care. the court of auditors supplies reports and one of the most important recipients of these reports is parliament. i therefore feel that parliament would be well-advised to let the court of auditors know exactly what it expects from these reports. also, a number of people have already said that we want concrete, succinct reports so that we know where we stand, and reports which are easy to read. we must name countries, specific cases and institutions; all these things would make it easier to understand. my group also thinks it is extremely important for there not just to be an soa for the entire budget, but also one per sector. in the final analysis, we must be able to assess whether it is getting better or worse. i also think the idea mentioned in the report that members of the court of auditors should appear in the specialised committees of this parliament, is an excellent one, because we cannot follow everything ourselves, instead, we must combine forces. as far as parliament itself is concerned, the problem is the treaty. the treaty states that we can grant discharge but it does not say that we are entitled to refuse to grant discharge. i feel parliament must sort this out. we must be able to do it ourselves, but i feel that refusal to grant discharge is an extremely important political matter. indeed that is why it says in the report that if it should come to that, parliament must immediately hold a debate on the political consequences thereof. amendment no 8, tabled by the liberal group, states that it is important for the committee on constitutional affairs to further elaborate the recommendations of the morgan report so that they can be used. mr president, this excellently crafted report shows that the committee on budgetary control can take a coherent and convincing position on such a controversial issue as the importance of budgetary control procedures and bodies. budgetary control will always be a tough and thankless business, because it is not a question of handing out compliments but rather of pointing out weaknesses, mistakes and omissions and thereby improving the way the commission handles the european taxpayers' money. in colloquial terms, what this report is saying is that in future the committee on budgetary control will be more watchful and will want to hear names named when it comes to the unknown whereabouts of european tax monies. neither the commission nor the member states will be able to absolve themselves of responsibility, certainly not by passing the buck from one to the other. point 21 of the report contains a very courageous decision in announcing that the discharge will be postponed if the commission withholds information. i hope this obligation will actually be applied if it comes to the crunch. had parliament taken this decision sooner, it could not have given the 1998 discharge. for in fact, the commission is still withholding information and has still not answered questions, especially with regard to the flchard affair. i also want to highlight point 20 of the report. it is a clear declaration of belief in the rights of each and every member to request and obtain information from the commission, including confidential documents. this declaration of belief in the rights of individual members is particularly important because these are precisely the rights the commission is calling in question. it does make us rather apprehensive, commissioner, to find that the commission as guardian of the treaties has to be referred explicitly to the need to observe meps' rights. mr president, i want to thank mrs morgan for her report and to say that i believe it is an important report and good report. it has been the product good cooperation at the committee level and i want to acknowledge that mr poms ruiz and mrs theato made their contribution too. this report will go some way towards clarifying the responsibilities that we have and helping the european commission as well to understand what its role is and what is expected of it. i would also like to echo the words of mr mulder when he spoke of the importance of the procedure for granting discharge and stressed that it must be taken extremely seriously. the people who work on the committee on budgetary control sometimes do not realise the importance of this instrument in guiding the work of the community in so many fields of their responsibility. we must pursue this task with firmness but also with moderation and understanding and we must understand that over the years - perhaps because public spending at european level was such a small percentage of the entire public spending of the european union, 1% as against 40% on average by the member states - it was seen as a detail. i think it is true to say that it was very hard to get the member states to understand that they had to apply the same concern and the same care to guarding the resources of the union that they did to guarding their own resources. i heard - and it is not an isolated incident - the united kingdom minister for social welfare say on television that if he could stop fraud he could save gbp 6 billion. he said that quite honestly and regretted that it was so. but if a european commissioner said that we would expect them to resign the next morning. so let us understand that fraud is not a problem peculiar to the european union. mr president, i too would like to congratulate mrs morgan for writing this report especially considering the remarkably tight deadlines that she set herself by falling pregnant. i am sure that this house wishes her every success in that particular project, although i am slightly worried that the baby's first words might include the words "discharge" and "procedure". i would also like to commend to the house the way in which from its conception this report was drawn up using other reports already passed by our committee. some here will know of my interest in the budget in general, and as budget rapporteur for the budgetary control committee, i wrote a report in which a number of conclusions that are included here were conceived, mainly in paragraph 16 of this report. from that embryonic stage, they have now come through their period of gestation and are born within this report. they concern a number of courses of action that the budgetary control committee can take when it finds problems in different areas, including recommending to the committee on budgets to freeze or reduce the amount of appropriations intended for the headings concerned in the following year's budget; to authorise no transfers of appropriations to take place involving increasing the headings concerned for a certain period until further internal investigations are concluded; up to asking the president of the commission to ask for the resignation of any individual commissioners concerned with the serious problems found, a kind of eu caesarean. finally, i would commend the rapporteur's proposals about speeding up the contradictory procedure and the various statements on the special reports, although i do have to say to the rapporteur that i intend to disagree with the five-month timetable proposed in the report for dealing with these. perhaps a nine-month timetable would be in order. i am sure that the rapporteur would be pleased to hear that there are few differences between the main groups to breach in these circumstances. forceps are not required to tweeze out any agreements, and we will be voting for her report. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, as you can tell from looking at it, mrs morgan, this report has taken a great deal of work and discussion within and outside parliament, within and outside the commission, and within and outside the court of auditors. but after all that shows just how politically significant it is. i want to congratulate you very warmly on this successful and balanced result. after the events of the past year, your aim is to create a budgetary control and discharge procedure which is more transparent and above all more efficient and effective. i may assure you that the commission is constantly seeking to improve its own procedures. it will therefore also take this report as food for further thought. you took a very useful and i believe also a very self-assured step in involving the commission as also the court of auditors in your deliberations before drafting the report. those institutions made a targeted effort to find ways of improving the discharge procedure. regarding access to documents for the discharge report, which is indeed an important issue, let me point out that the commission's point of departure in its activities is the interinstitutional agreement reached in july this year, especially annex 3 on access to confidential information. i can assure you that the commission will honour this agreement in full. let me point out to mrs stauner who just raised certain questions that under this agreement the committee chairperson puts questions regarding confidential information to the commission or forwards them to it. let me tell you that the committee chairperson has put no questions on this to the commission. the report calls for detailed reviews of operational activities, thorough checks of budget headings and irregularities together with an assessment of the commission's internal performance. we are convinced that with its administrative reform the commission has made and is still making substantial progress here. and indeed parliament also paid tribute to this reform programme. mrs morgan's report devotes much space to the question of whether in future the court of auditors should appraise the activities of each directorate-general and each department individually. in this context let me remind you that article 276 of the ec treaty refers to the discharge of the budget in general and not to individual parts or areas of the budget. in the same context let me observe that of course the risk of errors in implementing the budget regardless of whether they are major or minor differs widely from one department to another because they have totally different operational budgets and face different risks. in the agricultural sector, for instance, mr fischler's total budget comes to approx. eur 443 billion, while the budget of the directorate-general for the budget is almost non-existent, so that, of course, there is hardly any risk at all there. during the general debate it will of course have to be decided whether there will be different levels of tolerance of errors, because naturally it is very much easier to implement the budget in, for example, the administrative sector, where salaries are paid. i would say the tolerance of errors should be more or less zero there, while in the area of external services, of foreign policy, quite different risks arise if, for instance, we provide humanitarian aid in a war zone. that too would have to be taken into account. you can see from what i said that i think it would be useful to discuss these proposals further in order to find out how to assign responsibilities more clearly here. after all, that is also what you seek to do in relation to the member states. let me point out that i will take the opportunity to discuss these proposals at the next meeting with the member states' representatives concerned with financial control. and i will happily report back on this discussion to the committee. once again, congratulations on your report. mr president, just a quick correction. commissioner, the point of departure for forwarding information to the european parliament is the ec treaty and not the interinstitutional agreement. i just wanted that made clear. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. takeover bids the next item is recommendation for second reading (a5-0368/2000) by mr lehne, on behalf of the committee on legal affairs and the internal market, on the council common position for adopting a directive of the european parliament and of the council on company law concerning takeover bids [8129/1/2000 - c5-0327/2000 - 1995/0341(cod)]. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, this legislative project at second reading is a really complex project, which does not make it easy to explain the context we are dealing with here. i will try to do so nevertheless. in my view, the common position before us, which we have to decide on today, has a number of crucial weaknesses, which for the rest nobody has disputed so far during the debate in terms of principle. the first crucial weakness is the lack of harmonisation. this common position, which after all concerns the takeover of companies, seeks to protect the shareholders. i regard that as an aim most definitely worth trying to achieve. but in fact it also requires certain framework conditions. after all this is supposed to be a framework directive. in regard to a number of issues in connection with hostile takeovers, with takeovers in general, which simply have to be regulated, this common position does not really regulate anything. take for example the issue of what is called the takeover threshold, as from which a compulsory offer can be made, the issue of what is called the equitable price to be offered to the shareholders, or even the issue of the circumstances under which cash payments are made obligatory. we have merging stock markets in europe. i believe that against this background it is urgently necessary not just to leave these questions open but to settle them. for that simple reason the report by the committee on legal affairs and the internal market i am presenting today includes a whole raft of amendments containing concrete proposals on how these issues could be resolved. i also consider it right to make these proposals, for if we do not settle these matters we must at least ask ourselves seriously, in face of the problems involved, whether there is any point at all in this directive. to inscribe in a directive that shareholders must be paid an equitable price is about as useful as saying that an apple will fall from the tree when it is ripe. then you should also say in it what that equitable price actually is and what this whole business is really about. the second major problem in this directive is article 9. the purpose of the directive is supposed to be to create a level playing field in europe. but unless the directive is amended, the end result of this common position would be that not only do we not have a level playing field with north america, we do not even have one within europe. the americans have what they call the 'business judgment rule', i.e. the possibility of mounting a defence against takeovers. the common position provides on principle for a strict obligation of neutrality in europe. that means that in future it will be easy for american companies to take over european ones. the other problem is that there is no level playing field in europe either. in a number of countries, the united kingdom being the classical example with its london stock exchange, which has been much described, company law provides for the possibility of in effect excluding takeovers by restrictions to the right to vote in the company statute. so the end result of article 9 as it now stands would be that some companies in some countries in europe could be taken over much more easily, while other companies in other countries in europe could virtually never be taken over if they have provisions of that kind in their statute. that is why article 9 also needs to be amended. the next problem is the issue of the competent supervisory authority. the common position devotes three pages to regulating this issue. if it takes three pages to do so, then clearly there will be enough points of reference and opportunities for dispute and we will create no legal certainty. that is why i believe we must also improve article 4. i just want to make one more observation. in the committee on legal affairs and the internal market we managed to find compromise amendments over and above the groups. these compromise amendments do not please everyone in this house. that is in the nature of compromise amendments. but what is crucial is that we realise that this directive has serious weaknesses and that is beyond dispute. the only way to remedy these weaknesses is by deciding to opt for conciliation here by a majority of 314 votes. it is quite clear that the result of the conciliation will not in the end be the same as what the council decided or what parliament decides tomorrow. the result will be another compromise. if we do not adopt these amendments before us tomorrow, we will not achieve that further compromise and the directive will remain as bad as it is now. so i can only ask this house to endorse the committee on legal affairs and the internal market's compromise amendments. if certain circles in the commission or elsewhere fear the directive could come to nothing, then i must honestly say i do not think so. since the conciliation procedure was first introduced between parliament and the council, which is now more than six years, only a single directive, the one on the bio-patent, came to nothing in the conciliation procedure. a short while later it was, nonetheless, adopted both by the council and by parliament. i really do not know why we should not eventually succeed in reaching a compromise in this case, as with all other directives. so i certainly do not share the concern voiced here. we are pursuing a perfectly normal procedure. we should complete the second reading successfully and then seek a good compromise in the conciliation procedure. mr president, on a point of order, i wish to remind members of the house of rule 9(2), referring to annex i, article 1: "before speaking in parliament or in one of its bodies, any member who has a direct financial interest in the subject under debate shall disclose this interest to the meeting orally." in view of the fact that mr lehne proposes to strengthen the role of company directors, it is quite obvious that members may want to declare that before speaking. it does not stop them from speaking; it may not affect our rapporteur; but certainly it applies to some members of his group who hold senior positions in the bertelsmann media group. mr president, i ought to declare that i am a director of the cn group. my friend mr lehne has given the position of the epp group. i am going to give the position of the british conservative delegation and a number of other members. however, it is not necessarily a full and accurate description of the epp group's position, which he has given. when a public company is listed, the management and owners are telling the world that investors are free to buy and sell stock in it without the shadow of management or the state rigging the market against them. the european single market is a pan-european market place but within which the market in shares must be treated like other markets so that national boundaries, even if they delineate different jurisdictions, do not interfere with the essential equivalence of the rules across the market place. within the single market investors, be they private, corporate or pension funds, should be able to exercise the rights of ownership to the benefit of the companies in which they invest and for those investors in them. in my country, we have real reservations about the common position, but in the spirit of good will have been prepared to accept it. unfortunately, we believe that some of the proposed amendments do not improve it. on the contrary, some will fatally damage the project of a single pan-european take-over regime. to be effective, useful and in the public interest, such a directive must: first, avoid direct involvement of the courts, but rather have a regulator with wide powers of discretion under the rule of law; secondly, clarify and have workable rules on jurisdiction; thirdly, clarify definitions of equitable price and set proper thresholds; fourthly, ensure management cannot improperly frustrate shareholders taking their legitimate decisions about the future of the company in which they own a stake. if we fail to get this directive right, it will tell the world that europe will not face the realities of the global market. that will not mean that it will not have to do so in due course; rather it will merely mean that adjustment will be more prolonged and painful and the victims will be european jobs and european prosperity. mr president, it seems that we are finally at the end of the road on the proposal for a directive which will regulate takeover bids. it is a proposal that has gone down a long and, i fear, stormy road in order to overcome some of the existing problems. it is true that there have been many problems. it is also true that the political agreement obtained in the council last year enabled some of them to be resolved. i will therefore offer a few thoughts on the function of parliament: in a codecision procedure, in which a political agreement has been reached on a complex matter, what should be the role of the european parliament? should our role be limited to saying "amen" to the council' s proposals? i do not think this should be the case, ladies and gentlemen. by this i do not mean that, once that agreement has been obtained in the council, parliament should decide to blow it out of the water. ladies and gentlemen, we are politicians and therefore, we are always in favour of reaching political agreements. these thoughts are fully applicable to this report. the council has reached an agreement that should be respected on its main points, as the rapporteur, mr lehne, has done in his magnificent report, on which i sincerely congratulate him. and i congratulate him not only on respecting the main points of that agreement, but also on seeking formulae which - and i stress, while respecting the main points - try to improve the legislative proposal. this is, in my understanding, the role of a colegislative institution such as parliament in the codecision procedure. the amendments that our committee is tabling can be grouped into three blocks. in the first block are a series of technical amendments that aim to either clarify concepts or fill gaps. i am not going to dwell on them. in the second block are a series of amendments that aim to improve the participation of workers when there is a takeover bid. we cannot close our eyes to reality: when there is a takeover there is staff restructuring, redundancies and so on, in short, measures which affect jobs. it is therefore important that workers and their representatives should be informed, from the start, of what is being planned and that they can make their voice heard in the actual takeover procedure. the third block contains those amendments that have been most controversial during the procedure. and i would like to have the power of conviction to prevent you from having any fears about the consequences that could be deduced from the approval of those amendments. it is true that the european parliament rules of procedure do not make this easy, making these debates into a pure and simple dialogue between the deaf. what can we do? the first amendment refers to article 4, which establishes what will be the competent authority for supervising the bid. in paragraph 1 it is established that it will be that of the member state in which the company concerned has its headquarters, if - logically - its securities are admitted to trading in that member state. what happens if they are not admitted to trading in that member state? an answer is proposed that does not appear to be compatible with another amendment tabled by other members, undoubtedly in good faith, requiring the criterion of headquarters. because if the securities are not traded there, why should they be supervised by that authority? the second controversial amendment refers to the duty of neutrality. here we met with very conflicting and even opposed positions, and a formula has been reached that permits some exceptional hypotheses in order to carry out some defensive manoeuvres when it is not possible to call a general meeting. my group and i are going to support these amendments. mr president, i fear that we are in danger of losing the plot or losing sight of what this directive is about. it is part of the financial services action plan; in our commissioner's own words, "a key element in the creation of a fully integrated market in financial services, giving investors and consumers more choice". the proposals introduce three key elements at a time when there is a change in control of a company: protection of minority shareholders, transparency in relation to bid information and regulatory supervision of the process. but what are we in danger of doing as a parliament, by virtue of the amendments tabled? firstly, we are being far from transparent. some of the amendments seem to be a covert attempt to introduce some elements of a company statute through the back door. secondly, we are adopting rigid structures and procedures when the recommendation of the commission was actually light-touch, allowing member states leeway to reflect national practice in corporate culture. lastly, the issue of clarity: the lack of this is especially evident in the debate about jurisdiction, an issue of which i have a little experience. the common position suggested some form of split arrangement. now we have a proposition that would lead to muddle, forum shopping, potential litigation at a delicate moment in a corporate deal. this is not helpful. jurisdiction should be solely in the hands of the member state where the target company is registered. this is fair for minority shareholders, transparent and, above all, clear. indeed i would ask the commissioner to consider whether he can accept my amendment on this crucial point. the financial times editorial today talked about bid politics: that it has taken no less than 10 years to get this draft and that we, parliament, could destroy that in 10 minutes tomorrow by voting through misguided amendments. i hope that will not be the case. mr president, i should like to assure mrs wallis that i shall vote for her amendment no 19 for the very reasons which she has given - and i hope my group will be following me. this is a matter on which clarity is of the utmost importance. similarly we will reject the critical part of amendment no 17, which would exclude shareholders from deciding on the merits of a bid for a company that they own. the ground for this is that it is not for governments, supervisory authorities or incumbent management to accept or frustrate a bid. it rests with the company's owners - the shareholders themselves. that is the principle on which perhaps we will divide tomorrow: what should be the over-riding concern of a law regulating takeovers. if you think that the correct thing is fairness and transparency towards all shareholders - majority and minority alike - then that determines your vote on a number of the issues here. there are some points where i would be happy to go along with the compromise amendments, particularly those affecting the position of employees. i understand mr lehne's desire to get the thing taken into conciliation and further clarified. i have some sympathy with his point. but we must approach this with the governing principle of shareholder protection in our minds. mr president, the aim of this report - to establish common rules in europe on takeover bids - relates only to a tiny minority of large corporations and their major shareholders, who dominate company ownership. in the legal wrangling between the council and parliament, there was not even any mention of the workers, technicians and employees who actually turn the wheels of these companies which the large financial groups are fighting over. the european institutions care little about the job losses and closures caused by almost every company takeover or merger. personally speaking, i have no interest in the legal problems these large shareholders may have, and i will vote against this report. however, i would like to express my solidarity with the people exploited by these companies, and if parliament had any respect whatsoever for the workers, it would at least prevent takeovers causing redundancies. mr president, after 18 years working in financial services, i do not believe this directive is needed. in the uk the regulation of takeovers through the voluntary code of practice administered by the takeover panel has been highly successful: a good example here of a pragmatic approach to a highly complex issue where legislation will be less appropriate. it should not escape our attention that the takeover market is primarily british. activity in london exceeds the whole of the combined volume in the rest of europe, therefore this measure will damage the united kingdom. many believe that the imposition of a legal code is simply a protectionist device to enable less efficient european companies to protect themselves from takeovers by resorting to complex legal actions. are european companies so afraid of competition that they feel the need to shelter behind a restrictive law which will stifle rather than improve european competitiveness? if not, then members should vote against this directive. mr president, company structures in the european market need to be made more efficient if europe is to hold its own in the global market. it must also be possible to restructure companies between one eu country and another. this directive will probably not create the clear regulations which are now needed on the international stock market, but the battle is not yet lost. the problem is that stock exchange law is closely associated with company law and that it is difficult to harmonise the one area if the other is not harmonised. however the regulations are drawn up, someone will suffer. in a small market like sweden' s, with relatively concentrated ownership, harmonising the level at which offers must be made at 30 per cent will create problems, and we are demanding greater flexibility. greater flexibility is also required when it comes to the complete duty of neutrality recommended by the council. german companies will have problems because germany' s company law prohibits vote diversification. greater understanding must be shown for national characteristics. otherwise, there may be devastating consequences for an individual member state' s company structure. it would, however, be easier to solve the problem of which supervisory authority is to have jurisdiction. the most flexible solution would be to choose the supervisory authority in that country in which the target company has its head office. companies may be quoted on different markets, and companies with head offices in sweden are not always quoted in sweden. it would be strange to say the least if, for example, american authorities were to be responsible for a takeover involving two european companies. anyone who wants to avoid such consequences has the opportunity to vote in favour of amendment no 19, which makes it clear that it is the target company' s head office which counts. if we do not defend the duty of neutrality, there will be no point to the directive. if, moreover, we open the door to defensive measures, we shall perhaps make it more difficult to restructure european markets and, especially, to protect small shareholders. i just want to emphasise that the conciliation committee has a very big responsibility and that success requires everyone to pull together. mr president, it has been said that this is a very important, crucial piece of legislation we have before us. it is at the heart of the eu financial services action plan. but, more than that, the bigger prize is that we are able to take forward the lisbon agenda of creating a competitive, dynamic european economy. for that we need an efficient market in goods, services and capital. mr bolkestein, i share your concerns: we cannot afford to risk losing this directive, because the eu economy would pay the opportunity cost for years of not being able to restructure european companies. yet the amendments tabled by our rapporteur will take us in that direction. i fear it will undermine the effect of corporate restructuring necessary to build that eu competitiveness in global markets. if we are to achieve global excellence in, for example, the telecoms sector, we must ensure that recent take-overs such as vodafone, mannesmann, france telecom, orange, will show that european models work, cannot be blocked by hostile action or poison pills. that would be turning our back on the opportunity to achieve the competitiveness that we desire. my delegation of labour meps cannot accept, therefore, the changes in article 9 to allow company boards the right to defensive measures to frustrate takeovers without getting shareholder approval. mr bolkestein himself has said that it is crucial that the management of target companies consult shareholders in this case. our primary objective must be to protect our investors, to ensure a fair and equal bidding process. it must be to ensure efficient flow in capital markets; and we must not end up by producing legislation which protects potentially inefficient managers and props up failing companies. that is in nobody's interest. it will result in investors not seeing the eu as an integrated capital market; it will undermine investor confidence and it will result in capital flow out of europe. the rapporteur's amendments create confusion in the area of litigation and it would be wrong of us to vote for confusion in potential litigation cases. i have to say that i cannot understand mr lehne's approach in the british economist, where he has himself agreed that his compromise is unworkable, but that he put it in to keep the socialists happy and he is prepared to take it out in conciliation. that is not acceptable. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that after more than ten years of deliberations at eu level the important question of the minimum harmonisation of take-over law can be regulated by a useful framework directive, although, as mr lehne said, the final proposal raises a few technical problems as also problems of content and we assume that unfortunately this proposal can only be improved through the conciliation procedure. but it should be pointed out that the situation has definitely changed since the first reading. foreign investment within the eu doubled between 1997 and 1998 and cross-border mergers and take-overs have reached record levels. hitherto we have not had binding rules on take-overs either in community law or in the legislation of a good number of member states. the directive on take-over bids therefore seems necessary to ensure fair competition and for reasons of legal certainty. i am in the fortunate position of being able to say that since 1 january 1999 austria has had its own take-over legislation. austrian take-over legislation, and in particular its implementation by the take-over commission, has more or less proved its worth since it entered into force. here in the european parliament we are chiefly concerned with finding minimum european rules to regulate the major fields of tension in take-over law, for instance the boards against the shareholders, large shareholders against small ones, companies against the stock market. furthermore, it is essential for the member states to have the possibility, in accordance with the overall objectives and in the framework of the directive, to adopt useful, further-reaching rules, such as for example the provision on the promotion of equal treatment of all shareholders that we have in our current austrian take-over law, by . (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, first i want to welcome the work mr lehne has done and the fact that he took up this whole job again. it is a pity the report took so long. once again, time is running away with us in politics. it is economics that sets the pace. the reason this feels like a rather eerie debate has less to do with the time of night and even less with the sparsity of members now present, but more with what is in fact going on. we are talking about a europe that is supposed to unite, and what do we hear? british lobbyists against this europe, against any hint of the social model that keeps being paraded in the electoral campaigns. it would be really nice if british labour obviously we cannot expect anything like that from the conservatives any more would for once move outside the borders of the city of london. once upon a time it was said that 'britain rules the waves', now we hear that 'britain is drifting away'. why are we always taken hostage for this little city of london? why are we not honest enough to say that take-overs will become a major social problem if we do not cushion them? why do we not dare to stand by what we keep announcing in our campaign speeches? in concrete terms we know that 70% of mergers go wrong. bmw/rover was a disaster. daimler/chrysler is visibly becoming a crime, when we look at what is going on there. does mr lehne's report go far enough? no, but i do believe it is a first step in a certain direction. i personally and i wish that for once the same would apply to british labour too will support the amendments that lead to more regulation. we do not want to see american conditions here at home. we do not need them. the european economy is doing very well. in the united kingdom the social differences are widening ever further. we need this for insider deals, for cartel law. does might come before right? that is the question. but the answer is that the lehne report is at least a small step towards empowering the people of europe. mr president, it is interesting to follow mr martin as an english speaker and i can assure him that things are certainly not falling apart in the british economy even though my party would like a change of government. a point i want to make with regard to this takeover directive is to bring the argument very firmly back to millions of electors in my country and millions of people who have pension plans and savings that are based upon investments in the stock market. mrs mccarthy quite rightly reminded us to declare an interest. so let me declare an interest. i have a pension fund from my previous employer. a lot of its value is based on investments in the british stock market and i rely on investment managers to keep my investment safe and to develop it for my future retirement. that, of course, is a major strength, mr martin, for the british economy because we have those funds there at a time when our society is growing older and we need to provide those pensions. we do not have an overhang of publicly funded pensions. that is something that everyone in the european union is going to have to tackle and this takeover directive, in the final form that comes through has to address that issue. the problem with the amendments that we have before us is that, if this goes through, the people who are managing my pension fund will not be able to maximise that value for me. that applies to millions of ordinary individuals working in companies up and down the united kingdom. it is their future that we are talking about. this is not some abstract concept. it goes to the heart of the british economy and it is something that increasingly will be critical for the future of the european economy as well. mr president, i would like to thank parliament for the attention it is giving this proposal and for the work that the committee on legal affairs and the internal market, and particularly the rapporteur, mr lehne, have carried out. this attention is certainly justified, in view of the importance of the text, which the heads of state and government made a priority during the european council of lisbon in march 2000. after all, were it to be approved, it would bring about a considerable improvement in the operation and stability of the european financial markets. i am particularly delighted that i can at last discuss this common position, which we had a long wait for, but which was finally adopted by the member states last june by unanimous vote. some of the amendments proposed by parliament further improve the text of the council' s common position because they highlight points that could lead to interpretation difficulties and push for speedier transposition of the directive. hence the commission approves amendments nos 7, 14 and 18. it prizes amendment no 18 particularly highly, the aim of which is to reduce the deadline for transposition, in accordance with a wish already expressed by the commission on numerous occasions. indeed, it has constantly highlighted the need to waste no time in implementing this directive, which is something all interested parties have looked forward to so much. the commission has also taken note of the statements brought to the fore by amendments nos 5 and 13. whilst the commission has no objection to these suggestions, it would point out that they do not belong in this directive. the current text guarantees employees appropriate information on the conditions and repercussions of the bid. stipulations that go further in this area are not in keeping with the objectives of the directive, which relates to the protection of the share holders. the labour conditions and employee rights in the event that enterprises are restructured are provided for in other community directives. the commission would also like to demonstrate its interest in amendment no 12. this amendment seeks to introduce an instrument enabling a majority shareholder to take over the remaining securities. however, this procedure, which already exists in certain member states, does not just affect the field of public takeover bids but extends much further and could, if necessary, be studied more closely as part of the general review of company law undertaken by the commission. so i would suggest adding this topic to the list of subjects that could be submitted to a committee of experts. much to its regret, the commission is unable to approve the other amendments, and this is for a variety of reasons. amendments nos 2 and 10 are unacceptable because they alter the scope of application of the directive. the directive relates to all public and exclusively public offers to purchase or exchange, be they voluntary or mandatory. amendments nos 4 and 15 are unacceptable because they do not belong in the intended stipulations. these only concern holders of securities in the first case and the supervisory authority in the second. amendments nos 8 and 9 are without foundation. after all, it is by no means certain that the proposed definition of equitable price is better than any other, because the various definitions that are currently in use in the member states are all perfectly satisfactory. finally, the commission studied the content of the amendments in depth but it cannot accept a single one of them. for example, amendments nos 6, 11 and 16 appear to pass over the existing national provisions that the text of the common position is in fact trying to bring closer together. amendment no 6 in particular, contains an amalgam of ideas that were all addressed to a lesser or greater extent during the discussions on the directive, and were rejected because they did not seem to be suitable. particularly the appointment of the competent authority, whilst the text of the common position came about after consultation with the supervisory authorities themselves. then there is the definition of the percentage that confers control over the company, which ties in with other provisions in the field of company law, which differ considerably from member state to member state. amendment no 17, in its turn, should it be approved, could make it impossible for there to be any kind of hostile takeover bid. the commission has no objection to extending the neutrality obligation to after the official deadline of the bid, as proposed in the first paragraph. however, the commission cannot go along with parliament' s proposal to allow the board of a particular company to determine the future of the company without taking account of the shareholders' position, by simply submitting its decisions to the judgement of the competent authorities or the judge. a solution of this kind threatens on the one hand to lead to confusion over the role of the supervisory authorities, which must remain independent and impartial, and on the other hand to the systematic institution of legal proceedings that can be time-consuming and expensive and which benefit neither the companies concerned, the members of their boards, nor the other interested parties, and particularly the employees. the situation in the united states can teach us a thing or two on that score, and should be a warning to us to proceed more cautiously. on a final note, may i remind you that this is a framework directive, as requested by parliament at an earlier stage. nevertheless, the directive stipulates firstly, that a committee of experts from the member states and from the commission are to supervise the implementation and application of the text, and secondly, it includes a review clause for making any changes which may prove necessary in the future. lastly, the commission would point out that should this house approve the proposed amendments, it could prove very difficult for an agreement to be reached between the council and parliament. that said, the commission is convinced, and it is supported in this by the economic operators involved, that the text, which is the product of over ten years of negotiations - which is longer than is needed to take account of all interests - is a good starting point, and it is high time we took action. finally, a further two new amendments have been tabled about which i have the following comments to make. amendment no 19 is unacceptable, for the same reason that amendment no 6 is unacceptable. as for amendment no 20, which is similar to amendment no 17, the same applies to both, albeit for slightly different reasons. the first part is acceptable, just as it is in amendment no 17. the second part is not because the term 'aufsichtsrat' - to use the german expression - is encompassed by the dutch term 'bestuur' (board) and is subject to the same obligations as all managers of a company. the third part of it is unacceptable for the same reason that no so-called 'social amendments' are acceptable. that is what i wanted to say on the issues raised by parliament and needless to say the commission is looking forward with enormous interest to the vote on this subject. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. resale right the next item is the recommendation for second reading (a5-0370/2000) by mr zimmerling, on behalf of the committee on legal affairs and the internal market, on the common position established by the council with a view to the adoption of a directive of the european parliament and of the council on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art [7484/1/00 - c5-0422/2000 - 1996/0085(cod)]. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the european parliament is considering at second reading the harmonisation of artists' right of resale, thus taking up again a directive for the benefit of artists as also galleries and auction houses in europe that has been under discussion since 1996. first i want to thank those colleagues who have assisted with this project. it was very difficult to resolve the problems in a way that was useful for those concerned. in the end we did manage to do so thanks to the goodwill of all the groups in this house, as shown in particular by the decision in the committee on legal affairs and the internal market. i owe special thanks to mr dehousse and mr echerer, whose many discussions helped bring about workable compromises. right of resale is the unassignable and inalienable right of creative artists to receive a share of the profits made from the selling on of their works. as such it forms part of societal copyright protection and is the expression of the societal acknowledgement of artistic creativity. it needs to be harmonised because although it already applies in many eu states, it has not so far been recognised in the united kingdom, the netherlands, ireland or austria. that leads to considerable distortions of competition because it means that in one country an artist profits from the resale, whereas in another he gets nothing. that is not acceptable in the european market and is contrary to the requirements of the single market. the report proposes the following specific amendments to the council's common position. right of resale should extend to the professional trade in works of art. the committee on legal affairs and the internal market proposes graduating the amount of royalties to be paid by the seller on the basis of a percentage rate of 4% for the portion of the sale price up to eur 50 000 and 1% for the portion above eur 200 000. moreover, the artist is assigned a right of information so that he can make his claims to royalties known to a professional art dealer during a period of up to three years, which is reasonable since the dealer has to keep the accounts of his purchases and sales. so here we must not allow a collective management firm to be involved. the new minimum sale price of eur 1 000 repeats a proposal the european parliament made at first reading. most transactions in europe take place up to the threshold sale price of eur 4 000 provided for in the council's common position, so that this area needs to be harmonised now. for amounts below eur 1 000, however, there is no need for harmonisation since this does not affect the european market and on the basis of subsidiarity no european right of resale should apply. furthermore, we have deleted the council's proposed ceiling of eur 12 500 as the highest amount of royalties an artist may receive, since there is no reason why successful artists should be penalised. in regard to the time limits for implementing this directive, on my proposal the committee decided to set a deadline of two years for each member state to transpose it into its national law and during which the rights of the successor in title must be enforced in countries that have not hitherto recognised the right of resale. the time limits of five and ten years wanted by the council and in particular by the united kingdom are unacceptable because in effect this would simply enshrine the status quo and would only benefit the art market in the united kingdom. the reservations voiced in several quarters can be summarised in two major groups. on the one side, uk lobbyists fear job losses. however, i do not see any risk of art markets relocating to switzerland or the usa, since the insurance and transport costs exceed the costs involved in the right of resale and make it unprofitable to relocate. in addition, it is in the interests of both switzerland and the usa to introduce a right of resale once we have adopted a harmonised right of resale in europe. the second problem concerns austria, where groups of artists have formed who fear the directive will have adverse effects and therefore oppose it. this is based on the quite mistaken assumption that it is compulsory to involve collective management firms, as has hitherto been the case in austria. but that is precisely what the directive does not provide. accordingly, this matter should be put before the austrian legislator instead of attacking the european legislator who is only creating positive framework conditions for artists and auction houses. so i hope our uk colleagues will not show the same national tendency to block progress that we saw in nice but that this parliament will adopt a forward-looking european directive on the art market. mr president, 11 out of the 15 eu countries recognise the right of resale. however, it is in force only in eight countries, and this is with varying degrees of success. the right of resale is not recognised in the legislation of austria, the netherlands, ireland and the united kingdom. outside the european union, neither switzerland nor the united states recognise the right of resale. at first sight, establishing a legislative text concerning the right of resale would seem to be justified by a desire for equity and in order to benefit creative artists. in fact, the resale right does not benefit artists, quite the contrary: it hinders the market which should be dynamic and be able to grow with a minimum of restrictions. consumer dynamics and sales potential are matters of concern to living artists who discern an increase in their market value and reassessment of their work. the resale right gives rise to complicated court cases, which are truly costly compared with the often modest sums involved, which generally do not reach the beneficiary. it entails additional administrative tasks, which serve to fuel criticism of european standards. it penalises the efforts of galleries who should be focussing on helping artists. it gives rise to fear, creates extra costs and administrative hassles for well-meaning potential buyers. and on occasion, it can lead to absurd situations: given that the right of resale is calculated on the basis of the resale price, in the event of depreciation transferring a work of art is more lucrative than actually creating one. is it therefore necessary to extend this legislative text to the countries who do not want it - i am referring here to the united kingdom which is currently at the top of the european art market - if to do so would be to threaten their competitiveness? mr president, to repeat a felicitous expression used by gesac (the european association of authors' and composers' societies), the draft under discussion was subjected to unjustified attacks during its review by the council. the agreement reached by the council is no longer an accurate reflection of the commission' s initial proposal, which was widely supported by parliament at its first reading. the socialist group, as well as the greater part of the committee on legal affairs and the internal market was astonished at the attitude of the council of ministers, whose position is unacceptable in several respects. the suggestion that transposition periods for member states should be increased to 15 years is the least acceptable element, given that the commission' s original proposal was four years ago. as a matter of principal, a 15-year time limit is unacceptable in such a rapidly changing world as our own. the industry will change beyond recognition in that time, mainly due to technological progress. in addition, setting this type of precedent at a time when the european union is set to double in size would be to give out the wrong signal to candidate states. it would be better to give up the idea of a directive rather than establish such a time limit. the socialist group did not therefore want parliament to discredit itself by accepting proposals which make a mockery of the votes cast at the first reading. so we are delighted, firstly, that mr zimmerling, the rapporteur, understands and shares our feelings on the issue of the time limit as well as many other problems, which he detailed this evening. we are moreover delighted that almost all the democratic groups share the same constructive point of view. once again, the debate and the upcoming vote will be decided between those wishing to forge ahead with european integration and those who are prepared to let themselves be side-tracked by national interests (of dubious legitimacy) rather than the interests of european creative artists. it is furthermore essential that we find a common position on the matter in hand, since this is the only way that the european union will be able to carry any weight internationally and to defend the interests of creative artists worldwide. mr president, commissioner, it is difficult to understand why those who are against harmonising income tax should be in favour of this directive. those of us in the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party were very critical at first reading, and we still are. we believe that there would be damaging consequences for the european market if this directive were to be implemented before international harmonisation had taken place in this legal area. we do not believe that the deadlines for implementation should be shortened in the way proposed by the rapporteur. nor do we believe there is proof that national minimum regulations concerning resale right are required in order to improve the internal market. as a previous speaker said, flourishing galleries and good systems of grants are important for young artists. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in this dispute between all sorts of lobby groups i have always listened to what the european artists say. in my country, which does not have the right of resale, the artists are opposed to this directive. understandably so, when you look at austrian tradition in its home market, an internationally recognised market. i will have a hard job persuading the people in my country, but i am firmly convinced that the harmonisation of the right of resale, on the basis of the ep's proposals, will bring benefits to all concerned. i also hope for the commission's support, at least on one of the three major points of dispute. and i am also thinking a step ahead. in the very near future we will have to make more effort to seek a dialogue with the collective management firms, we must jointly seek simpler and more transparent structures and ensure that the administrative costs of this directive do not become absurd. collective management firms are not just a kind of collection agency, they are very important partners for the artists of europe when it comes to their rights. the opinions expressed on the right of resale reflect the views not of the political groups but of the member states. i have understanding for the different cultural traditions, but at the same time i beg this house to show the same european spirit that prevailed this morning. it is not just a question of individual national artists, national gallery owners and national auction houses. it is a question of the european art market and all the players involved, and especially the european creative artists. i put my trust in the wisdom and farsightedness of this house. mr president, commissioner, although as i am sure you know i am a friend of european regulations when they are necessary, and against a european bazaar for national special interests, i have promised to put the concerns felt by the platform against the introduction of the right of resale and by the art world before this house, which represents the citizens of europe. the right of resale remains as controversial as ever. in the end, the issue is the competitiveness of the european art market, which is already finding it hard to fight off foreign competition. in my own country, the artists themselves say that they feel they are being forced into this against their will and point to germany, where fewer than 1% of the 42 000 artists have gained from the right of resale. the galleries, which play a crucial part in promoting young artists, are anxious and also oppose the right of resale, since it has to be applied even if a work of art is sold at a loss. the auction houses are concerned because the maximum amount of eur 12 500 is no longer to apply. i think it is important to voice the concerns of the auction houses, the artists, the galleries, the art world of a country and a platform of artists in this debate and to take them into consideration. that has nothing to do with special national interests but contributes to an open and transparent political debate. mr president, the commissioner will also know there was unanimous consensus in council on the common position. i hope you are going to take as robust a position on mr zimmerling's amendments as you did on the lehne report. it is also an issue about the vitality and competitiveness of the european art market. if it was centred on berlin i am sure that mr zimmerling would argue quite differently on transposition times and thresholds. without an international droit de suite, the fact is that the european art market will go offshore. there is evidence to prove that. i too, like mrs echerer, must listen to artists. they are divided. there is knstler gegen folgerecht. they are divided. it is arrogant of mr zimmerling to dismiss the views of people for whom we claim to legislate in this parliament. we legislate in their interests. we should listen to their views as well. we can also see that the folgerecht does not actually advantage many artists. in germany, for example, in 1998, of 7 000 artists who transferred their rights, only 274 actually got any money from it and 40% of the droit de suite was taken up in costs in levying the sum. so there are some problems with how it currently operates. i want to use this opportunity to register my dismay that the commission has failed to provide any analysis or evaluation of the economic impact of droit de suite. it is far too important a piece of legislation for it not to have done this work. i still fail to understand how the commission reached the arbitrary threshold of eur 1 000 with no scientific evidence to back that up. therefore i must plead for a long transition period to open serious negotiations on an international droit de suite, without which we will lose the european art market, wherever it is located, whether it be paris, berlin or london. i do not believe artists will gain from that either. mr president, i try to adopt a practical approach to this issue because i have one of the biggest art auction houses outside of london in my constituency. they had raised their fears about these proposals and i went back there recently and we looked at some case studies together. we took paintings from a recent auction that would have been affected by this proposal. with one item there would have been considerable difficulty in tracing the artist's family; only tracing agents and collecting societies would have benefited. in another case, the item would undoubtedly have been sold elsewhere, i.e. in america. the one artist we were able to contact who would have benefited was not interested and said it would all be too complex to help him or his family. i am afraid this leads me to the inevitable conclusion that we do not need this, and that without international agreement in place, it is one piece of internal market legislation that we can do without. mr president, the droit de suite is an unknown legal right in the united kingdom and we do not believe it is a beneficial addition to our law. this is because, as has already been pointed out, many artists have recently testified it does not in fact help them. furthermore, as experience in france shows, the main beneficiaries are the heirs of dead, rich painters, not poor, living ones. at any event, why as a matter of principle should it be right to impose a levy on the sale of a second-hand picture and not to do the same to the maker of a second-hand car or the tailor of a second-hand suit? it is also unnecessary in the single european art market, which for years has worked quite satisfactorily without it, as has already been pointed out this evening. in short, there is no need for harmonisation of this sort in this area. nevertheless, we in the united kingdom have, with misgivings and in a spirit of compromise, accepted a formula which includes its eventual introduction in the uk. it is complicated and takes years to come into effect. cynics might say: a bit like the treaty of nice. but london, the centre of the art market in europe, will disproportionately suffer if much of the trade goes off-shore to geneva or the united states, unilaterally exporting british jobs with it, unless an international regime is put into place to eliminate global market distortion. if the substance of the compromise is not honoured, we would rather this unnecessary directive did not reach the statute book. if it did so, it would be a great injustice, especially to those whose livelihoods depend upon the art market and, in particular, the art market in london. i can assure the house that, if my party leader william hague wins the general election, he will match the present prime minister's commitment to oppose this proposal in the essential interests of our country. it goes beyond what was agreed in the common position. mr president, i would like to give my response to the comments made and the questions asked. the commission welcomes the majority of the amendments proposed by the committee on legal affairs and the internal market and congratulates mr zimmerling, the rapporteur, on this dedication to achieving agreement and the way in which he has been able to gain consensus on the most important questions, particularly that of the time limit, which is, in amendments nos 11 and 15, brought down to four years in total, made up of a two-year transitional period and two-year transposition period. this seems to be a reasonable period to enable the profession to adapt to the change and for national authorities to introduce the necessary changes in regulations. the second important issue is that of the total amount, which is removed in amendment no 7. however, this amendment can be only partially approved. the commission believes that to divide royalties into five portions, as set out in the common position, remains more effective than the proposed method, since it avoids possible loss of sales, especially in the highest portion of the sale price. the third and final issue is that of the threshold, which amendment no 6 brings back down to eur 1 000 or, in other words, to the commission' s original proposal. i repeat, this amendment can be only partially approved since the commission is not in a position to agree with you and make the threshold compulsory. the commission believes that, on a national level, the abolition of the right to resale below this threshold cannot be justified due to the internal market. in some member states, this may put artists at a disadvantage, in contrast to the situation prior to harmonisation. amendment no 4 and the part of amendment no 7 which relates to this issue should also be rejected for the same reasons. to sum up, mr president, the commission is able to approve amendments nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and is able to approve amendment nos 6 and 7 only in part for the reasons mentioned previously. the commission is able to approve amendment no 9 as a recital and not as an article. however, the commission is unable to approve amendment no 4, which relates to the compulsory aspect of the threshold, or amendment no 8, since the distinction made between heirs who are able to benefit from the right of resale is not the same as the concept of ownership of this right and arises solely from national law. a similar amendment was rejected at first reading. furthermore, the commission cannot accept amendment no 10 for the reason that to draw up and maintain a list of third countries where the right of resale is in force would create practical problems and would not enhance legal security. the debate is closed. the vote will take tomorrow at 11.30 a.m. (the sitting was closed at 12.15 a.m.)

11. israeli military operation against the humanitarian flotilla and the gaza blockade ( - before the vote mr president, by way of protest, the ecr group will not be voting for the joint resolution. we are voting against it because the alde coordinators organising the joint motion did not bother to invite our ecr group to participate in the negotiations, on the presumption that we would not sign the joint text. in all my 11 years as an mep i have never experienced this before. this is against all the conventions and traditions of this house and must not happen again. because of the order of voting, we will not even have a chance to vote on our own resolution. mr tannock, let me just point out that what you have just said was more appropriately slated for the explanation of votes section of the sitting, but thank you.

approval of minutes of previous sitting the minutes of the sitting of 26 october 2006 have been distributed. does anyone wish to comment on them? (fr) mr president, i would just like to point out that on thursday i forgot to sign the attendance sheet however, i participated in all the roll-call votes at noon on thursday and on thursday evening. appropriate steps will be taken to make the necessary correction. (the minutes of the previous sitting were approved)

pharmaceutical products package (debate) the next item is the commission statement on the pharmaceutical products package. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the proposals in the so-called pharmaceutical package which i am presenting this evening at parliament's request have a common theme. the intention of the package is to strengthen the rights, needs and interests of patients in our healthcare systems. in our view patients are not merely the subject of services available from healthcare providers or the subject of the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. patients are responsible citizens whose health is their most important asset and who are entitled to have the best and safest treatments and medicines at their disposal. patients are the subject of healthcare policy. however, health or restoration to health is not just a right. it also involves an obligation to take care of oneself by eating healthily, having a healthy lifestyle and playing an active role in one's own treatment, if treatment is required. our proposal for more effective monitoring of the actual effects of approved medicines, for example, presupposes this type of active involvement on the part of patients. if patients do not notify the authorities about anomalies relating to medicines that they have taken, the monitoring process will be a waste of time. this also applies to protection against counterfeit medicines. patients can, and should, in future ensure that they are not taking fake medicines by checking that all the safety features which will be required on future packaging are in fact in place. if we believe that active, informed patients play an essential role in healthcare, in monitoring medicines and in preventing the spread of counterfeits, it is hard to understand why patients are not allowed access to information about the most important medicines. for this reason, the pharmaceutical package consists of the following four parts: a political communication and three legislative proposals on the safety monitoring of medicines, on counterfeit medicines and on patient information. the rapidly growing numbers of fake medicines have forced us to act. the number of counterfeit medicines confiscated at the eu's external borders increased almost fourfold between 2005 and 2007. if we do not act now, the first deaths will be caused sooner or later. the problem has also affected the legal supply chain for medicines. we have discovered fake medicines at different stages of the supply chain. each individual case involves thousands of packages and, therefore, thousands of patients are potentially at risk. in future, patients in europe must be able to have total confidence in the quality of the medicines which they obtain from legal suppliers, such as pharmacies. our proposals are therefore as follows: firstly, clear regulations for all those involved in the legal supply chain; secondly, stricter supervision of medicines in transit or for export; thirdly, the latest safety features on medicines which are particularly at risk, including a seal, an identification feature and a barcode to ensure complete traceability for every package; and, fourthly, regulations for the safety monitoring of active substances. while the proposal was being drawn up, a misunderstanding arose which i would like to clear up once and for all. the proposal's sole objective is to improve patient safety. it is not intended to prevent a specific form of medicine distribution, such as parallel trade. the sector in question has been responsible for a striking information campaign. in this case you could almost call it a disinformation campaign. however, i would like to clarify once again that the parallel trade in medicines is an activity which is permitted under the eu treaty and will remain so. parallel traders simply need to observe the new safety requirements, as do all other participants in the supply chain. no one is being given preferential treatment and no one is being put at a disadvantage. the legislative proposal on pharmacovigilance, in other words on monitoring approved medicines, will improve patient safety and reduce the unnecessary administrative burden. this is a good example of how less bureaucracy can lead to greater safety. this will be achieved by making responsibilities clearer and reporting obligations more effective. in addition, manufacturers must introduce an efficient monitoring system. community-wide access to information about undesirable or previously unknown side effects will make community-wide risk management significantly easier. finally, the pharmaceutical package includes a proposal for improved patient information. i know that this is a highly controversial issue which we have often considered in this parliament and i hope that we will succeed in discussing this issue calmly and objectively and without resorting to polemics. patients have a right to information and this applies in particular to medicines. health is one of our most important assets, if not the most important. the significance of health will continue to increase in our aging society. in a democratic society, it therefore goes without saying that patients must be provided with comprehensive information about matters which affect their health. i must state very clearly, and this really is a fundamental principle of a democratic society, that we do not need to explain and justify the fact that people should be provided with information. instead, we need to explain and justify the situation when citizens are not provided with information. patients are already actively searching for information. all of us will have come across this situation among our friends, acquaintances or even family members, when a seriously ill person or their relatives and friends search desperately, and in many cases these people really are desperate, for information about whether a better medicine or a better treatment is available. the first place that these people look is the internet. they come across information from other parts of the world and are not able to tell whether it is product advertising or factual information. in my opinion this situation is both dreadful and intolerable. i would therefore like to make it absolutely clear that the current situation does not meet patients' requirements for high-quality information. it also results in discrimination. people who can understand english and can use the internet have access to information which is unavailable to those people who cannot understand english and cannot use the internet. these are generally older people and it is particularly important for them to obtain factual information. as things currently stand in europe, if a medicine is american, then the information is available, and if it is european, the information is not available. our considerations are based on the fact that the ban on advertising prescription-only medicines should under no circumstances be relaxed and that there is a significant difference between information and advertising. our proposal is therefore that certain information should be released and, in particular, the information which has been reviewed by the authorities and can be found, for example, on the package leaflets of medicines. secondly, this information should only be published on the internet in written answers to specific questions or in healthcare publications specified by the member states. thirdly, strict quality criteria must be followed and, fourthly, the member states must put in place effective monitoring mechanisms. the information must be monitored before publication. exceptions to this will only be permitted in the context of effective systems. i would like to explain that there is, of course, a grey area relating to patient information and advertising for medical products. individual patients are not able to see through this grey area in which information of all kinds is made available via media of all kinds, with the media taking editorial responsibility. very often this information is controlled by interested parties, to put it cautiously, and readers are not able to identify the source of the information or the interested party involved. i will be working with the media and with the pharmaceutical industry to draw up a code of conduct in order to ensure that this highly questionable practice is brought to an end. however, to achieve this we need to find a better and more modern solution to the problem of patient information. this package contains very up-to-date and progressive proposals. it draws the obvious conclusions from the increasing importance which citizens place on questions that concern their own health. i hope that i will have the support of the european parliament for this package. thank you very much. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - madam president, i very much welcome the commissioner's statement and in particular the tone in which he opened it when he was referring to patients as being the centre of this. i am just taking through this parliament a report on cross-border health, and fundamental to that is the safety of patients. if i may say so, i wish this had come sooner so that we could have completed your package, along with other health measures within this parliament. that is not going to be possible, but at least we are on the road. perhaps you could mention to at least one of your colleagues that we would also like to see something on needle-stick injuries as part of that safety package. but we are looking now at the three items that you have referred to. you have referred, rightly, to information to patients and you have dwelt on the detail of that. i believe that patients, and particularly the patients with conditions like neurodegenerative diseases, are very anxious to see this information to patients coming in in a way which is certainly not advertising but does give them confidence that what they read - whether it is on the internet, in the package or in advertising or announcements, shall we say - is bona fide and trustworthy. at the moment they cannot do that and so they are, as you say, at risk. the second one is counterfeiting. counterfeiting is one of the curses of our age. it is one thing to have a watch or designer clothing counterfeited, but it is far more serious if it is a medicine. if it is a counterfeit medicine, then patients are at risk and patients can die because of counterfeit medicines. as we have heard, the statistics - 2.5 million packages a year seized at eu borders - have greatly increased over the previous two years, from 2005-2007, and the frightening thing is that it is increasingly within pharmacies and it is not just the internet packages. thirdly, you referred to pharmacovigilance. we reckon that 5% of all hospital admissions are the result of adverse drug reactions and that adverse drug reactions cause a fifth of the unnecessary deaths in hospitals. so it is vitally important that we have a simplified, more reliable package on pharmacovigilance too. if we get these in place, then i believe my report and the safety of patients can go hand in hand, and that must be at the top of our agenda tonight, during the rest of this parliament and in the parliament that is to come at the end of the summer. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is good that we are discussing a new piece of pharmaceutical legislation this evening. i would also like to thank commissioner verheugen for providing us with this opportunity. commissioner verheugen has rightly raised the fact that a number of amendments to the legislation are necessary. we need a greater focus on safety, better rules concerning information for patients and effective measures against counterfeit medicines. i would also stress the point that the patient must play the central role in this regard. medicines are subject to strict supervision, which is why it is not possible to put any old thing on the market. strict tests are carried out on medicines before they reach the market, but once they are on the market it is extremely rare for them to be tested again. supervision of a medicine is limited once it reaches the market. side effects are reported, but there is little research into the effectiveness of medicines. the proposed legislation gives us an opportunity to make very necessary improvements on this front. for example, cholesterol-lowering medication is taken on a mass scale, although little is known about the effectiveness of various products and very little, indeed, is known about which product is the most effective. the same applies to antidepressants and other drugs which have an impact on people's mental health. it would be a good idea if the pharmaceutical industry were required to undertake more extensive research into the effectiveness and side effects of its products. independent testing is necessary in this regard. we all know that patient information about medicines is a controversial topic. anyone watching prime-time television in the united states can see what trouble this can cause. 'ask your doctor for x medicine for breast cancer or y medicine for cystitis.' so far, there has been a ban on the advertising of medicines in europe and, as far as i am concerned, that is how it should remain. we cannot allow anyone to saddle us with a diagnosis or talk us into taking a drug. the pharmaceutical industry wants to inform patients about its products and thinks that it is the body most capable of doing that. i imagine that that might very well be the case, but independent testing is crucial here, too. the legislative proposal relaxes the rules on the circulation of information via the internet and printed media. as commissioner verheugen himself says, this is a modern and progressive proposal. there must be a very clear dividing line between information and advertising and patients should have the right to reliable information. for this reason, it would be a good idea to collect information in a european database, together with comparative information on the effects and side effects of medicines. the third proposal in the package tightens the rules intended to prevent counterfeit medicines from being placed on the market. that is only right, because, as my fellow member mr bowis has stressed, placing counterfeit medicines on the market is a serious offence. commissioner verheugen is also right in saying that this phenomenon is not so much a consequence of parallel trade as of altogether different mechanisms which we need to tackle. in the upcoming period we should deepen our discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of information for patients, counterfeit medicines and patient safety, because it is certain that we are dealing with a number of public duties here. the industry has a responsibility, patients have a certain amount of responsibility, but so do the authorities as well. madam president, i would like to thank the commission for its statement. i think that it is good to address environmental aspects, for example. contamination from pharmaceutical products is a growing problem in treatment works. as regards advertisements for pharmaceutical products, i would like to see the toughest possible restrictions. i have really become quite tired of this issue. one evening when i was watching television, a quarter of all the advertisements were for over-the-counter pharmaceutical products. i would like the commission to carry out an impact assessment to see how great an effect the advertisements have had on sales of these pharmaceutical products. is it reasonable to have so many advertisements for pharmaceutical products on the television, even if we are talking about over-the-counter medicines? in sweden, we had an example of the vaccine gardasil, which scarcely falls within the bounds of over-the-counter or epidemiological vaccines. i would therefore like us to tighten up the legislation in this area. as regards the counterfeiting of medicines, this is probably also connected to our current patent system. there is an extremely large difference in price. i believe that a solution for better steering research in the direction of needs that are in the public interest would perhaps be to introduce the greater use of prize funds for pharmaceutical products. neglected tropical diseases, for example - that is to say an area where there is no buying power - would then be able to obtain new medicines. this would better enable research to be carried out into producing medicines for groups in society that do not have a strong buying power. i would like the commission to look more closely into the possibilities of making greater use of prize funds, whereby a person who develops a new pharmaceutical product receives a one-off sum. manufacture would then be licence-free. i believe that in certain cases this could be a better system for improving research and, above all, for eliminating the purpose of counterfeiting medicines. i see many advantages to being able, from a political position, to steer research into solving a disease problem instead of treating the symptoms for 30 years with medication that is very lucrative for the undertakings concerned. finally, i would just like to say something about nanotechnology. there are nanoparticles in medicine, but we know very little about their toxicological effects. i would like better methods to be introduced for investigating the toxicology of nanoparticles. (sk) many of us will probably talk about healthcare subsidiarity in connection with the pharmaceutical package. nevertheless, the situation on the pharmaceutical market indicates that, for europe to be competitive in research and development, as well as in the distribution and sale of new medicines, closer cooperation or improved cooperation between the member states is required in this field. patients need to be better informed about medicines and of course about their unwanted side effects, so that they can participate in treatment more effectively. due to limited funding for pharmaceutical research and development in europe, the european pharmaceutical industry is unable to compete with america, japan or canada. that is why medicine prices have been rising disproportionately on european markets. we have discussed repeatedly in the european parliament the insufficient accessibility of certain drugs, for example those for the treatment of cancer or so-called rare diseases. we place patients who are already in a difficult situation in the position of beggars who have to find sponsors in order to obtain treatment. the high price of many medicines forces the healthcare sector to seek cheaper alternatives, in other words generic medicines. unfortunately, it is precisely these that are frequently counterfeited and often contain no active substance apart from sugar and the tablet compound. the aforementioned facts show us how important it is to exchange opinions, discuss and subsequently adopt a complete pharmaceutical package ensuring that patients are treated with high-quality and affordable medicines. in this context, i am looking forward to effective cooperation with the rapporteurs appointed for specific parts of the package in the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection. i have to agree with the commissioner that it is medicines sold via the internet that greatly endanger the safety of pharmaceutical policy. (fr) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it always surprises me when health matters are handled by the directorate-general for enterprise and industry. on reading the proposals on patient information, however, it soon becomes apparent that, one or two nuances aside, they treat medicines as if they were any other consumer product. on this issue, i believe that information provided by the industry itself, other than labelling and statutory notices, is called advertising and it is by repetition that it becomes a competitive commercial asset. the commission may well put forward certain provisions to define its proposals, and it may keep telling us that it is patient associations that are impatiently awaiting such provisions. there are many of us who are not fooled by the impact of this 'patient information' directive and know that it will have no benefit in actually improving the health of europeans. we can already be certain that, if the text were to be adopted, the pharmaceutical industry's marketing budget would skyrocket, undoubtedly at the expense of research. already today, 23% of turnover is dedicated to advertising and only 17% to research, and if we look at the united states and new zealand, where this advertising information is already permitted, we can see that it has led to an increase in the number of prescriptions and health costs, without any visible improvement in the quality of care or in citizens' health. let this be a lesson to us. finally, i would like to conclude by saying that a modern solution would be to have more faith in health professionals, or to train them better, so that they can provide information on treatments and prescription medicines. (sv) madam president, commissioner verheugen, as you said, this package was much talked about even before it was tabled. this is perhaps not particularly strange, as pharmaceutical products affect everyone. however, they also affect powerful companies with strong interests as well as the use of tax revenue. i, personally, asked the commission to include the effect of pharmaceutical products on the environment in the information provided. i am very pleased that the commission has included this in its proposal as something that may be included in the information that may be provided. however, i think, in fact, that this information probably could be mandatory when providing information about the pharmaceutical product. i do not want to see advertisements for prescription pharmaceutical products. i am therefore pleased that the commission appears to share this view. however, like the commission, i believe that patients and the general public should have the right to sound and accurate information on pharmaceutical products. in several cases this already exists today. in sweden, for example, we have a system called fass. it is important for it to be possible, as an ordinary citizen, to find reliable information quickly, particularly in view of the fact that there is plenty of information that is downright misleading, in particular in various chat rooms on the internet that are easy to find if someone is in a vulnerable situation. however, just as the commission has proposed, it is necessary for the information to be monitored objectively so that it can be relied upon. it is this part of the commission's proposal that i am quite dubious about. it will be extremely important to regulate how these information channels can and should be set up, so that they are easily accessible while at the same time only accessible to those looking for the information, so that the information is not given to people who have not asked for it like an advertisement. i am also a little dubious about whether it is really necessary to have full regulation of this matter at eu level. when all is said and done, this is an area that relates to health services and medical care and that should fall mostly within the competence of the member states. i would therefore prefer to be a little more convinced that the legislative regulation of this matter at eu level was really necessary. (fr) madam president, i have two questions i would like to put to the commissioner. do you intend to find a way to prevent a magazine, distributed free of charge in pharmacies in germany and subtly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, from being affected by this directive? my other question relates to the names of medicines in cross-border regions. the names are often different despite the fact that the medicines contain identical substances. could there not be a way to simplify things for those who live in cross-border regions? madam president, i welcome the commission's statement tonight and look forward to reading in more detail exactly what is in this package. some years ago here we had the pharmaceutical review. that included veterinary medicines, as well as human pharmaceuticals. i am just wondering why the two have been divorced at this stage in the proceedings. the commission will be aware of my interest through the legislation on maximum residues, which feed into the food chain through veterinary pharmaceuticals. i have been critical of serious shortcomings in the veterinary medicines directive now for some time. could the commissioner just comment on drug interaction and multi-drug therapy and drug-resistance issues in relation to this discussion here tonight? i, like others, feel there should be far more patient information now. patients should not have to 'compete' - if that is the word - with what is on the internet, where there is sometimes a lot of misinformation. they should get properly reviewed scientific information at first hand with their medicines. finally, i also have concerns with the role of drug companies in influencing doctors' prescription habits. could the commissioner comment, please? madam president, ladies and gentlemen, in response to mrs corbey's comments, i would like to say first of all that i gave the go-ahead for a european database of prescription-only medicines several years ago. work on the database is going well and it will be available in the foreseeable future. not only mrs corbey but also several other members of this house have asked the question: is it possible to make a clear distinction between information and advertising? let me state clearly once again that the commission is totally opposed to allowing advertising or publicity, or whatever you want to call it, for prescription-only medicines in europe. we will not permit this under any circumstances. however, i do also have to contradict you when you give the impression that there is no difference between information and advertising. anyone who says that it is not possible to distinguish between information and advertising is insulting hundreds of thousands of journalists who clearly demonstrate every day in their work in newspapers, on the radio or on television that there is a difference between information and advertising. the regulations which we draw up are so accurate and so precise that there is no question of blurring the lines between information and advertising. the information must be based on data that has already been authorised by the approval authority. it must be authorised before it is published and it is subject to strict quality controls. i really do not understand how anyone could believe that this was advertising. mr schlyter has highlighted the question of vaccines. i must state clearly at this point that vaccines are, of course, not freely available. vaccines are normally made available to ordinary citizens by the public health authorities in the context of information campaigns which aim to ensure the highest possible vaccination density. that is how things should be, but the difference between information and advertising must, of course, also be taken into account in the case of vaccines. i fully share your opinion in this respect. the issue of counterfeit medicines is unrelated to intellectual property. fake medicines are not produced as a result of a dispute about intellectual property. the medicines which are being faked have already been approved, which means that any issues of intellectual property have been resolved. counterfeit medicines are produced for reasons of pure greed. there is no question of violating rights to intellectual property. this is simply a criminal act. at the very least faking medicines involves bodily harm, if not attempted murder, but it has nothing to do with questions of intellectual property. i would like to draw your attention to statistics produced by the european medicines agency which has been investigating the possible effects of improved patient information. in great britain, 5% of all the people who are admitted to hospital are there because they have taken the wrong medicine, in other words, a medicine which they are allergic to or which they should not have been given. of all the patients in hospital in great britain, 5% have been hospitalised because they have taken the wrong medicine. we know that in 50% of these cases this could have been avoided if the patient had been informed about the nature of the medicine they received. however, this information was not available to them. i also use this argument in reply to healthcare authorities in the member states who are not enthusiastic about the prospect of well-informed patients because they believe that well-informed patients are demanding and will ask for more expensive drugs. these statistics show that patient information can even save money. in answer to mrs hennicot-schoepges' question about brochures and magazines which are made available free of charge, i do not think that it is possible for european legislators to prevent anyone from distributing free brochures. this happens in several member states. however, the ban on advertising also applies to these magazines and brochures. i am thinking, for example, of the very well-known publication apothekenumschau in my native country. these publications are not allowed to contain advertising for prescription-only medicines. i have said something about the grey area, in other words, the surreptitious advertising which you also mentioned. yes, it does exist. we are familiar with these practices and our proposals are specifically intended to prevent this surreptitious advertising which is found in a number of areas. as far as the border regions are concerned, the circumstances described are related to the fact that we still essentially have national approval of drugs. european approval is the exception, not the rule. this means that manufacturers have their medicines approved in the different markets in the member states and no one can prevent them from registering the medicines under different names. this is where the problem lies. if a medicine has european approval, then it is available throughout europe, including the border regions, under the same brand name. mrs doyle, i do not believe that there is a one-to-one correspondence in the areas which we are discussing between human medicine and veterinary medicine. i think the structures are very different in these cases. for example, animals are not able to find out about medicines themselves. the relationship between demand and availability is quite different. however, i will be very happy to consider this problem further. i would also like to point out that in the case of the question of residues we issued a proposal a long time ago, as you know. the debate is closed.

1. 2007 discharge: eu general budget - council ( before the vote: mr president, i rise under rule 173, regarding rule 2 of the rules of procedure. i quote: 'members of the european parliament shall exercise their mandate independently'. at the debate on the council and commission statements this morning, you, mr president, said that mr farage's remarks were unacceptable. as a new member of this house, i would like you to clarify, with respect to rule 2, whether a member of this house is free to express his or her opinions without any censorship. with your permission, i will have a meeting with mr farage and we shall have a friendly talk about it. that is what i propose. thank you very much. (de) mr president, i also took part in the debate this morning. i did not have the impression that you were unfair or abused your office in any way. on the contrary. (uproar) i would like to say, on the contrary, that you listened with great patience and respect as the chairman of this so-called group demonstrated to us that he is a professional slanderer. that was the reality of mr farage's speech. (applause) rapporteur. - mr president, i would like to request a roll-call vote on the discharge of the council's budget 2007. i think that it is important that the council can see the broad support from this parliament behind our demands to the council on more cooperation with parliament and its competent committees on the next discharge procedure.

community tobacco fund (debate) the next item is the report by mr berlato, on behalf of the committee on agriculture and rural development, on the proposal for a council regulation amending regulation (ec) no 1782/2003 as regards the transfer of tobacco aid to the community tobacco fund for the years 2008 and 2009 and regulation (ec) no 1234/2007 with regard to financing of the community tobacco fund - c6-0062/2008 -. rapporteur. - (it) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the aim of the commission proposal is basically to continue deducting 5% of the tobacco aid granted for the calendar years 2008 and 2009 and to use those funds to continue financing the community tobacco fund, whose sole purpose is to finance information initiatives for improving european citizens' awareness of the harmful effects of tobacco consumption. first of all, i think it would be appropriate to highlight a few objective terms of reference. the transfer of cap aid to the fund is a rare and positive example of integration and cooperation between the agriculture and health policies of the european union. since the activities of the fund are important for the citizens of the union, and will continue to be important in the future, as the commission has underlined, we consider that its continued financial support is necessary for 2007 and for 2009. the deduction from coupled aid granted to farmers has always been the sole source of financing of the community tobacco fund. the financial basis of this deduction was substantially reduced with the reform of the tobacco cmo and by the decision of some member states to opt for complete decoupling, thereby completely depriving the fund of the income from those deductions. it is necessary, by further extending the period of application of the deduction and by increasing its percentage rate, to make sufficient resources available from the fund to finance programmes without impacting further on the eu budget, at least until the end of the current forecasts, while at the same time seeking other ways of financing the fund. one of the positive aspects of the fund's financing mechanism is the provision for at least 25% of the total amount of approved projects to be co-financed by proven operators, thus guaranteeing the availability of increased funding. the committee on agriculture has frequently considered these questions and maintains its own line, which is to tighten restrictions on smoking and to improve people's awareness of its harmful effect on human health. on the other hand, we are fully aware, as stated in parliament's legislative resolution of 10 march 2004, that european raw tobacco production, which is now low and concentrated in a few, specific areas of the union, accounts for less than 4% of world production and has no impact on local consumption of tobacco products. although this topic is not central to today's debate, it is worth remembering that the european union is the world's leading importer of raw tobacco and relies for over 70% of its requirements on third countries - principally brazil, malawi, argentina, indonesia, zimbabwe, india and china - to the advantage of tobaccos often produced under less closely regulated conditions than european tobacco. this also results in a trade deficit of over eur 1.2 billion per annum. on the other hand, member states where tobacco aid has been completely decoupled have seen, besides the cancellation of transfers to the fund, the total abandonment of production, without any sustainable alternative in economic or employment terms. this has had very serious adverse effects on the rural areas concerned as a whole and has not led to any change in the local consumption of finished tobacco products. as regards the proposal to make a deduction in the aid for the calendar year 2008, and bearing in mind that the tobacco cultivation contracts for the 2008 harvest year were concluded some time ago, the committee on agriculture considers that approving that proposal could give rise to a whole series of legal actions or, at any event, to a dispute which would ultimately cause serious harm to farmers alone. finally, the committee on agriculture considers that, by extending the deduction until the harvest year 2012 and increasing the percentage rate of the deduction for the fund to 6%, there would be enough money to cover actions under the community tobacco fund until the year 2013, and it calls on the commission to prepare a multiannual programme which, suitably altered in accordance with the amendments proposed here, could draw on eur 81 million without impacting further on the union's budget. member of the commission. - madam president, first of all i want to thank the rapporteur, mr berlato. i was very encouraged by the enthusiasm with which you made your speech tonight. i also wish to thank the committee on agriculture and rural development for the report on the community tobacco fund. in 2004 the council adopted the tobacco reform that constrains partly coupled and partly decoupled payments for the tobacco producers in the period between 2006 and 2009. the reform allows a relatively long transitional period because the partly coupled aid can run until 2009. but we have seen - as you have rightly said - member states that chose to decouple totally from 2006 when the reform entered into force. the 2004 reform also included the transfer of a percentage of the tobacco aid for the years 2006 and 2007 from the tobacco producers to the tobacco fund. the commission proposal prolongs the transfer of a percentage from the tobacco aid to the tobacco fund until the calendar year 2009. i very much welcome the support for the transfer of part of the tobacco aid into the community tobacco fund. your report correctly stresses the major importance for the european public of the measures carried out by this fund, aimed at promoting information initiatives on the damage that tobacco can cause. however, your request to prolong the transitional period until 2012 poses a huge problem. such an extension of the transitional partly coupled regime is totally against the philosophy of what the commission will propose tomorrow in its communication on the 'health check', which is moving towards more decoupled payment, to give the farmers the freedom to produce what the market wants. so far as i have been informed, those member states that decided from the very beginning to decouple totally the payment to tobacco producers did so because it was more profitable for the farmers to leave the sector - perhaps because of the quality of the tobacco, it was more difficult to get a decent price. it was also agreed in 2004 that 50% of the community support to the tobacco sector would go into the rural development measures. this will start in the budget year 2011 and go, as an additional community support, to tobacco-producing regions. it is important to note that it is earmarked for the tobacco-producing regions. on that basis, a yearly amount of eur 484 million has already been included in the rural development programmes for the 2007-2013 period for those member states that are covered by the tobacco reform. therefore i am quite sure that it can come as no surprise that i cannot propose a prolongation of the transitional partly coupled regime, because of the agreement supported by all tobacco-producing member states when this package on mediterranean products was agreed in 2004. however, i am looking forward to a very animated, interesting discussion tonight. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on budgets. - (pl) madam president, commissioner, subsidising tobacco production while at the same time combating the smoking of tobacco products has been a subject of controversy for many years. however, the community tobacco fund, which presently takes up 5% of tobacco aid, serves to finance research on countering the effects of smoking, propaganda campaigns and the training of tobacco producers with a view to conversion to other production. i am the draftsman of the budget committee's opinion on mr berlato's report. the continued financing of the community tobacco fund for the next two years is most appropriate, but it is questionable that the reasons for its existence will disappear after that period, since we know people smoke and will go on smoking. they will smoke whether we in europe produce tobacco or not. the problem will not disappear even if we stop subsidising tobacco producers. the fund must therefore continue to exist. the only thing that can be changed is the way it is financed. madam president, i am glad we have the commissioner here today, for i believe she is a very fair-minded person. allow me to explain. first of all, let me point out to my colleague in the committee on budgets that we are against smoking and are in favour of a large-scale anti-smoking campaign. however, if people continue to smoke and there is a corresponding demand for tobacco, we do not need to import it from third countries. let us produce it in europe. i congratulate mr berlato on his report and fully endorse it. i request that funding should continue from the community tobacco fund. we farmers have gladly accepted the 1% increase in the rate of deduction that goes into the anti-smoking public information fund, commissioner, although this is money that is taken away from us. we gladly accept this. we ask of you, however, that the tobacco status quo should obtain until 2013. commissioner, you are a very fair-minded person. why should tobacco growers alone be discriminated against? we therefore request that this should be revoked, and that the status quo should obtain until 2013. furthermore, as you know, tobacco growers in all countries, especially in my own country, are the poorest of our farmers; they often come from the poorest, most degraded regions, where in many cases nothing else can be grown. if we stop this regime and discontinue the aid, these regions will fall prey to desertification and environmental degradation. i therefore request that the status quo continue to obtain in line with mr berlato's report, his amendments and my own. knowing that you are a fair-minded person, commissioner, i believe we can count on your support for our proposal. on behalf of the pse group. - (es) madam president, thank you very much, commissioner, for your presence here. i was talking to the president of my region who has a high opinion of you, and i reaffirm that here today. doesn't this conflict with the reference to berlato in the final paragraph?. or have i missed the point? i am speaking on my own behalf and on behalf of my group's shadow rapporteur, mrs rosa migulez, in support of mr berlato, because his seems to be the most rational position. mr berlato's report deals exclusively with the community tobacco fund, the community fund to combat smoking. he asks for more time and more money for this campaign. therefore, even members who are against premiums for tobacco should vote for this report, because it aims to extend the time and scope for the fight against tobacco. however, the word tobacco arouses such strong feelings among many members of this parliament that they become confused. they confuse the community tobacco fund with the community premiums and say we are asking to continue the premiums. this is not true. we are talking about the situation of the fund until 2013. they confuse production with consumption. the problem in europe is not production. europe produces very little tobacco. europe's problem is the consumption of tobacco imported from outside europe. they confuse tobacco with smoking. it is like confusing alcohol with alcoholism. the plant, which is an agricultural crop, has many uses, including medicinal, whereas smoking is an illness. if they want to eradicate consumption, they should target their attacks much more on imports, manufacturing, advertising and the massive tobacco industry as a whole, rather than on the poor workers in my country, who only account for 5% of the tobacco smoked in europe. finally, commissioner, we are not funding tobacco for the sake of it, we are funding tobacco because it creates a lot of jobs, not only among tobacco producers, but throughout the districts concerned. in fact, many tobacco producers want to stop producing because they will earn more without working. however, the districts in question will go under if they lose these thousands of jobs for women and immigrants, as has happened in other areas of europe. they are only asking for time, time to reorganise their farms. commissioner, thank you very much for your patience and i hope that you will extend your hand not to mr berlato, but to the workers who are looking at this parliament in the hope it will not display double standards. i hope that nobody here will confuse what they would like to see with the real situation, and i also hope that nobody here will put their own interests above the interests of these humble people. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (de) madam president, commissioner, i have the impression that the aim here is, as they say in westphalia, to throw a sausage after a side of bacon, meaning to throw out a herring to catch a whale. in other words, the tobacco fund is being used in an attempt to safeguard the coupling of the tobacco premium until 2013. the fund, which - as we all know - is also used to finance education on the harmful effects of smoking, was introduced here in parliament to support the actual tobacco premiums, because there was strong opposition to smoking from a majority of meps, and many were asking how we could support tobacco-growing, given the dangers of smoking. i have always been a supporter of the tobacco premium, because i believe that the two things are unrelated, but then we should not be hypocritical and undertake to do something to combat smoking if we are actually pursuing a different aim, namely the preservation of the premium. the issue at stake here is not the preservation of the premium; it is essentially a matter of the coupled premium, the objective being to prevent decoupling. we always act as if decoupling would deprive tobacco-growers of the premium. we know that this is not true, and indeed we have already discussed the whole issue in connection with cotton. businesses will continue to receive payments; the only difference is that they will no longer be obliged to grow tobacco, and i believe that makes good sense. i remember a trip to northern greece with the committee on agriculture and rural development when we visited the poorest of the poor. we saw the impoverished regions, but they were not poor because of decoupling, which had not been introduced yet, but because the tobacco industry was not paying growers in those regions a fair price for their tobacco and was even taking advantage of the premiums paid at that time to push prices so low that tobacco-growers were left with nothing at all from their premiums. we found that incredible at the time, and we wondered why the growers in that region, who grew spice tobacco, which is used throughout the world as a speciality tobacco in cigarette blends, did not receive sufficient payment to be able to make a living from tobacco cultivation alone, regardless of premiums. if tobacco is no longer grown in some regions as a result of decoupling or in some countries where complete decoupling of tobacco aid has been effected, this does not mean that there are no alternatives in those regions but that growers cannot cover the cost of growing tobacco. what is therefore needed here is a showdown with the tobacco industry so that they start at long last to pay growers a decent price. i believe it would be better, commissioner, to leave education about smoking to others, for we in the european union have done enough educating, and to channel these funds into rural development and into diversification measures for these poor regions instead. moreover, these resources should be topped up to create other jobs in these regions besides those in tobacco production. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) madam president, rarely do decisions debated in this house have such serious consequences for such a large number of people. the issue before us today is the existence or non-existence of tobacco producers in europe. tobacco production is the livelihood of around 120 000 farmers and, including seasonal workers, it employs almost 400 000 people in both old and new member states. the case of greece has already shown that the so-called reform of the tobacco sector in fact means its liquidation. it is a death sentence for 120 000 farms, mostly small family holdings. i know such tobacco farms in poland, but we find them here too, on the outskirts of strasbourg. we are talking about a catastrophe for people who have devoted their lives to the production of tobacco. in the name of what should they be deprived of their livelihood? the liquidation of tobacco production will not stop people smoking. they will smoke cigarettes made from imported tobacco. this reform will help no one and harm many. i therefore fully support mr berlato's report, which rightly comes to the defence of tobacco producers, and add my voice to those of mr glavakis and mr cercas. madam president, tobacco growers are being cruelly persecuted, as the anti-smoking campaign is tantamount to an anti-tobacco policy. as a result, tobacco grown in the eu is considered unhealthy, while imported tobacco is not. this is inconsistent, unscientific and unfair. the results of this policy are well known: despite the campaigns, smoking is on the increase, whereas production in the eu is in sharp decline. jobs are being lost, tens of thousands of small and medium-sized tobacco growers are being ruined, yet tobacco imports have risen to more than eur 1.2 billion a year. tobacco growing in greece has declined by 73%. ever-increasing numbers of tobacco growers are unemployed. whole areas are being abandoned because no alternative crops are grown there. we consider it essential to repeal the regulation transferring 50% of direct aid to the second pillar from 2010. all deductions from subsidies should be abolished immediately to allow tobacco growing to continue, since 70% of demand is met by imports. subsidies should be linked to production; they should be an integral part of the guaranteed minimum prices corresponding to the production cost of each variety. as the berlato report contains positive elements supporting all of this, we, the meps of the communist party of greece (kke), will approve it. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - (sv) madam president, subsidised tobacco growing is a clear example of the double standards which characterise the eu and the european parliament. the eu has proudly proclaimed that the fight against diseases must be prioritised and spends a few million swedish kronor on information campaigns every year, while by the back door the eu subsidises unprofitable tobacco growers to the tune of several billion kronor per year. according to the report, the scheme for a gradual reduction in this support would be extended until 2013. the rapporteur seeks to wash his hands of the negative consequences of tobacco consumption. the simplistic argument is that, since eu tobacco production is so small, only 4%, the effect on final consumption is negligible. what kind of reasoning is that? is it intended to justify continued subsidies? i think that eu tobacco production is 4% too high. besides, european tobacco is so bad that only a fraction is sold on the european market. a third is burned. the special interests of the tobacco industry have prevailed for long enough. our people need us to face up to our political responsibilities. ladies and gentlemen, the last puff has a bad taste. it is time to stub out double standards. i therefore urge you to vote against the report tomorrow. (es) madam president, aid to the tobacco sector will be cut by 50 % in 2010 as a result of the most recent reform. i think this is an unprecedented measure, that puts tobacco producers at a clear disadvantage compared to the rest of the community's agricultural producers. no other agricultural sector has suffered such a drastic cut, and this will come on top of the reductions resulting from the changes in direct aid that the council of ministers will agree tomorrow. i do not think it inappropriate to quote some figures about this sector. at least 80% of european tobacco is produced in disadvantaged regions. in extremadura, in spain, where most spanish production is concentrated, the reform affects 20 000 families, with an annual turnover that represents 26% of the total value of the region's agricultural production. moreover, tobacco in spain is concentrated in small units, with a high level of female employment, on the farms and in the industry as a whole. furthermore, we should not forget that the european union only produces 5% of the world's tobacco and imports 70% of the tobacco it consumes. the disappearance of community tobacco production therefore will not in any way ensure a reduction in consumption. or "the only solutions presented so far have been to change the crop"? the cap's so-called health check is an ideal moment to reflect about the consequences this decision might have for regions like extremadura, where a significant social and economic community has developed around this crop and where the only solution presented so far is to change the crop. in addition, reform of this sector also contradicts the expectations of the community agricultural sector as a whole, because the community has guaranteed its stability until the end of the period covered by current financial planning in 2013. the report adopted by the committee on agriculture, which favours an extension of the community tobacco fund, takes into consideration consumers' interests while at the same time questioning the validity of the decision to cut aid to farmers, because the fund is itself financed by deductions from direct aid to farmers. (nl) tobacco kills about half a million european citizens a year. even amongst non-smokers there are 19 000 deaths a year from passive smoking. how do i know that? that is the message in the television adverts the european union itself is having shown in all 27 member states as part of a big anti-smoking campaign. altogether we have earmarked eur 18 million for it, but that sum is a drop in the ocean compared with the subsidies the european union pays tobacco growers every year. this year brussels is still spending eur 320 million on them. three years ago it was still nearly eur 1 thousand million. is it not very strange that we are trying to combat smoking and at the same time are funding tobacco production with european tax revenue? furthermore, this continued funding goes against the whole idea behind our agricultural policy reforms, which is that we have to abolish production subsidies. mr president, the proposal by the european commission to continue support to the tobacco fund in 2008 and 2009 has my full support, but the fund cannot be used as an excuse to continue tobacco subsidies in 2013. although i have enormous respect for my fellow members' arguments, i believe in this case that public health must come first. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would particularly like to compliment the rapporteur on his excellent work. this report achieves a twofold objective: it reinforces measures to combat smoking by extending the financing of the european tobacco fund whilst at the same time bringing the tobacco sector into line with the other cmos which will naturally terminate with the 2012 financial year. however, the fight against smoking must not mean the end of tobacco growing in europe, because europe is the world's leading importer of raw tobacco and relies for over 75% of its requirements on third countries, to the benefit of tobaccos often produced without any guaranteed health controls. any cancellation of the aid would lead merely to the end of production, to increased imports and would have no effect on smoking. (nl) it is difficult to say what is more absurd, that the european union subsidies tobacco growing, or that europe then uses part of the subsidies for a fund that discourages tobacco smoking. totally hypocritical measures like that are precisely the reason why the eu has so little credibility with the public. the argument that the eu produces relatively little tobacco is beside the point. there is still one eu-subsidised cigarette in every packet. that cigarette is then in any case of such inferior quality that we do not want to smoke it in europe and we dump it somewhere else. the tobacco subsidy must not be continued, as this parliament wishes. part of the subsidies must also not be used for anti-smoking campaigns as a fig leaf, as the commission wishes. i have had enough of these subsidies. they must simply be abolished immediately. (pl) mr president, commissioner, mr berlato's report deals with a combination of health and agricultural issues. raising the level of funding from 5% to 6%, together with the proposed extension of the system to the years 2009-2012, considerably increases the resources assigned to the fund - by as much as eur 81 million. many farmers and organisations fully support the proposed regulation. both polish and european tobacco producers expect the adoption of the report to result in the extended operation of the community tobacco fund, which is essential for public health, and in maintenance of the tobacco production sector for europe's 100 000 tobacco growers. the proposed regulation makes it possible to maintain, without any additional budget expenditure, a system of subsidies that partly benefits the production of tobacco and thus avoids discrimination against tobacco growers compared with other agricultural sectors. it is essential, commissioner, that we resume the very important debate on the future of tobacco production in europe as from tomorrow, in connection with presentation of the health check. (pl) mr president, today's debate is one in which the arguments of agricultural producers conflict with those of groups campaigning for the health of european society. but will european society be healthier for smoking tobacco of clearly inferior quality imported from third countries? if we destroy our own production, we shall be importing not 70%, but 100%. we also have to consider whether discrimination against farmers who grow tobacco, rather than helping to develop our rural areas, will not lead, in certain regions of the european union, to even greater economic collapse and the growth of unemployment. obviously, we can then pump in financial aid for the unemployed, since we are so rich that we can afford to destroy our own agriculture for the benefit of agriculture in the far east, which we are obliged to support in order to combat unemployment there. i fully support mr berlato's report. (nl) european farmers who grow tobacco should not receive a single cent from the eu for it. obviously tobacco subsidies have been a huge source of revenue for farmers for many years, a sort of social security policy that did not deserve the name. however, tax revenue should not, on principle, be spent on unhealthy products. hence there is only one choice as far as subsidies are concerned: abolish them. the proposal in the berlato report is a ridiculous attempt to get tobacco subsidies extended until at least 2012. that should not happen, and there is another reason for this. developing countries see it as totally unfair that european tobacco should be subsidised. it is unfair competition with poor farmers and it is directly counter to european union development policy, a classic example of the way in which one policy area can cut into another. encourage european farmers to grow crops that now bring in a high price, such as grain, which is badly needed. show solidarity, though, and let the tobacco subsidies go up in smoke, for the sake of public health and for the sake of cohesion in european policy for the development of the poorest countries in the world. that is solidarity. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, there are certain facts which are undisputed. first, it is certain that complete decoupling lowers production. second, even if we stop growing tobacco in europe, it does not mean that the reduction in european tobacco cultivation will reduce the smoking population. third, we are potentially condemning hundreds and thousands of people to hunger without achieving a concrete result. i therefore believe that, on the one hand, the aid to tobacco growers should be used to explain the harmful effects of smoking to consumers - and from this point of view the money should obviously come from the aid - and at the same time we should put tobacco growers in a position to slowly quit cultivation, allowing them the necessary time to withdraw from the whole sector. i therefore consider that we should vote in favour of the berlato report. (pl) i wish to make three points in this discussion. first, the idea of decoupling payments for production is frequently repeated by the european commission. it is an approach that obviously reduces europe's agricultural production. commissioner fischer boel repeated the idea once again today, this time with reference to tobacco production. second, we have to remember that tobacco growing, in both old and new member states, takes place on small family farms in the most poorly developed regions. liquidation of this production will reduce the possibilities for development in these regions and threaten the existence of small farms. third and last, it is true that tobacco growing is controversial, but restricting it in europe means a growth in tobacco exports from third countries. mr berlato has told us that tobacco imports reached eur 1.2 billion last year. i hope the european commission will take these warnings into account in defining its position. (el) mr president, i applaud my fellow members who have shown such sensitivity on the issue of smoking. i believe that all of us without exception are against smoking, but, my friends, let me point out an essential difference: smoking and tobacco growing are entirely separate. let us provide as much money as we can, speak on this issue as much as possible, and take all the action we can to persuade our fellow members and fellow citizens not to smoke. given that people will smoke regardless, i cannot understand why we have to import tobacco rather than grow it here ourselves. now let me appeal to you as environmentalists. tobacco is a crop that requires little water, little fertiliser and few pesticides; it is grown in infertile soils by poor farmers. i am sure that the environmentalist in you and also your humanity, even in those of you who speak against smoking and link smoking with tobacco growing, will lead you to change your minds. associating smoking with tobacco growing is like confusing our famous wine production with alcoholism. should we stop producing wines because of alcoholism? member of the commission. - mr president, thank you to all of you that have contributed to this debate and thank you once again for supporting the prolongation of the transfer into the tobacco fund. i am of course aware that discussions on tobacco policies are a very sensitive issue and i can tell you that i experienced that recently during my visit to greece in april. i must say clearly as well that the prolongation of the tobacco fund is not an invitation to reopen the tobacco reform from 2004, and i think you have to be aware that this reform is a done deal. and i think you have to take into account as well that this reform was supported by all the tobacco-producing member states. therefore, it would be a bit difficult to restart the whole discussion again. i think it is important as well to remember that we are not stopping subsidies to the tobacco producers. we are actually continuing to pay the highest direct payment or the highest subsidies, more than anyone else in the agricultural sector. no other crop is actually receiving that high a direct payment. so we will stick to the fact that we will decouple in 2009, and from 2011 we will transfer into the rural development policy. therefore, instead of wasting or using a lot of time and lots of efforts against what was agreed in the council in 2004, i think member states and tobacco producers, the whole tobacco sector, should look into the rural development policy instead and see what the possibilities are, because lots of money will be available for restructuring, for trying a different business in the agricultural sector. with a bit of imagination - although i know that you cannot produce everything in these areas - i am sure that a solution could be found if there is cooperation between member states, the tobacco sector and the tobacco producers, to try to find viable solutions for these areas, in the period after 2011 as well. rapporteur. - (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to thank the commissioner and all those members who have spoken. i would point out that, as far as the future of the european tobacco sector is concerned, a formal request was made recently to the commission, signed by the ministers of almost all the tobacco-producing member states, including those countries which have opted for complete decoupling, and the new member states, for the commission to put forward a proposal for a regulation extending the current system of support for tobacco production until the year 2013. that matter must be addressed as part of the discussions currently in progress on the cap 'health check'. i will conclude, mr president, by inviting my fellow members - who at first glance might appear to be less interested in a measure which only involves a deduction from aid to growers in five old member states, which have maintained the aid partly coupled - to reflect on the fact that the use of those resources and the fund's information initiatives will continue to be aimed at benefiting the health of all citizens of the union. i would also like to point out that perhaps there is a fundamental misconception here: this report is not concerned with and takes no decision on prolonging aid payments to tobacco producers; it is merely a question of voting on a report which advocates prolonging the financing of the community tobacco fund. as regards prolonging the aid payments, that is a decision to be taken later, but that is not the subject of this report which, as i said, is about prolonging the financing of the community tobacco fund and not about prolonging aid payments to tobacco producers in the immediate and foreseeable future. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on tuesday, 20 may 2008.

women and science (debate) the next item is the report by mrs thomsen, on behalf of the committee on women's rights and gender equality, on women and science. mr president, let me first of all express my gratitude to the european parliament and especially to the rapporteur, mrs thomsen, for their support for the commission policy on women and science. i should also like to thank the rapporteur from the committee on industry, research and energy, mr dover, for his constructive approach. we agree with mrs thomsen's explanatory statement that the elimination of gender discrimination in science heralds a new era of excellence for european research and academic growth, and a boost for innovation. the commission is well aware that there is a serious imbalance between female and male researchers. the latest available statistics show that whereas women represent more than 50% of graduates in all university departments, only 15% of professors are women. in the field of science, engineering and technology, the corresponding figures are 34% female graduates and 9% female professors. the commission agrees that this is a serious waste of talent and resources, as it is contrary to the principle of equality. since 1999, the european commission has been attending to the issue of the lack of women in research. in the fifth framework programme, the commission gave financial support to studies and projects in the field of women and science. since 2003, the commission has also been publishing the 'she figures' statistics, which show the participation of women in european research. the next issue will be published in 2009. more to the point, in her report, mrs thomsen supports the target of at least 40% women and 40% men on the various committees under the framework programme. this non-binding target has been in place since 2000 and has brought very good results. for example, women's participation in committees evaluating research work has increased from 10% in the fourth framework programme to 34% in the sixth framework programme. this shows that when the issue is adequately highlighted, progress can be achieved even when there are no binding targets. indeed, the existence of binding targets could, in the long term, prove counterproductive, as it signals discrimination against men, and most men and women do not agree with such targets. the report underlines the negative impact of an interruption in employment on women scientists' careers. in the context of the european research area, the european commission shares these concerns and supports the adoption of policy measures facilitating greater coordination between professional and family life. networking among women scientists may also contribute substantially towards attracting more women into science and key jobs. this is why we have created the european platform of women scientists, which serves as a catalyst and creates role models in scientific research. one of our main targets is to increase the number of women in key research posts. this is directly linked with the target agreed by the member states in 2005: 25% of senior posts in public research organisations should be occupied by women. a report on this issue was recently published under the title 'mapping the maze: getting more women to the top in research'. it concludes that transparent and fair assessment is not in itself enough to increase the representation of women in decision-making mechanisms. we need a change in the prevailing perceptions. specialists make proposals about how existing scientific mentality and culture can be broadened and made more open, but the challenge now is to put that into effect. these projects are continuing in the seventh framework programme; they are now linked to the implementation of the european research area. the conference to be held in may 2009 under the auspices of the czech presidency of the eu will undertake a survey of the successes of the last 10 years and will also identify the areas in which further efforts are needed. the european parliament's contribution here will be invaluable. in march 2006 the commission adopted the roadmap for equality between women and men 2006-2010. this roadmap forms the framework for action by the commission and is an expression of our commitment to promote gender equality in all our policies, both internally and externally. our priorities are: reconciling private and professional life; promoting equal participation of women and men in political and economic decision-making bodies, as well as in science and technology; and eliminating gender stereotypes in the fields of education, training and culture, and also in the job market. mr president, thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am glad that today we can put women and research high up on the agenda, as i believe that it is a pivotal issue for europe with regard to fulfilment of the lisbon strategy. europe must create more jobs; we must create better jobs and we must become stronger in research and innovation. in each of these three tasks, women are an essential part of the solution. we must have more women in work, and we must have more women in managerial positions and decision-making bodies. if we in europe are to create up to 700 000 research positions in the coming years, we must also become better at utilising our female talent base. at a general level, i had two objectives in drawing up this report. firstly, i wanted to set out the status of the current situation. what is the proportion of women in research and why are things so bad? secondly, i wanted to look ahead and come up with solutions and suggestions as to how we can improve this situation. the situation is not satisfactory at the present time. women comprise an average of just 35% of researchers working in the public sector and 18% of researchers working in the private sector. furthermore, even though women make up more than 50% of eu students and achieve 43% of doctoral degrees, they hold only 15% of senior academic posts. we can therefore see a marked distortion in relation to the representation of women in decision-making and managerial positions. our own recently created institutions such as the european research council are also failing to meet any equality criteria. just 5 of the 22 members of this research council are women. i have also emphasised the fact that in most european countries there is a still a marked under-representation of women on scientific committees - yet another example of women's lack of representation in decision-making bodies. i would like to say a little more about the second, and perhaps more interesting, part of my report, namely the forward-looking solutions and proposals. i listened carefully to the input that was given during the consultation process held in the committee on women's rights and gender equality, and one of the clear points that arose was that it was first and foremost a matter of drawing up policies for the area. if this problem area is ignored at both national and institutional level, nothing will happen. in my report i therefore included a requirement for the member states and the commission to set a target of at least 40% women in all recruitment and evaluation panels. i believe that this is absolutely essential. if we are to change the situation, we must ensure that there are more women in decision-making bodies, so that efforts can be made from the top down to create a new culture. i have also called for more open recruitment procedures. experience shows that closed recruitment procedures very much favour men, who point to each other as being the best qualified. i have also made it clear in my report that we must not shrink away from positive action if we are to harbour hopes of correcting the situation relatively quickly. after all, our own figures indicate that there are currently no naturally positive developments. i have therefore recommended that special funding be set aside to promote female researchers and to focus on the importance of networks and role models as simple initiatives, which have produced positive results in the member states. very simple initiatives such as a sentence stating that women in particular are encouraged to apply have also produced good results. my work on this report therefore shows that there are many barriers. it is of course important that there are good opportunities to combine life as a researcher with family life, with the opportunity to take maternity leave even if you are a phd student, but it is also a matter of culture. cultural barriers are of course more difficult to express in a formula, but in reality - like the more concrete barriers - it is a matter of focusing on some of the distortions. i will say no more here, but i look forward to hearing your comments on the report. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on industry, research and energy. - mr president, it gives me the greatest of pleasure to welcome every word that the commissioner spoke this evening and also to congratulate mrs thomsen, who has done a wonderful job as rapporteur on this most important subject. it is a delight for me on the centre-right of the chamber to be applauding a socialist from the other side and from another country than my own and to wish her well because she has balanced the whole approach; she has highlighted the most important factors relating to the fact that ladies come to their teenage years ahead of males. they are more intelligent; they are more hard-working; they can apply themselves and yet, even when they go into higher education, into the start of a research career, they sometimes fall away. this is often because of pressures at home, in their personal lives. mrs thomsen is right in her report and this evening to concentrate and focus on those problems. the report has constructive ideas. the only thing i hold back from is setting specific objectives for the percentage of women that should reach this grade or that grade or that position or another position. that is too prescriptive. but, on the other hand, this report has my total support. i was honoured to produce the opinion from the committee on industry, research and energy. i thank those shadow rapporteurs on the main report and on my opinion for their full cooperation. this is an example of a piece of legislation and a report here in the european parliament ensuring that we are seen at our best, in cooperation, focusing on the needs of the research industry. i close by saying that last thursday evening i went with one of my colleagues, lambert van nistelrooij from holland, to oxford university. all of the scientists, the researchers, there were female. i greatly welcome that. thank you very much, mr dover. i thank you particularly in view of the fact that, apart from commissioner dimas, you are the only man who has signed up for this debate tonight. i have only female speakers. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (sk) thank you very much, mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. allow me to congratulate mrs thomsen, on behalf of the shadow rapporteur for the ppe-de group, mrs sartori, and on my own behalf as well. i want to say that the situation regarding women and science is comparable with the situation of women and politics, although in the field of science women are slightly better represented. this is in spite of the fact that women make up approximately 60% of university graduates. a scientific career is more than a nine-to-five job. there is also a strong competitive angle: women often must perform higher than men in order to become successful. an older female colleague alerted me to this fact at the start of my scientific career many years ago. is the question why women are so under-represented in science, why after a period of time there is a decrease in the number of young female scientists and therefore why we consequently lose gifted scientists, the correct question? creating conditions for combining working and family life is of vital interest for female scientists. in this respect, achieving the barcelona goals is especially important. if women are supposed to be successful scientists, the facilities available to them should be reliable, accessible, first-rate, appropriate to the character and requirements of the scientific work, and sufficiently flexible. however, we also have to consider the question of general support for science and development. if the salary fluctuates between low and lowest, no one can expect such professions to be attractive for young women or even for young men starting families. this is a real problem in some countries, namely the new member states, where support for science and research does not account for even 1% of gdp. let me finish by saying that the situation should be solved by changing the conditions rather than by setting quotas. on behalf of the pse group. - (hu) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, women's participation in higher education has increased dramatically over recent years. this has not, however, resulted in an improvement in the ratio of women to men in the sciences. the number of women in engineering has also risen in the past twenty years, but not by nearly as much as in other occupations and scientific disciplines. as a result of the difficulties, a large proportion of women scientists abandon a career in science, and this is unacceptable and irrational. it is more difficult for women to get ahead in their profession. this is particularly apparent with regard to wages. women are less well represented in scientific institutions. female researchers are forced to choose between career and family. the temporary breaks in women's careers in science due to family reasons make promotion of women difficult. we must look at methods aimed at establishing a balance between working life and private life and apply best practice. the lisbon strategy also requires us to apply the principles of gender equality in the field of research and development. we must take more effective action in all areas of science, making recruitment procedures and promotion requirements more transparent. we must strive to ensure gender equality in university and non-university research and in the governing bodies of these institutions. the report is excellent, and i recommend its adoption. i also congratulate my colleague britta thomsen who, as a researcher, has studied this subject in considerable depth. thank you for doing this. on behalf of alde. - (et) commissioner, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, life in today's world is increasingly bound up with science and technology through both new or improved products and services and technological development. europe's women scientists undoubtedly contribute to this process. it has already been stated here that there are more women undergraduate students in universities than men; this is also true of master's and doctoral degree students - there are more women. however, there are seven times fewer women than men working at a senior level in scientific and educational establishments: the average is 15%. why is this? the scientific world throughout the ages has always been comprised predominantly of men. this has been justified with the argument that genuine knowledge is attained using precisely the objective methods and logical discussion which come less naturally to women than to men. the fact that the scientific body is comprised even today predominantly of men is in itself more down to the assimilation of masculinity into scientific thought than to the above justification. academic science has shown that the notion that objectivity can be equated with masculinity is a myth. the reality today, however, is that that myth unquestionably influences the distribution of employment and the decision-making process associated with the funding of scientific research. this belittling attitude also gains strength through the media, where women are portrayed in a one-dimensional, tendentious way. often women are portrayed in the media in any old position, chiefly as members of women's groups, and not as professionals in their fields. at the same time we have done little to change the situation and increase women's opportunities for better employment. to change this view, which is widespread in society, we must start to advocate science to both sexes as an interesting and attractive area from the earliest stages. the pictures in children's books depicting women in aprons and men in spacecraft must disappear. i support the positive measures proposed in the report to encourage and support women scientists, whether in the form of careers advice aimed at women scientists or special programmes to support girls' and women's interest in science-based careers. i cannot, however, support mechanistic quotas based on gender as they tie us to a specific time-period and may result in quantity instead of quality. i thank the rapporteur for a concise piece of work and apologise. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (de) mr president, gender equality is a value and objective of the european union. however, although much has been written about it, discrimination occurs on a daily basis. sadly, perceived equality also exists in science. we know that more girls than boys leave secondary school with higher education entrance qualifications, and more young women than young men have a tertiary qualification. women are therefore very well educated, but they hit the glass ceiling upon graduating from university. the figures are sobering: only 15% of all professors are female. only 15% of the top positions are occupied by women, even though the majority of university graduates and half of all those completing a doctorate are women. wage discrimination also occurs in science: the committees that make decisions about research projects comprise fewer than 20% women. one could almost hypothesize that the greater the amount of money spent on a research project, the less likely it is that women will be involved. what we need, then, if we are to do more than simply pay lip service to equality, are quotas - but they must be ambitious quotas, so that they really achieve something. gender equality must apply in all areas of science, and this equality should apply to at least 40% of the underrepresented sex, i.e. women, and not merely to 25%. therefore, for change to happen, we must set ourselves precisely this ambitious goal. to close, let me to mention another matter close to my heart: we know that by 2010, the european union will be short of 700 000 researchers. we must therefore make every effort to prevent the european union becoming a scientific wasteland. yet highly gifted girls are being overlooked very early on. encouraging highly talented young women is a matter that is very close to my heart and i would ask the rapporteur to place more emphasis on this. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) mr president, in my country, poland, the average level of education among women is higher than the average level of education among men. as a physicist by profession, employed at warsaw university, i did not experience any discrimination on gender grounds. i would have felt demeaned if my professional status had been decided not by my knowledge and intellectual capacity, but by some secondary feature, such as gender. through her work and her passion for discovery, marie skodowska-curie obtained results for which she was twice awarded a nobel prize. the rector of my university, ranked number one in poland, is also a woman, a professor of physics. the reality that governs the situation of women in the world of science is not the same everywhere, though. problems are evident when you learn that women make up only 35% of scientific workers employed in the state sector and higher education in the european union, and only 18% in the private sector. sometimes this is a result of family duties being placed above the call of science, but not always. the findings of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this report are important, in my view. it is in fact during the first period of education that it is easiest to show that while science may be hard, it is always involving, and it is therefore worth making an effort to discover what we consider to be interesting, and what we cannot reach other than through scientific study. it is worth encouraging anyone who is up to it to take up scientific work; many women have such capabilities, and it would be a shame to miss out on this potential. the examples referred to in paragraph 3 are of some validity here, indicating as they do that this effort brings results. under the lisbon strategy, but independently of it, it is immeasurably important to invest in people and in their education. this increases a person's opportunities in the labour market. this is also true of the very specific labour market that is the sphere of science. it is therefore important in all traineeships, exchanges between educational institutions and other such opportunities for improving one's occupational standing that access criteria should not be discriminatory. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (sv) my thanks to the rapporteur, mrs thomsen, for highlighting the problem of inequality in science and research. inequality pervades society. through commitment and opinion-forming by women's organisations among others, however, awareness of inequality in many sectors has increased and many have realised its negative consequences for society as a whole. but precisely in the scientific community it has long been hidden. hence this report is of special importance. while the eu emphasises the role of research in economic development, research continues in many cases to be reserved for only one gender. in the public sector 35% of researchers are women, in the private sector just 18%. the scientific council of the european research council has 22 members, of whom five are women. this report focuses attention on the problem but, in my opinion, it is not enough. we must raise the level of ambition still further. i have a comment to make in the discussion on equality: we must continue to defend the demand for equality by saying that it is needed for economic growth and development. when shall we be able to say that equality is an objective in its own right which does not need to be defended in economic terms? equal rights are human rights! on behalf of the ind/dem group. - (pl) mr president, the role played by women in science appears to differ among the individual eu member states. in the very difficult times under communism, women in poland had access to science and political rights significantly earlier than in many countries of the old eu. previously, the problem was - and it still is today - more one of a poor economic situation and opaque criteria for allocating resources to scientific research, usually regardless of gender. despite these obstacles, there are many women who, as wives and mothers, fulfil important social functions, working as ministers, directors, deans and professors at higher education institutions or as doctors, without feeling that they are being discriminated against by men. contrary to what strident feminists say, in my country women are generally respected; they do not have complexes but rather an awareness of their own value and strength, in the knowledge that, in cooperating with men, they are playing an important role in all areas of life, while, however, placing the highest value on defending life, protecting marriage and the family and other supreme values. the percentage of women students is constantly on the rise, and by the 1990s it was already 51%. according to reports, women make up 38% of scientific workers in eu countries in central and eastern europe, although a large number of them are employed in fields in which expenditure on scientific research is low. it therefore seems right to suggest that more funds be made available, accompanied by encouragement to take up scientific work, alongside the further strengthening of the position of women, especially through legal regulations enabling family and professional life to be reconciled, including financial and social recognition for domestic work with the aim of offering a genuinely free choice, but without parities or any change in the definition of excellence. the percentage differentiation in management positions may be linked to the significant mental and physical effort being too much of a burden, so the representation of women should be put into practice by recognising and utilising knowledge and individual predispositions along with improving legal and economic conditions and aid infrastructure, which make it easier to reconcile family life with one's occupation. (sk) in order to meet the goals of the lisbon strategy, the priority for the european union must be to create a wide base of scientists capable of implementing quality research at the highest international level. women's participation in science does not correspond to the needs of research, even though women achieve higher education than men, and even though there are more women in higher education than men. it is thus necessary to concentrate on educating and supporting top female scientists and to motivate talented women to take up a scientific career by creating good opportunities for quality scientific work, by providing an adequate career and salary. obstacles preventing women from participating in scientific work still exist today. psychology and at times insufficient solidarity among women also play a role. the fact is that female researchers find it more difficult to reconcile working and family life than men. the breaks women take in scientific careers for family reasons have a negative impact on their career prospects. since scientific work is non-stop, it would be to women's advantage to work from home as well, unless their presence at the workplace is inevitable. the majority of those who experience mobility problems are women because it is generally a woman's task to look after children, older people or other family dependents. women would welcome child-care facilities at scientific institutions. i think that quotas will not solve the problem of the lack of women scientists if women themselves do not wish to change this status quo. they must have suitable conditions, be more confident and show solidarity with one another. i trust that the seventh framework programme and scientific research programmes will support projects that encourage women to take up scientific careers. it is important for the project selection systems to be transparent, which is why women should have equal representation on assessment boards and selection committees. (pl) even though women make up more than 50% of eu students and achieve 43% of eu doctoral degrees, they hold, on average, only 15% of senior academic posts and are in a minority among researchers. in the government and higher education sector they comprise an average of 35% of researchers, and in the private sector just 18%. analyses have shown that existing recruitment systems are not gender neutral. the existence of a 'glass ceiling' for women trying to progress to senior positions is well documented and affects all areas of the economy, especially those related to science and technology. the commission and member states should introduce transparent recruitment procedures as soon as possible to ensure a gender balance in recruitment bodies. since research represents a crucial sector for the economic development of the european union, and europe needs to recruit 700 000 additional researchers as part of the fulfilment of the lisbon strategy for growth and development, it is very important to programme science as an area that is open to both genders and to ensure that women are properly represented among scientists. in order to achieve this aim, it is essential to provide appropriate working conditions that will suit a female scientist along with an infrastructure that enables a smooth interface between professional and family life. finally, i would like to congratulate the rapporteur, mrs thomsen, on an excellently drafted document. (lt) regretfully, despite the legal acts adopted by the eu and all the declarations and discussions we have had, the gender mainstreaming dimension in the sphere of scientific research, among others, remains unsatisfactory. although there are a large number of female students in the universities of the eu, only 18% of researchers working in the private sector and only 15% of researchers in senior academic positions are women. in the government and higher education sectors women account for just 35%. moreover, women working in scientific research are paid much less than their male colleagues and their work usually consists more of teaching than of research, which seldom allows them to achieve recognition. i urge the commission and the member states to increase their efforts to support women aiming to forge a career as scientists. in considering how to support them, we cannot overlook the family dimension, the flexibility of working hours and the improvement of child care institutions and family flexibility. mr president, coming from a science background myself, i welcome this important discussion on women in the field of science and technology. in principle i agree with mrs thomsen's report, which seeks to identify the barriers that account for the under-representation of women in science and i agree that most education systems in europe continue to sustain gender stereotypes. her report notes other factors that contribute to the under-representation of women in this field and regrettably in many other professional fields as well. these factors include the negative impact of career breaks for family reasons and restrictions on mobility due to family responsibilities. i applaud its call on the commission and, more particularly, member states to take positive action on a number of fronts - education, childcare, social security, parental leave - as well as making available adequate funding in order to improve the prospects for women seeking to further careers in or to re-enter science after rearing a family. we need competent women at all levels of society - and indeed we need women with scientific backgrounds in politics also - but i believe we will never achieve this by setting quotas on gender participation. instead, we should aim for more transparency on recruitment, for mentoring schemes, strengthening the networking among women scientists, the promotion of female researchers as role models and of course the adequate availability of funding to encourage women in science, while maintaining fairness and equality. i believe that most women scientists would agree with this. in 2003 in my own country, ireland, a science, engineering and technology (set) committee was set up to make recommendations on strategies to increase the uptake among women and girls of science subjects and higher level-mathematics at second level and to increase the number of females choosing science engineering and technology courses at third level. this committee is chaired by professor jane grimson of trinity college, dublin, an eminent academic in her own right. we also have an organisation known as wits - women in technology and science, which was inaugurated in 1999. we have the wiser workforce project, which is a return-to-work initiative for women scientists. we have science foundation ireland, which has launched four programmes to address under-representation of women in irish science and engineering. finally, these schemes aim to encourage and support the development of sustainable mechanisms and practices which will ensure that women researchers have an equal opportunity to compete on the basis of their scientific expertise, knowledge and potential. (bg) president, commissioner, the report on women in science is very well scoped, and it deals with the participation of women in one of the most important development processes, scientific research. its importance is determined by the fact that it outlines the structure of scientific development and provides solutions in a key aspect, the make-up of human resources in science. women play an important role in universities, research institutes and the private sector. the unsatisfactory level of women's involvement in management and decision-making in science, the low percentage of women holding phds, or who are professors or members of academies has to do with public stereotypes and difficulties on the path of women in their pursuit of careers in science. what we need is to apply flexible working hours, to develop provision of services which support women and provide opportunities for choice and self-fulfilment. an enhanced role for women in science should not be considered as just another gender policy. it is a mission that makes better use of the high potential of women without falling into the other extreme. because of their devotion to science, women should not give up their natural purpose of creating a family and being mothers. for young women in science, the principle of double priority should apply: both family and career. (fr) mr president, commissioner, i think that our goal is the same, we want to achieve parity, but we are not unanimous about how to achieve it. commissioner, your statistics are well put together, they prove that the road is long and laborious and that you have done the right thing by introducing quotas for nominations in committees, because, without a proactive policy, we will not find women, because in order to find them we first need to have the will to find them. so the higher up the ladder we climb, the more reticence there is about appointing women, and what is entirely ill adapted and illogical is that in the education sector women are largely in the majority, but in academic environments they are absent. so why is this the case? i think that an analysis needs to be done. we need to invite the member states, and perhaps the commissioner could put some pressure on the member states to establish a degree of benchmarking to clarify the situation in their universities. often selection processes for professors do not have the same criteria. women are always asked the question: 'what childcare arrangements will you make?' men are never asked this question and therefore in this debate we are all talking about out childcare responsibilities. would this also be the case if we were talking about men? why is it that we do not turn the problem around, and, moreover, it is not a problem. having a family is a great joy, it is a treasure, for men too; why should we not change our views? i think that the appointment of professors should be reviewed, along with the process and the questions that are asked and, in order to make progress in the fields of new technologies, the commission should take targeted action. regarding the excellence criteria, i do not think that we can make any allowances. (ro) dear colleagues, i will present three issues very briefly. in former socialist countries, the situation seems even more dramatic since the previous gender policy led to the development of a significant segment of women who were active in the field of science. on the contrary, transition has generated the brutal decline in funds allocated to research and the decrease in the number of researchers. today, yesterday's women researchers sell insurance policies, are civil servants or have left their countries of origin, with multiple negative consequences: waste of human resources, high dissatisfaction and obstacles to development. the second issue is that, today, the activities of mass communication, public relations, and advertising companies play an important role, including economic, in the gross domestic product. they rely on the research in human and social sciences where many women work. nevertheless, a traditional hierarchy of sciences does not provide them with sufficient social recognition and works as indirect discrimination against the women researchers in these fields. (el) mr president, commissioner, mrs thomsen's report has touched on a sensitive aspect of my own experience. i received my doctorate from the sorbonne when i was already the mother of three children and my husband had four. i had to cut myself off from the world of further research. the pursuit of academic excellence gets into your blood and you feel wretched when forced to abandon it. now i must admit that much later, after i had had more children, a german university offering a programme specifically for mothers gave me the opportunity to continue my research, which i have been continuing voluntarily until now. therefore, possibilities do exist, and for this reason the family aspect should be included in the planning of research programmes and research posts, so that human resources are made full use of. i think that binding targets will thus no longer be required and the perception of women's contribution to research will change. for this reason, planning is necessary so that women can be accepted according to the particular stage of their professional life. because of the few years in which a woman has no choice but to be excluded, she is deprived of the joys of academe for the rest of her life and society loses out on what she has to offer. women researchers should therefore be given the opportunity to take part in programmes. at a later stage, the participation of women in research programmes should be a criterion for assessing the quality of universities. may i also remind you of the report that we presented last year, in which we said that it ought to be possible to combine professional and family life from undergraduate level onwards. (pl) mr president, i congratulate my fellow member on a very good report. an increased involvement in scientific research is essential if the principles of the lisbon strategy are to be achieved. as the rapporteur emphasises, europe needs an extra 700 000 researchers if the strategy's principles are to be put into effect. i believe that the involvement and potential of women themselves will mean that they make up a high percentage of this group. i am, however, concerned at the proposal to ensure a gender balance in evaluation and recruitment committees. as a woman politician, i would not like my activities to be assessed solely through the prism of my gender. i would prefer the quality and results of my work to determine how i work. there is an interesting proposal to increase interest among young people in taking up further education in specific and technical fields. this should be accompanied by action to promote science as an area that is of interest for work and professional development among both women and men. i feel that proposals enabling a professional career to be combined with family life are worth considering. they should be viewed in a broader context - in a context where women's participation in the labour market is supported and encouraged. (sk) as my colleague just said, europe needs more than 700 000 researchers today. i consider this alarming. women could close this gap. current statistics show that although women achieve higher education than men, they comprise only one third of researchers working in the government sector and only 18% of researchers working in the private sector. i believe that first of all we have to do away with gender stereotypes that influence not only the choice young women make regarding their field of study but also the job allocation process, research funding and hiring criteria. although i agree with the need to ensure that women participate in the eu and national programmes, i do not think it should be done through quotas. i support the idea of providing innovative forms of flexible working time for women that will allow them to continue research work after becoming mothers. this can significantly contribute to greater participation by women in top scientific posts. (ro) this report has important financial implications, both as regards the community funds, which could be used in combating gender inequality in the field of science, and the national budgets of member states. first of all, we should mention that it is not enough to speak only about the funds available through the seventh framework programme for development and research. in their turn, important amounts in the european regional development fund or the european social fund could support the research and development activity. thus, we should not disadvantage the participation of women by the conditions stipulated in the demands for proposals by which these programmes are implemented. moreover, it is necessary that some budgetary lines finance a greater participation of women in the research programmes or the grants with community financing. besides this, once the european institute of technology is created, we should ensure an equal representation of young women students at doctoral level in the academic composition of the new institution. mr president, as one of a very small number of men attending this important debate, and as a scientist myself, i feel the need to say this: in my long experience as a medical practitioner i found that women scientists were just as good as, if not better than, men. the only problem for women in achieving top positions has, in my view, been the very hard choice they have had to make in deciding whether to be a full-time mother and a part-time scientist or the reverse. women have always made the choice to be full-time mothers. i therefore feel that this report is very important. i congratulate the rapporteur, but we need practical ways of helping mothers achieve top positions and not just theoretical ideas. member of the commission. - mr president, i would like to thank all the speakers in tonight's debate for their very positive contributions. the commission policy on gender in research has two main strands - women's participation in research and the gender dimension of research. in the first we try to tackle the presence of women at all levels of the career ladder and the gender differences in various principal areas. in the second strand, we focus on research design and the account taken of gender diversity in research. the commission is as committed as ever to the promotion of gender equality in research. as regards the quotas, we believe that targets such as the 40% target for each gender for various expert groups, and evaluation panels in the seventh framework programme, are objective and balanced ones and are bringing good results. we will continue to strive to reach these objectives and we hope to increase the number of women in science this way. our endeavours are already bringing results and i would like to thank you for your support in our efforts on improving the situation for better inclusion of women in science and research. thank you very much for your comments and good cooperation. mr president, thank you for the opportunity to speak. commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your comments. i am pleased to hear that you share my concerns and visions for the future of european research. with regard to the aforementioned quotas, i believe that i have been a little misunderstood. i am not talking about quotas for researchers, but it is very clear that one of the most important barriers to employing and utilising the female talent base lies in the composition of recruitment committees. this is because they are not gender-neutral, and i therefore believe that we must do something about that. we cannot continue to ignore this problem and hope that tomorrow will be brighter and that it will happen all by itself. we must demand political action now. the commission has of course been the progressive player in this matter, as a unit for women and research was created several years ago in the directorate-general for research. it is the member states that are lagging behind. it is their commitment that will be essential in relation to securing change within the university and research institutions. i would like to thank my fellow members, the secretariat and the commission for their cooperation. i was very pleased with the cooperation of researchers and the european platform of women scientists in particular - special thanks must go to them. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - (ro) as a teacher of mathematics, i have dealt with the phenomenon of young women's ever decreasing access to science directly. taking into account the statistics that show that ever fewer young women chose science faculties, where mathematics, physics, biology or chemistry are intensively taught, i consider the draft report of the european parliament on women and science to be opportune. the experience i have in the educational field makes me say that the ever decreasing involvement of women in science is a matter of mentality and under no circumstance of capacity. for this reason, i consider it important for the european union to initiate more programmes that promote equality of chances and change of mentality regarding young women's access to science. organizing experience exchange programmes and competitions at european level, even from an early age, can give confidence and courage to young people, encouraging them to go to science schools. we need as many european programmes as possible to contribute to the equality of chances by stimulating creativity, logical thinking, intuition and ideas exchange at a european level.

madam president, as we all know, parliament will be in recess in august. therefore, i would like to recall today that 8 august 2001 is the anniversary of a tragedy: the 45th anniversary of the terrible accident which took place in the marcinelle mines. on 8 august 1956, 262 miners died in the most tragic accident in the workplace ever to take place in europe: 262 miners from all over our continent. i am sure, madam president, that you will want to take suitable measures to mark the anniversary of this tragic event, and i am also sure that the belgian presidency, which has announced that its programme will include the creation of an equitable social europe, will make every endeavour to ensure that this proposal establishes the conditions necessary to prevent a tragedy such as that of marcinelle ever occurring in europe again. thank you, mr cossutta. madam president, i learned yesterday that the bureau was to make a statement today about the memorandum being prepared by this house on enlargement. you have a great sensitivity for language, madam president, and you are more aware than anyone that the choice we are about to make on language regulation is the key to a great many other decisions that will have to be taken. can you assure us that in the future all elected members of this house will continue to have the right to express themselves in their own language, to listen to their fellow-meps in their own language and to write in their own language? that would be a great help in setting our minds at rest. mrs thyssen, i have noted what you say. but having said that, i must explain to you that the bureau will not be adopting the document you mentioned this evening. it will not be until september, when the groups have been able to study it in depth. madam president, i should like to draw your attention to the increasing and continuing problems faced by our drivers. i was told that this afternoon a lawyer' s letter was going to be delivered to the prefect of alsace, to clarify the uncertainty over the problems between the ministry of home affairs and the french ministry of transport, since at the moment, the logical consequence of the regulations is that the vehicles used for taxi transport in the other weeks would no longer be available for use this week. i believe that in the light of the fact that france is very keen on keeping the seat of parliament here, it is very regrettable that these kinds of formalities should jeopardise our transport. yes, i can tell you that the quaestors will be looking into this issue. i am looking at the few quaestors who are present in the house and i can confirm that they will be examining this issue very closely. programme of the belgian presidency the next item is the council statement on the programme of the belgian presidency. i give the floor to mr verhofstadt, president-in-office of the council. madam president of the european parliament, mr president of the european commission, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour for me to present to you the new presidency' s work programme. incidentally, madam president, this is not the first time i have addressed the european parliament, because in 1987, as chair of the budget council, i presented the budget for 1988 to the european parliament. compared to today, it was prehistory in budgetary terms. there was no financial perspective and no berlin ceiling, and the preparation of a european budget was, at the time, an entirely small-scale and often nocturnal activity. may i first of all express my appreciation of the swedish presidency. sweden had set itself three priorities, as it happens the three e' s: employment, environment and enlargement, and significant progress has been made in each of those fields; fresh impetus has been given to the lisbon process, a common strategy for sustainable development has been established and excellent work has been done for enlarging the union. however, there can be no doubt that the greatest step forward has been in the field of the common foreign and security policy. by way of example i am very pleased to be able to mention the meetings with presidents putin and bush - where the fifteen spoke with one voice - the prominent part played by javier solana in the balkan conflict, and the joint european union and united states action in the middle east. all evidence, madam president, that the european union is also recognised as a partner in its own right at international level: when the european union speaks with one voice, people listen. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, despite the many bright spots in the past few months, dark clouds gathered on the european horizon. following the danish 'no' , the treaty of nice was rejected in a referendum in ireland and it yet again became clear, if clarification were needed, that there is a crisis of identity in the european union. there is a yawning gap between the individual citizen and the european institutions. it would be to display a supercilious, indeed arrogant, attitude and would therefore be a great mistake simply to ignore this. the fears, concerns and complaints of the ordinary citizen must definitely be taken seriously. his expectations must also be met. that is why there is in fact only one great challenge for the new presidency, namely to reconcile the individual citizen once more with europe, with the european union and with the european institutions. to reconcile the citizen once more with europe, to give the peoples of europe new belief and confidence in the european union - that is our task. for the european union represents the only future for the peoples, states and nations of our old continent. only as a union are we a player on the world stage, a power capable of changing things for the better, whether it is a matter of the conflict in the middle east, the combating of climate change or the fight against hunger and injustice in the southern hemisphere. let us be honest: on our own we are not capable of doing this; as europeans, we must instead work together in a single union, act together and also raise our voice together. in exactly the same way, europe will only count for anything economically by continuing to work on the internal market and by launching the unified currency on 1 january next year. in fact, it is for all those reasons that i fail to understand the anti-globalists. of course i am not talking about a small number of violent demonstrators whom we saw in action in gothenburg, because they are just hooligans for whom only violence counts. no, i am talking about those who protest indignantly against internationalisation and globalisation. perhaps not coincidentally a generation born into luxury and prosperity. within the european union, globalisation is not a threat but a benefit. joint global action enables the union to do things that previously could not possibly be achieved in a continent traditionally divided by the iron curtain and national borders: a community approach to organised crime, for instance, agreements on the implementation of the kyoto protocol, minimum standards to combat poverty and social exclusion. in short, the union is not a threat but a boon. of course, more than fine rhetoric is required to restore the citizen' s confidence. more is needed than a plausible argument to reconcile europeans with their institutions once more. there must be action on two fronts: on the one hand, a series of very practical decisions enabling visible solutions to be put forward to real problems with which the citizen is confronted daily; and, on the other hand, the mapping out of a wide-ranging vision of the future of europe. we need a union that avoids the ills that beset it today, namely lack of efficiency, lack of transparency and, especially, lack of democratic legitimacy. let me mention, first of all, the specific dossiers on which we want to work. our first dossier will obviously be the introduction of the euro on 1 january and the development of a coherent economic policy to underpin monetary union. i believe nothing will bring europe closer to its citizens than the successful introduction of the euro; that is the presidency' s task and it will have to act like a good father to ensure that it comes about. that is why the heads of state and government will be examining an evaluation report in october, with the aim of ensuring that the introduction of the euro on 1 january goes smoothly. the evaluation will be accompanied by an information campaign aimed more specifically at small and medium-sized businesses and the most vulnerable groups of society; explaining the euro to them is, i believe, the best way of dispelling the fears that always go with an operation of such a scale. all this, ladies and gentlemen, seems to me much more important than the endless squabbling about the value of the euro. as if we introduced the euro as an instrument for speculation on the foreign exchange market! that was not the purpose of the euro. let us not forget that the aim - which will be achieved only when the euro is circulating physically both inside and outside the union - was to create a single market, without currency fluctuations or exchange risks, in order to give a major boost to the union' s economic growth. let us admit it, what else did we want to achieve with the euro? we wanted to give europe a tangible expression of its existence. yet, in order to exploit the advantages of the single market to the full, we must also integrate the financial markets, liberalise gas, electricity, telecommunications, post and transport, reduce state aids and make the fiscal package reality. the presidency nevertheless believes that, on this last point, progress must be made on every component of that package. on the economic front i should again like to stress the introduction of the community patent, the definition of a common position on the sixth framework programme for research and development, the implementation of the european small business charter and the conclusion of negotiations on the european company statute. when i was studying european law at university - that is nearly 30 years ago now - the prospect was held out that the european company would become a reality in a few months' or at the most a few years' time. i believe the time has now come to make it reality; it is a necessity for european enterprises that want to be able to take on world competition by means of mergers or alliances. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, if we want to reconcile the citizen with the european union, we must set to work quickly on creating a social europe. that is the second main thrust of the presidency. continuing the development of the european social model, which is precisely what distinguishes us from that other great internal market, the united states, and specifically, we want to define the quantitative and qualitative indicators of employment and to finalise the directive on the information and consultation of workers. all member states are today facing the same challenges of an ageing population and escalating health care expenditure. a first joint report on pensions will be submitted to the european council by the end of the year. our third main objective is the creation of a european area of freedom, security and justice, in other words the implementation of the tampere conclusions. this may sound pompous, but they are, in fact, matters that affect the citizen directly: asylum, immigration, the fight against organised crime, trading and trafficking in human beings. instead, ladies and gentlemen, of noting the progress, or rather the lack of progress made at the european council in laeken, i hope that the justice and home affairs ministers, together with commissioner vitorino and the full support of the european parliament, will together make progress in five specific areas: a directive on asylum that will harmonise procedures for recognising and welcoming refugees, the establishment of eurojust and the provision of an operational force for europol -incidentally, after the recent incidents supervision of europol will have to be radically strengthened - the initiation of a high impact operation to strengthen the union' s new external frontiers and thus to combat trafficking in human beings, mutual recognition, or the start of it, for judgments and rulings and lastly, and importantly, we must start work on a european extradition mandate. (nl) in the months ahead, a wide-ranging debate on migration must be launched. the commission has already published a document on the subject. however, i must warn against a one-sided and all too facile approach to the problem, particularly the call to introduce a quota system for economic migration in order to offset the shortfalls in so-called problem occupations. it is clear from the united states that a quota system does not do away with illegal migration. should we not also be careful that such a measure does not even widen the gap between north and south because more highly qualified people are lured away? i am firmly convinced that the best way of halting migration flows is to create prosperity in the countries of origin, to liberalise world trade and to dismantle protectionism. in fact, it is very simple. if people cannot build a good life for themselves in their own country because the fruits of their labour cannot be sold in our markets, they will always try to immigrate. (applause) the fourth line of action of the presidency is aimed at improving the quality of life. following the lead of the gothenburg summit, we shall establish precise objectives and concrete indicators for the new strategy to be pursued on sustainable development. in addition, the presidency will concentrate its efforts on two specific issues relating to transport and mobility: the establishment of standards relating to pollution and noise generated by civil aviation, and the so-called erika measures on safety at sea. most of the presidency' s attention will be focused on kyoto. after all, climate change represents the greatest threat to the whole planet and, in gothenburg, the us president promised to respect the general objectives of kyoto, although he disagrees fundamentally with us about the means of achieving them. in any case, he promised more specifically in gothenburg that he would not block either this process or the forthcoming conference in bonn. i believe that our resolute stance is bearing fruit and that we should consistently maintain that resolute stance. finally, food safety. belgium wishes to complete the setting up of the european food authority so that it can become operational by the beginning of 2002. after all the crises of the last few years - dioxin, bse and foot and mouth - that is the only way to restore consumer confidence. madam president, the fifth main thrust is the enlargement of the union. in this matter, it is the new presidency' s ambition to achieve results as good as the swedish presidency' s. the route mapped out in nice has been scrupulously followed and we shall keep up this sustained momentum of talks. in this matter, the qualitative aspects deserve as much attention as the quantitative aspects and elements. in saying that, i mean that it is important that the candidate countries transpose the acquis communautaire, but it is not only important that they transpose it into their national legislation, they must also modernise their administrations, develop their judicial capacity and really implement the acquis on the ground. the commission has been asked to prepare an evaluation report on the matter for october. none of this must, of course, be allowed to cast any doubt on my conviction. the union must be enlarged as quickly as possible. we must unite europe. what it was never possible to achieve through war and violence is, in fact, now within our reach by democratic means within an enlarged union. ladies and gentlemen, as i said in my introduction, the swedish presidency took a tremendous step forward in developing a coherent european foreign policy. we want to continue down that road. apart from intensifying relations with both the united states and the russian federation, apart, too, from launching a new round of trade talks, the presidency primarily wants to concentrate on european security and defence policy. i do not believe the public will perceive europe to be a reality until, in addition to the euro, it sees the development of common defence. a recent opinion poll showed that in all member states - and i mean all - the population was in favour of the development of a recognisable independent european intervention force alongside the national armies. by the end of this year, therefore, we must at least be ready to declare operational the initiative taken in helsinki. the second major challenge on the external front concerns three conflicts. first of all, the balkans. now that democracy has returned to belgrade and milosevic has been extradited, we must make every effort to prevent new crisis points appearing elsewhere in the region and javier solana will therefore enjoy the presidency' s full support in all his efforts. then, there is the middle east. in cooperation with the high representative and the commission, the presidency will continue to urge the parties to resolve their differences through dialogue. full implementation of the mitchell report, to which the european union contributed, must be the starting point for the process. finally, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to draw your particular attention to another conflict: the conflict in the great lakes region in central africa. i have just returned from the congo, from kinshasa and kisangani. the balkans and the middle east may be more important politically. i am not going to dispute that. from a humanitarian point of view, however, the tragedy that is unfolding in the great lakes region is a thousand times greater. this region is incubating a war on a continental scale involving no less than seven countries and their armies. if such a situation were to arise here, with our eurocentric outlook, we would quite naturally speak of a world war. in three years, more than three million human beings have been killed, not counting the victims of the ethnic violence in burundi or the 800 000 or more persons massacred during the rwanda genocide in 1994. i say to you that the union can no longer stand idly by. political, diplomatic and economic action is urgently required and the presidency will present an action plan to that effect. (applause) madam president, i am counting on the european parliament' s full agreement, together with the council and the commission, to support and implement this plan. (nl) europe not only has a present, it mainly, of course has a future. offering practical solutions to practical problems is one thing, but giving citizens a view of the future of the european union is just as important. that is why, in nice, we were charged with drawing up a laeken declaration by the end of the year which can map out the way ahead. however, the laeken declaration must be more than a simple procedure. it must not restrict itself to what i venture to call a dry summary of agenda points or to simply establishing a method of working. i believe that our ambition should extend further. in laeken, we must provide the impetus for the great reform that is fast approaching and sketch the outlines of the new european union after enlargement. an enlargement which, if i may say so, is, in fact, not so much an enlargement as a genuine change and transformation. of course, we must not try to anticipate the answers, but it will be necessary to ask the right questions and identify those issues which will determine the future of europe. in doing so, absolutely no issue or topic must be taboo. in the laeken declaration, i should like to broach the following crucial questions. my starting point is that the european union has a huge problem. it has lost touch with the individual citizen, and at least a section of public opinion is convinced that the union intervenes all too often, and sometimes too drastically, in people' s daily lives. people find the union non-transparent, unduly bureaucratic and insufficiently democratic. quite rightly so, too. all this must be discussed in the first chapter of the declaration, for how can you in fact solve problems if you do not dare first to acknowledge them in the declaration? from this, the question naturally arises as to what the european union' s values and objectives should be. what precisely does european identity consist of? what does it mean to people? this, brings us, of course, to the subject of a constitution for the union, accompanied by a simplification and revision of the treaties. this leads us on to a third, and perhaps the most crucial issue, namely that of the ordering of the union' s powers, in other words the division of responsibilities within the union. we need clear agreements. who does what at what level? for their part, people now already know perfectly well what essential tasks they expect the european union to fulfil. the recent soundings in europe constantly indicate the same core tasks for the union: the socio-economic policy designed to support the monetary union, basic standards on social security, a common asylum and migration policy, a joint foreign policy and a collective approach to defence. at the same time, citizens feel that the union is too concerned with the over-detailed implementation of policy that could be better implemented at national or regional level. in short, people feel that the union should concentrate first and foremost on creating the regulatory framework, on the boundary conditions, on monitoring and on the implementation of policy by regions or member states. consequently, we must not in any way shirk this discussion, which must focus on a division of powers in both directions. which additional tasks will be assigned to the union, and which to the member states? the laeken declaration must also initiate reconsideration of another problem, namely the unchecked growth, the proliferation and, i am tempted to say, the inflation of policy instruments. in a speech i gave recently in gttweig in austria, i listed what amount to no less than thirty different policy instruments in the treaties. a radical simplification of those instruments is urgently necessary. nor must the method of financing the european union be omitted from the laeken declaration. at the moment, the union does not have full budgetary powers of its own. it has no real resources of its own, since it is largely financed on the basis of gnp contributions. we must at least be bold enough to ask the question of whether this indirect method of financing is the correct one and of whether direct financing would not be more legitimate and more democratic. (applause) in the laeken declaration, we shall not of course be able to avoid a discussion of the institutions. do we or do we not want a directly elected president of the commission? (applause) would it not be better to generalise the co-decision rights of the european parliament? (applause) (nl) why not make the council a second chamber, in which case how would we better distinguish between the legislative and executive powers of the council? (applause) should the implementation of the union' s foreign policy not now finally be entrusted to one person? (applause)i may well receive telephone calls from both parties. (laughter) finally, we must decide on the method to be followed between the laeken declaration and the start of the intergovernmental conference. as far as the method is concerned, in my view it is not of great importance whether we are talking about a convention or a forum. what is important are the following two matters. the working method chosen must make it possible to involve all the parties in the debate: the european parliament, the european commission, member states, national parliaments and the applicant countries. in addition, we must give the convention or forum the opportunity to work out different scenarios and present different options, because if we bind the convention or forum with the consensus rule and charge it to publish a single text, then we are in danger of being confronted with an unambitious document, perhaps the result of the lowest common denominator. the belgian presidency regards the european parliament as an ally. we wish to conduct an intensive dialogue during the next six months. this all the more important because this parliament is the instrument par excellence for finally obtaining a unitary public opinion in europe that is more than the sum of fifteen national opinions, as is still too often the case at present (and also one of the problems of europe). well, naturally we have many plans for the next six months. i say six months, but in fact we have worked out that it amounts to no more than 99 working days, which of course does not mean that our staff will not be working at weekends. so time is short, but i believe, and i should like to end on this note, that shortage of time must not prevent us from looking to the future of europe with daring and courage. thank you for your attention. (loud applause) madam president, prime minister, ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to begin the work we will be undertaking with the belgian presidency. prime minister, this presidency comes at a critical juncture. we are in the final stages of the preparations for the introduction of euro notes and coins, the most tangible expression of europe ever achieved. belgium knows that it can count on the cooperation of the commission and the european institutions to make this truly historic event a great success. moreover, we are pushing resolutely ahead towards enlarging the union as, prime minister, you said just now. accession negotiations have reached a critical stage, with the most difficult chapters now open. meanwhile, precisely to prepare the union for enlargement, the member states are in the process of ratifying the treaty of nice. however, the referendum which took place in the republic of ireland recently has reminded us that ratification is not a foregone conclusion. i shall return to this subject shortly. prime minister, madam president, at the laeken summit, we shall be reviewing the union' s progress in implementing its social agenda. steady and solid implementation is essential if we are to succeed, this decade, in making the union' s economy truly dynamic and competitive while, at the same time, ensuring that our social model remains anchored in the principles of justice and sustainability. i agree with the new presidency' s emphasis not only on the essential drive towards achieving full employment but also on the equally essential need to improve the quality of work. modernising our pension and social security systems is also an important part of our social agenda. this is one of the most important challenges of today' s society and, yesterday, the commission adopted a communication proposing an integrated european strategy for tackling it. we are also committed to the fight against poverty and social exclusion. i am therefore pleased to see the belgian government' s commitment to action on these issues in its presidency. in particular, i share the concern that underlies this commitment: the gap between rich and poor in europe is widening at an alarming rate. we have a duty to stop this trend. if we do not change our economic and social policies, we will be in danger of undermining solidarity, the very value on which the european social model is based. the rapid drift towards an increasingly divided society is happening not only in europe but also on a much wider scale. an entire continent, africa - about which you made a highly relevant point in your speech, prime minister - has lost contact even with the developing world. we must do everything in our power to stop this unjust development model and to give voices and rights to those who have neither. ladies and gentlemen, prime minister, the laeken summit and declaration are also vitally important for another reason. laeken must determine how we are to structure the second stage of the 'future of europe' debate. this is a far-reaching debate with huge implications. i am particularly glad that, in contrast to the situation six months ago, it is now being conducted widely in all the media. at last, our fellow citizens and their governments are beginning to realise how important these issues are for their future. prime minister, in a recent speech, you stated that 'the union has turned into an institutional and instrumental imbroglio' . it is my unenviable privilege to share your concern. the diagnosis is clear: what we need now is treatment, proposed and discussed freely and openly. there must be no more attempts to settle these questions behind closed doors. in my opinion, the only acceptable way to reform the institutions is for a convention to be set up at laeken. the heads of state have also talked about a forum - i personally prefer the word convention -. .which will bring together, on an equal footing, representatives of the governments of the member states and the candidate countries - and i stress, the candidate countries as well - representatives of the national parliaments, the european parliament and the commission. it is in this convention that we will be able to find the best solutions to europe' s most serious problems. ladies and gentlemen, not only must the future of europe be firmly in the hands of its citizens but they must also understand what needs changing. whatever else it may imply, the irish 'no' to nice tells us clearly that we have to close the gap between the institutions and the citizens. the europeans want a union that meets their new demands. they want far more than an economically integrated continent, which we have already largely achieved. they want a union they can understand - and that means we must simplify our procedures and our treaties - where the responsibilities of each institution are clearly defined and decisions are taken at the appropriate level. they want a union that delivers the quality of life and the type of society they desire. a union that is clearly accountable to its citizens for what our policies have achieved and how our resources have been used. their calls for greater democratic control over the union' s institutions are fully justified. this too is an issue the convention must address. the laeken declaration must therefore set an ambitious and comprehensive agenda for this convention and lay down the methods and timetable it is to follow. ladies and gentlemen, the position i recently adopted on the treaty of nice and the irish referendum has raised some concern in this house and elsewhere. from the very start of my term of office, i have consistently attached great importance to political and institutional relations between the commission and parliament. i firmly believe these relations must be based on a spirit of cooperation and openness. therefore, let me conclude with a few more words on the ratification of the treaty of nice. a union of 25 or more member states cannot function with its present structures and methods of decision-making. that is why, for the task that this commission has set as its absolute priority, the enlargement of the union, i have always maintained that we need to introduce, at the very least, the institutional changes so painstakingly and laboriously agreed upon at nice. we must, indeed, remember that enlargement is not simply an internal matter for europe: our role as a point of reference for the ideas and politics of a large part of the world depends on the decisions we take on this process. the candidate countries, for their part, are making a huge, unprecedented effort to qualify for union membership. the union must therefore be ready to welcome the new member states. this means revising our institutional system and the decision-making process. that is why, despite the fact that it did not live up to our expectations, the treaty of nice is necessary for enlargement. therefore, as i have stressed on a number of occasions before this house, i very much hope that the treaty will be ratified by the end of next year, in full respect for the democratically expressed opinions of our fellow citizens. the people of the irish republic have recently expressed their opinion of the treaty. i do not want to go into the details of the debate that preceded, accompanied and followed the referendum. i just want to say that i am convinced, particularly after my visit to ireland, that the union does not pose a threat to national identities. quite the opposite: our real strength lies in 'unity in diversity' . after visiting ireland, i can, in any case, affirm without a doubt that the irish people did not vote against enlargement. however, we must not underestimate the importance of this 'no' . it raises a crucial question that we cannot ignore: what happens if, in spite of our best efforts, nice is not ratified? some people have not been able to resist the temptation to reply simply that this question is not on the agenda. however, it would not be responsible for me, as president of the commission, to give that answer. enlargement must not be compromised. it is, and will remain, our number one political objective. it is an historic project and i have made it an integral part of my task as commission president. it has the unanimous backing of the gothenburg council. it is therefore my duty, as president of the commission, to anticipate the potential repercussions of the irish 'no' on the enlargement process. ladies and gentlemen, in your opinion, is it wise to pretend that the problem does not exist? no, it is not. over the past few days, i have therefore taken up this duty. i chose to be frank and made a carefully-considered, informed decision. we have all said that nice is necessary for enlargement. well then, we must not give the impression that the process can succeed without the reforms we all wanted at nice. i do not wish to dwell further on the views of the legal experts who assure us that we could go ahead with enlargement simply by making small changes to the treaties. that is not the political point. the point is that we have to enlarge the union while, at the same time, deepening it in the ways that nice itself stated were essential. ladies and gentlemen, a 'no' to nice would inevitably delay the enlargement process. we want to avoid that if at all possible but, were it to happen, we would have to bring forward the date of the next intergovernmental conference. this would allow us to fulfil our solemn commitments with the strong support of this house expressed completely within its mandate. as you can see, the treaty of nice is already an integral part of the debate on the 'future of europe' . our 'yes' to ratification is not, therefore, about tactics: it is about the need to ensure the political coherence of the union. prime minister, what you have said confirms that your presidency fully agrees with this analysis and endorses the strategy we must therefore adopt. (applause) madam president, mr president-in-office, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, you have presented an ambitious programme mr president-in-office. our group of the european people' s party and european democrats can support this programme because - you did not state this explicitly but the overall tenor of your speech made it plain - you represent a community-based europe and not a europe of intergovernmental cooperation. that is why we stand by your side, because you defend european law, democracy and community procedure. you are thus following in the footsteps of your christian-democratic predecessors, wilfried martens and leo tindemans, who also made an outstanding contribution to the work of the european parliament. on 1 january 2002, we will have the single currency. the introduction of the euro is a peaceful revolution and we want to look forward to the advent of the single european currency. we have to be proactive in defending it. if the younger generation of today are able to pay in one currency throughout their lives, in the future, throughout europe, in all the countries of the european union and in some cases even further afield, then this is also an act of peace. let us not talk down the single currency, but let us together be proactive in defending it. this also requires us - and here i have a request to make of you - to pursue a policy of stability, to fight inflation, to cut the public debt and, above all, to create the conditions to make investment in europe worthwhile. that is why it is not enough for us to ease the tax burden on large companies; we need to ease the tax burden on small and medium-sized companies so that they are willing to invest and increase productivity and so that europe receives a real signal in favour of economic growth. you said in the council of heads of state and government that the european union ought to be the most competitive continent in the world, but this statement is only truly meaningful if we encourage investment in europe. i would ask you to name those member states which do not comply with these principles because we need success across the board for europe' s economy to be attractive. (applause) you mentioned laeken. the european parliament will be represented in the convention. you are fighting - and we very much welcome this - for the involvement of the commission and the national governments. it would give a boost to the spluttering french-german engine if both countries were to push for governments also being represented at high level in this convention, for example by ministers for europe who are responsible for this portfolio in their national parliaments, render account to the national parliaments and thus also reach their respective public. we call on the national governments not only to send civil servants - whom we esteem highly - to this convention, but also politicians who have mandates from their governments. (applause) my third point is transparency. we were particularly pleased to hear you say that when the council of ministers is actively legislating it should become a real second chamber. we firmly support this. but we can already take steps towards achieving this now, during your presidency, before laeken. if, for example, we know that civil servants but not the ministers are sitting on a conciliation committee between parliament and the council, and there are internal instructions that the majority of the people represented there ought to be ministers, then we would ask you also to ensure, through the council general secretariat, that there are politicians present, ministers who are equal in rank to the european parliament representatives and who will legislate at european level alongside them. (applause) you mentioned the work of the high representative. our group has a high opinion of mr solana. we share your view, however, that, in the next reform, we need to ensure that the responsibilities of the high representative are identical to those fulfilled by his counterpart in the commission and that this position is based in the commission. we must also ensure - we will be discussing this in the conference of presidents - that obviously the high representative also comes here before the european parliament at regular intervals to report on the european union' s common foreign and security policy. (applause) in conclusion, because i will keep to my allotted time, allow me to say the following. we acknowledge the fact that, precisely because of its historic responsibility for africa, the belgian presidency will be making this a particular priority. we support this. but at the same time we say that of course, where external relations are concerned, we need to focus our efforts - and this should not be to the detriment of africa - on the developments in the balkans and in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia, so that we contribute to creating peace there. given that ultimately it might be necessary for the europeans to take joint action by deploying their security forces there, we are revealing weaknesses in our policy if the north atlantic alliance is telling us today that some member states are not in any position at all to do this. we should not only talk about defence; we need to get beyond the rhetoric and give our armed forces the hardware they need to make a real contribution to maintaining peace in europe. we wish you every success in your work, mr president-in-office. you are a founding member of the european union. belgium has already successfully completed eleven presidencies. we wish belgium all the best for its twelfth presidency. we are at your side! (applause) thank you, madam president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen. mr president-in-office of the council, you are appearing here today with a great political ambition, with a coherent programme which is a significant commitment, and you are offering an alliance with parliament. on behalf of the socialist group, i can tell you that, in the terms that you have presented the issue - as prime minister of a belgian rainbow government, which has demonstrated that democratic alternation also works in belgium - of course you can count on our support and our cooperation. firstly, with regard to the future of the union and its challenges, you have insisted that unity creates strength and that there must be cooperation with parliament. we agree on the diagnosis of the specific problems. the question is now to know whether the way we are going to deal with them will be effective. i believe we have two possible fundamental points of departure, which you have mentioned: on the one hand, the development of european citizenship and, on the other, the introduction of the euro. it seems to me that over the last twenty years, since the draft spinelli treaty, the adonino report, our work in preparing the treaty of maastricht, our drafts of the charter of fundamental rights, parliament has always been an ally and an accomplice in european progress. specifically, at the moment, we believe that it is extremely significant that, faced with the laeken declaration, there is an agreement on what you call the 'constitutionalisation' of the treaties, which demands a public debate. you have the responsibility to provide it, on the one hand, with a method and, on the other, with content. that is a fundamental issue: we believe that the convention must be the forum which, with the participation of parliamentarians, governments and the commission, prepares the work for a decisive intergovernmental conference. you began by talking about your appearance as minister of budgets in 1988. i was the rapporteur who presented the financial perspectives which have allowed us to make progress, but, as you know very well, anyone who ignores the budget is making a big mistake. i believe it is absolutely essential that you argue that funding must be a public, democratic and fundamental element of our future. another basic element is the economic and social agenda. you have asked for a coherent economic policy. we need one. we are in a period of far-reaching conversion and restructuring. we need to defend our competitive capacity, but we must also respond to the thousands and thousands of workers who are affected by this very broad and decisive process. it is therefore absolutely essential that we have an ambitious social dimension, that we insist on the quality of employment, and deal with pensions and the demographic future of europe, and all these things are in your programme. finally, madam president, our international dimension. the european union is the first experience of civilised globalisation in history. we must defend that and take it to the next millennium round of the wto. but there are also some important challenges in relation to our personality in the world. you have correctly pointed out that you can receive two telephone calls. two is better than none, which is what happened before. we must consolidate what already exists. i believe that, in this respect - think, for example of the number of calls received by the president of the united states - what we need is a clear approach, that must maintain a presence in the balkans, in the middle east, and i thank you for mentioning africa. at the council of the socialist international last weekend in lisbon, we spoke about africa as a fundamental priority. that is one of our moral commitments. i would add something more: for the first time there is a minister in ecofin who proposes a debate on the viability of an international tax on speculation. that must also contribute to making globalisation more civilised, and we welcome the fact that the belgian presidency has taken that initiative. lastly, mr president, and i will end here, i believe that 99 working days is very little; surely you are going to end up without any holidays. however, if you are able to implement this ambitious project, you can count on our support, our cooperation and our understanding. madam president, prime minister, ladies and gentlemen, it has already been said more than once that the belgian presidency comes at a crucial moment. there are ample reasons for this. to begin with, the indispensable and broadly based debate on the future of europe which you must initiate. the laeken declaration must be an initial outline of a union which, although enlarged, can nevertheless work efficiently and with which citizens can identify. precisely because of people' s declining interest in europe, you rightly said that the european union must pay more attention to the concrete complaints of its citizens. another crucial point is the place of the union in the world. it is correct that the european union should exercise more influence on world developments in the monetary, economic, social, ecological and commercial spheres, but also and especially in the field of international policy. on that point, you are right to point to africa, where there is a humanitarian problem. but the eu could also play a more active role in relations with, for example, the united states, russia and asia and, particularly, in relation to the peace process in the middle east. be that as it may, the merits of this belgian presidency will be largely judged by its internal achievements. the belgian programme appears many-faceted and ambitious, involving the european social model, concern for the quality of life and work, better cooperation in the fields of migration and asylum, the transition to the euro, the follow-up to enlargement and many other points. prime minister, an onerous task awaits you. the european parliament and european citizens are waiting for a powerful signal. in belgium, you have proved yourself able to breathe new life into politics. let us hope that you can transfer this to europe too. you are said to be a keen and energetic cyclist. it is true that you frequently enjoy cycling, and in a variety of conditions: without wind, with the wind behind you and with a headwind. you will now learn that, in europe, you will often be cycling into the wind. however, we know that you are undaunted and we wish you the success you deserve. madam president, president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, prime minister, during your presidency we will be travelling down a long and winding road, which began with nice and will end with laeken. as we saw at gothenburg there have also been obstacles along that road. along the way there was also dublin, where the people said they did not want to go any further along this road unless there were radical changes made to the plans. i would now like to ask whether we must therefore return to nice in order, finally, to get to laeken. my own view is that at nice some big mistakes were made, which must at all costs be put right. future member states were treated unfairly there. for example, they did not all receive their rightful share of seats in the european parliament. secondly, we were by no means able there to confirm and clarify decision-making conventions in the european union. you yourself gave an example of this: there are more than thirty instruments at our disposal, which means it cannot really be clear how the european union functions. i think that the european union can continue its expansion, even if the treaty of nice should not be ratified in its present form, and you, prime minister, have an excellent opportunity in this respect. at laeken a consultative committee must certainly be set up, to commence drafting a constitution for the european union and to deliberate on fundamental issues. it is most important that this is the path we should take and that future member states can also be involved in this work, this convention, which must be established at laeken. you mentioned globalisation. i was pleased to note that during your presidential term the tobin tax is to be discussed, which civil society is speaking so much about. i think you have a perfect opportunity to show you understand what president prodi was talking about: that globalisation also causes problems, dividing european societies into two and, furthermore, adding to the two-way split in societies in the global context. show you understand this concern, so that globalisation may then finally serve to benefit the development of the european social model, which you have named as one of your goals. i would also like to mention the forthcoming talks on climate, which are to start in bonn in two weeks' time. you must use all your diplomatic skills to bring the united states, japan and australia back to the negotiating table. my group will lend you all the support it can in your efforts to continue the work sweden began in the name of sustainable development. i would also like to note that we now have a president of the council and a president of the commission, who are both cyclists! i believe that you understand the need to give sufficient weight to environmental problems relating to traffic and mobility in particular, which are contained in the programme of the belgian presidency. in this connection i might say that the president-in-office of the council in the transport council represents my political group and is doing some creditable work. finally, as we approach laeken, first the king' s mighty castle appears on the horizon. but do not, however, make this european council meeting a royal event of bygone days, where decisions are reached over the people' s heads. remember that democracy and transparency are what are needed more than anything else, and do not in any event build more castles in brussels for future european summits! this would not be giving the right signal to the public. i nevertheless hope that your presidency will come to be even half as popular as a certain well-known royal princess - mathilde - is in your country. if you manage as much, your presidential term will have been a job well done. madam president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, i appreciated the fact, mr verhofstadt, that you frankly acknowledged what you rightly called an 'identity crisis' in europe between the citizens and the european union, and that you stressed the need to take their aspirations seriously so that, as you said, we can bring the citizens closer to europe. it makes a change from the all too frequent speeches designed to mollify, which people can no longer listen to because of all the contradictions that are glossed over. it is only natural that new issues will arise from experience, which call for changes, innovations, and sometimes a questioning of matters that were believed to be done and dusted. no subject should be taboo - we must acknowledge the problems, as you stressed. in this spirit, i would like to mention a few issues that surface increasingly often in the debate provoked by the changes that are now affecting the european union. i believe that these issues should be raised as part of the exchange of ideas that you are hoping to promote during your presidency. we have been repeatedly told, for example, that the eurozone was shielded from the major repercussions of the economic slowdown in the us. we must now admit that, unfortunately, this has not been the case. this is quite a serious misdiagnosis. what sort of analysis is being carried out? what sort of lessons in economic and monetary policy must we learn from this, so as to avoid the european economy becoming entangled in the american financial bubble that is now about to burst over us? i would reiterate that, over six years, there has been a nine-fold increase in the amount of european capital flowing to the united states which, last year, reached over usd 220 billion. there is another example that mr duisenberg himself sometimes uses - in contrast to the us federal reserve, which is required under its mandate to promote employment and growth, the european central bank is not required to deal with these problems, which are indeed at the heart of all of our concerns. do the european citizens know this? and what do they really think of this, when in fact unemployment is on the increase and growth is in decline? should we not give some thought to this subject? i have another example - the stability pact requires member states to rationalise their public and social spending. if we merely follow this policy over the coming months, will it not lead to an economic slowdown, at a time when we actually need to stimulate growth? in what way can we revise the usual criteria or the way in which they are implemented in order to overcome this contradiction? generally speaking, the fundamental question that the new, and rapidly deteriorating, economic circumstances raise and indeed force us to consider is, in my view, the following: what sort of political creativity can we come up with in order to avoid serious tension arising in all our societies even between some of the member states, and, more importantly, with the candidate countries? this question cannot be answered by some sort of project to elect the president of the commission by universal suffrage. i think that we will have to attack the hard core of the neo-liberal model, which pervades european integration to an excessive degree. i also think that we are going to have to listen as well as involve the social actors and citizens in this necessary change. mr president-in-office of the council, i would like to know how courageous and daring the belgian presidency, which you have launched today, is prepared to be in this area? madam president, firstly i should to thank the belgian government for outlining in its legislative agenda the priorities it intends to pursue during its six month presidency of the union. it has already made it clear that it intends to promote wider cooperation between law enforcement agencies throughout the union. within the union a new institutional framework to fight against organised crime is being put in place, following the entry into force of the treaty of amsterdam. the european council has since launched two action plans to combat organised crime, aimed at overcoming disparities in national procedures and encouraging more efficient judicial cooperation. the creation of europol represented a major step forward in this context. it is important that all eu institutions work together to ensure the development of a coherent european strategy against organised crime. we must, at the same time, overcome difficulties to ensure that crossborder crime is tackled without curtailing the freedoms and legal rights of individuals and economic operators. we should all recall that the primary motive of organised crime is financial gain. i support a european-wide political agreement concerning the identification and confiscation of the proceeds of crime in all its forms. we are all aware of the success the irish criminal assets bureau has had over the last five years in confiscating the proceeds of crime. in europe much has already been done to fight cyber crime. the council of europe is in the process of completing preparations for the world' s first international convention on cyber crime. the commission has already presented a legislative proposal on child pornography on the internet, in line with the provisions of the council of europe' s cyber crime convention. i support the commission' s framework programme to combat trafficking in human beings; the aim is to develop effective judicial cooperation across the european union. over the next six months the belgian presidency will have a coordinating role as we put in place the finishing touches to the launch of the euro notes and coins on 1 january next. it is important that the information campaigns, which are to be intensified later this summer, are successfully managed. in recent weeks the israeli foreign minister and the palestinian leader have visited parliament. it is now evident that the european union has come to assume a pivotal role in pursuing peace within the middle east. i very much hope that the belgian presidency will use this important time to help end the spiral of violence in the middle east and seek the recommencement of dialogue between all parties in the region. we are all aware that the eu leaders will be meeting in laeken later this year to agree the format of a structured debate on europe' s future. it is very important that we avoid contributing to the creation of a two-tier europe. i certainly do not want to build a european union that is controlled by the larger member states to the detriment of the smaller member states. smaller member states must be strongly represented within the overall eu institutional structure. finally, i would urge the belgian presidency to ensure that the difficult chapters of negotiation with the applicant countries are opened as soon as possible. solutions must be found to the chapters of discussion which to date have remained closed concerning the future accession of countries from central and eastern europe. madam president, mr president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, i have heard the presidency being very quick to talk of a laeken declaration, but feel obliged to remind them that the treaty of nice no longer exists, since it was rejected by an impeccably democratic referendum in ireland. the way in which this established fact is being ignored by european officialdom is very characteristic of the undemocratic, dangerously totalitarian turn that the european union is taking. for that matter, in other european member states, even holding referenda is considered too risky. no referendum on european expansion plans, no referendum on the introduction of the euro and no referendum on europe' s ever-tightening grip on strictly national powers over, for example, culture or social security. gentlemen with the word democracy forever on their lips refuse to let the people decide for themselves. last week in the leading flemish weekly trends, frans crols put it as follows: 'on 1 july, belgium will become head of the brussels mafia. an amalgam of unelected apparatchiks in brussels who are trying to build an ersatz-superpower in consultation with european politicians who outdo each other in vagueness' . in that sense, it is very symbolic that the belgian presidency should be represented in parliament by prime minister verhofstadt and by foreign minister michel. mr michel is the man who led the hate campaigns against austria and against italy, since the people of those countries paid no attention in democratic elections to the paternalistic voting advice of a self-satisfied belgian diplomatic machine. mr verhofstadt is an undisputed champion, not only in cycling, but also in lying and breaking his word. he is the man who came to power in belgium, and remains in power, by denying his own civil manifestos and election promises and through a policy of systematic horsetrading and lying to the detriment of his own people. mr verhofstadt is the man who cannot defeat the opposition flemish block party at the polls and who therefore is trying, at the taxpayers' expense, to have my party banned by the courts with methods that would not have been out of place behind the iron curtain or in nazi germany. what the french lawyer isorni once said about michel debr applies equally to mr verhofstadt: qu' il marche plat ventre sous le poids lourd de ses reniements, he crawls flat on his belly, weighed down by the weight of his denials. mr president, what we have just heard is unprecedented in the history of the european parliament, of which i have been a member since the first direct elections in 1979. the belgian prime minister and president-in-office of the council does not belong to my party. nevertheless, i would say to you, mr vanhecke, that the comments which you made just now make you and those who share your views deserving of our most critical judgement. it is intolerable that you should pick a fight like this here in the european parliament. do it in your own country, but not in the european parliament! the president-in-office has our full support where the defence of democracy and the rule of law in europe are concerned. (applause) mr president, prime minister and mr president of the commission, the group for a europe of democracies and diversities and the cross-party intergroup, sos democracy also wish to welcome mr verhofstadt as president-in-office of the council and pledge our critical and constructive opposition, at the same time as reminding the prime minister of his promise of a meeting with sos democracy. your speeches in austria and here today would have been much better if you had also talked with the democratic eu opposition. we can perhaps help you to understand why people have voted no in the last three referenda on the eu in denmark, switzerland and ireland. when we discussed the irish 'no' vote in the conciliation committee, there was not a member who dared to say that the treaty of nice could be adopted in a referendum in their country. those who expressed an opinion thought it would fail to be adopted. one person said that it was fortunate that no referendum was to take place, for in that case it would also fail to be adopted in his own country, portugal. it is easier to replace a treaty than a country' s people. respect the ground rules that have been adopted unanimously. respect the irish 'no' vote. the treaty of nice has failed to be adopted. instead, support grassroots discussions concerning a treaty which people will be able to vote in favour of in all the countries, because it does not restrict, but rather extends democracy. acquire a more comprehensive circle of advisers. with all due respect, your new think-tank consists mainly of elderly people who have all contributed to shifting power from voters and elected representatives to officials and ministers. there are no young people and no women and not a single person who shares the views of the democratic majority which votes 'no' in eu referenda. mr delors, mr dehaene, mr amato, mr geremek and mr milliband are hardly in a position to write a treaty which can attract majority votes in referenda. sos democracy has sketched out a thirteen-point alternative which we should like to discuss with you. it can be read at eu.observer.com, and its demands could presumably be adopted in a referendum because the heading refers not to a more intrusive european union characterised by secrecy, bureaucracy and remoteness from the people but to a considerably slimmed-down eu, characterised by transparency, democracy and proximity to the people. president-in-office of the council, you said in your speech that you wished to bring europe closer to its people. the gap is, in fact, now widening and you will have to work hard to bridge this gap, especially given the disastrous effect produced by the contempt shown by the gothenburg council with regard to the democratic views of the irish people. unfortunately, the advanced federalism that you are advocating, with some audacity, it has to be said, for a presidency that will have to seek consensus, this federalism will only widen the gap between europe and its citizens. what should we do in order to bring the two back together? first of all, of course, we must respect national democracies and we regret that the recent memorandum from benelux on the future of the european union does not make any reference at all to this respect. we want a europe that respects its people in practice and, as a start, we request that the next intergovernmental conference be prepared by the national parliaments and by these alone, and not the confused and illegitimate authorities or the committees of so-called wise men, which only succeed in sending europe down dead end roads. respect for national democracies also involves avoiding projects that flout national sovereignties, such as the european tax which, in fact, mr verhofstadt, you are advocated by renaming it the 'direct funding of the european budget' . it is the national parliaments and they alone that must have the right to tax, because it is the national parliaments who have the most vital legitimacy. lastly, we can close the gap between europe and its people by listening to them, which is obviously what we did not do when we decided to that the euro would replace the national currencies, rather than just complementing them, which would give rise to huge practical difficulties. this is a mistake, you will see this between now and the end of the year, and, in order to make amends, in order to bring the people closer to europe, we will have to gain a better understanding of the practical problems that the citizens face and we must of course show great flexibility. mr president, president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, although the belgian presidency has only just got into gear, many people have the impression, president-in-office of the council, that your tour of europe began earlier with the rather premature launch of the sixteen priorities programme, or even in the wings at nice, where your well-oiled communications machine managed to project the notion of laeken even before it was fully appreciated that nice, in several respects at least, would prove a failure. the road ahead of you is not an easy one. on the one hand, you yourself have chosen it through your ambitious announcements but, on the other hand, you will not have escaped the tricolour rucksack given you as head of government of a country that is traditionally known to be able to reconcile the irreconcilable and, at difficult moments, to have launched visionary proposals that help the european community to progress. on behalf of the belgian members of the largest group in this chamber, i wish you the same success as jean-luc dehaene in 1993. he was virtually buried under the weight of praise. we are not part of the coalition headed by you, but we have no intention of putting a spoke in the wheels of your presidency or of reducing this chamber to an arena for internal belgian use. what our predecessors constructed in europe is too precious to us for that. we are even prepared to give you a helpful push, at least when the race official is not watching, but only if your presidency sets a course that really improves people' s lot, both here and elsewhere in the world. mr president, there is insufficient time to dwell on the matters on the agenda, but the list is not really that important. what does matter is the quality of the solutions and the vision that they project. whether we are talking about the conversion to the euro, enlargement, the laeken declaration on the future or the legislative matters, one thing is clear: the people are no longer behind us, they have lost their way, the peloton no longer really knows where the european course is leading it. prime minister, work to ensure that people feel at home again in europe. there are no miracle cures, but there are key words: information, democratic involvement and transparency. in december, you have the king' s permission to use his palace. i hope that you will also be given the use of the royal greenhouses. their symbolic value is great. naturally, you will also be expected to ensure that the palace at the summit of laeken is not demolished. there will be no shortage of demonstrators and troublemakers in brussels either, unless you ensure that there is real involvement. why do you not conduct a europe-wide ngo consultation exercise? not at the same time as laeken, but about four weeks beforehand. you would be offering genuine demonstrators the opportunity to make themselves heard in a positive way while it were still of benefit to do so , and if the mass of genuine demonstrators were subsequently absent, the attraction for the anarchist hooligans would be immediately removed. i look forward to your reaction to this suggestion. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, i think, mr president-in-office of the council, that the applause from my group just now on the presentation of the programme of the belgian presidency has shown you that you can count on the full support of my group and, for that matter, i should also particularly like to emphasise the complete support of the belgian socialists in this group. i was especially glad that you began with europe' s crisis of identity, because it is definitely not just in ireland but everywhere in the european union, even in belgium, that there is a sense of there being a gulf between ourselves and ordinary citizens. it will therefore not be 'business as usual' for the belgian presidency, certainly not with a historic task such as enlargement in prospect. in that context, i should therefore like to bring to your attention three points that strike us as being especially important. firstly: it is clear that the future of europe can no longer be worked out in exclusive groups either of diplomats or of technicians. europe must again become a political project, and that means, for example, that the debate on the future must really become a large-scale, albeit difficult, exercise in european democracy. it must therefore be carried out in dialogue with civil society and be more than a virtual debate on a website being instead a kind of parliamentary assembly of civil society. the second point concerns your laeken declaration. as you yourself quite rightly say, the discussion must centre on where we are heading with the enlarged union and cover how we are to proceed, with what institutions and with what finance. i should like to ask you, please, to remember to include a healthy environment and the quality of life in this vision of the future of europe. i believe it is a wise decision that you wish to prepare for this debate with the help of the advisors of the laeken group. but allow me, with the greatest respect for the mainly grey-haired wise men, to say that it will surely not be prepared for without the presence of a single woman. i truly hope that you will correct this blemish, because the future of europe concerns the future of men and women alike. a final point. i am convinced that people' s confidence in european institutions can also grow through the practical issues. and i believe that your programme guarantees a social, sustainable and politically stronger europe. i should like to come back to one specific matter, namely that concerning the taxation of speculative capital flows. this may seem a detail in your list of priorities, a symbolic matter, but for everyone, meps and ngos, throughout europe who are convinced that globalisation has produced distortions, this is a very important issue. the belgian presidency could show, in connection with this matter, that there really is a difference between the thousands of peaceful demonstrators who stood in the street of gothenburg and have a political message and those who know only the language of violence. i wish you every success with the presidency, and you can rely on our support. mr verhofstadt, first of all, if i may, i would like to praise what i shall call the belgian presidency' s clear analysis. i think that there really is a democratic deficit and that we must resist a hard core. i would like, however, if i may, to clarify that i am not thinking of the hard core that mr wurtz referred to, but the hard core of excessive bureaucracy, red tape and administrative hassle, which have prevented the public from being able to see clearly what europe is doing. stay focused, therefore, on what you have presented. what we must destroy is this europe which lives by means of paper, by means of an image which does not correspond to what the citizens effectively want. i would like to wish you good luck, because we know full well how demanding your political task is. i shall now come back to three points. the laeken declaration must, without question, give more weight, credibility and depth to our diplomatic approach. it is clearly important to transform the current mechanism for international relations in order to gain the means to enable us to intervene, as you have said, in africa and in other countries, as well as in maghreb and in events that currently unfolding, particularly in algeria. we need a stronger diplomatic mechanism. secondly, as regards the power issue within the european union itself, do what you have said you would; set a challenge for the debate to clarify the responsibilities of each of the institutions and, possibly, to extend the co-decision procedure in parliament. my third and final point is that, with reference to the lack of clarity for citizens, i believe that it will be essential to dare to bring up the problem of the european constitution. the people of europe have to know who wants and who does not want this european constitution, and, finally, after laeken, the process must be more definite. i wish you good luck and i hope that at the end of the presidency, you will have been able to make progress on most of the points that you highlighted in the presentation on this presidency. mr president-in-office of the council, you can obviously count on this parliament being predisposed in your favour. that of course has to do with your high ambitions, which correspond with our own and also with the great disappointments that we as parliamentarians were forced to endure at nice and during various presidencies. but, as you know, the higher you climb, the further you have to fall. it will count more heavily against you in this parliament if you fail, than against those of whom less was expected. there is already a first: regional ministers will also operate during your presidency of the council. and i am speaking here as chair of the european free alliance to tell you that the regions are counting on you to ensure that, during this presidency, their request to be directly involved in the discussions on the future of europe will be granted. our wish is that the role of the european constitutional regions should be strengthened in the union. at the same time, we want a federal europe that is better equipped for its core tasks, such as foreign and security policy. is it not appalling that, so close to enlargement of the union to include five hundred million people and over twenty member states, we do not yet even have a coherent european migration and asylum policy although, every day, traffickers in human beings dump desperate people on our coasts and allow them to drown? a safe and just area, able to remove people' s fear of enlargement, is one of your priorities. the battle against illegal trading in arms, drugs and human beings must be vigorously engaged in, as must the battle against fraud. of course, i have a number of other wishes, but i shall be able to make them known to you on other occasions. i wish you every success. mr president, president-in-office of the council, president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, i would like to give my sincere and heartfelt thanks to mr verhofstadt for presenting the work programme of the belgian presidency. unlike mrs thyssen, i believe that mr verhofstadt is showing us the way. he has made some revolutionary proposals, and i am slightly saddened, mr poettering, that you and many others have not picked up on this. mr verhofstadt is proposing nothing less than saving the commission, because the election of president of the commission by universal suffrage is the only way to save the commission, since we know that the european union will perish without it. therefore, i would say to the dead souls of bureaucracy, who would prefer to choose a president using fundamentally obscure parliamentary manoeuvres, that those who are not on this wavelength must strongly support mr verhofstadt' s idea and proposals. i hope that we too will be allies of the belgian presidency and the belgian presidency not just an ally of the european parliament. there is, of course, no doubt about the main message of mr verhofstadt' s statement, of which we were also aware in advance: the integration process is to be consolidated, where that fine up-beat word 'integration' means more power to the eu institutions and a corresponding weakening of the national democracies. this is something of which the president-in-office of the council and, for that matter, the combined eu machine is very well aware, and they betray the fact when they talk about the distance between the eu and its people. this is described as a democratic deficit, and it is said that people must reconcile themselves with the eu' s institutions. what, then, is to be done about something that is undeniably, of course, a fundamental democratic problem? what is to be done when, time after time, the people vote against integration on those notably exceptional occasions when they are asked? is the voice of the people being listened to? no, it is not. instead, a complaint is voiced, most recently to the effect that the irish people had voted wrongly, and it is also pointed out that there were not a great many people who voted and that those who did must have thought they were voting on something else. what is more, the vote was about the same as at the elections to the european parliament. and so the integration and ratification process in connection with the treaty of nice is continued with as if nothing had happened. however, rhetoric is not enough, as the president-in-office of the council so commendably said. ignoring a people' s clear statement about the integration process is not democracy, but autocracy. autocracy must have a democratic faade, however, and the very telling words of the president-in-office of the council are designed to reconcile the people to the eu' s institutions. the benelux declaration of 21 june is a frightening example of this process. it is a so-called structured debate. whether it be called a forum, a convention or whatever, what essentially it is about is excluding one side: the crucial side of the agenda. the historical model to return to in this case is the supreme soviet' s democracy arrangements. it is a parody of democracy: government by the people, but without the people. you say that more than rhetoric is needed here, mr president-in-office of the council. i agree, and that 'more' is to ask the question, 'is integration the solution or the problem?' mr president, whether the presidency' s chosen epitheton ornans is achieved - and it is an ambitious aim - is something which we will only be able to assess at the end of the year. in any case, the programme which has been presented today indicates as much. i am particularly pleased that the issues surrounding the future of europe play an important role in this programme. allow me, in this connection, to make two comments. firstly, i think that we cannot simply ignore the irish referendum and proceed with our agenda without harming the european idea. secondly, i am convinced that if the intergovernmental conference were brought forward to 2003, as the european parliament has proposed, this would be seen as an attempt to escape the people' s vote. the result would be a further fall in turnout at the elections. i particularly welcome the fact therefore that the report on priorities will still be produced in 2004, hopefully after the elections. i should like to recall one further point: it should come as no surprise to the belgian presidency, of all presidencies, if it is forced to realise when implementing its ambitious programme that, because the sanctions are still ringing in their ear of solidarity, the austrian people have become rather hard of hearing. i would like to focus on one of the central ideas of the belgian presidency, according to what has been said this morning. i believe we can all agree on the following consideration: the free movement of people, goods and capital which we enjoy in the european union has also given rise to the free movement of criminals within our borders but, nevertheless, since there is no free movement of police or judicial decisions, we are running the risk of creating an area of impunity within europe. furthermore, we must recognise that the progress made since tampere in the development of the third pillar has not responded to the ambitions drawn up there. in laeken, within the planned assessment of the degree of compliance with the european commission' s scoreboard for the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, the heads of government are being offered an excellent opportunity to provide a political impulse for this process. i would therefore ask mr verhofstadt to decide to favour a political declaration of this nature, which would inject new dynamism into the process started at tampere. this means creating more efficient instruments for combating terrorism, such as the european arrest order. the european union, mr president, is an area with harmonisable judicial systems in the field of judicial guarantees and respect for human rights, and we must therefore 'communitise' the fight against organised crime. mr president, i very much welcome the programme and priorities of the belgian presidency in the employment and social field. it is a programme essentially about the modernisation, but also about the renewal and reinforcement of the european social model, and as such it obviously strikes a positive cord with the socialist group in this house. one key element of that programme will be the work you will do to set out clearly the social goals we need to achieve in the reform of our pension systems. that, rather than a concentration on the concerns of the financial institutions, should be our proper starting point. your work should also fit well with the communication announced in parliament by commissioner diamantopoulou yesterday. in that broader field, you will be putting in place the most important building blocks for an open coordination for social protection, and we wish you well, although i was disappointed not to hear specific reference to social exclusion in that context. three specific points in the employment and labour market area: first, in relation to quality of work, it would be very useful if you could work with us in parliament to incorporate amendments on quality indicators into the employment guidelines for 2002 to jump-start the commission' s communication on that subject. second, also in relation to quality, i hope you will apply some pressure to the commission to speed up its preparation and launching of a new strategy on health and safety. the delay is unacceptable. finally, i know that you will work with us to adopt, as quickly as possible, the general framework on information and consultation and the company statute. but i also hope again that you will apply pressure to the commission to speed up its work on the revision of the european works' council directive. that too is a very important ingredient and there is no good reason for its delay until the end of this year or the beginning of next. ladies and gentlemen, prime minister, after what you have said i am satisfied that the great, but also difficult, debate on the future of the union is in good hands with you. so, open that door as wide as possible in laeken so that we can have a thorough debate. and, as a fleming, i should like to ask you to ensure that, in this debate, the regions are finally able to play a role in the union. as you quite rightly said, a radical intervention is necessary to make it clear to people how important the union can be for them. but more is required than that. the union must also work through, and carry to a conclusion, the decisions that it has taken and is still taking. and you have already mentioned a number of things. as a liberal, i should like to stress a few more: the tampere summit , the rights and duties of the citizen and security. i am glad that you have said that it is high time that some impact was felt. that tampere summit is almost two years old. the lisbon summit was about achieving the most competitive and efficient economy in the world. it was a very liberal declaration, but the fire has gone out of it. i am glad that there are a few important liberalising issues on the table and that you have said that, during this presidency, a few must be solved. the gothenburg summit of a few weeks ago was about sustainability, including the decision to comply with kyoto. therefore, the commission must table a proposal as soon as possible on the trading of emission rights and, under your presidency, something must be done as soon as possible with that proposal so that we can apply kyoto in an economically feasible manner. that is of huge importance to the european economy, and certainly to the flemish economy. the feira summit is my last example. at that summit, already over a year ago, a charter for small and medium-sized businesses was approved. the union has had a policy on small and medium-sized businesses for such a long time, but the benefits of the union sometimes seem very far off, especially for small businesses. people find it all too complicated, so give concrete form to a few of those provisions of the charter for small and medium-sized businesses. and if you implement a number of decisions where security, competition policy, small and medium-sized business policy and the environment are concerned, , you will increase the impact of europe on people and we shall be able to say at the end of the year, as in the tv commercial: "a little pride can do no harm" . mr president, we are aware of your interest in businesses, and particularly the role they play in society in each of our member states. a genuine policy of cooperation for businesses is even more essential due to the fact that economic growth is slowing down, the number of people out of work in our societies is still too high and because of regional planning, especially in our rural areas. what became of all our good intentions and the objectives that were laid down in lisbon in march 2000 to make europe the most competitive and dynamic area in the world - or those set at feira last year, where the council adopted the european charter for small enterprises? this charter has gone unheeded. no appropriations have been set aside and no practical measures have been planned. mr president, what decisions are you going to take in order to draw up a work programme for the practical implementation of the ten policy guidelines laid down in this charter? furthermore, the sixth framework programme on research and development, which will be voted on during your presidency, is in the process of being drafted. what place will you grant to businesses? what are your proposals to enable every business to gain access to the consumer society, regardless of its size and business sector? i am thinking in particular of all small enterprises and traditional businesses. mr president, thank you for the warm reception. mr president-in-office, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, the belgian presidency comes at a time when the european union is at a crucial crossroads. rarely, in my opinion, has a presidency taken office in such a difficult situation, where there are nevertheless so many opportunities on offer. this is the presidency which must shape the future face of europe: it must steer the post-nice process, which will have to be concluded in laeken, and at the same time it must also set the necessary preparations for the enlargement of the european union in train. a link must also be established between the two. this means that an important point is being made to president prodi, namely that following the irish referendum we need to keep a further option open and consider how enlargement can be achieved without nice, and without enlargement being delayed as a result. this must remain an option so that we do not put the accession countries into a state of uncertainty. i am delighted, mr president-in-office, with your proposal for a convention, or whatever you would like to call it, because this paves the way - and i am sure that you will make this a reality in laeken - for the european union to find a new method of working which will take us away from the routine of intergovernmental conferences hitherto. this convention will move the preparations for the intergovernmental conference onto a political level, and this will allow us to seek solutions and a means of having a treaty which the public understand, a treaty in which the division of responsibilities is clear to the public, so that the drawbacks and rewards which it has to offer can be articulated by the public and so that, above all, we have a union of 27 member states which is capable of making decisions. i am also particularly pleased that you mentioned the council in this context, which will have to be active as a legislator, as a second chamber, and - crucially - in public, so that in this way we really can foster public involvement in the decision-making process. at the same time, in the light of what is happening in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia, it is important for this presidency that, where foreign, security and defence policy is concerned, we move away from the 'too little, too late' and finally make the necessary decisions to ensure that we do not have to face military conflicts of this kind again. mr president, i feel i can say that the parliamentary committee on constitutional affairs firmly supports the statement which launched the belgian presidency' s term of office this morning, particularly one of the points you made, mr verhofstadt, to the effect that it is not enough to provide the citizens with tangible solutions to the tangible problems which affect them most. of course, the new developments in the union' s policies such as those you outlined will enable us to win back the citizens' confidence in the european project, but the citizens also feel a strong need to be able to take part in the development stage of the union' s guidelines and decisions. the democratic legitimacy of the union is not an abstract question, of interest only to institutional affairs enthusiasts and experts; moreover, enlargement on a large scale imposes the urgent need and provides the opportunity for a genuine renewal, both symbolic and institutional, of the european union. we therefore appreciate your clear, unequivocal commitment to producing a european constitution. in this regard, i would like to point out that, only yesterday, in milan, the italian president of the republic, mr ciampi, made a speech along precisely those lines. as regards the convention, mr verhofstadt, as you know, the dispute over the name is not meaningless. those who insist on the term 'forum' have something different in mind from what you said. we support the line you have taken and we are confident that laeken will opt for the convention. mr president, first of all welcome to our belgian neighbours here in strasbourg and best wishes for a successful presidency of the eu. i must say that what i heard sounded good. it was as if i were hearing our good friends leo tindemans, wilfried martens and jean-luc dehaene, , but that places you in a very positive pro-european tradition. the benelux countries are among the founders of the european community and that already implies a good deal of idealism and vision. that is also necessary alongside the realism that we also always require. i should like to make two comments in this debate. i should like to say something about the after-effects of the nice treaty. i should like to say something about asylum, migration and human rights policy. and then i shall address mr michel. where the treaty of nice is concerned, what has gradually emerged is that nice produced a botched job and that it is necessary to do that work again. the belgian presidency has resolved to set this process in motion at the laeken summit. it is important to us that there should be no false start as regards both the agenda and the method. i believe that it is really necessary to reform the complicated voting procedure and the many methods of decision-making in the council. i also believe, and i agree completely with what mr verhofstadt said, that the european parliament needs to be given co-decision powers in all legislative areas. on that point, a deplorable chain of events was, in fact, broken at nice. where the method is concerned, we opt, as you know, not for the concept of a forum but for that of a convention. i have a critical comment on this. i cannot understand why that convention should draw up three scenarios in advance. because i gather that that is the intention. surely the convention can do that when it meets. the convention for the charter worked well. when you talk of three scenarios, i have the feeling that a divide and rule policy is being deployed whereby the council can always choose one of the three. finally, a comment about the asylum and migration policy. what i did not find in mr verhofstadt' s list in that area is the 'safe countries' policy. a great evil besetting the european union is that we all have different ideas on the subject. i should like to ask if that could be added to the list of five. we shall be having a large-scale debate on the subject in parliament in september. at that time we shall probably be able to go into greater detail. for the rest, i wish you every success with your policy. it is a good start. make sure that you are able to bring things to a successful conclusion. mr president, the belgian presidency' s ambitious programme for this presidency gives us hope that it is possible to combine tangible, solid steps on the way to an even more successful future for europe with vision. you see, i actually believe that the public not only expect practical solutions, but also want to know where we are heading in the european union. this will also become apparent in the case of economic policy. here too, mr president-in-office, we need more democracy and transparency, and i would be pleased if the belgian presidency were also to take on board the proposals which the european parliament has already developed. it is in economic policy in particular that we see that, on the basis of the lisbon and stockholm conclusions, further progress needs to be made so that we can also actually bring about growth based on effective employment. at a time when one negative prognosis about the development of the european union follows hot on the heels of another, it is important for the belgian presidency to try, with a steady hand, to set priorities so that we can actually successfully achieve our ambitious goal of bundling and coordinating policies in the fields of the economy, employment and social affairs. there is still a lot of catching up to do here, and coordination must not only be a word; it must also be reflected in the bundling of policies and in the creation of greater transparency so that steps of this kind are also taken in tandem across the member states. the same applies to fiscal policy, mr president, because here we have unfair competition within the european union. i am counting on the belgian presidency here. in conclusion, i should like to make one further point: yours is a twofold presidency and you also have the task of leading the eurozone in the run-up to 1 january 2002. we all know that there is still a lack of information and a lack of acceptance. i call on the belgian presidency, together with its colleagues, to make the introduction of the euro really a top-level issue so that we not only have brochures being distributed but also confidence-building measures being initiated by your side, so that as the euro moves from being a virtual currency union to being a reality it is accompanied by confidence and credibility. mr president, the belgian presidency' s ambitions coincide with the ambitions of parliament. there is continuity in foreign and defence policy, in the implementation of the single currency and in sustainable development, but there is also insistence on the relationship between european integration, economic competitiveness and the social agenda. we need to modernise the european social model, which is characterised by solidarity. nevertheless, the key issue concerns the relationship between enlargement and reform of the european institutions. enlargement must be a success for europe. the laeken summit must remove the intergovernmental uncertainties of nice. it is now a question of method and of political substance as well. the response can only be provided by a convention which in which, first and foremost, the national parliaments and the european parliament participate as democratic representatives of the citizens. in order to restore the citizens' confidence in europe, we must make the institutions of this convention more transparent, more efficient and more democratic. this is the point - it has even been said today - on which council, commission and parliament all agree. this is a challenge which is highlighted by globalisation, a challenge that we must tackle together as we work towards a european constitution. mr president, mr president of the commission, mr president-in-office of the council, belgium is europe in miniature with all its advantages and disadvantages. this experience is partly the key to the success of the belgian presidency. the belgian work programme is ambitious, and it is also set against an extraordinary context in order to regain the trust of the citizens, in other words, with the introduction of the euro, a debate on the future of europe and also a debate on enlargement. if we wish to gain the trust of the citizen, however, i believe that, above all, it is essential to make europe credible and to make our policies credible. (de) mr president, in this context i should like to highlight a specific problem, namely the typically european behaviour which we have observed in recent years and which consists of fighting for one' s own country and for one' s own region, even if this is at the expense of europe' s development, and then being astounded that the public have lost faith in europe. however, this analysis goes even further. the end product of this - and this brings me to what the president of the commission said - is a denial of solidarity, and we are only too aware of this. just as it is in belgium, it is also an easy but very dangerous policy at european level to convince the rich to refuse to show solidarity with the poor. i believe that today we need more courage to show solidarity, but the forthcoming enlargement means that we need even more courage. making europe credible therefore also means answering the very simple questions posed by the public, which are part of your programme. why do we talk about a europe without borders when in health, fiscal and social policy we still have borders, which even create competition? why do we not simply say: we want enlargement towards the east, but no country is prepared to pay even one additional euro towards the cost of this. there are numerous questions and i would say to the belgian prime minister: in the language of figure skating, your compulsory programme is outstanding, but you will be judged on your free programme, and in these efforts to win over the public parliament will be at your side. (applause) mr president, ambition is a practical joke played by the gods on mankind. they give us ambitions so we believe we can climb the heights of olympus and then they ensure that we never reach the top. the programme of the belgian presidency is ambitious. it would be ambitious for a two-year presidency, but for one of 99 days, as the president-in-office has pointed out, i fear that it is too ambitious. i welcome, of course, his intention that the union should listen to the people. "we have to resolve the irish question." how often have those words been uttered down the centuries? but mr verhofstadt has to lead the council towards a resolution of the problem, posed by the failure of nice and by the irish referendum. the democratic decision of the irish people cannot be ignored or ridden roughshod over. democracy may be inconvenient, but it is all we have between freedom and tyranny. moreover, the irish referendum and the concerns exposed in the demonstrations - even though they were hijacked by extremists - should be telling us something. as the president-in-office has said: they are telling us that europe is not being listened to. people all over the union, and indeed in the global market all over the world, have lost their faith in the institutions of governance. they are looking to us, their elected representatives, not for initiatives, but for reassurance. not for change piled upon change, but for stability. not for ambition, but, for that rarest of all human virtues - common sense. if i may paraphrase the ancient greek proverb for the president-in-office: "those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first raise high." mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, i appreciated prime minister verhofstadt' s call in his speech to make europe not just a europe of red tape but, first and foremost, a europe of citizens. however, it is not enough, ladies and gentlemen, to tell the europeans that they are european citizens. we need to make them feel like european citizens. the euro is certainly an important step - and i agree with the line taken by president prodi - but it is not enough. without substantial political support, the euro is likely to encounter difficulties, as it has in recent months, in relation to the dollar and other currencies. this is why we cannot disregard the outcome of the irish vote but must give it our utmost attention. this is why we must involve the european citizens in a convincing rediscovery of our common cultural, historical and political identity through an incisive policy linked to the principle of subsidiarity. therefore, what can be decided at a lower level - and here i agree with prime minister verhofstadt - must be. the european union must not concern itself with too many things but must lay down the guidelines, the policy lines for genuine involvement of the people and parliaments in the process of unification and enlargement. the convention preparing the forthcoming igc must therefore directly involve the representatives of the people, that is the representatives of this and the national parliaments. involving the people too in the reform of the institutions will give this european union an increasingly significant political - and i stress, political as well as economic - role. these, i feel, are the bases for achieving an enlargement which we strongly believe to be an irreversible, necessary step for the european union: an enlargement in which my political grouping believes and which the government, which my political grouping supports in italy, stressed both in its meeting with president prodi and at the last gothenburg meeting. however, if we really want to achieve permanent enlargement, it is vital that we involve the citizens and their representatives more and more. mr president, the belgian presidency is an important link in the preparation for enlargement because, during this presidency, the first steps will be taken towards the next igc. that will be the conference that represents the last chance before enlargement to modify the european institutions and decision making process. despite this, the wider context is difficult. the germany-france axis will be partly blocked by elections next year in both countries. public alarm in the face of enlargement is real. when it comes to europe, the courage of the present member states is not very great, and time is short. against this background, belgium must succeed in having a declaration approved at laeken which must, at any rate, contain an improvement in the decision-making process and must increase democratic legitimacy. i am consciously not talking here about much larger projects that are being launched and that are aimed at bringing about a real revolution in all the institutions. i have my doubts about the political feasibility of these. as far as the improvement of the decision-making process is concerned, two things are essential. firstly, the unanimity rule must be abolished, except for matters related to the institutions themselves and to the transfer of powers. with twenty-seven or thirty member states, you cannot continue to work with the unanimity rule. in conjunction with this change, the co-decision procedure with parliament must be expanded. the one must be linked to the other. secondly, there is an absolute need to make europe less complex. the treaty of nice is scarcely comprehensible, let alone explainable. a host of decisions, directives, regulations, orders, guidelines and recommendations cannot be understood without a dictionary or accompanying notes, and even then they pose problems. the decisions from gothenburg are still puzzling even after three readings and four translations. this is true not only for ordinary people but also for extraordinary ones. european seems to be becoming a twelfth language, with terms that, if they are not incomprehensible, have at least taken on a life of their own. you must also already have been 'benchmarked' , 'mainstreamed' , etc. the language of europe has not become the language of europeans. on the contrary. in order to channel the involvement of the population productively, i believe that the belgian presidency should make a real project out of such involvement. you should include this project among your priorities. euronews is financed by europe. if we want to know something about europe, we follow cnn, not euronews. and you can say the same about many things that europe does to inform the population. make it a project, prime minister! add this to your priorities and try to agree a relevant course of action with the countries of europe. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, you have announced an ambitious programme, mr president-in-office, and the ambition of your proposals is commensurate with the challenges which lie ahead. that is why, at the end of this debate, i should like to express the wish that you will be equal to your own ambition and that you will enjoy success. on behalf of the cdu/csu group in this parliament, may you be an effective president-in-office of the council. you will need our support and you will also have it. you rightly said at the beginning that you want to reconcile the public with europe. this has been expressed in various different ways. the reasons for the loss of confidence in europe, which before was hidden beneath the surface but which, since the referendum in ireland, is now there for all to see, are many and diverse; they have been mentioned. in passing, however, it should be stated that a further factor in this was the way in which the powerful members of the council for example dealt with a country like austria. perhaps your foreign minister will have the opportunity to repair some of the damage which has been done to austria' s faith in europe. the method adopted hitherto in intergovernmental conferences has had its day because decisions of consequence - such as those made when treaties are amended - must no longer be made in council back rooms in the dead of night; instead beforehand we need a phase of public consultation. that is why we are calling for an assembly, similar to a convention, to be set up which will organise a public dialogue in europe before decisions are made in the council. to achieve this we need, above all, your support. mr president-in-office, it would be a first and very specific step forward - and would also send out a signal to the irish - if the intergovernmental conference were to be opened up and made more transparent. in taking a step of this kind, we would also be justified in going before the irish for a second time and tabling the treaty for a vote. this is what you will be judged on, and we wish you every success for your work in the interests of europe. mr president, first and foremost i should like to thank the various speakers and especially the group chairmen. i should also like to thank the president of the commission, romano prodi, for his words. i should like to make a total of four marginal comments on the various declarations. first and foremost, i should like to comment on the outcome of the irish referendum and on the suggestions that the irish referendum be seized upon to argue that, in fact, we need less of a european input. that should, apparently, be the result of this irish referendum, at least if we were to take it into account. well, i find that a reductionist view. there is certainly a democratic deficit in europe, but you do not solve that deficit by having less of a european input, but by creating more democracy in europe. i believe that such an attitude is certainly not an arrogant one. i have always, including at the meeting of the council in gothenburg, argued that we must not adopt an arrogant attitude to irish voters by saying 'there is no problem, we shall not bother about the referendum and will simply continue as if there is nothing wrong' . no, we must take that 'no' vote seriously and take it on board in our reflections. the problem must be tackled. however, it is an unacceptable solution to draw the conclusion from the irish 'no' vote that we must simply again take the european union into reverse. my second marginal comment concerns the convention. i agree with the various speakers that the governments must also be represented there at a high level, because it would be a mistake to exclude the governments and only to have them represented at a low level, resulting in a possible incompatibility between the outcome of the convention and that of the intergovernmental conference which, in the normal course of things, will be organised in 2004. in addition, i believe that we must ensure that the constitutional regions are involved in the whole process. (fr) the third comment that i would like to make, mr president, concerns the european constitution. i believe that we should also emphasise the positive aspects during this debate. some years ago, when we were discussing a european constitution, this was an idea that seemed impossible to achieve. today, i notice that, in speeches that have been made in the last two years, every european policy leader has taken up a position in favour of a european constitution. i believe therefore that, as expressed in the laeken declaration, this is an idea that is possible to achieve. (nl) fourthly, i should like to make a comment on the treaty of nice. like the president of the commission, i feel that it is absolutely vital that this treaty is ratified. no one need explain the weak points of the treaty of nice to me. for four days we discussed and debated them constantly until four in the morning. however, i believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. the advantage is that enlargement of the union can finally take place, an enlargement that is more than just an enlargement. it is a change that will finally bring about european unity. it is therefore vital to ratify this treaty quickly. finally, not one but several speakers wondered if all this were not too ambitious, warning that it is mainly deeds that matter. let me make it clear at the outset that i have no intention of playing icarus, since that is one of the allusions that have just been made. i believe that it is time that significant plans for reform were put on the table. anyone predicting ten years ago that we would have a single european currency, was in fact called an idealist. the same applied to the introduction of the internal market, when the idea was floated twenty years ago. i have no desire to play icarus, but my motto is that of the first president of the european commission, mr hallstein, who said, "anyone who does not believe in miracles in european matters is not a realist" . that strikes me as better advice. (applause) thank you very much, mr verhofstadt. i wish the presidency and belgium every success. the debate is closed. situation in fyrom the next item is the council and commission statements on the situation in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, since its inception, the european union has followed developments in the crisis in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia with a great deal of attention and concern. the eu has also played a very active role in finding a peaceful solution to this conflict. since april, javier solana, the high representative for the cfsp, has visited macedonia on several occasions and has met the political authorities and representatives of the country' s main ethnic groups in skopje and other areas, in order to gain some understanding of the situation and to encourage a peaceful solution to the crisis. in april, a european union ministerial troika, made up of mrs lindh, mr patten and mrs neyts also visited skopje and, on 10 april 2001, the european union and fyrom signed a stabilisation and association agreement in luxembourg, which is the first agreement of this kind between the european union and one of the balkan nations. the conclusion of this agreement helps to give the union a vital and indispensable role in seeking an outcome to the crisis. furthermore, it has also given us an instrument with which we can put pressure on the parties in fyrom. since the first outbreaks of violence, the european union has strongly condemned the violent acts committed by ethnic-albanian extremists and urged them to bring an immediate end to this action, to lay down their arms and to retreat. on the other hand, the union made a firm request to the authorities in skopje to adopt a measured military response to the rebel provocation and highlighted the need to pursue interethnic dialogue with a view to achieving the reforms that are urgent and necessary to resolving this conflict, particularly reforms relating to the law and to the protection of minorities. this should also help to isolate the extremist groups, by providing the people involved with a clear prospect for hope. in this spirit, the european union and mr solana, the high representative, welcomed the agreement of 11 may to form a broad coalition government, which includes the democratically elected leaders of the major slav and albanian political parties. the eu urged them to step up their efforts to swiftly bring about practical and substantial results on the main issues currently under discussion. at the gothenburg european council, the heads of state and government of the european union reasserted the need to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. in terms, this involves launching a genuine political dialogue within the coalition of governments on all the questions under discussion, including constitutional reforms. the european council urged the local political forces to come up with results as quickly as possible. their deadline was the meeting of the general affairs council on 27 june 2001. with regard to the security situation, the european council has very strongly condemned the extremists and the use of violence. the council stressed the importance of establishing a lasting cease-fire agreed by the parties, which might require some direct or indirect contact between them. the european union and nato may have a role to play in this as an intermediary or facilitator. the disarmament plan proposed by president trajkovski is the other pillar of the security situation. the plan gives a central role in this process to nato, since the parties consider that the presence on the ground of nato and of european union observers is essential to providing the necessary element of trust. nato has already adopted the necessary measures to enable it to act. this intervention with a view to disarming the ethnic-albanian rebels is, however, subject to specific security conditions which the parties concerned have not yet fulfilled. the essential elements of this are concluding a lasting cease-fire on the basis of a political agreement which seeks to bring about a negotiated solution to the crisis. we must point out that, since the beginning of the crisis, the european union has closely coordinated its actions with nato on this matter, by holding joint, regular and frequent meetings between the atlantic council and the political and security committee, by regular liaison between various secretariats, and by direct contact between mr solana and the nato secretary-general, lord robertson. both mr solana and lord robertson have also made joint visits to fyrom, during which a consistent and unequivocal message was conveyed to both parties on behalf of the international community. in order to ensure that the european union has permanent political representation in skopje, the gothenburg european council agreed to appoint a special eu representative to work to fyrom, and, on 25 june, the general affairs council appointed franois lotard, the former french minister for defence, to this position. mr lotard has been in skopje since thursday 28 june. mr lotard' s mandate is, first of all, to establish and maintain contacts with the government of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia and the parties involved in the political process. his mandate also requires mr lotard to offer advice and support from the european union for the current dialogue, to closely liaise with the representative of the presidency and the commission in macedonia, with the heads of the member states' missions and also with european observers. mr lotard must also establish and maintain contact with the other relevant international and regional players, including nato, the osce and the united nations, in order, of course, to ensure the necessary cooperation. lastly, mr lotard must assist, if necessary, in implementing possible agreements and to closely monitor all developments and initiatives concerning the security situation, in conjunction with the appropriate bodies. the path that the belgian presidency should follow has, therefore, been clearly mapped out by the decisions and the approach taken by the european union over recent months, by the use of the instruments i have mentioned, by mr solana' s considerable commitment, and by mr lotard' s work on the ground. the european union is demonstrating its active commitment to resolving this crisis. we are also working together with other actors, particularly the us envoy, mr pardew, and with the international organisations in macedonia, in order to help to make rapid and tangible progress. at this stage, the new presidency has to be consistent and be determined in pursuing and encouraging political dialogue in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. we must welcome the agreement that was reached last night, under the auspices of president trajkovski, to resume political dialogue between the political parties of fyrom. as a result of this agreement, intensive meetings will be held over the coming days. particular emphasis will be placed on constitutional matters, as a follow-up to mr badinter' s recent visit to macedonia. at the same time, and in close cooperation with nato, the dialogue on the security situation will be pursued with equal determination, since these two aspects of the crisis are intrinsically linked and progress on both points should be made in parallel. mr president, the situation in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia remains, as the minister has just said, a matter of intense concern to all of us. in the three months since i last discussed this matter with honourable members, there has been a steady deterioration in the security situation, a growing polarisation of political opinion and an exponential rise in the number of refugees and internally displaced persons. the violence in front of the parliament in skopje just over a week ago, without exaggeration, brought matters to the very brink of the abyss. it is welcome that in the last week there has not been a further serious deterioration in the security situation, and it is welcome, as minister michel has just said, that the political dialogue pioneered by president trajkovski has been resumed. i want to pay tribute to the president' s efforts, i want to pay tribute to the president' s calm decency in the face of this crisis. as honourable members will know, the european union has been intensively involved, from the outset, in efforts to contain and extinguish this conflict. all of us who have some responsibility for this region are acutely conscious of the danger that a descent into civil war in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia would pose, not just for the community there, that would be bad enough, but for the region as a whole. working with nato, working with the osce, working with the united states, we will leave no stone unturned in the search for an end to this conflict and an agreed way forward based on dialogue and political settlement. one feature of this crisis, has been the very close cooperation between the relevant international organisations and bodies involved, not drawn from any manual or textbook, but because we know how vital it is that we tackle this problem in a united and coherent fashion. we have not yet succeeded in bringing the conflict to an end, but we are absolutely clear that it is only by working together and working with the democratically elected government in skopje that we will succeed in doing so. the leading role on behalf of the european has, of course, rightly been taken by my friend and colleague, high representative javier solana. he has been to skopje on countless occasions and i have accompanied him on a number of those visits as well as making visits on my own. he has worked, and is working, tirelessly for a peaceful solution, ably supported on the ground in skopje by the outgoing presidency ambassador, mark dickinson, and by the head of the commission delegation, jos pinto texeira. i want to pay a particularly warm tribute to him for his courage and steadfastness and wise advice. a week ago, as the minister has said, the general affairs council appointed mr lotard as the european union' s resident envoy, in skopje, under the authority of mr solana. i met mr lotard last week and promised him the full support of the european commission in his work. we stand ready to do all we can, anywhere and at any time. mr lotard is initially locating himself in the commission' s delegation office in skopje. as honourable members know, in april the former yugoslav republic of macedonia signed a stabilisation and association agreement with the european union. that agreement includes important commitments by the government in skopje about respect for human rights, including the rights of minorities. it is essential that those commitments should be honoured, and we all want to see early results in the inter-ethnic dialogue. that is the only route to a lasting political solution. the european commission is providing very substantial support, eur 42 million under cards in 2001. much of it will specifically help with the implementation of projects which will assist the albanian as well as the macedonian slav community. for example, the eur 5 million we have delivered for the south-east europe albanian language university at tetovo, funds for the census and funds for local government reform and the implementation of small-scale local infrastructure projects, which make a visible difference to people' s lives and communities. we have made it very clear, and i want to repeat this point today, that we will be ready to come forward with substantial assistance for the former yugoslav republic of macedonia as soon as a political agreement is reached between the parties. i hope that all involved will regard that as a serious incentive to work intensively and constructively with mr lotard and mr pardew, the united states representative, in the coming days. let it also be an incentive to extend the cease-fire and to halt the military activities on both sides which are costing so much politically, financially and in human lives. i just want to underline this point. this parliament would not take kindly to proposals from the commission, or from anyone, to spend more money supporting reconstruction and development, supporting the budget in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia, if at the same time money was being spent, which frankly no one really has, on more bombs and more rockets, and if there was not a clear prospect of a political settlement and continuing cease-fire. when the foreign minister of fyrom reports to the political and security committee of the council in brussels on friday, she will be in a position to speak about substantial progress, because the alternative is frankly too awful to contemplate. it is not too late to avoid catastrophe, but it requires the courage of every citizen of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia to pull back from the brink. it requires those with influence in kosovo over the rebels to pull them back from the brink and it requires the continued stand for moderation exemplified by the government in tirana to whom i pay unreserved tribute for their contribution. there cannot be a solely military solution. there has to be a political settlement and it cannot come soon enough. mr president, mr president-in-office, commissioner, we welcome mr lotard' s appointment and also mr badinter' s intervention in the situation in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. i believe that, in them, we have two representatives of the european community who are in a position to do good there. like commissioner patten, however, i should not like it to be forgotten that the eu delegation on the spot has already been doing beneficial work for years and has constantly intervened. we need a permanent presence on the ground, not because we want a protectorate of some kind but because we want to demonstrate our interest in preserving the state of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. they need a mediator and i think that we have now identified him. however, i do not believe that we can disregard the fact that it might also be good for nato to be seen to have a presence in macedonia as a preventive measure. neither does the fact that we now make our financial assistance conditional on there being a clear desire for peace on the ground mean that we are interfering in domestic matters, as this is described in the region. after all, we cannot indefinitely spend our taxpayers' money in a country in which the desire for peace is not underpinned by joint initiatives to create that peace. we cannot, for example, build roads and infrastructure while government troops and rebels are buying weapons. i underline the fact that it was the kla that brought conflict into the country; there is no doubt about that. nevertheless, the government must not now give in to the kla' s demands so as to avoid civil war; instead it must take account of the long-standing demands of the elected albanians in macedonia and seek solutions with them. in my opinion, however, the solution cannot be to divide the country along ethnic lines. the former yugoslav republic of macedonia belongs to all of its citizens and this must also be enshrined in the constitution. a right of veto, however well-meant, cannot be awarded to any section of the population; this causes division. the president of the country is the president of all the people of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia, and an albanian vice-president with a right of veto would therefore be an unreasonable demand from the albanian side. it must be possible for all citizens to use their mother tongue. the long-standing plan to decentralise power and strengthen the cities and local authorities must finally be executed. but decentralisation of the army and the police, which the albanians are now calling for, cannot reinforce the country' s cohesion, quite the opposite. the desire for peace must be underpinned by moderate and justified demands. the european union must foster reform and reconciliation in its vicinity, which means that we cannot stand idly by and watch while a civil war looms in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. the kla rebels were taken from skopje to northern macedonia with their weapons on air-conditioned buses. can you imagine what kind of an image this gave of our involvement in the country? it did us serious damage and it falsely portrayed us as supporters of the albanians. macedonia makes it all too obvious to us that we finally need to force ourselves to develop an overall policy for the balkans, because it is only as part of a joint strategy with kosovo that it will be possible to resolve this problem. mr president, mr president-in-office, commissioner, our group abides by its clear position. the constitution and also the reality of societal relations in macedonia or fyrom must be brought into line with the needs of a modern multi-ethnic society. in this process, citizens' individual rights should be to the fore and collective, ethnic rights should only be enshrined to the extent that it is absolutely necessary; this is also why there should be no right of veto for an albanian vice-president, for example. above all, these matters must be addressed in a democratic context and by democratic means. in the case of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia, a democratic state, violence is not necessary; it is unjustifiable, even damaging, above all to the reputation of the albanian people themselves whose rights we represent with great conviction. if this is clear and obvious to the council and the commission, then admittedly this raises a number of questions. mr president-in-office, this parliament has a right to be given answers to several questions. firstly, how was it possible for a representative of the eu, franois lotard, to be appointed, who, in his very first statements, has already contradicted these principles and has put the terrorists on the same footing as the government? was mr lotard not informed of the council' s agreed position? secondly, the kla was allegedly disarmed in kosovo. where are the weapons coming from now then? after all, we are not just talking about a few kalashnikovs which can be bought on the market anywhere. does america or do certain groups of americans have an interest in supplying arms? thirdly, the terrorists were able to withdraw from macedonia with their weapons. should someone not have noticed where these weapons came from? fourthly, how is the proposed disarmament process supposed to work if the weapons have already been taken out of macedonia? is it intended that it should be just as successful as it was in kosovo? these are a few questions, and i have to make the critical comment that the reality of the situation is being addressed here, whether consciously or not, with some naivety; i am talking about the reality of a small extremist group, which to all appearances is being financed by the albanian diaspora, which was not prepared to fund the university in tetovo but which has paid for arms in association with other organisations, some of which are criminal. the albanian population and their representatives must have the greatest interest in these small extremist groups no longer being able to go about their business. the council and the commission must do their bit to achieve this. making changes within the states by force and changing the borders by force is something which we reject out of hand. it is the elected representatives of the governments and, in the parliament, the representatives of the albanian and slav-macedonian sides which need our support, our advice and our ideas. we must make it absolutely clear to the violent groups that we reject them. if the commissioner thought that we did not want to spend any money on arms, then he was right. but we certainly do not want to spend money on weapons which extremist groups use to plunge democracies into a state of unrest. mr president, we in the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party are clearly working on a joint position which we will vote on at noon, in order to condemn violence and support dialogue, but also so that the short-term efforts, such as the appointment of a mediator and the support for the traikovski plan, should be immediate measures. it is also important that the medium-term efforts and the union' s responsibility in this area - the association agreement is clearly an important factor - make positive progress. i would like to devote my speech to two additional aspects of what is happening in the fyrom and which clearly affect the european union. the first is that there have rarely been such difficult tests of the european union' s external image as the successive crises in the balkans, and that is still the case. although there has been a substantial improvement since the appointment of the high representative, mr solana, due to his management and his cooperation with commissioner patten and the council, it is clear that all our will and our effort must be aimed at making our action more effective and saving our political prestige, since, for the image of the union - and this has been made clear today by president verhofstadt and mr patten and mr michel - a lot is at stake. another important effect for the european union - which has not been mentioned and is indirect, but very important - is its repercussions for the enlargement process. although by chance, it happens that the countries directly neighbouring the fyrom - bulgaria and rumania - are the countries which have the greatest difficulty in achieving the sufficient economic development with a view to enlargement and the negotiation. i believe that this proximity has a negative effect on the conflict in many respects - not only economic - and a very direct effect on the process of direct investment in these countries. i believe that our intervention, or that of our countries, should take good account of this, because countries such as bulgaria, for example, have made a very positive contribution to stability in the area. mr president, commissioner, mr president-in-office of the council, let me begin by praising the efforts of the european union, the council and the commission up to now. we have spoken with one voice, unlike on other occasions when we debated the balkans, and a powerful moderating influence was quite rightly exercised upon the use of violence, with the emphasis placed on finding a political solution. nevertheless, i have two concerns. one of them relates to the link between eu aid and the parties' playing a constructive role. this is a very tricky business. of course, aid is not automatic. but - and this is a question to the commission - do we withdraw our aid to the albanian language university in tetovo if we do not like the attitude of the albanian parties in the government, or do we halt the construction of small-scale infrastructure if we do not like the compromises of the macedonian parties? i would be very careful about this. i am in favour of exercising pressure, i am in favour of the involvement of the eu, but i am against vague threats. my concrete question to the commission is therefore about whether that link applies to the new aid, as seems to be implied in the words of the commissioner, or whether it also applies to existing aid. in other words, will there be a moment at which the european commission says to the parties, 'we do not like your attitude, and so we are discontinuing all aid or part of the aid' ? my second concern relates to the reaching of an agreement. it has been said that military involvement will only come when there is an agreement within the government and an agreement with the rebels, and it is with this last point that, in my view, the problem lies. that is because the special representative, mr lotard, whom mr swoboda has already said, even before he was on the scene, that it would be necessary to negotiate with the rebels. the world was too small. mr lotard was almost not allowed into macedonia. but if the government refuses to negotiate with the rebels, who will negotiate with them? is the commission involved behind the scenes, or has it been party to negotiations? is the council involved? someone will have to make the link between the governmental agreement and the rebels. i have no sympathy at all for the rebels and believe they should put an end to their violence but, whether we like it or not, an agreement which does not include an agreement with the rebels is not worthy of the name. the governmental agreement therefore needs to be linked to an agreement with the rebels. my question to the council and the commission is: who is prepared to make that link? mr president, i should like to assure you that our group is overwhelmingly in favour of the unity and democratisation of the fyrom and, more importantly, in favour of safeguarding rights for everyone living there, for all its citizens. we have said as much on previous occasions, but they appear not to trust us. and i wonder why the people living in this area do not trust the european union. my fellow members have cited several examples: kla weapons, extremists being transported by air-conditioned bus under nato escort so that they can continue to wage war in other areas, the declaration made by mr leotard - was that a faux pas or a calculated declaration? and now we hear you, mr president-in-office, calling for a minimum of contact - that is what i heard - with the extremists so as to find a political solution. are these not the people whom mr robertson was calling criminals just a few days ago? how come we have lost mr robertson? we have heard you quoting mr badinter. what are mr badinter' s views? if i remember correctly from what i have read in the papers, mr badinter said no to a state of two separate ethnic groups. do you support that? we have heard mr patten say no to more money unless there is a political settlement. in other words, we are depending on the political will of the extremists. there is no symmetry between the two sides. more is the pity. for reasons which they know best, they do not want the european union or nato to get involved in supporting the legitimate government and they are telling them: "sort it out amongst yourselves". there is no symmetry. i was in skopje and i had discussions not with the extremists but with the official albanian parties there and they told me they do not want majority voting on major issues. whether or not this veto will be exercised by a vice-president or whether the constitution will make provision for some other procedure for this is irrelevant. if we move in this direction, we are moving towards the dissolution of the state. we therefore need more stable, more serious, more reliable support from the european union for the unity and democratisation - and they go hand in hand - of this country. otherwise we shall fail yet again in our policy in the balkans. it will not be the first time! mr president, mr president-in-office, commissioner patten, i should firstly like to express my satisfaction and also congratulate the high representative of the cfsp and commissioner patten, because i think that in our attempts to resolve this conflict we are actually revealing the form which our cfsp will take. commissioner patten spoke of the responsibility which we have in the region. commissioner, i should like to go a step further and say what mistakes have been made. in this specific case there are two things which, in my view, have not happened and which are nevertheless contained in resolution 1244: firstly to disarm the kla in kosovo and secondly to disband the kla in kosovo. neither have been done. quite the opposite! the kla has been given organisational structures which it did not have before. the sin also bears a name, because it was the special representative of the un secretary-general - bernard kouchner is his name - who failed to do this. we need to state this openly here. that is why it is not enough to offer our good services for conflict resolution; we also have a duty to put right the mistakes which we have made. i welcome the fact that nato is on standby. the disarmament of the kla terrorists allows me to recognise them for what they are: terrorists and criminals and not rebels! these kla terrorists must be disarmed and nato is offering to do this. i wonder why we should now send an additional 3 000 soldiers there, under the conditions with which we are all familiar, when we could have disarmed these criminals and disbanded their organisations back in kosovo. under no circumstances - and here i fully agree with mrs pack and the other speakers - must a long-term nato presence engender the division of the country along ethnic lines and under no circumstances must nato entrench that split by its presence and its willingness to help. nato must be deployed in the former yugoslav republic of macedonia with a very specific mission, namely disarmament. mr president, i think we should remember how the multiethnic macedonian population coped with the conflict in kosovo. they received around a quarter of a million refugees, which is a very large number, considering how small a population we are talking about. that is something we must not forget now that things are going so badly in macedonia. i also think that we must take note of the fact that the albanian population in albania is not participating in this conflict, presumably because they see a possibility that peace may give them a future. they can see economic and democratic development. there is a need for that development throughout this area. i cannot refrain from reminding you how easy it was for the nato countries and many eu member states to find money at the time when the former yugoslavia was to be bombed. where is the same will to find money now that there is a need for reconstruction and for economic and social development in the area? this is the core of the whole peace process. it is about finding the means, for that is how the way is also found. mr president, it is particularly worrying to see armed conflict persisting in a country which borders my own country at a time when intensive negotiations are under way for the sole purpose of settling once and for all the differences which gave rise to the conflict in the first place. ethnic segregation, penning nations in after a war or uprising behind fortified borders which no-one considers definitive and which in turn become a new source of conflict is, unfortunately, the pattern which has been repeated throughout the history of this region in the balkans. and for centuries, ethnic cleansing has been the method used to impose these solutions. what we see in our neighbouring country is a repetition of the time-honoured pattern. this time the main perpetrators are organised armed albanian extremists taking advantage of what is often justified ethnic discontent on the part of their many, unarmed, fellow countrymen, as is always the case, in order to incite them to wage war on other ethnic groups. the european union was, historically speaking, the last factor to appear in the area, advocating certain principles which, if they really could have been imposed, would have released the area from the nightmare of its history. but if modern european solutions are to apply, nations with different ethnic groups need to be persuaded to abandon segregation behind closed borders and agree to cohabit under one state roof. this enlightened solution is currently being tested in two countries in the wider area: the former yugoslav republic of macedonia and cyprus. the benefits to the people of a european type solution would be incalculable, but they presuppose abandoning armed violence as a method of forcing historical development and, on this point, the european union has not excelled either in the case of cyprus or in the case of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia. it has not acted forcefully towards those engaged in violence or it has only done so unilaterally. violence will not be abandoned as the result of conferences, talks and visits, especially when international obligations are breached in the process, nor will it be abandoned by giving into the temptation of the old colonising forces and granting armed forces from any one ethnic group favoured status. one gets the impression that is reacting as if the armed albanians were going to turn into the region' s ghurkhas. it was the responsibility of the forces which intervened in kosovo to disarm the kla. they failed to do so. it was their responsibility to impose a security zone around kosovo. they failed to do so or they did so unilaterally, against the serbs, while allowing the kla to come and go as it pleased. it is a well-known fact that the kla is backed by drug dealing and by contributions which originate in our countries. according to one newspaper article, the us administration has frozen albanian accounts which were funding the kla. europe has done no such thing. how can we expect armed violence to end, to lose its reputation in people' s eyes, if we grant favoured status to armed forces such as those in yugoslavia or 30-year occupying armies as in cyprus? as long as we fail to act decisively where decisive action is required, it is hypocritical to say to nations clashing on the ground that they are responsible for the tragedies which befall them. they are responsible, but we too are jointly responsible, commissioner, for the recurring nightmare which is the history of the balkans. i understand that because of time, the president-in-office is not answering. for many groups there was serious concern about armaments in the balkans and the non-disarmament there. i hope that, even if the president-in-office of the council cannot answer now, he will take the concerns of all the groups very seriously and bring them before the council of ministers. this is a permanent and not just a local problem. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i shall very quickly answer all the questions that have been raised. first of all, the presidency will try to ensure that the european union steps up its presence in the area. in this respect, the federal republic of macedonia gives us the chance to apply our overall objective to make the european union' s external action more visible and more effective. like you, we deplore the ethnic tension, which is affecting everyone including the government. as for disarmament, this is currently taking place on a voluntary basis under nato supervision. however, as mr patten mentioned, priority should be given to trying to resume the political dialogue. with regard to the effects of the crisis on enlargement, i would like to remind you of the process that has been launched in zagreb to bring the balkans round to the european way of thinking, in order to arrive at a negotiated agreement. mrs lagendijk asked me the question to find out if contacts had been established and how they have been arranged. i would say just this - in order to arrive at a negotiated agreement, all sorts of contacts are needed, as well as opportunities to establish contacts with rebel forces, and, mrs lagendijk, they are a matter for the judgment of those who are at the head of the negotiations. thank you for the answers you have given, mr michel. the debate is closed. we shall now proceed to the votes. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, this is a suitable occasion to raise a topical point: we all have groups of visitors and we are glad to see large numbers of the general public in the eu coming to see us and, as is the case here, attending part-sessions. we also know, however, that it is difficult to find a hotel for fifty visitors. that is why the visitors have to make do with hotels which are not in strasbourg but in the surrounding area. obviously we want to bring europe closer to the people and foster personal discussions between the people in the union and members of parliament. this is achieved on the one hand through their visit to the european parliament and, on the other hand, by the member going to see the visitors in their hotel and talking to them there. as members we travel to chile, to south africa. (the president cut the speaker off) i would like to consider this as a point of order, but, at this stage in the agenda, you only have one minute of speaking time. vote before we vote on this, i should like to announce, madam president, that to help things run smoothly i am prepared to withdraw my amendments relating to landmines and particularly call attention to low-threshold biological anti-mine work. i should like to negotiate further with the commission on this, but i will not force the issue now provided that we can continue talking. (parliament approved the common position) simplified procedure - procedure without report amended proposal for a council regulation concerning action against anti-personnel landmines in third countries other than developing countries (com(2000) 880 - c5-0053/2001 - 2000/0062(cns)) on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, security and defence policy (parliament approved the proposal by the commission) proposal for a council directive amending directives 66/401/eec, 66/402/eec and 66/403/eec on the marketing of fodder plant seed, cereal seed and seed potatoes (com(2001) 186 - c5-0163/2001 - 2001/0089(cns)) on behalf of the committee on agriculture and rural development (parliament approved the proposal by the commission) report (a5-0246/2001) by mrs randzio-plath, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the recommendation of the european central bank for a council regulation concerning an amendment to council regulation (ec) no 2531/98 of 23 november 1998 concerning the application of minimum reserves by the european central bank (ecb/2001/2 - c5-0141/2001 - 2001/0805(cns)) (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) report (a5-0215/2001) by mr heaton-harris, on behalf of the committee on budgetary control, on special report no 6/2000 of the european court of auditors concerning the granting by the community of interest subsidies on loans by the european investment bank to small and medium-sized enterprises within the framework of its temporary lending facility, accompanied by the commission' s replies (c5-0023/2001-2001/2015(cos)), and on the special report no 3/1999 of the european court of auditors concerning the management and control of interest-rate subsidies by the commission, accompanied by the commission' s replies (c5-0158/2001-2001/2015(cos)) (parliament adopted the resolution) report (a5-0237/2001) by mr lehne, on behalf of the european parliament delegation to the conciliation committee, on the joint text approved by the conciliation committee for a european parliament and council directive on company law concerning takeover bids before the vote madam president, i rise only very briefly because, given the plethora of information on the table in the form of voting lists, i should like to clarify that anyone who wishes to express agreement with the rapporteur must in this case vote against the report. that is, anyone who is of the same opinion as the rapporteur must vote against the report. (after the vote on the joint text by the european parliament delegation to the conciliation committee, the president referred to the rules of procedure, having noted that the votes were tied) president. given this delicate situation, we shall, as always, be carefully observing the rules of procedure. this matter concerns rule 128(2 and 3), which says that in the event of a tied vote on the agenda as a whole or on a text put to a split vote, the text put to the vote shall be deemed adopted, but that 'in all other cases where there is a tied vote, without prejudice to those rules which require qualified majorities, the text or proposal shall be deemed rejected' . the text is therefore rejected. (loud applause) i believe that this is perfectly clear. are there any objections? madam president, in these circumstances, i must put to you a personal question. but if you voted on this then i will not put the question. did you vote on this matter? no, mr mcmillan-scott, i did not vote. my actions were however in line with those of all the presidents before me, who always used the sensible rule of only voting in extremely exceptional circumstances, and not on problems that have divided parliament to this extent. madam president, the conciliation committee is of the view that the president of parliament should vote on that matter . (mixed reactions) . and had she done so the conciliation procedure would have been sustained. i believe that is the point. (mixed reactions) mr mcmillan-scott, you may well believe that i have not acted in the proper manner. i gave this matter a great deal of thought beforehand. i did not rule out the possibility that i would be in this situation. i acted as my conscience dictated. i may well have done the wrong thing, but that is how things are. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, all presidents are at liberty to vote or not. it is their decision. this result is absolutely clear. there is no majority in favour of the report and we should not call this result into question. to do so would be to challenge the effectiveness of decision-making in this parliament. i would, however, point out to mr mcmillan-scott that he is pre-empting the way i would have voted. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, mrs fontaine, i am particularly addressing you personally. as you know, i am not one of those members who usually contributes terribly much in this house to making your time here a happy one, but today i should like to thank you explicitly because i believe that you have done two things. firstly, you have given mr mcmillan-scott the right answer. i congratulate you on this. secondly, you had the case checked in the rules of procedure. you quoted the relevant passage in the rules of procedure, thus dispelling any doubts, and you then noted the conclusion of the vote by stating, "rejected". in so doing you have done exactly what a conscientious president must do. i should like to thank you for this. (applause) madam president, i apologise to you and to colleagues if by rising i test their patience, but since you have indulged some others, i should like to express a very brief view. i fully respect your personal choice. on the matter of the vote, you have given the correct interpretation. i entirely regret this result, but one must live as a democrat with due process. on behalf of the liberal democrat group, i would like to the european commission. it is clear that, in the form presented, the mergers and acquisitions (takeovers) directive, has now fallen. it is such a fundamental and important issue that i hope we do not abandon the attempt because of this difficulty. we must learn from the difficulty and i invite the commission at the earliest date to redouble its efforts to submit a new proposal, so that we can drive the lisbon reform forward. we cannot give a signal from this house that we are not concerned with fundamental economic dynamics in the european union. the council and the commission can help us in that regard. the commission has listened to you very carefully, mr cox. recommendation for second reading (a5-0227/2001), by mrs rothe, on behalf of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, on the council common position for adopting a european parliament and council directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market [5583/1/2001 - c5-0133/2001 - 2000/0116(cod)] before the vote madam president, i asked for the floor before other members and i wanted firstly to say that, with regard to your statement, it is not your personal position, as other presidents have taken the same approach on previous occasions, both mr hnsch and i. it seems to me absolutely disgraceful that there should be a sort of police vigilance of how members vote. that is an individual and personal right. with regard to this directive, i would like to address not only the commission, but also the council. it is a technically complex directive; parliament cannot be called irresponsible for exercising its rights. we have worked on it - you yourself as rapporteur, in the past - and the lesson which the commission and the council must learn today is that if there is a double parliamentary reading and a conciliation, then notice must also be taken of parliament on issues on which, although we have offered many opportunities for transaction, we have come up against a brick wall from the council and the commission. i shall now give the floor to mrs rothe, who wishes to make a short statement on a point of order. madam president, thank you very much for giving me the floor briefly. to avoid there being any confusion, i should like to clarify just very briefly that - with the exception of amendments nos 2 and 4 - amendments nos 1 to 11 already represent compromises which were struck with the council even before the second reading, within a kind of informal conciliation procedure. i should really like to urge you to vote in favour of these amendments because i believe that we have succeeded in improving the common position considerably. thank you, mrs rothe. regarding amendment no 11 madam president, i should briefly like to call your attention to a necessary language correction. in the final clause of amendment 11, the dutch translation should be amended. at present it reads: "if the hierarchy were undermined by this" . a correct translation of the english should read: "if this hierarchy were to be undermined" . very well, we shall take note of this. madam president, i have a similar problem. i would like it to be recorded in the minutes that there is an error in the finnish translation of the common position regarding mrs rothe' s report. article 2(b) regarding definitions should read as follows: " 'biomass' shall mean the biodegradable fraction of products, waste and residues from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste." the word 'products' has been left out of the finnish version. i have not noticed any such omission in the other language versions. very well. thank you very much for pointing this out to us. (the president declared the common position approved as amended) report (a5-0220/2001) by mr karas, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the proposal for a european parliament and council directive on the activities of institutions for occupational retirement provision [com(2000) 507 - c5-0596/2000 - 2000/0260(cod)] before the vote on amendment no 118 madam president, thank you for giving me the floor. firstly, i should like to say that amendment no 118 does not replace amendment no 46; in fact both need to be put to the vote. secondly, with your permission, i have an oral amendment to propose to amendment no 118. if the change were to be adopted i would be able to vote in favour of amendment no 118. the change is as follows: instead of the word 'exemption' the words 'this restriction' should be added, and after 'after legal personality' we add, 'only apply to the institutions responsible for the administration and management of such iorps, if this restriction cannot be enforced under relevant national law against iorps without legal personality.' if this oral amendment is accepted - and i have agreed it with the member who tabled the amendment - then i would be able to support a vote in favour. (parliament agreed to take into consideration the oral amendment) (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) report (a5-0211/2001) by mr ettl, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council amending council directive 79/267/eec as regards the solvency margin requirements for life assurance undertakings (com(2000) 617 final - c5-0557/2000 - 2000/0249(cod)) (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) report (a5-0212/2001) by mr ettl, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council amending council directive 73/239/eec as regards the solvency margin requirements for non-life insurance undertakings (com(2000) 634 final - c5-0558/2000 - 2000/0251(cod)) (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) report (a5-0226/2001) by mrs flesch, on behalf of the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, on the proposal for a european parliament and council regulation on the implementation of the internet top level domain ".eu" (com(2000) 827 - c5-0715/2000 - 2000/0328(cod)) (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) joint motion for a resolution on the european council meeting of 15 - 16 june 2001 in gothenburg (parliament adopted the resolution) report (a5-0225/2001) by mrs randzio-plath, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the 2000 annual report of the european central bank (c5-0187/2001 - 2001/2090(cos)) (parliament adopted the resolution) report (a5-0222/2001) by mr maaten, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on means to assist economic actors in switching to the euro (2000/2278(ini)) (parliament adopted the resolution) explanations of vote lehne report (a5-0237/2001) madam president, this is the first time i have delivered an explanation of vote and it concerns the decision of the conciliation committee to adopt the directive on takeover bids, which had been rejected by a tied vote by parliament. in one respect, i am sorry because i would have preferred the directive to have been adopted. however, my prevailing sentiment is one of deep satisfaction, and that is because, with our votes and the votes of the other members of the conciliation committee delegation - 8 to 6 - we made it possible for the decision to be taken by this house. we knew that there was disagreement between and within the 15 governments, that the trade unions and economic organisations were divided and that practically all the parliamentary groups were divided in their opinions. therefore, why should the decision be 7 to 7 at 2 in the morning in luxembourg? it was the right decision and i believe that even our friends who would have preferred to conclude the matter in luxembourg should be grateful to us. it was a remarkable day, an emotional vote, one of those days which make you even more enthusiastic about that amazing victory of human history which is democracy. madam president, the eplp delegation voted in favour of the mergers and takeover conciliation text. while we realise that the prime objective of this directive was to protect minority shareholders' and investors' interests against unscrupulous directors and inefficient company boards in a takeover or merger, in conciliation we achieved the incorporation of amendments tabled by the socialist group, which meant that this directive would have recognised the legitimate interests of employees in a takeover bid. some believe that this directive did not go far enough in this direction and that there is no real genuine consultation of the workforce. let us be clear: this was a choice between no information and providing information to the workforce in the process of a takeover or merger. as a senior british trade union general secretary said, it is a significant step forward and offers a chance to build a substantial foundation. it would be wrong to oppose the directive because it does not give sufficient rights of information and consultation. this directive would have had no effect on the acquis communautaire of employment rights in the eu, or in the national member states. it was a minimum requirement. i think you agree, madam president, that parliament has not covered itself in glory with its tied result today. we will have no directive on mergers and takeovers and we will have no information and consultation with rights for workers, even though mergers and takeovers will continue to happen across the european union. madam president, i welcome mr imbeni' s entry into the ranks of expounders of explanations of vote. i have to say that this is not my first! madam president, i was very uncertain as to which way to vote - for or against the motion - not least because this is a financial, economic issue of which i do not have much experience. therefore, i was happy to follow the recommendations made by mrs kauppi - in her speech, not in my dreams, i am afraid, madam president. mrs kauppi is sitting here behind me. it is true that she is young, but she cares about the interests of all pensioners, including italian pensioners, to whom she has spoken on a number of occasions. she said that if this directive had been adopted in conciliation it would have benefited pensioners. i believe her and so i voted for the motion. madam president, i think it is highly regrettable that the compromise achieved in the conciliation procedure is being rejected today by the smallest possible margin. this takeovers directive was and is an important part of the final implementation of the european single market. preparations for this had been going on for a very long time - twelve years - and i hope that the work will not have all been in vain in the wake of this very close vote. in other words, i hope that the work to formulate harmonised rules on company takeovers in the european community will carry on, and perhaps one day we will find a compromise in this matter that would achieve majority support in this house. i would just like to raise the question of how this will affect flows of capital in europe. in my opinion, it is very worrying that at lisbon last year we made some ambitious plans, which now seem to have turned out to be mere empty words. the rejection of this directive shows that we lack the political will to take the decisions of lisbon forward. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, today' s decision against the joint text for an eu directive on company law concerning takeover bids is regrettable. as a result of this house' s decision to reject the directive, the european capital markets will continue to be fragmented in a key area, namely the trading of companies. future-oriented opportunities to increase prosperity can only be achieved through open markets and free trade. sadly, parliament has deviated from this position. it would have been infinitely preferable, in my view, if we had called for management boards to be required to remain neutral, as the interests of owners do not always coincide with those of senior executives. the implication that germany, for example, requires greater protection from hostile takeovers because golden shares and majority voting shares exist in other countries reflects protectionist attitudes. one cannot pursue a protectionist course simply because other countries are doing so. in the wake of this vote, the european national states will now protect their slices of industry and financial trade; in sum, this is a bad day for the internal market, and a bad day for europe as a location for industry. - (fr) the rejection of the proposed directive on takeover bids will spell the end of any serious attempts to harmonise financial services in the european union for a long time to come. parliament' s decision reflects a number of profoundly different expectations. for example, it reflects the legitimate frustration of the supporters of genuine legislative harmonisation, who felt less and less at home with a text that became more and more minimalist, technically unsound and politically imbalanced, and who wanted to punish arrogant governments for refusing to make any concessions towards parliament. the rejection inflicted on the ep delegation in the conciliation committee can be explained, however, by the growing strength of a quite different sense of nervousness that led to a retreat into protectionism, which shattered the fragile agreement that had been reached in conciliation. the german meps found that many netherlands, spanish and italian colleagues gradually came to support their strategy of rejection. as for france, its socialist government taught rather paradoxical lessons in liberalism, while at the same time allowing a hyper-protected national company to launch a spectacular, all-out takeover bid and rouse the demons of protectionism from their hopelessly light sleep in many parts of europe. many people still regarded the directive as too much of a threat even when it had been watered down and emasculated and even though it did not have to be implemented for another five years. no-one will mourn the final shipwreck of a text that went from concession to surrender, ending up as little more than the shadow of a common policy. at the same time, no-one can be unaware that this bad text was largely rejected for the wrong reasons. after the irish referendum, the rejection of a directive concerning a vital economic issue is yet another sign that europe is going through a very serious political and moral crisis today. . (nl) it is a good thing that the european parliament has just consigned the result of the mediation on the thirteenth directive (hostile takeovers) to the wastepaper basket. it means that this rickety proposal for a directive is now no longer on the table and the european commission can quickly get down to work and work out new proposals. if the commission takes account of the feelings of the great majority in parliament a new proposed directive can be tabled very quickly. conditions for rapid adoption by parliament will be that the decision on a hostile bid should rest not with the shareholders but with the board of management, that the board of management should decide in the light of all interests, i.e. also those of the employees, that the new proposal creates a true "level playing field" in europe, which means, for example, that government intervention, in the form of "golden shares" or anything else, to combat takeovers, should be banned, and that companies in the eu are allowed to maintain at any rate the same protection constructions as in the us. only in this way can a balanced proposal for legislation be tabled that accords with the socio-economic tradition in most european countries and puts a decisive stop to the market fundamentalism that underlies the proposal just rejected. . (sv) the issue is about the institutional regulations of european big business regarding the acquisition and takeover of major companies. on the one hand, there is the anglo-saxon tradition, characterised by laissez-faire and open market principles. on the other hand, there is a corporate and protectionist continental tradition. it is no coincidence that one proposal was put forward by a german fellow member and that the counter-proposal in yesterday' s debate was advocated mostly by british fellow members. although mr lehne' s report contains certain corporate-patriarchal consideration for the staff of major companies, we do not believe that any of the alternatives serve the interests of employees. we reject them both and instead require the commission to return with a proposal on this issue which deals with ways of protecting the interests and needs of employees and consumers in conjunction with the acquisition and takeover of major companies. . (pt) the controversy surrounding the conciliation process for this proposal for a directive, clearly visible in the outcome of parliament' s vote - it was rejected, since the vote was tied - demonstrated that two ideas with various practical differences were involved in the process of harmonising legislation on takeover bids. although some slight progress was made during the conciliation process on protecting shareholders who do not have control of the company and on adopting some regulations on making the information of workers mandatory, the situation still fails to safeguard all aspects of workers' and minority shareholders' ability to take action. lastly, although the position arising from conciliation might be of benefit to portugal, given that portuguese companies are a potential target and an easy one for cross-border takeovers, there are other, more appropriate ways of protecting national interests. hence our abstention from voting. . it was with some regret that i voted against this outcome of a conciliation procedure. i am aware that great efforts were made to give the workforce greater access to information and to protect the rights of small shareholders. however, i feel that member states were not sufficiently committed to the extension of worker consultation and indeed, in some member states, the results will be regressive. i do not believe we should extend the rights of some workers at the expense of others, nor should we vote for fewer consultation rights than we wish to see in the forthcoming directive. our approach must be coherent. we now have to push our national governments to raise their standards to those of the best, and not hide behind an international compromise. for small shareholders, it will take more than the proposals in this document to protect their rights against those of large shareholders whose legal position can require them to seek maximum return within a short-term perspective. we should not be encouraging this approach. - (nl) the amended version of the original text has incorporated parliament' s position, and the delegation of the people' s party for freedom and democracy can go along with this text. there is a greater information duty for the benefit of workers, and openness must be offered with a view to future employment. furthermore, the commission has pledged to instruct a committee of experts, by march 2002 to report on a number of alleged ambiguities and apparent imbalances which could lead to distortion of the internal market principles. if the investigation confirms the said suspicions, the commission will take measures accordingly. opponents want to reject this directive and would prefer to wait for a fresh proposal in the short term. however, we have witnessed how national interests can substantially frustrate and delay a fresh proposal. the time for navel-gazing is over and we cannot overlook the globalisation of our economies. european companies must be able to compete with the rest of the world. that also applies to our investors. we realise that this directive will not win any prizes, but rejection brings us back to square one, and that is not in the interests of europe. in the final analysis, to stand still is to regress, and fear is a bad advisor. we have therefore voted in favour. . (de) the joint text for a european parliament and council directive on company law concerning takeover bids is rejected by my group. the compromise approved by the conciliation committee is unacceptable to us. as the proverb says, 'time brings everything to those who wait' , and after 12 years of discussion, we could have expected that a perfect directive would be produced. yet the opposite is the case. what are the problems? 1. there are protected companies in the member states, either through voting restrictions, 'golden shares' , or multiple voting rights, etc. the directive entrenches a situation in which protected companies can take over unprotected ones, yet unprotected companies cannot take over protected ones. this means that there is no equal treatment ( 'level playing field' ). 2. the directive fails to include principles governing the definition of the 'equitable price' to be offered in the case of a mandatory bid; it also contains no provisions on 'squeeze-out' (the right of the majority shareholder in a company to acquire the shares of minority shareholders). 3. european companies would be exposed to pressure from the major financial corporations in europe, with wealth creation henceforth giving way to the sole aim of maximising profits. this in turn increases the danger that this type of takeover will result in large-scale job shedding. 4. the co-determination rights of workforce representatives are not sufficiently articulated. the requirement that appropriate information should be given to the representatives of the company' s employees offers no guarantee that they will be able to exert any influence on the takeover process. the commission itself is quite aware of these problems as well, for it proposes that a group of company law experts be requested to examine the further harmonisation of company law and define a clear position on article 9 of this directive by march 2002. what kind of logic is that? i think it would have been more sensible to convene a group of experts to present its conclusions and then produce a directive, rather than first producing a directive and then asking a group of experts to discuss the unresolved problems. moreover, in conjunction with the directive on company law concerning takeover bids, a directive on the requirement for neutrality is urgently required. this has been available in draft form since 1972 and has still not been adopted. it is time for mr bolkestein and the council to do their homework. to give them the chance to do so, we have rejected the text before us. the parliament and council directive on the subject of company law concerning takeover bids is designed to harmonise member state legislation in cases where companies governed by the law of one member state are subject to a takeover bid, with their assets, i.e. property and shares, admitted to trading on a regulated market. the main purpose of the directive is to protect the interests of minority shareholders, and, by means of harmonisation, to protect these interests when the takeover bid is of a cross-border nature. by defining a principle for the equal treatment of all shareholders, the directive therefore seeks to establish minimum conditions for all shareholders to state their views and to study the terms of any bid made. at the same time, it seeks to ensure, by means of regulations on making the bid and time limits on the acceptance period, that the company remains operational during this period. i therefore give my full support to the agreement that has been reached and, consequently, to the joint project, adopted by the conciliation committee, for a european parliament and council directive on takeover bids, which thereby seeks to create a set of harmonised rules that will add rigour to the process and ensure equal protection for all shareholders. . (nl) most companies used to be small-scale and linked to a town or an area. their ownership was not anonymous and their staff worked there all their lives. for a long time, governments supported the efforts of companies to remain in regional or national hands, and the setting up of companies on a non-commercial basis, so that they could better serve the interests of employees and consumers. in a society where everything is subordinated to a free market and worldwide competition, companies have now become a commodity. if it suits the purchasers and the old shareholders, they are closed because their profit margin lags behind the rest of the group, because their brand name can be stuck on other products or their production can be transferred to a country with low wages and inadequate environmental regulation. the consequences for employment, social cohesion in an area around the company, consumers and the scope for a democratically determined government policy is extremely negative. that is why manageable, checkable and small-scale companies are far preferable to global giants, that are constantly surprising others and laying down the law to them. mergers that provide no right of veto for trade unions and government lead to accidents. i reject this trade in companies and am voting against the proposal. . (nl) unfortunately, as regards the takeover directive, i was forced to vote against the findings of the conciliation committee. i consider it a great shame that partly because of my "no" vote so many years of work have been lost. but ultimately the quality of the end product must be our guide. the end product is not good, partly because it makes the position of european companies facing american takeover bids too weak and specifically weaker than that of an american company targeted by a european bidder. moreover, everything is concentrated on only one aspect, namely increased capitalisation, while other defensive techniques or instruments are not coordinated. anyone who believes that as a result of this proposal european companies will be dealt with on an equal footing, is proved wrong. i regret, in all sincerity, that for these reasons i was bound to vote against. recommendation for second reading rothe (a5-0227/2001) madam president, recently, i visited the beautiful island of capri which has sun, sea and blue sky, and i remembered another beautiful island, this one in sweden: the island of gotland. that island is also beautiful, with sea, sky, sun and . windmills! madam president, these islands are very windy and there were devices which convert wind energy into electricity. there you are: this is the sort of europe i like, and i believe the european citizens would like it too. therefore, i voted in favour of greater commitment to renewable energies. madam president, we have voted today, in a second reading, on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market. the commission' s white paper has set us an indicative target, namely that 12% of gross energy consumption should be covered from renewable sources by 2010. in order to achieve this goal, we must promote the generation of electricity from renewable sources by means of various incentives, as we are still a long way from achieving this target. new technologies need unbureaucratic, simple and effective promotion mechanisms. i would like to take this opportunity to underline, above all, the importance of renewable energies for the rural regions. the production of energy and the cultivation of energy crops offer an alternative income-generation opportunity for our farmers in europe, which must be exploited. the multifunctionality of the rural regions can thus be strengthened and increased. i see this as a major opportunity for agriculture and dynamic rural development in a united europe. madam president, we have just voted on the definition of renewable energy sources, and we also defined the concept of biomass more precisely. it was said that biomass shall mean the biodegradable fraction of products from agriculture, forestry and related industries. although parliament has unfortunately not reproduced the definition we agreed on last time, according to which peat should count among the renewables, inasmuch as it regenerates each year, i would like to state that peat should be implicitly included in the version now agreed. every gardener knows that peat is a biodegradable product. it breaks down entirely - obviously, as it is generated biologically. bacteria and microbes cause it to decompose if it is taken away from its oxygen-free state. it also decomposes on the surface of marshland. this is what the theory of peat growth is based upon: marshland grows where there is more peat growing than decomposing. as these are the facts, and they are not going to change, i hope that parliament, the commission and the council will make the implicit explicit and make clear mention of peat in the future. this i hope for in the name of environmental protection. in my own amendment, adopted by parliament in november, restrictions were imposed on the use of peat: the capital would not be touched, but just the interest would be used. environmental organisations, which based their views on outdated knowledge regarding the carbon cycle of marshlands, paradoxically opposed my design to prevent the exploitation of marshes, and this is the result: greed leads to a sorry end, and so, probably, does environmental greed too. i hope the debate will continue. - (fr) the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy unanimously approved the report by mrs rothe on the council common position on the directive on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources (res) in the internal electricity market. the common position adopted in march differs considerably from the position parliament adopted at first reading last november, even though the council has accepted about one third of parliament' s proposed amendments. the rapporteur went to great lengths to achieve a compromise before the second reading in the ep and explained to the committee that the council had agreed to eight of the nine compromise amendments during the trialogue held on tuesday, 19 june. the only outstanding point was whether waste incineration should be regarded as a renewable energy source. the council wants to include it. members, however, have pointed out that the support given to renewable energy sources must be compatible with the other community objectives, in particular the principle of "respect for the waste treatment hierarchy". that is why the incineration of non-separated household waste should not be promoted under this directive and under a future support system for renewable energy sources. where the two legislative bodies disagreed most profoundly was on the question whether the national targets for the use of renewable energy sources should be mandatory or merely indicative. in november, parliament called emphatically for mandatory targets, but the council was opposed. the compromise stipulates that if the member states have not made progress towards achieving their national indicative objectives, the commission shall present proposals that may contain mandatory targets. the national indicative targets must be consistent with the global indicative target of 12% of gross national energy consumption by 2010 from renewable energy sources. at the same time, these renewable energy sources must account for a 22.1% indicative share of total community electricity consumption. (explanation cut short pursuant to rule 137 of the rules of procedure) . (it) the importance of renewable energy and increasing its use in europe are at the basis of the measure we are examining at second reading. i would like to reiterate, on this occasion, my satisfaction at the united effort that sets the important figure of 12% as the target for the share of the european electricity market produced from renewable sources which also benefit the environment to be reached by 2010: we know how topical these issues are, especially in relation to climate change. this means that the 'white gold' , the water used in mountainous areas of europe to generate hydroelectric power, will clearly acquire greater value as a fundamental resource for the mountain economy. i am pleased that, as recorded in the minutes, some of the improvements i suggested figure decisively in the text. this will make it possible - a substantial, tangible example, albeit on a small scale - for my valle d' aosta, an alpine region par excellence, to focus on and invest in the hydroelectric sector, after being deprived for 40 years of a great asset in terms of the wealth of the local economy by the nationalisation and monopoly of the electricity sector in italy, a situation which is only now being remedied thanks to the european impetus, which is opening the doors once again for regional competences granted, in the case of my valle d' aosta, by the statute of autonomy. in this sense, it is a good thing that the european union is attaching due importance to that - by definition - renewable source, hydroelectric power, providing security and incentive mechanisms on the market which will certainly benefit the mountainous areas as well, particularly those where the electricity companies are directly managed by the local communities. . -(nl) as a result of market forces, where the main objective is to find the cheapest rather than the cleanest electricity, we are threatened with a new upsurge of polluting fuels such as nuclear energy, coal, brown coal and oil. in the netherlands relatively clean power stations have been shut down to enable dirty electricity to be imported. the replacement as soon as possible of those dirty fuels by solar, wind and hydroelectric power is indispensable for the preservation of our environment. instead of campaigning actively for new forms of electricity generation the individual consumer is first asked to buy cleaner energy at a different price from another supplier. those suppliers can now supply less clean electricity than the consumer is asking for. this leads to attempts to include more forms of electricity generation with clean energy. the incineration of undivided organic domestic waste and wood waste has always taken place, and is now suddenly included in the clean category so that targets can be met. my support for the generation of clean energy does not apply to this addition. large-scale investment that anticipates requests from consumers and is not dependent on waste collection are an alternative to the system at present required by the council. . (sv) we swedish christian democrats welcome the directive on electricity from renewable energy sources. we accept that the electricity gained from incinerating that part of household waste which is biodegradable should be included in the national guiding targets. however, we would like to see incineration of unsorted household waste not being counted as electricity deriving from a renewable energy source. therefore, we do not accept that incineration of unsorted household waste should receive aid. we believe that the compromise negotiated with the council in this case is too weak. in this regard the council has reached a decision, but not understood its significance. however, we believe that the importance of the directive being adopted as quickly as possible, especially in view of the vital role which the eu has and must retain during the coming climate negotiations, constitutes sufficient grounds for supporting the compromise which has been negotiated with the council in this respect. we therefore choose to support the compromise. karas report (a5-0220/2001) madam president, the karas report concerns professional pension funds. today, madam president, is not 4 july 2001: it is 4 july 2030. do not worry about calculating how old we will be in 2030; just listen to the rest of this explanation of vote. in 2030, a french pensioner meets an english pensioner and says to him: 'look what a good pension we have got! just think: in the year 2000, the european citizens' pensions were less than half the size of ours. and how did we manage it? by adopting a further european directive compelling all the states to transfer all the pension funds paid to the state up until that time into professional funds, which managed the money well and thus generated good pensions' . - (fr) the draft directive and the karas report on pension funds and supplementary systems represent yet another attack on the existing pension schemes in the european union. the karas report draws on the very liberal conclusions of the feira european council in approving the directive. it takes an 'anglo-saxon' approach to regulation, based on a minimum of harmonisation, as reflected in the absence of specific rules to define the commitments entered into by the pension funds. the directive meets the demands of the uk and netherlands pension funds, which want to be able to intervene at european level by having a single fund instead of separate funds set up in each country. once again, the european union is surrendering to the dictatorship of the single market, this time in regard to retirement pensions, with the consequences we know so well: even worse inequality between workers, the stranglehold of the financial markets and shareholders on retirement savings schemes, and heavier pension fund pressure on employees. instead of harmonising downwards and creating a single retirement pension market, we should set up a system based on solidarity and equality at european level. that is why we voted against the karas report and reject the proposal for a directive. . (nl) entrepreneurs have discovered company pension funds as a source of venture capital. governments regard those funds as part of an integrated financial market designed to contribute to the competitive power of the european economy. in expectation of increased returns pension capital is passed on to companies whose sole object is to make profit. soon the shareholders of banks and insurance companies start benefiting from profits, the retired bear the increased risk as a result of protective instruments being eliminated and the disadvantages of moving to a different employer or to another member state are not resolved. the proposed european regulation does not do justice to the reasons why those pension reserves were created. pensions are a means of redistributing and supplementing incomes, offering everyone lasting social security, even when, at the age of 70, 90 or 110, they are no longer productive. an equal state pension for all of a sufficient amount is the best guarantee that no one loses the right to an income. on the other hand company pensions are only favourable for those with permanent highly paid jobs. they offer no solution to people who have frequently had to change jobs or employers. that is even more true of supplementary private pensions, which are only affordable by those who are able and willing to invest surpluses in an insurance company in their productive years. ettl report (a5-0211/2001) mr ettl' s report concerns the solvency of life assurance undertakings. i feel, madam president, that europe, which cares so much about the quality of life of the european citizens and the quality of all kinds of consumer goods, should force life assurance undertakings to respect this directive and subscribe to the declaration: 'this is a reliable assurance company in accordance with the european directive' . for example, they could use the format: 'such-and-such assurance, reliable' , so that the citizens will know that the assurance undertaking uses its funds well. ettl report (a5-0212/2001) mr ettl' s second report provides greater guarantees that insurance undertakings other than life assurance undertakings will remain solvent too. well then, i was thinking about that last night, madam president. i slept extremely badly last night and had a real nightmare. why is that? i dreamt, i am sorry to say, that the house where i live was going to be destroyed; i was running out of the bedroom and, distraught, i saw mr fatuzzo' s house fall in ruins. my despair was all the greater because i was insured with a dreadful insurance company. at that moment, i woke up and remembered that, i am glad to say, i am insured with a good insurance company and, most importantly, my house is still standing and i am in strasbourg. flesch report (a5-0226/2001) madam president, in order to illustrate my explanation of vote on mrs flesch' s report concerning the '.eu' designation in computers, i have to tell you that, in the last few days, right here in strasbourg, i met a very attractive girl from one of the eastern european countries, one of the countries that have applied to join our union. while we were talking, as we walked along, the young girl from this country - a bulgarian country - asked me: -why do you not authorise the candidate countries that want to join the european union to use the '.eu' internet domain as well?' that is why i am putting this question to mrs flesch. - (fr) this report is about a proposal for a regulation on the internet top level domain '.eu' . the commission proposal is a response to the instructions of the lisbon council (23-24 march 2000). the stockholm council (23-24 march 2001) confirmed that "the council will take the necessary measures, together with the commission, to ensure that the .eu top-level domain is available to users as soon as possible." this wording may sound a little far-fetched and need some explanation. the regulation is meant to be a general act laying down a framework for the creation of an '.eu' registry. this registry should enter into contracts both with the commission and with icann (internet corporation for assigned names and numbers). let me remind you that icann was created in october 1998 in order to stand up to american hegemony in internet running. this private, non-profit-making company is concerned with four key internet sectors, including dns (domain name systems) and allocating internet protocol addresses. icann has a policy advisory board of 19 members. its external directors and members are appointed on a geographically balanced basis. icann also has four advisory committees, including the gac (governmental advisory committee) to which the european commission and the member states belong. to my great satisfaction, the european union has decided to devote more attention to this body so as to play a decisive part in the international running of the internet and to make icann more neutral. in the same context, if the european union wishes to exist in cyberspace, it will have to create a domain name like its member states. then the national territories will be able to recognise each other on the internet by means of domain names such as '.uk' or '.be' . that would certainly be a factor in speeding up the development of the e-economy and e-commerce in europe. i therefore felt it important to endorse the good work done by the rapporteur. gothenburg european council madam president, i would also like to comment on the report on the gothenburg council. as you know, it was decided at the council to tackle the issue of pensions in the 15 states of the european union resolutely. in your opinion, how could i not take the floor to explain why i voted for the motion? yesterday, at lunchtime, at a meeting of the kangaroo group, here at the european parliament, i listened with pleasure to the leader of a japanese company, who said: 'we japanese industrialists are waiting anxiously for there to be a single european pension in europe, governed by the same rules and laws throughout europe' . therefore, i am not the only one to call for a european pension! i rejoice at this and so i voted for this report because the gothenburg council has started out along this path. madam president, in this resolution, we have expressed our views on the issue of macedonia, and i would just like to say that i welcome the european union' s active commitment in macedonia. however, we should not proceed in a didactic way, but on the basis of respect for the people and nations there. macedonia has an all-party government in which all the nations are also represented. it has a pro-european prime minister and an outstanding pro-european president. if we continually talk about minority rights, we must acknowledge for once that the european standards on minority rights which we constantly refer to actually do not exist, unfortunately, in the eu itself. we really would be well-advised, therefore, to approach the matter with some measure of humility. we can offer our services, but we should be careful not to adopt a didactic approach all the time. above all, we should strengthen the government by making it clear that countries such as macedonia which work with the european union will also receive massive political and financial support from us. this was why i thought it was regrettable that commissioner patten, who is unfortunately no longer present, said that if we were to provide funds, the money would simply be used for bombs. this was a most inappropriate statement towards this democratically elected all-party government. i hope that our macedonian friends, represented by their president, will visit us here in strasbourg soon, and that the visit by boris trajkovski can be rescheduled. we must tackle the signs of disintegration, but we can only do so by strengthening the country' s democratic authorities. madam president, in the interest of a democratic and just european union i ask the council to respect the irish people' s rejection of the treaty of nice by immediately halting further ratification. i also call on the commission, as guardian of the treaties, to ensure that the requirement for unanimity is upheld. i likewise request that all further ratifications stop. i, and those people i represent, support a united democratic europe and enlargement. i welcome, therefore, the commission' s confirmation of my understanding that enlargement can proceed without the ratification of the nice treaty. i believe that enlargement should proceed with all speed so that the accession countries can not only share in the benefits of european union membership, but also contribute fully to the debate on the kind of european union we hope to build. i support a full and open debate prior to the 2004 intergovernmental conference, but not in the form of a convention. - (fr) the european union is about to invent a new form of democracy: democracy without the people. that is the only conclusion we can draw from the arrogant way the gothenburg council dismissed the irish vote. today the new president-in-office of the council, guy verhofstadt, has just confirmed this impression by giving us a preview of the conclusions of the debate that is supposed to be held in preparation for the 2004 intergovernmental conference. the way this debate is being organised in france, following the communiqu of 11 april this year published jointly by the prime minister and the president of the republic, makes it quite clear that it has been rigged from the start. various people pretend they want to initiate a discussion on the future of europe, but our country deliberately evaded the issue of the ratification of the nice treaty, which is vital in this regard. the constitutional council was not consulted, there was no referendum, the debates in the french national assembly and the senate were extremely short, the speeches were mediocre, except for those of members of the pro-sovereignty group, including philippe de villiers, who seem to be the only ones to have retained their freedom of thought in this debacle that has hit the national political community. this means that the document that is most crucial to the future of the union, the new supranational developments set out in the nice treaty, have been taken out of the debate. for the rest, it is clear that everything has been organised in such a way that the discussion forums only produce conclusions acceptable to the federalists. not only are the meetings prepared by the prefects - which says a lot about their independence vis vis the government - their conclusions will actually be drafted by a group of ten experts freely chosen by the president of the republic and the prime minister. i myself wrote to the two heads of the executive on 20 april this year to ask them to ensure that this group was made up of all the political elements elected at the european elections. the result is plain to see: among the appointments that have just been made it would be hard to find any opposition, however slight, to the line pursued by brussels. to crown it all, this ridiculous procedure is to be closed in october, which means that the great national debate will have lasted four months, of which two were holiday months. but it is easy to understand why it will be concluded so speedily: at the end of the year we will be entering the dangerous period when we have to exchange our national coins and banknotes for euros. clearly, our national leaders have no wish to be burdened with a debate about europe at that particular moment. ue/ngl), in writing. (el) the gothenburg summit will go down in history not just for what happened inside the conference room but also for what happened outside it. the tens of thousands of demonstrators expressing their opposition to the anti-grass roots, autocratic, centralised structure of the u were dealt with by the police with unprecedented violence, proving yet again that the leaders of the u make their decisions without consulting the people. not only does the european parliament resolution fail to make any reference to the demands of thousands of demonstrators, let alone the victims of police violence, it also talks of special riot squads, thereby helping to pave the way for even harsher, anti-democratic measures to deal with "the enemy" at future summits of the u and other imperialist organisations. faced with the irish "no" to the treaty of nice, the european parliament has aligned with the council, which is determined, so it says, to help in any way it can in assisting the irish government to find a solution, thereby pressurising the irish government into ratifying the treaty by the end of 2002 come what may and disregarding the opinion expressed by the irish people. when it comes to the tragic developments in the fyrom, the resolution approves both of the interventionist policy and of nato' s intention not to get drawn into taking on a full peacekeeping role. of course, how the eu perceives the process of reaching agreement was clearly expressed by the special envoy mr leotard, who called on the government of the fyrom to institute a dialogue with the albanian extremists. the resolution even approves of progress made in militarising the u, developing the rapid reaction force and establishing permanent and constructive relations with and it calls on the member states to restructure their defence budgets to take account of the sums required in order to achieve the ambitious objectives of the cfsp. on the question of enlargement, the internal imperialist contradictions which have arisen notwithstanding, its insistence on a policy of trapping new countries in the u is clear, even if the timetable is becoming more and more obscure. at the same time, because they know that grass-roots opposition to the prospect of integration is increasing in the candidate countries, they are trying to lure them with the prospect of taking part in european elections in 2004. for the rest, the gothenburg summit confirmed the direction taken in lisbon and stockholm, which requires that the state of the economy be tackled with harsher, even more anti-grass roots measures which hit the workers, starting with the pension system and the national insurance systems in general. that is why the meps of the communist party of greece voted against the resolution. - (fr) in january 2001, the swedish presidency of the european union modestly announced three priorities: the environment, enlargement and employment. six months later, with the gothenburg council, we have to acknowledge failure. in employment, this period was marked by a huge wave of redundancies in large transnational groups that are making millions of euros in profits, like marks & spencer and danone. the eu has once again proved unable to counterbalance the dictatorship of the markets and shareholders, for example by introducing a tax on speculation - such as the 'tobin tax' - by strengthening employees' and citizens' rights of economic control or by introducing european-level legislation banning redundancies. in relation to enlargement, the only prospect opened to the candidate countries is quite simply for their economy to be absorbed into the single market. at no moment will the people concerned be consulted on either the contents or the implications of accession. yet the irish 'no' vote shows once again that europe cannot be built without the people and without their support for a democratic, political and social project. finally, at international level, the european union has shown itself unable to make a positive contribution to resolving conflicts, notably by imposing a just and lasting peace in palestine on israel. the swedish presidency will be marked mainly by the provocative police actions that punctuated the gothenburg summit. instead of embarking as they should on a thorough review of the european projects, the governments, from their bunker, have for the first time turned to violence and fired on the demonstrators. we urgently need a different europe: a europe based on democracy and social progress. that is why we voted against the joint motion for a resolution. . there is much to commend in this resolution, especially in terms of sustainable development. i welcome the call for the eu to ratify the kyoto protocol, which is an essential international agreement in terms of protecting our planet. i welcome the renewed commitment to reaching the un target for development assistance and hope that, at last, this will be achieved as there is a desperate need for this. i also welcome the need expressed for the eu to prepare fully for the world summit on sustainable development. why then did i abstain on the motion as a whole? i do not believe that developing a common security policy, which seeks to link us closely to nato, has any part in the sustainable development of the eu. nor do i believe that we should be asking ireland to negate its recent referendum and prepare for the ratification of the nice treaty. such a call ignores the democratically expressed wishes of the people and does this house no credit. - (fr) the joint resolution modelled on the report of the european council held on 15-16 june 2001 in gothenburg is the combined effort of the green, pink and white liberals and the purple christian democrats, i.e. of a syncretic and political majority ranging from messrs schrder-jospin to messrs aznar-chirac, via the greens, the joschka fischers and dominique voynets and the ultra-liberals of alain madelin. it is like a jumble sale of words, concepts and issues ranging from the death penalty (paragraph 32) to the 'tax package' (paragraph 25), via bananas (paragraph 30), mr lotard' s diplomatic mission to the former yugoslav republic of macedonia, which has now become fyrom (paragraph 42), not forgetting residually the cap, development aid, kyoto, the us tax fraud via the caribbean tax havens, enlargement and the need for a convention - in unsaid memory of philadelphia in 1787 - to adopt a european constitution in 2004. but beneath all this apparent jumble of bric-a-brac lie the two key notes of the oligarchic sect that governs us, namely contempt for the people and the quest for an obscure world 'governance' . the contempt in which the euro-federal oligarchy in brussels holds the people is reflected in both paragraph 3, with the refusal to respect the clear implications of the irish referendum, which is analysed as a kind of deadlock from which 'a way forward' must be found, and in paragraph 9, where the spontaneous rejection by the people of the excesses of globalisation - from seattle to gothenburg, via prague, nice, davos, washington, salzburg and perhaps genoa next - is condemned as 'provocation' , forgetting that the right to 'resist' the economic pressure the global market is exerting on the women and men of marks & spencer and danone, not to mention moulinex, michelin, vilvorde, alcatel, ericsson and aom, is one of the basic freedoms that was established two centuries before the european charter, which proclaims for the rich alone formal rights that the unemployed, the excluded young and the old and poor do not, for their part, regard as fundamental. similarly, the nine paragraphs devoted to sustained development - even going so far as a world summit in johannesburg in 2002 - can scarcely conceal, in the dark recesses of this vague concept that has become a kind of catechism, the quest for a global approach that would miraculously resolve the problems, facing africa in particular, of under-development, the aids epidemic and the economic slavery and poverty so skilfully maintained by the free traders who do not pay the real price for cotton, cocoa, coffee and all the raw materials, i.e. the price of the life of the people whose labour they exploit. i have noticed that recent events have borne out my predictions on 15 march and 3 may. just read up on them in the minutes, if you so wish. i said then that pledging support to the macedonian government and condemning so-called extremists would not lead to the search for solutions, peace and conciliation, but to the encouragement of violence. a section of the macedonian population and of the macedonian government believes that all the problems will be solved by ignoring or driving away the large albanian minority. that section is keen to buy weapons with eu subsidies. they continue to reject an arrangement whereby albanian becomes the language of administration and education for that part of the country where the albanian-speakers live. i do not expect a sustainable solution without a state arrangement similar to that in belgium. i wish the council and commission much success in their attempts at long last to ensure that their interference does not lead to more violence and suppression, but to a peaceful solution which is sustained by all the parties . (pt) i did not feel able to vote in favour of the joint resolution on the gothenburg summit, despite the fact that it contains several positive conclusions, specifically with regard to enlargement, to the circumstances surrounding the summit, to the follow-up to the lisbon european council, to external relations and to the middle east in particular, amongst others. nevertheless, i have been forced to abstain by the fact that a majority of members of this parliament still insist on a post-nice model for debate which, in terms of both method and content, goes further, not only than the conclusions of the heads of state and government in nice, but also than the very treaties currently in force, especially with regard to its harsh criticism of the intergovernmental method and its ambition to establish a broader, not to say quite unrealistic agenda for this debate. nor do i consider conclusion no 5 to be a positive addition, because i do not feel that it is the irish government' s place to ratify the treaty. it is up to the irish people, in accordance with the constitution of that country. - (fr) a european parliament resolution on the gothenburg summit might have been useful if it had taken a less offhand approach to the outcome of the irish referendum on the nice treaty than the council did in its conclusions. this is another example of the extremely disturbing decline of democracy in the process of european integration. alas, the resolution did not do so. henceforth, however, whenever we consider the future of europe, and in particular its enlargement, we will have to take this quite unambiguous vote into account. how can we deplore the very largely anti-democratic nature of the european union in its present form and pretend to want to remedy this if we do not begin by respecting the clearly expressed wish of the people, in this case of the only nation asked to pronounce on the new treaty by referendum, an eminently democratic procedure? following on from two referendums that had already shown the growing gap between europe as it is and the europe the people want to see, the irish people' s decision should give us a salutary shock. the lesson to be drawn from the irish referendum is that europe can only endure in the long term if it is founded on respect for the national democracies. we urgently need to review completely the way europe is being constructed, basing it on principles quite different from those of nice, which should represent the final manifestation of a process that began with the single act and continued with maastricht and amsterdam, concluding with a europe that is now rejected by its people. clearly this is not the direction the belgian presidency wishes to pursue. it in fact proposes to make up for the democratic deficit within the union by introducing a european tax, although only the national parliaments are democratically entitled to levy taxes. it is in favour of having the future treaty drawn up by bodies whose democratic legitimacy is, if not doubtful, at least very indirect. it exalts the euro, which no nation wished to see introduced and which, on the contrary, is emblematic of a europe imposed on the people against their wishes. the irish lesson does not seem to have been understood. sooner or later, however, we will have to listen to the people. sooner would be best if we want to restore their belief in a european idea in which they are currently losing faith. . today on the gothenburg summit resolution i abstained overall, and recommended to my uk conservative colleagues to do likewise, since, although we fully support the references to welcoming the enlargement process of the eu and the calls for supporting reform of cap and sustainable development, we had a number of reservations on other aspects of the report. these include, paragraph 3, which may be seen to suggest that the eu is not fully respecting the decision of the irish people in their referendum to reject the nice treaty; paragraph 6 which recommends a controversial convention model to take the negotiations forward to the next igc; paragraph 25 which supports the tax package involving tax harmonisation and a withholding tax; paragraph 26 which recommends social-chapter-inspired works council measures; and paragraphs 33 and 34 which are supportive of an independent esdp which could decouple us from nato. otherwise there are many positive aspects to the report, so overall an abstention was the correct position in the view of the uk conservatives. randzio-plath report (a5-0225/2001) - (fr) the european parliament' s report on the financial year 2000 of the ecb and that bank' s own annual report on the same subject attempt to iron out their differences of appraisal and present a united front on the eve of the physical changeover to euro coins and banknotes. as soon as we scratch the surface, however, we discover contradictions, which have extremely serious implications because they go back to certain faults in the construction of the single currency that will be very difficult to put right. let us begin, for example, with the institutional issues. the first difference concerns the powers of the council of ministers. the european parliament' s report advocates the strengthening of economic policy coordination and stability programmes (paragraph 5 of the resolution), which would mean strengthening the eurogroup and its means of action. the ecb report, however, emphasises that "the first two years of the euro have also shown that the policy-making framework at european level is satisfactory" (page 3). this makes it clear that the bank is fiercely protective of its independence, knowing full well that the growing political pressure on the management of the single currency, within a monetary zone that is not optimal, risks leading to difficult conflicts. but is management by technocrats any better? to tell the truth, both systems are unworkable. the second difference concerns transparency. the european parliament' s report calls once again (paragraph 14) for the minutes of the ecb governing council meetings to be published, together with a summary of the stance of both the approving and dissenting parties. the ecb finds this proposal repugnant, for a very good reason that the european parliament obstinately refuses to accept: in the specific case of the eurozone, made up of separate nations, conflicts between governors could easily be assimilated with conflicts between nations, which would do further damage to the already weak credibility of the euro. once again, this brings us back to the non-optimal nature of the monetary zone of the twelve. the third difference concerns voting in the governing council. the ecb report upholds the "one member, one vote" principle, because the governors of the national central banks deliberate with entire personal independence and not as representatives of their country (page 181). the european parliament' s report, for its part, takes note of the reform introduced by the nice treaty to article 10 of the statute of the ecb, which could make it possible, in future, to weight the votes in accordance with size of country (paragraph 17 of the resolution). that reform would suit the large countries, especially germany, which is complaining of the ecb' s failure to act, implicitly blaming this on the disproportionate influence of the small countries within the governing council. however, this would be very difficult to carry through because it seems contrary to the spirit of maastricht, to the ecb' s position and to the interests of the small countries, which would have something to say about it. once again, the idea of a single currency for several nations is beset by contradictions. . (pt) the european central bank (ecb) is pursuing its basic aim of guaranteeing price stability, which means, in practice, maintaining moderation in wage increases in the eurozone. this is a short-sighted aim, based on controlling inflation, which ignores the contribution of monetary policy to economic growth and employment. this is a concern which, if carried to the extreme, could cause deflation and unemployment. the ecb is using this aim as a justification, even in the midst of an economic slowdown, for not reducing interest rates to stimulate investment or reducing the costs of excessive debt for families and other economic agents, forgetting that the eurozone is not a homogeneous area and that the cohesion countries in particular, including portugal, face specific structural difficulties. this is the policy for monetary stability imposed by the stability pact, which the rapporteur is so pleased with, and with which we disagree, even though it does attempt to implement the ecb' s policies, by means of greater economic coordination and greater development of the quarterly dialogue with the european parliament. the ecb, however, requires effective political supervision and not just economic coordination, which is increasingly linked to the objectives of the stability pact and to the eu' s neo-liberal guidelines. . (nl) in the run-up to the compulsory exchange of bank notes and coins of eleven member states for euro coins and notes all attention is being focused on the annoyance that this will generate shortly after the turn of the year. mr maaten' s proposals attempt to make that process run faster and more efficiently. but the fundamental problem is more connected with the annual report of the european central bank. unlike mrs randzio-plath, the rapporteur, i see no reason for compliments. the value of the euro had to be kept up by means of a stability pact, which forces national governments to reduce the level of expenditure and refrain from taking out loans. that policy has failed completely, now that the euro has fallen considerably below the dollar, not temporarily, but for a considerable amount of time. in the meantime, in a number of member states, including the netherlands, annual inflation is already higher than the interest rate. price stability will probably not survive the coming turn of the year. it no longer looks as if the euro will gain a position as an international currency, as the dollar has. as a result, it is not possible either to follow the american model and pass on a portion of the annual government deficit to the rest of the world, which continues to compete for possession of an exchange currency that is falling in value. in short, the ecb' s efforts have resulted in a flop that forces us to reject this annual report. . (el) the report by the european central bank under discussion covers its 2nd year in operation following the start of the third stage of emu. this is precisely why the european parliament needs to be even stricter and more demanding in its criticism of the ecb' s annual report, because there are results which hit the workers and because it supports closer links between the general guidelines to economic policy and the stability and convergence programmes. on the pretext of fighting inflation and adhering strictly to the stability pact, that 'plague' on the workers, the ecb has activated the sanctions mechanism in order to achieve that wonder of wonders, price stability, while ignoring the economic and social impact of its decisions. it announces that wage policy is to be modernised, for which read flexible and insecure labour, and it is pushing for privatisation across the board in order to promote the competitiveness of and reward big business. but it says nothing about speculation and "scams" on the money markets, given that its policy of cutting interest rates does everything it can to support them. so far, the european central bank has raised or lowered its interest rates in line with us interest rates in a bid to fund speculation. will mr duisenberg tell us if he subscribes to the views of his counterpart, mr greenspan, who feels that the new growth cycle should be based on greater returns from the huge amount of capital at the disposal of companies whose performance is what will shore up stock prices and trigger a new round of investments? he probably agrees because he has told us that the executive board of the ecb is continuing to monitor wage developments and trends in domestic and foreign demand and that, despite the oil crisis, wage increases were moderate, which he described as highly positive, stressing that inflation will be kept to 2% in 2002 thanks to wage restraint, while the monopolies' profits will, of course, keep on rising. what else can we say? the report and the governor of the ecb say it all. they have told us about the acutely negative liberal policy which pushes economies into recession and what they have announced for the workers is greater unemployment, the abolition of everything they have fought for and a guaranteed level of poverty, given that prosperity is reserved for big business, which is getting bigger by the day. we are therefore against the european parliament' s supporting the policy of the ecb, because it is a policy which generates more poverty for the many, i.e. for the workers, and more profit for the few, i.e. for the european monopolies. it is a policy of inequality and increased exploitation of the workers. that is why the meps of the communist party of greece voted against the report and we believe that the people will unite in their fight to overturn this anti-grass roots, barbaric and inhumane policy. . (nl) my group voted against paragraph 20. the reason for this is as follows. paragraph 20 talks of a tightening of the conditions that countries entering the european union must meet if they wish to become part of emu. we are not against a debate on the member states' joining of the emu, but feel that it is a little premature at this moment. it will be at least two years before the first countries join after which there will be at least two years in which these countries will have to function in the exchange rate mechanism. we must not tie ourselves down too early, a lot can happen in the meantime. it will become a lot clearer in one or two years' time. . i welcome this third annual report by the governor of the european central bank, mr duisenberg. i regret, however, that the ecb does not follow the high standards of transparency, accountability and openness set by the bank of england. the bank of england was granted operational independence in may 1997 in one of the first acts of the incoming labour government. minutes of meetings of its monetary policy committee, including voting records and reasoning, are now published after about 6 weeks. this boosts market confidence in its decisions and is a great example of open government. it can surely be no coincidence that, since the labour government' s brave decision in may 1997, britain has enjoyed an unprecedented period of economic stability. it can also be no coincidence that the labour government' s decision was criticised at the time by the boom-and-bust tories, who have an outstanding record on economic instability and incompetence. the ecb will not have the full confidence of the market until it becomes more open. mr duisenberg will surely face a challenge second to none with the introduction of euro banknotes on 1 january 2002. i welcome the ecb' s decision to distribute euro coins to consumers and larger banknotes to business beforehand. however, i am concerned that shoppers and small and medium-sized enterprises will not have smaller notes in their hands until "e-day" itself. this may well give rise to endless chaos and confusion which should be avoided at all costs. the practical changeover to the euro on 1 january 2002 will clearly be a litmus test for the ecb and i very much hope that it will rise to the challenge. i would very much like to see the ecb follow a policy of openness and transparency similar to the bank of england. it would be perverse for britain to go from a position of transparency to one of relative secrecy. therefore, if britain is ever going to embrace the euro, the ecb must be seen also to embrace greater openness. maaten report (a5-0222/2001) madam president, my last explanation of vote relates to economic actors during the period of transition to the euro. on 1 january 2002, we will, at last, have the euro in europe. however, madam president, last week, i was at the bar of the town where i live - curno, in the province of bergamo in italy - and while i was paying for my coffee, the owner, who was talking to other customers, said: "how are we going to manage in january 2002? if people pay me in lire, will i have to give them their change in euro? and if they pay me in euro, will i have to give them their change in lire?" i could find no answer to that question in this or any other document and so, in this explanation of vote, i call for the euro to be introduced directly on 1 january 2001, without the transition period. - (fr) looking at the proposals in the maaten report for easy ways to physically exchange coins and banknotes as from 1 january 2002, one is struck by the disproportion between these ridiculous little tricks and the real scale of the problem. obviously, this entire operation was conceived from the outset with no regard whatsoever for the difficulties people come up against in their day-to-day life. and it is still going on. indeed what is the point of frontloading the public with euro notes so that they can get used to them (a point which, in fact, has not even been accepted) when at the same time we find that retailers will have to make huge efforts but will receive no financial aid, that they will have no guarantee of counterfeit euros being refunded and that the proposal to allow the national currencies to be used alongside the euro to make life easier for our fellow-citizens was rejected out of hand? not surprisingly, it now turns out that the public is not very enthusiastic. referring to the information campaigns, the maaten report even notes that: "it is fair to assess how disappointing the results have been so far" (explanatory statement, page 15). its reaction, however, is disturbing. the way to motivate small companies is to warn them that it would be illegal not to switch over to the euro after 1 january 2002:"as 'soft' campaigns have barely influenced small- and medium-sized companies, there is the need to be more explicit" (ibidem). so europe will be interfering hugely in the day-to-day life of our fellow-citizens from 1 january 2002. in fact, it will make things worse because the public will realise at once and in a very tangible way that the whole massive changeover operation could only have been conceived by a brain totally indifferent to or ignorant of even the slightest practical problems and that this operation could only prosper in an institutional system cut off from the people. our only hope is that one good thing will come out of it, namely that this experience will help change the course of europe tomorrow. . (pt) despite the negative position that we adopted when the single currency was created, not only due to issues of sovereignty, but also because of the potential economic consequences of a state losing control over monetary and exchange-rate policy, with the resulting consequences for employment, as well as the philosophy underlying the stability pact and wage moderation, we feel it is crucial that closer attention be paid to this preparatory phase for the introduction of the euro. we must create macro-economic mechanisms to minimise costs and, in terms of the transition period, the workers and the small and micro-enterprises must not be the ones who ultimately pay for the introduction of the euro, either through an artificial increase in prices or through the costs of the whole process and the attempts at abuse and fraud that could take place over that period. it is particularly important to give effective support to the crucial role of traditional trade in enlightening the public, because these traders are closest to the people. they are a key factor in the entire process of replacing national currencies with the single currency, which requires an extra effort in addition to all of the enormous changes, specifically in terms of accounting, internal and external documentation, it, etc. - (fr) i voted for mr maaten' s report and i want to emphasise what a good job our rapporteur has done. i am glad parliament is finally stating its position on such an important issue, but, at the same time, i regret that it left it until 181 days before the introduction of the euro. it is high time we took a stance on an issue that is an economic priority and continues to give rise to some doubt and disquiet among the general public. the maaten report draws attention to the main problems and suggests practical solutions that could make the switchover to the euro easier. these suggestions should be taken on board at all levels of decision-making and in every sector. let us not forget that the people of europe also have a key role to play, alongside the companies and financial circles, and that their reactions depend on the effectiveness of the information campaigns conducted so far. once again, the disappointing results of these campaigns show how necessary it is to make practical proposals that have a direct effect on people' s daily lives. if these proposals are put into practice, they should help turn understandable apprehension into legitimate expectation. - (fr) in my capacity as member of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, i tabled a number of amendments to jules maaten' s draft report on means to assist economic actors in switching to the euro. i note with satisfaction that they have all been adopted. during this debate, i very much want to emphasise once again that we must leave the door open to the three member states that have chosen not to enter the eurozone immediately. let me therefore point out that it is important to launch an information campaign addressed not only to the member states that are participating in the single currency project but also to the others, giving them a special position with regard to third countries. our report sends out a political signal in that regard. another amendment, which was largely incorporated in the final report, concerned the conversion free of charge into euros of the coins of another euro-zone country. all the citizens of the european union have amassed foreign coins from their travels abroad on business or pleasure. many of them will not have a chance to spend them before the new euro coins and notes are introduced on 1 january next year. that is why i put a written question on the subject to the commission at the end of november last year. the commission evaded the question by referring to the disproportionate handling charges. yet i wonder whether it is right to expect the citizens once again to have to pay the price of not being able to exchange the coins they have acquired from other member states. so i note with satisfaction that parliament "believes therefore that recommendations should be made to banks to ensure that coins from the twelve eurozone member states can be exchanged on the same terms as banknotes". i hope the government and banking authorities will not lend a deaf ear, like the commission. - (fr) i congratulate mr maaten on his excellent report on means to assist economic actors in switching to the euro. six months before the entry into force of the single currency, it would be a good idea for parliament to show an interest in the economic actors and their preparations for this final stage. today, during this final stage, the member states have a crucial role to play. for instance, some economic operators will be tempted to raise prices by unfairly rounding them off upwards. as chairman of the marseilles tourist office, i have heard tell of practices of this kind and of the anxiety of some of the professionals involved. a period of adjustment will be needed for the establishment of the single currency, during which the consumers will have to be reassured rather than exploited. the economic actors concerned must realise that it is wrong to give priority to immediate small profits over consumer confidence and the smooth changeover to the single currency. let me also point to the importance of flanking measures for all small and medium-sized companies. in the tourist sector, for instance, i find that many of them are not adequately prepared. i deplore this and i assume economic operators in other sectors are just as vague. the idea of introducing tax incentives put forward in mr maaten' s report is a good one. following on directly from that, the member states must endeavour to find ways of encouraging the economic operators to start thinking in terms of the euro very soon, so that they will not have to pay the price of further delays. (the explanation of vote was cut short pursuant to rule 137of the rules of procedure) (the sitting was suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.) mr president, i refer to rule 135(2) which says: "where an electronic vote is taken, only the numerical result of the vote shall be recorded". however, if a vote by roll call has been requested, in accordance with rule 134(2): "votes shall be recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the sitting by political group in the alphabetical order of members' names". would you be good enough to let us know whether the minutes tomorrow will give the accurate result of the vote as published so far? there seems to be a discrepancy between the result that came up on the board and that which has been published, the published vote being 273 in favour and 272 against. the house, and all the press downstairs . (mixed reactions) . with all the excitement going on, would like some clarification as to what parliament' s position is. mr president, my point of order is exactly the same as mr provan' s. i, like many members in this chamber, have looked at the official record at lunchtime today and it does say 273 for, and 272 against. if that is the official record - and that is the record that is published - then i would suggest that the result given by the president this morning is incorrect. mr president, obviously my name is not al gore and this is not florida. i do not want to discuss the question of pregnant chads or whatever they were in florida, but like the other colleagues, i have looked at the written record and it shows 273 votes for, 272 votes against, contrary to the declaration of the result and the statistical evidence of earlier today. when, for once and with considerable effort, the liberal democrat group managed to vote as one and we find ourselves on the losing side of such a vote, it is all the more important to us to raise this issue. there may be various explanations of a technical sort and i should be interested if so, to hear them. but this touches on something of a very fundamental political nature, and merely technical responses to a record which shows a difference in votes may not be enough. i am aware of the rule which states that the president' s ruling on votes shall be final. at this moment, i do not insist on a particular outcome, although i reserve the right to continue questioning the technical and political dimensions. what i do ask, mr president, is whether you, on behalf of the presidency, are in a position consistent with rule 138, to make a clear declaration at this time as to what is the position and what is the result of the vote cast. the presidency will say what it has to say when the list of speakers on points of order comes to an end. mr poettering has the floor for a point of order. mr president, i would have welcomed it if there had been no reason for me to rise at this point. i had assumed you would be making a statement at the start of this sitting on how you see this difficult situation. i rose only because others have now risen and i then feel obliged to do so as well. first of all, however, i believe it is essential for you to make a statement on your view of the situation. i reserve the right to speak again at that stage. i will only refrain from commenting further at this point if you now supply this house with the information it requires. mr president, i am not the president of the united states federal court, but perhaps i can help you. firstly, since it is the tradition in this house and furthermore is in accordance with the rules of procedure, what matters is the public declaration of the results by the presidency. this is a rule which has been applied in this case and also in other dubious cases, and i am referring to the presidency' s interpretation in relation to the ruiz mateos case, which has been discussed here recently. what matters is the declaration by the presidency. secondly, i would like to draw the members' attention to a document they all have, or have had, on their desk today: yesterday, tuesday, mr provan, presiding over the house, announced that there was a new member of parliament to replace mr casini, mr mario brienza. i would like to know whether you have checked if mr brienza, as is his right, has voted today without the services of this house having had the opportunity, with their usual diligence, to include him on the register. if that is the case, it explains everything and i return to what i said at the beginning: what matters is the declaration of the results by the presidency; if not, we are led to a very dangerous interpretation which takes us nowhere. mr president, i would ask you to check whether mr brienza has voted. since i can see, ladies and gentlemen, that all the speeches are dealing with the same issue . (laughter and comments) you know that presiding over this house requires acute observation skills. (laughter and comments)since i see that you are all referring to the same issue, if mr bouwman, mr lehne, mr medina ortega and mr bourlanges, who have asked for the floor, are going to do the same, i would ask them to give up the floor so that the presidency can give an appropriate explanation. ladies and gentlemen, this morning a vote took place which the electronic system recorded as a draw of 273 votes to 273 votes. the electronic system accurately reflected the reality of the house at that moment. however, later on, in the verification, the result recorded by the electronic system did not coincide with the number of members appearing on the list of members of parliament available to the services. this difference must naturally have an explanation, and a simple and logical explanation. ladies and gentlemen, the explanation is that a recent replacement had not yet been incorporated into the list available to the services. this is, as i say, a simple explanation of a perfectly understandable circumstance which i would even go as far as to say was trivial. you now know the explanation, which will be given in detail at the conference of presidents which has been called for the purpose for 4.15 p.m., although i am telling you in advance. the vote took place correctly, the result is the one you know and which have seen with your own eyes this morning and, therefore, that clears this issue up. (applause)mr poettering has the floor for a point of order. mr president, i note your statement and believe that you are correct, both in terms of process and under our rules of procedure. i simply think it is important that the president of this parliament naturally has the right to convene the conference of presidents. however, the conference of presidents - and this is why i have risen again - can only accept information from the president of parliament again; it has no right to make any further amendments to any decisions announced this morning by the president. mr poettering, the calling of this conference of presidents is simply a gesture of courtesy by the presidency towards the group presidents, in order to duly inform them of this incident. mr cox has the floor for a point of order. mr president, when i spoke earlier i said i should like to reserve the right to speak again. i was personally aware of the explanation, which you have now given publicly. it is an unfortunate technical slip-up, but i accept it was an honest mistake. i also accept the declaration, albeit reluctantly. but if it is merely a technical slip-up, it would be a political mistake to call a conference of presidents for the purpose of dealing in a political organ of the house with something for which there is a perfectly reasonable technical explanation. i shall not attend such a meeting because it seems to me you should make a ruling from the chair and we should be done with the matter. this is not a trivial matter. we accept the logical reason that you have given, but i have to ask you a further question. was the member who replaced mr casini indeed entitled to vote, as mr casini' s resignation was only announced on monday evening. under rule 8 of the rules of procedure, there has to be an exchange of letters between the european parliament and the italian government so that we can actually confirm his entitlement to vote and if that is the case, of course, it is a valid vote. mrs mccarthy, i am pleased to inform the house that all the members present this morning were able to exercise their vote. mr president, if you would permit me to make one final comment: all this confusion would have been quite unnecessary if the parliamentary administration - after producing the record and noting that contrary to the result given, only 272 votes against were printed out - had detected the error before this record was published. surely that is not an unreasonable expectation? welcome ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to welcome a delegation from the parliament of yemen, presided over by dr abdelwahab mahmoud, vice-president of parliament, who is in the gallery and who is doing the honour of visiting us on the occasion of the second interparliamentary meeting with the delegation for relations with the mashreq countries and the gulf states. this house is very pleased to note yemen' s will to come closer to europe and we pray that this second meeting will be the beginning of an important step towards strengthened cooperation with the european union which will allow yemen to once again find the road to prosperity and the consolidation of its democracy. we wish the yemeni delegation fruitful meetings and an excellent stay in strasbourg. human rights in the world and eu fundamental rights the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: (a50193/2001) by mr wuori, on behalf of the committee on external affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy, on human rights in the world in 2000 and the european union human rights policy; (a5-0223/2001) by mr cornillet, on behalf of the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs, on fundamental rights in the european union. mr president, the discussion of this report has in many ways shown the intolerably lightweight attitude to human rights amid the daily pressures of serious politics. nevertheless, human rights, which have even been called the last temporal religion of our time, go deeper than the politics of the day. politics is necessary in order for us not to have to look history in the eye. but, at the same time, it may seem less obvious that human rights are not just a convenient tool for driving political objectives, or, at worst, a pretext for action or inaction as dictated by common sense politics. human rights are thematic, systematic and, above all, normative. they are the result of our cultural evolution and they represent those values to which historical change, including the development of the european union, is anchored. they must not nor cannot be sacrificed on the altar of mere political expediency or rhetorical commitment. so that one day the eu might have a genuine common foreign and security policy, it must be founded on a common human rights strategy. right now i think we are headed in the right direction. internally, the proclamation of the charter of fundamental rights, and, externally, both the eu' s annual report on human rights and, in particular, the latest commission communication contain valuable points of view to consider in making human rights work more effective. belgium, the country to hold the presidency, whose foreign minister, mr michel, is, i am pleased to say, here participating in this debate, has stressed the need for increased coherence and consistency, which will hopefully go further than the requirements of mere political correctness, as well as greater penetration, transparency and clear priorities regarding human rights, which the conclusions of the general affairs council of 25 june 2001 also reinforce. the annual report placed emphasis on the importance of dialogue and cooperation between governments and civil society. as commissioner patten said during the finnish presidency at the eu' s first human rights forum in 1999, it would be intellectual vandalism to ignore the opinions of ngos as the knowledge and experience of the european human rights community is unparalleled in all the world. but we must begin by improving our own approach. if there is no strategy, then tactics will beget a strategy, which means that ad hoc political action will disregard the basic, intrinsic principles of human rights and the rule of law. we are ready to lecture others on these, but we can easily bypass them for compelling political reasons, as was the case just last week in connection with slobodan milosevic' s rushed extradition. it may indeed have been an important legal and political milestone that reflected a new doctrine in the making, where state sovereignty may have to step aside to make way for universal human rights. we must also be consistent in the way we judge non-member countries and especially certain eu candidate countries, including turkey. for harsh criticism to be justified it must be based on fair play and impartial treatment. otherwise, eu enlargement may become more and more like a potemkin village, in which the applicants implement cosmetic changes in order to comply with the eu' s demands issued from behind a deceptive faade, one which even smacks of sanctimoniousness. this year' s human rights report, which the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy adopted unanimously, contains numerous proposals for making eu human rights policy more effective with regard to non-member countries. in the light of that, thematic, topical choices would seem to be the best way to proceed, as now is the case with eu guidelines and common attitudes regarding the death penalty and torture. it is vital to have more dialogue between the eu' s own experts and greater transparency, but we should also be able to make bolder use of existing remedies to prevent conflicts and promote observance of human rights, such as the human rights clauses contained in agreements with non-member countries, when they refer to russia, for example. the report' s key theme is freedom of speech, not just because both traditional and very new dangers threaten it, but because it has a strategic importance in improving the human rights of all - first, second and third generation human rights - and in exposing violations. it would be nave to play down the importance of human rights. it is high time we put principles into practice and we took determined, pragmatic action to create an integrated human rights strategy for the eu as a whole. mr president, let me say - and i am certainly not laying any blame on mr wuori here - that it is rather surrealistic to combine human rights and fundamental rights in the same joint debate. in fact, we are entirely responsible for fundamental rights in europe, while we can only take a humble approach to human rights in the world, knowing how little influence we can exert there. yet there is perhaps an intermediate area: in the candidate countries we can look at human rights and fundamental rights as a whole in view of their forthcoming accession to the european union. i would like to explain the new title of this report and why the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs endorsed the method adopted for this year' s report. our report is now called a report on fundamental rights rather than a report on human rights. we deliberately chose to take a broader and more neutral approach. this new method is based on the european union' s charter of fundamental rights, which offers a fresh perspective by introducing a new and innovative element into political life; it is up to parliament to breathe life into this charter. so it was only natural for parliament' s responsible committee to take the charter we adopted in the house as its starting point for this report. we agreed that since there was to be an annual report, it had to be a report and it had to be annual. let me explain myself. a report looks at facts, so we had to analyse verifiable facts. and the report had to be annual, because it is interesting to compare what happened from one year to another and to check the year after what happened to parliament' s resolutions of the year before. so why choose the charter of fundamental rights? i think we had to do so. this is in fact an eminently european document since it came out of the convention, i.e. it was the combined effort of the three legitimate bodies that made up the convention. in any case, this convention has been quoted as an example that can point the way forward for other european texts. the charter is a complete text because, for the first time ever, it includes civil and political rights but also economic and social rights and, therefore, covers a broad sweep of fundamental rights. lastly, it is a reference document. whatever the outcome of the debate on its inclusion or not in the treaties, it has already become a reference document since the european court of justice draws on it and the commission itself has undertaken to have the activities of its services screened for compatibility with the charter. and, as i said earlier, it is a reference document, for the candidate countries because the union could not accept a country that did not respect the values upheld by the european charter on human rights with regard to its own inhabitants. i also agree with mr wuori that our credibility is at stake here. we can only criticise others if we have the political courage to do the same to ourselves. this report offers us a means of doing so. turning now to the working method, let me remind you that the charter of fundamental rights sets out a minimum number of rights to which every citizen of the union is entitled. so we looked at the 50 articles of this charter and checked whether they were applied in the 15 member states and at union level. the report is planned in the same way as the charter; the resolution repeats the chapter headings of the charter, as does the explanatory statement. we have drawn on a wide variety of different sources: the council of europe, of course, and the activities of its committees, the national parliaments, the ngos, civil society, the vienna observatory, a network of jurists. in fact we have used every source we could find, feeling we should not disregard any important or reliable source available to us. let me point out here that the committee on citizens' freedoms has very few resources for these activities. the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy has nine individuals and one administrative unit for this purpose. this is not the case of the committee on citizens' freedoms and you will find that the resolution calls for the necessary resources to enable us to do our work properly. while taking this opportunity to thank everyone who helped draw up this report, let me also say that we call for a network of jurists. i think it is important to be able to consult a network of national jurists to support the team of rapporteurs and help collect information. lastly, we want to work with the other parliamentary committees, for given that the charter also focuses on environmental rights and economic and social rights, the committees responsible for these areas must of course also have a say on the way the charter is applied in the european union. the philosophy underlying this report is the refusal to brand this or that state, to draw attention to this or that blunder. quite the contrary. in any case, the rapporteur believes that the "zero defect" idea is utopian when it comes to human rights. instead, human rights and fundamental rights in europe mean that when a mistake is discovered, we can complain, condemn the perpetrator, hold an administrative inquiry and take regulatory or legislative decisions to prevent its recurrence. that is the kind of respect for human rights to which we can rightly aspire. lastly, this report is in two parts, as required by the rules. first there is the resolution, which has been amended as a result of the discussions in the committee on citizens' freedoms and the plenary assembly; then there is the explanatory statement. i just want to say that no country has been spared and those who take the trouble to read this report will find that both the explanatory statement and the resolution put forward proposals to resolve the matter in the spirit to which i referred a moment ago. in fact, this first report is intended as a rough draft, the matrix of a new method. if the plenary accepts the rapporteur' s proposals and the report adopted in committee, we will be able to work in a much more collective manner, based on cooperation within and outside the european parliament, on a dialogue with the ngos, a dialogue with the national parliaments, which are our natural partners. we will have a report that is detailed, checked by an entire committee and which, i believe, will be awaited, and perhaps feared, by public opinion. at any rate, that is my hope. mr president, the first thing i have to say is that i do not recognise myself in the opinion which i myself am signing in relation to this report. this is for one fundamental reason: at the point of voting, two paragraphs were removed from this opinion of the committee on petitions which seemed to me to be extremely important. they were voted off essentially by members from the right. i would like to quote these two paragraphs which seemed so important to me and which, when they disappeared from the text, obliged me to abstain from my own opinion. one of them said - actually it was the end of one paragraph - that 'economic, social and cultural rights are essential to the exercise of civil and political rights' . a person who is hungry, who has no work and who has no home, is in no position to enjoy civil rights. i thought this sentence was important and it was removed. the other, which is perhaps a bit more arguable, said: 'the charter of fundamental rights of the european union should be supplemented with such important binding rights as the right to work, housing, a minimum income, the right to a healthy environment and the voting rights for citizens of third countries who have resided for five years in the union, as well as the extension of civil rights to immigrants who arrive in europe in search of a decent life' . this paragraph was also removed. i therefore had to abstain from my own opinion, mr president. nevertheless, i believe that the committee on petitions clearly contributes to the defence of the rights of the european citizens. the proof is that more than 1 400 citizens in europe send petitions to this committee each year, which relate to the recognition of qualifications, free movement, the rights of immigrants and the right to a healthy environment. mr president, i unfortunately have to recognise that in europe we have a scourge, terrorism, which seriously harms the human right to expression and the fundamental right, the right to life. we would very much like - and i repeat this in my recent modest capacity and i will continue to repeat it - europe today to be a continent which is distinguished in the defence of its own human rights and of human rights outside its borders. i believe that that is the role we must play. unfortunately, i believe that we are not playing it at the moment but i hope that we will be able to do so in the future. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i have the great honour to address your assembly at the beginning of this presidency. as you know, human rights are a subject of concern to which i have a strong personal political commitment. i will therefore seize this opportunity to tell you how the presidency proposes in concrete terms to promote the universal values on which our union is based. at the same time, in my capacity as president-in-office, let me confirm that we must uphold these values here at home, first of all, but also throughout the world. the european union is only just over 40 years old. that means it is still very young. in fact, europe still has its whole future before it. i for my part am convinced that europe' s future will be determined mainly by its capacity to uphold and disseminate its humanist values. indeed, the european model is based more than ever on three fundamental values: freedom, progress and equality. these values have proved very fertile whenever they have been combined to initiate dialogue and exchanges of view. sadly, we have all too often also seen them diverted and used for sectarian and sometimes totalitarian purposes. freedom is an ideal that can never be fully realised. the history of europe could be written as a long battle against arbitrary power of all kinds. the strongest motive force of european integration remains the achievement of certain objectives: greater freedom and civil, political and social rights, the affirmation of the people, democracy and the constitutional state. basically, most of these objectives have been attained. yet we are well aware that many battles remain to be fought, even in our old democracies, if they are to be achieved in full, for nothing can ever be taken for granted. freedom can also put the rights of minorities or the rights of the weakest at risk. when it is used as a pretext for selfishness, freedom always leads to intolerance and exclusion. one of these freedoms is particularly close to the union' s heart, freedom of expression. media freedom remains the guarantee for holding the public debate that is vital to democracy and it is what gives the citizens at least the same power of scrutiny as our parliaments. this freedom of the press is still being flouted by regimes that do not feel blameless enough to dare face criticism, by rulers who use lies as their only means of survival. however, first and foremost it is up to the state to protect and promote media freedom. it is up to the public authority to guarantee freedom of expression and opinion for everyone. that is what makes it all the more difficult to achieve, and at times to protect, this freedom. we have to acknowledge the fact that even democratic governments are sometimes tempted to weaken this right and often find it hard to accept controversy and criticism. in the same vein, it is equally intolerable for democracy to be taken hostage by the press. freedom of the press is a vital right that lies at the very heart of the constitutional state. yet this right also goes hand in hand with a duty, the duty to provide honest information in an effort to explain or teach, to convince, but not to mislead. that is why we must ensure the freedom of expression of the political press. second european ideal: progress. this value gave a powerful boost to the development of science, technology and the economy in the service of mankind. this ideal enabled the european project to move forwards confidently, and without doubt irreversibly. it has inspired a rigorous approach in both thought and action. because it improves effectiveness, progress too has all too often been diverted to mercenary ends. when progress that is not properly controlled acquires its own dynamic, it generates fear and disarray. third ideal: equality. equality is a hugely powerful lever in europe. it is in the name of equality that the countries of europe try to secure equal rights, an equal share in the fruits of economic activity and the democratic representation of the interests of every individual. in western europe, this has led to the adoption of far-reaching social legislation to guarantee equal opportunities and equality under the law. in communist europe, the extreme version of egalitarianism ended up sacrificing the right to a personal identity on the altar of collectivism. freedom, progress and equality are not just theoretical values. they lie at the very heart of european integration. they give it its most specific and real meaning. these values, incorporated in the founding texts of the union, firmly enshrine humanism as a part of the european identity. last year, the 15 eu member states adopted an essential document, the charter of fundamental rights. this charter specifically sets out the rights and duties of the european citizens, both towards others and towards the community of man and future generations. the concepts of freedom, progress and equality are given due emphasis in the preamble to that charter. the question now is whether this charter will become a genuine european constitution. the heated debate that has surrounded this issue is an incentive for europe to look at its own future. it is also an opportunity for the citizens to take sides, because to take sides in itself gives them a taste of freedom. it allows them to regain their freedom of choice. all too often, in fact, the citizens feel they have forfeited this right to various less and less identifiable powers, such as technocracy. article 7 of the treaty provides for a mechanism to deal with serious and persistent violations of the european values. in a unified europe, it is now in the interests of all that every member state respects the fundamental values. henceforth, every country is affected by what is happening anywhere in europe. if it wants to convince third countries that its humanist values are sound, the european union must teach by example before teaching lessons. the essential values are not just written in the texts; they are also put into practice in the european union' s policies. a first example of the way the european values are applied in everyday life can be seen in the eu' s enlargement policy. as you know, eu enlargement is a tremendous challenge. public opinion is worried, wrongly in my view, about the imbalance between the level of development of the eu member states and that of the candidate countries. that does not mean we can disregard the implications this has for security, social rights, immigration and agriculture, for example. if we do not take care, this enlargement could once again call into question the progress patiently achieved over the past 40 years. some people will then say: so why take the risk? the reply is to be found in the bold and generous political approach of the founding fathers of europe who enshrined the concept of international solidarity beside that of the national interest. furthermore, we have a historical duty to enlarge the european union, because we have to reunite nations that history has kept apart for far too long. these two good reasons, which inspired the most splendid political idea of the twentieth century, clearly remain just as meaningful. enlargement of the european union is consistent with the open and generous vision of the original european project. the second example relates to the european union' s foreign policy. this european policy has evolved quite spectacularly over the past two years. by the end of the belgian presidency, it should be possible to declare the european union capable of managing international crises, which means in plain words that it will be able to carry out humanitarian, evacuation and peacekeeping tasks to stabilise regional conflicts. over and above the defence of its economic and commercial interests, europe must also defend its values by taking concrete action. europe cannot watch passively while the intolerable happens. freedom, progress and equality can only be envisaged in a context of peace. europe exists thanks to peace. i would even go as far as to say "europe is peace". reconciliation with yesterday' s enemies, the unification of different countries by peaceful means, these are a political innovation that can set an example to third countries. it is with good reason that there is often talk of the need to europeanise the balkans. in fact this process is already under way. i have given you a brief description of the values on which our great european enterprise is founded. to inquire into these values is also a way of discovering our european identity. the values on which european integration is based are universal. to defend those values, we must do our utmost to maintain coherence and transparency. i propose that we concentrate on the way in which europe records, organises and evaluates the dialogue with third countries on human rights. we must also do everything in our power to strengthen the coherence of our initiatives, our positions and our actions. only a strong europe will be able to persuade the international community to continue the worldwide distribution of the existing international instruments. we must also give our attention to the council' s proposal to examine whether a common strategy on human rights can be worked out. defending universal values more robustly means having to work within the competent international organisations as closely as possible with third countries. in international forums like the united nations, the organisation for security and cooperation in europe and the council of europe the union must protest against systematic and organised violations of the most fundamental human rights. in the union itself the positions defended by the european union are closely coordinated, but that coordination could be improved still further. as far as the composition of the new human rights commission for 2002 is concerned, we shall have to consult continuously with our traditional partners. at the third world conference on combating racism, which will shortly take place in durban, we shall have the first opportunity to provide proof of our unanimity. as president of the council i shall do my utmost to ensure that the european union contributes actively to the success of that conference. we must not pass up this unique opportunity. tragic abuses, such as slavery, human trafficking or colonialism must be condemned in no uncertain terms. we must learn the necessary lessons, so that such tragedies are not repeated. that is why the european union wants the programme of action approved at durban to be focused on measures for an effective battle against racism. through coherent and effective action we must persuade all states to ratify unreservedly and implement in full the treaty on the banning of all forms of discrimination against women. we must strive to ensure that the principles recognised through the world in that area are applied and that states meet their obligations. the special session of the united nations on the rights of the child to be held in new york in september will be an extra opportunity for the union to assert its values. that special session is taking place in the wake of the world summit on children on which the treaty on the rights of the child id based. in that respect the european union must do its utmost to ratify as soon as possible the two recent protocols on the rights of the child. these are a protocol on children in armed conflicts and a protocol on the sexual exploitation of children. coherent action by the union is an absolute necessity, especially when examining whether countries enjoying development help respect human rights. conducting a policy based on human right requires a strict approach. nevertheless, we must show patience and flexibility and take account of the political and economic context of the country, for whom are punishing if we apply the clause on respect for human rights closely and in so doing jeopardise essential matters like health, education, transport, the rule, the constitutional state, administrative organisation or the reorganisation of the courts. one of the values that the union advocates as part of its policy on human rights, is a value that we defend regularly, namely the abolition of the death penalty. this value must apply in all democracies. this punishment is intolerable and unacceptable because it attacks the most essential right, namely the right to life. the abolition of the death penalty is part of the code of conduct of the fifteen, a code of conduct that belgium will most definitely proclaim. in no case must the death penalty be imposed on those who are minors at the time the act was committed, on pregnant women or the mentally handicapped. we shall monitor to make sure that this theme comes up systematically in the political dialogue we conduct with third countries. (fr) the third and final subject i wish to raise is impunity. events have shown that things are changing rapidly here. we cannot pretend to uphold values such as democracy, freedom, equality and justice while enshrining the right to impunity. the democratic countries have fully understood this and spectacular developments are occurring in international law, especially with the crack down on serious infringements of international human rights law. the establishment by the un security council of international criminal tribunals to try crimes committed in former yugoslavia or rwanda was a first and decisive step towards the administration of justice in the name of the international community. it is now possible that an international criminal court will be set up in the medium term. its statute was adopted in rome in 1998, in the form of a convention. all the eu member states have signed it, and eight have ratified it. it is now up to the european union to convince its partners to sign it, so as to reach the threshold of 60 signatory states required for the statute to enter into force. the court will be able to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. it will establish a balance between universal competence and the sovereignty of the states. in effect, the court will be subsidiary to the national jurisdictions. that is an essential feature, which means that the states cannot justify any reservations or hesitations about signing and ratifying the convention by arguing that they will lose their prerogatives the states can only combat impunity effectively if they refuse to give sanctuary to those responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide. the fight against impunity therefore requires an active and real commitment on the part of the states. it is not enough to pass on the responsibility to what is called "the international community". it is in that spirit that the "rwanda" case was organised in brussels a few weeks ago. today, there is a part of public opinion that is sceptical about the merits of building europe. we need only look at the results of the irish referendum. it is only the declared enemies of europe who seem to feel passionately about europe. they speak out loudly while the others are prey to doubts. the elites are often undecided and the citizens are becoming more and more distrustful. the decline in the economic situation and the fears about enlargement have increased the risk of blocking an enterprise that is more important than many people realise. for my part, i refuse to give in to pessimism. to repeat what bronislaw geremk said, the irish "no" may be a salutary warning. we will succeed in awakening the interest of the people in europe, in making them enthusiastic about an ambitious project, convincing them of the benefits they can draw from it, if we can remind them of the intrinsic values of europe. perhaps we will have to explain to them more clearly that europe represents freedom, progress and equality, that without europe we would certainly not have had the peace we are lucky enough to enjoy now. perhaps the people will then end up asking more of europe. it is our duty as political leaders constantly to reiterate the humanist values on which our european model is based, the fundamental rights that have enabled us to overcome our differences and our prejudices. european human rights policy, and more generally the european policy, must reflect these essential common values. in an increasingly global world we must defend the foundations of our identity because that, i believe, will be a significant means of responding to the citizens' sense of uncertainty. (applause) mr president, may i start by commending mr wuori for a challenging and focussed report, which has attracted overwhelming support from this parliament. i also enjoyed listening to the minister' s speech: parliament knows his personal commitment to the enhancement and protection of human rights. the year since parliament' s last report on human rights has been punctuated with important institutional and policy developments. the reform of external aid has taken root and europe aid is tackling the avalanche of responses to the two recent calls for proposals on human rights, some 1 400 proposals for a total of eur 1.6 billion. the charter of fundamental rights has been solemnly proclaimed and it is an important element in the european union' s efforts to ensure coherence between internal and external human rights policy. the adoption by the council of guidelines on torture has provided a clear framework for policy and action in that area and the communication on human rights and democratisation, which was long in gestation, but strong in delivery, was adopted on 8 may and it sets out a clear strategy for the short term and the medium term. we now have to focus on the implementation of its proposals. it is evident from mr wuori' s report that parliament and commission are thinking along similar lines when it comes to human rights. this is my first opportunity to present the communication to parliament in a plenary session. boiled down to its essence, the communication seeks to promote coherent and consistent human rights policies in the european union' s relations with third countries, to maximise the leverage afforded by political dialogue, trade and external assistance, and to set out a more strategic and focussed approach for the european initiative, for democracy and human rights. several issues raised in mr wuori' s report dovetail with points in our communication. for example, we make clear that parliament will be consulted on the programming of the european initiative for democracy and human rights for 2002 and the years beyond. on reporting and evaluation, the commission is committed to publishing regular reports on the activities that we fund. the latest report was released on 22 may and it provides a thorough analysis of projects supported under the 2000 budget. the promotion of human rights is, as the honourable member' s report makes clear, an indispensable element in the prevention of conflict. the communication on conflict prevention issued in april confirms the high priority given by the commission to developing the union' s capacities. more systematic use of country-strategy papers will help to ensure the cogent use of community instruments to address both the root causes of conflict and other human rights problems. as regards the rapid reaction mechanism, the commission will provide parliament in due course with an evaluation of activities undertaken. the central theme of the honourable member' s report, freedom of expression, finds an echo in the communication, which makes clear that this will fall under the first of the four priority areas for the european initiative for democracy and human rights programme for 2002 and beyond, and that theme is indeed of pivotal importance. the right to express one' s opinions without fear or consequence is to borrow a phrase from the great english judge lord devlin, -a lamp that shows that freedom lives.' when state authorities start to close down newspapers, when they start to harass or imprison journalists, it is a sure sign that human rights and freedom are crumbling. the european union makes its views plain on this subject in its contacts with third countries, and in international fora such as the un commission on human rights. moreover, the rhetoric is matched with hard support. under the european initiative alone, over eur 5.4 million was allocated in 2000 to projects in support of freedom of expression, free media and the protection and training of journalists. a large project in africa and asia undertaken by 'rapporteurs sans frontires' , offers a good example. fact-finding on imprisoned journalists, and the provision of practical assistance to journalists and their families, is coupled with education and media campaigns. i would like to look now at another thread running through the honourable member' s report, the relationship between our two institutions. parliament has cultivated a high profile with respect to human rights. as i mentioned when i presented the communication to the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy on 15 may, the reports and resolutions of parliament on the commission' s previous performance on human rights were of great use in drawing up the communication. the commission is keen to reinforce its dialogue on human rights with parliament, and this is reflected in the consultations which will take place on programming the european initiative in 2002. in cooperation with the presidency, the commission would also seek to ensure that the timing and location of the human rights discussion forum with non-governmental organisations, and with others, takes full account of the need for systematic participation by members of this house. moreover, we want to enhance the potential of the forum. we will begin by evaluating the events held so far, in consultation with parliament, the council and ngos. on human rights clauses, i note parliament' s concern about the lack of implementing rules on suspension in many agreements. as we know, the most recent version of the essential elements clause, as contained, for example, in the cotonou agreement, makes provision for a consultation procedure prior to any suspension of an agreement. it is state-of-the-art in that respect, but changes to existing agreements would require individual renegotiations with partners, which is an undoubtedly lengthy process. nonetheless, the commission stands ready to discuss the future shape and use of the clause, an issue that i raised at the informal foreign ministers' meeting last month, and it will continue to attach importance to parliament' s views. a final word on police and security equipment, a point which is not directly addressed to the commission in the report. the commission intends to submit to the council before the end of summer a proposal for controlling and, where necessary, prohibiting exports of equipment that may be used for the purposes of torture and cruel inhumane or degrading treatment. the commission will examine with member states whether there is a need for community action in respect of manufacturing, promoting or using such equipment. i know this is of concern both to members and to ngos such as amnesty international, and i am glad that we are close to taking such a significant step. i congratulate the honourable member once again on the excellent report and look forward to working with him and with the house in taking forward our shared concern in human rights. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, first i want to congratulate mr cornillet, the rapporteur, and the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs, on the high quality of the report submitted to parliament today for its approval. like my colleague, mr chris patten, i want to join in the congratulations to mr louis michel for the commitments he has just entered into as representative of the council, in regard to the protection of fundamental rights, in foreign policy and in the union' s domestic policy. in particular, let me draw your attention and thoughts to a highly significant phrase: "the union should teach by example before it starts to preach." the committee on citizens' freedoms drew up a most ambitious report this year, covering a wide range of fundamental rights. clearly, it has achieved its objective. the report contains a highly detailed and extensive explanatory statement. it also includes a large number of pertinent recommendations, which would quite tangibly improve the protection of fundamental rights in the union. i also admire the structure of the report, which faithfully mirrors the structure of the charter of fundamental rights. i think it was a very good idea to opt for that approach. without doubt, it will help promote a community culture when it comes to the protection of fundamental rights. i personally am convinced that over the years this parliamentary report will become a prime means of ensuring the constant and objective evaluation of the situation of fundamental rights in the union. we very much need this kind of evaluation if we want to maintain and develop the area of freedom, security and justice. as we all know and like to repeat, fundamental rights really must be protected if we are to create an area that genuinely guarantees the free movement of persons. we actually have the necessary legal instruments to achieve this: the charter proclaimed at nice, but also article 6 of the eu treaty, which refers to the european convention on human rights and the constitutional tradition common to the member states, together with article 7 of that treaty, which will be further strengthened by the nice treaty when it enters into force. we now need to acquire the instruments to conduct our policy. the commission very warmly welcomes the various proposals set out in the report, in particular those on creating the technical tools to deliver expertise in this area. the commission took careful note of the recommendations addressed to it more directly: the appointment of a commissioner with responsibility for fundamental rights in the union and the implementation of policies linked to the establishment of an area of freedom, security and justice, on the one hand, the reorganisation of the departments responsible for monitoring the charter, on the other hand. these two recommendations are undeniably logical and deserve serious thought. i can assure mr cornillet and members that i will encourage the commission to hold a political discussion on these two matters. turning to the first recommendation, i pointed earlier to the link between the protection of fundamental rights and establishing an area of freedom, security and justice. so i can only agree on the need to look at this subject in the context of the on-going reorganisation of the commission following the changes brought about by the treaty of amsterdam, looking ahead to the entry into force of the provisions of the nice treaty and especially with a view to the forthcoming enlargement. i am in a position where i can well appreciate the real importance and necessity of these changes and of the new report on fundamental rights that the organs and institutions of the union and the eu member states will be drawing up pursuant to article 7. coming now to the second recommendation, let me draw parliament' s attention to an internal memo the commission adopted last march calling on it to show strict respect for the charter in all its activities. in particular, the services in question were asked to ensure that texts proposed or adopted by the commission were examined a priori for their consistency with the charter. a standard recital was to be introduced to ensure that this had been done in the case of proposals that clearly had a bearing on the protection of fundamental rights. this has in fact been done in the various proposals recently submitted to parliament and the council. i cannot give you my position on the many recommendations set out in the motion for a resolution under the various headings of the charter. personally, i consider these recommendations, addressed in the main to the member states, quite feasible and, as i said, likely to bring very tangible improvements in the protection of fundamental rights in the union. we know that democracy is a model that can never be attained in full, but more importantly it is a model we aim to attain. i believe the member states must look at these recommendations in the perspective of gradually approaching our aim. we must see them not as criticisms but as suggestions on how to give better protection to fundamental rights throughout the european union. the commission has also taken careful note of the recommendations addressed to it on european citizenship, especially in regard to points 122 and 123 of the report. let me point out that the commission has made a proposal, which was forwarded to parliament and the council late last week, on reviewing the texts in force on the free movement of persons, to which point 123 refers. i hope the belgian presidency will be able to examine these proposals rapidly, under the codecision procedure, since they are an important means of ensuring real freedom of movement and right of residence in the member states. fundamental rights are, without doubt, the identity card of a european political and social model whose values we want to preserve, not for purely defensive reasons but mainly with a view to being proactive, while accepting the need to adapt them to a world undergoing profound change. when we build europe' s future we must place fundamental rights at the heart of the essential political compromise and show the prime role played by the dignity of the individual and by a humanist vision of the european political project. i hope that this new role that has now been assigned to fundamental rights will also be the key to restoring public enthusiasm for europe. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by thanking mr wuori very warmly for producing such a good and comprehensive report. as the shadow rapporteur of the ppe-de group, i would like to express my sincere thanks to him for our cooperation. the european parliament quite rightly views itself as the european institution which, time and again, intervenes most resolutely in the internal affairs of third countries, in particular, in the interests of individuals in these states. yes, we intervene, for we believe that protecting human rights is not an internal matter at all. in protecting human rights, however, individual events are often of great relevance too. since last week, president milosevic is now facing justice in the hague - a fact which is now giving many other dictators and autocrats sleepless nights. these legal proceedings against a former head of government are classical preventive human rights policy. i can only advise certain despots to be on their guard in future. their time will come! earthly justice will prevail. yet does this type of report have any real impact? this is a frequently asked question. let me state the case quite clearly: once you have seen how those affected, or the governments which believe they are affected, redouble their efforts, even before the report is produced, in order to prevent what they perceive as embarrassing statements from being made, it is clear that these reports must have an impact, an impact which extends into the civil society of the countries concerned. indeed, in some cases, the criticism is very convenient for these governments too. among the candidate countries, for example, they offer an opportunity, based on the failings identified in our reports, to take appropriate remedial action. let me take the recent example of romania: here, baroness nicholson has painstakingly revealed the appalling conditions in orphanages, trafficking in children, and abuses in the field of adoption. in this case, the government is genuinely taking the initiative in a positive sense and addressing the problems identified. however, we must continue our efforts. this is a task for the commission' s local delegation and our 15 ambassadors as well, so that we can monitor how the measures are implemented in practice. india is another example: i fully endorse mr haarder' s proposed amendments on the issues of caste-discrimination and untouchability. the indian government opposes these practices in principle as well, but i have the impression that it must do more in this area. perhaps it needs us to call openly for action. human rights are not an opportunistic issue. in specific cases, we are justified in repeatedly reprimanding all our governments. anyone who applies double standards, for pragmatic political reasons, to china, russia or, indeed, one of the parties involved in the middle east conflict ultimately does nothing to help the situation. no double standards: this was commissioner patten' s call to the foreign ministers in sweden as well. i hope that the governments will heed this warning. i do not want to see any more tortured looks on our side when, in delegation talks with china for example, we raise the issues of the death penalty, falun gong or tibet. these tortured looks are due to fears, perhaps, that taking a stance could jeopardise good business. anyone who goes sleigh-riding with mr putin but does not find the strength to protest about russia' s latest methods of bringing the press into line through financial takeovers does no favours to our relations with russia or help strengthen civil society in the country. let us ensure that human rights become an integral and pro-active element of every minister' s speaking notes and the ensuing press conference whenever this is necessary. then we will have real political credibility, both internally and externally. first of all, may i also commend mr wuori for his wide-ranging report and mr cornillet for his boldness and his vision in trying to fashion a new procedure for the annual report on fundamental rights in the eu, linked to the charter. in both reports, however, there is still cause for concern and alarm. the reality is that as we speak in this house, human rights abuses continue; human rights defenders disappear. in vietnam, for example, religious persecution continues and buddhist monks remain imprisoned and under repressive house arrest. flung san suu kyi remains imprisoned in her home in burma. the death penalty is still carried out in democracies such as the united states. in belgrade, the police stand by and watch as hooligans attack lesbians and gay people at their gay pride celebration only days after millions of eu dollars were committed to that region and milosevic was sent to the hague. egypt incarcerates 55 gay men who are still denied legal representation and now face up to eight years in prison because they are gay. women are still genitally mutilated, human beings stoned to death, their limbs chopped off in the name of law. homosexuals are stoned to death, there is religious persecution, and children are abducted into war, not to mention the obscenities of rape and terrorism, torture and false disappearances - a catalogue of almost unutterable suffering which grows year on year. in the eu, our own record on fundamental rights needs closer examination. the treatment of refugees and asylum-seekers; discrimination sometimes state-induced, against homosexuals; racism and racist murders; and inequality before the law. the same applies to applicant countries. the message we should send is that human rights are non-negotiable. so long as one individual or one group suffers discrimination, we have all failed and we are all culpable. a hierarchy of oppression is perpetuated by legislative inaction and democratic inaction. we defend some minorities but not others. when we name and shame countries, we are accused of imposing our standards. but the standards we aspire to and we set are international standards, standards by which we must all be judged. that is why we must be consistent in implementing human rights policy and systematically follow up human rights abuses. i commend the cotonou agreement, as mentioned by commissioner patten. we need to work closely with the united nations and with the special rapporteurs as well as the ngos. we must develop our own in-house expertise and ensure that men, women and children born equal are afforded their natural human rights and civil liberties. our most powerful weapon is our imagination. imagine, that is you being tortured, mutilated, imprisoned, stoned to death because you are different or hold a different opinion. imagine that it happens to your daughter, your son, your father, your mother, your brother, your sister. that is the reality and that is why we need a new approach. we need it now. we must not fail those who look to us to succeed. mr president, commissioners, mr president-in-office, the fact that serbia' s former dictator slobodan milosevic is now in court in the hague is a major victory for everyone who believes in human rights and international justice. it shows that genocide and ethnic cleansing cannot be accepted by the international community. the world has become a harsher place for dictators. however, the outlook is not much better for the position of human rights in the world. human value is being violated on a daily basis, every minute individuals and groups are suffering various types of cruelty - torture, persecution, oppression. in recent times, the eu has considerably increased its involvement in human rights, and it is clear that the eu shares common values. this is expressed internally and externally, both in our new charter of fundamental rights and in the demands we are making upon the candidate countries. the eu stands united in its criticism of the death penalty, whether used in dictatorships such as china, iraq and saudi arabia or democracies such as the us. however, coordination between the eu institutions and between the eu and member states could still be better. in this year' s report on human rights in the world, mr wuori chooses to focus on the issue of freedom of expression. no democracy can function without free and independent debate, journalists being able to feel safe and citizens being able to express their views. however, these conditions do not prevail. journalists are being killed, threatened and persecuted. the situation is particularly serious in iran, belarus, china, colombia and cuba, while developments in russia also give cause for concern. in several countries, the regime is trying to prevent and limit citizens' access to the internet by censoring and closing websites. these regimes are doing so because they know that the internet is making it increasingly difficult to oppress their people. as such, the internet is a vital weapon in the fight for a better world. mr president, liberals around the world have stood and still stand at the barricades in order to fight for freedom of expression and human rights everywhere and for everyone. we will continue to do this. my group would like to thank mr wuori for an excellent report and the belgian presidency for the support shown earlier for human rights. mr president, in areas such as human rights, the european parliament has traditionally been, in a sense, the eye of the international community and has tried to goad the eu institutions into action. many people believe this is totally useless, but i think they are wrong. today we can do more than we could yesterday and no doubt less than tomorrow, but even that is very important. rather as in the case of sustainable development, respect for individual rights must become an integral element of the union' s external policy. it must be structured and based on a genuine strategy and it must apply as much to economic relations as to political relations. this is not yet the case, as the rapporteur, mr wuori, points out. but there are signs of progress. for the rest, i firmly welcome the good cooperation mr wuori managed to establish with the human rights ngos. if europe is to appear credible as a union, basing its action on respect for human rights and sustainable economic development founded on solidarity, we will have to reject all forms of hypocrisy or ambiguity. we must take a very clear stance in our political and economic relations with countries such as china, russia, but also saudi arabia, the united states and many others. we cannot disregard the fact that in these countries prisoners are executed, civilians foolish enough to belong to ethnic and political minorities are massacred, women are prevented from living free and people are tortured indiscriminately. mr patten raised these aspects and i hope his words will very soon be followed by deeds. mr michel' s statement is reassuring as regards the coming six months, and i hope even longer. i would like to ask him a very direct question. will belgium launch a european initiative and table a resolution in the united nations general assembly calling for a moratorium on capital punishment? as you know, the finnish presidency made a first attempt in 1999, which failed. what do you intend to do in this regard, mr michel? thank you very much, mr president. i would like to begin by pointing out that the gue/ngl group is in favour of the two reports, by mr wuori and by mr cornillet. they are both very good reports. i witnessed a visit which mr cornillet made to spain in relation to the situation of the immigrants, exactly a year after the incidents in el ejido and i can testify to his concern. and mr wuori has distinguished himself by producing a very complete report which we have all participated in and which i believe is a source of pride for the committee on external relations. furthermore, i am grateful for the speeches by the two commissioners, mr patten and mr vitorino, as well as the president-in-office of the council, mr michel, because they support the idea of europe becoming the obligatory reference point for guaranteeing human rights in the world. it is important to highlight this issue because, so far, it appears that only the united states represents this guarantee when in fact i think the opposite is happening. europe' s cultural, historical and social heritage, the four generations of human rights which, since the french revolution, have been building up within european history, and also the success we have had with european integration are a guarantee of the unique privileged role which the european union can play in the rest of the world. nevertheless, this should not stop us believing that we have an historic shared responsibility with regard to the tragic situation of human rights on the three continents. because it is precisely our presence on those continents which is one of the causes of these peoples' difficulties in having their human rights respected. i think it would be worth establishing european union human rights observatories in each of the three continents, which would maintain relations with the ngos and with the instruments of the united nations, so that the annual reports carried out by parliament, to the commission and the council, may have the effect of improving our interventions. we must not be surprised if sometimes our multinational companies (as i have observed in colombia or as happens in africa and asia) are funding paramilitary groups which directly attack human rights. it is our responsibility to bring these facts to light so that we can make progress in the establishment of human rights. finally, i would like to point out that, in the european union, as mr cornillet has rightly said, we must offer an example rather than preach and therefore on this occasion we have the opportunity to begin with immigrants as one of the issues which europe has still to deal with. we cannot say that we need 70 million immigrants in order to make progress with our economy and then discriminate against them. for all these reasons, it is important that we support these reports. mr president, i would like to start by thanking mr cornillet for his work on the fundamental rights situation in the union. this is a detailed, balanced report which could genuinely provide constructive impetus for each member state to give increasingly tangible, concrete substance to the principle of justice and the protection of the principal, inalienable rights of the european citizens. this report could provide the opportunity for a moment' s reflection, for an initial stock take of the effect of the new charter of fundamental rights, which represents a stage which is only just the beginning and yet so important if we are to achieve a european unification which consists of more than finance and economics, which is also the home of rights and opportunities for all the european citizens, and where special attention is given to those whose rights are most often violated such as children, the marginalised and the poorest people. although i support the line taken by the report, i do have a few criticisms. with regard to the chapter on non-marital relations, i feel that it is unacceptable to envisage equal legal status for marriages between people of the opposite sex and unions between people of the same sex. without prejudice to the right for all people not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, there is still a legal and social need to protect the traditional marriage union as a fundamental unit of society, particularly where recourse to fertility treatment or the adoption of minors is concerned, which must remain the exclusive privilege of natural families. this is precisely because of the need to protect minors for, all too often, we forget that fundamental rights are the prerogative not just of adults but also and above all of minors. i would, however, like to draw parliament' s attention once again to the case of the male descendents of the house of savoy who, in a europe which is an area of justice, freedom and free movement, have been unable to return to italy for over 50 years. it would be appropriate if parliament could help to resolve this matter. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, there is something very important missing from the motion for a resolution on human rights in the world: the principle of the self-determination of peoples. we padanians consider this to be a serious omission because it is impossible not to see that the denial or, in any case, the decision not to emphasise this right is one of the greatest possible violations of human rights. just consider the events of recent weeks, of recent months with regard to the palestinian situation: a genuine, tragic violation on a daily basis of the principle of self-determination, which it is europe' s duty to give greater emphasis in its human rights documents. moreover, some of the states who are knocking on the door of the european union were, until recently, stateless nations. we must remember now, especially after the dissolution of the soviet union, that they are free, independent states. how, then, can the european union subject these countries to an assessment of their respect for human rights when, in its own documents, it does not proclaim loud and clear the protection of that principle - the principle of self-determination - that the peoples of those states have been denied for decades? then, the part of the report which deals with the protection of cultural rights is wholly insufficient, not to say non-existent. a guarantee of the right, for example, to see one' s own language or religion protected cannot be considered to be fully effective if that guarantee merely constitutes the protection of the individual freedom to use that language or practise that religion. in order for there to be genuine freedom to speak one' s own language, we must ensure that new generations are educated in that cultural context, that the traditions and history of that minority are included in school curricula. for example, in padania, where i come from, those whose mother tongue is piedmontese, as mine is, or veneto, do not have the right to be taught it at school because those languages - piedmontese and veneto - are not part of school curricula. finally, i would like to draw your attention to the fact that point 93 fails to include a fundamental issue, the trafficking of human organs, which is a disgrace . (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, in this combined approach respect for human rights in and outside the union is central which has prompted me to reflect yet again on the issue of human rights. more than ever this topic is high on the agenda. and rightly so, since there are still harrowing violations. however, on the basis of my christian philosophy, i should like to stress that even human rights are not above all norms. the maintenance of human rights involves protective rules for human life in accordance with the design that god the creator has for that life. the wuori report deals in a realistic way with this concept. it limits itself to the most fundamental human rights. but i wonder whether the european union, with its limited financial and diplomatic means, can supervise the observance of those rights. the policy of the union must complement the individual capabilities of the member states. the only pressure that the union can exert through human rights clauses in treaties and agreements is undermined in this report by arguing for flexible application. we support maintaining critical dialogue, but flexibility must not become the norm for our policy. finally, mr president, i should like to devote a few words to the cornillet report. as i have said i am a supporter of proper observance of human rights. however, i do not believe that the european union has the authority to concern itself in such detail with observance in member states. i also note the lack of a distinction between human rights and government policy objectives. too fanatical a plea for government action in human rights questions can simply lead to a restriction of civil liberties. i should like to discuss paragraphs 82-84 of the cornillet report separately. i regard marriage as a unique gift of the creator. marginalisation of marriage through the introduction of alternative forms of cohabitation will do great harm to society. even in my own country i have come to be in a minority with such a view. still i cling to the good biblical institution of marriage as a lasting union between man and woman. i sincerely hope that the netherlands government will have second thoughts on the decisions it has made. i appeal to the member states of the european union to pay no heed to the call to follow in the footsteps of the netherlands. the attempt in amendment no 24 to call attention to the position of terminal patients is in itself praiseworthy, but the concrete form it is given is misguided. for this reason i have requested a split vote on this amendment. mr president, commissioners, first of all, i would like to congratulate the rapporteur mr cornillet very warmly, for his report is a sign of progress, above all in terms of structure, for it gives us the opportunity to review annually the extent to which we are genuinely fulfilling the provisions of the charter of fundamental rights in the european union. however, as is the case every year, progress has been slowed down by various votes and proposed amendments, with efforts being made yet again to pack the report with political ideologies which actually do not belong there. they are political ideologies which perhaps cannot be achieved at home and which also violate the principle of subsidiarity. they have no place here. i am against every form of discrimination, and i would like to make this clear with a number of examples. i am against every form of discrimination against homosexuality, but i oppose the politically-motivated attempts, apparent yet again in this report, to present homosexual marriage as the absolute norm and demand the same rights for it as marriage between partners of different sexes, which is actually still the norm today. the fact that marriage between persons of different sexes - the core unit of society - is still the norm is a good thing, comrades, as people would say nowadays in berlin. i also oppose the attempts to grant all non-eu citizens the same rights to vote and stand for election as eu citizens. this would be unique in the world, and would constitute discrimination against eu citizens. i oppose the attempts to recast family reunion as an instrument of immigration by extending the term 'family' to a large and ill-defined group. this is unacceptable, for it removes member states' right to decide which workers they wish to, and are able, to admit, and how many. let us admit the immediate family by all means, but not the entire extended family. we will not support the examples which i have cited or other political demands. however, we will certainly vote for the report presented by the rapporteur mr cornillet. mr president, as shadow rapporteur for my group for the report by mr cornillet, whom i should, by the way, like to congratulate on the result of his work, i should like to address the question of respect for human rights in the countries of the european union itself. if we look at the facts on the table two complexes of problems stand out. in the first place this time there are again reports on misbehaviour by government servants, such as police officers, prison staff, security services, and officials involved in the handling of asylum seekers. secondly one is struck by the number of reports of forms of unequal treatment and discrimination, especially of people belonging to so-called "weak" groups in society. racist violence against foreigners is the most visible manifestation of this phenomenon, but it also relates to the trafficking in women, discrimination in the workplace, to say nothing of homosexuals, since i have had enough of the topic for the time being. unfortunately in the preparatory phase in the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs this substantive aspect of the human rights problem in the european union was scarcely mentioned. all attention focused on the way in which human rights reports in the european parliament should be produced in future. i have great appreciation for the commitment and stamina of the rapporteur, mr cornillet, but believe that the means are in danger of not achieving their end. the discussion on the future design and organisation of this work took up a great deal of time and energy and was carried out under an undue amount of pressure. a compromise turned out to have been almost reached, but elements were lost and now we must simply hope that things will turn out all right with the amendments. some aspects of the discussion have not yet been completely concluded and therefore i should like to raise some of these points now. in the first place, the choice of the eu charter of fundamental rights as the coathanger for the report. this choice, in itself an obvious one, must not, however, become a restrictive corset. the discussion on the scope of human rights and the concept of human rights is still fluid. human rights are also a matter of living law. moreover, we must not forget that the member states are also bound by human rights treaties of the council of europe and the united nations and the specialised bodies. the findings of the supervisory agencies of these treaties should in fact play a much greater part in the deliberations of this parliament. secondly, there is the question: who does what? there are two parliamentary committees which deal with the matter: the committee on foreign affairs and the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights. there is a great deal of overlap both in the conclusions and in the themes, unnecessary and duplication of work is being carried out and there is stiff competition for staff and resources. this requires intervention by the authorised bodies of this parliament in order to coordinate things better. my third question is: where should the countries of the european union about which there is concern regarding the observance of fundamental rights be named? in view of the nature of the supervisory mechanism itself the only appropriate answer seems to me to be in the resolution itself and not tucked away in a note, as was the original intention of the rapporteur himself. i find that in conflict with the fact that every month in this parliament we rap third countries over the knuckles for violation of human rights. mr president, it was mrs malmstrm and myself who wrote the reports on human rights last year. we are very pleased that the approach adopted then has been carried forward into the reports we are discussing today. we liberals support mr cornillet' s desire for the new charter of human rights to be a model and criterion of relevance for this parliament' s work on human rights. like human rights watchdogs, we can make use of the charter even before it acquires formal status, and we can at the same time acquire a much needed means of opposing that watering down of the concept of human rights that threatens to turn the latter into everything and nothing. there has, of course, been a tendency in this parliament to make every conceivable subject from the party programmes into human rights issues. it happens with the best of intentions, but it damages human rights because it makes citizens who disagree about one point or another say, 'f those are human rights, then we are opposed to them.' the whole austria business did a lot of damage, because it was all about opinions and suppositions. if, instead, it had been about specific breaches of the charter of human rights, there would have been a lot of sympathy for the action. that is why we here in parliament must make the charter central. we must guard it like watchdogs. we must use it in such a way as to resist its being watered down by do-gooders. that is why we liberals are voting against almost all the amendments: not because we disagree with the intentions behind the amendments, but because we attach too much importance to human rights to be a party to using them to adorn every conceivable point of view that does not fall within the charter' s human rights criterion. as i say, however, we warmly support the two reports as they stand, except with regard to just a few points, and we are grateful for the fact that we have in this way acquired a better organised treatment of human rights for the future. we have indeed before us two massive and authoritative reports for which we are indebted to the two authors. mr wuori said, in introducing the debate, that this is about the fundamental principle of respect for human personality in all its manifestations. charters and conventions and rights seek to quantify and give exact terms to the impermissible forms of disrespect and then discountenance them everywhere. the moving section on enlargement in mr wuori' s paper reminds us that both a condition and a consequence of enlargement of the union will be to expand the recognition, enforcement and upholding of human rights throughout this continent. what could be a more welcome outcome? mr cornillet suggested that we should not take the two papers together. i think we have to. we must always remind ourselves, as we call upon others outside the union to rise to the standards of respect for persons which seem to us fundamental, that we are continually at risk ourselves of falling below the standards. last night as the echelon committee adopted its report, it made it clear that running systems of random interception of messages breaches the fundamental right to privacy in one' s personal life and communications. that must stop. those who are doing it in the united kingdom and elsewhere must be urged to put a stop to it. there are other areas, such as the right to a speedy trial, where other states are not up to the mark. we must press for rights to be recognised at home as well as abroad. the annual report on the human rights situation in the european union, on the one hand, and in the world on the other is a laudable and useful means of reviewing the union' s policy in this area. it is certainly a necessary undertaking when we think of the infringements of human rights perpetrated against millions of men and women in too many parts of the world. i will confine myself to two specific issues in this debate. first of all i am thinking of the disturbing decline of the situation in tunisia, at this very moment. in the coming five days alone, militant democrats will be further harassed with at least three political trials coming up: the trial of the journalist sihem ben sedrine, brutally arrested as he stepped from the plane; doctor moncef marzouki; and fathi chamkhi, president of attac tunisia. the european parliament has already, on several occasions, condemned this unacceptable repression. yet it still needs to acquire effective tools and the necessary political will to ensure respect for the association agreement provisions on human rights, so that it can exert pressure that goes beyond mere words. this question is all the more topical when we remember that on his visit to tunis commissioner patten reaffirmed that europe wants to act in close conjunction with tunisia to give new impetus to the partnership. it is indeed a real and beneficial partnership for the people on the two shores of the mediterranean, but it must be based on the recognition of freedom of expression, movement and opinion. so when will we see a special association council on these issues with tunisia? the human rights situation really has declined. arrests, violence and torture are the common lot of the militant men and women who support human rights and who quite simply want to establish and live in a free society. but there are also signs of a decline in the rights that affect the day-to-day life of every individual in the european union itself. everyone, be he a european citizen or a foreign resident, has the essential right to a job, to acceptable wages, to a roof over his head. the same applies to political rights, to the right to be treated as a full rather than a second-rate citizen in one' s place of residence. accordingly, it should become the established rule that third-country nationals who have resided in the union for at least five years have the right to vote and stand for election, as advocated by the council of europe since 1992. let me conclude by saying how urgently necessary this is to the very future of a union based on solidarity when we remember that the prospect of several candidate countries' participating in the elections. (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, i would like to draw the attention of this house and the commission to a matter which has been dealt with brilliantly in the report, a matter which is certainly less tragic than the physical violation of human rights which, i am sad to say, lies before us now, but which relates to a crucial, pivotal factor in the democratic processes of all countries and, above all - i am convinced - in the future of democracy in european and world societies: i refer to the issue of information, to a question which i feel to be central, the question of pluralism - and i will repeat this word, pluralism - of information. at a time when this is becoming increasingly important, in a historic period in which television, in particular, is becoming an incredibly powerful and influential mass medium in the history of humanity, securing the pluralism of information in europe means securing the basis for a democratic future. failure to guarantee this means exposing our countries and our area to hazards. in my opinion, the question gains in importance precisely when we consider it in relation to enlargement, for countries are joining the union whose experience is different, countries are acceding which have a greater need for tangible rules than ever before. well then, europe does not have these tangible rules. the commission has been instigating and developing initial proposals for directives since the 1990s and the european parliament has elaborated on these ideas on a number of occasions, but everything appears to have come to a standstill. an idea also seems to be circulating which i consider to be dangerous: that world competition, particularly north american competition, should promote mergers rather than guarantee pluralism. if that is the case, then i say to you that this is a great mistake. the greater good, the greatest good is democracy. i call upon parliament and the commission to address this issue and to produce a directive on the matter without delay. mr president, i had a prepared speech, which i decided to abandon after listening to mr michel. he is no longer here but i am sure mrs neyts will pass on my words. this is what i wanted to say to him. are you not slightly embarrassed, mr michel? you came to tell us about human rights in the world. you represent a government that has just failed in judicial terms by arbitrarily banning one of the most important political groups in your country, the "flemish bloc", whose leader' s only crime is to have stood for election according to the law. the supposed anti-racism in belgium - led by an unfrocked dominican - is funded directly by the prime minister' s cabinet, and all he wants to do is to muzzle the opposition. in belgium as elsewhere, love of country is fraudulently assimilated with xenophobia and xenophobia with racism. they speak of the persecution of minorities while allowing certain minorities, ethnic, public or other, to persecute the majority of the population. in belgium there are occult lobbies - mainly freemasons and pederasts - that have been cornering the real power for aeons. the political or trade union bosses have shared out among themselves the state, finance, the media, the university and the public offices. one side has the right to a state prosecutor, the other to its judge. new political groups can only stand for election if they can collect enough signatures and are prepared for police intimidation. mr michel appears before us rather like the hypocrite tartuffe in molire' s play: fat and pink, rosy-cheeked and carmine-lipped. he ought to blush with shame, or laugh like the augurs of ancient rome who no longer dared believe in their own religion. (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, last month we witnessed the remarkable sight of bulgaria, an ex-communist country, electing the party by its former king, simeon ii, to office, having removed all legal barriers to his entry, ironically in preparation for eu membership. i have always believed that the great benefit of enlargement of eu to the east is to anchor these countries in a climate of peace, prosperity and an institutional respect for democracy and fundamental human rights. however, spare a thought for simeon' s unfortunate italian cousin, prince victor emmanuel of savoy and his son philibert, who are not only formally barred from standing from public office in their country, a founder member of the eu unlike bulgaria, but have nurtured the dream since childhood of being allowed to enter the territory of the country of which they are citizens both by birth and descent. in the past, i have spoken with concern in this house on the charter of fundamental rights with regard to the attempt to make binding its new controversial, social and economic rights, as opposed to the civil and political rights enshrined in the much respected 1950 european convention of human rights. the eu treaty right to freedom of movement and establishment also enjoys universal support, and yet is so clearly breached by italy' s 13th so-called transitional constitutional article, which exiles in perpetuity the male descendants of the house of savoy from their own country. there is no derogation afforded to italy to discriminate on the grounds of sex or birth with regard to freedom of movement of all its citizens, other on the basis of threats posed to public security or health. it is frankly ludicrous if the republic of italy feels threatened by one old man and his son wanting to return home. i therefore call once again on this house to show compassion and non-selective respect for human rights by joining me in supporting my amendment no 7 calling on the italian parliament to honour the commitment by the last government of italy to put a speedy end to this cruel and anomalous situation, and align its constitution with the right of all eu citizens to move around the union freely. i congratulate mr cornillet, in this respect, on his report in what is a very difficult area. mr president, i would like to begin by congratulating mr wuori not only on his report and its recommendations, but also because it reminds us of all the atrocities which are still being committed in the world. it is normal for us to make our aid to third countries conditional upon their respecting human rights and, naturally, we must continue urging them to do so and putting pressure on them until they do so, but, while we do not make the same demands of the larger countries, we will not deserve to consider ourselves the world reference point for the defence of human rights. again and again we threaten the united states when it executes a person, when it murders a human being according to its laws. but it goes no further than these words which, though forceful, are nevertheless only words. they sentence to death minors, the mentally handicapped, blacks, hispanics; in short, the poorest people. in the statement on the gothenburg summit, we have once again called on the united states to establish a moratorium on the death penalty, we have once again expressed our regret that it appears in their federal law and that in 38 of their jurisdictions citizens are executed in the name of the law. we need to apply even more pressure. cases such as that of joaqun jos martnez lead us to be more optimistic about the influence of the european institutions and, in particular, our parliament. we must continue to fight to defend and extend the values of european civilisation. without liberty, without tolerance, without respect for human rights, there is nothing. a country may be a great economic power, it may even be the envy of many others for its missiles, its strength, its powers of veto, but, if human rights are not respected and enforced, it is a society without values, an under-developed society. this very morning, president verhofstadt said that when europe speaks and speaks in unison, we are heard. we must therefore continue to exert pressure, ladies and gentlemen. yesterday also, before the committee on external affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy, the president of peru, alejandro toledo, reminded us that democracy has no borders and human rights have no colour. neither, ladies and gentlemen, should they have a cheque book. mr president, i should like to thank the two rapporteurs for two outstanding reports. it is true, as one of the speakers, mrs swiebel, said, that they overlap, but i really do not think that that matters very much. i think it can be said that they complement one another but, above all, they of course form a fantastically good basis for further discussion in europe. mr michel mentioned that there is a gulf between the eu and its people and quoted the irish example. i, of course, come from denmark where, in a way, the result of the irish referendum can be appreciated for what it is. however, the situation is, of course, the same in other countries where there are no referenda. i do not believe that, for example, it would have been at all possible to implement european monetary union if there had been a referendum in germany. this would have clearly shown that the germans were opposed to it. so we are all basically faced with the same problem, then, and this is naturally also highlighted by the fact that we in this assembly and all other assemblies continue to say that there is a lot that needs to be changed and that democracy is getting a poor deal etc. we could, however, use these two reports as a basis for saying that there is, in fact, something that is very good in europe. there really is something that operates outstandingly in europe. we succeeded in formulating sets of values which 15 countries - perhaps 27 countries following enlargement - can provisionally agree upon. where else in the world has that been achieved? nowhere. i think it is a brilliant idea for mr cornillet to have taken the charter as a point of departure, for it really does offer a very good yardstick for measuring how the development of our rights here in europe is proceeding. i think that the charter may be used as an indicator of this development, so that if we regularly - once a year - review the charter, we might acquire a sense of this development. mr president, matti wuori' s report has shown that the political campaign against censorship through violence must become a joint campaign within the framework of european foreign policy. after all, freedom of opinion and independent journalism are the backbone of democracy. it is important, therefore, to ensure that such information is recognised as freedom of opinion and a basic prerequisite for individual fundamental freedoms, and for collective and social basic rights. we can only achieve this in practice if censorship through violence is abolished. yet many journalists continue to risk their lives or freedom in defence of the public' s right to information. what is the european union doing? it has established deeper partnerships with countries which continue to practise censorship. it is very important that in the partnership and cooperation agreements and at the summits which take place in this context, these are used as instruments to make this a central political theme, and not merely a footnote, in russia, ukraine, armenia and azerbaijan. i would like to ask the council and the commission whether they are prepared for the issue of press censorship to be anchored more centrally in european policy in order to give fundamental rights, human rights, social and collective rights an opportunity to develop. mr president, the report was excellent, as was the belgian minister' s speech, as were commissioner patten' s and commissioner vitorino' s speeches. however, there is one problem. the european union' s policy on human rights is rather schizophrenic: while we get ten out of ten for reports on ideas, declarations of good intentions, we barely scrape through and we demonstrate cowardice when it comes to applying them. a great deal of cowardice. we can make claims and demands on moldavia, latvia, lithuania, certain african countries, certain former central american colonies, but when mr bush was here, who opened their mouth, who said a word about the death penalty? mr schroeder? mr blair? mr chirac? mr jospin? no-one said a single word! this pragmatism colours all our positions, even this report. although mr wuori has produced an excellent report, i should like to ask him, why amendment no 10 mr wuori? why, when it comes to turkey, delete the passage stating that the kurds must be allowed to return or that the european court decision on cyprus must be applied? what has changed in the meantime? mr president, the italian radicals of the bonino list support the proposal by the rapporteur, mr cornillet, to consolidate the legal and other value of parliament' s report on human rights, not least because we would like to be able to have, at last, a forum for condemning, describing and recording unbelievable incidents completely unknown to the vast majority of you. we would like to be able to tell you about referendums which have been illegally denied in italy on subjects of fundamental importance for the italian citizens; we would like to be able to tell you about referendums in which tens of millions of voters voted and won and were then betrayed some months afterwards by the italian parliament; we would like to be able to tell you about electoral lists illegally presented at the elections of our country and illegally accepted; we would like to be able to tell you about an electoral campaign which illegally excluded subjects, parties, movements, policies and proposals from the possibility of being chosen by the italian electorate; we would like to be able to tell you about all these things. there is no genuine forum protecting human rights and the civil and political rights of the european citizens. we feel that democracy is under threat, not just outside the union and not just in italy, but in the union as a whole; we also feel that the institutional mechanisms of the european union itself and the inappropriate division of powers therein make it an increasingly a democratic, if not undemocratic institution. we call for a forum in which all this can be discussed. there is a committee . (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, we are dealing with a novel report by mr cornillet which, as he himself recognises, is limited and incomplete due to a lack of resources, which he has tried to substitute through personal effort and this is worthy of recognition. it is difficult to analyse what is happening in each member state and, above all, know the facts and circumstances which affect each country in the light of our recent charter of fundamental rights and, therefore, we must continue to study the procedure in depth. i would like to thank him expressly for his sensitivity to one of the most fundamental rights of human beings, the right to life, which, together with freedoms of expression and movement, is being persistently violated by eta in an area of european territory, the basque country, and in spain as a whole. unfortunately, terrorism has warranted a specific mention with a new section which refers to the right to life and the intensification of the fight against terrorism, based on the legal instruments agreed at the tampere summit to combat it, such as, for example, the arrest order, which we are creating at the moment. another aspect, which the socialist group in particular should reflect on, given that they do not even accept its application in places where the governments are of its same colour, is that mentioned in points 119 and 120, which recognise the right to vote of citizens of third countries, not only in local elections, but also in european elections. ladies and gentlemen, let us not start building the house from the roof. when we have still not been capable of laying the foundations of genuine integration, which include education, housing, healthcare and the mutual respect for our cultures, there is still much to be done in the field of immigration and asylum. and false demagoguery will only hinder the resolution of such a serious problem. mr president, i would firstly like to point out that it seems to me absurd to hold a joint debate in this house on the human rights situation in the world and in the european union. my group said this in the conference of presidents and was only supported by the gue/ngl group. furthermore, mr president, i would like to ask you to note that i find it incredible that we are organising a debate in this way, because it seems that human rights in the world are more important to us than human rights in the european union. the comparisons are odious and i am not talking about the victims of a lack of human rights, but we should be more concerned with dealing with what is exclusively in our hands. i would like to say to mr cornillet that i am grateful for his effort and his work, and i would like to ask him to consider the possibility that in the coming months, and based on his experience, we should seek amongst all of us, calmly and serenely, a method which will allow us to work in the future, taking account of his extremely valuable experience. his experience has been valuable because this is the first year that we have produced this report, after the declaration of the charter of fundamental rights. i would like you to take this into account, mr cornillet. in my last few seconds i will speak not about methods but about content. mr pirker, mr hernndez mollar, we do not want to put forward a common immigration policy. we simply want recognition that mr cornillet' s report clearly demonstrates that the people most affected by violations of human rights are minorities and, especially, asylum seekers and immigrants. if human rights are deteriorating in this respect, we must put forward solutions and conclusions which reflect it. that is what we want. mr president, anyone who believes that apartheid has been abolished is wrong. it still exists as a caste system in india and neighbouring countries. european human rights policy has wrongly been silent up to now on this blatant injustice. in india systematic discrimination has deep historical roots and is completely integrated into the social system. a hundred and sixty million people from the lowest caste and chained in the dungeons of cultural and religious tradition. there is legislation against the system, but social practice pays no attention to it. a dalit or untouchable is without prospects from birth and is doomed to a lifetime of humiliations and an existence on the fringe of society. dalits are regularly abused by the higher caste. women are raped and no one can attain justice. there is systematic inequality of opportunity. there is absolutely no question of social mobility, one of the characteristics of a true democracy. india is not only the largest, but also the most undemocratic democracy in the world. there is no cultural or religious justification for the structural violation of universal human rights. in india itself awareness of the inhumane character is slowly dawning, but there is a great reluctance to change among those who benefit from the system. the caste system is a culturally constructed form of political and economic exploitation. a massive consciousness-raising campaign must be launched and europe must put this crude form of racial discrimination on the international agenda, to begin with at the forthcoming world racism conference in durban. it is not an easy task, but we must have courage, as mr michel said, before he disappeared. we must not as if the whole caste system is itself untouchable. apartheid is only unchangeable if we resign ourselves to it and we must therefore not do so. i should be glad to hear the responses of the commission and the council. ladies and gentlemen, even though the adoption last year, in nice, of the charter of fundamental rights represented a step forward for human rights in the european union, it constitutes only a minimum standard for the protection to which every citizen is entitled. unfortunately it is still inadequate to combat the distress suffered by thousands of individuals, whether they are refugees, immigrants or illegal immigrants, in particular where women and children are concerned. at no time are the countries concerned, whether european or not, called to order or condemned for the violations that they have committed. proof of this lies in the reports that have been tabled here today. however good they may be, and for that we can thank the rapporteurs, they still do nothing more than list the many cases in which fundamental rights are giving cause for concern. human rights and fundamental liberties are universal and inseparable. they must not recognise any boundaries, whether of nationality or of gender. we must reaffirm this argument, strongly and vigorously these rights will only become a reality if everyone is aware of their existence, but also only if everyone has confidence in those who are responsible for applying and respecting them. it is therefore essential to enforce those rights, but also to make them visible and accessible to everyone. if we are to be constructive, we must set up a dialogue with all those involved in the recognition, promotion and defence of fundamental rights, particularly those who are closest to the least-favoured individuals, those who are the victims of discrimination. another key factor lies in ratifying international instruments and translating them into everyday life: the right to move around freely, to live with one' s family, to be a citizen. whatever a society is like, it can only flourish in peace, and there can be no peace without justice. apart from these generalised speeches in favour of human rights, nothing will happen without the political will to achieve real equality of rights for all men and women who have a share in wealth and in the construction of europe and european citizenship. instead of fussing about the structures that the european parliament might give itself in the future, we ought to equip ourselves with the means to ensure that human rights and fundamental liberties are respected, including social and political rights, without which the principles of a state under the rule of law and of democracy will no longer have any meaning. mr president, i cannot fail to stress the positive aspects of the wuori and cornillet reports on human rights in the world, for a number of reasons: most importantly, the reference to the human rights clause in the conclusion of trade or other agreements, and then the request, which has been made on a number of occasions in the past as well, for closer involvement of parliament in the coordinated, consistent monitoring of community action in respect of the violation of rights. however, i must also point out the considerable vagueness and haziness, particularly of mr cornillet' s report, regarding the violation of rights in different countries, especially where the subject is controversial and the governments responsible are not identified. i would not like this house to have to face, once again, the dilemma in which we can only ever take moral decisions where our values or political affiliations are not called into question. mr president, it would be appropriate for me to begin by congratulating mr cornillet on the excellent report with which he has provided us. i have seen, in the committee on citizens' freedom and rights, justice and home affairs, how much commitment, hard work and quality he put into the report, in terms both of its structure and its content. respect for human rights is a requirement of the society we live in, which we must value and pass on to future generations, without distinction on the grounds of colour, gender, language, religion, opinion or other beliefs, or of national or social origin. the adoption of the charter of fundamental rights by the european parliament and its proclamation in nice were an innovation and made this a seminal text in the field of human rights. it is now up to the european parliament, in cooperation with the national parliaments, to ensure that the member states and even the european institutions respect fundamental rights. the cornillet rapport closely follows the structure of the charter and divides fundamental rights into six separate chapters, as has already been pointed out, and rightly so, by commissioner vitorino. the report first of all states the importance of respecting human dignity by affirming the right to life, specifically by stepping up the fight against terrorism, by banning torture and inhumane treatment, slavery and forced labour. the report then examines freedoms, specifically in the protection of private life and personal information - and i hope that both the community and the member states adopt the necessary measures to protect the public from intrusions by illegal communication interception systems, such as echelon. it examines respect for freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and improving european citizenship and justice, which involves speeding up judicial processes. the slowness of justice is in itself a factor for injustice: by the courts not resolving the problems put before them in due time, the feeling of being able to commit crimes with impunity spreads. my country, portugal, is no exception and suffers unacceptable delays within its judicial system. this europe of ours must be a model in this field. it must set an example. the european parliament is an essential actor in the design and practical application of the union' s policy on human rights. its influence in ensuring that treaties are amended with those rights in mind is becoming increasingly evident. we must therefore pay close attention to the human rights situation in member states when shortcomings are revealed in our systems. in my home town of lyons i am confronted every day, in the most graphic terms, with the suffering of refugees and with trafficking in human beings, particularly in women. we must therefore harmonise our legislation and adopt a legally restrictive instrument, so as to guarantee real protection for the victims of trafficking in human beings. we ought to be able, without any problem, to extradite those who traffic in human beings, and to confiscate the profits from their criminal activities, using the proceeds to create a european compensation fund to be used to help their victims. we ought to be able to give a humanitarian right of residence to the victims of trafficking in human beings and domestic slavery, and we ought to be able to guarantee that people who are arrested and held at police stations are given immediate access to legal and medical assistance and, where necessary, to an interpreter. we ought to be able to obtain, as a matter of urgency, better protection for unaccompanied minors, in particular by offering them, as quickly as possible, the assistance of a tutor or legal adviser. i should also like to ask for a certain amount of consistency in this parliament. if the community' s policy on immigration, which is the subject of a report currently being examined at the committee stage, were to be based solely on the selfish economic interests of european countries, it would not really guarantee all the fundamental rights that we are defending here today. mr president, the european charter of fundamental rights has gained in importance through the rapporteur' s proposal to use it as a touchstone to test the human rights situation in the union. although the charter itself was only supposed to relate to the actions of the union, that is, the european institutions, the member states themselves are now being tested. but a critical test is more than a shopping list. in order to expose violations, it is important to quote chapter and verse. we regard that as effective where the rest of the world is concerned, but "to name and shame" our own member states we call undesirable stigmatisation. we are using double standards and that must change. a group of renowned experts should conduct research into the concrete observance of human rights in the member states and parliament must then draw the political conclusions. that concludes my administrative shopping list. my group will support the report of mr cornillet. it contains a number of important declaration. for example, in paragraph 58 it argues that the aznar protocol, through which the individual right to apply for asylum is restricted, must be scrapped. paragraph 109 calls for a guarantee that everyone in the territory of the union is given access to health care, that is, regardless of their residential status. this also applies to the right of children to education. combating this divide deserves our support. mr president, the author of the cornillet report has listed many areas in which, even within the territory of the european union, human rights are totally or partially flouted. we shall be voting on several proposals which might represent a certain amount of progress. even in those cases, however, we are anxious to express our reservations, insofar as these are recommendations, which the countries concerned will either observe or not, as they choose. yet in matters concerning commercial law, the legislature knows how to be more stringent. in its explanatory statement, the report refers to the charter of fundamental rights which was proclaimed at nice, where much praise was lavished on a text which combines civil and political rights and economic and social rights as if they formed a consistent whole. yet what are proclamations on employment rights worth, when company bosses have a 'divine right' to hire and fire? what is the point of having the right of residence, when the report itself admits that 11,8 % of the population of the european union are living below the poverty threshold, and therefore do not have the means to provide themselves with suitable housing? we shall be abstaining on the whole of this report, because declarations of good intentions are not enough to constitute a policy that will benefit the lowest and most oppressed strata of the population. mr president, i should first like to congratulate mr wuori on his report, a very exhaustive report ranging from arms dealing, homosexuality and the rights of minorities to asylum, child labour and capital punishment. perhaps indeed a little too exhaustive. perhaps in future we should prioritise more and coordinate the timing of such a report better with the annual meeting of the human rights commission in geneva. one positive point at least is that attention is paid to the press and to press freedom. journalists are still being persecuted and murdered all over the world and the recent developments in russia are particularly disturbing. independent journalists are attacked, dismissed and even physically eliminated. the independent television station ntv was taken over by the state corporation gazprom, which also forced a prominent daily newspaper to close. i particularly welcome mr wuori' s idea of nominating a special parliamentary representative to follow up the specific violations of human rights on which we debate and vote here every month. identifying violations is one thing, monitoring them and doing something about them and especially encouraging the council and the commission to take up the matter is another. allow me to say that the swedish presidency somewhat disappointed us on this point. the assertive action of the belgian government in the pinochet case, but also in central africa, awakens high expectations among those arguing for a more pro-active human rights policy in the european union. especially now that the united states has been voted off the united nations human rights commission, europe must play a leading role. if the council and the commission really do take steps in the direction of a more consistent and more coherent human rights policy, they will definitely find a convinced ally in the european parliament. mr president, i would firstly like to congratulate mr wuori on this magnificent report. i believe his report is up to the challenge of responding to economic globalisation through a proposed globalisation of political and social human rights, since they are indivisible, and democratic principles. the essential thing is to know whether the european union has the instruments to implement that globalisation of rights and, above all, whether it is prepared to use them. take, for example, the european union' s role in the united nations and the geneva commission, which is often weak and even contradictory. also, what can be done within the world trade organisation which, by the way, is going to meet in qatar, a world leader in human rights, as the whole world knows. also, in the use of the democratic clause with third countries, in which the european parliament should have a clear role, regulated by the treaty, and, of course, in bilateral dialogue and in the use of the code of conduct on the export of arms, a code which is still nothing more than a proposal and a suggestion and which does not stop member states from committing aberrations by selling arms to countries which systematically violate human rights. the rights of peoples are also human rights. in this regard, i believe that collective rights cannot be forgotten either, starting with the right to self-determination. i would like to fly the flag here by asking the government of morocco to fully respect the rights of the saharan people who live in its country' s occupied territories. mr president, i would first of all like to congratulate mr wuori and mr cornillet on their reports and the excellent work they have done. however, i regret that mr wuori' s report does not refer to the situation of one of the most violated fundamental rights and the most forgotten: the right to education, to receiving essential basic training as a means for escaping the underdevelopment and poverty which so many children and adults are condemned to living in because they are not guaranteed this fundamental right. in fact, according to unicef data, 130 million children have never been to school and a further 150 million have started primary education but have left it before becoming fully literate. in sub-saharan africa, furthermore, the figure for children not attending school is increasing, rather than decreasing. this is in spite of the objectives set by the world conference on education for all at jomtien, in 1990, or at the world education forum which took place in dakar in 2000. given this situation, we cannot close our eyes, nor ignore the lack of political will of the european union and its member states when it comes to translating the rhetoric of great declarations into budgetary contributions. if we say we are going to defend human rights, we must also defend the right to education at all costs. with the same vigour with which we defend the right to life or the right to non-discrimination or the right to freedom of expression. let us not forget that human rights are indivisible, inalienable and universal. mr president, does a peasant suffering from aids have the right to access medicine and treatment that he cannot afford? does a child born in poverty have the human right to receive basic education and appropriate vaccines to protect him from killer diseases? does a peasant farmer devastated by natural disasters such as drought, pests and soil erosion have the right to our assistance? do millions of people living in misery for political reasons in isolated countries like palestine and iraq have any rights? what do we mean when we talk about human rights? i urge every colleague concerned with human rights to visit, unannounced and informally, any peasant in any poor country and ask him about our views on human rights, political freedom, economic freedom, religious freedom, free access to education and health services. that peasant will look at you in bewilderment and plead: "all i need is a supply of fresh water to my house. all i need is a source of energy so that i can light my house and cook the next meal". internal conflict and civil war resulting in violation of human rights will continue to impoverish the poor until we help them to do the following. firstly, to have a stake in their rural economies. they need to own their own land, their home and their farm. and secondly, to acquire the technology to break the cycle of dependency on us and seize the opportunity to be self-sufficient, self-reliant through their own local enterprise. when the poor have an economic stake, then civil society and democracy will take root. these people will see the need for law and order and political representation. then you will see the courts replacing the bullet - and that is when we will see human rights. mr president, unfortunately i was not in the chamber when the content of the human rights report was being discussed. at that moment, we had a problem outside with a small group of people who do not agree with the situation in the turkish prisons. this was why i was not in the chamber. however, i should like to start by thanking the rapporteur, mr cornillet, for his report, as he offers a good approach with this report. i am particular impressed by its structure. we have already talked about this. it is quite right to link this report with the human rights charter. this is certainly the right decision and was undoubtedly a tremendous challenge, and there will have to be a great many further amendments. we all agree on this. in terms of its content, however, i should also like to comment on what we have witnessed around parliament today. in his report, mr cornillet has addressed the situation of prisons in the european union. i should simply like briefly to remind us all of one thing: we often visit other countries and criticise the accession countries, especially about conditions in prisons. conditions in prisons in the accession countries are unacceptable, in our view. yet reading through mr cornillet' s report, it is apparent that we have a great many problems with our own prisons in our own countries. this should not merely be noted down by you on paper: the governments in the european union must take steps to address this situation. in any event, some thought must be given to this issue as well. mr president, i would like to thank my colleague, mr wuori, for his excellent report. slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century, but now it is estimated that people are being sold from their countries at a rate of four million a year, and the number is growing. the global markets are so free that human bodies now have a market value. the violent trade in human organs focuses on the poor. some poor people positively rise from their graves, in a manner of speaking, when their organs are transplanted into living people. the problem is also that human rights violations have become ever more profitable and, in a society of greed, it takes money to protect human rights. we therefore face the sort of problem that results from greed. the most widespread is the numbing of the human brain in the name of business. the global mass entertainment of television creates a false world, a virtual world, where every kind of business or trade flourishes and the importance of democracy is diminished. the international sex trade has acquired an excellent tool in the internet. legislation lags behind because many people think the freedom of the internet should not be restricted. i suggest that we establish a european body to make rules for the protection of privacy in the information society era. the notion of human rights will not work where they are being violated both mentally and physically. mr president, the annual report on human rights in the world shows a good grasp of what is currently at stake. however, the european union must state more clearly the action it intends to take in three areas. first of all, history shows us how difficult it is to ensure that human rights are respected in countries where economic development does not exist or is extremely poor. this evidence should be given greater emphasis. this means that we should create a global-development methodology, bringing together converging criteria, centred around a principle which i shall refer to as the 'evolutionary principle' . secondly, the report points the finger at a number of countries which do not respect human rights. if we are to avoid falling into the trap of having one law for the rich and another for the poor, and in order to ensure that any action taken by europe has credibility, we should place greater emphasis on the inseparability of human rights within and outside the boundaries of a state. finally, we must acknowledge the special responsibility of those countries which have achieved a high level of democracy and development but which, instead of setting an example, cynically continue to disregard human rights. the developed countries must set an example to the developing countries, and not the other way round. our action will be on a long-term basis. we must insist, loudly and clearly, that human rights are a universal value and do not depend on circumstances. with that in mind, it is absolutely essential that europe should think about setting up a programme of project study and development in the area of human rights, which will take our political will into account. that is the price that europe will have to pay in order to gain credibility. mr president, given the small amount of time available to me, i am not going to waste a single second on rhetoric or demagoguery and, therefore, i am going to concentrate on issues which, from my point of view, are more significant. i would firstly like to say that i completely agree with commissioner vitorino when he says that the european union should first teach by example and then preach. i also wish to congratulate mr cornillet on the excellent work he has done, despite a lack of resources. his work clearly reflects the fact that within the european union there are still groups and people who suffer discrimination, whose fundamental rights are not properly respected. i therefore believe that we must make greater efforts in accordance with article 6 of the treaty, as well as article 13, after amsterdam, since those groups mentioned in article 13 are still suffering discrimination and a lack of respect for their fundamental rights. i am referring to issues as regrettable as racism, which still takes place in the member states; discrimination as a result of the sexual orientation of certain groups, specifically homosexuals, who still suffer legislative discrimination in certain member states; the protection of disabled people; women, that vast group that suffers discrimination; and immigrants, which this report reveals to be the new group which suffers the greatest discrimination. unlike some speakers, i would like to say that i am in favour of recognising the right to vote of immigrants, who only then will enjoy sufficient respect for their rights. mr president, i should first of all like to thank mr wuori for his sound and critical report. sound and critical, for he does not shrink back from pinpointing any sensitive areas in eu policy. one of those areas concerns fact that a number of international union agreements still do not contain clauses for deferring an agreement in the event of a serious human rights violation. i should like to quote china in this connection, candidate for the 2008 olympic games. commissioner lamy has been hard at work concluding an agreement with china, also mainly within the wto framework. but this coming thursday, a widely supported motion will be discussed which will ask the olympic committee not to give china the olympic games in 2008, precisely in the light of human rights violations in tibet, among others, and on account of the dubious way in which the country treats its flora and fauna. in fact, i support mr wuori in his opinion that our parliament should be involved in the suspension of relations with third countries on account of irresponsible behaviour in terms of human rights. moreover, our parliament has been the initiator in this field on more than one occasion. i would refer to eu measures in the past against nigeria and at present against sudan and burma. however, i should like to take the opportunity of drawing your attention to another point which, in my opinion, was neglected in the report, namely the freedom of religion. i will give you three examples. one is close to home, namely turkey, where syrian christians are still being put behind bars if they actively profess their religion. the netherlands has a community of 12 000 syrian christians from turkey who have fled to western europe over the years. surely that is very worrying for a country that would like to join the european union. then there is vietnam, where over the past few months, buddhist monks have increasingly been arrested on religious grounds. we will be discussing a resolution on this very topic on thursday. and what is, as a matter of interest, the state of play with regard to the trade agreements with vietnam? then there is the continuous threat in respect of the christians in indonesia, especially on the moluccas. that problem has also been highlighted in this house on several occasions, but what is the latest on the trade agreements, and what exactly is going on in that country in terms of human rights? i wish that next time we could address this point in isolation, and that is the message that i should like to drive home. mr president, it is a tragedy, in the europe of the 21st century, that there are so many serious problems with violations of human rights, as we have heard in mr cornillet' s excellent report. if human rights are to be respected in practice rather than merely in declarations, we need to defend them vigorously against the hated dark, reactionary forces which hamper dialogue and freedom of thought and conscience. the union should, once and for all, find policies and ways and means of wiping out all forms of discrimination based on sex, ethnic origin, colour, religion or sexual orientation. no cultural tradition can gain recognition if it puts itself above fundamental human rights and equality of the sexes. we urgently need to wipe out xenophobia, fundamentalism and racial violence and to crush phenomena such as slavery, trafficking in human beings and the sexual exploitation of women and children which stigmatise our civilisation. we also need to create the mechanisms needed to monitor and apply the charter of fundamental rights and to give moral and financial support to organisations fighting for human rights, such as the united nations high commissioner for refugees and the international rehabilitation council for torture victims. mr president, when europe' s leaders go on state visits, they take weighty political baggage with them. the focus is on economic relations, trade agreements, financial assistance, and so on. ecological issues are seldom dealt with, while human rights are a peripheral issue. yet human rights and the rule of law are the foundation of our society. my experiences with asia, from india via nepal to korea, show that our commitment to human rights awakens great hopes among citizens there, among the disadvantaged, the excluded, the persecuted, and families and children. they invest their hopes in our resolution and active involvement on the ground, although we must include the nho, our competent partner in dialogue, at a much earlier stage in this process. their hopes are also awakened by our partnership agreements with the human rights clauses. these agreements are suspended if massive and systematic human rights violations take place. this is an effective way of bringing pressure to bear. the more resolutely we address specific problems, the clearer it becomes that human rights are not a western but a universal concept. our approach does not constitute impermissible intervention in the internal affairs of states, but necessary action against racism, torture, exploitation and the death penalty. commissioner, the european union must take on a far more pro-active and leading role on human rights issues at international level. was enough achieved at the 57th session of the commission on human rights in geneva, for example? the eu member states were united in their support for the united states' initiative to put the ongoing human rights violations in china on the agenda. however, there was no support from africa or south america in the overall vote, although we certainly have traditional alliance partners there. in advance of important decisions, the european union therefore needs a far better coordinated strategy so that our commitment to human rights is much more successful in future. i welcome today' s debate and the european commission' s long-awaited communication on human rights. i particularly welcome the commitment to give real substance to the human rights clauses in our trade and partnership agreements with third countries - something we badly failed to do with mexico. i also welcome a number of the specific country statements in the draft resolution, including our strong call for the dismantling of paramilitary groups in columbia. i share our strong statement of support and solidarity for human rights organisations and defenders, who risk their lives daily in conflict situations around the world to defend principles, which we hold dear. i have three specific points i want to raise in the context of the debate. firstly, whilst i welcome the commitment in the communication to appeal to european enterprises to do more to respect human rights, reflected in paragraphs 55 and 92 of our resolution, i have to say to the commission that i am disappointed that the relex dgs appear to have opted out of the draft green paper on corporate social responsibility. i ask them to revisit that before it is too late. words should be followed by action. secondly, i welcome, and i call for wider attention to, paragraph 108, concerning human rights abuses against disabled people. the organisation disability awareness in action has recorded over 2,000 such abuses within europe and they should be dealt with by human rights monitoring organisations and by the commission. finally, i welcome paragraph 16 which calls for a review of the way we deal with human rights issues in parliament. mr president, i would like to thank the two rapporteurs for their fine and excellent work. at the same time, i would like to agree with mrs maij-weggen' s view that religious freedom has been addressed in a far too limited manner. this issue concerns the deepest values of millions of people and the whole basis for their lives. in egypt, a neighbour of the eu, converting from islam to christianity is punishable by death. the coptic christians feel like second-class citizens. the christian minority in turkey continues to shrink. why are an increasing number of people of the christian faith moving from this country? the european parliament played an important part in ensuring that syrian christian priest yusuf akbulut was acquitted of all charges in the state security court in diyarbakir at easter. there is much to do in this area. three hundred thousand people have left the moluccas - most of them christians. they are persecuted by muslim jihad fighters. compulsory conversion has taken place with over 1 000 people being forced into a faith and view of life other than their own. i would also like to say that the french act on religious freedom leaves a great deal to be desired. there is considerable concern among many protestant and evangelical christians around europe regarding the implications of french legislation on religion. what a poor - and i mean poor - example this is for a large number of countries in central and eastern europe, including the czech republic, as these countries are about to adopt new legislation. we must be careful to ensure that we do not create an intolerant europe where only one faith is acceptable. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given the fact that we are running late, i shall be very brief, but please allow me to state how important this moment is for me. as a former member of this parliament, between 1994 and 1999, it is naturally a great honour to be here in this totally new hemisphere, back in this institution which is so familiar, and be able to take the floor. on behalf of the council, i should first of all like to congratulate the rapporteurs, mr wuori and mr cornillet very warmly on their sterling report, and i should also like to thank all the speakers for their contribution to the debate. from now on i will confine myself to answering the very specific questions that have been raised. to mrs frassoni, who is no longer here, but i shall say it anyway, i should like to assure her that the presidency will naturally make every effort to ensure that all the necessary conditions are in place so that a resolution against the death penalty can be tabled at the united nations general assembly. to mrs boudjenah, on the subject of tunisia, i should like to say, briefly, that the council takes the view that it really is a pity that a country which has made such remarkable social and economic progress should be denied the credit that it deserves, simply because those who are in charge are apparently incapable of understanding that, to us and to their own population, elements such as freedom of expression and freedom of the press are essential, and it is precisely this situation which is preventing the european union from pushing further ahead with the tunisian model, which would be worth doing if only the situation with regard to human rights and the treatment of the human rights league was considerably better than it is at the moment. (nl) to mr schrder, i should like to say that during this presidency, human rights will not, under any circumstances, be a footnote. one of the honourable members has already alluded to the fact that foreign affairs minister, mr michel, has already left. i can reassure that member: mr michel has not simply disappeared, he left to catch a plane to madrid where crucial discussions will be held concerning the presidency. for the rest, i should like to assure parliament that during the next six months, the fight against the trafficking in human beings in general, and the fight against the trafficking in women and children, in particular, will be one of our key priorities. i should like to thank mr johan van hecke for his kind words regarding our presidency, and i hope that we will be able to meet his expectations. i have to say that the aims are rather ambitious, but we will do our best. mrs maij-weggen and mr sacrdeus, it goes without saying that, in our view, freedom of religion is one of the fundamental rights and freedoms. we are running out of time so i will just say that, on behalf of my colleague, chris patten, who had to leave because he is attending at the same time another parliamentary meeting on latin america and on my own behalf i would like to thank all participants in the debate. the commission is taking note of all the remarks and is looking forward to the resolutions that will conclude these debates as guidelines for our reflection and further action. finally, i would like to congratulate parliament on the broad consensus that has been expressed on the new methodology of the report on fundamental rights in the european union, and express my wish that the approach which has been launched by mr cornillet will be retained for the future. thank you very much, commissioner. you have been almost excessive in your brevity. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. bonn conference on climate change the next item is the joint debate on the oral questions nos b5-0327/2001 and b5-0328/2001 by mrs jackson, on behalf of the committee on the environment, public health and consumer policy, to the council and the commission, on the commission' s strategy for the bonn conference on climate change. mr president, i apologise for my lateness. human rights seem to have been taking up quite a lot of time, and quite right too. i want to express parliament' s concern that the kyoto protocol may falter and fail, leaving the world without any coherent network of obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. we in the european parliament offer our full support to the commission and to the presidency in their endeavours to ensure that the kyoto protocol survives and comes into force. we would like to use this brief debate to explore what europe can do to lead the world in the absence of american leadership and in what ways the members of the european parliament who attend the bonn conference can speak for the people of europe and actively participate in the proceedings. we very much appreciate the work of the dutch minister, mr pronk, in seeking to find a way to solve the unresolved issues left over from the hague, and we would appreciate it if the commission could give us its view on how successful he has been to date and whether or not the work he has done has now cleared the way forward. but the big question for us is whether it will be possible to show that the european union, and the other major parties to the protocol, are prepared to take decisions without the united states. here the attitude of the new japanese government is crucial. without the votes of japan and canada the protocol cannot enter into force. we gather that the omens are not good and that japan probably, and canada certainly, lack the political will to go ahead without the united states. if japan is prepared to go ahead, then there is the suspicion that the japanese may want to re-write the crucial proposals within the protocol, notably using the year 2000 perhaps rather than 1990 as the base year for calculating greenhouse gas emission reductions. one of my colleagues, mr moreira da silva, who will be leading parliament' s delegation to bonn, wishes to move an oral amendment on this point to the resolution we have tabled, since the problem with japan has really only come to the fore in the period since we tabled it. our resolution reiterates in paragraph 3 our basic expectations about the action that will follow ratification of the protocol. but as europeans we must make a sober assessment of what this will mean for us if it were to happen and still more if it were to happen without the united states. first and most crucially: money. as the protocol stands, financial contributions from individual parties will be based on each party' s share of co2 emissions. it is not difficult to see that the united states, with 39% of the total 1990 emissions, would pay the lion' s share. the question that occurs to me, which should perhaps have been asked earlier, is how the clinton government ever thought it could persuade congress to sign up to the treaty. perhaps greater honesty at the outset might have helped provide a more realistic atmosphere. without the united states the burden will fall on japan, germany, the united kingdom, france, canada and australia. the finance available for measures to reduce co2 emissions in poorer countries will be greatly reduced without us participation. the strain on the europeans will be greater. are we prepared for this, i ask? secondly, if we ratify kyoto alone or without the united states it will mean taking certain actions that are going to be painful. we meps who follow these issues recognise that. every year, every month, far into the night, we deal with directives designed to reduce emissions, but we also know that in most instances when we encounter the council or their representatives it is extremely difficult to get the member states to agree to these proposals in their original, very demanding form. we now face a situation where, according to the european environment agency, only the united kingdom, germany and luxembourg reduced their greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 1998. all the other countries of europe increased them. so how will denmark, the netherlands, belgium, austria, finland, italy and, to a lesser extent, sweden and france, meet the kyoto targets? or will we, as the united states suspects, not be willing to take the actions that will give reality to our ambitions? we hope that the bonn conference and the belgian presidency will be able to move the europeans on from words to action. finally a word on the participation of the eu delegation in the bonn conference. we are tired of being a greek chorus in this tragedy. we are tired of coming on to stage when the main action has taken place to lament or celebrate what has happened and to offer philosophical reflections on the sad state of mankind - " " indeed! this is unsatisfactory because we should ourselves be reckoned as protagonists since we will have to adopt the legislation that will flow from kyoto and we will have to explain it to the people of europe. we may not want to be negotiators ourselves, but our ambition is to play a full part in the meetings with the european union delegation that decides how europe will act. we are not content to remain as a chorus. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to start by thanking mrs jackson for the question she has raised and the remarks she has made concerning this very serious issue indeed about which we are all concerned. on behalf of the council, i can only reiterate our commitment, as referred to in the council conclusions of 8 march and 7 june 2001, to reach an agreement at the resumption session of the conference of the parties no 6 which is soon to take place in bonn. this agreement is to safeguard the environmental integrity of the kyoto protocol, is to lead to an actual reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases, and is to help reach the broadest possible participation of the industrialised countries. in that way, the conditions can be created for the protocol to be reinforced and to be entered into force by no later than 2002. we therefore confirm our commitment to try to achieve this. all these objectives remain unchanged and the european union is prepared to negotiate with all partners in bonn on the unresolved issues in a constructive manner. although the council recognises that the european union and the united states do not see eye to eye concerning the kyoto protocol and the ratification thereof, despite this, the council welcomes the pledge, made by president bush during a recent meeting with the eu heads of state and government leaders, that the united states will not block the kyoto process, and will cooperate during the forthcoming session of the conference of the parties in bonn in a constructive manner. during the high-level consultation of 27 and 28 june last in scheveningen, the european union managed to establish fruitful contacts with different partners on climate negotiations. and the european union was delighted to note that the international community continues to strongly support the kyoto protocol and its swift implementation. that is despite the united states' refusal to ratify the protocol. as was apparent in scheveningen, there is a strong sense of urgency with regard to this matter and also a high level of awareness of the fact that the outcome of more than ten years of international negotiations can surely not be put on the line. since the council is of the opinion that your presence is definitely significant, the council has invited eight meps to take part in the conference in bonn. the specific conditions for this participation, about which you may not be happy, are explained in a letter from the council to the european parliament of 18 november 1998. however, given the wish of the participants for more and regular information, a wish that was underlined by mrs jackson, but which certainly reflects the feeling of many among you, the presidency intends to organise informal meetings with the meps during the conference at regular intervals, thus allowing an exchange of ideas to take place about the progress and the state of affairs. mrs jackson, i am aware that this may not satisfy you entirely, but on the other hand, it does mean that you will be able to do more than just sing or lament on the sidelines or behind the scenes. president-in-office, ladies and gentlemen, i would like on behalf of the commission to thank mrs jackson for raising such an important issue in the house. as the president-in-office has already said, in gothenburg, the heads of state and government confirmed that the european community and the member states are determined to meet their commitments under the kyoto protocol. the union' s summit reaffirmed the european union' s aim of bringing the protocol into force by 2002 and asked the commission to prepare a proposal for ratification before the end of 2001. regrettably, the bush administration continues to oppose the kyoto protocol. at the european union/united states summit in gothenburg, president bush acknowledged the science underlying climate change and the global importance of this issue. the united states has indicated that while they will participate actively in the resumed cop6 in bonn, their basic position, opposing the protocol has not changed. we will build upon this indication that the united states does not intend to obstruct the kyoto process. to facilitate this, we have agreed that there will be further high-level contacts with the united states on this subject. the resumed cop6 in july will pick up the threads of the conference in the hague and try and bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. to achieve this, the european union will take a positive attitude while, at the same time, being realistic about what can be achieved. the new consolidated texts by the chairman of cop6, mr pronk, are clear and concise and provide a good basis for the bonn negotiations. however, the texts still contain a number of important sticking points for the european union, notably on funding for developing countries, compliance and supplementarity. these need to be resolved. in the end, we will strive for an overall package where compromises on one side are balanced out by gains on the other. we must also take into account the specific importance of japan and russia for the entry into force of the protocol. the commission welcomes the strong interest of the european parliament in the global problem of climate change and the participation of members of the european parliament in the community delegation to the resumed cop6. as in the hague, the commission and council, the president-in-office has explained, have proposed that the european parliament be represented by eight members. in accordance with the institutional rules for their participation, the members can attend plenary meetings, and the commission will regularly provide information on those negotiations which are not open to observers on a regular basis to all members of the european parliament present at cop6. mr president, commissioner, madam secretary of state, ladies and gentlemen, i wish to speak first of all about precisely this issue of whether or not the european parliament delegation should participate in the european union' s coordination meetings. i wish to state that i was far from satisfied with the way in which the secretary of state answered the legitimate questions asked by caroline jackson. the european parliament' s delegation is not asking for privileges. it is asking for its legitimate right to participate actively in the bonn conference and not simply to play spear-carrier, as we did at the hague conference. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, climate change is more than just another environmental dossier. it has become an issue that truly symbolises the international political agenda. if the kyoto protocol fails, the interpretation will be clear: states and politicians move rapidly and effectively when it comes to promoting the advantages of globalisation, but they are incapable of reaching agreement on minimising the less pleasant aspects of our social model. the current situation could not be worse. on the one hand, action is more urgent today than it ever has been and the measures announced recently by the intergovernmental panel on climate change leave no room for doubt on this matter. on the other hand, it has never been as difficult to take action as it is today: the decision by the united states has dealt a harsh blow to international efforts over the last ten years. these factors, urgency of action, pressure from the public and the withdrawal of the united states make the bonn conference critical. it will really be the moment of truth for the kyoto protocol. our position is perfectly clear: it is crucial that we limit climate change and the kyoto protocol - and none other - is the most appropriate political instrument for achieving this objective. let us, therefore, go to bonn with the aim of concluding an agreement with as many countries as possible on the 'left overs' from kyoto so that the protocol can be ratified and implemented in 2002. in order for the negotiations to be successful, in particular with japan and russia, we will clearly have to be flexible, but in a way that respects the integrity and the spirit of the protocol. i should like to say one last word about economic issues. it is true that, in the short term, implementing the protocol will result in economic costs to european businesses. nevertheless, these costs, as we read only this week in the commission' s report, will be much lower than was initially thought. i am, in fact, convinced that in the medium term, the kyoto protocol will make the european economy more competitive as a result of the technological transformation that we will achieve earlier than elsewhere in the world. mr president, the applause from all groups for ms jackson' s speech shows that in europe, there is consensus on climate policy. there is obviously some sort of consensus in public opinion in the usa as well, but public opinion in the usa is different from europe' s. this is why i believe we should not only be talking to one or two parliamentarians or government representatives; the europeans should actually be thinking how they can influence public opinion in the usa, and indeed in japan, if the japanese decide not to go ahead. the task of managing climate change is so enormous that going it alone will be extremely difficult. that is precisely the issue which arises here. even if the others do not go ahead, are we prepared to continue the course agreed at gothenburg, which i support? making a verbal commitment is easy. agreeing to take on these burdens is simple and costs nothing. however, translating this into reality will be an immensely difficult task. my fear - i admit this quite openly - is that the europeans, or many europeans, will hide behind the us. in truth, we are a long way off meeting the standards set in the kyoto protocol. we all know that. the commission feeds us a never-ending stream of fresh statistics. we face a herculean task - i just want to make this clear. despite these difficulties, however, let me say that for the first time since the second world war, europe now has the opportunity to take on political leadership at world level. we should grasp this opportunity with both hands, well aware that this is not a simple task. incidentally, it is a noble task, not a dirty job, which europe should address, and if others do not join us until later, we should accept this with good grace. my third comment relates to the text itself. i cannot stop myself from saying this: i must point out that what we are demanding, namely "halting" climate change, is sheer nonsense, of course. i have no idea how this slipped into the text. there has always been climate change, but this time, we are making our own contribution to it, and that is exactly what this is all about. i would like to start by paying tribute to commissioner wallstrm, the commissioner for the environment. i do not think any of the parliamentarians have any doubt at all about her passionate personal commitment towards trying to secure a positive outcome from the talks in bonn, and i would also like to say a word of thanks to my liberal colleague, prime minister verhofstadt, for the emphasis he placed this morning on saying that the problem of climate change is the greatest single challenge facing the planet. one thing that this whole issue has brought about - if it was needed - is a great awareness that this is a very small planet upon which we live and that mankind is very capable, through its industrial practices, of changing our environment. even the united states now recognises this, although they have yet to come up with an alternative in any practical form to the kyoto protocol. there are great opportunities for, and advantages in, addressing this problem by using technology which is in the process of being developed or has been developed to change our practices and reduce global warming. this offers great benefits to society, and economic opportunities for those of us who take a lead, but why are we not able to pursue this more effectively? one problem is vested interests - the classic example being the fossil fuel industries; another is weak political leadership by all of us - we are all responsible for this. we back down over taking decisions which will be unpopular in the short term with our electorates. i wish to see harmonised environmental taxation at a european level - the objective being not to raise more money but to change practices and priorities and ensure that industry at the same time is able to compete on a level playing field. we have had the problems - we have experienced the problems with fuel duty in britain and elsewhere whenever politicians try really to apply taxes which benefit the environment in this way. the odd thing of course, in britain' s case, is that harmonised energy taxation on fuel duties would also probably reduce our taxes. i have just returned from a visit to cyprus - one of the accession countries - where i find out that not only is there no fuel duty on the use of petrol but that petrol is actually subsidised. so, my question to the commission is this: when it comes to practical forms, when it comes to actually dealing with what i hope will be a positive outcome from bonn, how does the council pursue harmonised energy taxation at the same time as dealing with enlargement, which makes the possibility of unanimity so much more difficult to achieve if it we were actually to have harmonised environmental taxation of a sort which is worth having. mr president, over the past two years, more wind-energy capacity has been installed worldwide than nuclear energy. despite this, messrs bush and blair are trying to breathe new life into nuclear energy. along with a clear majority in the european parliament, my group believes that nuclear energy should not, and cannot, play a role in solving the climate problem, not even in the "clean development" mechanism. on all other scores - i repeat, all other scores - the greens can accept a compromise in bonn. that compromise must aim to keep japan on board. even a higher reduction target for europe is to be considered. the commission has recently published a study which shows that a reduction target which is twice as high as the current one is not a problem for us economically speaking. europe must now seriously look into renewable energy and saving energy. a further development of solar energy is desperately needed to provide electricity to the last two billion people on this earth. providing two billion people with electricity generated by fossil fuels would spell an uncertain climate death to us all. a weak agreement in bonn is better than another fiasco. the 1987 treaty of montreal protecting the ozone layer was also a weak agreement, but over the past fourteen years, it has been tightened up on every occasion. we could adopt the same approach with the kyoto protocol. mr president, there is great unanimity here on our position regarding climate issues, which i believe is extremely important. we must use this unanimity to put maximum pressure on those countries which are now deciding the future of the kyoto protocol. in practice, we risk some sort of collapse in climate negotiations, a collapse which would risk setting us back several years. the worst thing is that those causing the collapse, particularly the us, have no alternative to offer. therefore, everything must now be done to save whatever can be saved. the european union itself has a credibility problem because, as previous speakers have said, many of our member states will not meet the requirements of the kyoto protocol, either. we know that these requirements in themselves are insufficient to combat the problem of climate change. what we see in practice when we meet the council of ministers, for example in conciliation on combustion plants and national ceilings for emissions, is that no-one is prepared to take the decisions which need to be taken. by the time a decision was to be made in gothenburg on a strategy for sustainable development, many of the most important points had been removed. of course the eu' s credibility would also increase if we showed by our actions that we are prepared to meet the targets we set ourselves. i believe this is important ahead of the meetings which we are about to have with other countries in order to decide the future of the kyoto protocol. i would like, first of all, to compliment mrs jackson for raising this oral question. it has already been mentioned that the conference for climate change will be held in bonn from 16-27 july 2001. we know that the us government and the european union could not reach agreement in the netherlands before christmas on setting a timetable for the reduction of the use of greenhouse gases. equally, it is very clear that the us government is getting cold feet on the kyoto agreement. this is very disappointing. there is clear and unequivocal scientific evidence that demonstrates the effect of climate change. surely, the us and the european union governments can agree on one item, and that is simply that the use of greenhouse gases depletes the ozone layer which results in higher sea levels and more coastal erosion, and affects the living environment of island communities. i am calling on the european governments which will be represented in bonn to use this conference as an opportunity to tell the us that this is not good enough, and that the full provisions of the kyoto agreement must be implemented: under the agreement alone, the us government would be required to cut emissions by approximately one-third by the year 2012. mr president, if the us senate were to vote in favour of the kyoto protocol, this would be tantamount to political suicide, as appeared during a video conference last year involving a number of us senators. the new us president, mr bush, has meanwhile rejected the kyoto protocol. this is referred to as a huge disgrace, with good reason. on the other hand, this us president makes no secret of how the united states feels about the kyoto protocol. the unfortunate result of this is that japan is also questioning whether it should ratify the protocol. last week, the japanese prime minister, mr junichiro koizumi, said that he does not intend to go ahead without the backing of the united states. however, we should realise that the countries of the european union have not ratified or implemented the kyoto protocol either. co2 emissions may have fallen considerably in luxembourg, germany and great britain, but they have risen quite dramatically in spain, portugal and ireland. according to the worldwide fund for nature prognosis, co2 emissions in the european union will be rising by eight percent in total, instead of falling by eight percent, as per the kyoto protocol. furthermore, it would be very inconsistent if the european union were to blame the united states for not being prepared to do anything to reduce co2 emissions, if the european union is not willing to continue to reduce nox emissions itself. the us emission standards for nox in 2003 are already stricter than what the environment ministers want within the framework of the directive on large furnaces in 2018. there is the risk that the failure of the kyoto protocol will be used as an excuse for not having to do anything. the threat of climate change remains, so does the objective to counter this, with or without the kyoto protocol. the eu should, therefore, not follow the example of the united states or japan, but must fight climate change by focusing on saving energy, energy efficiency by, inter alia, total energy, and by developing wind and solar energy. with regard to these aspects, it should also be possible to conclude agreements with the united states and japan. in addition, we must be open to extending the proportion that can be achieved by emission trade. if we can persuade the united states to re-join the negotiations in that way, we should certainly do this. finally, we should no longer neglect third world countries, since energy consumption there is also set to rise considerably. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, there is no question that at this time of disappointment and rejection for the european union given the attitude of the united states towards compliance with the kyoto commitments, the european parliament must unequivocally reaffirm and reinforce its commitment to making progress on the reduction of co2 emissions through the ratification of the measures proposed in the protocol. having agreed in 1997 on an international strategy for reducing polluting emissions, we cannot accept such a drastic and important change in approach towards the situation, which gives credence to arguments which, under a scientific veneer, intend to postpone the intensity and force of specific actions. furthermore, i believe that this proposed resolution is a necessary gesture by the european parliament towards the member states as an expression of the renewal of a political will in each of them to combat climate change and to intensify the establishment of the mechanisms necessary for the ratification of the protocol. at the next climate summit in bonn, the member states will have to respond to the key points which were left unresolved at the hague. i believe it is essential that at least the leader or 'vice-leader' of the parliamentary delegation should be accepted as part of the european union' s negotiating team. therefore, and in order to take the next step of negotiating with other countries a rapid ratification of the protocol, it is so important that this parliament should unite in supporting the present proposal, renewing, as i have said, the european union' s will for international leadership in the field of the environment and as a gesture towards the member states, so that they do not forget or delay the implementation on a national level of the measures necessary for the ratification of the protocol. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, it has been said in this house a number of times, and it is not unimportant: there is wide unanimity across the political divide on this issue, and you must support it in the forthcoming negotiations in bonn. that is not all: for many european issues, we have to battle against public opinion, but in this debate, we have the backing of a huge majority of the public opinion which is urging governments to take further steps in kyoto. that means that on the eve of bonn, we have to propose a number of measures at the conference, but also at community and national level. as has been said a few times, we can, and must, as europe, play a global role in this debate. this role suits us without a doubt, and largely discredits others, of course, including mr bush and his administration. we must also try to bring the others on board, that we must definitely do, but not by putting concluded agreements at risk. if the protocol is adopted with unlimited trade in hot air or unlimited use of coal pits, the effect on the climate will be limited. i should like to add one point to the debate. i do not think there is room for complacency. we have not yet ratified the protocol either, nor have we completed any clear, concrete plans of action. i would therefore urge the belgian presidency to tackle this issue with both hands. in what form will we be trading our emissions? will this be done among states, or also among businesses? and how will the trade among sectors be regulated? and also, what is the latest on the national plans of action? what are we going to do about them, and have any budgets been earmarked in this connection? i should therefore ask the belgian presidency to address this matter properly in the next couple of months. although some sceptics still doubt the phenomenon of global warming, nobody can doubt the cooling of relations between the eu and the us over its refusal to recommend ratification of the kyoto protocol. the intergovernmental panel on climate change has no doubt that there is global warming taking place and that greenhouse gases, in particular co2 emissions, are largely responsible. even the us national academy of sciences advising president bush largely concurs with this finding. the eu is now determined to go it alone, but the biggest culprit, the us, with 4% of the world' s population and 25% of global emissions, still will not co-operate. sadly, to date, only romania has ratified the protocol. japan and canada are now getting cold feet without us involvement. in my country, the uk, under a conservative government, we made a dash for gas, since natural gas produces far less co2 than coal. we went on to see it rapidly reversed by the new labour government, anxious to preserve jobs in the mining industry. mercifully the uk is still online to meet its kyoto commitments. we are already witnessing in european winter resorts in the mountains the effects of the rising snow line, but the long-term prospects are far more frightening. at some point, there is a danger of thermal runaway as the polar caps melt, reflect less sunshine and cause a rapid increase in atmospheric warming. this threatens flooding around the globe and other climatic changes causing economic devastation with huge migratory pressures on peoples, not to mention potential wars over water supplies. what is the solution? i believe that all nations must subscribe to policies of sustainable economic development and invest in renewable energy sources. this also means reopening the controversial nuclear power debate, which i support. we must also look at using market-based mechanisms, such as tradeable emission permits. the kyoto 5% targeted reduction by 2010 from 1990 levels may not go far enough. we may also have to look again at carbon sinks. i believe that the us must reconsider its position and come back to bonn with some really good proposals. i congratulate my colleague, mrs jackson on her continuing interest in this critical area for the future of mankind. mr president, the world needs a powerful, political signal. kyoto should not remain an empty pledge. political leadership is now required to win over the world. we need to display the necessary flexibility in this respect. first of all, with regard to the united states and japan. we have to abandon the emphasis on domestic action. we must work towards a science-based approach of the 'sinks' problem. secondly, with regard to the developing countries, climate changes impact greatly on the developing countries. the effects are being felt in bangladesh, india, indonesia and the island states. we desperately need a warm-hearted approach to developing countries, and a fund that allows for adjustments being made. we must realise that if the united states does not take part, the incentive for the developing countries will actually be taken away, for it is precisely the united states that wanted to realise a large proportion of their duties outside of the us. the european union now has to assume this role, and do more for the developing countries. needless to say, the developing countries will in time need to be included in system of co2 reductions, but then on the basis of equal emission rights. thirdly, we must commit ourselves to taking domestic action seriously and not to promoting nuclear energy. we must now take swift action and launch a credible and reliable system for the trade in emission rights, and within europe, we must set up a research agenda to make the transition to a low-co2 economy possible. mr president, the eu delegation did not show itself to its best advantage in the hague. indecisiveness and dissension contributed to the failure of the hague. parliamentarians could play a role if they gain permission to attend the delegation meetings as observers. as the president-in-council stated a moment ago, we sang and lamented behind the scenes, but to no avail. therefore, we now want to be admitted in the delegation as observers, and we believe that this can strengthen the unity within the european union. mr president, there is a great temptation in politics to consider everything to be a matter of negotiation which can be agreed on amongst people. so that we might remember what we are dealing with, i will reiterate a few facts about climatic warming. i would like to remind you that there is now ample scientific proof regarding this matter, and that climatic warming is a hard fact. there is just one party we have to negotiate with, and that is nature, which does not make compromises. it just is. the latest time series analyses of seawater temperatures say the same as what we have known about air temperatures for a long time. during the last hundred years the seas have warmed up by 0.6 degrees, and the trend is accelerating. in terms of average temperatures this is a very great change. glaciers are melting; 85% of them are receding at a very fast rate, as much as several tens of metres a year at their worst. the andean ice caps are in danger of disappearing altogether. the polar icecaps have shrunk by 25% in the last three years. in northern areas of continents the permafrost is melting at a dramatic rate, especially in central siberia and alaska. this also has large-scale effects on the exploitation of natural resources in these regions. if we allow global warming to continue, the dreaded, worst-case scenario in northwestern europe may well take place. warming could divert north atlantic sea currents, causing northern fennoscandia to have a far more severely cold climate than it does now as a result. as the glaciers melt, the so-called atlantic pump will cease working and the warm gulf stream coming up from the tropics and its extension, the north atlantic current, will stop flowing. this could result in the whole of northwestern europe becoming colder, which palaeo-oceanographic studies show could happen suddenly, with catastrophic results. the same facts reveal themselves in every direction. just recently the red cross confirmed what other aid organisations have been saying: experience of an increased number of natural disasters shows that the change can be put down to global warming. unless we act quickly and, furthermore, put pressure on others also to act quickly, these new phenomena will increase exponentially. bonn needs to be a success. mr president, a thank-you first of all to mrs jackson for the initiative behind the debate we are having here today. i think that climate change is one of the best documented of any of our environmental problems and, at the same time, the biggest threat to the environment and to future generations here on earth. that is why the us administration' s rejection of the kyoto protocol is, of course, also completely irresponsible. i think we have to acknowledge that mr bush and his administration have shown themselves to be just as primitive and populist as might have been feared. however, that attitude in the united states ought, of course, only to give an edge to europe' s responsibility for global environmental development, as mr da silva too pointed out. we must stick by the kyoto protocol at the conference in the hague. we must ensure that the member states and the eu are in the vanguard of efforts to get the protocol ratified so that it can, if possible, come into force next year. with that in mind, we must naturally try to make japan stick to this solution. like mrs van brempt, i would warn against entering into a sub-standard conciliation or agreement with the united states. experience has shown time and again that when the united states has ended up with what, in our eyes, is a really bad agreement, it fails to honour it when the time comes to implement it. on the contrary, we in europe must ensure that our climate change programme is implemented effectively. as quite a few people have mentioned, we also have problems here in europe. at the moment, we are seeing a clear negative trend in the area of transport, for example. we must work to ensure that, given the future we are now confronting, the united states does not obtain a competitive advantage from showing the kind of irresponsibility we have seen so far. i hope that the bonn conference may nonetheless be a decisive step towards meeting the enormous challenge we are all facing. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, combating the catastrophic effects of climate change is the most important environmental policy challenge of our time. indeed, i would go as far as to say that it may even be the single most important challenge overall, also beyond the parameters of environmental policy. there is thus a great deal at stake in bonn. it is important, then, for the european union to present a united front, and so i appeal to the council and the commission to include the parliamentary delegation in its activities and ensure that the head of our delegation, at least, is involved in coordination at eu level, as we are keen to support the council and the commission' s position. naturally, this is only possible if we are genuinely informed in detail. the main problem, of course, is the usa' s position. this has already been pointed out several times. it is not enough merely to agree that the usa' s position is unacceptable. since gentle persuasion and appeals have not achieved very much, we must now consider how we can exert even greater pressure. the european union should make climate protection and the kyoto agreement its key priority in relations with the us. many of our positions differ from those of the us government or congress, but climate protection is the major problem, and that should be made clear. this is why i was rather disappointed when, after gothenburg, the message was: there is a difference of opinion, and that was it. the eu must make it quite clear that while we may have different opinions on other issues and still carry on with the agenda, this specific topic is a priority for the eu. perhaps we should go as far as to make concessions in other areas in order to ensure that this priority is genuinely asserted in practice. if the americans are then prepared to ratify kyoto and engage in practical cooperation in bonn, we too should be flexible. instead of promoting the eu' s purist doctrine, e.g. on nuclear energy, we too should be prepared to compromise. however, a precondition is that the americans actually commit themselves to ratifying kyoto and pursuing the climate protection process in a positive way. thank you very much, mr liese. the presidency-in-office of the council and the commission inform me, i believe with very good reason, that they have been enlightened by your speeches. to end the debate, i have received one motion for a resolution, presented in accordance with rule 42(5) of the rules of procedure. the joint debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. question time (council) the next item is question time (b5-0329/2001). we shall examine questions to the council. we only have 40 minutes. i must reach a consensus with you for the functioning of this question time, because otherwise we will be in an impossible situation. if the first members on the list of questions speak too much, the others will be deprived of their right. we initially have ten questions which are going to be taken together by the president-in-office of the council. if we have supplementary questions, you will appreciate that that would amount to thirty questions and that there would not even be time to hold question time. i am therefore going to apply rule 19 of the rules of procedure, which gives the president the authority to organise the debate on exceptional occasions. if you need it, you can speak for a minute and a half instead of a minute; but please do not, each of you, ask for the floor three times with the subsequent replies. please do not refuse this request, ladies and gentlemen. it is absolutely rational and necessary. i heard your ruling, but annex ii to the rules of procedure says that each member may put a supplementary to any question. we have been economical. we get one answer, but we should each get a supplementary. yes, i agree, but rule 19 refers to such exceptional situations as today' s. it is therefore necessary to apply the rules of procedure in a rational way. if you continue raising points of order, not even the first ten questioners will be able to put their question or receive a reply. mr president, i would simply like to propose a rational solution to the problem. i believe that we effectively have the right to respond to the president-in-office' s intervention and afterwards each of us should have the right to a supplementary question. mr president, i propose that we all have the right to a second brief intervention which would compensate for that hypothetical supplementary question which we would otherwise have the right to. the debate will be brief but we would conserve our rights under the rules of procedure. even with rule 19, i have flexibility. therefore you can put the question again for one minute and the supplementary question, and you will have a maximum of one opportunity each; after half a minute, the microphone will be turned off. this is my final interpretation of rule 19. as they deal with the same subject, questions nos 1 to 10 will be taken together. question no 1 by (h-0516/01): subject: the laeken declaration the december 2000 nice european council approved a declaration on the future of the union. the declaration calls for a wide-ranging and searching debate on the european union' s future. not only the member states but also states applying for accession, national parliaments, the european parliament and the general public are all to be involved in that debate. the european council has thus improperly and in absolute disregard for the subsidiarity principle, bypassed the democratic legitimacy of the constitutionally established regions. the belgian foreign affairs minister louis michel recently repeated his intention to allow meps to sit also as members of the belgian parliament. we welcome what mr michel has to say about the closer involvement of members of parliaments, provided that he also includes the elected representatives of communes and regions. will the council, in deference to the subsidiarity principle, include the constitutionally established regions in the plans it is drawing up for europe' s future? question no 2 by (h-0518/01): subject: laeken declaration in view of the increasingly important and prominent involvement of the sub-state levels in the various eu decision-making procedures, the broad debate on the future of the union which is taking shape mainly around the laeken summit should also provide answers to institutional issues relating to the involvement, from the legislative and judicial points of view, of constitutional regions (sub-state entities with their own legislative powers guaranteed under the constitution of the state to which they belong) in the development, implementation, monitoring and assessment of eu policies. is the council therefore intending to amend the treaties (part five, section 4) in such a way as to grant these regions the right to appeal direct to the court of justice when their prerogatives are under threat, as the member states are able to do? question no 3 by (h-0520/01): subject: laeken declaration it is expected that during the belgian presidency the laeken declaration on the future of the eu will be adopted. a number of member states, including germany, austria, belgium and the uk, have established mechanisms for the participation of their regional or federal bodies in council proceedings. given that the autonomous regions of the spanish state, the german and austrian lnder and the belgian regions possess significant powers of their own which are in many cases affected by community decisions, does the council support the view that the regions could be directly represented within itself? question no 4 by (h-0522/01): subject: laeken declaration with the declaration to be made at laeken on saturday, 15 december, the federal state of belgium intends to make its contribution to the debate on the future of the european union. in that respect, the positive stance adopted by prime minister guy verhofstadt on the joint political declaration by seven constitutional regions is particularly pleasing. at the end of may, he received the regional president of catalonia, the minister-president of salzburg, the first minister of scotland, the chief ministers of flanders and wallonia and the ministers for european/federal affairs of bavaria and north rhine-westphalia, who are pressing for the role of constitutionally recognised regions in the european union to be strengthened. does the council support greater treaty-based involvement for constitutional regions in the european project in view of the added democratic legitimacy they bring to the construction of the european union? if not, why is it opposed to the greater treaty-based involvement of constitutional regions in mapping out the future of europe? question no 5 by (h-0524/01): subject: laeken declaration annex iv of the nice treaty contains a declaration calling for a deeper and wider debate about the future development of the eu. the igc also recognised the need to improve and to monitor the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the union and its institutions. this formula opens the possibility of a form of convention with representatives of national parliaments, the european parliament and the governments of the member states. contrary to the principle of subsidiarity no reference was made to the constitutional regions. will the council - following the democratic principle of subsidiarity - involve all the parliaments of the constitutional regions when it chooses a form of convention? question no 6 by (h-0525/01): subject: laeken declaration according to the declaration in annex iv of the nice treaty the debate about the future development of the eu should address, inter alia, the following question: how to establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of competences between the eu and the member states, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity? the present idea of subsidiarity in the ec treaty is commonly interpreted as regulating only relations between union and states. this interpretation has to be broadened as outlined in the resolution of the european parliament of 26 october 2000 on better lawmaking. will the laeken declaration propose to amend the treaties so that they specifically include recognition of, and respect for, the political and legislative powers of the member states' internal political units in their executive, legislative and judicial relations with the eu institutions? question no 7 by (h-0526/01): subject: laeken declaration annex iv of the nice treaty contains a declaration calling for a deeper and wider debate about the future development of the eu. it also recognises the need to improve and to monitor the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the union and its institutions. in december 2001 the belgian presidency will be concluded by a contribution to this debate, the laeken declaration. will the laeken declaration recognise that a further democratisation of the european decision-making process calls for a more radical reform, with legislative power vested in two chambers, the european parliament and a reformed council that would subsume some aspects of the present committee of the regions and would strongly enhance the role of the constitutional regions? question no 8 by (h-0560/01): subject: laeken declaration annex iv of the nice treaty contains a declaration that calls for a deeper and wider debate about the future development of the eu. following a report to its gothenburg meeting in june 2001, the european council at its meeting in laeken in december 2001 will agree on appropriate initiatives for the continuation of this process. according to the declaration the process should address, inter alia, the following question: how to establish and monitor a more precise delimitation of competences between the eu and the member states, reflecting the principle of subsidiarity? will the council - following the principle of subsidiarity - refrain from infringing the competences of the constitutional regions? how will the council establish and monitor this respect for the competences of the constitutional regions? question no 9 by (h-0531/01): subject: declaration no 54 attached to the treaty of amsterdam on subsidiarity declaration no 54 attached to the treaty of amsterdam, on subsidiarity, states: -it is taken for granted by the german, austrian and belgian governments that action by the european community in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity not only concerns the member states but also their entities to the extent that they have their own law-making powers conferred on them under national constitutional law.' similarly, declaration no 23 attached to the treaty of nice, on the future of the union, states in its third paragraph: 'in 2001, the swedish and belgian presidencies, in cooperation with the commission and involving the european parliament, will encourage wide-ranging discussions with all interested parties' ; and, in its fourth paragraph: 'the european council, at its meeting in laeken in december 2001, will agree on a declaration containing appropriate initiatives for the continuation of this process' . what approach will the belgian presidency take to declaration no 54 attached to the treaty of amsterdam, on the principle of subsidiarity and the entities having exclusive powers? what does the belgian presidency believe to be the best means of resolving potential conflicts arising from decisions of the eu institutions where such decisions clash with the exclusive powers of those entities? would the correct solution not be for the european court of justice to be given the power to rule on any appeals lodged by those constitutional entities and for the treaties to legitimate the power of those entities to defend their interests in court at union level? question no 10 by (h-0547/01): subject: recognition of the political and legislative competences of constitutional regions and nationalities what proposals does the council intend to make to ensure that the planned 2004 reform of the treaties includes the recognition and underpinning of the political and legislative powers of internal units within the member states (nationalities, federal states, autonomous communities or constitutional regions) in their executive, legislative and judicial relations with the eu institutions? in a declaration attached to the treaty of nice, the conference of representatives of the member state governments expressed the wish for a broad and more profound debate on european union' s future to be initiated as a first step in a preparatory process which will culminate in the convening of the intergovernmental conference in 2004. the joint declaration of the swedish and belgian presidencies, the president of the european parliament and the president of the commission of 7 march last, confirmed this objective and called for a debate in which all sections of society need to be involved more than ever. the report by the presidency, submitted to the european council in gothenburg, describes the vast range of initiatives which have already been launched in member states and candidate countries, and also by the institutions of the union. this report notes the numerous initiatives that have been taken in various member states, involving different regional bodies. it also lists the events organised as part of this debate by the committee of the regions. the various questions raised, which are all on the subject of the role of the regional bodies in the process of preparing for the intergovernmental conference in 2004, are concerned with two types of problem. on the one hand, there are the detailed rules for implementing the preparatory phase which precedes the next intergovernmental conference, and on the other there is the issue of the role of the regional bodies in the construction of the union. as far as the question of the detailed rules concerning the preparatory phase is concerned, it is too soon yet to take a decision on the content of the laeken declaration. most of you, i know, heard what was said by our prime minister, and that will have lifted a little corner of the veil. however, most of the canvas which is currently covered by that veil has still to be painted. that being the case, all i can tell you is that it is too soon. however, it is obvious that the preparatory phase will have to take its inspiration from the various contributions which will be made by the european council in december, and from the discussions and contacts which the belgian presidency will be having with all the parties concerned. in that respect i can assure you that the presidency has the firm intention of examining every aspect of the question, including those mentioned by the honourable members, so that the detailed rules for implementing preparations for the 2004 intergovernmental conference will provide the optimum response to the initial requirements set out in the nice declaration. (nl) by way of response to the questions which are related to the content of the role of regional bodies in the future fabric of the union, i can only remind you of the attention which previous intergovernmental conferences have devoted to this issue. that was particularly apparent from the establishment of a committee of the regions, composed of representatives from regional and local communities, a committee which, as you know, plays an advisory role. it would be premature at this stage to give you a detailed response to this issue of content on behalf of the council - for i am talking on behalf of the council - but i am certain that this point will be addressed in due course. i shall listen to your supplementary questions with interest. i hope there will be time for a supplementary answer. mrs neyts-uytebroeck, or annemie, if you will allow me to use your first name, we should not pull the wool over each other' s eyes. i simply want to say to you that, of course, i understand that you are replying here on behalf of the council. but all of the ten efta parliamentarians present here naturally want to promote the regional process in the european construction, because we are all meps from pro-european regions. we fear that if the constitutional regions are not represented well in the european decision-making process, a gradual aversion to europe will grow within those regions, because we will feel that our regions cannot have their say, that they are suffocating, as it were. that is why i should like to ask you, as the driving force in a discussion which is about to start, how you will try to actively involve those regions in the decision-making process and how you will ensure that the council actually makes a statement in this connection in the foreseeable future. mr president, bart, please accept my apologies, for i am not all that familiar yet with the procedures. i was under the impression that i would listen to all the additional questions first and then respond to them all in one go. but your plea for constitutional regions is, of course, not falling on deaf ears, if i can put it that way. in a previous political life not so long ago, i was, in fact, minister in the government of one of those constitutional regions. i therefore identify with your plea entirely. you have also undoubtedly listened carefully to our prime minister. you can therefore count on it that i, on my own behalf and on behalf of belgium, will do my utmost to broach this subject. but there are also fourteen other member states, and it will therefore be important for the constitutional regions to bring harmony among themselves as well. mr president, madam president-in-office of the council, this morning we heard the belgian prime minister. i agree with the basic tenet of his clear and intelligent speech and i hope that with the prospect of the laeken council, his action will serve to override the total failure of the nice conference. i must say, however, that in his speech, as in the answer that he has just given to our questions, for which i thank him, i noted the absence of any explicit reference to the political recognition of national and cultural diversity which, together with statehood, is a fundamental element of the european character. within this diversity, the stateless nations that we represent have genuine historical and linguistic roots, as well as demographic and economic importance on a par with those of the member states. we would like to see acknowledgement of our political, civic and democratic realities, together with the executive, legislative and judicial powers that distinguish us, so that we are able to participate in the european council, just as we also acknowledge that federal states, lnder and constitutional regions that have a different nature but similar powers must participate. we would like to see these realities incorporated into the laeken declaration. we would like these realities to be included in the future constitution. we hope, in any event, that our governments and our parliaments will participate in the convention drawing up the proposals for the european union' s constitution. our prime minister, the president-in-office of the council, was unable, in his speech, to include every aspect of the real situation in the european union about which he is concerned, but i can tell you now that the safeguarding, deployment and development of cultural diversity, and indeed of linguistic diversity, are in his mind as they are in mine, and i believe that we all regard them as fundamental values. this determination to safeguard cultural diversity will certainly be expressed, probably in the first section of the laeken declaration, which will deal with the principles and values that we have in common. i can assure you, therefore, that cultural diversity, and the desire for cultural diversity, will certainly be included as one of the basic principles of the european union, and it is a principle to which we are all very much attached. mr president, thank you for allowing me to take the floor. this is the first chance i have had to speak to the house, because your assembly only verified my credentials last monday. could i just remind you that have taken over from the basque mep, mr gorka knrr, who was elected to the basque parliament on 13 may and has now become its deputy speaker. madam minister, i myself am catalan, a catalan from roussillon, in other words a french national, and i applied to be included in a coalition in the spanish state, a basque-catalan coalition, and that is why i, the catalan, have taken over from mr gorka knrr, the basque. as you know, madam minister, catalonia is more than just a region. it is a nation, a nation which has always been a courageous defender of liberty and has always been concerned with solidarity values. catalonia is a deeply europhile nation, and yet today that nation has some difficulty in finding its place in this institution. it cannot be content with the makeshift role which it has been granted in the committee of the regions, a committee whose powers, as you know, are extremely limited. this is why, knowing your position and your history, i hoped, and indeed still hope, that your presidency will enable progress to be made on this issue, not only the issue of catalonia, but also the issue of all the other nations without a state of their own. first of all, i should like to congratulate mr mayol on his arrival here in this house. i am able to speak from experience. mr mayol, you will find that your mandate is an absolutely extraordinary one, but one which is nonetheless worth the trouble. i hope that your years here will be fruitful, pleasant and interesting. you will certainly have to work hard, but something tells me that you are not afraid of hard work. so, once again, my best congratulations! actually i do know a little about catalonia. i do not speak catalan but i can understand it, which is something at least. the problem you have raised is obviously even more complex than the issue of constitutional regions within the boundaries of a single country. you are talking about a nation which straddles two countries, if you will allow me to put it so cavalierly, both of which are anxious to maintain their territorial integrity. i am happy to leave you with the responsibility for the prospects which you have opened up. on the other hand, i completely agree with you when you emphasise the fact that the catalans love their nation, their language and their culture, but that at the same time they are very european, very open to the world outside. i can tell you that we are not unaware of the fact that the prime minister of spanish catalonia was one of the first people to launch the movement in favour of constitutional regions. if i know him, and i know him well and have confidence in him, that movement will certainly not come to a halt, and as long as it keeps going it will be skilfully conducted. mr pujol and the other prime ministers will see to that. to that extent i believe that the debate will progress in the right direction in the years to come. the president-in-office of the council is very receptive to the points we are making but her colleagues in the council, generally, have very little to say about subsidiarity in a way that pleases us. this is the kind of thing that makes an increasing part of the population of scotland recognise that being a member state is a much better idea than being a constitutional region. however, things standing as they do, i would ask the president-in-office if she would be prepared to discuss with colleagues the oddity of the structure of the committee of the regions which, instead of representing the regions in some proportion to their size, represents the states according to digressive proportionality. denmark, which is already a member state, has twice as many members in the committee of the regions as scotland has. even luxembourg has more! i do not know the difference between the regions of luxembourg intimately, but i dare say they are less than the difference between the regions of scotland. the debate is getting more complicated with each speaker and you will understand that i cannot possibly go into that issue. however, i do know that within the committee of the regions the representatives of municipalities, cities, provinces, and constitutional regions find it increasingly difficult to build a common platform from which to develop their action. the presiding officer of the scottish assembly is one of my very great and dear friends and so i am familiar with the problems you have referred to. however, i cannot possibly give a detailed answer to your very precise questions. i believe that the issue of subsidiarity and its meaning in practice is central to the whole debate on the future of europe - not only in terms of the rights of nations and regions within the member states, but also in terms of citizenship. i represent wales which has a new national assembly, just two years old. it is a developing body that wants to play a full part in and have strong links with the european union and help build the europe of the future. would the minister agree that involving this kind of regional level of government is crucial in terms of developing citizenship and bringing europe closer to the people - a problem that we are all familiar with in all our constituencies. if this is something that needs to be done on a european level in order to bring europe closer to people, how will this be reflected in the work of the council? as you will appreciate, this is a real debate. in my first answer i said everything i could say as president-in-office. the rest is very much my personal point of view as a member of the belgian government. i hope that you will make this distinction, especially as this is now a more spontaneous debate, which i like very much. i believe subsidiarity is a very important notion but it is also a very difficult one because it is not very precise. it is more precisely defined in the protocol to the treaty of amsterdam than previously and is perfectly usable. the local and intermediary levels are essential in bridging the gap between citizens and authorities. these levels and authorities have a very important role to play. in light of recent developments, as in denmark and ireland, this awareness has grown and will be better taken into account than perhaps in the past. annex iv of the nice treaty contains a declaration calling for a deeper and wider debate about the future development of the eu. it also recognises, importantly, the need to improve and to monitor the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the union and its institutions. in december 2001, the belgian presidency will be concluded by a contribution to this debate at the laeken declaration. will the laeken declaration recognise that a further democratisation of the european decision-making process calls for a more radical reform with legislative power vested in two chambers: the european parliament, and a reformed council that would subsume some aspects of the present committee of the regions and would strongly enhance the role of the constitutional regions? i will have to limit my answer to reminding you that the laeken declaration will be more about the right questions and indications of directions, than about formulae and definite answers. hopefully it will only be the start of the more formal preparations for the igc. any answer now to your question would be quite premature. all i can tell you is that we are very conscious of all these aspects, and that we are not the only ones who are conscious of them. i would be very surprised if the issue was not addressed in the form of a question. but do not expect answers yet, it is far too soon. mr president, madam president-in-office of the council, the belgian, austrian and german governments included declaration no 54 in the treaty of amsterdam in order to refer to the influence that european issues have on the internal bodies of the states, above all in the regions with exclusive competences. the european institutions, and above all the council, constantly take decisions which sometimes encroach on the competences of the constitutional regions or the regions with legislative competences in europe. conflicts of competence are created and, in this respect, i would like to ask the opinion of the belgian government in relation to the possibility that these regions with exclusive legislative competences may be given the right to bring cases before the court of justice of the european communities. i would also ask your opinion of the court of justice of the european communities' capacity to pass judgement on these conflicts of competence between the union and the regions with legislative competence. mr ortuondo larrea, i shall tell you what i can in reply to your question about how we organise our work. i am sure that you are not unaware, precisely because of the protocol to which you referred, that a certain number of councils of ministers will be presided over by ministers of regional and/or community governments. this has already happened in the case of the informal tourism council which took place last weekend in bruges, and it will also happen in the case of the education and scientific research councils, and some of the other councils too. you can see, then, how we deal with questions of this type. as far as the possibility of access to the court of justice is concerned, i know that this is something that the constitutional regions are asking for. sometimes i have the impertinence to wonder whether they are fully aware of the scope and the possible consequences of a positive reply to their requests. you yourself have pointed out that if the regions had direct access to the court of justice in disputes about competence, it would seem almost inevitable that the court would one day be called upon to give a ruling on the internal constitutional organisation of the member states themselves. i would ask you to think about that. it is not possible for me to reply to your question. it is a very delicate question, and a very controversial one. any reply would be quite premature. however, if you will permit me i would like to ask you think about what i have just said. mr president, i would like to make it clear to the president-in-office of the council that it is not permitted in all states for governments of the constitutional regions to participate in the meetings of the council of ministers and, therefore, we are unrepresented, as is the case with the autonomous community of the basque country. i believe that this is a genuine problem for europe and we must deal with it. we cannot be taking decisions in the european fora on competences which the laws attribute to regions which are not present to defend them. as a final comment, mr ortuondo larrea, i would just like to say that this is an arrangement that we came to in belgium, between belgian governments, governments with an 's' , always governments in the plural. i would ask you to refer to your own governments, because that is where i believe this type of question should be resolved in the first instance. mr president, i do not represent any region; as you know, i represent the pensioners of italy and europe. before tabling my question, however, i would like to express my admiration at the president-in-office of the council' s willingness to answer so thoroughly all the questions she has been asked. i paid close attention to the swedish presidency and i was practically frozen stiff by the coldness with which the swedes habitually responded 'this is not my responsibility' . i am therefore genuinely satisfied, having listened to the belgian president-in-office speak this morning, by his openness to pensioners' affairs, and i am truly satisfied to have seen the practical undertaking by the belgian presidency to respond to every question, even the most difficult ones. i have exhausted the time available to me and so i will not be able to table my supplementary question. i will do so on another occasion. mr president, the president-in-office of the council said that we want recognition of our national realities and of our constitutional powers. i wish to reply that these realities are indeed part of european diversity but this is not simply a label to hold on to; it is also the powerful political reality of my country, galicia, which should be fully recognised, just like those of the states of the borderless union of europe, of which we are all a part. question no 11 by (h-0545/01): subject: public access to council documents now that the council has enacted the commission proposal, what is the timetable and the procedure for the public to begin accessing the council' s documents? to mr newton dunn' s question, i can answer as follows. first of all: the council is impressed with the progress made in terms of openness and transparency since the treaty of amsterdam came into force, particularly with the adoption of regulation (ec) no 1049/2001 regarding public access to european parliament, council and commission documents. the council would point out to the honourable member that this parliament and council regulation of 30 may 2001, pursuant to article 19, will not enter into force until 3 december 2001. until such time, requests from the public for council documents will be dealt with as before on the basis of council decision 93/731/ec on public access to council documents. each of the three institutions involved will therefore need to make the necessary arrangements to guarantee that the new regulation is actually in force as of 3 december 2001. in accordance with article 15, they shall establish an interinstitutional committee to examine best practice, address possible conflicts and discuss future developments on public access to documents. as far as the council is concerned, the competent bodies are currently looking into the measures that need to be taken in order to fully implement the rights of citizens which they have acquired on the basis of the new regulation. i can add to this that it is this presidency' s ambition, wherever possible, to be able to conclude all agreements before this regulation enters into force, but as i have said before, we cannot do this on our own, and i hope we will receive the necessary support. i must say i think most members will think that a six-month delay is exceedingly disappointing, but it is nice to hear something positive. can you indicate to us what the possible obstacles are? does anybody have a veto on this date of 3 december or can you give us a guarantee that it is actually going to happen? you are not going to tell us at the end of the belgian presidency: i am so sorry it slipped; somebody got it in the way! can you guarantee it is going to happen or does someone have a veto? i am afraid i cannot guarantee that. i would be a fairy if i could. i can only tell you that we will do our utmost. we will take up where the work left off to see to it that the directive enters into force on the set date, 3 december 2001. question no 12 by (h-0550/01): subject: equal treatment of turkey in regard to accession aid the european council meeting in helsinki in december 1999 decided that turkey is a candidate state on the same terms as the other twelve candidate states. turkey was therefore promised certain aid during the often long and difficult process entailed by membership negotiations. the forms of aid currently available to all candidate countries include funds such as ispa and sapard. turkey, however, has not benefited from those. the country has been refused the aid promised at helsinki on the grounds that the eu did not have the financial resources available. is it not time for the council to ensure that the helsinki summit decisions to treat turkey on an equal footing with the other twelve candidate countries are now honoured and that the channels are opened for that country to obtain the aid it was promised, particularly in view of the fact that the commission recently decided to refund 11.6 billion euro to the member states? the european council in helsinki, having decided to grant turkey the status of a candidate for accession, asked the commission to submit a single framework for european union financial aid to that country for the pre-accession period. the commission submitted its proposal to the council on 27 april this year. the main objective of this proposal for a financial framework is to guarantee that financial aid will be granted in accordance with priorities defined by the accession partnership and to bring the existing financial instruments together to form a single instrument, in order to optimise its effectiveness. the european council in gothenburg, which made it quite clear that the accession partnership is the kingpin of the pre-accession strategy, invited the council to adopt this single financial framework between now and the end of 2001. the council has begun the procedure of consulting the european parliament, and is encouraging parliament to give its opinion as soon as possible. concerning the funding under the ispa and sapar programmes, to which the honourable member refers, this is structural aid and aid for agricultural development which is only granted to the candidate countries from central and eastern europe to meet their specific needs as transitional economies. however, that does not mean that turkey has missed out on the aid promised in helsinki, on the contrary. the financial preaccession aid for turkey has been doubled in 2000 and 2001 compared to the average annual amounts which were allocated in the 1996-1999 period. in view of normal budget procedures, we should aim to continue to grant this aid for the remaining part of the current financial perspectives. that is until 2006, as you know, and applies to all candidate countries. i should also like to point out that the eu' s general budget contains a new component, entitled 'preaccession strategy for turkey' , in which the resources are increased in the light of this. as this budget line comprises different budget resources, the financial aid programmes for turkey can be completed with greater efficiency. as you know, the european parliament has approved this approach in its opinion on the framework regulation for turkey. i would like to thank the belgian presidency for its answer and at the same time welcome belgium as the country holding the presidency of the council of ministers in the european union after the swedish presidency. many of us, including myself, see belgium almost as our second home in that we live in brussels during the week but go home, in my case to sweden, at weekends. i would like to address the issue of turkey. it is clearly the case that turkey has not understood the difference between, on the one hand, the eastern and central european countries which were considered for the ispa and sapard funds and, on the other hand, turkey, which was not considered for these. is the legislation insufficiently clear with regard to turkey? turkey also feels that it wants to be treated well and fairly. i would like to advise you to clarify why turkey was not considered for these particular funds. i would like to thank the honourable member for his kind words and express my appreciation for the swedish presidency with whom i have enjoyed an extremely pleasant and fruitful partnership over the past six months. question no 13 by (h-0553/01): subject: belgian presidency and afghan women considering the subhuman conditions in which over 11 million women in afghanistan are obliged to survive, will the council consider encouraging the creation of an international afghanistan committee in coordination with the un? mrs izquierdo rjo, we were fellow members of the committee on constitutional affairs during the previous legislative period. it is therefore a great pleasure for me to be able to reply to the question that you have so judiciously raised. as i pointed out in my previous replies to questions on the same subject, the council entirely shares the honourable member' s concern about the disastrous position in which large sections of the afghan population now find themselves, and in particular the disastrous position of women and children. in view of the difficulties in afghanistan at humanitarian and political levels, and in particular in view of the negative attitude which the taleban persist in taking, both as regards the un and as regards women, the council is not entirely convinced that the setting up of an international afghanistan committee in coordination with the un, would be likely to really improve the situation of women in afghanistan. nevertheless, the council will examine closely the advantages and disadvantages to which such a committee might give rise, as soon as this issue is raised within the un, and provided that the rules for putting such a proposal into practice have been studied in minute detail. in the meantime, the council will be continuing the projects which it has decided on with the aim of helping afghan women. on that point, the council would also refer the honourable member to the replies which it has already given to previous questions on the same subject, and in particular to questions h-0032/01, h-0052/01, h-0170/01, h-0088/01 and, more recently, question h-0481/01. madam president-in-office of the council, i thank you for this reply and, as a supplementary question, i would like to know whether you approve of exerting international pressure both against the taliban regime and against the states that support it, specifically saudi arabia, pakistan and the united arab emirates. are you prepared to work during the belgian presidency so that progress may really be made in relation to this disastrous situation? my reply was in response to your specific question about an international committee. as far as international pressure is concerned, i.e. the sanctions and embargoes which have been ordered in respect of afghanistan, obviously the council takes the view that these must be continued, and as far as possible reinforced, because we are dealing here with a regime that is completely inhumane. question no 14 by (h-0555/01): subject: including the competent authorities in discussions on the regulation of medicine taking into account the apparent dissolution of the advisory council on medical training, will the council take urgent measures to ensure that the changes planned or under way in relation to the regulation of medicine in member states, including issues such as the free movement of doctors and training, are open to contribution and comment by the appropriate authorities in the member states, including the medical council of ireland? as you indicated, the discussion on the role of certain advisory committees has been launched. on 19 july 1999 the commission submitted a proposal for a decision to the council with the aim of abolishing the council advisory committee for medical training, together with some other advisory committees established in conjunction with sectoral directives for doctors, dentists, veterinary surgeons, pharmacists, general care nurses and midwives. the commission' s purpose was to simplify the committee system. the council has had some discussions on this proposal, but has not come up with any conclusions yet. in addition to the examination of this proposal, no further measures of the type indicated in the question are envisaged in the council. i should like to thank the president-in-office for her willingness to go over time and take extra questions. i wish her well during the presidency and hope that her relationship with the members will be as open and blunt as it has been this afternoon. specifically on my supplementary, there is a major concern about the medical councils in the member states and, in particular, for my own country, ireland, with regard to ensuring minimum standards of training and qualification for doctors and other people in the medical profession. as we move towards enlargement of the european union, with the accession of new member states, and extend freedom of movement opportunities to countries outside of the accession countries to deal with shortfalls of medical personnel across the european union, we consider that experts in the field from the existing member states must be included in any such consultation process. i have taken note of your remarks. i am sorry, but i really have to go or i will miss my plane but i will forward them to my colleague who is responsible for this matter. since the time allotted to questions to the council has elapsed, questions nos 15 to 26 will be replied to in writing. that concludes questions to the council. (the sitting was suspended at 7.40 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.) macro-financial assistance to yugoslavia the next item is the report (a5-0244/2001) by mr brok, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, security and defence policy, on the proposal for a council decision providing macro-financial assistance to the federal republic of yugoslavia [com(2001) 277 - c5-0231/2001 - 2001/0112(cns)]. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, i wish to recommend that the plenary adopt the proposal for a council decision providing macro-financial assistance to the federal republic of yugoslavia in the in the version originally put forward by the commission. we know that there have been some discussions in budget areas of the council which are aimed at introducing restrictions, but we take the view that at the present political time, it is right to approve the amounts originally envisaged in the proposal. there is an obvious reason for this: i think that having made it clear for so long that assistance would be available from the european union if the people of serbia and montenegro threw off the yoke of dictatorship, we should keep our word. particularly after the events of recent days, which have culminated in milosevic' s extradition to the international court tribunal in the hague, it is important that the european parliament and the european union signal that in response to these internal factors, the funds will be released, so that the people in a country like yugoslavia can see that fostering democracy and human rights is genuinely worthwhile. for this reason, commissioner, conditions should be created so that this can happen as quickly as possible, and i know that this is your intention too. this macro-financial assistance is not directly linked to a specific programme. it is an initial injection which is designed to help set things in motion. in this context, it should also be made clear that this assistance must not be tied to overly complicated conditions. we are proposing a number of amendments to you. these proposed amendments are designed to enhance control and also call for the involvement of other donors, although we do not view this as a condition. i believe that these are all positions which, ultimately, will not lead to obstacles and delay, but will enhance clarity, strengthen the control options, and also make it clear that we want assistance to be provided speedily. as you know, this house did not create any difficulties when it was a matter of applying for urgent assistance for this area. as i am sure you recall, through the participation of other committees too, such as the committee on budgets and the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, we signalled our willingness to proceed as quickly as possible and introduce the necessary amendments. let me also make one general political point. in recent years, we have repeatedly engaged in grand theoretical debates about the developments in yugoslavia. yet in terms of our commitment, whether in the field of prevention and civil crisis management or, indeed, through threats and the use of military capabilities, we have generally acted too late. our policy has always been 'too little, too late' . this has led us into the situation which we have witnessed in recent days in macedonia. this misguided approach, which ultimately forces us to make even greater sacrifices and provide even more assistance - because we failed to act in time, and because we could not implement the concept of prevention and civil crisis management due to the international community' s total fragmentation of responsibilities in this region - has resulted in major political failure in key areas. by providing these resources, we want to make it clear once again that this is not due to us, and that as the european parliament, we are willing to do everything possible as quickly as possible. however, this is also an appeal to the commission and the council to make the necessary political decisions in a different way in future. i recall that two months ago, i was castigated and accused of being irresponsible when i spoke about the possibility of war in macedonia. people ignore the facts for as long as they can, because they are too cowardly to tell the truth to the public at home. afterwards, it all becomes far too expensive for everyone, and the costs again include human lives. for this reason, we call urgently once again for rapid assistance to be provided so that peace, democracy and human rights can be restored to this region. it was indeed an extraordinary gesture on the part of the serbian government to hand over mr milosevic to the international court of justice. this also required courage. during an earlier attempt to arrest mr milosevic, when he was still living in his own house, it was already evident that the army and the police were in opposite camps. in a way, therefore, i think we should pay our respects to mr djindjic and the way he acted, although his motives may well have been inspired by opportunism. i am also delighted that we have been able to agree internally on the fact that financial assistance should be subject to the extent to which steps are taken in the direction of rule of law, including cooperation with the court. in my opinion, parliament had a clearer take on this than the council, which did not want to make this aid too conditional. in this respect, we share the position of the united states and i believe that that in itself was a very good move. mr milosevic has now been extradited by serbia and yugoslavia. all we need to do now is to wait for the international community itself to cooperate with the international court of justice. the sfor has to deliver the goods now, for the cooperation of sfor and the political powers behind it, have so far been lacking. that is ultimately extremely painful and disgraceful. there is really no cause for any further complaint if sfor fails to do what it should do in its own province, namely to arrest messrs karadzic and mladic. in that connection, i would also appreciate it if the european parliament' s message in this respect were driven home to the council and to all those others who, under the united nations, carry joint responsibility for the actions of the sfor, of which we are right to have high expectations. thanks to the excellent services of mr korakas, we recently found out that we in europe fail to see eye to eye in this respect. it appears that a vast majority in the greek parliament has signed a declaration which states that it is very regrettable that mr milosevic has been taken to the so-called court of justice in the hague. mr president, there is a great deal to be done before the community of values with that parliament can be restored. this confirms that there are many differences within our union. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i am pleased to support mr brok' s motion on the approval of macro-financial assistance to yugoslavia. i also believe that it is absolutely vital, given the country' s high level of debt, to provide an above-average level of lost subsidies here, i.e. above-average compared with the usual practice. i fully support the commission on this point. one condition for cooperation, as has been mentioned, is cooperation with the hague. this has always been the position of this house and also our group. there is no question that a great deal has been achieved through milosevic' s extradition. this is a positive development. yet positive developments can sometimes leave a stale after-taste. firstly, it was all too clear that milosevic was handed over in exchange for the funds pledged by the donors' conference, not so much in exchange for direct assistance from the european union. it was not a pretty sight. there are two sides responsible: those who demanded this step, but also the government in belgrade, who was too hesitant at first. secondly, it is interesting that particular pressure was applied by the americans: the americans, who persist in rejecting the notion that international courts could actually have jurisdiction over their citizens. this is an interesting point, and the european union should bring pressure to bear on the americans to recognise the international courts and their jurisdiction over american citizens at last. thirdly, it does not resolve the issue of yugoslavia' s critical examination of its own history. there are many individuals, such as those responsible for the destruction of vukovar, who are still at large. this debate must continue in yugoslavia. fourthly, it is conceivable that the fragile balance established in yugoslavia will undergo hard tests and could even be destroyed. on this point, i would like to make a comment about the future of the country. over recent months and years, we have all witnessed what is often an antagonist mood towards yugoslavia itself. yet yugoslavia has an important role to play in the region' s reconstruction, and thankfully, it now has responsible and sensible leaders who can set it on the right course. however, we must be patient here and help yugoslavia fulfil its tasks in the region. together with my group, i identify three key points in this context. firstly, the critical debate in yugoslavia about events in the country over recent decades must continue. secondly, there must be reconciliation with its neighbours. here, in particular, the extradition of a number of war criminals would undoubtedly help. thirdly, and this is my final point, the economy must certainly be reconstructed, and we must give our support to this process. if we are able to link these three elements together, we will be able to look back in five or ten years' time on the successful history of eu policy in yugoslavia. mr president, commissioner, the economic relations between the eu and yugoslavia are of a special kind. for a long time, there were no relations. after october 2000, the eu promptly made eur 200 million available to yugoslavia by way of emergency aid. this just illustrates that even the eu can work quickly and efficiently. last week, the eu showed itself in its best light at the donor conference. we are now discussing here in parliament macro-financial assistance to the tune of eur 300 million to cover budget shortages, including a considerable gift in the sum of eur 120 million. in my view, the assistance we are discussing this evening is representing the end of a certain era, namely the transition from autocracy to democracy. this aid is welcome and appropriate at this stage, but in my opinion it also has the feel of a one-off gesture. it may also be useful to indicate that special conditions apply, of which i should like to mention two. as mr brok has already stated, it is not the case that the approval and spending of these funds are subject to very special conditions, but sound cooperation must be established with the political and safety committee because the eu' s aid to yugoslavia must be granted in a politically coherent fashion. that also applies to the assessment of that aid. subsequent to this macro-financial assistance, it will have to be carefully examined, particularly on a political plane, if this form of aid is required in future. my group has reached the conclusion that it is important for the eu to be quick off the mark, efficient and generous, whenever that is useful and needed politically speaking. it is about being able to transfer resources quickly and efficiently, not being afraid to take the lead and not being frightened to be dependent on other donors. but we must also be able to change strategy quickly and efficiently. that is why, in my view, it is important to support this kind of aid in the anticipation that it will probably be the last time that aid will be granted to yugoslavia in this form. mr president, i can only speak for a majority of my group on this issue. we support the commission' s proposal and the report. i do not think there is any need to repeat several of mr swoboda' s criticisms which i agree with. mr brok' s remarks about the need for a preventive peace policy and civil crisis management render my own outline comments superfluous. of course, it is quite correct to say that far more rapid and concerted action is required. however, i believe that there are also very different sides to this policy which have various drawbacks. mr brok, in your proposed amendment no 2, you state - quite rightly, in my view - that financial support can be provided to the federal republic of yugoslavia as far as it proceeds towards a well-functioning legal state, including cooperation with the international court tribunal in the hague. however, if at the same time a violation of rule-of-law principles is extorted, in effect, above all by the usa but apparently also by the german chancellor, this policy is more likely to discredit the rule of law and democratic development in the long term. i see these contradictions in other areas too. macedonia has been mentioned. for many months, we have courted the kla, without any decommissioning of arms taking place. kfor therefore shares the blame for developments in macedonia and the outbreaks of fresh conflict. in kosovo, we pursued a policy which was designed to prevent ethnic cleansing; today, we witness other completely unacceptable instances of ethnic cleansing in the wake of the nato campaign. in my view, this is incompatible with a preventive and sustainable security policy. i believe that the time has come to move away from a policy which contains the conflicts and limits the damage to which it has itself contributed. it is time to expect and demand democracy, the rule of law and the protection of minority and human rights not only from our political opponents but also to practise them even when they stand in the way of our own power-political interests. i think that the positive developments in yugoslavia have genuinely achieved a great deal, but changes in nato and eu policy are long overdue. mr president, this debate is about assistance for a country which was flattened two years ago by the criminal nato bombings, which were supported by the european union. during our recent visit to yugoslavia, delegates from the serbian parliament informed us that material damage alone ran into over usd 100 billion, not counting the livestock lost and the damage to the natural environment, not just in yugoslavia but in the balkans as a whole, as a result of the tens of thousands of depleted uranium bombs dropped there. then along comes the council with a proposal to give yugoslavia macro-financial assistance to the ridiculous tune of a few hundred million - no doubt the thirty pieces of silver for the subordinates in belgrade who, in the most disgraceful manner and despite a decision to the contrary by the country' s parliament and supreme constitutional court, handed the former president of yugoslavia, who was democratically elected in four elections, to a court set up on the orders of the usa and in order to try anyone who resists the new order. the basic crime which milosevic committed was to refuse to kow-tow to . the real criminals, such as tutzman, izetbegovic etc., who did kow-tow, were acquitted. but history will have the last word. i am certain that it will judge today' s decision to be one of the ugliest moments in the life of the european parliament. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the increasingly unstable situation in what remains of the former republic of yugoslavia, and, it has to be said, in the balkans as a whole, makes it necessary for us to extend the aid that we provide to the countries of that region, not only for this year, but no doubt for a long time to come. it also makes it necessary for us, and this should be a matter of priority, to come face to face with the reality of our failure and to ask ourselves what is the cause of it. the cause is simple. the european union was only pretending to follow the logic of peace. in reality, it was merely using humanitarian speeches to cover up the real logic, the logic of war, a war which was in the interests of several powers and which was intended to destroy yugoslavia, which is what happened in just a few years. we can only understand this if we think along geopolitical lines. although this is the only means of understanding the reality of power relationships between nations, in other words diplomacy itself, we are still obstinately refusing to carry out a geopolitical analysis. yet this would reveal the truth, a truth which is glaringly obvious, in other words that there are three powers pursuing converging interests in the balkans. first there is germany, which has never got over the fact that, after both the first world war and the second, it was to some extent against its interests, or at least against the interests of its european expansionism, that the country of yugoslavia was created as a single entity. as soon as germany was reunified in 1990, it played an important part in breaking the stranglehold of serbia, its old enemy, so as to be reunited with its slovenian and croatian allies, and let us not forget, with two precious mediterranean coastlines. in the same way, turkey easily regained the connivance of albania, and its military arm, the kla. to some extent urged on by the whole of the muslim world, turkey has reconquered some very old, very ancient positions in balkan europe, and it has obviously done so against the interests of europe, but in the interests of the united states which, like any empire, knows very well how to divide and rule, and has profited and continues to profit from stirring up very old conflicts and fanning the flames of very old quarrels in what we can only call greater turkey, which is in the process of installing itself in the balkans, to the great detriment, of course, of greece. to put it in a nutshell, europe has worked against itself, and in my view this is a further sign of its failure to conduct a rational diplomacy. thank you very much. i appreciate the passions stirred up by the issue of the balkans, specifically yugoslavia. however, my objective here today is rather more modest. of course we must react to the events of recent weeks as a european community, offering a significant message of support to the yugoslavian authorities and supporting the stabilisation and economic reform efforts made by that country. i especially welcome the efforts made by this house, and in particular mr brok. the acceleration of the process has been complex in recent weeks and this makes it difficult for the different committees to express their points of view on the proposal we are discussing today. as i said before, our objective is limited. it is important, but it is limited, given the difficult economic and financial situation of yugoslavia, which requires the international community to offer significant financial support. the yugoslavian authorities have implemented important economic reform programmes, which have been welcomed and accepted by the international community. you have referred to the fundamental issue of the conference of donors. this conference has shown support for the economic transition and recovery programme, produced in collaboration with the world bank and also with the european commission. the good news has been - and mr lange has referred to it - the existence of sufficient funds to finance everything that was intended. it has even been possible to exceed the usd 1 250 million which was envisaged as aid for yugoslavia. what contribution is the european community making at the moment? we are cooperating via two channels. the first channel is eur 230 million, in 2001, which is the community aid for reconstruction, democracy and stabilisation in the area, the so-called 'cards' aid. however, as well as this, we have proposed 300 million in macro-financial assistance with a very specific aim, that is the reduction of the balance of payments deficit. of course, we intend to extend the mandate which allows yugoslavia to receive eib loans. to this end, the commission made its proposal, referred to by mr brok, of 23 may, trying to react, as he said, quickly and to persuade the council of ministers to accept. as he has also said, there has been a certain change in the council of ministers, lending more weight to loans and less to donations, a change which we in the commission do not agree with. i would like to expressly thank mr brok for his support for the commission' s position. however, we are talking about a proposal for macro-financial assistance. and every time we have given this sort of aid, we have done so with certain conditions within the european union and i do not believe that there is any argument for changing that model. we are talking about aid which is complementary to aid implemented by other international institutions and bilateral donors, aid which is intended to prevent the external financial restrictions suffered by that country. that means that we are working in conjunction with the monetary fund and the world bank. we are referring to 2001, although it may be considered for future years, but, at the moment, we are talking about the restrictions for 2001 and next year. this type of aid, as you know, is conditional upon certain economic policy demands and is proposed within a stand-by programme of the international monetary fund for one year. as i said before, our proposal was 120 million in donation and 180 in loan, the latter for 15 years under conditions similar to those for other countries. the basic agreement in the council has reduced the donation to 75 million, leaving the rest for loans. we consider that, given yugoslavia' s high level of debt and its other difficulties, and coherence with other types of similar modernisations which we have carried out in the past, the commission' s proposal is coherent with our practice. we will therefore continue to insist in the council that the conditions we have proposed be approved. mr brok' s report proposes a series of amendments; i will later provide you with a note which explains our exact position. our view of the amendments is as follows, to put it very briefly: first, it is not necessary to include the references to cards in this particular case, since we are talking about another type of aid, and not about cards aid, which is of a different nature. certain amendments do not therefore seem acceptable, such as amendments nos 1, 11, 15 and 19. secondly, the political conditions. macro-financial assistance is not the correct instrument for imposing political conditions. we can therefore accept amendment no 2 if its wording can be changed. we have no problem with the references to the assistance which the union is already carrying out, the approval of the fund programmes, the reform of external aid, the margins of the guarantee fund and the multiannual financial aid package for yugoslavia; amendments nos 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 are therefore acceptable. we have greater difficulty with the problem of the references to the distribution of the burden. we have no problem with amendment no 5, but to make payment conditional upon what other donors do is neither a condition nor a system which is normally introduced in the case of macro-financial assistance. amendment no 13, in its current specific form, would not be acceptable. one point which you have raised is the reference to its exceptional assistance character. of course it is exceptional assistance. of course it is of a temporary nature. and this is already reflected in the text. therefore, certain references do not seem necessary to us, such as its not exceeding 2003. i do not know if it will be necessary for us to reconsider the issue in 2003, but to say now that in no event are we going to do anything in 2003 does not seem correct to us. neither does it seem necessary for amendment no 7 to refer doubly to the concessional and temporary issue. with regard to the obligatory consultations with, shall we say, bodies of a political nature, we believe that the political debate is taking place now and will take place in the council. but once the conditions have been basically defined, the economic and financial committee must be the correct body to carry out the control of what in reality we are going to talk about, that is to say, the practical application of the proposals. we therefore believe that other types of conditions are not reasonable, such as those established in amendments nos 12, 14 and the first part of amendment no 16. you request additional reports to parliament. we are thinking of the reports proposed in amendments nos 16, 18 and 19. we can accept the one in amendment no 19, if it refers to information on the previous year. it is very difficult to give information on the same year unless it is excessively delayed information, but the production of additional general reports, as well as the one we present every year, on macro-financial assistance, we believe to be an unnecessary bureaucratic burden. nevertheless, we do understand that parliament wishes to control and know what is happening with these issues. we are therefore at your disposal to provide you with information on the implementation of this aid, whenever parliament may ask for it. but we believe that it is much better to react to specific proposals than to establish this type of formal obligation, which does not always have the necessary interest. i would lastly like to comment on certain precise dates which are laid down in relation to the limits for the first and second payments. you say that the first payment must be made before 31 december and the second before 30 june. there are two problems. one problem is bureaucratic, administrative: will we make it by 31 december? this is not the real difficulty. the real difficulty is that in the system of macro-financial assistance we are working with certain economic policy conditions and these payments can only be made in the event that these conditions are met. of course, our objective is the same as yours: to implement aid as soon as possible, to pay it as quickly as possible and in this respect we are going to continue working with parliament in complete harmony. finally, and i will end here, i would like to thank parliament for its support for the commission proposal on the granting of macro-financial assistance to the federal republic of yugoslavia. i hope that at the next council we can adopt a response which will allow us to quickly confront, as mr brok said, this important challenge and be coherent with our own past positions. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. dsabs 3 and 4/2001 - eu own resources in 2001-2002 budget (conciliation procedure) the next item is the joint debate on the following reports, tabled on behalf of the committee on budgets: (a5-0239/2001) by mrs haug and mr ferber, on the draft supplementary and amending budgets nos 3/2001 and 4/2001 of the european union for the financial year 2001 [9802/2001 - c5-0271/2001 - 2001/2049(bud)] and [9803/2001 - c5-0272/2001 - 2001/2049(bud)]; (a5-0238/2001) by mrs haug, on the situation concerning the european union' s own resources in 2001 [2001/2019(ini)]; (a5-0241/2001) by mr costa neves, on the 2002 budget in view of the conciliation procedure before the council' s first reading [2001/2063(bud)]. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this evening we are holding the joint debate about the three reports produced. looking around, we all know already what everyone is going to say, and we have said it all before. even the commissioner has listened to us more than once, so let us just say it one more time for the record. the draft supplementary and amending budget is a completely non-contentious issue in the committee. the most important points are, firstly, funding for 27 new posts for rtd projects; secondly, the olaf establishment plan and the necessary funds in the budget line for the recruitment of new staff; and, thirdly, an increase in the commission' s payment appropriations required for the eu assistance in the balkans. in other words, we want an additional 100 million plus. this was all agreed unanimously in the committee on budgets with the support of all our colleagues. at this point, i would like to thank herbert bsch very warmly once again for the solution to the olaf issue. he worked very hard to ensure that we reached this compromise. the fact that the balance from the 2000 budget gives rise to a surplus of eur 11.6 billion is one reason for this house to underline yet again that the budget management is very frugal, and for the council it is a cause for rejoicing. however, what is the report concerning the european union' s own resources about, and why has it been drawn up? we - parliament - have taken the initiative and called on the council to discuss with us, prior to every budget procedure and before the commission produces its draft budget, the situation concerning the european union' s own resources. please note that i said 'discuss' , not 'codecision' . we thought this was a very cheap option, but far from it, the council is resisting, and that is what it is doing this evening too. it is simply not listening! it refuses even to discuss the european union' s revenue with us. as a result, we looked at the eu' s own resources without having discussed them with the council. what we noted for the 2001 budget year is no different from the trends observed in previous years. traditional own resources and vat resources are becoming less and less significant. the transfers from the member states as a gnp resource share have increased steadily. in total, own resources constitute 98.3% of revenue for the 2001 eu budget. this is equivalent to 1.06% of their gnp, which is far less than the own resources ceiling percentage of 1.27% laid down in the financial perspective. this shift towards the gnp resource can undoubtedly be viewed with mixed feelings. it could lead to a fairer division of burdens between the member states, as gnp is probably the best indicator to measure the relative wealth of the member states' economies; indeed, if we look more closely, some member states already cover 22, 29 or even 33% of their contributions to the european budget from traditional own resources - in other words, from money which has already belonged to the european union for some time. secondly, it changes the nature of the european union' s own resources, transforming them from real own resources into a form of member states' contribution. thirdly, it simply does not create a visible link between the european union and its citizens. when the belgian president of the eu, prime minister guy verhofstadt, spoke this morning, it warmed my heart. he too is questioning this indirect financing of the european union. he too is calling for more transparency. he too wants citizens to become more familiar with the european union, and this includes more transparent financial arrangements. we want financial autonomy at european level, and we want to work towards this now. we want this financial autonomy to be shared jointly and on an equal basis with the council, and we want to have co-decision rights in this area. we want equal rights in all areas; we want to be one of the two arms of the budgetary authority, in respect of all expenditure and all revenue. we want complete budgetary autonomy. a european tax may still be a long way off, but the belgian presidency, the belgian president of the european union himself, has called for this. the belgian finance minister supports this demand, and even the german finance minister no longer rejects it outright. a european tax may still be "future music", as the germans say, but if we do not start playing it now, we will not be dancing to it in future. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as jutta haug' s co-rapporteur, i had a rather easier task with the draft supplementary and amending budget. i would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteur for her outstanding work on the draft supplementary and amending budget. the purpose of my report, which i am honoured to present here, is to prolong two temporary posts, 1 a7 and 1 b5, and create two new temporary posts, 1 a5 and 1 a7, for the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. naturally, i fully support this proposal in terms of content; this is a very serious matter as it concerns the refurbishment . . of the belliard building. after all, it is also in the european parliament' s interests to ensure that sensible use can be made of this building in brussels in the long term. i would particularly like to stress the fact that the two committees are making the necessary resources available through savings in the personnel field, which i think is very positive. this shows that the willingness to make savings, which is something we have demanded from all the institutions, is being implemented very effectively by the two committees. i therefore recommend that items vi and vii of draft supplementary and amending budget no. 3 be adopted. however, i should also like to make some general comments, as my group has kindly granted me a few minutes so that i can conclude my part as rapporteur. first of all, i welcome the fact that this house is debating two draft supplementary and amending budgets simultaneously. this is a contribution towards saving tax-payers' money while taking matters forward on a simpler administrative basis. i think this is also worth mentioning. i would point out that on the revenue side of the 2000 budget - as ms haug has already mentioned - the surplus of eur 11.5 billion shows that there is still quite a lot of scope here. i remember the ritual - which we will have the honour of continuing in july - when we fight over every euro, with the council sinking to its knees and accusing us of supping from a horn of plenty. finally, by developing a serious commission budget policy, but also through parliament' s constant monitoring and support to ensure a prudent use of budget resources, we are now managing to generate surpluses which might actually make some of these rituals unnecessary in future. i should mention in passing that the finance ministers of the member states are delighted to receive a generous rebate towards the current budget. i am sure this will be reflected in the member states' eternal gratitude to us. i should also like to make several comments on the issue of own resources. ms haug, according to my information, a separate european tax was already being debated before my time, namely in april 1994. it would seem that even then, people were making music that nobody danced to. i am not sure whether it is useful at this stage to initiate a debate at european level on financing through taxation. let me say this quite clearly: we have other priorities first. the first task which europe must address is the issue of a more precise delimitation of powers between the european union and the member states. the public would also like to have some answers. what is europe responsible for, and why does it need money? in a second step, we must of course discuss what kind of long-term institutions are required in europe so that the tasks entrusted to europe can be performed in a democratic and transparent way. finally, at the end of this process, decisions must be taken on how the necessary resources can be made available. i think that if we approach matters on this basis, we will be on the right track. by supporting a european tax at this stage, europe' s citizens are more likely to be frightened off by what is happening here. it will not help us to achieve lasting acceptance among citizens in the european union. finally, as he is the next to rise, i should like to express my warm thanks to mr costa neves who had the difficult task of setting out the parameters for the forthcoming deliberations with the council. yet again, there are a number of problems for next year. the committee on budgets can look forward to some lively debates. however, i think that mr costa neves has carried out his task with the necessary care and wisdom for a serious proposal to be put forward to the tax-payers, whom we - in our role as part of the budgetary authority - are representing here. i am pleased that the german social democrats are also very receptive to the proposals from bavaria. this also opens up entirely new perspectives for the coming year. (applause) mr president, commissioner, we are now completing another phase in the process of attempting to adopt, hopefully in december, the budget for 2002. this is a lengthy and complex process which, on the basis of the proposals made by the european commission, seeks to achieve agreement between the council and the european parliament, the two branches of the budgetary authority. such agreement will require respect for the regulatory framework, for the existing agreements and between the institutions concerned, taking account of the representativeness of each one and the priorities that they legitimately define. we must, therefore, work on the essence of the positions held by each of the parties involved, otherwise we will not be able to reach any kind of agreement. i must emphasise that the report we are now discussing is a basis for negotiating with other institutions, which has been defined in accordance with the guidelines that we adopted in april; it is not the european parliament' s final position on the 2002 budget. as the basis for negotiations, it must not address issues on which parliament has the final say. it must lead to a discussion of aspects on which more positions held from more of a remove are required on issues on which the council has the final say. this applies to agricultural spending, security policy and international fisheries agreements. it is the most basic common sense also to address other key issues, such as the level of payments for next year and the pace of the commission reform. we are therefore, i repeat, in a negotiating phase. i must emphasise the essence of parliament' s positions, with which you are, of course, all familiar. in december 2000, the council agreed that, by 30 june of this year, the commission would present a progress report on a raft of matters, with a view to increasing the levels and the quality of budgetary implementation, improving coordination between legislative and budgetary procedures, and ensuring the success of the commission reform. this means that one of parliament' s priorities is to consider issues of the budget' s quality, and their impact, and to assess and take account of the budget' s implementation. the progress report has already been presented by the commission, which is cause for satisfaction, and we are sure that it will seen as the crucial instrument that it is and which we are already beginning to study. furthermore, in april of this year, the european parliament adopted guidelines that suggest the perennial matters in the progress report that i have just mentioned as political priorities, as well as food safety and consumer confidence, together with sustainable agriculture, the definition of priorities and, more generally, better implementation of the budget, including very specific aspects such as e-learning, a key aspect of the priority that is always given to issues of employment and social inclusion, and policy development in the field of asylum and immigration. in this context, it is understandable that there should be concern at the speed at which commitments are met by making payments in due time and, at the same time, effectively reducing the amount of delayed payments and reducing the amount of ral (amounts outstanding). we feel, therefore, that we must take maximum advantage of the payment possibilities laid down in the financial perspective and we want to respect the financial perspective for 2002 to a value of 1.14% of the combined gnp of the member states. i must also highlight the following: the need for a precise, rigorous and up-to-date assessment of the implementation of the common agricultural policy reform, specifically taking account of the consequences of the bse and foot-and-mouth crises. we also need a timetabled approach to the future, which involves respecting the commitments given by the european union at successive european councils, particularly the lisbon council on employment and competitiveness, the tampere council on asylum and immigration and the nice council on the consequences of failing to conclude fisheries agreements with morocco; the clarification of costs for external policy and common security, particularly with regard to the division of responsibilities between the council and the commission, respect for the financial perspective' s ceilings in category 4 too, in which attention must be paid to the traditional priorities of the european parliament, which are well-known; the precise identification of real expenditure resulting from the enlargement process, with particular emphasis on administrative expenditure in category 5 and lastly, real consideration of the proposals previously made by parliament, especially those relating to preparatory action and pilot projects. i shall end here, in the hope that on 20 july - the date scheduled for the conciliation meeting - the positive and constructive spirit that i personally feel, will spread to all of those present. mr president, i should in any case like to congratulate mr costa neves on the strategy which he has outlined on behalf of parliament. it gives a powerful signal indicating what parliament does and does not want. coming from the committee on fisheries, i also notice that, with regard to agriculture, the european commission has in any case understood that parliament would like to set aside a large proportion of the budget for food safety and the fight against animal diseases, but as for the fishery guidelines, i have to say that it appears as if the commission is still on a different planet. it does not breathe a word about the problem that, after the failure of the fisheries agreement with morocco, less money is being spent. neither does it mention the problems this has caused in vulnerable coastal regions in spain and portugal. nothing about the problems in the northern regions as a result of the temporary fishing ban due to the worrying cod stocks. even the council is, for the time being, not taking any action further to implement nice. needless to say, it is evident that the transfer of money from one heading to another, from heading 4 (external actions) to heading 2 (structural policy) is no child' s play. also because the ceiling of berlin has been determined per heading. but financial crisis management, such as the fight against the bse crisis and aid for the balkans, has shown that decisive politicians are not hindered by strict budget rules. the ep' s committee on fisheries agrees with rapporteur costa neves where he states that both the commission and the council may actually be slightly too relaxed in some areas. at the same time, it prompts him to boost the creativity and decisiveness of the commission and the council. our proposals are as follows. we would earmark the funding that has not been used for fishery agreements under external actions, heading 4, to alleviate the effects in the coastal regions of south-eastern europe. we would target structural funds to address the crisis in fisheries, which have been left over following the failure of the fishery agreement with morocco, and further to the measures which have been taken to protect cod and hake stocks. we would, for the time being, set aside any balance in the account in 2001 to restructure the fisheries sector and, if possible, use the instrument of flexibility to fight the fisheries crisis. finally, we would also like specific research to be initiated into the use of genetic modification techniques in fish farming. europe is lagging far behind the united states and canada in this respect, and only sound research will provide a basis to keep this technique in european fish farming at bay. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy. (es) mr president, in heading 4, external actions, the cuts in the preliminary draft budget and those which appear to result from the first reading in council are, in some cases, significant. furthermore, as we know, it will not be possible this year to use the flexibility instrument in this chapter. we have just heard what the draftsman of the opinion of the committee on fisheries has said. we in the committee on foreign affairs wish to point out that the extension of the union' s activities in this field, particularly in the field of the cfsp, requires sufficient contributions. the uncertainty in the allocation of resources compromises the credibility and prestige of an external policy which must be in a position to fulfil its commitments and ambitions. for all these reasons, the committee on foreign affairs - in the context presented to us by the rapporteur, mr costa neves, of a stage of the budgetary procedure, both in this conciliation procedure and at first reading, and in accordance with the priorities set in its opinion of 20 march, approved unanimously in the committee on foreign affairs - has the purpose of requesting the allocation of sufficient budgetary resources to finance the new priorities. this of course, mr president, bearing in mind their healthy, effective and transparent management. the commission has included approximately 120 million in relation to the fisheries agreement with morocco, and we, like the general rapporteur for the budget, ask that the commitments made at the nice summit be fulfilled. therefore, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we in the committee on foreign affairs wish to say that if the european union wishes to have influence on the world stage in the economic, commercial, financial and industrial fields, we must be coherent and provide ourselves with the necessary resources to do so. . (nl) mr president, this is always a slightly awkward moment in the procedure. on the one hand, we are preparing for the initial contacts with the council. we also know, however, that those contacts will never solve everything entirely. that is also evident from the absence of the representatives of the council on the other side of the table. their curiosity only gets the better of them once the real procedure reaches completion. that is why we can only make some general comments at this stage. on behalf of my committee, i should like to say that generally speaking, we agree to continuing last year' s policy, although we do have a number of specific concerns. our main concern is actually related to the proposals of the european commission itself. i have already drawn your attention to it. particularly the huge cutback which the commission proposes for the employment chapter gives us great cause for concern. if you add this to what is happening in the funds, for example in model projects, our concerns only grow. these concerns are exacerbated even more if one considers other projects which we agreed on last year in the budget, yet which failed to get off the ground. they do seem to get snarled up in the commission apparatus, but i do not want to go into that now. that is worrying because we are making an arrangement here in respect of the budget, namely if the commission agrees to that arrangement, it is also responsible for the implementation, and it should not try to get out of that responsibility via all kinds of legal or illegal backdoors. in my opinion, that can be an extremely difficult issue in this procedure. that is, in actual fact, our main concern at the moment. it is no longer a matter of money. it is now simply about appropriately spending the money that is available now and that was allocated in the previous budget. we know that there are plenty of projects, but ever stricter criteria are being prescribed. in some cases, the number of countries increases dramatically. originally, it was possible for three countries jointly to submit a project. that has now suddenly increased to seven. we then wonder whether that is how both institutions should deal with each other. i should like to put this to you now. we will return to the other issues in due course. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we hope that the presidency of the council can spend more time with us, at least when we hold our mini-sessions in brussels. in any event, in this joint debate on supplementary and amending budgets nos 3 and 4, the mandate for the budgetary conciliation and the report on the situation concerning the european union' s own resources, the ppe-de group wishes to state that it is voting unanimously in favour in the first two cases and in favour by a majority in relation to own resources. clearly, the most potentially controversial issue in this haug report relates to parliament' s support for the possibility of opening a debate on the establishment of a direct community tax which would be a source of autonomous funding for the community budget. within all the groups. mr president, there are differing sensitivities in relation to european integration, and this is all the more obvious when it comes to funding issues. therefore, mrs haug' s tendency towards this possible tax is too much for certain national delegations. however, i believe that the majority of my group will possibly agree with it. of more immediate importance is the mandate for conciliation by mr costa neves, and we publicly thank him for being prepared to hold dialogue and for seeking a consensus. we are sure that, thanks to this way of proceeding, we will be able to achieve successful results. we are presenting clear proposals for the conciliation of 20 july, which the council should not reject, because they represent the majority will of this house elected by the citizens of europe. amongst these concerns i would like to stress our doubts about the reserve in agriculture, the low implementation of appropriations in food safety and the future of rural development. i would also like to stress the will for the council to comply with the nice commitments with regard to overcoming the problems caused by the absence of a fishing agreement with morocco and the need to safeguard parliament' s external priorities, which are always cut at first reading by the council and, even more, the indispensable consultation procedure which the council should carry out with parliament when adopting commitments on external policy. lastly, i would like to mention the need to deal with the problems that have already been mentioned in category 5, especially the separation of administration expenditure and the identification of the council' s expenditure in that category. ladies and gentlemen, all of this makes up the hub of parliament' s negotiating position for the conciliation of 20 july, with regard to which we ask the belgian presidency to maintain an open position and hold dialogue so that we can deal with the final part of the budgetary procedure with guarantees of success for all the parties. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i am afraid i must begin by informing markus ferber from bavaria that he will not necessarily find commonalities on those points where he hoped to find them. let me explain why. he said that we must first establish a different form of institutional development for the european union before we talk about the eu' s finances. i think this is wrong. this is especially apparent from the issues before us today. if you ask any member of the public nowadays what the european union spends its money on, 30% will say 'to cover its administrative costs' , and another 30% will have no idea at all where the money goes. that means that 60% do not know what we do with the resources provided by the tax-payer. however, the tax-payers know that what they see as massive amounts of money are involved. enormous sums of money are spent, and i think that today of all days, the general public would be astonished, yet again, by what is happening at european level. on the one hand, we have a draft supplementary and amending budget. in one of them, the european union, the commission, shows that it has no intention of complying more than cursorily with the will of parliament, at least as far as the sections on uclaf or the new olaf structure are concerned. we made a very clear statement on this issue during the year. we wanted to shape personnel and the staffing structure in such a way as to create a new institution which fulfils modern requirements. in fact, it is only thanks to our colleague herbert bsch, who was willing to grasp the nettle, that no attempt was made to redeploy the staff and reshape this same institution - which, of course, was the focus of intensive debate last time - into another, which cannot develop entirely new structures as its personnel remains the same. this also deserves criticism here. my second point is this. we will be returning eur 11 billion to the member states. eur 11 billion means that we have a budget underspend of around 10%. we have an underspend in the field of consumer policy, where just 74.7% of funds are being used. consumer policy - that is a word to savour! this is the issue we have spent more time and energy discussing over the last few months, if not years, than any other - and yet only 75% of its budget is actually being spent. we have allocated funds to address one of the european union' s major problems, namely under-employment. let me give you the rate of expenditure in the field of employment policy: 39.6%. we have millions of unemployed, money has been made available, and yet less than 40% of these funds is being spent. explain that to the european public! we are handing back billions! in category iv, i.e. external actions, we see that just under 60% of the funds allocated to the european initiative for democracy and the protection of human rights - an issue which we spend hours discussing for every resolution, as well as under "urgent business" - is being spent. the rest is forfeited and goes back to the member states. let me make it very clear: the european public must be told where the money goes. however, they should also be told where it comes from. that is being discussed quite specifically today, for it is always implied that the member states provide the money. that is the case here today as well. we must ensure that the public understands the situation. we must make the revenue side and the expenditure side more transparent. we cannot continue to explain why we battle against the council in the budget debates to secure an extra 11 billion, only to hand it back in the draft supplementary and amending budget at the beginning of the following year because it has not been used. the money then goes back into the relevant national budgets. we must move away from this situation. there must be a reliable and accountable source of revenue which is transparent to the public. whatever form this takes, we must not cobble together a solution - markus ferber is quite right on that point. we must not be tempted, as a knee-jerk reaction, to agree any old solution as quickly as possible, for an uncoordinated, unstructured debate only leads to confusion. we must be able to manage this. once we have set this up on the revenue side, once it is directly linked to citizens, and the expenditure side is then controlled by citizens as well - for they will look very carefully at what we are doing with the money - no further funds will be returned to the member states. instead, they will ask us: how have you actually managed the money? this is where we draw together the two issues which we are discussing today - the draft supplementary and amending budget, with massive movements of money on the one hand and own resources on the other. in other words, the issue is this: how much is the public actually paying for europe? in my view, there is no need to be frightened about telling the public what we are doing. we have good arguments, we have very good policy areas and policies, and we can present them persuasively. there is no need to be frightened of the public: we simply need to approach them very openly and transparently, and invite them to work with us on building europe here. mr president, the package under discussion concerns the eu' s accounts for last year, own resources and next year' s budget. i would like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteurs, mrs haug, mr ferber and mr costa neves. last year' s accounts are astonishing: they show a surplus of more than eleven billion euros. this is because revenue was eur 3.3 billion more than was estimated and expenditure eur 8.5 billion less than forecast. the increase in revenue is a good thing. however, the saving in expenditure is deceptive, based, as it is, mainly on the lamentable under-utilisation of structural funds. a good 20% of payments were not taken up, amounting to eur 6.5 billion. these payments will be carried over to the years following, meaning that no real savings have been made at all. the main reason for under-utilisation was that new objective programmes were slow to be approved. only half of the eu objective 1 programmes came to be approved in 2000, almost two years after the agenda 2000 decision taken in berlin. just 8% of the objective 2 programmes were approved. no money at all was spent on new community initiatives for the second year in succession. administrative payments are in a pitiful state. the commission must improve its ability to pay considerably. it has to bear the responsibility for seeing to it that matters are dealt with efficiently and on time. the present omissions will be reflected as backlogs in budgets in the years to come. the other peculiarity in the accounts is the reduction in the refund made in respect of the united kingdom' s contribution. it is odd that amendments should be made to this supplementary budget that go back to the budgets of two and four years ago. why were these amendments not made at the time? mr costa neves' s report provides a good basis for discussions next year. according to preliminary estimates, administrative expenditure of the institutions under heading 5 will exceed the financial perspectives, which is mainly due to the increase of more than 9% in the council' s expenditure, which, in turn, is the result of a rise in cfsp expenditure. parliament must strongly insist on its demand that a separate plan showing a structure of the posts involved in the administration of this policy should be put forward. this expenditure is not part of a gentleman' s agreement between parliament and the council according to which the institutions do not interfere in one another' s budgets. mr president, i wish to speak about own resources. the tables appended to mrs haug' s report and dedicated to the subject of own resources do not give a correct picture of the different share of contributions among the member states. it has to be said aloud that the united kingdom is one of the eu members getting a free ride. it has been given a reduction on contributions. it should form part of the report' s conclusions that the united kingdom should be made to pay its contribution according to the same principles as everyone else. in addition, the report' s statistics disguise the real situation with respect to the customs duties the uk collects on behalf of the eu. but customs duties disguise the share of contributions made by holland and belgium still more, as these countries also collect customs duties on goods bound for other countries. holland and belgium are not the large net contributors the figures show them to be. the report' s conclusions call for the introduction of a special european tax. this is no mere accident. the country holding the presidency, belgium, has also announced it will pursue the issue. there are two different opinions on this in our group. the tax is supported by those who are guided by the spirit of european federalism, while those who wish to preserve their national sovereignty are opposed to the eu having the power to levy and collect taxes. federalism is the making of the european union into a federal state. if the eu is given the power to levy and collect taxes we will be paving the way for federalism. as a representative of taxpayers in a small net contributor country i cannot endorse european taxation for the purposes of a federal state. mrs haug' s conclusion in her report is too radical. mr president, i too want to speak about mrs haug' s report on own resources. her advice that we should go for a european tax is premature and unnecessary. she says that the belgian presidency is expected to put this forward or start a debate. i have read the notes on the work programme by the belgian presidency and there is little or no reference to it. there is only one reference to the tax on flows of speculative capital - the so-called tobin tax. that was voted down by parliament only a few months ago. at the end of the document there is also reference to direct or indirect funding of the european union, so that we can once again operate with the european union' s own resources. i put to her that the prime minister of belgium only, in the last few days, said that he does not want to pursue this path towards a european union tax because "it is sensitive". it is very much a sensitive matter and totally unnecessary. mrs haug mentions that the amount of money coming in from the nation-states through gross national product is going to rise. i accept that. i sat in the house of commons in the united kingdom for 18 years before coming into this chamber. i always thought it was marvellous that the percentage of gross national product coming into european spending was declining. that downward path has continued during the last two years. i applaud that. it shows good and effective control of spending and nation-states do not mind passing on that money to the european union. i see no reason whatsoever for the european union to raise its own direct tax. that is why i have tabled four amendments tomorrow for voting. two of those will be on a roll-call vote. you can see this evening that there is opposition from various countries. i hope that people will vote in support of my amendments and oppose the european tax. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank the rapporteur, mr costa neves, for his proposal and for such good cooperation. we on the committee on budgets have reached agreement on most areas. it is my guess that, this year, it will be issues of principle which dominate the budget debate more than individual budget items, issues which will feature increasingly in the debate in the coming years. i am thinking particularly about enlargement and the development of a common foreign and security policy and its budgetary effects. i am thinking of the reform of the agricultural and fisheries policies. in addition, i am thinking of internal reform, especially the commission' s ability to actually implement the decisions of the budgetary authority. the basic conditions are quite worrying. popular faith in the eu is waning in many member states. at the same time, we are on the threshold of perhaps the most important change ever - eastward enlargement. in the face of this challenge, the eu' s ability to carry out its priorities must be strengthened considerably. it is therefore worrying, even if some finance ministers are rubbing their hands with glee, that the level of budgetary implementation is so low that we now have to pay back eur 11 billion to member states. the problem of promises of aid and assistance being delayed or not being carried out is an obstacle to the whole union. it is therefore good that the commission now wants to increase payments and reform the work in the direction of more modern, efficient and open management. this is something that the council must not change. with regard to the points at issue, i want first to raise the subject of the common agricultural policy. although this is a large and complicated issue, we must now increase the pace of change. before we adopt the budget for 2002 and, above all, before we fully conclude negotiations with the prospective member states, we absolutely must be clearer about the future common agricultural policy. in this context, i would like to point out the view of the committee on agriculture and rural development. this committee is seeking, in its proposals for amendments, to confirm that agricultural expenditure is to be kept within the framework of the budget, but although there are technical difficulties, especially in the light of enlargement, they are also seeking to redistribute funds in the interest of comprehensive development of the countryside, category 1b. this is to be welcomed, and i believe that we should continue on this path. otherwise, we are currently mostly concerned with the reason for the commission wanting such large reserves for bse and foot and mouth disease when they still have the opportunity of adjusting the proposed budget themselves. in this respect, we would like to postpone any further decision on our position until we have received more answers to our questions. let me also briefly comment on the breakdown of the fisheries agreement with morocco. the fact that this cannot now be implemented will have consequences for the fishing fleets of several countries. i, for one, am sceptical about the eu' s major subsidies within the agricultural and fisheries policies, but we must still, of course, take into account the problems of the fishermen who have been counting on new opportunities for earning a living. we must support proactive restructuring and test the possibility of creating funds for this under budget headings other than category 4. in addition, there is a need for developed proposals from the commission. although the conciliation into which we are currently entering primarily concerns headings 1, 2 and 5, we would like to take the opportunity to highlight a few other points. last year, parliament promoted an extra focus on employment and small businesses. following the development of the lisbon process at the stockholm summit, there is every reason to keep to this set of priorities. as such, we must also clear up a number of the problems about which mr pronk, for example, spoke earlier. in addition, we would now also like to focus on the area of e-learning, which we believe must receive resources in order for it to be developed into the key area it must become if we are to be able to increase growth and ensure that this growth is more evenly distributed across europe. finally: we are also concerned about the external undertakings. they have presented the greatest difficulty in 2000 and 2001. these problems have not, of course, gone away. we have made considerable commitments to kosovo and yugoslavia, at the same time as having major and neglected needs to meet in other, even poorer areas of the world. this is one of our most vital tasks, but we have huge problems which we must be able to solve in order to implement everything we have promised. although there are major challenges ahead of us, i nonetheless believe that, with good will, we will be able to solve them together. mr president, the agricultural budget is probably typified by strokes of good fortune as well as huge setbacks. the setbacks are the outbreaks of animal diseases. the impact of those setbacks for the following year will probably not be fully known to us until the end of october, to be exact. one thing is certain: the strokes of luck will not last forever. we can expect setbacks in the form of outbreaks every year. i am about to repeat what i said last year, the year before that and god knows how long before that. it is irresponsible, in my opinion, to have eur 41 million earmarked in the budget for the outbreak of infectious animal diseases. if we consider how much bse and swine fever outbreaks have cost, and what foot and mouth is costing now, then those 41 million are a mere pittance. i therefore believe that the commission should adopt a structural approach in order to improve the situation. is it possible to have insurance cover in place? is it possible to have a specific cattle fund, and does it not amount to distortion of competition if the national portion in one country is to be paid by the farmers, while it is entirely government-funded in other countries? those are the aspects which the commission, the member states and the rapporteur need to work on in the short term, for it is quite likely that we will be experiencing setbacks of this kind again in future. mr president, this debate on the eu' s own resources and on eu tax is familiar to us all. it comes around every year. the positions are well known, and in a way it seems quite unnecessary to repeat the debate and decisions year after year. apart from the questions of pure principle, one might wonder whether higher and new taxes are what eu member states and eu citizens really need. we are all highly taxed. certain member states have some of the highest taxation levels in the world - i myself come from one such country. if we look at them, it is hardly these countries which have experienced the greatest economic growth in the last decade. of course the report talks about tax in total not increasing. however this is a theoretical proposition which has very little to do with practical reality. i also believe it is the case that if a tax is introduced, particularly a new tax level as in this case, taxation will also increase. it is almost inevitable. i would also like to mention the fact that the rapporteur says he is seeking to strengthen the link between the union and its citizens' . this is no doubt admirable and important, but in my view it should happen in a completely different manner. i am very doubtful indeed whether people would feel any stronger connection with the eu through having to pay higher taxes than they do already. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, to jointly debate the system of own resources and the next budget at the point of conciliation reinforces the idea that income and expenditure are two sides of the same coin. there have been calls here for fiscal autonomy and codecision for income and expenditure, but first we must achieve suitable and fair funding of community policies and we already know that there are differing opinions about the most efficient system for achieving it. sooner or later we will have to reach a permanent agreement, but first we will have to debate and clarify the issues selected at the nice council. it seems a pointless exercise to talk about a new philosophy for own resources without having cleared up the fundamental unknown factors first. it is not very prudent to begin building a house from the roof. in any event, to use the argument of the issue of net balances - as has been done - does not move in the right direction, but, for many reasons, contributes to undermining the principles of the union. the question today is whether the new decision on own resources effectively makes progress towards greater equity and transparency and takes more account of the member states' tax capacity. it is clear that the gradual reduction of the maximum reference rate for the vat resource contributes to correcting the regressive aspects of the system in force. the member states' contributions via the fourth resource or vat must be proportionate with their contribution to the community gdp as a key element of safeguarding the equity of the system. therefore we must keep up our efforts in this direction. the proposal also has some negative aspects, which are far from negligible. the maintenance, albeit with a modification of the calculation system, of the so-called correction of budgetary imbalances in favour of the united kingdom, confirms that this procedure is totally contrary to the desired transparency and simplicity. with regard to the 2002 budget, i would like to point out that the costa neves report - and i congratulate the rapporteur on his work - provides the necessary elements for a good negotiation. i believe that there is a margin for reaching final agreements with the council. i would ask the commission to fulfil its commitment to propose a suitable instrument and funding to deal with the failure of the fishing agreement with morocco, which also means that the aid can be used in projects for alternative economic activity in the regions affected. i feel that i need to give you some information in light of mr dover' s speech. earlier, you called mr heaton-harris to speak for the budgetary control committee and he was not here, and he is still not here. i think i know the reason why - because he is knackered or should i say 'physically exhausted' following a football match this afternoon between british labour members and british conservative members which the labour members won by 7 goals to 1. however, mr dover and so were also involved. you expect labour members to stand the pace! since he is here, i think mr dover should be congratulated, not for what he said, but because he is present here tonight when mr heaton-harris is not, and he is a much younger man. (mixed reactions) i really do not know whom i should now be personally congratulating for winning at football! mr president, rapporteurs, honourable members, there is always a lot to do, discuss and decide where budgets are concerned, and today we have just had four important points: the two supplementary budgets for the current financial year, the resolution on financing the budget and the preparations for the first reading of the 2002 budget in the council. amending budget no 3/2001 is concerned solely with personnel matters, in the field of research and in olaf. amending budget no 4/2001 is concerned with the use of the budget surplus from last year. both budgets are discussed in the report by mrs haug and mr ferber. in the matter of the commission' s research personnel, they suggest a different establishment plan. this is acceptable to the commission. so far as the change to the olaf establishment plan is concerned, this is now based on a compromise arrived at in lengthy negotiations and i should like at this point to make a few observations about it. firstly, a comment on the fact that the opinion of the committee on budgetary control which is before us today still speaks of serious irregularities in olaf, specifically that there are more a grade officials than posts. in connection with this word "irregularities" i should simply like to point out once again that the budgetary authority authorised a certain number of grade a posts for the year 2000 establishment plan. not all of them were actually filled by the commission or olaf, but when it came to the 2001 budget the budgetary authority then decided to cut the number of grade a posts to fewer than there were officials in place. nothing like that has ever happened before and of course it creates difficulties, but to call it an irregularity and to create the impression that the commission has filled posts it was not authorised to is simply not correct and i must reject the term irregularities in this connection. i should also like to point out that the commission passed the olaf director' s establishment plan proposals on to the budgetary authority unchanged precisely in order to underline olaf' s independence. on the other hand, some of the european parliament' s resolutions amount to very detailed micromanagement, which naturally at least raises a few questions as regards independence. overall, the fact that posts are being blocked and also that unfortunately not all posts have yet been approved is not exactly making it easy for olaf to operate, and the authority does now have some really big tasks, and above all a wide range of different tasks, to cope with. i can at this point only assure you once again that the commission is doing all it can to create good working conditions for olaf. regarding the second supplementary and amending budget. the year 2000 budget ended with a surplus of eur 11.6 billion, as has been mentioned here several times. this is in part the result of increased revenue, the fruit, for example, of a more favourable trend in gross national product than was initially assumed, but for the greater part it is the result of resources not being implemented on the expenditure side. i must now say something about structural policy - it is after all the largest chunk, accounting for 6 of these 11 billion - namely that account was already taken of the fact that it would probably be difficult to implement all resources in the first year when the interinstitutional agreement was drawn up and signed. that was more or less taken for granted and it was therefore decided that commitments could be redeployed for subsequent years, and that is what has been done, which ensures that no resources are lost to the structural funds because of implementation difficulties in the first year. the conclusion to be drawn from this is in my opinion that we must start much earlier with preparations and decision making for a future support period. i should like to point out, for example, that parliament' s position on the community initiatives was adopted in april 2000. we can see here that the whole process began too late. in other words, we must simply set an earlier timetable for the next support period. that applies to everyone, it applies to the commission, it applies to parliament and it also applies, of course, to the council. incidentally, the entire resources of eur 11.6 bn are not being returned. eur 1.6 bn were already deployed in the 2001 budget, among other things to finance the bse measures decided in supplementary budget no 1. eur 2 075 bn are used to finance the budget correction for the united kingdom, and unlike the previous speakers i am not looking at mr wynn here. we have also proposed using eur 350 million to top up the resources for reconstruction in the balkans and to return the other part, namely eur 7.5 bn, to the member states by reducing their contributions to the 2001 budget accordingly. the rapporteurs are now proposing that not just eur 350 million but 450 million be used to top up the resources for the balkans. the commission actually wanted to fund the difference by making further transfers from other areas, but we now agree to your proposal, especially in the light of the time factor, which is very important. we really do not want to run the risk of having to suspend payments for measures for kosovo or serbia. we all know how sensitive this area is and i very much hope that parliament' s proposal in this connection will meet with the council' s agreement so that the entire proposal can be adopted before the summer break. now to the present motion for a resolution on own resources. the subject is becoming increasingly topical because of the question of what is the best way to finance the european budget. on the one hand, of course, we have the following situation: a new decision has been taken on own resources with a new structure, and this own resources decision naturally applies until something else is decided, with everything that goes with it, including the british rebate. that is the law as it stands. so far as the structure of financing is concerned, the treaty states that the public budget is financed out of own resources. that is what it says in the treaty. the agreement with parliament in 1975, for example, also stressed again that they should be genuine own resources. but instead, the de facto trend has been in quite a different direction, and you showed in detail in your report, mrs haug, that it has taken a different direction. regarding the financing that we currently have, i simply have to say that it is not transparent for the citizen. it is one of the most serious points, that hardly any citizen knows how the eu is financed, and what they do not know is all the more unfathomable and leaves room for every kind of speculation. for my own part, i can only say once more that i very much welcome the fact that the belgian presidency intends taking up this matter of how the eu budget is financed and, mr ferber, i consider it to be a subject forming part of the whole issue of the delimitation of competences between the member states and the european level. that is where it really belongs. i think it is of course also quite important that all who welcome a restructuring on the revenue side should now also find a common vocabulary as soon as possible. if we talk about introducing an eu tax, that sounds like inventing some new kind of tax that the european union will be entitled to levy. that is not what it is about at all. it is about specifying a tax, some or all of which will flow into the european budget, where responsibility for the amount raised will lie at european level, and it naturally also involves the problems of the european parliament' s budgetary powers. from my own point of view, i can only stress what mrs haug said, that the real issue is: will the european parliament continue to have these reduced budgetary powers on the revenue side as it does on the expenditure side? i believe an opportunity has presented itself, and we should in my opinion go with the momentum when the council presidency raises the issue on its own initiative, because if it is not adopted as a topic for laeken at this point in time, i fear the matter will be buried again and we shall not be able to debate it for a long time. now to mr costa neves' s report. this concerns the conciliation procedure before the council' s first reading on 20 july, preparations for which take place in the trialogue on 9 july. i should again like to stress that the 9 july trialogue is of course also an important date, an important point in the whole budgetary procedure. since mrs theato is here, i should like to make a brief comment. mrs theato, you sent me a rather strongly worded letter asking me kindly to come to the committee on budgetary control to debate a periodic report on 9 july instead of going to the trialogue. i must again point out that i cannot of course be in two places at once and it goes without saying that it is part of the budget commissioner' s duties to take part in the trialogue in preparation for the conciliation procedure for the 2002 budget. but now to the points that will be at the centre of the conciliation. mr costa neves has described these in detail. i should like to say the following. firstly, i consider the commission' s proposal to provide a eur 1 bn reserve in the agriculture budget to be highly appropriate given the uncertainty surrounding the direction agricultural expenditure will take in the forthcoming year. we now have the first bills for foot and mouth disease on the table and more will come in, and they confirm that a large reserve is really necessary. we ought to play safe, and we will of course be able to be more precise in the letter of amendment in the autumn, including on the question of how much we shall have to pay from the budget for foot and mouth disease. but for the present i believe the level of reserve proposed is the best way forward and i very much hope that the european parliament will support this in the conciliation procedure with the council. the second point concerns the abortive fisheries agreement with morocco, which has been mentioned by several speakers here. it is an important point; i therefore want to speak about it briefly. the commission plans to propose a cofinancing programme to assist with the restructuring of the spanish and portuguese fleets concerned by the end of july. it will be a programme financed in the category of the structural funds. but now you will say the structural funds category is empty or fully committed. the commission will for this reason be making a proposal that the flexibility reserve, or part of it, be used to finance this restructuring programme. it would then be a one-year programme, implementation of which may extend over several years. how the resources released in category iv by the abortive fisheries agreement should be used will have to be considered weighing up every aspect, including, and i say this expressly, the aspect of budgetary discipline. in the matter of common foreign and security policy, parliament takes the view that resources could be cut this year, too. in fact, the preliminary draft budget is the same as the 2001 budget, and the commission sees no need for further cuts here, but the commission will, of course, assist the rapporteur as requested in order to improve the budget commentaries. now a word on administrative expenditure. i share the european parliament' s concern about the future trend of category v and i therefore fully support the efforts for greater transparency and ease of planning for any new areas of activity, such as justice and home affairs. but i also want to make clear that it is not the expenditure on commission reform that is putting a strain on the financial framework here. we all have to consider necessary reforms, and i believe it is essential that all institutions try to put forward a medium-term plan so that we can see where changes are necessary in order to get to grips with category v. we really need to give thought to whether a high level group or similar should be deployed to deal with these issues. you have drawn attention, mr costa neves, to the report that the european parliament had called for and which deals, among other things, with matters of budget implementation. i should like to thank you for the positive comment that it was completed on time and that it is a useful tool for discussing the questions raised in parliament' s declaration. there will also be close cooperation in the field of any actions included in the budget by the european parliament. as also agreed, the commission will be involved in the discussion by the various committees at an early stage in order to ensure that actions and pilot schemes can be implemented. that, too, is important for us and i should like to highlight in particular the areas of asylum and immigration policy. a brief word on priorities in e-learning and employment policy as they affect small and medium-sized enterprises. these are areas where large sums of money are available not only in the budget lines of heading 3 but also in the structural funds, and the commission believes that the new instruments introduced in the last budget must first prove their worth before they are substantially increased or expanded. to conclude, all this shows how much we still have to discuss. over the coming months we must work out the year 2000 budget together, and i hope that we shall be able to make good use of the next few weeks and the forthcoming meetings to arrive at common positions so that we shall have a good start to the budget negotiations. , chairman of the committee on budgetary control. (de) mr president, i should like to address commissioner schreyer. i am rather surprised to hear her say i wrote her a strongly worded letter. she quotes me as having written that she should kindly come to the committee on budgetary control. that cannot be true. i wrote a businesslike letter in which i asked her to come to us in the committee for budgetary control in accordance with our agreement between the commission and parliament. if mrs schreyer has other commitments, i do, however, assume that she is able to send a senior official to give the committee the information it requires. the letter has no other meaning. mrs schreyer, i am somewhat astonished that you read the letter in that way. it was entirely businesslike. i just wanted to explain that. thank you. thank you commissioner. the joint debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. management of community programmes the next item is the report (a5-0216/2001) by mr bourlanges, on behalf of the committee on budgetary control, on the proposal for a council regulation laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of community programmes [com(2000) 788 - c5-0036/2001 - 2000/0337(cns)]. mr president, what we have here, albeit under a somewhat technical title, namely the creation of executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of community programmes, is a rather important reform, and an element which is by no means peripheral to the administrative reform which is taking place within the commission. i must say straightaway that the committee on budgetary control and this house are very much in sympathy with the principle of the agency that has been proposed to us, and our initial impression is a favourable one, because, in creating this agency, the commission is responding to a matter of fundamental concern to parliament, a concern which it expressed in the context of the budgetary procedure for the year 2000. parliament was anxious to see the dismantling of the technical assistance offices (taos), which were not supervised very well and which did not come under the commission' s control, and to have them replaced by establishments which would exhibit both the security which goes with the public nature of the institutions and, at the same time, the flexibility of management and operation which is necessary in order to accomplish a certain number of tasks, in particular the implementation of certain programmes. in short, what we said was, - 'let us abolish the taos, but let us not replace them with central commission services, but rather let us invent something new' . these agencies are certainly something new. the commission' s proposal forms part of a greater whole, an externalisation policy which comprises three facets. first, there is the privatisation of certain specific, precisely defined tasks, a privatisation which we are in favour of provided that the private persons who will be responsible for these tasks are not given integrated administrative tasks to do. second, there are the executive agencies themselves. finally, there is a third aspect about which we are more doubtful, but which we are not about to discuss this evening, and that is the creation of national agencies, which will be responsible for running a certain number of programmes in the territory of the member states. the proposed regulation which you have before you is concerned only with the statute of the agencies. therefore, madam commissioner, in principle you have the support of the rapporteur and the support of the committee on budgetary control. that does not mean, as i am sure you suspected because you know me, that we agree with everything. there are a certain number of points on which we agree and a certain number on which we disagree. as far as the first group is concerned, as i have already said, we agree with the principle of the agency. we also agree with the detailed rules for the management of that body, part of which will consist of staff seconded from the commission, because we want this agency to be clearly subordinate, both politically and administratively, to the commission. the other part of the body will consist of more flexible staff recruited on the basis of temporary contracts tailored to the management flexibility needed for programmes of limited duration. we also believe, and i think that this is a point on which we agree, that these new bodies must be subject to the same controls, and the same obligations regarding communication, audit and olaf competency, as the commission' s central services. on this point, i think we see things from the same angle. on the other hand, there are a certain number of points on which we still have doubts which need to be cleared up. the first of these concerns the definition of the tasks that are likely to be externalised and entrusted to the executive agencies. this is an old issue, and one on which the committee on budgets and the committee on budgetary control are in step, even if some of us are not entirely of the same opinion. we would like these externalised tasks to be really externalised, because they are of a temporary nature and because they require the use of temporary or specialist staff, but we do not want them to be externalised simply because they would cost less because they would be using less well paid and less qualified staff. that is not our objective. secondly, we believe that the commission' s legal responsibility should be complete and direct. this is a point of law on which we may disagree, but i do not believe that we are fundamentally opposed to one another. in the same way, and this is quite an important technical point which mrs theato, the chairman of the committee on budgetary control, is particularly keen on, we would like to see discharge being granted to these bodies at the same time as discharge is granted to the commission. we do not want them to be separated, and we do not want to have to know about innumerable separate discharges. we want to be able to decide on discharge with a single vote, for both operating appropriations and administrative appropriations. i am approaching my conclusion. there are still two points on which we still differ, and which are causing a problem at the committee stage. first of all, the rapporteur had proposed that 25% of the staff of the agency should actually come from the commission, although the committee on budgetary control did not go along with this proposal and has not, in fact, agreed to it. on behalf of our group we tabled an amendment which was intended to reinstate this request, but slightly altered, and after negotiations with the commission we specified that the figure of 25% would not have to be achieved until after a certain time had elapsed, in this case a period of eighteen months, which would enable the agency to reach cruising speed. i hope to be able to convince committee members in the socialist group to support this proposal. i have not managed to do so yet, but i have not given up hope. i now come to my last point, and it is an important one. it concerns the nature of the typical staff statutes and contracts. we disagree on this point, and i am concerned because, following the cocobu vote, i saw proposals for regulations which rather worried me. we are concerned to note that staff would be subject to non-renewable statutes. if this is the case, we shall find ourselves with staff of inferior quality, who are less loyal and who will not be in a position to ensure continuity of service on all occasions, thus giving rise to periods of interruption which will be detrimental to the interests of those who benefit from the services and for whom the programmes are intended. on this point, madam commissioner, i want to ask you for a firm commitment. we want to have continuity of service, and we want the staff who are used by these agencies to have renewable arrangements according to need, and not to have their contracts cut off arbitrarily and automatically while the programme is still going on. those, madam commissioner, are the feelings of our committee. i shall stop there, having reached my conclusion, which is that we support your proposal in principle, while waiting to hear from you certain clarifications on the points which i have raised. thank you, mr president, for your patience, and i should also like to thank my fellow committee members for their warm support. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the commission says it cannot cope with the ever growing number of community programmes and their implementation with its statutory number of staff. that may be right. it means the commission must delegate and decentralise. various models have in the past proved unsuitable or failures. either they were not financially transparent, like the minibudgets, or they were conducive to fraud like the taos, which is why parliament demanded their abolition. now the commission is presenting a proposal for a regulation for the statute of so-called executive agencies, which the rapporteur, mr bourlanges, has just explained. i should like to congratulate him on his very detailed treatment of this proposal. i should like to underline a number of important points in his report. the commission must provide a precise list of the tasks to be transferred, whether they are public or non-public and the type of executive agency to which they are to be transferred. unfortunately, we do not yet have the promised handbook about that. but it must be clear that responsibility for the proper and economic execution of the transferred tasks lies with the commission, which is subject to discharge by parliament, which means there can be no discharge for the agencies themselves. parliament must be provided with all the information and documents it requires for the purpose without delay. the agencies are also subject to scrutiny by the court of auditors and, where appropriate, also by olaf. the commission is also legally liable for the executive agencies, since they are not anchored in the treaty as institutions in their own right. the agencies must be evaluated within not more than three years to check they are operating as they should. finally, all contracts with outside agencies must be limited in time. mr bourlanges has just mentioned that. the framework regulation makes no provision for their term to be extended. but i think there ought to be provision for that. it is at all events important that at least 25% of executive agency staff should be seconded commission officials in order to ensure internal supervision of administrative tasks and to see that the commission' s responsibilities are fulfilled. may i first of all use up a small proportion of my valuable speaking time to congratulate you on the excellent work you have done in the conciliation committee with regard to the takeover directive? i have stood up to the group discipline of my delegation to support you, but to no avail. i should also like to congratulate the rapporteur on the report that is before us today. he has adopted a very constructive attitude in the committee on budgetary control and i should also like to congratulate him on the excellent working relationship with the rapporteur of the committee on budgets. it is first-class teamwork, which deserves to be emulated. our group gives its unqualified support to the proposal of the european commission. we also back the report by mr bourlanges. we are of the opinion that the commission proposal forms a key component in the reform programme that was set in motion after 1999. the proposal aims to externalise certain tasks in a clearly defined framework and end the administrative chaos of the technical assistance offices. the committee on budgetary control did tighten the proposal of the european commission on a number of scores, as mrs theato has already mentioned. firstly, the location of the registered office of the agencies. the text now refers to opening branch offices for agencies. according to our amendment, this reference is being deleted. there is still room for improvement. mr mulder has tabled a sound amendment and i should like you, mr bourlanges, to consider adopting mr mulder' s amendment as a supplement to your amendment, so that we do not need to choose between the two. secondly, the provisions on financial audit and control are being tightened. the obligation has been included to produce a report annually. that is a major improvement in my view. thirdly, we call for one financial regulation for all agencies, as opposed to a different financial regulation for each agency. if not, we fear that we will no longer see the wood for the trees. and finally, olaf' s powers relating to agencies and relating to the european commission should be the same in our opinion. we still beg to differ with the rapporteur on a number of points. firstly, his definition of externalisation is rather skimpy. he would like to restrict externalisation to temporary tasks and tasks of a technical nature. in practice, it is true that that will often be the nature of those tasks, but we find it too restricted. a decisive commission needs flexibility. the question is what is most efficient, what is most cost-effective? that question should be central, and we as european parliament should not plug that opening. and secondly, this has already been mentioned, mr bourlanges proposes to include a minimum percentage for the number of commission officials who need to work in such an agency. needless to say, a certain percentage of commission officials will need to work in such an agency, but it appears inappropriate in our view to place a figure on that percentage. that will differ for each agency according to the nature and work of the agency. mr bourlanges said in the committee: surely the socialists are in favour of workers' rights? i would say: surely, the ppe is in favour of abolishing unnecessary rules and in favour of freedom? and finally, i should like to ask the commission its opinion on the amendments tabled by mr ellis to this report. - (nl) mr president, i should first of all like to congratulate mr bourlanges. needless to say, the proposal we are discussing at the moment has become inevitable after the events of a number of years ago. it is necessary for us to further regulate the task of the executive bodies so as to avoid the mistakes of the past. what will be the specific task of those bodies? we totally agree with mr bourlanges that that still needs to be regulated. one thing is certain: they will need to carry out a specific administrative task for a certain limited time. what are the salient points for the liberal group? firstly, the commission will always remain responsible for what happens. it would be unacceptable if certain tasks were to be delegated to another executive agency on a discretionary basis. secondly, the percentage of the number of officials in such a body will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. we are opposed to putting a percentage figure on it, for we cannot possibly put a figure on it at the moment. that will clearly depend on the tasks of the agency. concerning the discharge of agencies, the suggestion that this parliament should look into the discharge of each agency seems unreasonable to us. if the commission is responsible, and if it is the case that the commission is granted discharge by parliament, that naturally implies that we indirectly grant the agencies discharge. that is our strong view. as for the remainder of the proposals, we generally back the amendments which the rapporteur has tabled. mr president, honourable members, the european parliament has played an important part in the whole discussion about commission administrative reform. the committee on budgets and the committee on budgetary control have also played a key role in the question of externalisation. the rapporteur, mr bourlanges, in particular provided the initial impulse for the proposal for a regulation that is now before us. i should like to thank you for your continued cooperation in working out the proposal and also the report. i have to say that mr bourlanges already impressed me when he presented his magnum opus on externalisation in november 1999. it is after all very difficult to produce good literature. many people would say that creating a literary work on externalisation was an impossible task. but you really succeeded in presenting something of high literary value with this first report on externalisation. my warmest congratulations. it is now recognised that the commission as a whole must concentrate more on its fundamental tasks. that is the very reason why the subject of externalisation is being discussed, namely in response to the question of which tasks could be performed in a way other than within the commission' s present administrative structures. the plan envisages three methods and forms of externalisation, namely externalisation in the form of a delegation of tasks to executive agencies, the delegation of tasks to national agencies, i.e. decentralisation, and the assignment of tasks by contract to third parties. the framework regulation for executive agencies defines a new form of community institution that operates in the service of the commission and has the task of managing and implementing community programmes independently on the commission' s behalf, including the associated execution of budget resources. the regulation therefore provides the framework for the creation of executive agencies that the commission will set up as and when required. in this connection i should like to highlight the most important points once again. an executive agency is an instrument in the hands of and under the control of the commission. this also again makes it clear that it is wrong to equate externalisation with privatisation, as often happens in the debate, especially with officials. you made it very clear, mr bourlanges, that such is not the case. it means that the commission' s responsibility for the execution of the budget under article 274 of the ec treaty is retained without qualification. that is a point that has just been emphasised again by the committee on budgetary control and also by you, mrs theato. an executive agency is set up by the commission. the agency' s management bodies are appointed by the commission. the commission exercises control through its own departments. the operational resources managed by the agency remain in the european union' s general budget and are administered by the agency in its capacity as an authorising party by delegation of the commission. the prerogatives of the budgetary authority are preserved. the budgetary authority approves the allocation to the agency' s administrative resources. the agency' s establishment plan is submitted to the budgetary authority as part of the budgetary procedure. we are unable to go along with the suggestion that a fixed percentage of the agency' s staff should be commission officials. regarding the duration of the contracts, however, i can point out that setting up executive agencies only makes sense for tasks taking rather longer than one year. that therefore means that contracts for contract personnel will run correspondingly longer. i should also like to add that the european parliament grants the discharge for the execution of the executive agency' s administrative and operational resources. to sum up, the commission is able to accept the following amendments: nos 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12 in part, as well as amendments nos 16, paragraphs 1 and 2, in part and 17 and 21 in part. i should like to thank the committee on budgets and the committee on budgetary control for their critical scrutiny of our proposal. their contributions will make our proposal more balanced and bring us a step closer to our goal of increasing administrative efficiency. mr president, just a brief word. i should like to have a very clear explanation from the commissioner on the third part of amendment no 25, in other words on the point about renewable contracts. i have discussed the matter with your staff, and i wanted a precise undertaking from you. i have not had it. this is an issue of fundamental importance to us. if we do not have a clear undertaking on this point by tomorrow, i shall make arrangements to submit to this house a motion to postpone the vote. i have made it very clear to your staff that we want the people who work for this agency to be subject to contracts which can be renewed. obviously the renewal does not have to be obligatory, but it is something that i have been insisting on ever since i became aware of the proposed regulation which had been submitted to the committee on legal affairs and the internal market. i should also like to say, by the way, that the proposed regulation in question had not been notified, for reasons of which i am unaware, either to the committee on budgetary control or to the committee on budgets. i therefore made it very clear to those who were responsible that i would be expecting an undertaking from the commission this evening. i have not received it. i would like to think that perhaps the message was not passed on. you have until tomorrow to think about it, but i shall expect an undertaking from you before the vote takes place. regarding amendment no 25, mr bourlanges, the first part is accepted by the commission, the second part is rejected. as regards the third part, i agree to your suggestion of clarifying the matter by tomorrow. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. safe operation of mining activities the next item is the report (a5-0214/2001) by mr sjstedt, on behalf of the committee on the environment, public health and consumer policy, on the commission communication on safe operation of mining activities: a follow-up to recent mining accidents [com(2000) 664 - c5-0013/2001 - 2001/2005(cos)]. . (sv) mr president, the background to this report and the commission communication with which it deals is a number of extremely serious accidents which have happened in the mining industry in recent years. in 1998, a dam collapsed at a mine in spain, with very serious ecological consequences, and a similar accident occurred in romania in 2000. both these accidents had international environmental consequences. in recent years, we have also seen similar, but less extensive, accidents involving collapsing mine dams, e.g. in northern sweden and in wales. this has led to the eu reviewing its legislation with regard to this type of mining operation. at the same time, we have large amounts of mining waste stored in various places releasing heavy metals and other toxic substances into the environment. the content of this waste and the extent of the problem are also not entirely clear. as such, mining waste is one of our major environmental problems. the safety of mining operations is also a major environmental problem. in its proposal, the commission presents its thoughts on possible ways of improving eu legislation in this area. in the main, we have decided, in our report, that things are moving in the right direction. however, we have a number of comments on what we believe the more concrete content should be and on what we would like the commission to propose. we emphasise that, in the event of an accident, the responsibility should lie exclusively with the company, including responsibility for the environmental consequences, and that the mining industry should be included in the future directive on environmental liability. we would like more research in this area. at the moment, there is a major lack of research into the management of mining waste. we would, therefore, like the techniques currently found in various countries to be developed. we would also like the eu to review its own financing of various projects in this field. with regard to the main proposals, in my report we propose that the study now underway should also take in the candidate countries. the study means going through old mining waste and identifying cases of serious environmental problems. we know that the situation may be more serious in many candidate countries than it is in the present member states. we also emphasise that we would like a common method to be used so that it will be possible to compare results from different sources. we believe that, in the cases where it is established that there is a major problem, these must also be followed up with actual action plans. the most important element of the commission' s proposal is the proposal for a new framework directive on mining waste. i, as rapporteur, and the committee on the environment, public health and consumer policy, believe that this is the right approach. a special directive is needed, as neither the directive on waste nor the directive on the landfill of waste is especially applicable to the management of mining waste. we also stress that this directive must deal with both old mining waste and existing production. this directive should also contain a provision obliging the member states to have legislation on the restoration of those locations which have been used for mining operations. such legislation already exists in a number of member states but not all, particularly if the candidate countries are included. we would like specific provisions on dam safety which directly address these accidents. in addition, we would like a direct ban on the method used in baia mare in romania, where cyanide was used in open dams for metal extraction. this is an extremely dangerous method which risks seriously damaging the surrounding environment if the dam bursts, as was the case in romania. a third element of the proposals is that the seveso ii directive should be reviewed. it is a question of broadening the scope of the directive in order to include requirements for contingency plans and information for mining operations. in this area, there is the one amendment to the report, which comes from the conservative ppe-de group. the amendment proposes that the obligation set out in the seveso ii directive should be restricted and only cover mining operations concerned with ore processing, i.e. metal extraction. i believe it is too early to set such limitations before the commission' s proposal has even been tabled. it would be unwise to do this at this point. instead, options should be kept open for all types of mining operation to be covered by this directive. there was widespread agreement when we discussed this matter in committee. i would like to thank my fellow members for their comments and for the support i have received. we have also enjoyed excellent cooperation with the commission and now look forward quite soon to receiving the first proposals that have been promised, especially the revision of the seveso ii directive. we hope that the commission will also listen to us regarding the focus of the forthcoming proposals. thank you for such excellent cooperation. mr president, commissioner, i should like first of all to thank the rapporteur most sincerely for his report and to congratulate him on it. he had a really very tricky subject to deal with. my group, at any rate, will be very glad to vote in favour of this report. as we shall, of course, be voting in favour of your report, mr sjstedt, allow me to give voice to certain misgivings expressed to me by persons affected. persons affected are of the opinion that a lot of things are being said here that are not materially justified. because of the two tailing ponds disasters with which we are familiar, the mining industry as a whole and the existing rules are being seen in a light that bears no relation to reality. people have mentioned to me recital a, which says that mining accidents have highlighted the inadequacy of rules and monitoring requirements governing the mining industry in present and future eu states. couched in such general terms, that is not correct. what is correct is that the strictness of the regulations varies within the eu and naturally also in the candidate countries. but the problem lies not so much in the laws as in how those laws are enforced in certain countries, romania for example. on recital d: poor management of mining operations and disposal of mining waste is a global problem. this, too - according to the people concerned, who feel offended by it - is not exactly true, because most firms in the sme category do not operate on a global scale. many large firms that are active worldwide are, on the contrary, pioneers when it comes to strict safety and environmental standards. viewed globally, in gold mining, for example, there are more problems with small, under-funded operations that are not in a position even to be properly aware of environmental concerns. but there are also things that are expressly welcomed, for example the final sentence of point 8: 'furthermore [parliament] believes that the landfill of waste directive does not constitute an appropriate framework for regulating mining waste and therefore urges the commission to put forward a proposal for a specific directive on mining waste.' that can only be fully and entirely welcomed and underlined. i believe the european mining industry is very much aware of its responsibilities and is therefore calling for a specific directive for mining waste. there must, then, be adequate rules for waste, and environmental and technical standards must be laid down. i believe we are all aware that the specific nature of mining is such that the landfill directive cannot be applied and would not bring about any improvement in the ecological and economic situation of mining companies. i have taken the liberty, mr sjstedt, of tabling an amendment to paragraph 9. this is concerned with extending the seveso ii directive to also cover risks arising from storage and processing activities in metal ore mining. i hope you will be able to agree to this amendment and i congratulate you once again on your report. on behalf of my group, i welcome the commission' s report and the rapporteur' s report. the incidents which precipitated the study and the subsequent reports in spain and in hungary have made us aware of the problems posed by mines and mine-workings, both old and new. the potential problems - particularly the problems of water pollution - are cross-boundary problems and therefore worthy of european-wide legislation. after consideration of existing legislation, be it on ippc, landfill or seveso, and in each case i have acted as the rapporteur at different stages of development of that legislation, it is clear that none of them can provide a comfortable solution to the range of problems presented by mining operations. so i would concur with the rapporteur that a new piece of legislation - some kind of new initiative - is required to regulate the mining industry in particular. i would raise two points with the rapporteur. firstly, old sites do not necessarily need to be cleaned up. many old sites are literally centuries old and have developed in such a way that they are now sites of scientific interest and contain particular flora and fauna. i would urge that we should consider preserving sites and using sites in that way rather than simply clearing them off the face of the earth at great expense. secondly, i would say that classifying mining waste as waste is very difficult when you consider that large amounts of it are simply crushed rock and quite similar to products that you would get from any quarry in the union. therefore i would say that we have to look more particularly at processed waste from mines which often contains high levels of toxic chemicals. that does require regulation. i would say that the amendment from the epp group is not particularly helpful, since it tries to reduce the scope of this directive to the mining of metal ores. from my own experience, the first tailings dams i ever saw were in derbyshire in the north of england, and they were the result of the mining of fluorospa, not a metal as any chemistry teacher will tell you. but they present exactly the same problems as tailings dams resulting from mining operations. i would recommend a positive vote tomorrow and, i hope, rapid action by the commission to implement the recommendations. i would like to say that our group very much supports this report. we think it is excellent. the mining sector' s track-record leaves a lot to be desired, not just in europe, but in eastern europe and worldwide. one of the very important things in this report is the need for a future directive on mining waste. it should cover both operational and abandoned sites and disposal and contain provisions for mining waste action programmes as well as provisions to facilitate more sustainable extraction: site cleaning, waste reduction, and dry-tailing disposal in the case of metal mining waste. mining companies need to establish decommissioning plans for new and existing mines and tailing ponds. i just have to look at it in my own country where mining companies have come in and basically taken what they want. they then leave the mess behind to be cleaned up. as mr bowe said, there may be "historical" mining sites of interest, but we are really talking about tailing ponds which contain many dangerous substances. local communities have to live with that and, in some areas, even farming has been affected because the mining companies leave their mess behind, affecting not just the water supplies but also the land in general. we really have to take into account all sectors in the community. the mining industry has got away with it for far too long. we really need an extremely tight clampdown on how mining industries operate and a future directive on mining waste is extremely important. i would just like to finish by saying that the report itself is excellent and i hope that it gets full support. i would also like to confirm that our group would be reluctant to support the amendment proposed by the ppe group for the reasons just mentioned by other speakers. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, this evening i am standing in for margot wallstrm on this topic because mrs wallstrm had to leave today for the international climate talks in japan and australia. i think the committee will be fully in agreement with mrs wallstrm representing the european side at this high level group because climate protection policy is one of our most pressing concerns. i should like, on behalf of the commission, to thank the european parliament and especially you, mr sjstedt, but also the committees involved, for your constructive cooperation and outstanding report. the background to the commission' s communication was the serious environmental damage caused by cyanide following the dam breaches in spain in 1998 and in baia mare, romania, in january 2000. the communication mentions the three key actions planned by the commission after the most recent mining accidents: first, amendment of the seveso ii directive, then the presentation of the proposal for a new directive on the treatment of mining waste and, thirdly, the creation of a reference document on best available technologies following the procedure laid down in the ippc directive, with a description of the best available technologies for reducing everyday pollution and preventing or reducing mining accidents. the baia mare task force' s final report reaffirmed the need for these measures. it was mrs wallstrm who set up this task force to obtain more information about the baia mare accident and, on that basis, to devise measures to reduce or prevent such hazards in the future. in their report they welcome this communication and support the commission' s general approach of creating a transparent and coherent framework for greater safety in mining by making appropriate amendments to environmental law and the instruments. this refers not only to the three key actions just mentioned but also to legislation that is not specific to mining, such as the proposed directive on environmental liability. i should like to stress at this point that the three key actions mentioned now have different time frames. the proposal for a directive amending the seveso ii directive has already completed a public consultation and, according to the commission' s work programme for 2001, is likely to be adopted in the course of this year. the directive will not only cover mining but also, following the tragic accident in enschede in the netherlands in may last year, the safe storage of fireworks. in the light of the amendment that is now before us and of what mrs flemming has said, i should like to add that both the mining accidents mentioned in the commission communication occurred during activities connected with the extraction of metallic ores. the commission therefore understands the reasons for wanting to confine the scope of the directive to this field. but i would ask you to consider that a gradual extension of the scope of the directive - when and only when accidents have happened - is not consistent with the precautionary principle. aristotle himself said the improbable will probably happen. even tomorrow, there could be an accident in an industrial plant not covered by the seveso ii directive, in which case we would make corrections retrospectively and wait for the next area, so to speak. i would therefore be pleased if parliament would support the commission in its efforts to be proactive rather than reactive in its proposed legislation. a comment on the time frame for the second key action. work on the proposal for a new directive on the treatment of mining waste is progressing well. the study of mining hot spots will soon be completed and consultation with the interest groups concerned has already begun. the proposal will probably be adopted by the commission in 2002. work on the document on best available technologies began with an opening session at the european ippc bureau at the end of june. from past experience, however, producing such a detailed document describing the best available technologies takes two years on average. finally, the report calls on the commission to intensify dialogue with the european mining industry. this dialogue is already taking place. it will play a central role in implementing community strategy for safety in mining. your support shows the commission that we are on the right road. the report motivates us to continue to work hard for a swift implementation of our strategy for the prevention of mining accidents in the european union and also in the candidate countries. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. coastal zone management in europe the next item is the report (a5-0219/2001) by mrs mckenna, on behalf of the committee on the environment, public health and consumer policy, on the proposal for a european parliament and council recommendation concerning the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in europe [com(2000) 545 - c5-0474/2000 - 2000/0227(cod)]. mr president, the principles of integrated coastal zone management are accepted worldwide as a mechanism to enable sustainable management of coastal areas. europe is currently well behind other developed nations in implementing them. for instance, the us, canada, australia and new zealand have all implemented major legislation to progress integrated management of coastal and marine areas. chapter 17 of agenda 21 commits coastal signatories to integrated management and sustainable development of coastal areas. the eu' s demonstration programme on integrated management of coastal zones, funded by life, has proved that implementation of integrated coastal zone management results in both economic and environmental benefits. the eu should be taking advantage of these benefits. the coastal zone requires special management. there is an urgent need to integrate planning and management and promote collaborative working of marine and terrestrial assistance at local, regional and national levels. through good practices of coastal zone management, we should work towards sustainable management of the coastal zone. europe should provide specific leadership to ensure good management of the coast. this will only be possible if the integrated coastal zone management process is backed up with appropriate legislation. the eu must establish a legal framework to enable action at other levels. this recommendation should be seen as a first stage in the development of that framework. i am astonished at some of the opposition to the idea of binding legislation because it is essential to secure adequate funding for integrated coastal zone management initiatives across europe. integrated coastal zone management initiatives usually focus on a central coordinating mechanism which requires comparatively low levels of core funding. yet the integrated coastal zone initiatives already in existence are floundering, due mainly to lack of financial support. for instance, the eu-funded integrated coastal zone management projects such as the atlantic living coastline in the uk and others have since ceased. the uk initiative and the severn estuary strategy, involving 12 local authorities, have only secured funding for the next six months. member states should adopt binding measures to ensure good coastal zone management. this should happen not later than three years after the adoption of the current recommendation on integrated coastal zone management. this would be preceded by a national stock-taking to analyse which actors, laws and institutions influence the planning and management of the coastal zone in order to ensure convergence of public bodies and local initiatives, to be completed by the end of december 2002. in my own country, the bantry bay coastal zone chart is the only agreed integrated coastal zone management plan in the whole of the country at the present time. even in countries such as the uk, where the eu programmes have funded some of the most important coastal zone management and regeneration projects, local authorities are unable to give priority to funding integrated coastal zone management actions because of the absence of a national policy framework, statutory duties, responsibilities or adequate funding. for this reason local authorities strongly support eu leadership to ensure cross-european commitment by national governments to give funding and legislative support in this field. some people have criticised me for saying that i want to give the eu more power in this area. my colleague, mr davies - who is not here tonight - has criticised me in committee. i was beginning to wonder if i was the euro-sceptic or was he? in relation to environmental protection, it is extremely important that the eu is given some sort of control. in my own country the government failed to take recommendations and even directives seriously and implement them in a way that actually achieves their original aim. a recommendation is basically non-binding. so you will have the situation where member states do not take seriously the management of a coast. we cannot say that if we manage our own coasts, that is sufficient. it has a knock-on effect in other areas, especially where there are shared coastlines. it is completely unacceptable that some member states have a very good integrated coastal zone management strategy and plans, whereas other countries do not. that is completely unfair. when it comes to environmental issues we need an international approach. there is no point in trying to tackle it at only a national level. as everyone knows, environmental issues cross all boundaries. there is no such thing as national borders. in this area we are not saying that we want to hand over total control to europe but we need binding legislation. otherwise governments just ignore it. recommendations are just something that they comply with if it suits them, but not if they do not. in relation to coastal zones it is extremely important. europe has experienced a great increase in pressures on coastal resources. from 1960 to 1990 it has been estimated that one kilometre of unspoilt coastline has been developed every day and 30 hectares of dune habitat have disappeared every day. coastal populations have also further increased and, at present, about 50% of the eu' s population lives within 50 kilometres of the coast. so there really is an urgent need to tackle coastal zone management. the draft recommendation leaves out a very important issue in that it fails to identify the threatened biodiversity of our coastal zones. the coastal zone is one of the most dynamic areas of the earth' s surface with an abundance of unique flora and fauna which need to be protected. this has to be addressed. another issue is climate change. we can no longer ignore threats from climate change on coastal erosion. this has to be taken into account. everyone, at this stage, will recognise that climate change is having a major impact on our coastal areas. in the interests of all industries that rely on the coast we have to take action, and take it now. we can see the quick destruction of our coasts. this involves the destruction of industries that rely on our coasts such as tourism, fishing industries and others. it is important that something happens as a result of this recommendation, that there is some sort of legal framework. member states who are reluctant to do this do not want to face up to the fact that our coasts have to be protected. they want to "cop-out" of their responsibilities. this should not be allowed. mr president, integrated coastal zone management is a necessity, but unfortunately many still do not know what it is. be it the irish cliffs of moher, the algarve in portugal or the watt mud flats on the german coast, europe' s coasts have tremendous economic, ecological, social and cultural importance. coasts are not conurbation areas, but nevertheless around one third of the eu population live in coastal regions today. this presents dangers for the fragile ecosystems that coasts represent. however, the socio-economic problems have grown too, because coastal regions are far removed from the heartbeat of the conurbations and are neglected by politics. i need mention only the coastal regions' lack of infrastructure links. so we must do something for the coasts in europe. in view of the growing problems, we urgently need to find a system of planning and management that includes everyone connected with the coasts. we must create an integrated management to ensure sustainable development and preserve the coasts as habitat. in germany we have a saying: too many cooks spoil the broth. i hear the voices of critics raising their fingers in warning and quoting this proverb. but i say to them, the proverb may apply to broth but not to our coasts. the problem areas differ a great deal, and a wide variety of sectors are affected, but the links between them are obvious. tourists come to my coast, for example, for the crabs. the artificial deepening of rivers or the discharge of harmful substances threatens the stock of crabs. no crabs, no tourists, no money! and there are no alternative job opportunities, certainly not in the fisheries sector. we are faced with wide-ranging problems that cannot be solved, at least not adequately, by the member states alone. what we need is a joining of forces on the coast, and clearly that will not happen without friction. but it will benefit our environment in the long term. we will not get very far or make much progress in europe if we all keep ploughing our own furrow. mr president, commissioner, i should almost like to say that the quality of our coastal zones here in europe forms part of our heritage. although it is rather late in the evening to talk about coastal zone management in europe, i believe that it is a subject of particular importance which really needs a legal framework. why a legal framework? quite simply because the development of our coastal zones is sometimes carried out in such a way as to cause the degradation of those zones, despite the fact that, as a fellow member has pointed out, the habitat of the coastal zones is sometimes a long way away from the major centres of population. this is not the case in every country, however. i come from a country where there are major population centres alongside coastal zones, and those population centres have finally destroyed the quality of the coastal zones, resulting in numerous cases of degradation caused by human activity. this degradation has very serious consequences for biodiversity, for the conservation of species, whether of fauna or of flora, serious consequences for the quality of the landscape, and very serious consequences for water quality. on that point, we have the framework directive on water, the one on bathing water, and you know, especially at this time of the year when the tourists start to invade our beaches, how important the quality of bathing water is. all this is very important, and it is also important for the quality of our fishery resources. we are aware that it is necessary to have a real political will, on the part of all the countries of the european union and within the candidate countries, because among those countries which will shortly be joining us within the european union there are coastal countries and islands which are facing the same problems, the problems that arise between economic development and the protection of our coastal zones. economic development and protection are not actually opposed to one another, but there has to be a real desire to develop carefully, at the same time fully respecting the need to protect the landscape, biodiversity and so on. this will certainly require a legal framework. on that point i agree with other members. however, we must have a legal framework which respects the disparities between our countries, because the coasts of the scandinavian countries do not have the same problems as those of the countries of southern europe, whether that means france, spain, italy or greece. we must give a little more responsibility to local authorities and ask each state to set up a legal framework which is appropriate to the regional and local scale. in france, a coastline conservation authority was set up 25 years ago. it has resources to acquire coastal zones which have to be protected, and resources to ensure that, afterwards, land-use plans comply with legal regulations. this is what we should be doing. i believe that our coastal zones represent environmental and economic wealth which we absolutely must protect in the spirit of a sustainable development policy. the issue of integrated coastal zone management is of crucial importance to my constituents in scotland. as the commission highlights in its proposal, this is not just a local problem, but is of critical importance for all europeans. as mrs langenhagen said, one third of eu citizens live close to, if not on, these areas. research has revealed a worrying deterioration in the environmental, socio-economic and cultural resources of our coastal zones. we see aggressive competition between users of these resources. the environmental problems include habitat destruction, water contamination, coastal erosion and resource depletion and these are all very serious. these environmental problems have a knock-on effect beyond coastal regions to inland regions. the roots of the problem include a lack of knowledge, a failure to involve stake-holders and, therefore, a lack of cooperation between the relevant administrative bodies. at a recent videoconference in scotland house, that is the home of the scottish executive in brussels, it was interesting to see how the different local authorities in the highlands and islands of scotland were already working within local partnerships with stake-holders to protect the coastal zone. it gave me great encouragement that action was being taken and that the coastal zone was being given the importance it rightly deserved. it is, after all, at local level that a real difference will be made. in conclusion, we need to encourage strong action at a local level which we are seeing already in scotland, and we need to exchange best practice across the eu in order that our coastal zones can be enjoyed as much by this generation as by the next. mr president, in my country fisherwomen represent all that is strongest and most courageous. i also think that this evening' s debate, once again involving almost exclusively women, shows that we who are taking part in this discussion may well be descended from these brave and strong women of the coasts. ladies and gentlemen, political movements which have long supported the very principles found in this document have been mocked in many contexts. the movement which i represent nationally has long stood for the principles about which we are now speaking, but we have had to suffer a great deal of ridicule. it is important that we support the binding recommendations that there is a wish to introduce for member states, so that we can get away from a situation in which the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and in which fishermen are perhaps in even more danger of extinction than many animal species. we have an unequal situation with unequal protection of what is to be found in the coastal areas. we also have a situation whereby we want more sea traffic without wanting to provide protection. the rapporteur asked why our group opposes a binding legal framework, but the explanations she has given have not convinced us. we need a legal basis for the matter, but not binding legislation. we must rely on local action and joint local planning. mr president, coastal management which is not only integrated but planned, both in europe and in every continent, is one of the paramount necessities for the future of humanity. it is impossible to deal with this issue within the narrow context of the existing member states. this is an area in which decisions could be necessary and legitimate at the level of a whole continent, or even of the entire planet. however, this is also an area in which the european institutions have least power, although they are very fond of finicky regulations in other areas where centralisation is not required. in this way they demonstrate that they do not represent an authority which imposes its will on national states, each with its particularisms and selfish interests, but rather that they are the result of those interests. the european institutions, like the national states, are in the service of the private interests of the major industrial and financial groups. they are incapable of imposing on those groups the policies which are of utmost importance to society as a whole, and there is a real risk that future generations will die as a result. the solving of major ecological problems is totally incompatible with the private ownership of the major means of production and the use of those means with the exclusive aim of making a profit. the cases involving the erika and the ievoli sun were a good illustration of the extent to which private interests are opposed to collective interests. in these circumstances, to vote in favour of a strategy for integrated coastal zone management would be pure hypocrisy. we shall be abstaining from the vote. mr president, everyone agrees that it is necessary to protect natural areas in general and the coastline in particular, especially since our coasts are deteriorating as a result of demographic and economic expansion. we have yet to decide how to provide this vital protection. will it respect local populations and their activities, or are we going to put nature in a glass case, as the natural 2000 network intends to do? it will, of course, be necessary to have rules and regulations in order to keep the situation under control and to avoid anarchic development. in france we did this with our coastlines act, which has produced some good results, even if our green minister for the environment, mrs voynet, has just allowed an exception to get through in the form of the corsica act. however, these essential regional planning measures have to be the subject of debate with the elected representatives and citizens concerned, because they are the ones who have to live with the coastline on a day-to-day basis, and it is absolutely essential to involve them in this protection if we want it to be admired and respected. let us not forget that they are the ones who, when the erika was shipwrecked, organised and took part in the operation to clean up the beaches and coastlines. in my opinion, it is better to convince than to constrain. that way we gain more support, and therefore more effectiveness and more local democracy. restrictions from brussels are always suspect and often unsuitable, because they have been drafted far away from the local area and the local mentality. this local approach is essential if we want to see common-sense measures negotiated and accepted. we must also respect traditional local practices, because they express the economic, social and cultural reality. they are an integral part of the coastline, and are often the best guarantee that our natural areas will be respected. in practical terms, we must apply the rules of subsidiarity and decentralisation, although consistency remains essential. responsibility for management should remain at national level and should include a large degree of local consensus. this is why we shall be voting against this report, which we believe is too restrictive. mr president, as mrs stihler has already said, this proposal is of major importance for scotland. for example, there is one of our local authority areas that has 26 inhabited islands and a coastline as long as that of france. scotland, as a whole, has 462 different coastal plans in place, almost three quarters of them locally based. whilst management of coastal zones must remain predominantly local, national strategies to support and coordinate action are vital. we are fortunate in having a scottish coastal forum to perform this role. but such good work can be undermined. as the firth of clyde forum recently explained, we lack any measure of security, political or financial, which would give us a strong footing for pursuing longer-term management. that is why the commission proposal is so welcome. i congratulate mrs mckenna on the extent to which her report has amplified and clarified the text. mr president, honourable members of the european parliament, as i have taken over the speech from my colleague, mrs wallstrm, i will speak in english. the coastal zone is very important for europe, as other speakers have said. its resources provide us with food, energy and homes and create opportunities. however, according to the reports of the european environmental agency, conditions in the coastal zone and its resources continue to decline. conditions in the coastal zone can only be improved through a concentrated effort involving all levels of the relevant sectors of government based on the principles of integrated coastal zone management. i would like to stress that this integrated coastal zone management is not a procedure for land-use planning per se. it is more a methodology for introducing a coherent approach to the management and use of coastal resources with the informed involvement of all the relevant stakeholders. in order to encourage member states to assume their full responsibility in promoting integrated coastal zone management, the commission has introduced the proposed recommendation. this calls on member states to develop national strategies for coastal zone management based on an inventory of the actors, laws and institutions involved in the management and planning of the coastal zones. this strategy aims to introduce a coherent approach to the coastal zones across europe but the recommendation intentionally leaves the choice of the format of the national strategies to the member states to ensure that each national strategy is tailor-made to the institutional, physical and social conditions within each member state. at the same time, the recommendation presents a list of features which the member states are encouraged to address through their national strategies, such as the need for coherence between the many plans, policies and programmes for management of the coasts and the need for coordination between the actors that use and manage the coast, particularly those with responsibility for the sea and the land which forms part of the coastal zone. let me turn to the key issues raised in the amendments proposed. i would like to start by noting that the commission can accept many of the proposed amendments. indeed, many of the proposed amendments strengthen the text by clarifying concepts and introducing further information. we thank parliament for putting forward these amendments. there are, however, certain amendments which the commission cannot accept. several of the amendments proposed, namely amendments nos 11, 12, 16, 18, 29, 32, 43 and 49, introduce references to a future community legislative framework. these amendments are unacceptable to the commission for the obvious reason that they prejudge the issue of whether a legislative approach is required. in addition, a reference to a community legislative framework would not be appropriate in view of the wide diversity of conditions in the member states and the commission' s philosophy of coastal zone management. the commission' s present decision to propose a recommendation was based on a thorough assessment of the needs for action at the european level through the demonstration programme on integrated coastal zone management and on a broad public consultation. in the same spirit, the commission cannot accept amendments which introduce compulsory language. "shall" is not the right word in a non-binding instrument, such as a recommendation and therefore the use of this word in amendments nos 29, 32 and 34 cannot be accepted by the commission. similarly, the references in amendments nos 17, 20, 33 and 45 indicating the need for binding instruments within the member states ignore the fact that integrated coastal zone management may be best introduced through voluntary measures in some member states. these parts of these amendments are therefore not acceptable either. otherwise, the six amendments are acceptable in principle or in part. the commission is concerned that amendments nos 16 and 42 might give an incorrect, narrow impression of the breadth of the integrated coastal zone management approach. in particular, in amendments nos 25 and 47, while the commission accepts the need to involve all the parties concerned, this text should not be limited to the special planning process, but should make broader reference to all of the actors involved in the planning and management of the coastal zones and its resources. the commission would also note that it cannot accept two amendments, which make inappropriate reference to other community policies which are better discussed in a different context. the reference to the interreg programme in amendment no 16 is inappropriate as the guidelines for interreg have been set out elsewhere. similarly, the reference in amendment no 35 to the common fisheries policy and the 12-mile derogation is not acceptable as it prejudges the debate on the revision of this policy. in addition, amendments nos 47 and 48 are not acceptable, at least in part, because they could lead to the endorsement of unsustainable traditional practices including those relating to hunting and fishing. concerning the remaining amendments - and this list is longer than the non-acceptable amendments - the commission can accept amendments nos 1, 3 to 10, 13, 15, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 46; and in addition, it can accept amendments nos 2, 14, 24, 36, and 44 in principle. as a result, two thirds of the amendments can be accepted by the commission. in conclusion, parliament has significantly contributed to improving this proposal. i would, therefore, like to thank the rapporteur, mrs mckenna, and the draftsmen from the other committees for their efforts. i am sure that the final text will be an important step in encouraging the application of integrated coastal zone management in europe. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. (the sitting was closed at 12.10 a.m.)

6. trade and economic relations with turkey ( (bg) mr president, i am taking the floor on the basis of rule 175(2) of the rules of procedure and i am asking for this report to be referred back to committee. my reasons for this are as follows. there is a conflict of interest for the rapporteur, mr kazak, as he completed his higher education at the sorbonne at the expense of the turkish government. given this situation, i think that the report he has drafted is not impartial and must be referred back to committee and a new rapporteur appointed to draft a report which will be impartial and accurate. this is why i am appealing to my fellow members to support me on this request to refer the motion back to committee. thank you. a request of this kind may only be submitted by a political group. in this case, the request is not appropriate. we cannot consider it. before the vote on amendment 2, part 2: (bg) mr president, point 2 states: 'referral back to committee may also be requested by a political group or at least 40 members'. please ask to see whether my proposal is supported by 40 meps and then we will find out whether we can continue further with the report.

the barcelona process: union for the mediterranean (debate) the next item is the commission statement on the barcelona process: union for the mediterranean. member of the commission. - (fr) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i think i should speak french today, so that is what i will do. i would like to begin by thanking the european parliament for having included this item on our relations with our mediterranean partners in this sitting's agenda. that has given rise to a debate on a subject that is vitally important for europe and i would especially like to congratulate the european parliament on its role in recent years because its interest in the mediterranean has never waned. the barcelona process has enabled us to tackle numerous regional issues of strategic importance and, naturally, a number of political issues. i believe that we have achieved a great deal, although many common challenges remain, including security, environmental protection, ensuring sustainable energy supply, combating organised crime, controlling migratory flows and intercultural dialogue. in addition to this cooperation with our mediterranean neighbours, i would like us to strengthen our understanding of one another and our interests, respect as well as mutual trust. in march the european council invited the commission to redefine the modalities of the 'barcelona process: union for the mediterranean' and on 20 may the commission adopted a communication underlining the central role of the mediterranean, its historical and contemporary importance, and the considerable challenges of our common future. however, i should point out that we still have the european neighbourhood policy of course, which is a bilateral policy while the other is a regional policy. we also need to take account of the fact that the existing action plans effectively implement the decisions taken by the various sectoral ministerial meetings. when we think about the mediterranean, we think about the cradle of the three monotheistic religions, the melting pots of civilisation and culture, migration and trade. we think about the history of the mediterranean, a history that is inseparable from the history of europe. the mediterranean basin is effectively the bridge between the north and the south, the east and the west, and, situated at the point where three continents converge, it is more than just a border for the european union. stability in that region is crucial for our security and our prosperity, not to mention the security and prosperity of our mediterranean neighbours and friends. it is only through determined and realistic political action, combined with a strong and tireless commitment and constructive dialogue, that we will be able to tackle these challenges together. the commission has always called for a stronger, more open and more constructive relationship with our mediterranean partners, and we are putting forward concrete proposals to achieve this. ladies and gentlemen, allow me to outline for you today the main observations and proposals in the communication that i presented to the commission. the barcelona process has unfortunately suffered as a result of the ongoing conflicts in the southern mediterranean and, at times, from the lack of cooperation between the various partners. a positive change is taking place, however, and i saw this myself during my recent visits to the region. the time has come to take advantage of a renewed political will to breathe new life into our cooperation to ensure that it is more balanced and more in tune with our fellow citizens. in our opinion, there are three key objectives. the first is to upgrade the political level of the european union's relationship with its mediterranean partners; the second is to provide more co-ownership to our multilateral relations; and the third is to make these relations more concrete and more visible through additional regional and sub-regional projects, relevant for the people of the region. these measures would bring great added value. naturally, private funds will come into play: hitherto only the community sector has been involved, so the private sector will now play a role. we will of course have to see whether this really works, but that is the idea in any case. it is therefore essential to upgrade the level of our relations. the commission proposes organising biennial summits of the heads of state or government. it would be difficult to understand why we hold regular summits with our major partners throughout the world without having a forum for talks between the eu heads of state and our mediterranean neighbours and friends. in addition, the euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly has reaffirmed itself as the parliamentary dimension of the barcelona process. it provides a framework of debate, open dialogue and free exchange of views. it gives impetus to the partnership by adopting resolutions and recommendations, and it will be the legitimate parliamentary representation of the union for the mediterranean. the commission unreservedly supports the strengthening of the role of the parliamentary assembly in relations with the mediterranean partners. increased co-ownership is also essential. over the past few years, one important shared belief was that the agenda of the barcelona process was influenced by the fact that the eu presidency also held the presidency of the euro-mediterranean partnership. three proposals have received the general support of the partners: the establishment of a co-presidency, with one co-president from a southern country and one from a northern country; the establishment of a joint permanent committee, based in brussels and responsible for governance; and the establishment of a secretariat responsible for the promotion of the projects. finally, as robert schuman said, we must set up concrete projects 'which first create a de facto solidarity'. it is the quality of the projects that we carry out together that will guarantee the success of the initiative. that is what enables the citizens to feel the force of the links that unite both shores of the mediterranean. the projects must add structure to the region and provide for the participation of non-state actors, civil society and businesses. europe must act as a lever for private capital, an intermediary. the commission is provisionally proposing the promotion of coastal motorways, the linking-up of the trans-maghreb motorway, solar energy and de-pollution of the mediterranean. of course, this list is non exhaustive and other projects will follow. in conclusion, madam president, i would like to emphasise one point that, in my view, is crucial. this renewed cooperation with our partners in the south must in no way detract from our solid links and policies with our neighbours to the east. on the contrary, in addition to our efforts to strengthen the individual links with our friends in the east, the commission is enhancing regional cooperation with its 'black sea synergy' initiative. we will soon publish the annual report to celebrate the first anniversary of its launch and at that stage we will be able to discuss the recent polish and swedish initiative. through these efforts, in the east and in the south, we will be able to stick to our goal: enhancing our relations through flexible cooperation instruments focusing on the priorities of our partners. ladies and gentlemen, the paris summit is a real opportunity to bring a new dimension to our relations with our mediterranean partners. although we cannot ignore the lessons of the past, we must not remain a prisoner of them. the 'barcelona process: union for the mediterranean' initiative is going to launch a new era in our relations with our southern neighbours, a new partnership, based on successful elements of the barcelona process, with a view to moving forward together to achieve our common objectives of peace, democracy and prosperity. excuse me, madam president, if i have spoken for too long, but i believe that this is a crucial subject, for me and for us all. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (it) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, my group awaited today's statement by commissioner ferrero-waldner with great interest. i should like to thank her again and say that the commission's communication, adopted on 20 may, made very interesting reading. we applaud president sarkozy for having started the ball rolling, for having aroused the interest of the european council and for having prompted a renewal of our mediterranean policy, which my group supports and hopes will prove tangible and rapid. we know how difficult it is to pursue the ambitious goals of the barcelona process. on the one hand there is the unresolved middle east conflict and tension in the western sahara. there is also the gap that sometimes separates us from the democratic, economic and social models of our partner countries, hampering attainment of the goals we have set ourselves. all of this is serious and makes matters difficult, but should not constitute a pretext to justify delays or changes of mind. we believe that president sarkozy's political initiative and the backing provided by the european commission go in the right direction, namely that of lending substance and reality to our political aspirations. to this end the commission has identified four projects, recalled by our commissioner this morning, in addition to the activities already planned: motorways of the seas, depollution of the mediterranean, environmental management, civil protection cooperation to tackle natural disasters and, lastly, a solar energy programme for the mediterranean. each of these projects is important, and rather than dwelling on them now we shall do so once the commission has provided more details. these are projects which, if carried out, will act as an incredibly important driving force, both to give the barcelona process a new lease of life and to complement measures already under way but not yet completed. i would recall the free trade area planned for 2010: we should like to know more about this, commissioner, as well as about the state of play on the objectives set out in the association agreements and other ongoing projects. to conclude, as concerns tangible projects to be completed within a reasonable time frame, i would also recall that, as well as the infrastructure of the seas and the north-south link, fresh impetus is also needed for a south-south motorway corridor connecting the countries on the southern shore of the mediterranean; this system must in addition be interconnected with europe. lastly, there needs to be a loan scheme providing help on issues such as water and infrastructure in the middle east. finally, i wish to draw the attention of the council and the commission to two issues. the first concerns the administration and operation of the euro-mediterranean assembly. the european union has also made major commitments in the middle east, and we expect these commitments to be followed up with political action. can the council tell us what real, practical prospects there are of such action? on behalf of the pse group. - (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i do not agree with commissioner ferrero-waldner that it is appropriate to speak french this morning. (fr) along with my mother tongue, it is my favourite language, commissioner, but i think that this morning in particular it is inappropriate to speak in french because president sarkozy's mistake from the outset was to give the impression that the union for the mediterranean was a franco-french idea. however, he has since become more reasonable, and that is why he must be congratulated, mr bonsigniore. (de) may i also remind you that when mr sarkozy came to the house right at the beginning, in order to introduce the idea of the mediterranean union to the conference of presidents for the first time, i asked him: 'can you tell me which role the federal republic of germany should play in your mediterranean union?', and he answered: 'le statut d'un observateur'. we have moved on in the meantime and have clarified these issues. that is why the approach that you have described, commissioner, is the right one. i am firmly convinced that there are three central challenges that we have to deal with in the framework of the mediterranean union. first of all, i think social stability is the precondition for peace, but nowhere in the north or the south is social stability at greater risk than in the mediterranean region. nowhere else is the direct clash between immense wealth, on the one hand, and immense poverty, on the other, greater or more visible - indeed, tangible - than in the mediterranean region, and nowhere are the confrontation and the ensuing tensions for us europeans greater than in the mediterranean. that being the case, the mediterranean union is a project which could lead to more peace and stability via the economic integration of our two regions, so it is an extremely good idea, and it is one which we socialists therefore fully endorse. secondly, what makes this an even more appealing concept is that it makes multilateralism the basis of cooperation, not only within the framework of the mediterranean union but also as a project of regional cooperation, which cannot act as a model for the world but could give rise to joint initiatives which could contribute to greater stability on a global level as well. the third point which is so important for us socialists is that we have managed to avoid creating any parallel processes. the barcelona process - for which, incidentally, a sum of around eur 15.5 billion is made available in the financial perspective to 2013 - was, after all, also launched for the reasons which i have just outlined and which formed the political basis for the mediterranean union. through the mediterranean union, the barcelona process is now being taken to another level. it is being strengthened and stepped up, but without any new institutions being created outside the existing eu institutions. that being the case, the commission's role and also our role as parliament - and, incidentally, the role of the euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly as well - is a special role. it is a role which has already been defined and which does not need or demand any new institutions or more red tape. in political, institutional and economic terms, and in terms of the practical objectives set, we are now on the right track with the mediterranean union. i think that gives cause for celebration on 14 july in paris as well. on behalf of the alde group. - madam president, with his proposals for a mediterranean union, president sarkozy recognised what many knew yet would not admit: that the barcelona process - top-down and driven by european interests - was dead in the water, leading our southern partners to opt out and a widening prosperity gap to emerge on either side of the mediterranean. if europe is serious about reversing the failures of the last decade and generating development and security on its southern shores we must now learn to give as well as take. we must build on the ashes of the barcelona process - a true partnership based on trust, reciprocity and, above all, mutual respect. the mediterranean must not be a cultural dividing line but a meeting place. joint investment in infrastructure - such as ports, sea links and energy grids - will bring our peoples together far more effectively than the high-sounding declarations which characterised the barcelona process. we need investment in people too. the kind of energy which brought together the french and germans after the last big war must be invested in bringing europeans and north africans together to prevent the next. the worst possible mistake the french presidency could make is to commit the european union - and by extension its citizens - to a grandiose project without providing finance for such cooperation for a number of years down the line. and, as mr schulz said, creating a full-blown bureaucratic structure alongside the standing delegations and the external action service need not be the way; a focus on values must be. despite the worsening situation, particularly in egypt and israel, and the fact that we claim such values as the basis of eu foreign policy, references to human rights are mysteriously hard to find in the commission's proposals. i hope this is something the commission will look at. but, these objections aside, liberals and democrats are pleased to show support for this union for the mediterranean, with one important caveat: pragmatic cooperation on economic issues must not be a substitute for promoting peace in the middle east through the common foreign and security policy envisaged in the lisbon treaty. since the commissioner recognises the link between economic development and peace, what would be a better sign of peace and goodwill towards our arab neighbours than abolishing agricultural tariffs? our much-vaunted free trade agreements have failed to boost living standards because they excluded agriculture and services, which account for two thirds of the gdp in the middle east and north africa. if we do not take the produce of these countries, we will end up taking their people. reforming the cap, providing a level playing field for goods from the southern mediterranean, would go a long way towards tackling the causes of record migration into europe. as the inimitable doctor johnson once said 'life cannot subsist . but by reciprocal concessions'. and, for the sake of the success of this union, europe must make the first move. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (fr) madam president, the european commission has put forward a good proposal. it has transformed a relatively clumsy political initiative - the 'union for the mediterranean' - into a renewed political ambition for a strengthened barcelona process. that is an excellent thing and, in this context, the commission is performing its role to the letter. we support its proposals, particularly as regards incorporating the institutions of the future project in relation to the lisbon treaty and its goal of a more coherent and better integrated external policy for the union. in so doing, it is putting an end to the justified fears of ad hoc political manoeuvring dictated by the agreements reached at the summit or on an la carte or circumstantial basis, fears fuelled largely by the misplaced initiatives of president sarkozy to promote, for example, the proliferation of nuclear power in the region. the mediocre results in terms of democracy and human rights were unanimously identified in 2005 as an obstacle to the barcelona objectives. that is why the european parliament insists that all the mechanisms aimed at strengthening democracy and the rule of law as well as the parliamentary dimension of the process and the participation of civil society must be duly guaranteed within the framework of this new ambition for the euro-mediterranean region. an amendment has been tabled on the conflict in the middle east. ladies and gentlemen, i think that the european parliament would be well-advised to accept it. it is right to ensure that new initiatives in the region are not dependent on resolution of the conflict, but we would also be fooling ourselves if we ignored its negative impact on the concrete capacities to develop mediterranean projects that are relevant to the citizens. moreover, the ad hoc delegation that recently visited palestine documented serious violations of humanitarian law and human rights, clear violations of the oslo and annapolis commitments. it would be futile to suggest that the persistence of this situation does not undermine profoundly the mutual trust between the partners and the civil societies in the region, trust that is nonetheless vital to the success of our euro-mediterranean ambitions. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) madam president, the european union has many so-called old neighbours to the south and many so-called new ones to the east. as far as the former are concerned, there exists an instrument for external cooperation which is currently being strengthened. this strengthening process should continue, but it will not lead to any of the countries concerned joining the union. in the case of our eastern neighbours involved in the neighbourhood policy, membership of the union is most certainly a possibility. membership is not the aim of effective cooperation, but a successful neighbourhood policy is bound to lead in that direction. the barcelona process needs new political impetus, because the 'one size fits all' neighbourhood policy fits neither the east nor the west. it is therefore entirely appropriate that two projects appeared on the european agenda at almost the same time, one concerning a mediterranean union and the other an eastern partnership. as a neighbour of ukraine, belarus, moldova and georgia i very much hope that no damaging competition will arise between the southern and eastern neighbourhood policies. the two should instead be mutually complementary. if we are to be successful in budgetary negotiations, for example, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder. mutual political solidarity is called for when designing the eastern and southern aspects of neighbourhood policy. a level playing field is also urgently required at institutional, political, assistance and economic level regarding our policy towards the south and the east. that is why i am today strongly supporting strengthening and renewal of the political framework for neighbourhood as regards the mediterranean countries. we support the projects relating to credits, communication and energy. we also support institutional reforms affecting the south. we trust that in the future similar support will be offered for strengthening policy towards the east. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (fr) madam president, commissioner, the challenges involved in europe's relationship with the people of the southern shore of the mediterranean far exceed those of a simple neighbourhood relationship. it is perhaps a peaceful future that hangs in the balance in this region of unparalleled division. the reasons for this situation are very clear to see. the first is the economic imbalance. thirteen years after the launch of the barcelona process, not only has the promised shared prosperity not materialised; the gaps have grown wider. in fact, the obsession with free trade has taken precedence over the goal of development. in order to succeed tomorrow where we failed yesterday, a change of direction is needed. i do not see this, however. the second problem is the humiliating treatment of migrants. the population of these countries is very young. the people want to live yet they do not see any future. although they are deeply attached to their land, their culture, the history of their civilisation and its impressive contributions - all due respect to mr berlusconi - many of them are looking to europe and they see their emigrant brothers and sisters suffering the affronts of which we are all aware: from profiling to discrimination, from detention centres to 'refoulement'. in this regard, too, the gap has increased dramatically. talking about a dialogue of cultures and bringing the people closer together without putting an end to these practices has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. finally, there is europe's inertia regarding the palestinian problem. there will be the retort that the union and its member states are palestine's largest donors; that is true and it is a good thing. however, any observer will confirm, as the ep delegation that has just returned from the middle east has just done, that without a firm european commitment on a political level, this aid will resolve none of the real issues. in other words, what is expected of europe in the southern mediterranean in this respect is that it finally overcomes what the former representative of the united nations secretary-general, mr de soto, quite rightly called self-censorship with regard to israel and the persistent violations of international law and its own commitments. israel must understand - and it is the union's duty to help with this - that the normalisation of its relations with the region as a whole has a price, and that price is no more or no less than what is stipulated in the peace initiative of the arab league, the quartet's roadmap or the annapolis declaration, namely the end of the occupation and resulting barbarism, and the recognition of the palestinian state within the borders as they stood in 1967. europe's attitude to this matter is perhaps the decisive criterion in the success or failure of any attempt to relaunch the euro-mediterranean partnership. it is therefore recommended that the european union-israel association council meeting on 16 june give serious consideration to this when examining the israeli request for the status of its partnership with the union to be upgraded. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - madam president, i have been asked to speak today on euromed. this is the insane attempt to create a pan-mediterranean bloc, joining europe with north africa. to the architects of this scheme, it was a brilliant idea: europe would transfer wealth and technology to north africa and north africa would transfer cheap labour and oil and gas to europe. in reality, it is a disastrous idea. we have already seen what happens when you allow people from poor countries to have freedom of movement into richer ones. can you imagine how much more true this will be if north africa gets this right too? at a time of heightened international terrorism, is it a good idea to have freedom of movement from countries with known al-qa'ida presences? after the terrorist atrocities in madrid and london, one would have thought europe would have learned its lessons. clearly not! let us also talk about oil and gas. the north african countries know europe can be bullied. is it really a good idea to put our energy security in the hands of the military dictatorship in algeria or colonel gadaffi in libya, both of whom are aware of our vulnerability? i strongly urge the eu to cease this scheme. we have already had one imperial mare nostrum. we do not need another. (fr) madam president, commissioner, the mediterranean is the region of all divisions: geographical divisions, historical divisions - in salamin, axion, lepanto - demographic divisions and even philosophical divisions, between magical thinking and logical thinking, in other words the orient and the occident, but also the east and west, from the egypt of moses, then jesus, then mohammed, from omar khayyam to baudelaire, from the plateaus of syria to the plains of languedoc. the mediterranean is the hope of three monotheistic religions and the civilisation of wheat and wine, not of sauerkraut and beer or mussels in chez lon. the union for the mediterranean is not just a matter of de-pollution or civil security. what you need for that is the fire brigade! the mediterranean is not managed by 44 senior officials in brussels, capital of the mediterranean. why not also have an erasmus grant so that plato and aristotle can come and study community law in the bruges college? the mediterranean manages the affairs of the women and men of the mediterranean: in other words prosperity, for example, of fishermen, who are asking you for it at the moment; in other words peace in the west, in the saharan provinces of morocco, and in the east, in palestine. commissioner, mrs ferrero-waldner, our dreams need to be big enough for us not to lose sight of them when pursuing them, and that is why there is not a restricted union of the people of the mediterranean. (el) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the mediterranean has played a part in europe's external relations since the beginning of european unification. even the treaty of rome anticipated preferential relations with certain mediterranean countries. the politics of the mediterranean and the international situation have helped to develop our institutional framework because the region has always been an arena for international challenges and problems. as is universally recognised, we did not reach the ambitious targets we set in barcelona in 1995, so we set new ones in 2005. our euro-mediterranean relations have undoubtedly given us numerous opportunities for meetings and familiarisation both bilaterally and internationally to improve contacts with the public and with parliaments. president sarkozy's proposed union for the mediterranean, and its progress under the aegis of the eu and its institutions, have highlighted how urgent it is to realise the euro-mediterranean dream, which has become more real and advanced on both sides. the dream has made an important contribution. the mediterranean has been ever present in our questions, changes and plans; it has been key in the eu's balance of power and relationships. the progress this proposal represents is also proof of the mobilisation, innovation and commitment the union is capable of in the face of major challenges. i congratulate and thank the european commission, particularly commissioner ferrero-waldner for her work and her proposal, which in our view is balanced and integrated. her proposal makes the most of our commitments and vested interests; it builds on the new french proposals and paves the way ahead. through the joint resolution, the european parliament welcomes and supports these efforts. it will lend its support to the interesting and ambitious project which has begun. the challenges in the region are becoming ever greater and more urgent. there are deep economic and political differences, serious security problems and economic inequalities. additionally, the economic and political environment of the mediterranean is becoming increasingly complex. the us as well as china and russia have to be taken into account, so we must become more prudent and effective. (it) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the european parliament wished to react immediately to the commission's communication. this is because, as the commissioner herself said, we are keen to see a revival, renewal and development of the euro-mediterranean partnership. we support the commission's view that the european union should be the key institutional and political player - on the european side - in building the union for the mediterranean. this may also encourage our partners in the south to cooperate more closely among themselves, something that has hitherto proved exceedingly difficult. we agree that the task of the union for the mediterranean should be economic and territorial integration among the countries of the mediterranean basin, to be brought about by means of major infrastructure projects, and we also believe that the examples put forward by the commission are appropriate. for this purpose, however, it must be clear who does what. above all, any overlap between the role of the commission and that of the prospective secretariat must be avoided. as for the revival of the partnership, we are of course keen to bolster its political dimension: we are interested not just in dialogue between governments but in the role of parliaments, in the establishment of the euro-mediterranean parliament and in its work and that of civil society, where i would strongly emphasise that the social partners play a fundamental role. finally, it must be clear that the projects set out in the commission's communication should not be carried out to the detriment of regional programmes already under way in the culture, heritage, training and audiovisual fields. in this regard we would appeal for the erasmus mundus programme to be better resourced and for the euromed audiovisual programme to be refinanced. (fr) madam president, welcome thus to the relaunch, 13 years later, of the process governing the multilateral relations between the european union and the countries bordering the mediterranean. our resolution makes no mistake. there was no misplaced initiative. on the contrary, there was a timely and welcome initiative: a new initiative, new impetus, new momentum. that proves that it was at least possible to perfect the barcelona process and we will all focus our efforts in that direction. welcome thus to this 'barcelona process: union for the mediterranean'. it is nevertheless the first time that the instrument has been given priority over the objective. i have no doubt that the union for the mediterranean will remain as a generic name, but i do not want to fall out with anyone. the union for the mediterranean is the egg of columbus, is it not! the mediterranean is a lake. we all live on its shores; some are organised, others are less so or not at all - such as the southern countries - but we must work together. in this respect, we must begin - and the commission underlined this perfectly - with specific projects relating to pollution, energy production and jobs for young people, which are essential for the mediterranean countries. welcome, too, to the parliamentary relaunch in less tangible fields, in human rights, in gender issues. however, i must conclude by saying that there will surely be no need for a third relaunch. we absolutely have to succeed this time because if we do not we would be showing ourselves to be enemies of our own interests. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, a great deal has been said about the french president's idea to equip and arm the countries of north africa and the middle east with a nuclear capability for civilian but also military use within the framework of the mediterranean union. let me quote asterix the gaul here: 'they must be crazy, the french!' however, i am now even more concerned about this development, given that these plans have been taken up and are fervently supported by the european commission as well. around two weeks ago, a meeting took place between dr mohamed elbaradei, director general of the international atomic energy agency (iaea), and the commission. mr barroso was in attendance. an agreement was signed between the iaea and euratom, or the commission, which aims to drive forward the proliferation of nuclear energy. there is apparently a desire to equip the same developing countries that mr sarkozy has his eye on, and put them on track and support them in all manner of ways so that they can deploy nuclear energy. this raises a great many questions, in my view. first of all, commissioner, you were originally supposed to be a co-signatory of this agreement. i have the relevant draft agreement available to me. why did you distance yourself from it? could this be because there is actually no basis for this agreement in the treaties? secondly, what is mr solana's position on the signing of this type of agreement? i cannot imagine that from a security perspective, and especially in view of the difficult situation with iran, this agreement could possibly gain europe's backing. since this all appears to have taken place in secret, i would be very pleased to receive an explanation from the commissioner, particularly as she comes from a country, namely austria, which has a highly critical stance towards nuclear matters. (it) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mr schulz will be pleased to hear that i do not intend to speak french. that, however, does not prevent me from unreservedly backing president sarkozy's initiative, which has pushed - or even propelled - europe into a position from where it can reclaim a vital role in the mediterranean area. the merit of the sarkozy initiative is that it responds to the question of outcomes from the barcelona process in anything but a tame manner. whenever we ask ourselves what the mediterranean has gained from the barcelona process, our objective, serious and truthful answer is inevitably unsatisfactory. there has of course been the war, and there is still conflict in the middle east. when it was decided in barcelona in 1995 to launch this new european policy, the idea was to manage the post-conflict peace. that was not the case then and is not now. europe is still dragging its feet, and the french president's initiative strikes us as well-timed. we endorse the commission's initiative and the compromise which has emerged from it. we back it, yet we believe that it is still insufficient with regard to the role that europe can and must play in the mediterranean. some people feared, and still fear, that the french initiative might jeopardise european cohesion; i do not believe there is any such danger. no such danger exists whenever europe is asked to focus more on politics and less on the market. (fr) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, today's debate is crucial. one of the keys to the future of our continent lies in our capacity to prevent a deep split from dividing the mediterranean basin into two antagonistic sides, culturally and economically. in spite of all the differences between the two shores of the mare nostrum, what unites us is even stronger than what separates us. that is why nicolas sarkozy's initiative is excellent in principle: it breathes new life into a barcelona process that is marking time. i do have some reservations about the method, however. when france signed up to the european commitments in the various treaties, from maastricht to lisbon, it agreed to transfer to the community - and this is something i regret - a number of its prerogatives, notably in the area of foreign affairs. with all due respect to mr gunot, that is unfortunately the world in which these treaties oblige us to live. that is why, in my opinion, it is somewhat inconsistent to launch such a project, to great media hullabaloo. in reality, france no longer has the power to force it on anyone. the only way to move it forward was to make use of all of the diplomatic and human resources available to france to convince its partners to carry out the reform of the barcelona process, without giving the impression of undoing what had already been achieved, even if what existed was far from satisfactory. the result of this inconsistency can be seen today because it is certainly no coincidence that this debate was postponed from yesterday, when the council could have taken part, to this morning, when only the commission is represented. this must be more than a sign: the commission has no intention of relinquishing this matter. (fr) madam president, commissioner, i am pleased today that the 'barcelona process: union for the mediterranean' is at the top of the european agenda. the commission's analysis seems to be pertinent. based on the acquis of the euro-mediterranean cooperation undertaken since 1995, it breathes new life into the process with a view to overcoming the existing gaps and shortcomings. i am pleased, in this regard, that the objectives set out here are founded on the principles of parity and equality, which are at the heart of the proposed union for the mediterranean. the regional projects to be carried out will also make the euromed partnership more visible and, above all, bring it closer to the citizens. it is in fact ownership by the people that will guarantee a strong partnership and greater regional cooperation in the southern mediterranean. in pursuing this objective, the official role to be played by the euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly will therefore be crucial. this assembly will finally be recognised as a form of parliamentary support to the euro-mediterranean partnership. finally, i would like to mention the governance of the project. our objective must continue to be to strengthen the political relationships, share out the responsibilities, promote equality and increase the number of meetings between the euro-mediterranean partners. we must not dilute the political content of this project under the weight of an institutional mechanism that would certainly lead to inertia. we should also ensure that the project is truly efficient by setting up a north-south co-presidency, which would guarantee equality and shared responsibility, and a secretariat, which should be responsible for the governance of the union for the mediterranean and for monitoring the implementation of the specific projects. the union for the mediterranean is a major step forward and, as you said, commissioner, it will launch - i hope - a new era with our partners, for we share a common destiny. (es) madam president, since there is life outside the european parliament i imagine that some of us have the opportunity now and again to go to the cinema at the weekend. i did so on sunday past and i saw a film that i highly recommend, and i do not have any financial interests in its production or distribution: it is called the yacoubian building and it looks at the political, economic, social and cultural problems experienced by a large mediterranean country, egypt. at no point in that film, which is almost two and a half hours long, is there any mention of the european union, of our presence, of the barcelona process. does that mean that the barcelona process does not exist, that it has not been successful? no, we must not confuse things. it has not been visible enough, but it has contained elements that have benefited the people and that have today become a point of reference for a different type of external policy based on cooperation and based on equality. the barcelona process is the exact opposite of the historical relationship between europe and the southern mediterranean. it is not a neo-colonial process, it is not a process of demands; it is a process of partnership, a process of association, and we must not forget that. this process has not been able to change the major dynamics of the mediterranean, but how could we expect to change in just over 10 years dynamics that have existed for hundreds of years? nonetheless, it has succeeded in giving a new direction to some of these dynamics. we therefore need to strengthen it on a political and institutional level, through programmes, through funding. that is the union for the mediterranean. the european commission states this clearly in its communication and this parliament is thus going to support the communication today and support what the vast majority of european governments want: more barcelona process, more barcelona process, more barcelona process. that is the union for the mediterranean: not more structures but the possibility of the people living a better life thanks to cooperation between equals. i want to say that in that case the euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly must be the legislative body that lends democratic legitimacy to this process. it is no coincidence that you, mrs rothe, a member of the euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly, are chairing this sitting today. madam president, i thank all colleagues who have spoken and who have supported the barcelona process over many years. it is a wonderful concept and one that deserves to succeed. i particularly welcome president pttering's initiative in forming some structure inside this parliament to push forward the barcelona process, and president sarkozy's commitment to strengthening the process as well with different aspects. this monday, 9 june, marks the opening of the european union mediterranean university. colleagues, i want you to note that date. we say that our success rests on dialogue, and the european mediterranean process should be exemplified by a successful university. i congratulate the slovenian presidency for offering the seat of the university, but i ask colleagues in all committees - and the commission and the council of presidents - why has no budget been set aside for the university? surely we should not rely on one single presidential state - in this case, slovenia - in furthering the future of the university. if we want the university to succeed, we have to find a budget for the years ahead. (es) madam president, the mediterranean's history is much more profound than its geography. you do not need to come from that region to understand, as the commissioner rightly pointed out, the major problems it faces: migration, mafias trafficking human beings, which unfortunately is not mentioned in the motion for a resolution, drugs, the economic gap between the two sides of the mediterranean and, of course, radical islamic fundamentalism, which is one of the greatest black holes in international politics. hence the importance of the situation in the mediterranean for the stability and security of our own political project. we therefore welcome this commission communication: we welcome its diligence, as it has rapidly fulfilled a european council mandate; we welcome its realism, as it puts things into perspective; and we welcome its common sense, as it underlines additionality and the multilateral nature of the initiatives taking shape in this new initiative, aimed precisely at breathing new life into the barcelona process. i want to point out, madam president, that i do not agree with some of the criticisms that have been made during this debate. i believe that, when necessary, the european union and the commission give priority to the ideals over the figures and it is clear that in its external action the european union always tries to defend the principles in which we believe. however, it is also true, madam president, that we frequently have to move from the beatitudes and grand principles to the accounting books in order to ensure credibility and realism, and move from words to actions in the policies we wish to promote. therefore, madam president, it is very easy to criticise and propose initiatives, but those initiatives have to be assessed in relation to the financial resources that the member states give the european union to implement the policies appropriately. i thus believe, madam president, that within the framework of the current financial perspective, we have what we have, and if we do not use those resources we will be unable to realise the ambitions that we are striving for as a european union. (fr) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the launch of what was at the time the mediterranean union gave rise to controversy and concerns both in europe and among our mediterranean partners. this initiative clearly could not be a purely franco-french or euro-european initiative, nor the expression of a security-oriented vision of euro-mediterranean relations. i therefore welcome the commissioner's words this morning and the specific proposals put forward, which respond to some of our concerns. this common project must consist of collective dialogue, based on parity and co-management. however, the euro-mediterranean relationship is an asymmetric relationship that is both emotive and irrational. it is obviously asymmetric when it comes to trade: both north-south trade and south-south trade. we therefore need to look at whether or not a free trade zone should be set up in 2010. it is irrational because it is based on relations linked to a history that is often painful and complicated, and that is today magnified by what certain conservatives want, namely the clash of civilisations, a confrontation between the western bloc and the eastern bloc. consequently, if had to take decisions, the first would be to look at this euro-mediterranean relationship dispassionately and rationally. we must be rational in terms of strengthening the role of the parliaments, notably the role of the empa; we must be rational in terms of our proposals on good governance; we must be rational in terms of the aid that can be provided from a south-south perspective; we must be rational, too, when it comes to the free movement of people and the israel-palestine issue. we also need to be dispassionate because if we cannot we will not create this area of peace and we will not prevent this clash of civilisations that some people desire. madam president, the new impetus given to the barcelona process mediterranean union has been well presented by commissioner ferrero-waldner and previous speakers. the ideas of barcelona are now even more pertinent than ever. the prosperity gap between the european union and most mediterranean countries has unfortunately increased. gradual free trade with the european union has not attracted the domestic and foreign investment needed to boost the standard of living of our mediterranean partners. a lot will depend now on the success of the new projects proposed, which must be visible and tangible to ordinary citizens on both sides of the mediterranean, and affect and attract the interest of the private sector: projects dealing with topics such as civil protection, the effects of climate change, drought and the lack of water, forest fires, the de-pollution of the mediterranean sea, and the development of technology to make the best use of solar energy for the benefit of both sides of the mediterranean. common projects for all mediterranean countries, north and south, are one of the keys to success. the issues of migration, social integration, justice and security are also of mutual benefit and visibility. let us not forget that our partners are now transit countries for the waves of migration from sub-saharan africa. the question of funds, particularly with a more ambitious project such as this one, remains open. the more tangible and visible the benefits of this project, the more willing the member states will be to provide funds. (de) mr president, commissioner, i would like to congratulate president sarkozy for once, albeit reluctantly, at this juncture. with the rumpus that he has created over eu-mediterranean relations, he has actually managed to give the barcelona process, which has existed since 1995, the higher profile and visibility that it deserves, and has unleashed a new debate about our neighbouring region to the south. looking at the outcomes, however, it is clear that mr sarkozy's original idea, launched in february 2007, has failed on three counts. firstly, a possible alternative to eu accession for turkey was effectively banished by spain and italy with the declaration adopted in rome in december 2007. then chancellor merkel ensured that eu-mediterranean relations would be developed further within the existing eu structures. finally, the commission has now applied the brakes to mr sarkozy's ambitious plans for the secretariat and leadership structure of the project. it is apparent, in other words, that go-it-alone approaches by mr sarkozy will not be tolerated in the european union. (mt) we needed this new beginning; we needed this new energy for the mediterranean policy that is so important for the mediterranean as well as for europe. perhaps the biggest flaw in the barcelona process was that our neighbouring countries in the central mediterranean always felt that this was a european process that was imposed on them and there was not enough of a sense of equality and a sense of membership. at the summit on 13 july we need to ensure that we are building this new union for the mediterranean project on the basis of true membership and true equality. we should build it on structures that are separate and not impose our prospects on others. this naturally means that there are obligations as well as rights on both sides, not just on one side. we welcome this proposal with a mixture of scepticism and at the same time hope. i hope that hope will triumph over scepticism. (pt) the barcelona process exists only because a series of central european policy issues are affected by our relationship with the south. energy, the fight against terrorism, demography and immigration, economic development and the fight against crime are some of these issues. however, we must recognise that the barcelona process has not in itself been a success. europe's big success has in fact been to promote reforms in candidate countries. however, the countries on the southern shores of the mediterranean cannot join the european union but are, in some cases, our most problematic neighbours. therefore, the question is how we must change our strategy to relaunch the process so that the new union for the mediterranean is not just another fine idea. do we believe that the way forward is support for specific investments within the framework of truly open markets? do we believe in the broadest possible access to community recovery instruments? do we defend the idea of the amount of aid depending on the quality of the reforms to be undertaken? i believe so, because the mediterranean's problems are also our problems. we must bear in mind that, if we fail to understand what has gone wrong in barcelona, we will be unable to introduce a new dynamic into the relationship with our southern partners. (fr) mr president, i would like to ask the commissioner, mrs ferrero-waldner, not to look on this barcelona process as a mere economic process. when europe needs energy, it turns to africa to benefit from its sun and sand. is that not a little too little? should we not be implementing this process through work in the field of culture? we will be dealing with countries that are very diverse, proud countries, countries that have a history and a great culture. should we not be making efforts to improve social cohesion through in-depth cultural work? not a single document refers to the anna lindt foundation, which for some years now has been striving to promote cooperation. i would also be very keen to see further progress, too, on the proposed euro-arab university. (bg) mr. president, mme commissioner, the issue related to the establishment of a black sea union is of strategic significance. this is a process for joint future development concerning not only the increased influence of the european union and economic cooperation, but also goodneighbourliness. the mediterranean region with its rich cultural and historical layers and modern political and economic influence is particularly important. i view this as a process, a step towards a more global role of the eu as a whole rather than of any single country. at the same time, the mediterranean axis in the development of the eu policies should be linked to the eastern dimension of the eu strategic projects. the black sea areas has always been linked to the mediterranean and thus both should be comparable and put on equal footing today. this is the only way for us to achieve new efficiency, greater influence of the european union's policies and values. it will lead to new added value of the eu policies. mr president, i would say to the commissioner that planning to build motorways will not solve the serious problems facing the mediterranean area, unless she is intent on convincing president sarkozy to build a six-lane motorway linking france with turkey! commissioner, i was disappointed with your introductory speech, because you did not address some of the major political problems in the mediterranean. i refer, for example, to the occupation by israel of land belonging to the palestinians; to the occupation of cyprus by turkey; and to the continuing colonisation, in this the 21st century, of part of morocco by spain, which has two colonies in morocco, and to britain's two colonies in cyprus and - i understand - one colony in spain. unless you address those serious issues, we will not be able to turn the theoretical plans for a mediterranean union into a reality. (pl) mr president, europe really does breathe through two lungs. one of these lungs is the mediterranean dimension we are currently debating. the other is the eastern dimension, which includes countries sharing some of their borders with poland. by way of example i could name ukraine, belarus and russia. the eastern dimension also includes countries in the caucasus, such as georgia and armenia. it is right and proper that today, 13 years after barcelona, we should be devoting so much time to the vital mediterranean dimension of our european policy. it should be emphasised, however, that this is only part of a greater whole. the policy on the countries of the mediterranean basin is necessary and needs to be renewed, but it is only one element of the european union's broader foreign policy. our policy towards future members of the european union should be a very important part of the latter. to put it plainly, i do not believe that any of the mediterranean countries we are today discussing will join the union. ukraine, georgia and armenia are, however, bound to become members. (fr) mr president, commissioner, as far as i am concerned, it takes two to tango. what i want to know is whether there is really enough interest on the other side of the mediterranean. when we see today the dance the french government is having to perform to actually bring the mediterranean heads of state together, to get them to come to paris on 13 july, i wonder if there is really the same commitment on the other side. i want to tell you that your revisited project is extremely interesting. the european union was built after the war on the basis of coal and steel. if we are proposing to our partners that we build a project for the 21st century, based on climate change, on renewable energy, on the restoration of a mediterranean environment that has been completely ruined, then yes, we can support this project. however, where is the consistency, commissioner? what can we say to this solo by mr sarkozy, who even today, before his presidency, is urging algeria to sign an agreement on the establishment of a nuclear plant? i think that that is a clear example of the contradiction that perhaps exists between the council and the commission. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mr matsakis is quite right: i agree with much of what he said. there have always been difficulties and problems for the states bordering the mare nostrum, as it was called 2000 years ago. however, what mr watson, chairman of the liberal group, said is also true in my opinion: we must learn to give as well as take. i would therefore call upon italy's new government under prime minister berlusconi to heed the pleas and entreaties of colonel gaddafi, whom we were very eager to please at the time of the bulgarian nurses affair, ignoring everything that lay behind it. he has repeatedly requested italy to build a motorway in his country. a motorway will benefit not just president gaddafi but all the inhabitants of north africa, so we will be showing our good will and doing something positive for the mediterranean as a whole. (pl) mr president, the mediterranean basin and the middle east are strategically important regions from the european union's point of view. it is abundantly clear that an area of peace and economic stability based on the principles of democracy, solidarity and cooperation must be created if we are to rise to common challenges. it is also necessary to revive and develop the barcelona process, so as to establish a strong partnership in the area of foreign and security policy with a view to combating terrorism. the euro-mediterranean partnership cannot focus exclusively on issues pertaining to the economy and trade, however. it should be accompanied by strengthened regional cooperation, closer social integration and by cooperation in the area of protection of the natural environment. in addition, we should emphasise the need to strengthen policies aimed at increasing the role of women in mediterranean societies, by promoting gender equality. respect for customs and traditions must not infringe the fundamental rights of women. in conclusion, i should like to welcome the commission's proposal on the euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly. the role and democratic legitimacy of the latter should be reinforced. member of the commission. - (fr) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i will continue in french. perhaps mr schulz does not agree, but i believe that president sarkozy provided the impulse for the union for the mediterranean. that is why i think that for once i am nevertheless going to continue to speak in that language. first of all, i see, ladies and gentlemen, that this debate or this matter has provoked strong reactions. everyone has something to say on the issue and that is extremely important. it is true, as far as i am concerned, that peace could perhaps hang in the balance in the mediterranean. it is also true that there is still a gap between the two shores: it is shrinking but it is still there. we must take account of the progress that has been made: macro-economic stability, lower inflation, greatly improved human rights. naturally, there is still a great deal to be done. on the one hand, reforms are badly needed and these reforms must be more rapid and more comprehensive. in addition, the issue of trade and investment is vital. i do not agree with mr wurtz that the barcelona process is dead. no, as i have always said, it has been very difficult to implement it because of the existing political problems, and that is true. when there was discussion of the political problems, as we know, it was about the barcelona process. unfortunately, these problems will remain even if we try to overcome these issues with very specific projects, which is something i support. i therefore believe that this idea is a good idea and i think that we have renewed it through a pragmatic and concrete approach that is, of course, fully inclusive. as regards free trade and the free trade agreements, ladies and gentlemen, i must point out that as a result of the excessively long transition periods, 2010 is the first year in which we will be able to implement these agreements. in fact, we still do not have any free trade agreements. as far as agriculture is concerned, we are in the middle of negotiations but it is very complicated, for the other side too, because it involved not just giving, but also receiving. these negotiations are always difficult. free trade agreements with tunisia and israel will enter into force in 2010. a similar agreement with morocco is being finalised, but considerable efforts are still needed. the last country concerned will be egypt. you can thus see that things are moving very slowly, and that is not because of the process; it is because of the countries themselves, which do not wish to move any faster. that is important to point out. in spite of everything, this new idea is a good idea, an opportunity, and i hope that the partners are going to make use of it. it is true, too, mrs isler-bguin, that the partners clearly have to want to dance. that is why the commission spoke with each of them to ensure that its proposals reflected their concerns and their point of view. when it comes to human rights, ladies and gentlemen, i must point out that i myself would not have done anything if there had been no human rights. however, the barcelona process remains; that is the idea. the institutions are also involved. in principle, the institutions play a role, and that applies to the anna lindt foundation, too. of course, the anna lindt foundation is present, and with a new presidency and a new director these aspects should be further enhanced. these things are not lost. the neighbourhood policy that i mentioned, which is a bilateral policy, also remains of course, because through its action plans it is genuinely trying to strengthen and promote the reforms. do not think, therefore, that it is not involved. that is the real value added of the projects that we have actually implemented and emphasised. as regards the euro-mediterranean university in portoro, i think first of all that it is an excellent idea by the slovenian presidency. i am personally going to attend its inauguration; i have been invited to it and i fully intend to be there. as regards funding, first and foremost, since it is a slovenian idea, it is only natural that slovenia must also make a contribution to it, which it will do to the tune of eur 1 million. i have also been asked for a contribution, which is why i have tried to find something among funds that, in principle, are already allocated. that is far from easy. i have found eur 1 million, which i am going to add to this project. however, there are other instruments and i have informed the presidency of them. firstly, there are the structural funds and cohesion fund, which simply need to be re-distributed in slovenia, and secondly, there are the funds for research and education. thus there are funds available. in addition, you are of course all aware of the erasmus grants, which are still applicable. that is something new that we are going to strengthen. i would like to talk briefly about culture, madam. i think that someone mentioned that robert schuman once said that if we were to start building the european union again, we should start with culture. that is true, but while there is so much poverty, so much illiteracy, etc., we have to do other things, too, and i can repeat what i said in relation to human rights: all the culture programmes remain in place and there is quite a number of them. finally, i will say a brief word on the secretariat because that was a very precise question. in the light of the different views expressed, we concluded that, as indicated in our communication, the secretariat should be asked to perform the role of making proposals for joint initiatives, which would then be adopted by political bodies, and ensuring the necessary follow-up of project-related decisions taken by the heads of state or government. the secretariat could also have a separate legal personality with an autonomous status. the detailed modalities have yet to be clarified. i will conclude with a few words on the nuclear issue. madam, the memorandum of understanding that our president signed with the iaea, the international atomic energy agency in vienna, relates to safety and security. i personally support it and i think that everyone should because we cannot choose what energy sources the countries use. each country has the right, as you said, to have some reservations about nuclear energy, and you know that we ourselves do. however, the countries must at least have the opportunity to do as they wish. as such, safety and security are crucial, and those are the issues dealt with by the memorandum. i apologise, mr president, but as i said at the beginning, this debate has provoked strong reactions. to conclude this debate i have received six motions for a resolution1 tabled in accordance with rule 103(2) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the vote will take place at 11 a.m. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - it is a pleasure to hear statements from the council and the commission regarding the barcelona process and the proposal for a union for the mediterranean. the latter is to be initiated on 13 july in paris during the french presidency. the government of malta has issued a position paper on the said statements. i fully agree with the proposals being made regarding the union for the mediterranean. as it is important not to duplicate efforts and energies, the suggestion relating to maritime activities is laudable. malta has offered to host a secretariat to overview the implementation of such proposals and i fully endorse this offer, not only because of the unique geographical position of the island in the mediterranean but also because we have the infrastructure, personnel and experience to host such an institute. to conclude, i would like to mention that, just over thirty years ago, it was a labour government that managed to bring world attention to the importance of the mediterranean and the necessity of collaboration between the countries bordering the northern and southern shores of this sea. in writing. - (it) i welcome the establishment of the union for the mediterranean, which will help to improve and intensify relations with our mediterranean partners and will promote mutual awareness, growth, employment and training in the eu and the 12 non-european countries concerned. promoting peace and democracy, immigration controls, economic relations and raw materials supplies: these have historically been the key points of my country's neighbourhood policy with the mediterranean countries. bettino craxi was a pioneer in this regard. the union for the mediterranean will help to facilitate the completion of cross-border projects that are important for the entire area, serving to improve the motorways of the seas, combat marine pollution, improve civil protection, create a better-integrated energy market and develop new renewable technologies. the union for the mediterranean must contribute to promoting democracy and resolving the conflicts that are still destabilising the middle east and the western sahara, with assistance from the euromed parliamentary assembly, which must be fully involved.

one-minute speeches (rule 150) the next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance. (ga) madam president, it must be the aim of the european union to greatly reduce the incidence of fatalities and serious injuries and to improve road safety. i do not accept the need to wait until 2033 for the european driving licence to be put into effect. at present, there is just a european model for the driving licence but what is meant by that, really? we want to protect road users, if there is the political will to do so, and i firmly believe that modern technology now available can shorten the period for putting directive 2006/126/ec into effect. we cannot wait any longer - that is extremely important. the commission must do something concrete about this. (hu) madam president, democracy, freedom, solidarity and christian ideals are the common european values that i believe in. these were also avowed by count jnos eszterhzy, a slovakian hungarian politician, who was condemned on trumped up charges by the communists in 1947 and died a martyr's death in mrov prison in 1957. apart from his countless other merits, he was the only politician who, as a member of parliament, condemned and voted against the deportation of the jews in the parliament of the fascist slovakian state in 1942. his only crime was to stand up without fail for the hungarians of slovakia who, together with the german-speaking citizens, were vilified en masse, and made stateless and displaced under the shameful bene decrees. the eu should be ashamed that these inhumane decrees legitimising state terror are still in force, and the rehabilitation of jnos eszterhzy, as well as hundreds of thousands of citizens deprived of their human dignity, is still awaited. i call on my honourable fellow members to have deeper concern about protecting our common european values. (ro) madam president, this year, the separatist demonstrations organised by the hungarian extremists in transylvania to celebrate hungary's national day were marked by a worrying display of radicalism, especially due to the support and declarations from senior representatives of the hungarian state and one of the european parliament's vice-presidents. the hungarian celebration on 15 march jeopardises from one year to the next the good understanding between romanians and hungarians. in this situation, provocative gestures, such as the recent action by a hungarian extremist who symbolically hanged the hero of the transylvanian romanians' struggle in 1848 for their national rights, only serve to threaten peaceful coexistence. i strongly condemn these displays of extremism. i call on the romanian authorities to swap political complicity for legal measures. i also appeal to the european forums to take action to halt the escalation of ethnic hatred and territorial separatism in a region where the wounds of the past have a unique opportunity to be closed with the help of european values. (lv) madam president, i should like to pose you a question. do you think it is possible to close french schools in belgium? or, let us say, german schools in france? you are right: it is not possible. yet in latvia, where more than 40% of the population is russian-speaking, it is possible. today, in the latvian parliament, nationalist and nazi members wish to hold a referendum on the closure of russian schools in latvia. at the same time, osce high commissioner on national minorities, knut vollebaek, arrives in latvia and announces that he can be proud of integration in latvia do you think that i am joking? you are mistaken. what, moreover, do you think will happen if russian schools are closed in latvia? i shall tell you - a civil war will break out in latvia. if the european parliament does not react today to this overt radical initiative, by tomorrow, it will already be too late. thank you. (es) madam president, the nuclear crisis in japan must not be exploited for manipulative purposes: the public is expecting us to respond and to act. the first thing is for the announced safety tests to be carried out quickly and transparently, and for states to be required to close obsolete or unsafe plants. the first tests should be carried out at first-generation plants, which use the same technology as fukushima. they are at the end of their useful lives and are technically obsolete. this is why i am asking you to support the request from all the institutions of the basque country to urgently close one such plant: the one in santa mara de garoa. more than 2 million people live within a radius of 80 km of it. moreover, more work needs to be done on prevention from an urban planning and civil protection perspective, on safety in terms of deciding where to site these kinds of facilities, and on drafting a european protocol, to enable us to take effective, well ordered and rapid joint action to deal with large-scale catastrophes. madam president, the commission's secretary-general, catherine day, recently described the irish bank bailout as 'tough but sustainable'. this is not a bailout but a sell-out: a sell-out, at eu insistence, to bondholders - senior, junior, secured, unsecured - every type, category and class of bondholder, while irish taxpayers shoulder intolerable debt. the cost of the bank bailout is eur 70 billion, not to mention the eur 200 billion in emergency funding from the ecb. how is a small island of 4.4 million people supposed to cope with this madness? the debt burden for every man, woman and child in ireland is roughly eur 160 000 just to bail out the banks, and that is not including the interest. a little comparison: if france - population 62 million - were faced with an equivalent banking crisis, the debt of french citizens would be eur 1 trillion. would the commission describe that as 'tough but sustainable'? finally, catherine day was also wrong when she said that this is not a crisis of the euro. if the european commission does not recognise that and act on it, then the future of the eurozone, and not just that of ireland, is bleak. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, in the current international economic crisis, catalonia is showing very positive signs, such as a 16% increase in exports last year, but also very negative symptoms such as youth unemployment in excess of 40%. one of the main reasons for these difficulties is the loss of tax revenue suffered by our country each year, which is equivalent to more than 10% of gross domestic product, a figure that is much higher than the contribution of the richest lnder to the entire federal republic of germany. the economic strangulation of catalonia hits one of the main economic drivers in southern europe and, for this reason, is a problem for the european union as a whole. (pl) madam president, the republic of lithuania has recently adopted an education act which changes the education system in such a way that there are fears that a significant number - at least half, and maybe more - of the polish schools in lithuania may be closed. this is a further example of discrimination against the polish national minority which has lived in the country for centuries, going back many generations. after the introduction of a ban on writing polish names using the polish spelling and a ban on the use of polish place names, and even instances of poles being penalised for using their own language, we are dealing with a further instance of discrimination, this time affecting education. this is all the more lamentable since there is no conflict between the peoples of the two countries, and yet the lithuanian authorities are irresponsibly igniting and fuelling such a conflict, which may have extremely adverse effects. we concern ourselves with violations of human rights in various places around the world, and yet such regrettable developments are taking place right here in the european union. it is high time that the european union looked into this matter. it is a disgrace, not only for lithuania, but for the european union as a whole. thank you. (el) madam president, the turkish prime minister commented on the oomen-ruijten report on turkey's progress towards accession by stating that the report is unbalanced and that he personally considers those who drafted it to be unbalanced. a few days later, turkish cypriot trade union leaders rallying outside the european parliament in brussels chanted that the turkish political leadership does not only insult the meps who voted in favour of mrs oomen-ruijten's report; it also insults the turkish cypriots who turned out in force in occupied cyprus to protest against the repression exerted over them by the 40 000 turkish troops and countless numbers of turkish settlers. speaking at the rally, turkish cypriot politician, izzet izcan, said that ankara was violating international law by changing the entire demographic structure by moving people from turkey, thereby putting the very existence of the turkish cypriot community at risk and emphasised that anyone who respects human rights, such as the european union, cannot brook such violations. shall we, as the european parliament, brook this violation, madam president? i call on you to convey this protest by the turkish cypriots both to the council and to the commission, so that they can take appropriate action before it is too late. (el) madam president, north africa is up in flames following the political developments in egypt, tunisia and libya. this crisis is sucking in other countries in the middle east, with unfortunate, politically dubious and ambiguous consequences. at the same time, turkey is being given considerable autonomy by decision makers in the west, with clashes between ankara and israel and tighter relations between turkey, iran and brazil. turkey is also gaining autonomy from us policies for the middle east and from european commitments on future accession to the european union. there is continuing instability in the countries of former yugoslavia which is feeding nationalistic groups. finally, according to reliable international statistics, the muslim populations which currently number 1.6 billion will rise to 2.2 billion by 2030, whereas the population of europe will fall by 50 million. my question is this: do european leaders understand that the destabilisation of the south will have an adverse impact both on the euro and on the geopolitical stability of the security system in the west? madam president, i had intended to speak on the impact of the financial crisis in the republic of ireland on the economy in northern ireland. instead, it is with deep regret that i inform this house of the callous and brutal murder of a member of the police service of northern ireland. twenty-five-year-old constable ronan kerr died at the hands of republican terrorists on saturday afternoon. constable kerr, a catholic police officer, was murdered when a booby-trap bomb planted under his car exploded on saturday as he left for work. he died at the scene. i call on this house to condemn this atrocity and to call for an end to such violent acts at the hands of irish republican terrorists intent on dragging northern ireland back to its darker days and derailing the political process. since 2007, dissident republican terrorists have planted dozens of booby-trap bombs under the private cars of police officers. thankfully, most of these have failed to detonate. i am sure that you will also join with me in calling for all information regarding this murder to be given to the police. there are people in the local community who have information about constable kerr's brutal murder. they need to come forward and bring these murderers to justice, not shield them from it. they need to do it for the future of our country and out of respect for a brave police officer and his grieving mother and family. i am also appalled at the lack of respect that this speech has been given by some members of this house. (el) madam president, in ratifying the un convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, the 27 member states have committed to equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunities, thereby ensuring that these citizens can participate fully in society. however, as we have seen, this does not apply to everyone. around 30 million blind people living in europe face huge difficulties in everyday activities, such as shopping, because they have to rely on other people to tell them what is inside the packaging. i should therefore like to call on the commission to open broad consultation with interested bodies on the adoption of a voluntary product labelling system in braille and, at the same time, to call on my fellow members here to support it by signing written statement 14. (el) madam president, the conclusions of the last summit provided anything but reassurance. the clear provision for the facility for a member state to restructure debt post-2013 is a straightforward departure from the european union's original position when the crisis broke, that debt restructuring would be precluded at all costs. already in greece, the debate by distinguished economists at international level and the markets has taken off again. what happened to change this position? every effort was made, no cost was spared; perhaps we just ran out of steam. the truth is that the forecasts and estimates made are not being verified. the recession is getting worse in greece instead of better, government spending is at -9%, when it should be at +8.5% based on the memorandum for 2011 and, worst of all, unemployment has already topped 15%. there is only one answer to this: growth. is there any sign of growth? no, there is not; we need policies for growth, not reversals and talk about restructuring. (hu) madam president, the hungarian eu presidency has reached half-time, so it is worth reviewing the achievements to date. a major success is that agreement in principle was reached recently in the council about the package of six legislative proposals to strengthen economic governance. the rapid adoption of the new legislation by parliament may greatly improve the competitiveness of the european economy. the energy summit in february also brought a real breakthrough. as a result of the strengthening of the common energy market and infrastructural development, a common european energy policy may be created at last. apart from this, agreements of key importance have been reached with regard to the common agricultural policy and cohesion policy as well. naturally, there are still open questions, such as the eu roma strategy. through adopting this, the eu will, at last, accept official responsibility as well for closing the gap for the roma. ladies and gentlemen, the success of the hungarian presidency also means success for europe. for precisely this reason, i ask you to continue to support the achievement of common objectives through your votes. thank you for the floor, madam president. madam president, like mrs dodds, i had intended to speak about the economy, but the terrible, callous murder of a young catholic police officer in northern ireland has sadly changed that. i think it is important that this house realises the enormity of this tragedy for the island of ireland, and for the family affected by it. mr kerr had only finished his initial training in december; he was only 25 and a bomb exploded under his car. i was very touched by the comments of his mother yesterday on mothers' day, when she urged catholics not to be deterred from joining the police service of northern ireland at a time when we are striving, as she said, for a neutral police force for the good of our country. she urged all catholics not to be deterred by this murder. she said we all need to stand up and be counted and to strive for equality. again i will quote her words in her sadness: 'we do not want to go back into the dark days again of fear and terror. we were so proud of ronan and all that he stood for. don't let his death be in vain'. those who murdered him have still not admitted to it. those who know the persons or others who committed this murder have a duty to come and to give evidence to the police service of northern ireland. europe has supported the peace process, and it is our duty to continue to do that. (ro) madam president, romania has a law stipulating that teachers' salaries should be increased, because they are very low. this law was approved and voted on in the romanian parliament, but it is not enforced in any way at all. teachers have won their rights in court, based on definitive legal judgments, but the government is unwilling to enforce this law. as a result, it is devising a new law which places a ceiling on teachers' salaries. this is not only a danger to democracy and an unhealthy way for the democratic institutions of a state to operate. it goes far beyond this. it jeopardises the objectives of the europe 2020 agenda. we are all aware that in order to effect a sustainable recovery from the crisis, we need education and skills. in order to have an economy based on knowledge and research, we need young people who are very well trained, teachers who are very well paid and a strong, effective education system. (ro) madam president, as a result of the incompetent administration and disastrous policy of economic vandalism pursued by the bsescu-boc regime, romania's healthcare system, especially the health insurance sector, has reached subsistence level. both the medical staff who work in this system and the patients who ought to benefit from it have reached the point where they are being treated beneath the level of decency and human dignity. there are solutions for improving and remedying this situation, but they are being ignored by the current government. the foundations were recently established for cooperation between family doctor trade union organisations and the health committee of the chamber of deputies, in the hope of achieving a better outcome at the future discussions with the ministry of health and the national health insurance office. i wanted to draw the european parliament's attention to this situation as, if these actions supported by the romanian parliament also fail, this will add further evidence to the catalogue of abuses of power in romania, where the democratic principle of the separation of powers of state has ceased to apply. (es) madam president, i would like to echo the concerns expressed last week by crown prince felipe de borbn, who carries the historic title of my region - the principality of asturias - when he received the prince of wales in madrid. prince felipe quite rightly called on the governments of spain and the united kingdom to resolve the damaging gibraltar conflict. this is an important reminder that i welcome, as i say, from the european parliament. with spain and the united kingdom being exemplarily democratic member states, britain's continued occupation of the rock in the 21st century is intolerable. no occupation of a sovereign state by another is acceptable under law. the occupation of northern cyprus - a region i have recently visited - in violation of the territorial integrity of cyprus, is also clearly unacceptable. (sk) madam president, the european union wants to become the most competitive economy in the world. in order to achieve this, we must invest in our future, and in my opinion, our young people and their education are our future. it is said that whoever wants something looks for reasons, and whoever does not want something looks for ways to avoid finding reasons. in my opinion, the european union is currently looking for reasons to say why we cannot put more funding into education, and we are often very fond of pointing out that we have a crisis and must deal with its consequences. as we are now discussing the next seven-year period in the eu and future funding and budgets, i think we should be asking an unambiguous question: how much do we intend to invest in education and in our future? we also certainly need to hear what the council and the commission want to do in this area. likewise, we cannot, of course, tolerate what is happening in some member states, which are transferring funding from education into other areas, as is taking place in my own country, for example. in my opinion, this is not right. we must also realise that investing in the future is the only way to achieve what we really want to achieve. madam president, i want to denounce today an act of aggression against one of the pillars of the european union: the internal market and the free circulation of goods and people. recently, the catalan meat industry federation and certain catalan newspapers have reported that, in france, trucks coming from catalonia have been attacked and damaged by french farmers. the meat products some trucks were carrying were completely destroyed by french pickets. these acts of aggression have been repeated twice since the beginning of 2011. the last incident happened just a few weeks ago, when french pickets stopped another lorry full of meat from catalonia, assaulted the driver and then sprayed diesel over 20 000 kilos of fresh meat. this pressure by some french farmers' unions, destroying products coming from outside france, has had a very rapid impact on clients of the catalan meat industry, as a result of which its sales have dropped by 50%. i have tabled a parliamentary written question to the commission in the hope that the european union will stop this unacceptable aggression. (hu) madam president, in europe, cultural diversity is a value which all of us must take action to defend. however, this has not always been the case. on our continent, there are numerous unique cultures which are threatened with extinction. the csango hungarians in the romanian region of moldova are one such endangered community as well. recommendation 1521/2001 of the council of europe urges saving this csango minority culture, while outlining specific measures. although there have been steps forward in the matter over the last decade as a result of the recommendation, the situation is far from satisfactory. the council of europe does not have at its disposal the european legislation or a mechanism of accountability that makes compliance with this possible and which ensures the effective functioning of the european union. the council of europe is ahead of the eu in many issues concerning the provision of human rights at a high level, but its recommendation and its treaties cannot achieve the desired effect. if the european union takes the principle of honouring cultural and linguistic diversity seriously, which article 3 of the eu treaty also advocates, everything must be done to ensure that this principle is enforced in actual cases. let us start with the csango hungarian culture in moldova. (es) madam president, in january, the european commission approved the strategy to tackle early school dropout as a key contribution to the europe 2020 strategy to fight the school dropout problem across the entire european union and reduce rates by at least 10%. strangely, this strategy does not make any reference to disabled people, and this is why i would like to use this minute to make an appeal, since the education ministers of all the member states will be meeting in brussels on 2 and 4 may to discuss the global strategies around this issue. i would like to ask that the issue of disabled people be included within this strategy, because it is of fundamental importance for this group of people all over europe to receive continuous education and therefore to be able to access the labour market. article 24 of the united nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities states that disabled people are not, under any circumstances, to be excluded from the general education system. the debate is closed.

4. specific programme 'civil justice' (2007-2013) (vote) - report: segelstrm - before the vote member of the commission. mr president, the commission would like to make the following declaration before the vote. 'the commission hopes that it will be possible today to find an acceptable compromise in all the institutions on account of the importance of adopting a civil justice financial programme as soon as possible. we are already late. if an acceptable solution is not found today, it is clear that the civil justice programme will not be adopted in time to be executed in 2007, with very negative consequences. without this financial programme, the commission will not be able to support associations or other actors from civil society, or the studies and projects that are fundamental to the development of the civil justice policies. the commission could support the compromise set out in amendment 2, which adds a recital to the council's common position specifying the right of parliament to be informed in accordance with article 7(3) of decision 1999/468/ec and, more particularly, to receive the draft annual programme relating to the civil justice financial programme when it is submitted to the management committee. parliament should also receive the results of voting and a summary record of the meeting of the management committee. the commission, moreover, confirms its commitment to transmit directly to the chair of the competent parliamentary committee - the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs - the draft annual programme, and to inform parliament without delay about any modification being made to it. finally, the commission confirms, as firmly stated in the letters addressed by vice-president frattini to the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, its availability to attend the competent parliamentary committee upon its request, in order to provide its members with all necessary information on the draft annual programme'.

the eu strategy for relations with latin america (debate) the next item is the report by mr salafranca snchez-neyra, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, on the eu strategy for relations with latin america. madam president, high representative, i would like to say that the report, as adopted by the committee, on the one hand, acknowledges the efforts made by the spanish presidency of the european union - which i do not see in this chamber, which surprises me given that we are talking about a latin american matter - and, on the other hand, welcomes the commission communication entitled 'the european union and latin america: global players in partnership'. i think it is difficult to find two regions that have more in common in terms of values and interests than europe and latin america. the figures, madam president, are very well known: together, they have more than a billion citizens, account for more than 25% of global gross domestic product and, along with the caribbean countries, include almost one third of the countries that make up the united nations. it is also well known, although the figures show a slight decline, that the european union is the main donor of development aid, the main investor in the region and the second largest trading partner in latin america, and the largest in mercosur and chile. however, more importantly than the figures, we consider latin america to be more than a market for europe, and we therefore share a whole series of principles and values, which are pluralist and representative democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, freedom of expression, the constitutional state, the rule of law, respect for due process and the rejection of all forms of dictatorship and authoritarian rule. this summit, mrs ashton, comes at a very remarkable time in the calendar for the european union and latin america. it is a remarkable time for the european union, because having gone through the reform process, with the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, we are a little engrossed in overcoming and contemplating our own problems, with the economic and monetary crisis. we have seen that, for the first time, the international monetary fund is not having to rescue a latin american country, but a european member state that is part of the monetary union. when we look at the european union's growth rates for last year, we see that, on average, we had a negative growth of 5%, while latin america had a negative growth of 1.8%. when we look at the forecasts for growth for next year, we see that the european union is expected to have an average growth of 0.7%, and latin america of 5%. this means that the next summit is not going to be a north-south summit, like the previous summits, but a summit between equals. in that respect, i think that we should look back, if only briefly, and feel satisfied at what has been achieved in the last few years. it is clear, however, that a great deal still remains to be done. in that respect, mrs ashton, between 2000 and 2010, the european union concluded association agreements with mexico and chile, but the united states concluded agreements with the whole of central america, with colombia and peru, and also with various mercosur countries. we therefore need to make up for lost time quickly, and in some way seek strategic partnerships with mexico and chile, apply the future developments clause in these agreements, and conclude the agreements with central america, where we need to introduce greater measures of generosity. at the same time, parliament welcomes the initiatives that you have put forward to establish the europe-latin america foundation and also the financial investment facility. this summit is not, however, just another summit, mrs ashton. at this one, a very clear issue is going to be at stake. if we continue to lose our share of trade with the region, which has declined from 25% to just over 15% because of countries such as china, we are going to become irrelevant. therefore, in line with the spanish presidency, i ask you, as high representative and a vice-president of the commission, to send out a clear and very definite message regarding the commitment of this new europe that we are building towards our old friends in latin america. vice-president of the commission and high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy. - madam president, honourable members, i am pleased to be back at the european parliament and i am looking forward very much to this debate on relations with latin america. i would like to begin by thanking mr salafranca for his excellent report. i think it illustrates very well the convergence of views between our two institutions on the importance of - and, as he has rightly said, the prospects for - the european union's partnership in this region. i welcome very much the commitment of parliament to strengthen relations with latin america, including through the interparliamentary dialogues. our joint efforts are central to developing a consistent policy and a strong presence in the region. i agree that the upcoming summit is a good opportunity to reiterate our commitment to the region and our determination to deepen the partnership. as the report rightly points out, the partnership has been a success. today, the eu is latin america's second-largest trading partner and the biggest investor in the region. we are expanding our cooperation beyond economic issues to cover key strategic issues - climate change, non-proliferation, tackling drugs, the promotion of peace and security worldwide. with this in mind, the commission last year set out its strategy for latin america in the communication called 'the european union and latin america: global players in partnership'. our main conclusions were to step up the regional dialogue and support regional integration, to strengthen bilateral relationships - taking into account the diversity of the region - and to adapt cooperation programmes to make them focused and results-oriented. i am pleased we have taken a number of initiatives since then. we have worked very closely with brazil and mexico on strategic partnerships and with chile on the association for development and innovation. with peru and colombia, we have completed negotiations on a multi-party trade agreement and we expect to complete negotiations for an association agreement with central america in the near future and are working to resume negotiations with mercosur. we have intensified our policy dialogues on a range of issues - sustainable development, migration and the fight against illicit drugs. these are important negotiations and dialogues. they strengthen our relationship. there is also much that we can do in practice on regional integration. it is very important that the combined weight of the eu and latin america is able to focus on priority areas. with regard to the summit, i agree very much that this is an important occasion. we want to have an action plan that covers cooperation on key issues - science, technology and innovation, environment, climate change and so on. secondly, we want to acknowledge the progress that has been made with the various subregions and strengthen bilateral partnerships. thirdly, as mr salafranca said, we want to launch the investment fund and to establish the eu-latin america and caribbean foundation. we are working hard to strengthen those relationships between the european union and latin america in what is, of course, a fast-changing world and where we can maximise the potential that we have. i am very keen to hear views from members of this house and to respond to any questions. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, against a backdrop of financial, social and environmental crisis, the european union has a role to play, a role of cooperation for development, ahead of the madrid summit. as the official champion of human rights and development aid, it must take up its many challenges in latin america. let us remember that the eu is the biggest donor, having pledged nearly eur 3 billion in 10 years. the committee on development is delighted by the commission's pledge to ensure that the millennium development goals are respected, especially with regard to education. i am also delighted to find in the committee on foreign affairs' report recognition of feminicide and the prioritising of the fight against climate change. all the same, i regret the absence of concrete measures and of a genuine development strategy. after copenhagen, the committee on development had called on the eu to take notice of innovative projects in latin america, such as those presented at the cochabamba summit this week or the yasuni itt project in ecuador. respect for the political, social, environmental and cultural rights of indigenous populations must be at the heart of our transatlantic relations. we have also emphasised observance of the ilo conventions that are flouted in colombia. the minimum environmental and social standards must be respected. finally, we regret the absence of any reference to public services, water and health in the committee on foreign affairs' report. personally, i do not believe in the proliferation of study organisations with a ridiculous budget that do not allow for genuine dialogue with civil society. i do not believe in the usefulness of creating more budget headings that cut into the development aid lines for the sake of unclear objectives. i do not believe in any agreement of which the priority might not be respect for human rights and the environment. the aim of the eu-latin american partnership is not just to protect commercial profits. the free trade agreements with peru and colombia are a very poor counterexample. our duty is to encourage regional integration and to oppose any signed agreement that would weaken such integration. it is our responsibility to defend, above all, human rights and respect for the environment in all our external relations. madam president, high representative, ladies and gentlemen, i firmly believe that we must see latin america as a hugely important trade partner. we believe that negotiations should be reopened for the agreement between the european union and mercosur, which affects 700 million people and will be the most ambitious bi-regional agreement in the world. we also believe that negotiations concerning the agreement between the european union and central america should be concluded before the madrid summit, which is to be held in may. we also need to develop the association agreements with mexico and chile, which have been a real success. we must therefore express our satisfaction at the conclusion of the free trade agreement with colombia, which is going to be very beneficial both to europe and to the latin american country. we believe that parliament's job now is to ratify these agreements in due time and to ensure that no country in the andean community that wishes to conclude an agreement is excluded. we, of course, also believe that free trade agreements can and should also be a useful tool for promoting the development of citizens' rights and freedoms. lastly, we believe that the path to follow in the future is, on the one hand, to develop the european union's agreements with the various countries and regional groups and, on the other, to promote inter-regional integration agreements within latin america itself. madam president, mrs ashton, first of all, allow me to congratulate mr salafranca snchez-neyra on the very successful outcome of his report. you are aware that the may summit is an excellent opportunity for driving forward relations between the two parties. the spanish presidency is to be congratulated on the work it has done in this regard. nevertheless, i think that what is important is for the relationship to continue to be promoted and strengthened after that presidency has ended. you have a great deal to do in this respect, mrs ashton, because there is no other region in the world that has a greater historical, cultural and institutional affinity with europe than latin america. there is all the more reason to promote the relationship if we consider that, due to the desire of the latin american people themselves, but also due to europe's consistent support of democratic institutions, those institutions have achieved a high level of consolidation. this report, to which i think i can say my group made a satisfactory contribution, is a good message to send to the may summit in madrid, and i hope that it will contribute to the results of that summit, and help highlight the fact that it is essential to move forward in the strategic relationship between the european union and latin america and the caribbean. we, of course, support the adoption of the latin america investment facility and the creation of the europe-latin america and caribbean foundation with a view to the summit. in addition, although we are aware of the difficulties experienced in recent years, we hope that the madrid summit can give a definitive boost to the negotiations with mercosur. we also welcome the significant step forward of concluding the negotiations on the multi-party agreement with peru and colombia, and we trust that, when the time comes, a good, intelligent formula can be shaped that will allow for the desired incorporation of ecuador, and that we will also leave the doors open, always open, to bolivia. finally, how can we not celebrate the more than probable and welcome conclusion of the agreement with central america, and the now accepted incorporation of panama into that agreement and into those negotiations? i will conclude, madam president, by saying that of course, all of this must be considered within the framework of what the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats in the european parliament considers to be the basic socio-political philosophy in this area. that means supporting the various integration processes in latin america, demanding respect for human rights and taking an inclusive, development approach, while always committing to keeping dialogue channels open despite any difficulties that might arise and to deepening our links with our strategic partners in order to achieve progress on these objectives. on behalf of the alde group. - (bg) madam president, mrs ashton, ladies and gentlemen, i first of all wish to express my delight at the huge contribution made by mr salafranca to the development of relations between the european union and latin america and at the exceptional role he has played in compiling this report. the strategic partnership between the european union and latin america for the period up to 2015 will develop against the backdrop of 'agenda 2020', the global agreement drafted to combat climate change and promote our aspirations for creating a green, environmentally friendly economy. this is why i want to stress that latin america is a strategic partner with which europe must extend its economic and cultural influence even further. particularly during the current global financial crisis, this partnership can be of paramount importance and open up greater opportunities for commercial, scientific and technological exchanges, enabling us to emerge from this crisis in stronger, more stable positions. madam president, i would like to speak in spanish, at least for the first part of my speech. i would also like to acknowledge the process that has taken place in the negotiations since mr salafranca snchez-neyra's report was first tabled and what we have achieved now. i think it has been a good process, as you have accepted several of our positions, although i must say that obviously, if the report were written by the group of the greens/european free alliance, it would be different, but that is the way things go in parliament. you said, mr salafranca, that you wanted to see the relationship between the european union and latin america as a relationship between equals, and i must say that i like this idea, but the problem is establishing who these equals are: are they the governments, which are also different, or are they the people, who are asking for more information, or for more rights - as in the case of women - or for poverty to be tackled? that is something that needs to be defined, and which i think is still somewhat missing from this report. i do, however, admit that we have succeeded in some aspects. i am also happy that the verts/ale group has succeeded in including the cultural rights of indigenous peoples, a proposal that came from the committee on development. the issue of feminicides, a very serious aspect of violence against women, has also been included, as has the ruling of the inter-american court of human rights. i think that these are major steps forward. there is also climate change, which does affect the populations on both continents equally, for example, with what is happening with the glaciers. on one aspect, there is a difference between what the verts/ale group wanted and what other groups wanted, which is that we are not in favour of continuing with the association agreements as we have done so far. we would prefer to have an agreement with the whole of the andean community, a broad agreement, and not only an agreement with colombia and peru. i would like to end with a specific question to mrs ashton: i will continue in english. this is a concrete question to you, high representative, and one that unfortunately we were not able to include in the report. will you speak out against mega-projects like the dam at del monte on the river shingu in brazil, which is being planned at the moment, and which will destroy swathes of living space for the indigenous peoples and is also not the best solution in terms of energy consumption? there is a protest under way in brazil, in which hundreds of civil society organisations are participating. there are also legal proceedings under way in brazil. i would like to know from you what the commission, and what you as high representative, are doing in order to preserve the environment in the amazon area for the peoples living there, and for all of us on this planet. on behalf of the ecr group. - madam president, high representative, i congratulate mr salafranca snchez-neyra on an excellent report on the eu's strategic relationship and partnership with latin america. after the 2004 enlargement to central and eastern european countries, the eu has understandably refocused the cfsp towards the east, i.e. russia, central asia and china, but nevertheless, trade between latin america and the eu continues to grow rapidly. so this largely democratic region with whom we have much in common must not be forgotten. later this year, brazil will mark another stage in its emergence as a world economic and political giant when the country holds a presidential election and president da silva steps down after his maximum two terms. brazil, along with mexico, is now designated as an eu strategic partner. colombia is also a promising example of how democracy can truly flourish in latin america and it is now negotiating an fta with the eu. it, too, will hold a presidential election and its people will undoubtedly miss the visionary leadership of lvaro uribe. in contrast, venezuela is led by a populist demagogue, hugo chvez, who has shown scant regard for democracy and freedom of expression. bolivia and ecuador have also shown worrying signs of following the disreputable example of chvez and castro's cuba. finally, it is deeply regrettable that president kirchner in argentina has chosen to divert attention away from domestic politics and her poor performance as president by employing bellicose language over the falkland islands, whose inhabitants wish to remain british. with regard to mr salafranca's valuable report on the eu strategy for relations with latin america, i would like to request that the council and the commission, who are both now represented in the person of baroness ashton, take urgent action on three issues. my first point is that we need to demand the full cooperation of the latin american countries, in particular, of brazil, as rotating members of the security council, in all international attempts to bring the conflict with iran over nuclear arms to a peaceful resolution. so, we need genuine cooperation and support in that. my second point is that we need to demand the full cooperation of the latin american countries in the continued fight against islamic terrorist networks. this applies, in particular, to venezuela, because hezbollah is not exactly just sitting there minding its own business, and neither is iran. my third point is that we need to demand the full cooperation of the latin american countries in the fight against the global evil of anti-semitism. again, one person causing great concern in this respect is president chvez of venezuela, but unfortunately, he is not the only one. recently, the stephen roth institute published a report which highlights several somewhat unpleasant aspects of this issue. finally, last week, the european press maintained a voluble silence as regards china's growing influence in latin america. does this mean the european union will, on occasions, be caught in the middle between these two strategic partners of brussels? (fr) madam president, mr salafranca snchez-neyra's report contains many interesting things. it is very comprehensive. europe cannot turn away from relations with a unit which, as recital j of the report recalls, consists of 600 million people, accounts for 10% of world gdp and to which we are connected by special historical ties, especially with regard to the latin countries of spain, portugal and italy, many of whose citizens went to live in argentina, and even france, which still has a presence in guyana. however, i regret that the report does not tackle two essential issues more directly. firstly, there is the issue of globalisation, free trade imposed across the world, and the international division of labour, which is wrongly presented as a panacea and which poses extremely serious economic and social problems, not only in europe, but also in latin america. secondly, the other problem is that of independence from big brother, in other words, the us big brother. we are not its enemy but even so, we must remember, after all, that the monroe doctrine, the professed aim of which at the time was to prevent any recolonisation of latin america by europe, was turned into a de facto protectorate, the effects of which we saw a few years ago, above all, in terms of the brutality of the intervention in panama. therefore, i agree that we should deal with issues such as drug production, but it is not our job to dictate the law, reason, justice or equality between men and women to the peoples of latin america. we believe that we should devote ourselves to those issues that are strictly essential. (es) i would first of all like to congratulate mr salafranca snchez-neyra on his excellent work on this report. (ro) the european parliament is currently sending out a clear message about strengthening relations between the european union and latin america, all the more so as the eu-latin america summit is going to take place in one month. at the same time, these relations between the eu and latin america are one of the priorities of the spanish presidency. however, i believe that there is a great deal of untapped potential for boosting trade between both regions. this is why the european union must provide resources for promoting european products on the latin american market. in this regard, some romanian products already have a market outlet in latin america. our national car, the dacia, is one example i can give of this. romania has a long tradition of good cooperation with latin america, as our latin heritage is a valuable asset we have in common. i would like to emphasise that i welcome the new tri-partite approach mentioned by the rapporteur, involving the participation of the european union, latin america and the us. at the same time, we must take into account cooperation projects which will consolidate the imf's legal status and equal access to education and the workforce. finally, mr salafranca's report and the madrid summit must lay the foundations for the long-term development of the strategic partnership between the eu and latin america. (es) madam president, i, too, would like to congratulate mr salafranca snchez-neyra. i think that this is a very important report. i would like to say, ladies and gentlemen, that there are millions of reasons why we should consider latin america to be a very important continent for europe: there are millions of europeans living in latin america, and there are millions of latin americans who have come to our countries, to europe, and have found refuge and asylum in france, germany, sweden and spain from the suffering of their people. ladies and gentlemen, latin america is very important for the european union, which is why i am very pleased that in the next few months, perhaps largely as a result of the work done by mrs ashton and also the spanish presidency, it might be possible to conclude four major and very important agreements, with colombia, peru, mercosur and central america. this is going to be extremely important for the european union and, above all, for latin america. however, ladies and gentlemen, we need to help latin america. its countries have weak state machinery, with public services that are still very weak because they have very low tax ratios, they have democracies that are still very flawed, and there are problems with human rights. we need to help the latin american people. we always need to keep this vision in mind. i would like to give you two messages, mrs ashton, or two recommendations, which i think are very important. in order to work in latin america, we also need to have the support of european enterprises. our external policy needs to be conducted with a very strong economic presence of our major companies in latin america, which can do a great deal for the development of those countries with a culture of social responsibility and with a commitment to their development. finally, we need to form a global alliance with latin america in order to work together in the world, on world governance. let us join together with them so that we can be stronger. (de) madam president, baroness ashton, mr salafranca, as a member of the euro-latin american parliamentary assembly, i am very pleased about your report, because it is really important for us to continue to strengthen the relationship between the european union and latin america. we have made a great deal of progress since 1999. latin america has a population of 600 million and almost 600 million people also live here in the european union. we have similar values and human rights and we are also linked by the desire for democracy and peace. however, the actual conditions in the two continents are very different. in a partnership, it is important to ensure wherever possible that both partners are equally powerful and that is not yet the case. there are many problems in latin america, including illiteracy, but also a lack of infrastructure, a general lack of education, democratic deficits and violations of human rights. fortunately, we do not have as many problems. many people there make a living from the drugs trade and this, of course, is something that must change. as a major trading partner with an active involvement in development aid, it is our job to ensure that latin america receives further help with its democratisation processes. i would like to see the partnership leading to people in latin america living in peace in the same way that we do in the european union and allowing them to also learn and benefit from one another as we do. this is why i very much like the idea of a euro-latin american charter for peace and security and a europe-latin america foundation. i believe that this would deepen the partnership even further and really help us to make more progress. (cs) my fellow member, mr salafranca snchez-neyra, mentioned at the outset here that europe and latin america share very similar values. there is nevertheless one exception. in march, we discussed here the situation in cuba. when negotiating eu strategy concerning relations with latin america, cuba, as a significant player in this region, must not be overlooked. cuba's stalinist regime, with its totalitarian ways, is attempting to damage relations between the eu and this region as a whole. however, the region does not deserve this. latin america is a significant partner for the eu, even without the cuban regime. the eu's partner on the cuban side should not be the current castro regime, but the movers of change and the democratic opposition. i have the greatest respect for all the opponents of cuba's communist dictatorship, and i would like to thank cardinal jaime ortega for the brave words he delivered - yesterday, i believe - to the regime. i am of the opinion that democracy, the observance of human rights and freedoms, freedom of expression, the rule of law, the legal state and the rejection of any form of dictatorship or authoritarianism not only form the foundation of the bi-regional strategic partnership, but are also an essential prerequisite for it. madam president, at the beginning of the debate, baroness ashton kindly said that she would respond to any question. baroness, i would urge you please to answer my following question. proposals documented by the committee on foreign affairs include negotiations for the establishment of a euro-latin american charter for peace and security, based upon the un charter. whose interest do you support in relation to argentina formally asking the united nations secretary, ban ki-moon, to question british sovereignty over the falkland islands? the argentine foreign minister, jorge taiana, has asked the un to help stop further unilateral acts by the uk in relation to oil drilling in the area. a recent summit of latin american and caribbean leaders saw unanimous support from all 32 countries for argentine claims to the falkland islands. do you agree that, underpinned by the principle of self-determination in the un charter, britain should maintain sovereignty of the islands, and will you be supporting her interests in accordance with international law? i would like an answer please. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, a biregional strategic partnership has been in place between the european union and latin america since 1999. the basic principles of this partnership include respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, together with the right to education. however, it is a fact that these principles are often violated. in addition, around 42 million people in latin america are illiterate. the european union is both the main investor in latin america and an important trading partner. finally, i would like to say that the fact that women are socially disadvantaged and that discrimination against the indigenous peoples continues, to highlight just two of the problem areas, is in violation of universal human rights. there is still work to be done in this area and improvements still need to be made. (el) madam president, i wish to congratulate mr salafranca on his highly integrated and substantiated report. i also agree with the vice-president of the european commission and high representative on the importance which she attaches to these efforts to forge a closer partnership. it is a fact that there have been developments in latin america over the last twenty years and it is true that what worried us during the 1980s, namely the numerous dictatorships, has been wiped out. however, the drug trade, money laundering, terrorism and the huge problems caused by poverty, insecurity and unemployment in the region have not been wiped out. we therefore call, with the help of the european parliament and lady ashton, for particular importance to be attached to sectors relating to education and culture. the countries of latin america are the only countries which we can say are so closely linked - more than other third countries - to europe on matters relating to history, education and culture, and i think that particular emphasis should be placed on these sectors. mr salafranca's report includes an integrated programme and proposes the creation of a foundation, which is also hugely important to the european parliament, and, of course, it calls for a new and stronger role for the european parliament in relations with these countries. i think that this is what we should retain from today's report. (nl) madam president, in recent months, latin america has increasingly been taking on a more clear and concrete importance in the eyes of the european union, after years of receiving too little attention from the eu. the european commission brought out a communication positing both regions of latin america as global players and partners, and negotiations on association agreements are now well under way. i cannot help but stress the strategic importance of good relations with latin america. what i particularly have in mind here is the ongoing negotiations for an association agreement with central america, the latest round of which kicked off yesterday. the objective is to dot the final i's and to wrap up the negotiations. although, in essence, i would welcome an association agreement with latin america, i cannot stress enough that respect for human rights is of the greatest importance here. this agreement should contribute to the improvement of the human rights situation in central america and it must be a constant incentive to these countries to respect human rights. this agreement should contribute to the improvement of the human rights situation in central america and it must be a constant incentive to these countries to respect human rights. we are not just entering a trade agreement here, but also forging a connection with each other through the medium of political dialogues and cooperation. the association agreement is important for central america. the region is characterised by a high level of poverty and this agreement must contribute to the economic progress of the people there. during the negotiations, the eu must not therefore shut its eyes to the fact that europe and central america are not equal partners in the agreement. the agreement must take sufficient account of the unequal starting points of the two regions and the asymmetry in the agreement is therefore very important. in brief, this must be a balanced agreement and one that does not just bring benefits to europe and major companies established in central america. no, above all, it must improve the situation of ordinary citizens and small businesses. to conclude, we have chosen a region-by-region approach and i would stress that we must bring things to a conclusion in that fashion, so that no single country falls behind its neighbours. (ga) madam president, i welcome this report and i commend the rapporteur on his excellent work. i would like to draw attention to trade affairs between the european union and latin america. it must be ensured that trade affairs are discussed on a level playing field. european farmers and producers must adhere to many rules and they produce high quality food and goods. these high standards result in higher production costs for european farmers and producers and these can be disadvantageous in the market due to the importation of products of lower quality and at lower cost. it is not just for the benefit of european producers that we should look at this issue. the european union has done excellent work as regards protecting and strengthening consumer rights and health. we are obliged to ensure that goods and products that are imported into europe do not compromise these rights and do not endanger the health of european consumers. (the president cut off the speaker) (pl) madam president, i will try actually to keep to one minute. perhaps francis fukuyama was wrong when he said that liberal democracy is the end of history, but he was surely right in his assertion that liberal democracy is the best thing which can happen to people. if only everyone really did live in such conditions. unfortunately, democracy has been substituted in latin america by populism, and capitalism by socialism, or economic populism. in view of this i would like to address mrs ashton - commissioner, i have an enormous request, that our experience, the money of european taxpayers and our know-how be directed, above all, to those countries which are on the road of democracy and are building a free-market economy, and not to those countries which are building populist dictatorships. (ro) the strategy for promoting relations with latin america has proved to be invaluable between the time of its launch and now. this strategic partnership has added further consistency to relations between our regions and facilitated the funding of projects and programmes in excess of eur 3 billion during the last 10 years. fortunately, countries in the latin american region have been more successful so far in weathering the economic and financial crisis than certain developed countries. however, the poverty level continues to remain extremely high or is even increasing among the disadvantaged section of the population due to the chronic nature of social polarisation and the political and institutional dysfunction in the region. in bolivia, for example, approximately 60% of the population live below the poverty line. the figures reported for the proportion of the population living below the poverty line in brazil and argentina are 26% and 13.9% respectively. this is why i strongly support the need for development aid to be focused on creating the institutional facilities in these countries, with the aim of levelling out the social disparities. it is important for mr salafranca's report to promote the increase in dialogue in order to identify the methods for achieving the millennium development goals. however, i believe that it is vital for us to ensure that this strategy considers including civil society and non-governmental organisations in this dialogue and in the actions involved in implementing the strategy's objectives. madam president, as a member of eurolat, i commend the spanish presidency and mr salafranca for emphasising the importance of our relations with latin america. climate change and global warming should remain a priority on the political agenda between the eu and the countries of latin america and the caribbean and a commitment to copenhagen targets should be reinforced. furthermore, energy and energy-supply dialogue should be boosted to combat climate change and to aid sustainable energy consumption. but we have much to exchange, not only in trade but in culture and education, and the ultimate aim is that our trade relationship with latin america is boosted by increased innovation on both sides and improved education and i would like to emphasise the need to further enhance and promote erasmus to latin american participants and the fantastic opportunities that it can offer personally, professionally and for future contacts and improved trade relationships between the eu and latin america. (sk) i welcome the strengthening of relations between the eu and latin america, which is one of the priorities of the spanish presidency, since it benefits both sides and can bring advantages for the member states of the eu and the countries of latin america. latin america has enormous human potential, with more than 600 million people, as well as natural resources and a 10% share of global gdp. the eu, as the main provider of development aid, the main investor and the second largest trading partner for latin america, should systematically consolidate its position in the region. fully functional regional cooperation based on common values, such as democracy, the rule of law and the defence of human rights, for example, will require targeted improvement of the current mechanisms of the bi-regional partnership. i will also be promoting such an approach during the forthcoming plenary of the eurolat assembly in seville in may. (es) madam president, i would also like to take the opportunity of this debate to highlight a subject of great concern, a situation that we became aware of just a few days ago that relates to colombia. it has been discovered that the colombian state security services are directly implicated in persecution, creating false witness statements and criminalising members of the opposition. we learned this first hand from senator piedad crdoba. it is part of the dossier that the colombian security services are preparing in her case. we were informed that the colombian government or, in any event, that body, is seeking to artificially create links between her and guerrilla groups, namely the farc. moreover, even more seriously - and this is a direct question to mrs ashton - the operation called 'operation europe' refers to the explicit intention to pursue, clearly attack and discredit the human rights authorities in europe, including the european parliament subcommittee on human rights. i think this is serious, very serious, and demands an explanation by the colombian government. i believe it is highly relevant in the context of this report for us to discover exactly what is correct and to find out whether the colombian authorities are actually planning to do anything about it. (de) mr president, after more than 300 years of colonial rule and after the continent became an arena for the cold war, latin america has now become one of the world's emerging regions. the fact that the russian president mr medvedev has visited central and south america is a clear indication of the fact that he is attempting to strengthen russia's economic relationship with south america. it also shows that the eu is on the right track in improving its relationships with this continent, which has a larger population than the eu-27. however, this is not just about starting negotiations with the mercosur trading bloc. it also involves all the smaller countries which do not belong to this economic region or to the andean community. the eu is not only the main investor or the most important or second most important trading partner; it is also the biggest donor of development aid. from a financial perspective, we already play a major role and, in my opinion, we must make use of this pole position to develop the relationship between europe and latin america. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the european union and latin america developed a strategic partnership some time ago with the aim of achieving an effective partnership between the two regions. i would remind you that bilateral summits have been held regularly since 1999, and this year will be no exception. in fact, another eu-latin america meeting is scheduled for next may in madrid. it is thus with pleasure and a strong spirit of supportiveness that i speak today in the chamber in favour of the report by mr salafranca snchez-neyra. i agree with the compliments and the congratulations that all, or most, of the speakers have expressed; congratulations that are absolutely shared and justified. the report, in fact, aims to consolidate the already strong political, historical, cultural and economic links that exist between the two regions, and i therefore see the foundation initiative as appropriate and completely relevant to the present. as a member of the committee on agriculture and rural development, i am keen to emphasise this specific aspect of the economy, and to quote some figures that show that this is a rapidly expanding area of primary interest, accounting for 600 million consumers, and producing essential raw materials. the prices of raw agricultural materials in latin america have recently benefited from slight atmospheric disturbances, which have led to a constant and plentiful supply in many of the producing countries of the area, and to the general return of many investors. moreover, i would remind you that the european union is the primary investor in latin america and the primary donor of development aid, with an expected investment of eur 3 billion for the period 2007-2013. as my final and closing remark, mr president, i would like to mention the topic of climate change - which was also recently addressed in the relevant committees, with the approval of important reports - to look again at a part of this resolution that has my full support. i therefore call for discussions and cooperation with latin america on the fight against climate change, so that the copenhagen objectives can be achieved more quickly. cooperation with the largest developing countries is essential if europe is to achieve the climate goals it has set itself. mr president, may i just say that i would like to add my compliments on the work that has been done and the comments that have already been made. however, there still remain, as some people perhaps point out, some difficult questions on the issue of colombia and its human rights record. in the absence of one or two of my colleagues, including richard howitt, who cannot be here because of the volcanoes, i must refer to what he has pointed out: that there have been particular problems affecting trade unionists in colombia. i would like to ask the commissioner and others to reflect on this in any strategy and involvement we have across this continent. high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy and vice-president of the commission. - mr president, i would like to begin - as honourable members have done - by again congratulating mr salafranca for the excellent report and also - as he has done and as others have done - to thank the spanish presidency for the work that they, too, have undertaken in not only pulling together the work for the summit but all of the work that they have done to support the initiatives that have been undertaken. the forthcoming summit is an important one. it enables us to reinforce that relationship that honourable members have talked about. we will also be holding a foreign ministers' meeting alongside the summit, which is particularly important to me. i hope we will be able to use that occasion to deepen the relationship with a number of states who will be present at the time. a number of honourable members also talked about the importance of trade and the role of european businesses, with which i am in complete agreement. we are the biggest investor in that region. i was particularly pleased that colleagues talked about the role of innovation, which i think is especially important too. of course, a huge emphasis, as i would expect, was placed on human rights - the importance of making sure that is clearly part of all the dynamic relationships that we have and encompasses our work. honourable members talked about the particular point made in the report about feminicide and, of course, indigenous people. the commission has always defended the rights of indigenous people and will continue to monitor the projects that were being described. on colombia in particular, i am very well aware of the views, not only within this house but, of course, with the european tuc and the international tuc, with which i have had links in my previous role. we are continuing to follow the situation very closely. we have taken note of the significant progress that has been made. within the trade agreement, colleagues will see the importance of the robust human rights clause and the commitments that are made within that agreement, which i hope - as we monitor those - will actually go some way to alleviating the concerns, but certainly will be part of our continuing relationship with colombia. i also agree about the importance of the role that we play with these countries in broader international questions. brazil and iran were specific examples given. i have been in discussion with celso amorim, the foreign minister of brazil, precisely on that question and we continue to stay in touch about its importance. the falklands islands were raised. member states have ratified the un convention on the law of the sea. the falkland islands is an associated territory to the union and the rule of law would apply. climate change is also a very important issue. we should remember that we have a key dialogue with this region. finally, i was also very pleased that erasmus and the importance of educational programmes in that context were mentioned. to end - again, my congratulations go to mr salafranca. mr president, i would like to thank all my fellow members for their speeches. i would like to say to you, mrs ashton, that the fundamental element that will ensure that these relations move forward in the coming years will be the mobilisation of political will. political reasons were behind the ministerial dialogue in san jos in 1985; political reasons were behind the institutionalisation of the dialogue with the rio group in 1990; and political reasons were behind going over and above this in the summits mechanism. i would like to respond to mr kounk by saying that we are indeed a community of values, and i would like to point out that in the last part-session, we adopted an important resolution on cuba in which we called for the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners. i would like to take this opportunity to ask mrs ashton to intercede on behalf of a dissident, marta beatriz roque, who is on conditional release and is ill. she has just obtained spanish nationality in a case promoted by a former mep, fernando fernndez martn, so that she can come to spain to be treated. however, we need to move from words to actions, and this is shown in the association agreements. i think, mrs ashton, that you have negotiated the agreements with colombia and peru very well. i think that although the human rights situation in colombia still gives cause for concern, it has improved substantially. the colombian people are clamouring for peace, and this agreement is definitely deserved. i also sincerely believe that a majority in parliament is in favour of this agreement. mrs ashton, we need to give the central americans some room to breathe in the negotiations. we represent 25% of their exports, and they represent 2% of ours. we need to be generous and, as you said, we need to re-launch the agreement with mercosur. to conclude, mr president, i think that on the one hand, the european union is in decline, in economic terms, and on the other, it is strengthened by the presence of the high representative. therefore, we need her to make a significant effort to demonstrate our political will at the madrid summit and to continue keeping relations with latin america high on the european union's agenda. the debate is closed. the vote will take place during the first part-session in may. written statements (rule 149) the european union is latin america's number one trading partner and the second largest trading partner in the case of mercosur and chile. european union member states also provide the largest source of direct investment in latin america. however, relations between the european union and latin america go further than the commercial aspect as they include historical, institutional and cultural elements as well. in this context, i believe that a trade agreement involving closer cooperation with latin america needs to be drawn up. in fact, the continuing efforts to sign an association agreement with mercosur mark the first step in this direction. the association agreement provides an instrument which would help promote both regions' common economic, social and geopolitical interests. this would also be the first intercontinental association agreement between north and south which would offer an alternative to other less equitable attempts at integration, such as the free trade area of the americas. closer trade cooperation between latin america and the european union would facilitate the implementation of economic and social cohesion policies aimed at promoting economic development and prosperity in both regions. i hope that we will see a number of satisfactory conclusions pointing in this direction, presented at the summit to be held between the european union and mercosur on 17 may.

14. corporate social responsibility in international trade agreements ( mr president, we are proposing a change to the beginning of paragraph 32 in agreement with the shadow rapporteurs. the first words of this paragraph would become - i will read it in english because we drew it up together in english: 'calls to explore, within the same forums, the elaboration of an international convention .'. (fr), and the rest of the paragraph is unchanged.

banana sector (debate) the next item is the report by mr fruteau on behalf of the committee on agriculture and rural development on the proposal for a council regulation amending regulations (eec) no 404/93, (ec) no 1782/2003 and (ec) no 247/2006 as regards the banana sector c6-0339/2006. member of the commission. mr president, first of all i should like to thank members for their efforts to speed up the discussion on this banana proposal, and express special thanks to mr fruteau, who delivered an excellent report within a very tight time frame. i am convinced that we all have an interest in approving the banana proposal before the end of the year, to give the producers a clear framework within which to operate in the future and also, of course, to achieve budget stability; but also to reassure the banana producing regions that they can count on the tangible solidarity of the european union. bananas are very important for the social and economic viability of our outermost regions. they provide revenue to more than 15 000 holdings and jobs to some 24 000 farmers. those regions face very specific handicaps and the treaty itself grants them a specific status, in article 299. they are, in all respects, part of the european union and have every right to enjoy the benefits of european union policy. the banana reform is the practical expression of our commitment to confirm solidarity within the union. i am very happy that the european parliament agrees with the commission on the need to reform the current banana aid scheme and to try to bring it into line with our common agricultural policy. a crucial consideration is the budgetary unpredictability of the current expenditures within the banana sector. i am delighted that the european parliament agrees on the very substance of the proposal, namely, the choice of the posei solution, which represents quite a number of different advantages. first of all, it is consistent with the cap reform; it is a very flexible tool for member states and for the regions in question; it permits member states to give additional financing; and, last but not least, it gives predictability from a financial point of view. another important point on which you agree with the commission's proposal regards the budget, which is based on the average support granted over the period 2000-2002, and a marginal assurance has been added to take into account the variability of the banana market. the recent change in the import arrangements and a possible agreement with banana-producing third countries have also been taken into account. you have requested that the commission should submit a specific report on posei in 2009, if the livelihoods of banana producers, in particular, were to deteriorate following a change in the external regime. as a matter of fact, our proposal already focuses on, or foresees, the submission of a report on the whole posei regime in 2009, and that will include the banana sector. let us not forget that the banana sector represents more than 50% of the agricultural revenue in some producing regions. it goes without saying that this report will be submitted sooner in the event of a deterioration of livelihood in the outermost regions. as concerns crete, cyprus and the algarve, we should keep in mind that banana production involves less than 400 hectares and some 300 holdings overall. that hardly justifies a derogation from the general principle that allows farmers the freedom to choose their crops according to the market and the best advantage they can derive from their production. i am looking forward to the discussion with you tonight. again, thank you for being so quick in your action on this issue. rapporteur. - (fr) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the european union is, today, about to reform the internal strand of the common market organisation (cmo) in the banana sector, in order to adapt the aid scheme for european producers to the new global trade situation and to the principles of the new common agricultural policy. this change, which is the subject of the report brought before the house today after being approved by a very large majority by parliament's committee on agriculture and rural development, undoubtedly goes in the right direction. for banana producers in the outermost regions, who account for more than 98% of the eu's production, it is proposed to transfer a package of almost eur 280 million a year to the posei programmes, which will make for greater flexibility and better use of community funds. in this regard, i should like to thank you, commissioner, for the reassessment of the amounts allotted for this reform, which should make it possible to better assure the sector's viability, particularly in the outermost regions where banana production plays a vital economic and social role for which no other agricultural product could compensate. i must, however, remind you that the amounts proposed were calculated on the basis of the current customs tariff. consequently, the uncertainty concerning world trade negotiations suggests that there may be a further reduction in this tariff level. given that, at eur 176 a tonne, the banana sector is already in an extremely delicate situation that threatens the socio-economic balance of many of the producing regions, a further reduction in the customs tariff would signal the end of banana production in the community if no adjustment is made to the plan proposed by the commission. if the opening up of markets is to make a contribution to revitalising the production structures, it can do so only insofar as the fundamental principles of regulation and equity are combined, that is, the various producers need to respect the common rules that put them on an equal commercial footing. it is, however, quite evident that this equality is totally lacking in global trade given the gulf that exists between the social and environmental standards of european countries and those of the countries of central or latin america. faced with this problem, the resolution of which has to remain one of the european union's priorities, the aid granted to community banana producers is necessary in order to compensate for the failures in the global trade system. to be effective, these internal regulatory measures must be in line with the external regulatory tools. it is in this light that the committee on agriculture and rural development is insisting on strengthening the evaluation measures indicated in the reform proposals, in order that the commission could take positive steps if the external tariff situation were to deteriorate, for example by increasing the amount of the financial packages granted to producers. the survival of banana production in the european union also depends on its capacity to optimise its production costs while respecting the social rules and living standards of the producers. since the cmo was established, producers' organisations have in this way enabled a better concentration of community supply of bananas in the market and contributed to a noticeable reduction in the costs relating to the cultivation of bananas in the european union. it would now be contradictory in economic terms to disrupt this process. that is why we believe it is essential to maintain a regulatory framework in this regard at community level in relation to producers' organisations, in order to further the efforts already made towards strengthening our production structures. as the committee on agriculture and rural development has asked, this willingness should, furthermore, be demonstrated by an obligation to affiliate to a producers' organisation in order to benefit from aid provided within the context of the posei package, except when circumstances do not allow it. finally, and this will be my last comment, there is the question of the administration of aid. the support system for production within the present cmo in bananas does provide for schemes for bi-monthly advances that are essential to the sector's activity in the outermost regions as in the rest of the union's producing countries. the transfer of packages to the posei programmes, however, is not coupled with any plan to continue this system of advances. this jeopardises the survival of producers who would therefore have to resort to private sector borrowing, at a time when the characteristic fluctuations of the commercial climate in this sector does not encourage banks to grant long-term loans. in this context of economic instability it is up to the european public powers to provide adequate safeguards so that these trade policy choices at global level do not run counter to the interests of those producers who are the most fragile in the union. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on budgets. - (es) mr president, the committee on budgets has unanimously approved its opinion for this report on the reform of the council regulation and, furthermore, it entirely agrees with the fundamental aspects of that proposed reform. our only complaints - and the commissioner herself has already explained them - relate to the lack of time available to us to analyse the proposal, since we have had to opt for the urgency procedure. in any event, in the view of the committee on budgets, the only important thing is to accept the general funding mechanism proposed and, at the same time, to ensure that the proposal is entirely in line with the court of auditors' report on the financial management of the common organisation of the markets in the banana sector. our committee simply proposes an amendment of a generic nature, which we are proposing for all programmes not subject to codecision, calling for the general financial framework that we have approved for 2007-2013 to be respected. at the same time, in order to stress parliament's involvement even further and given that the consultation procedure is being chosen, we would like the aid to banana producers to be subject to this parliament's control by means of the annual budgetary procedure. as a whole, however, this proposal is a good one and fundamentally helps all of those outlying european regions that face great difficulties competing with third-country products. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on regional development. - (pt) mr president, the commission's proposal to reform the common organisation of the market (com) in the bananas sector forms part of the process of liberalising the farming sector at eu level and in the context of the world trade organisation. the commission is proposing to decouple aid from production, to implement the single payment system, and to abolish the compensatory aid scheme that contributed to price stability and safeguarded, albeit only partially, producers' income. the 'posei' option involves incorporating existing aid into the posei programmes for banana producers in the outermost regions, namely madeira, the azores, martinique, guadeloupe and the canary islands. the commission's proposal is also aimed at saving money by stabilising budget expenditure on the com. consequently, if the objective is to guarantee an income and a decent standard of living for banana producers, it is hard to see how the commission's proposals will improve upon the current com. far from it, in fact. as draftsman of the opinion of the committee on regional development, i should like to emphasise the socio-economic importance of the banana sector in the outermost regions and its contribution to achieving economic and social cohesion, on account of the income and employment which it generates, the economic activities to which it gives rise, both upstream and downstream, and its effect of maintaining an environmental and landscape balance which encourages the development of tourism. the amendments tabled by this committee, some of which are referred to in this report, are essentially aimed at offsetting some of the negative points in the commission's proposal. they seek to protect producers, to ensure the development of the sector, to guarantee the implementation of a system of advances, and to continue to support producers' organisations in order to promote marketing. furthermore, we are proposing mandatory interim assessments of the new measures in order to ensure the levels of income and employment and to prevent any deterioration in the sector's economic situation. lastly, we are proposing only the partial decoupling of aid. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (es) mr president, on behalf of my group, i would like to congratulate mr fruteau on the excellent work he has done in drawing up this report and for his willingness to reach a consensus. i would also like to thank the commissioner for her proposed reform, which has been accepted in general terms both by the sector and by this parliament. i hope that, from now on, these new rules will put an end once and for all to the arguments within the world trade organisation, and i would therefore ask that, despite the new pressure from certain latin american countries, the tariff of eur 176 per tonne, which entered into force on 1 january following the agreement reached in hong kong, be defended and maintained as a minimum with a view to providing the european banana sector with a little stability. commissioner, the outermost regions, which are the european union's main producers of bananas, are highly dependent on this product and therefore any modification to the arrangements governing the sector, in particular to the external arrangements, must be taken into account. i am therefore amazed by the debate that is taking place within the council of ministers on the period of reference proposed, which has led to a budget of eur 280 million per year. i must insist that that period of reference must be the same as the one applied to the other com reforms, and it would therefore be incomprehensible for there to be an exception to the rule set so far, or a budgetary haggle, when 98% of that sum is quite rightly intended for the outermost regions. since it is important, i would also like to mention another of the requests included in the report: that relating to the continuity of the system for producers' organisations, with a view to maintaining the concentration of the community produce, which has been one of the main successes of the com in bananas. its disappearance, commissioner, would only exacerbate the disadvantages faced by community producers in the face of third-country imports. on behalf of the pse group. - (es) mr president, the commission has made a great effort to adapt the internal system for bananas to changing circumstances. i believe that we must congratulate the commission on that effort, which will essentially make it possible for community banana producers to survive in very difficult circumstances. as mr fruteau, the rapporteur for this report, pointed out, there is still concern about a possible future change to the common organisation of the markets in bananas externally. the commissioner has mentioned certain guarantees with regard to the commission's monitoring of this issue, but as a member of this parliament i feel obliged to point out our concern, which is enshrined in certain amendments that have been presented in the fruteau report and that i hope will be approved by parliament tomorrow. in short, mr president, i believe that parliament will be able to approve this report tomorrow and probably some of the fundamental amendments, but the most important thing - i repeat - is that we can count on the commission to carry on protecting the banana sector in the future. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - (pl) mr president, reform of the banana market affects a couple of the so-called outermost regions of the european union. its implementation is more or less a foregone conclusion, which is not at all the case for reform of the fruit and vegetable market. the latter involves several dozen types of fruit and vegetables and is of far greater importance for the whole union, but is forever being delayed. the future of some 300 000 jobs is at stake in the banana producing regions, whereas in poland alone some two million jobs depend on fruit and vegetable production. the cost of dealing with the main problems affecting the fruit and vegetable market is barely eur 80 million a year. at the same time, the union's budget would not suffer, as up to eur 300 million is not taken up in that market every year. the annual cost of reform of the banana market amounts to eur 280 million. this is a far higher sum, but will deal with fewer problems. i would remind the house that, on 1 may 2004, poland and nine other countries became members of the european union and are entitled to be treated on an equal footing with other member states. the fact that they are not located on picturesque islands is no excuse for failing to do so. in view of the situation i have described, references to a common agricultural policy can only be cause for embarrassment and shame, but it is not i who should be ashamed. (pt) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i fully endorse the report by mr fruteau, whom i congratulate on his outstanding work, amending the commission's proposal. i support the objectives outlined in the report, which are as follows: to maintain community banana production, in view of its vital contribution to employment, to economic and social development and to safeguarding the environment in banana-producing regions, especially in the outermost regions. the second objective is to safeguard the incomes of banana producers and to prevent the economic situation of the banana sector from deteriorating. the third objective is to give banana-producing member states control over the granting of aid, so that this can be done in the most effective way, taking account of the specific priorities of these regions. the report also provides for a specific report to be submitted by 2009 in the event of changes to the incomes of producers, for example if the tariff changes. i do not find it acceptable, commissioner, to make aid contingent on producers joining a producers' organisation. i feel it would be more appropriate to leave the decision on such a requirement to the member states. i therefore propose that this be taken into account and that the council adopt it accordingly. (pt) mr president, commissioner, this proposal to reform the system of production aid for banana producers is a perfect example of article 299(2), which provides for specific treatment for the outermost regions on account of their particular characteristics, being implemented in the farming sector. in the outermost regions, banana production has undoubted economic, social and in particular environmental importance. it is vital therefore that it be maintained, and that is precisely the purpose of this reform. i wish to congratulate the commission, which has outlined the right path forward: the management of aid via the posei programmes, greater flexibility for the member states in distributing these resources and an end to the isolation of producers from the market, regarding which the producers' warnings must immediately be heeded. lastly, the commission must pay very close attention to the development of the sector. it may become necessary to change marketing conditions that adversely affect producers' incomes, and the commission must respond appropriately to such a situation by taking the necessary measures. (pl) mr president, the european commission's proposed reform of the common organisation of the market in bananas is consistent with the philosophy of the 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy. it is also consistent with the commitments undertaken by the union during negotiations at wto level. nonetheless, it is worth assessing the impact of the reforms on the level of banana production in the outermost regions of the union. there is a certain similarity between the reform of the market in bananas and the forthcoming reform of the market in soft fruits. the regional market of the banana sector is just as important as the market for soft fruit. the degree of threat to the stability of rural areas and to the livelihoods of the growers and their families is also similar. both products are very labour intensive. in addition, it should be noted that the market in soft fruit is under greater threat from unauthorised action by third countries than the market in bananas. in the case of soft fruit only temporary antidumping measures exist, while in the case of the banana market an effective single tariff system is in place. some of the support mechanisms proposed for the market in bananas would resolve the difficulties of the market in soft fruit. the european commission should therefore consider applying them to it, particularly the system of area payments for growers of soft fruit intended for processing. let us hope that the measures proposed will have a positive impact on the situation of banana producers. however, we are still waiting for an account of the true costs of this reform. member of the commission. mr president, i should like to make a few comments about the questions raised here tonight. as i have already explained in my introductory speech, a report on the implementation of the posei programmes will be presented not later than 2009 and will permit the assessment of the situation in the banana-producing regions. if there are substantial changes in the economic conditions affecting livelihoods in the outermost regions the commission may submit this report earlier. a question was raised about the situation of the producer organisations. it is important for me to underline clearly that producer organisations have not been abolished. simply, there is no longer a need for a common definition of producer organisations at community level. the vast majority of community producers are already members of producer organisations. it is therefore more appropriate to let member states decide whether they wish to adopt rules on producer organisations, which will enable them to target regional needs much more specifically and provide support under the posei programme. this is possible. regional authorities will be left to make their own choices. this flexibility built into the system would be the best way to secure sustainable and coherent policy decisions in the outermost regions. there were some questions about advance payments. it is important that we do not forget that the new system offers a number of tangible benefits to the banana-producing farmers. firstly, as soon as the posei programmes are approved they will have budget clarity for the full period of 2007-2013. this will improve their position if they need to go to the bank about loans. they could also obtain 100% clarity concerning the aid already paid on 1 december. under the present system, they have clarity concerning only between 20% and 40% of the payments. it is my clear impression that the member states appreciate these changes. in general, i can say with some confidence that our proposal on the budget will be very good for the banana-producing countries. if we had chosen other reference periods the result would have been worse than choosing the period 2000-2002. therefore, i am happy that the european parliament has decided not to reopen this discussion. there were a few comments on the fruit and vegetable sector. i am very happy to be able to say today that on 24 january i will be coming to the committee on agriculture to give an explanation on the new fruit and vegetable reforms. this will clarify some of the questions that have been raised here tonight. on the various proposals, the commission supports the incorporation of amendment 4, regarding the contribution of bananas to the social and economic cohesion, and amendment 9, which mentions the importance of various quality standards and the link to tourism, although we might need to revise the wording slightly. concerning the amendments asking to link the posei report to the banana sector and allow for a partial decoupling in non-outermost regions, the commission's view is that this would clearly go against the whole idea behind the reform and also the linkage to the 2003 cap reform. i wish to thank you once again for all your efforts to speed up the discussion of the banana reform. i am delighted that parliament seems to agree with the basis of this whole reform and i am looking forward to the vote in plenary tomorrow. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on wednesday at 12 noon. written statement (rule 142) (fr) the banana plays a key role in the economies of four of the seven outermost regions, due to the importance of european markets and the exceptionally labour-intensive work that it requires. our parliament must ensure that the proposed support is set at a sufficient level and that it takes account of possible price changes during negotiations at the world trade organisation. in order to deal with a possible slump in producers' income, provision should be made for an automatic revision clause, and the current system of financial advances, which is essential to the industry's activity, should be re-established. banana producers in the outermost regions are waiting for a clear signal regarding the survival of the sector, in order to restore confidence within the industry. fragmented and ineffective for many years, the west indian banana sector is today a model of organisation, and restructuring efforts in this area must be emphasised. i would like to point out that the banana sector in the outermost regions meets the non-commercial criteria in force within the union, unlike its competitors in latin american countries. without the banana, which brings 15 000 jobs, representing the real economic backbone of these regions at human, social and environmental levels, the entire agriculture of guadeloupe and martinique would be threatened with extinction, for lack of alternative crops.

improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - precarious women workers (debate) the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: by mrs estrela, on behalf of the committee on women's rights and gender equality, on the proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council amending council directive 92/85/eec on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - c6-0340/2008 -, and by mrs thomsen, on behalf of the committee on women's rights and gender equality, on precarious women workers. i would firstly like to thank the shadow rapporteur and the rapporteur for the opinion of the committee on employment and social affairs for the collaboration and the work which we have accomplished together. a word of thanks is also due to many non-governmental organisations and unions, to the experts who participated in the presentation workshop for the financial impact study, to the secretariats of the committee on women's rights and gender equality and of my political group, to the policy department of the european parliament, and to my assistants. all of them were tireless, and showed great professionalism and ability. this directive is already eighteen years old, and it is outdated. the process of revising it has been long and problematic. it is now time for parliament to decide, without further delay, to meet the expectations and needs of european families. the proposals adopted by the committee on women's rights and gender equality ensure the twin objectives arising from extending the legal basis: defending health and safety in the workplace for workers who are pregnant, who have recently given birth, or who are breastfeeding, and promoting gender equality and the reconciliation of professional and family life. at the same time, this will help to stem the demographic decline of recent decades. one hundred years ago, the european population made up 15% of the world population. in 2050 it is not expected to make up more than 5%. ageing and the consequent reduction of the active population undermine the sustainability of social security systems and economic growth itself. for this reason, motherhood cannot be viewed as an illness or a burden on the economy, but rather as a service to society. the duration of maternity leave in the 27 member states varies between 14 and 52 weeks, and payment for leave is also very varied, with 100% of earnings being paid in 13 countries. i realise that the current economic climate is not favourable to increasing social spending, but this is a good investment in our collective future, and it does not have the high costs that many are claiming it does. the financial impact study concludes that the costs of the committee on women's rights and gender equality's proposal will be completely covered if it contributes to an increase of only 1% in the participation of women in the labour market. these are balanced and workable proposals, in line with the recommendations of the international labour organisation and the world health organisation. twenty weeks is a sufficient amount of time to help women to recover from childbirth, encourage breastfeeding and enable firm bonds to be formed between mother and child. a longer period of time could affect the reintegration of women into the labour market. a payment of 100% of earnings is fair because families should not be financially penalised for having the children that they want and, moreover, the children that europe needs to tackle the demographic challenge. the right to paternity leave is already recognised in 19 member states, with payment of 80% or 100% of average earnings. the involvement of fathers in their children's lives contributes to their healthy physical and psychological development. it is a right for fathers and children. throughout the whole process, i have expressed my complete openness to a broader consensus, and i hope that those who care about the well-being of women, families and children will support this report. in view of the europe 2020 strategy objectives, there will be no justification for maternity leave not being a period of 20 weeks, paid in full, from 2020. i therefore urge you to support amendments 126, 127 and 128. for the same reason, i cannot support amendments which scandalously aim to reduce the rights of families. mr president, we are having this debate today on women's working conditions because women and men experience different conditions on the labour market. women are trailing a long way behind men when it comes to wages, pensions, top jobs and executive positions. more than ever, therefore, we need the eu to take initiatives that improve the position of women on the labour market so that we can bring europe into line with the treaty. we must ensure that women - whether they are from portugal or poland, belgium or bulgaria - are guaranteed equality on the labour market. a major and important step towards complete equality is a new and modern piece of eu legislation on maternity leave. there are many good reasons for us to have new legislation on maternity leave in europe. first and foremost, there is a risk that, before long, the eu will face a demographic crisis - a crisis that could be at least as serious as the economic crisis in which we still find ourselves. women in the eu are quite simply not having enough children. if we are to retain our competitiveness in the future and create growth, which is necessary in order to maintain our level of prosperity, more children need to be born in the eu. we therefore need a maternity leave law that motivates families to have children. a common high standard for maternity leave is essential in order to create an effective internal market. an internal market should not only be about cheap goods - it is just as important to ensure high social standards for workers. we must not have disparate competitive conditions, where it could be advantageous to lower the conditions for women, who will then become victims of social dumping. fathers must also have the right to two weeks' paternity leave on full pay. if we are to create equality between men and women, we need to understand that men also play an important role in connection with paternity leave. this will have a beneficial effect on equality, the children and, not least, the fathers themselves. we hear from the lobbyists for professional associations that this is a crazy thing to do and that we cannot afford better maternity leave legislation. i would venture to claim that quite the opposite is true. we cannot afford not to ensure that we have new, modern maternity leave legislation. it is a question of the health and safety of the eu's women and children. thus, this is not something that we should gamble with. we must increase the participation of women on the labour market throughout the eu. the objective of the eu 2020 strategy is to get 75% of all women on to the labour market. as we know that currently, only 60% of women work, this will be a major challenge. we must succeed, however, and there is no doubt that good facilities for childcare are the way forward. a second and equally important initiative, however, is full pay during maternity leave. only by preventing discrimination against women can we get more women on to the labour market. another important step towards more equality on the labour market is the report on precarious women workers, for which i was rapporteur. unfortunately, the situation is such that women are significantly over-represented when it comes to these jobs. women employed in private homes, in particular, have very precarious working conditions, characterised, among other things, by little or no job security, no social security, a high risk of discrimination and a poor working environment. we must not allow women to work under such poor conditions. the eu should therefore support the member states to enable the precarious jobs to be replaced by proper jobs with decent working conditions. for a long time, we have neglected to focus on these vulnerable women, and it is my hope that the commission will take this report seriously and help to take care of some of the eu's most vulnerable citizens. vice-president of the commission. - mr president, i am very glad that i can replace vice-president reding tonight in this very important debate because we are going to discuss two very topical reports which are at the heart of fundamental rights and gender equality. on behalf of the commission, i would like to warmly thank the two rapporteurs, ms thomsen and ms estrela, who both have done tremendous work. these two reports concern the often challenging situation of women in the eu labour market. the contribution of women is crucial to meeting our ambitious targets of an overall employment rate of 75% by 2020, but this cannot be done without ensuring the fundamental rights of women workers. this is what we are going to discuss tonight. let me start with precarious women workers. we have made a lot of progress in integrating women into the labour market during the last few years. as we know, women are more likely to be in precarious jobs than men. certain forms of precarious work performed by women, such as paid domestic work and care, are simply not visible on the labour market. if women do not have decent jobs, they cannot enjoy economic independence - which is a prerequisite for having control over their lives. we need to tackle the reasons why women are more likely to have precarious jobs: the stereotypes, the unequal sharing of family and household tasks, and the undervaluation of female-dominated jobs. we also need to ensure that the growing female migrant workforce, which is often exploited in the grey economy, is integrated into the labour market. our new equality strategy covers all these issues and we need to mobilise all the instruments available to make progress in implementing it. if you allow me, i shall add some remarks on the pregnant workers directive. it is quite clear that stronger maternity leave standards at eu level are crucial to ensuring the health and safety of the mother and child, as are increasing participation of women in the labour market, changing family models and dealing with demographic pressure. the main points of the commission proposals include extension of maternity leave by four weeks to reach the international labour organisation recommendations; encouragement to grant a higher allowance; more flexibility for women to work until shortly before giving birth; and the right to ask for flexible working hours. with this, the commission aims to protect women's employment rights, give women sufficient time to recover from birth and bond with her child, and allow women to be financially secure during the maternity leave. i would therefore like to compliment ms estrela on her work on this comprehensive report which, in many ways, improves the commission's original proposal. firstly, the commission fully agrees with the emphasis on the role of fathers. the reinforcement of parental leave through the new directive adopted earlier this year is an important step forward. however, introducing paternity leave under the maternity directive is neither in line with the overall objective we are pursuing, nor with the legal basis on which the proposal is made. the proposal is based on article 153 on health and safety at work for pregnant women, and on article 157 which allows the eu to intervene in the field of equal pay for men and women. having said that, i would like to underline that the commission will consider this issue further. it is currently undertaking an in-depth cost/benefit study on the subject in view of a possible separate initiative in this area. similarly, the commission cannot accept weakening a woman's right to refuse night work. as regards the lengths of the leave and the payment to be received by women during this period, i would like to say the following. vice-president reding has met many ministers over the last few months and they have explained that the national leave systems work well and that it is not possible, given the current financial constraints, to increase the length or payment, but the commission made it very clear that it is not prepared to reduce the level of ambition of this proposal. this being so, i would like to stress that the commission aims to set the minimum level of protection which takes into account the different models of reconciliation and family-related leave in the member states. the commission believes that its proposal would constitute a good basis for an agreement between parliament and the council. the commission would also like to thank parliament for introducing a number of amendments which either strengthen or clarify the proposals. to sum up, the proposal should aim to strengthen the protection of the health and safety of women, increase their employment prospects and help tackle demographic ageing. i very much look forward to your contributions and suggestions for both these very important items. commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur for the opinion of the committee on employment and social affairs, i wish to tell you that our intention has been to contribute, through the improvements set out in this report, to those policies which will help achieve the objective of increasing the employment rate and improving health and safety conditions at work. however, when we talk about the eu 2020 strategy objectives, we must think about people and put people first, which means women in this context. the new approach which we are adopting is that motherhood must stop being penalised, especially with the birth rate falling, not to mention the population getting older and poorer, thereby creating an urgent problem in terms of the sustainability of social security schemes. all the measures we are proposing will protect women at work, both when pregnant and after giving birth. the measures proposed by the report are also an investment in europe's future. we want guaranteed, fully paid maternity leave. let us think about the need to stop penalising motherhood in the european union in the 21st century and to ensure that women enjoy all the conditions worthy of a decent job. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, we have undoubtedly made progress in recent years on the issue of equality between men and women, yet there are still many women who are forced into low-skilled jobs. that applies not just to activities that are traditionally carried out within the family. the deregulation that has taken place in recent years has frequently resulted in employment that provides mandatory social insurance being replaced by employment conditions that are atypical, precarious and uncertain. women, in particular, have been affected by this. the trend in employment in europe between 2000 and 2010 is for 60% to be made up of new, precarious and atypical types of employment, primarily - two thirds - taken up by women. women are frequently debarred from democratic participation in organisations by virtue of being employed on a part-time basis and on precarious conditions. yet women are now much more committed and better trained than in any previous generation. nonetheless, on average, they earn 25% less than men. the committee on employment and social affairs has looked into this matter intensively and has developed good proposals on the issue of female employment: inclusion in social security systems regardless of job status; the establishment of childcare facilities; aligning retirement pensions and social systems with independent living; and organising work according to 'good work' principles. all this is essentially contained in the report on precarious women workers. the employment committee is satisfied with the results of this work and urges the house to vote in favour of the report presented. this report is already the second attempt to formulate the position of the parliament regarding minimum standards of protection for mothers in the european union. the opinions of nearly all of the 27 delegations in the seven groups differ. this equally applies to my own christian democrat group. until today, many meps have recognised the consequences of our voting for their national economies since the aforementioned study took into consideration only 10 of the member states. i have been in politics for 20 years and only rarely have i experienced a situation this complex. human life begins in the body of the mother and that is why we must protect her health before as well as after the birth. protection of the mother as a social expense factor must not become an obstacle for her employment. the mother must not be in conflict with the woman worker. if we suggest to young, educated women that they ought to have children, and simultaneously refuse to recognise their motherhood and fail to give them the opportunity to care for their children, we shall never succeed in reversing demographic development. protection of the mother should be considered in relation to care for the father, the natural framework of the family, and the necessity of motherly love for the newborn. babies are more than future tax payers. i personally agree with the maximum requirements proposed by the report. at the same time, i advocate provisions supporting the reintegration of mothers should they decide to return to the labour market. however, it is unfortunate to speak of protection of mothers in conjunction with equal opportunities. i would personally prefer that the commission put forward a proposal that would take into consideration a comprehensive view of pregnancy, birth and the subsequent healthcare. this directive may be in force for two decades; today, we are merely at the beginnings of a long and difficult decision-making process. i am asking whether we intend to assess future social and economic development solely according to our current financial situation. all of this is at stake today. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, although the commissioner has spoken on behalf of mrs reding and the commission to express the commission's reservations about integrating paternity leave into the text, i should like to take the floor today, above all, on behalf of all the fathers in europe who do not yet have the right to paternity leave. nature did not grant us the right to give birth, but can society deprive us of the right to share the first moments of our children's lives? let us not forget that fathers are parents too. society must allow us to make the most of our sons and daughters so that we can forge a special bond with them from birth. that is why i call on all my fellow members to vote overwhelmingly in favour of the introduction of two weeks' fully paid paternity leave throughout the european union. while i am on this subject, i also call on the european commission and the council to support us, and i repeat: how can you go against our request for the establishment of a new right for fathers at european level? i also call on all my fellow members to support the estrela report in its entirety. as for those who cite the economic crisis as an argument for denying women a more acceptable length of maternity leave and, even more so, adequate pay, and men paternity leave, i ask them straight: why do you always go back on the social acquis when there is an economic crisis? do you not realise that all the economic costs will be offset by greater female participation in the labour market, less discrimination, gender equality, a better work-life balance and, therefore, in the long term, real economic benefits? lastly, to those who wish to sacrifice fathers and mothers on the altar of the economic crisis, i repeat: we cannot cut corners where fundamental rights are concerned. this fight is also for a more humane society, and in these times of crisis, the family is increasingly our last bastion against the upheavals of life. commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for years, the european parliament has consistently called for the protection of pregnant employees and the updating of existing legislation relating to maternity leave. the directive dealing with this issue has been in existence for 18 years. europe's demographic future is not encouraging, and, having discussed this situation, we adopted a resolution in this chamber in 2008 which called for the adoption of measures relating to the length and protection of maternity leave, having ensured that, with an appropriate policy, it is possible to influence the fertility curve, creating a financially and psychologically beneficial environment for the family. the european union treaty currently in effect gives us in this parliament a legal basis to adopt the directive under discussion. we have talked a lot about equal opportunities for men and women, equal rights in the labour market, and it is clear that longer maternity leave, and paternity leave too, will create a better basis for that. it is a fact that pregnancy and childbirth are a burden for a woman's body. the directive aims to protect women's health. it is therefore important to have a period of leave which would allow for the restoration of health, but which would also allow the mother to breastfeed her children for their health and development. i would like to say a few words about paternity leave. who else but the child's father should be supporting the child at this time? i support the introduction of paternity leave, compensating such leave by analogy with maternity leave. our citizens often complain to us that european union legislation is complicated - do you not understand this? let us not make the situation more complicated, but let us add leave covering the same period of time as maternity leave to the directive regulating it. as for the cost: we are in an economic crisis, or rather, we are exiting it, but this is not a justification for fervently not wanting to pay for maternity leave the amount that would be appropriate in the 21st century. the analysis has shown that we only need to raise women's employment by 1% and the costs would be balanced. madam president, this is not a good time for motherhood, but even less so for fatherhood. this is because some political forces and some business groups are still stuck in an old-fashioned perception that having children is exclusively women's work. well, ladies and gentlemen, that is not the case. not in any way. it is a social responsibility that should be borne collectively by the whole of society. that is what we are talking about today. that is what we are discussing: who has to bear the responsibility and the cost of having children, who must also be our future? obviously, only women can get pregnant and give birth. no one is disputing that. what we are discussing here is women being the only ones who have to bear that cost in their professional lives and shoulder that responsibility in their personal lives. at the end of the last parliamentary term, we had the opportunity to make a giant leap forward on this issue at european level, and we were unable to do so because a large proportion of this house - the most conservative section of this house: groups from the group of the european peoples party (christian democrats) and the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe, some delegations, not all, but some delegations - prevented it. this prevented mothers today from having more rights. we should not forget that. what we have on the table today is a fresh opportunity to correct part of that problem. the estrela report, which has already been adopted by the committee on women's rights and gender equality, is a good point for compromise and consensus, which i believe we should support on wednesday when we vote. it gives more rights to working pregnant women in europe, it ensures that their salaries are maintained, and it also obliges fathers to take their share of the responsibility, as well as ensuring that pregnant women will not lose rights if they move between european union countries. all of this is important, and we should not, under any circumstances, lose sight of it. if, during the votes on wednesday, we lose some of these fundamental points, i think it is important that we are clear and that european parents are clear that it has not happened by chance, and that the argument of the economic crisis cannot be used in such an important context. there is obviously a crisis, and we need to take responsibility for it. mothers, however, do not have to take any responsibility for it. this is understandable if we realise that we are not talking about a cost, but an investment. it is an investment in the future and in much healthier societies. this is the debate that we will have during the vote on wednesday. i am in favour of supporting the report by mrs estrela, and i am in favour of the majority of this house doing exactly the same, because if not, we will be risking not only the health of working mothers, but also the welfare state that we have worked for so long to achieve in europe. on behalf of the ecr group. - madam president, a well-known businessman once said equality legislation, taken too far, actually reduces the chances of women gaining employment. businesses are not allowed to ask a woman if she is going to have a baby, so it is easy - they just do not employ her. and that, unfortunately, is the grim reality of compulsory full pay maternity leave in this report. couple this with the economic effect on smes - in the uk, 2.6 billion; germany, eur 1.7 billion - and this report is positively dangerous in today's economic climate. however, if the maternity clause were removed, what a difference that would make. the report would focus on its original mandate, that of the health and safety of pregnant workers and those who have recently given birth. i ask my colleagues in the committee on women's rights and gender equality to get back to basics and do what is right for women. women need to have choices. they need to have the tools to make these choices. employers need to be able to support women without it meaning they are no longer economically viable. member states need to strengthen their economies too, thereby creating opportunities. the ecr has put forward an amendment which deals with many of the issues created by the full pay compulsory leave clause and i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and make this report workable. the eu is not here to create social engineering with its policies. the idea that paid maternity leave will encourage women to have children is naive. children are for life. the cost is for life. so please do not tell me that we will increase the population by giving 20 weeks fully paid maternity leave. there are a lot of weaknesses in this report. the impact assessment the ecr requested has proved this. the question now is whether we strengthen it at this stage or send it back to the drawing board. the debate on the maternity leave directive and the own-initiative report on precarious women workers touches on the most important reason for all work to promote equality. the opportunity and prerequisites for women to be able to support themselves form the platform for equality in all political areas. this coming wednesday, we will have the opportunity to open the way for women to participate fully on the labour market. i regret the fact that, in 2010, we are still talking about maternity leave rather than parental leave. for me, it is self-evident that children have the right to both of their parents and i believe that we should also take a look at the convention on the rights of the child in this case. we are discussing the rights of mothers and of fathers, but we also need to discuss the right - the unconditional right - of a child to build a close relationship with both parents. we have talked very loudly about the costs of this leave and in quite a different tone to the one we used to discuss millions of euro in support for banks and the motor industry, among other things. sometimes i ask myself whether it is easier to accept costs in traditional masculine areas than it is in connection with equality issues and the right of a child to have both parents. i also think that the costs have been discussed without taking account of the benefits both to the individual and in socio-economic terms that this proposal entails. many have talked about the demographic future, that too few children are being born. however, we now have the opportunity to try to ensure that it is possible to have more children. the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left and i support mrs estrela's and mrs thomsen's proposals, which we voted on in the committee on women's rights and gender equality, where we improved the possibilities. however, i see a number of problems for certain member states that currently have considerably better parental leave. i would like this to be legislation that confers rights, rather than imposing an obligation on one parent. i would also like the convention on the rights of the child and a child's right to both parents to be much more evident. there are also problems with the levels of remuneration in certain member states. someone mentioned here in this debate that today employers ask women of child-bearing age whether they intend to have children. i therefore hope that in the future, in the very near future, we will ask the same question of fathers, as children - one again - are the concern of both parents. that is something that we need to take seriously. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the road towards a female-friendly europe is still long and arduous. the statistics are quite clear: the global crisis has struck the labour market, putting female employment, which shrunk by a further 0.7 percentage points in 2008, to a difficult test. notwithstanding the provocations which, with regard to equal opportunities and employment, periodically fuel euro-propaganda, for which support is waning, to date, concrete measures have still not been adopted to guarantee women real fulfilment as both workers and mothers. the europe of the future needs to radically rethink its own welfare model and not simply change its label from time to time. the directive which aligns the institution of maternity leave in europe is therefore positive, but the decision to address on the sidelines, in the same report, the complementary and equally important issue of paternity leave, is unproductive. the greater integration of women is not only a moral value, but also a strategic objective for the sustainability of the much publicised european social model, which continues to leave me unconvinced, given the lack of results. (hu) the proposal on maternity leave is inherently a health and safety provision, and the primary reason why the 1992 directive needs to be amended in terms of improving mothers' living conditions is that the international labour organisation adopted an international convention in 2000, setting the minimum length of maternity leave at 18 weeks. in the meantime, however, we can witness such a diversified development - in terms of the length of maternity leave, financing and the level of allowances - of various healthcare systems due to the combination of maternal and parental leave that it is now practically impossible to find a common denominator. despite the good intentions we all have, whether we sit on the right or left side in this house, we are unable to make a decision which is received positively and welcomed by each member state. the good solution would have been to stay on the grounds of health and safety in this proposal, and strengthen equal opportunities in a different provision. when i tabled the report on gender pay gap in this house, i pointed out the disadvantageous situation of mothers returning to the labour market after the birth of their first child. therefore, equal opportunities are also problematic, and we must resolve this issue. however, as long as fathers and mothers are unable to perform the same task in terms of giving birth, that is, fathers cannot give birth to a child, we probably have to resolve equal opportunities in other areas. the issue of equal opportunities must be resolved, and we have to make progress in this respect, as well, but not in this directive. we have missed the opportunity to modernise the combination of parental and maternity leave. (it) madam president, commissioner, i believe that parliament has a great opportunity today to reiterate that motherhood is a social value, that the protection of a mother's health and that of her child must be strengthened, that a female worker must not be discriminated against for being a mother in finding and keeping a job, and that childcare should be better shared with fathers. notwithstanding the current crisis - as has already been highlighted - we must make the same observation which has already been made by the most advanced economists: the impact assessment which has been carried out shows the need for a more far-sighted and holistic approach. today's costs, which can potentially be staggered, are a social and economic investment in the greater well-being of children, fewer diseases and the greater participation of women in the labour market. many claim that there will not be an increased and appropriately trained and qualified female workforce without a new welfare system and new opportunities to achieve a work-life balance: i fully agree with and thank the rapporteurs, mrs estrela and mrs plumb, for the complex work they have carried out, as i do all members who have strived to find common ground. i also agree with the facility which, i believe, many of us wanted, and which will provide mothers of disabled children, and in the case of adoptions and multiple births, with greater opportunities to have flexible working hours, the reversal of the burden of proof against breaches of the law and greater protection from dismissal. furthermore, i proposed, together with other members, that with respect to the compulsory six weeks' leave following childbirth, a safeguard clause be provided for those countries where legislation provides this compulsory period prior to childbirth too. in conclusion, i hope that now, over these two days, we will be willing to find common ground so that we do not miss the important opportunity to adopt this directive in this parliamentary term as well. madam president, when speaking about sharing family responsibilities equally between men and women - and ultimately moving towards the goal of a more equal society in the context of promoting the best interests of the child in reconciliation policies - we have to remember that we are representing the people here in this house rather than the council view. recently, i have noticed that there have been too many people from permanent representations going round and lobbying meps, which i do not feel is acceptable under our rules and the principle of independently elected meps. it is argued that increasing maternity leave imposes higher costs on the private and public sector at a time of economic crisis, but this is only 0.01% of gdp and we are talking about eur 2 billion. at the same time, i have compared the military budget of the countries mentioned. that budget has actually increased by eur 3 billion in one year and this has not been questioned either in this house or in their parliaments. however, in a time of growing economic uncertainty and while we are facing demographic changes, it is vital to support flexible leave policies, which may help to reverse current demographic trends. we should make our joint commitment to ensuring that women across europe become part of the labour market and that their life choice is taken seriously through higher female labour market participation, with greater value being accorded to childhood and the importance of balancing family and working life. in conclusion, i would strongly highlight that the european welfare system and measures as stipulated in this directive are of value and not a burden to the european market. madam president, it is very clear from the amendments submitted by some colleagues in alde, ppe and ecr - though luckily not all of them - that they have sold their souls to short-sighted corporate interests and to lobbyists from member states who do not care about women's rights. if those amendments are adopted, life for new mothers and fathers in the eu will not improve. if leave is not properly paid, only those women whose jobs do not matter can take it up. you, my dear colleagues on the right, are perpetuating a traditional system with a male breadwinner and his little wife, with her little job on the side, kept neatly under his thumb. for her, it does not really matter how much the compensation is. but any independent woman who actually financially provides for her family had better get back to work after the six compulsory weeks - if the rest is poorly paid - whether or not she is still bleeding; and she can forget about offering her child a good start by breastfeeding. i hope with all my heart that those who really want to make life better for new mothers and fathers will win this vote. this directive could be a cornerstone of a modern labour market policy for the ageing society. the future needs politicians brave enough to have their own opinions, who can look a bit further ahead, and who have a vision for a society with many more working mothers and many more caring fathers. the future can certainly do without those who buckle at the knees as soon as business ceos with only the next financial report on their minds, and national ministers with only the next elections on their minds, start lobbying. (pl) the significance of this directive goes beyond the problem of equality for women and help for women during maternity. we must look at this in a wider context, not just in a social but also in an economic context, over a longer period of time. there is a certain paradox in that by trying, understandably and logically, to protect current financial management practices, we could lose a great deal both economically and financially in future generations. many experts believe that one of the main problems in europe, which could possibly be the most important problem of all, is the demographic collapse. progress in medicine, an improvement in living conditions and a drop in natural population growth mean a very old and very costly europe in the future. even today, the cost of caring for the elderly is estimated at almost 2% of europe's gdp. the reasons for the drop in population growth are very complex and transcend social issues and material security. however, there is no doubt that the new proposals contained in the directive will create a significant impetus which will help many women in europe to decide to have children. madam president, the level of support for pregnant women workers is very varied in european countries. the significance of this directive will be felt particularly in those countries where the scope of protection is very weak, and where support for families is very low or even non-existent, including when it comes to looking after older children. this is why i would like to thank everyone who worked on this directive, especially for their sympathy for women in other countries who will be able to face the future with greater hope. as far as the children are concerned, of course they want a happy mother who is not afraid that she will lose her job and who is not afraid that she will not be able to feed them or bring them up. once again, thank you, and i am counting on a compromise in wednesday's vote. thank you very much. (fr) madam president, these reports are along the right lines and deserve much more publicity. eighty-five per cent of involuntary part-time work and 80% of low paid jobs are carried out by women. women's pay is 27% lower than men's. fifty per cent of women have a pension of less than eur 600. the majority of the cases of false declarations or undeclared work that are uncovered concern women. even now, in the 21st century, we are still discovering cases of slavery in europe, and every one involves a woman. yes, everything that can be done must be done to successfully eradicate scandalous practices towards women in the workplace and in society. however, it will take more than goodwill. the expected gains are so large and the penalties incurred considered so small that there are - to put it bluntly - 'bastards' who have no hesitation in continuing to exploit human beings as if they were mere cattle. we must, as a matter of the utmost urgency, make the member states face up to their responsibilities and demand the strictest possible penalties for those who consider themselves above the law. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to draw your attention to a sector in which conditions for the female workforce continue to be precarious. i refer to the agricultural sector, a sector in which women focus on innovation and, at the same time, on revitalising traditions and preserving agricultural heritage, keeping rural territory alive. yet female workers encounter a range of obstacles in their working activities, having to reconcile their working life with family life. mrs thomsen, in her report, provides a figure which gives us food for thought: in the agricultural sector, 86% of female workers are employed part-time. furthermore, the entry of young women into this sector is fraught with difficulty and for this reason, women managing the farms are often over 65. on the other hand, some other women assume the position of supporting partner, or rather, they help with their husband's farm, without being entitled to a legal status and without being appropriately remunerated. i would argue, therefore, that it is necessary to protect women and their employment in a sector in which their work is often temporary and seasonal, support them in the area of health and safety, and ensure they receive fair pay and appropriate recognition for their work. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, when we speak of reconciliation, we mean those initiatives which, taking into consideration the needs of the family and the needs of workers, allow a balance to be struck between professional and family life. we are talking, therefore, about support mechanisms, without which a woman who works for pleasure, career ambition or, above all, out of necessity, faces a dilemma and the most drastic, and almost always final decision, is to leave her job. once she has left the labour market, returning to it is yet more difficult. such a situation brings a strong sense of frustration, on the one hand, and great economic sacrifices, on the other. the text which is being debated today proposes numerous support mechanisms for female workers, providing the basis for legal certainty which will give women freedom of choice and, as a consequence, a real work-life balance. i would also like to highlight another aspect with regard to the position of precarious female workers: as has been said, too often, women continue to endure inequality with regard to employment opportunities, quality of work and remuneration. with regard to the quality of work, it should be noted that women, very often, do not report abuses and are compelled to accept employment at the fringes of legality in order to obtain a sufficient income to support their family. it is time to bring an end to this. it is necessary, therefore, to monitor all misconduct by employers with regard to female workers. any infringement must be prosecuted and punished without qualification. our commitment must continue to move in the direction of social policies which are increasingly just and effective. madam president, the report we are now discussing is crucial for parents and children in europe as well as for europe as a community. the provisions in this piece of legislation contribute to ensuring that all women across europe have the same minimum rights and assistance when deciding to have children. they also ensure that women who decide to have children are not punished financially for their choice to be mothers by trying to combine it with their careers. a very important factor is europe's demographic challenge. falling birth rates and an ageing population and, as a consequence, a falling labour force, are putting a huge strain on maintaining economic growth, especially in times of crisis. is the solution one of encouraging women not to have children, or following an american model where women have no or little support and have to go back to work before they have even recovered from giving birth? if it is, then i say no. not having children is more expensive for the community in the long run. women need to recover from giving birth in order to be ready to enter the labour market again. allowing them 18 weeks is a minimum and they should not be punished for this by direct or indirect cuts. in 24 eu member states out of 27, it is the governments who contribute to the maternity leave and not businesses. would businesses not want to invest in the young women they have recruited and trained? we should have social responsibility. knowing that the eu and its member states have spent an enormous amount of money on rescuing banks, we have to ask why money must always be saved at the expense of women. fathers should also be able to take time off to spend with their newborn babies. we keep on talking about shared responsibilities and now we can do something about it. some here believe that it is not acceptable. hopefully, commissioner efovi will show us that he is going to be very clear and progressive on this. madam president, this directive was always intended, quite rightly, to provide minimum standards to protect pregnant workers and women who are breastfeeding. however, i find that some of the amendments from the committee on women's rights and gender equality and the committee on employment and social affairs go too far. they do not take into account the different traditions in different member states. some countries have maternity leave, some have paternity leave as well, and some have parental leave. they are paid in totally different ways and at different rates - some from the social security systems, some from businesses and some are a mixture. we must not ruin some very good systems. my amendments try to address the difficulty of achieving something that will suit all member states. bringing in full pay would, in my opinion, stop a lot of young people - or young women in particular - being employed. i am pleased that the second impact assessment was at least more detailed than the first. as you know, it said that it would cost the ten member states over eur 7 billion a year if full pay was included. it did not even look at the other 17 member states, and i assume the cost of bringing in full pay for them would also be problematic. as far as compulsory leave is concerned, i have always believed that it is for the mother herself to decide what time to take off and when to take it off. in the 1960s and 70s, we fought for equal rights for women - not for them to be dictated to - and we seem to be going backwards instead of forwards. (cs) i have serious concerns that two quite different things are being confused relating to the protection of women: the employment conditions of women employees and the legal position of self-employed women, or entrepreneurs. when it comes to women employees, we can generally talk about protection, particularly during pregnancy and after childbirth, through labour law. it is not possible to protect self-employed women through labour law, as it does not generally apply to them. on the other hand, these women entrepreneurs employ men and other women too, and so i was horrified by the fact that the directive, which was initially supposed to apply only to the protection of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth, would, under the amendments, be intended to apply to entrepreneurs too. it is impossible, not only in practice, but also from a legal perspective. i therefore sincerely hope that this parliament does not adopt the amendments, which have unfortunately largely passed in the committee on women's rights and gender equality too, and which, in my view, have nothing to do with this directive, as they cannot apply to self-employed people. madam president, the estrela report seeks to improve working conditions for pregnant workers and working women who recently gave birth or are breastfeeding, and those are objectives that we strongly support. now, set against an acute crisis in european and world capitalism, there has to be a real concern that vulnerable workers especially will be victimised by certain employers seeking to maintain profits and by governments embarked on the process of slashing social spending and public services. many working class women endure significant exploitation, through wage levels that are much lower than men's, for example, and precarious work. there is a real danger that pregnant workers or women who recently gave birth, who are in a more vulnerable position, will suffer discrimination in the current circumstances. we strongly agree with making explicit a woman's right to return to the same job, 20 weeks maternity leave and reasonable paternity leave. we should also support maintaining the income level at 100%. we cannot just rely on the law, however. there should be strong trade union organisation in every workplace that can guarantee in concrete terms the right of women to come back to work after giving birth, without fear of discrimination. (fr) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i have followed this issue very closely within the committee on employment and social affairs and the committee on women's rights and gender equality alike. this is the second time that an attempt has been made to establish minimum rules for the european union, and it has now been 40 years that i have been campaigning in my professional life for equality between men and women, the integration of young women via training programmes, and their integration into society via their integration into the labour market. equality is what we are talking about here: equality between men and women. however, in this estrela report - one need only listen to the speeches that have been made today - every possible issue has been covered. everyone comes along with his or her small contribution, and wants to add one section to another section. we end up with a patchwork that is meaningless, when we should be focusing on the health and safety at work of pregnant women, in the same way, of course, that we will have to focus on gender equality in pay. baby leave is just about the only thing that has not been covered in this report. i would like to say one thing to you: to vote today in favour of 20 weeks' fully paid maternity leave is irresponsible and demagogic. i insist that effective measures be taken to ensure that this does not backfire on women. the more we extend maternity leave without emphasising women's return to the workplace and their need to create a work-life balance, and the more we extend maternity leave without taking measures to protect women in the workplace, the more we are working against them. the fact is, when we create policy, our duty is to be courageous and responsible, and to tell the truth. who is going to pay? which of our member states can pay for this increase? which company can pay? ultimately, women are going to find themselves trapped by a text that is being allowed to drift on all points and which will backfire on them. i call on you to be responsible. we have a heavy burden for the future. (applause) (the speaker agreed to take a blue card question by marije cornelissen and anneli jtteenmki under rule 149(8)) madam president, mrs morin-chartier is not the only one who has said this. there were a couple of speakers who said that maternity leave of 20 weeks would hurt women's chances in the labour market. i would like to ask where that idea comes from because, if you look at the research, as well as what happens in sweden, norway, iceland or bulgaria, you can see very clearly that you can have extremely high female participation in the labour market and a properly long period of maternity leave. (fr) madam president, i would like to make two points in response to that comment. the first is that there is no mathematical link between the length of maternity leave and women's fertility rate, and to prove it i need only mention the situation in france, since france is a country which provides for 14 weeks' maternity leave and which, today, has one of the highest birth rates in europe. the second point of my answer is that, with each birth, the gap between the professional lives of women and of men is found to widen. with each birth, with each period of maternity leave, women first reduce their professional responsibilities - unless the initiative comes from the company or the public sector. with the second birth, they reduce their working hours, and they continue to reduce them with each subsequent birth, while men, on the other hand, increase their professional responsibilities with each birth. from a professional point of view, then, the gaps widen throughout their careers. therefore, i urge you: pay a little attention to what is actually happening, in the public sector and in the private sector alike. (fi) mrs morin-chartier, do you accept the double standards whereby all employees of the european union, those of the commission, the council, parliament and parliament's political groups, would be on full pay for the 20 weeks of their maternity leave, while at the same time proposing that this would not be the case for other people? i would think that mothers should be put on an equal footing throughout europe, and we ought not to accept double standards or the janus face. (fr) madam president, we did not say that we advocated double standards. the european commission has submitted a proposal for 18 weeks. we are proposing to introduce a bridging clause. as a basis, this is entirely possible, but there is a difference between what is possible and the utopian idea of proposing 20 weeks on full pay; between what is feasible and what one can promise in parliament, which will not be accepted by either the council or the national parliaments. if we vote on wednesday in favour of the estrela report and the 20 weeks, the european parliament will be disavowed three times: the first time by the council, which will be unable to give its support - the member states will be unable to give their support; the second time by the national parliaments - the national parliaments, with their budgets, will be unable to give their support; and the third time by women, when they realise that we have worked against them. (nl) madam president, we have to stand by mothers and fathers in the rush hour of their lives. they must be given the peace and quiet to enable their full involvement early on in the life of their child; to breastfeed and fully recover from childbirth; to be able to roll up their sleeves once more after their leave and participate fully in working life. mothers, fathers, unions, non-governmental organisations (ngos) - everyone wants this. opponents wrongfully put a price tag on women: no additional costs can be incurred to the ever ageing european society. yet we must invest now in women as workers and in improving work-life balance so that our society remains affordable in the future. of course, it is important that maternity leave be on full pay. why should women, by virtue of being the only ones with the biological possibility of bearing children, take a pay cut during their leave? we say that we consider it important that men and women be able to enjoy a healthy work-life balance, that women be given equal opportunities in the workplace, and so we must stop squabbling and assume joint responsibility. we must not let mothers and fathers be the ones to suffer. (de) madam president, the question that we must ask ourselves is what is this directive intended to achieve? there is relatively substantial agreement that there should be health protection for mothers-to-be and new mothers. the great debate concerns the areas in which the aspect of equality should also be included. on the other hand, as the european parliament, we also need to be aware that we are adopting a directive that will be in force not just for five years, but perhaps for the next 20 or 25 years. however, i hope that by then, women's working conditions will be substantially better and companies will be keen to employ young mothers - not least because of a shortage of skilled labour - and, above all, will also build up the appropriate infrastructure for this. we need to bear in mind this perspective too. notwithstanding this, i also realise that at present, we do not have a majority that is prepared to adopt this perspective. in view of this, we will probably arrive at a point where we agree on a compromise such as eighteen weeks, a higher rate of statutory payments or the continued payment of 75% of salary, which will indeed bring about an improvement in some european countries in particular. a much more important point, and one which goes beyond the aspect of maternity leave, is the framework conditions surrounding young families. this means childcare facilities; in germany, for example, there are still not enough of these. that would be a real equality policy that gives women a chance to go back to work. madam president, how typical of the greens to sneer at those who dare to disagree. we dare to disagree with a small part of these proposals; therefore we must be derided. i applaud your commitment to these proposals - indeed, i agree with the vast majority of them - but there are one or two parts that i do not agree with. so i can applaud your commitment but i cannot applaud your tolerance. come back in 30 years' time and preach to me about advancing women's rights when you have done as much work on this as i have. i will not be pigeon-holed as regressive. there are aspects of these proposals which are regressive: the idea that european women should have more european babies in an overpopulated world is socially regressive. to impose 20 weeks' fully-paid maternity leave in the uk - i cannot explain our system quickly enough here - is financially regressive. a disproportionate number of higher paid women in the uk will receive the vast majority of the extra gbp 2 billion. it will not go to the lower paid women whom, i think, we would all want to help the most. so where is the progression? member states are best placed to decide these details; the principles of subsidiarity should apply. (applause) (de) madam president, commissioner, mothers need special protection. on that there is agreement in this chamber. having a child is physically and emotionally demanding, and is a profound experience for any woman. the physical changes, new life circumstances and, above all, the recovery and recuperation period - all these things make adequate maternity protection essential. this is something that society must provide. hence, there is no dispute as to the principle. the debate concerns how this is done and the conditions under which it is done. in this regard, we should not forget that the eu lays down a minimum standard and it is up to the member states to implement, organise and pay for maternity provision. we are not starting from nothing. the member states have organised their maternity provision in very different ways, in some cases, supplementing this with parental leave to include fathers. fathers need to be involved in family responsibilities - and we are talking here not about leave, but about shouldering the responsibilities involved in bringing up children and in family life. however, paternity leave is not part of maternity provision; rather, it must always be part of parental leave. neither do fathers become ill as a result of a birth. i congratulate all the member states that have established paternity leave; likewise, commissioner, i am pleased to hear of the commission's proposal that has just been announced. we cannot allow the important matter of maternity provision to be diluted by an extension of parental leave. maternity provision is about health. no mother is sick for 20 weeks; neither are breastfeeding mothers sick. we have a responsibility to women who participate in working life to make maternity provision justifiable. our proposal is for 18 weeks in total, with the last four weeks of this being subject to national variation in the level of the financial payments made. this is set out in amendments 115 and 116, which i urge members to support. in addition, i call on the member states to exploit their opportunities to offer all families and mothers more payments that can then be adopted on a voluntary basis. mothers are building the future, and they need every support that we can offer them. (el) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, in voting for the estrela report, we are basically responding to the demands of millions of women for greater protection for pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth, or who are breastfeeding, and their babies. by increasing maternity leave to 20 weeks and paternity leave to 2 weeks, on full pay, we are supporting the recovery from the international crisis and economic growth in the european union, because we are helping to reconcile family life and work. by protecting working women from dismissal during pregnancy and for six months thereafter, we are providing an incentive to implement the objective of the eu strategy and achieve a 75% female participation rate in the labour market by 2020. in voting for the thomsen report, we are trying to protect working women from precarious jobs which perpetuate the wage divide between the two sexes, undermine professional deployment and increase the risk of women losing all forms of social, pension and trade union rights. a positive vote for both reports is a positive vote for a more balanced, decentralised, social europe and gender equality. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking today about the working conditions of women, which we want to improve in europe. i will specifically address the thomsen report, for which i was shadow rapporteur; in other words, the subject of 'precarious women workers'. this year is the european year for combating poverty and social exclusion. it is an established fact that poverty disproportionately affects women. naturally, we cannot, on any account, allow this to remain the case. poverty among women may be the result of various things. it may result from the fact that women are not paid as well as men. naturally, that is not the only cause. women also take more career breaks, for example, when they have children and take time off to bring them up. women also perform the lower skilled jobs. things are particularly serious in the case of women whose employment conditions are precarious, because in some cases, they may not even have an employment contract or may have irregular employment contracts; they may have no protection whatsoever and they may have little access to information. the situation is particularly bad for women with a background of migration. this can lead to the poverty continuing, so that they also end up poor in old age. we need to break out of this spiral, which affects women more than men. one of the ways this can be done is through education and training. every woman - every girl - needs to get a qualification, whatever their background, and they need access to a profession which will genuinely secure them a proper living. lifelong learning must generally be possible for women too. we also need to ensure that we have more women and girls going into the better paid professions. these are frequently the professions that are more heavily dominated by men. in other words, access to education in any event, and access to social security systems - that way, we can achieve many improvements for women. (pl) establishing minimum standards for the duration and payment of maternity leave is difficult in the current economic and social climate in europe. in some countries, the proposed minimum exceeds the level of protection which national legislation currently offers pregnant women. on the one hand, we are still contending with the consequences of the crisis: governments of individual states are raising taxes and introducing severe expenditure cuts, and we still have a high level of unemployment. on the other, we have to deal with the problem of the falling birth rate, negative natural growth, and, consequently, an ageing population. in the not too distant future, we are being threatened with the failure of pension systems or possibly their total breakdown. in this sort of situation, there are no free or easy solutions. yet we must realise that in investing in women and creating favourable conditions for them, we are encouraging them to decide to have children. of course, fully paid and longer maternity leave is not enough on its own. we also need pro-family tax solutions and stable employment. in this case, we have no alternative. there is no other way of increasing the number of europeans who will be professionally active in 30 years' time if we do not invest in the family now. this is why we need a fair and just minimum standard for the duration and payment of maternity leave in europe. we are giving women the possibility to choose and to decide on motherhood. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, what i feel is missing from this debate is the necessary distinction between national transposition in the member states and the task that exists at european level. we all realise that we need to take the special features of individual nations into account. however, where the debate in germany is concerned, for example, i must say that i can definitely see how germany could implement this report. what we are concerned with here is creating minimum standards at eu level to establish social framework conditions for women. we are always keen to make reference to the ilo when it comes to good work, protection at work and protecting health, so i ask myself: why not in this case? as far as the debate on costs is concerned, i would like to remind everyone in this house that in germany - as well as in some other european countries - the anti-discrimination directive brought about a huge amount of lobbying on the part of enterprises. there was talk of an avalanche of costs, of companies going bankrupt, of burdens on the economy and on workers themselves. looking back years later, how much of this happened? none of it. i find this debate, this lobbying, very reminiscent of that time. i urge you at last to put the economy on one side and to put people at the heart of what we do. i am not one of those merely sermonising here. i have stated that i advocate a social europe. for me, that includes women. in this situation, women need our help. (fi) madam president, in its votes, the committee on women's rights and gender equality adopted a number of amendments to the commission's original proposal for a directive. unfortunately, in its amendments, the committee has completely ignored the principle of subsidiarity with regard to the allocation of costs. the attempt to harmonise the regulations on maternity leave in 27 different member states has resulted in a muddled proposal. furthermore, mixed up with it all is a proposal for paternity leave, which, under the legal basis, does not even fall within the scope of the directive, as the commissioner clearly stated right from the outset, luckily. paternity leave needs to be regulated in connection with the system for parental leave, and not in connection with leave in the sense of recovering from pregnancy or childbirth. the proposals put forward by the committee on women's rights also ignore the progressive maternity and parental leave schemes in other countries, including the nordic countries. the committee's proposals confuse these parental leave systems, which offer freedom of choice at national level, and in certain respects, they would even detract from the welfare of mother and child. for example, under the committee's proposal, if mothers only begin the compulsory six week period of maternity leave after confinement, there is increased risk to pregnant women at the workplace due to give birth soon, as well as their children. mothers who are almost due will not make it through to the end working an eighthour day, and this proposal will result in more cases of sick leave prior to confinement. the committee's proposal ignores as compensation the national schemes under which maternity leave is closely linked to a significantly longer parental leave, because it does not happen on full pay. for example, in finland, parents can look after their child at home until the age of 18 months, on average, and we can afford it, because at various stages, employers, workers and taxpayers, too, share the costs. if employers were saddled with the full amount, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would weaken women's employment opportunities and do a disservice to women as employees. (sv) it is now important for us to find flexible solutions with regard to the controversial details in this directive. at the same time, we also need to see the bigger picture. what do we want the situation to be in terms of equality in europe in 10 years' time? with that in mind, it is crystal clear that the proposed regulations would bring about progress in the area of gender equality. gender equality and the gender equality perspective would be enhanced. it would be possible to meet the target set in the eu 2020 strategy of increasing the employment rate of women to 75%. more women in work would be of definite benefit to society. there would be better incentives for having children and establishing a family, which would be a positive counterforce to the ageing european population. therefore, let us not forget the big picture in our debates. (fr) madam president, in general, with time comes wisdom. unfortunately, that is not the case with this second report, which was adopted by a majority in the committee on women's rights and gender equality and which we are discussing here in parliament 17 months after the first report. in its present form, this second report is just as muddled, counterproductive and overloaded with texts that do not belong in a legislative act as the report that was referred back to committee in may 2009. we have already wasted two years improving maternity protection. if we vote for this report as it stands, we will waste at least the same amount of time again debating with the council in codecision, when the commission's initial 2008 proposal was reasonable. it guaranteed substantial progress in member states in which the length of maternity leave and maternity pay are still below that which exists in some countries; rarely are we granted 20 weeks' leave on full, uncapped pay, paid for by the state. let us not forget that, in this case, the aim is to establish minimum thresholds, and that we cannot impose radical solutions on the 27. indeed, in order to encourage an employed and, above all, highly qualified woman to have children, it is more important for her to have the right to a shorter period of leave but on full pay than to have 20 or 30 weeks' leave or more without a full pay guarantee. not only are the proposals in the estrela report counterproductive where women's employability is concerned; they are also difficult for governments and businesses in certain member states to finance. it is better today to take one real step in the right direction than to make a promise for the future, to be realised 10 years from now. personally, i shall not be voting for this report in its present form, and i call on all my fellow members to reject all those amendments that have nothing to do with maternity protection, such as the provisions concerning self-employed workers. barely four months ago, we voted in this house for a directive on maternity leave for self-employed workers. the same applies to paternity leave, mr tarabella, and i am in favour. the belgians can introduce 20 weeks' fully paid paternity leave tomorrow if they have a government; there is nothing stopping them from doing so. similarly - since this is another point to consider - the social partners are currently discussing a directive on paternity leave. let us wait for them, and action will be taken on this matter as it was on parental leave: this is the right way to go. i call on my fellow members to vote in favour of the amendments restricting leave to 18 weeks and of the considered amendments, madam president, tabled by your group and mine. (the speaker agreed to take a blue card question by marc tarabella under rule 149(8)) (ro) eliminating any form of discrimination in every sphere of social and economic life is a vital prerequisite for protecting human rights and the welfare of every citizen. the promotion of the principle of equal opportunities for men and women, along with ensuring greater involvement by women in economic and social life, as fully entitled participants, must constantly be issues of concern. i believe that this approach must be reflected in the common agricultural policy in order to ensure that the sexes are represented fairly and equally. on the other hand, this approach can ensure that various policies are implemented effectively at european level in every working sector, but especially in agriculture. bearing in mind that the principle of gender equality is promoted by european legislation and is one of the fundamental requirements of the europe 2020 strategy, i consider it appropriate to include this issue in agriculture as well, which also means through using new instruments which will promote this principle. i support both reports from mrs estrela and mrs thomsen, which bring women's issues to the fore, related both to motherhood and their working conditions, which are important aspects in the life of every woman and of those of us who should show solidarity with them in terms of their issues. (fr) madam president, i am grateful to mrs lulling for agreeing to my little interruption. i should just like to point out that, in belgium, fathers already receive 10 days' paid leave. nineteen out of 27 countries in the european union follow the same practice, with various pay entitlements. i just wanted to know whether you were for or against upwards harmonisation at european level. admittedly, two weeks is not very much, but it is reasonable: two weeks for all fathers in europe so that they can share the tasks involved in welcoming their new arrivals into their families. i wished to know whether you were for or against this harmonisation. i should be grateful for your response, mrs lulling. (fr) madam president, i am of course for it, mr tarabella. i am for a european directive but i am not for this issue being resolved in this directive, which concerns the protection of women and children. the social partners, as i said, are currently holding talks on a directive on paternity leave. i believe that we must await the outcome. we will then have a sound proposal just like the one we had for parental leave, which, incidentally, we have just enhanced, although it is not perfect. i believe that this is the right way to go. i believe that the social partners should also be entrusted with the task of making proposals in this area, because they are the best placed to do so. therefore, i am in favour. i congratulate you: you can improve the situation in belgium. i just wanted to say to you, and to all those women who have completely failed to understand that a european directive is a set of minimum, not maximum, rules, that everyone can go further, but that it is important to give those countries that are below - well below - the 18 weeks the opportunity to adapt. moreover, i believe that, if you and i had had to draft this report, we would have taken the right measures in this house in codecision with the council a long time ago. (de) madam president, now i know how to go about changing and extending one's speaking time. the committee on employment and social affairs has called for 18 weeks' maternity provision, which is four weeks more than was amicably agreed in germany. the committee on women's rights and gender equality has called for 20 weeks on full pay plus two weeks' paternity leave plus extension to self-employed workers. what has been completely pushed into the background is the fact that 20 weeks will cost france an additional eur 2 billion per year and the uk an additional eur 2.85 billion, according to statements by the commission. for germany the additional costs are estimated at around eur 1.7 billion. sometimes, you have to think of the costs. we recently had a joint study by the empl and femm committees that was drawn up with numerous errors. payments such as germany's maternity allowance were not included. the reference framework for german parental allowance was incorrect. the cost estimates commissioned by some member states were not sufficiently taken into account. you cannot make responsible policy on such a basis. germany is exemplary: during the parental leave period, two thirds of salary continue to be paid for up to 14 months. this extends 14 weeks of maternity provision to up to 170 weeks. this makes germany a european champion when it comes to protecting infants, and consequently, it needs an exemption clause in this directive. this is why i have tabled an amendment, together with 50 of my fellow members from the group of the european people's party (christian democrats), which is supported by the european conservatives and reformists and large parts of the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe. our aim is for sufficient account to be taken of national systems. we hope that a majority of this house will support this call for reason to prevail in the vote on wednesday. we want mothers to enjoy adequate protection; but if such protection is carried too far, specifically for ideological reasons, this will represent a major obstacle to women's employment - which is something that we must remove, not encourage. (sv) in many member states, the reactions to this report have been strong and many politicians have attempted to score points by pulling this eu initiative to pieces. what people forget is the fact that this is a revision of an existing directive. people can think what they want to about what should be regulated at eu level, but, as i said, a directive already exists that we have the opportunity to improve. the issue of gender equality has been given greater prominence with the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon and we have a responsibility to take it forward. we can see today that member states with well-functioning rules for maternity leave also have a high rate of women in employment. this contrasts with the situation in those countries with poorer and less well-functioning rules. if this directive goes through, we will also have a greater chance of achieving the target set in the eu 2020 strategy. i agree that there are some controversial details in the proposal, but what is important is that we can improve it. the critics claim that the proposal is too expensive, but i am convinced that increased equality is beneficial to society. (it) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today, this house - representative of all 27 states - has decided, with courage and obstinacy, once again to tackle a delicate, but at the same time topical, issue for our countries' social growth. we are dealing with a report which affects the social, employment and economic policies of our states, but which also concerns the whole of europe in its desire to grow in unison. the estrela report, as debated and amended, pursues with conviction the principle of reconciling private and working life and that of equal opportunities, and therefore of healthy and balanced progress. to ensure a minimum threshold to protect the aforementioned principles throughout europe means improving the quality of life of our families and not only that of our women, and therefore also our quality of life; this is what we are facing with conviction and with the appropriate compromises. balance is necessary in the ends as well as the chosen means and must safeguard both the position of women in the labour market and the prerogatives of the states in implementing their policies. jean monnet taught us to grow by taking small steps. let us begin to take these small steps, without being afraid that others will follow them. (lt) today, it really is very important to reconcile work and family life better by striving for economic growth, welfare and competitiveness in the field of gender equality. as there is a steep decline in the birth rate in almost all member states, we must take measures to create the best possible conditions for mothers to bring up children and to have a genuine opportunity to return to the labour market. i also call on the member states and meps to find opportunities and coordinate the cost of maternity pay and childcare allowance in order to ensure that women are not a more costly work force than men. the sharing of family responsibilities and the opportunity to also grant men the right to two weeks paternity leave would give women increased opportunities to return to the labour market and would strengthen family relationships. therefore, i am convinced that an extended period of maternity leave would also facilitate the achievement of improved birth rates, in particular, given that our society is ageing rapidly. (fr) madam president, as i see it, the need to increase family leave is patently obvious: raising the minimum maternity leave threshold is a step forward, an advantage, and one ought not to be completely demagogic by comparing the economic impact with a qualitative advantage that is difficult to quantify. however, there are essentially two parts to the problem: the first is the economic context, that is true, but it is not reason enough to leave millions of families in the lurch for more decades to come; the second is the legal loopholes in the report, because the text includes several types of family leave with incompatible legal bases. let us take adoption leave, which appears in the text alongside maternity and paternity leave. i personally appreciate, as an adoptive mother and on behalf of all the women i represent, the will to grant the same rights as those of biological mothers. i am, in fact, what mrs morin-chartier referred to as the small additional package to be added to the estrela report. while the aim is indeed to improve the health and rights of women - of all women - in the labour market, adoptive mothers, who have become mothers like the others, are entitled to the same rights and the same protection at work. like the others, they are mothers in their own right, and this applies, moreover, whether the child they adopt is under 12 months old or not; we must avoid the kind of discrimination that appears in the text. on the subject of adoption, i regret the fact that the text goes into so little detail. it does not even include any of the ramboll impact assessment findings. none of this has been dealt with very well, which is clearly a weak point. nevertheless, despite this reservation, i shall support mrs estrela's report because, economic considerations aside, not only are there men and women who must better assume their parental responsibilities in a society that is increasingly abdicating its responsibility of raising its young people, but it is also our duty to ensure that people do not have to choose to sacrifice their children for their job, or their job for their children. lastly, we are not members of the council but of parliament. if we directly elected representatives are not ambitious, then tell me: who will be? (fr) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, many things have been said, especially just now. however, the various new developments and controversies surrounding mrs estrela's report demonstrate one thing: it is still very difficult today to calmly address the issue of gender equality and especially that of a better work-life balance. this legislative text has had - please forgive the expression - a difficult gestation period, mainly because attitudes still need to change a good deal in this area. impact assessments are undoubtedly necessary to ensure a broad understanding of the issues at stake. however, they must be understood for what they are, and with caution. their contradictory conclusions are, i might add, clear proof of this. clearly, it would be foolish not to raise the issue of the potential costs of certain amendments tabled. however, it would be just as foolish to refuse to consider the medium- and long-term socio-economic benefits as regards the health of mothers and infants, or as regards equality between men and women in the labour market. what is more, our debate deserves better, i feel, than certain caricatures and certain stereotypes that one still hears today. (pt) europe is ageing, and it has very low birth rates. these factors pose great challenges to the european union, and we must respond to them with concrete solutions. we have agreed on this observation during this debate, despite the differing views that have become evident in the discussion. in portugal, for example, the birth rate is not high enough to ensure that generations are replaced, and this situation is jeopardising the future. this is happening in my country, as it is in the majority of eu member states. i am sure that more flexible policies with regard to maternity leave can help to reverse these trends. we must send families a consistent message of support for motherhood, with concrete measures for the better reconciliation of professional, private and family life. women must be protected so that they can choose to have children without having to leave the labour market. meeting this challenge is vital if we want to achieve the economic and social objectives set out in the europe 2020 strategy and combat demographic ageing. in portugal, for example, maternity leave is already paid at 100% of earnings for 120 days, in an attempt to counteract the low birth rate that we are experiencing. i would therefore argue that women's salaries should be assured during maternity leave in the manner described in the report under discussion. allowing each member state to create conditions that will ensure an objective of paying full salaries during maternity leave by 2020 seems a sensible step. finally, i would like to congratulate the rapporteur, mrs estrela, for her persistence in defending measures which are aimed at protecting families, whilst also counteracting the ageing of the population. (es) madam president, i think that we are all aware of the responsibility that parliament has to exercise today in revising the directive on working conditions for women; a directive that we have been discussing since the previous legislature and on which, due to various points of view and difficulties, we have not been able to progress. this is why i am saying that today, we need to take responsibility, within the different points of view that we may have, in order to move forward on equal rights between men and women and improve the living conditions of women in the labour market. this directive goes beyond the number of weeks of maternity leave, as i am sure we are all agreed that 14 weeks is not enough and we need to increase the length. however, aside from the number of weeks, we are talking about the dismissal of a woman who has become a mother being considered to be an unfair dismissal, or paternity leave being granted for the benefit of a working mother's health. i do not understand why people say that paternity leave does not benefit the health of working mothers. of course it does. enabling the mother and father to share the work of caring for their children in the first few days after they are born is essential and fundamental for making progress in terms of equality between men and women. there are countries such as spain that have already implemented independent and transferable paternity leave. we have to make it possible for men to take responsibility along with women in order to improve on the path that we have on the table at the moment. i think this is important. i would like to thank the rapporteur, mrs estrela, for the work she has done and for the responsibility for parliament to . (the president cut off the speaker) madam president, about five and a half years ago, i caused something of a furore by suggesting that any small businessman with his brain in the right place would be mad to employ a woman of childbearing age. since then, it has got worse and worse as the balance in favour of employees versus employers has got completely out of control. one of my constituents from york wrote to me last year saying never mind about employing women of childbearing age, any small businessmen who employs anybody has got to be out of his mind. we have an extraordinary situation here, do we not? we have young women desperately keen to get into work, desperately keen to work for companies, especially small companies - which are the driving force of the united kingdom economy - and we have employers who are too terrified to take them on. that is the problem we have. we are making it - here in this place with so little commercial experience amongst our members - almost impossible for small businesses to employ young women, which is something they want to do. i used to think it was some sort of chinese conspiracy where this place made it almost impossible for a european economy to function, and that behind the scenes the chinese were making it so bad that eventually we had to import absolutely everything from china. well, i have another hypothesis here, namely, that perhaps the women who are making it so difficult in committees, in the commission and in this place for small businesses to employ young women have an eye to the main chance. i would suggest that when the electorate quite rightly look at them and boot them out in a few years' time for their incompetence and their stupidity, they will only be able to get back into the workplace because they are in middle or late middle age. the game will be cleared for them. that is my hypothesis. i can think of no other sensible answer to this sort of ludicrous interference between employer and employee. if you think that is a weird hypothesis, anything that puts up with the way you talk about climate change, believe me, nothing is too stupid for this chamber. (it) madam president, there is no doubt that bringing this draft legislation to parliament for debate after 18 months of intense work should be greeted favourably. it is clear that a project of this nature is characterised by various sensitivities, given that the equivalent laws in the member states are profoundly different. in any case, the innovative scope of the measure is a result which should be very positively received, as indeed should the assertion of the principle of the centrality of the family, the guarantee of a greater degree of social protection for women and for women in a particular condition, such as that of having a baby. consistency must likewise be ensured in the protection of women who give birth - and i say this despite the fact that i hold the regulatory scope of this measure to be broader than that which was originally envisaged - insofar as it should be highlighted that in europe, and in many member states, there is still a notable difference in the protection offered with regard to childbirth and unborn babies. this activity must clearly be reconciled with the need to eliminate employer abuse, and we need to limit the scope of the amendments - some of which, in my opinion, make the legislation too inflexible overall - starting with paternity leave, which seems far removed with regard to a measure issued fundamentally for the protection of women. there is no doubt of the need to give due consideration to the problem of immigrant workers and domestic workers, which constitute another element of this - the draft legislation on precarious female workers - in a flexible and elastic market, where women, especially now, must be seen as a resource at the service of the community. madam president, uk employers and the uk government are urging british meps to vote against the proposals to raise the amount of fully paid maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks - although i think this is rank hypocrisy from the conservatives who, in committee, put in an amendment asking for 24 paid weeks. as i say, hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds. the british federation of small businesses has stated that these plans are unaffordable and that they would cost british business over gbp 2.5 billion a year. even the coalition government in the uk, which includes the liberal democrats, is opposed to these changes. the proposed changes will cost the uk up to gbp 2 billion at a time when public and private sector workers are being made redundant in order to save far smaller sums. it is also the case that the changes may be self-defeating as, according to the uk government, it will be the highest paid workers who will benefit most and lower paid workers the least. these changes, however well-meaning, will actually have the effect of setting back the process of achieving equality for working mothers. it will also be the case that these changes will encourage employers to choose male candidates over women. madam president, there are other ways of enhancing the rights of nursing mothers, such as more flexible leave systems. we must also respect the diverse social and cultural differences of various member states. one size simply does not fit all. the working families who are so reliant upon us getting the legislation right to live, work and raise children are in the real world, not some ideological eurodisney land. these changes are being proposed at the wrong time and they benefit the wrong people. at a time when governments across the eu seek to cut public expenditure, you seek to increase employment costs, which will hit a sector where women are disproportionately represented and therefore more exposed to the possibility of job cuts. the uk already has the best, fairest and most generous standards of maternal and paternal leave. british mothers currently get six weeks of 90% salary, followed by 33 weeks statutory maternity pay of gbp 125 a week. i shall vote in the interests of the british people. i shall follow the advice of her majesty's government and i will vote against the amendments of the maternity pay. (nl) madam president, having listened to everything that has been said here in this plenary sitting, i am certain that the equal treatment of men and women - which, indeed, has required a great deal of courage and effort and also large amounts of money - has not been achieved. i am saying this not only to a number of colleagues from my own group - who, incidentally, have left the chamber - but also to others. that was my first point. my second point concerns ageing and the top-heavy age structure in this society. this is an extremely important issue as far as europe is concerned, and so it is of paramount importance to make having children easier. for example, i value the interview that the french minister for finance, mrs lagarde, has now given on the position of women in the workplace, which was perfect. indeed, i hope that we keep to this. my third point is that equal treatment is a commitment to a social europe. we have said that, in this social europe, men and women must enjoy equal opportunities on the labour market and must also be able to have children. currently, we are all aiming for 18 weeks, and we have now more or less agreed on this 18 weeks, but we do not yet know how we are going to afford this. i have no objections at all to the compromise tabled by my own group to set a maximum of 75% for those four weeks. what i do object to is the fact that the compromise concerned also contains a link to health costs. that is where my main objection lies, as this gives countries such as the united kingdom and ireland - in france, such costs are also heavily subsidised - the opportunity to evade the 75% that must continue to be paid. therefore, i wonder whether we can perhaps vote down that part of the compromise. this would also mean we were able to deliver a consolidated opinion here that could be expected to gain a majority in the council. (fr) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we need european legislation that will protect the health of pregnant women and women who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding, and we must rise to the demographic challenge we are facing and encourage an increase in birth rates in europe. however, this advance must not serve as a disincentive to employ women. i would emphasise three points. firstly, i welcome the european commission's proposal on the health and safety at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. indeed, i would emphasise the title, which is the legal framework of this directive, because too often, we tend to forget what exactly this text is about. we are talking here about women because, until we receive proof to the contrary, men cannot give birth. the debate tends to become diluted as a result of the reference made to paternity or parental leave. let us solve the problem faced by women first, by focusing on their health when they bring a child into the world. we must implement genuine guarantees to protect the health of these women in the labour market. paternity and parental leave will be dealt with in another directive. secondly, the debate revolves around the number of weeks. currently, the average leave period is set at 14 weeks. the european commission is proposing 18 weeks and the report 20. obviously, as a woman and mother of three children, i want mothers to be able to stay with their babies for as long as possible. however, this then begs the question: who is going to pay for this extension from 14 to 20 weeks? the state? businesses? i am convinced that the average increase from 14 to 18 weeks is a major european advance and a real investment by our economy towards promoting a rise in birth rates in europe. twenty weeks is liable to have a negative impact on female employment: it would put a brake on their employment. businesses and our states cannot support this additional huge financial burden at this time of crisis. thirdly, more priority must be given to improving childcare so that mothers can achieve a work-life balance. little progress has been made on this matter despite the many appeals by our parliament. therefore, let us not be counterproductive and let us not send women back home. (ro) i wish to take this opportunity to convey my condolences to the family of maricica hhianu. this 32-year-old romanian nurse had gone off to italy in search of a better job. she lost her life last week after she was attacked by a young italian man in a rome underground station. i believe that precarious employment conditions must become a concern for europe. women are concentrated in low paid jobs and account for the large majority of part-time workers in the european union. however, there are some cases where the impact of the crisis has been limited on women participating in the labour market. in romania, for example, the proportion of women who found a job continued to increase during 2009. i must point out the dire situation which women who work abroad are in. they often work outside legal regulations and do not enjoy any rights . (the president cut off the speaker) (ro) i must refer again to the maternity leave directive. i have listened very closely to the debate this evening and i would like to say that those against this draft, and i am referring to extending maternity leave and full pay, can only come up with one argument - economic. however, this is simplistic because, looking beyond the budget deficit, we are dealing with people. they are unaware that the balance of benefits is weighted in favour of this report, both for employees and employers. i do mean employers, too, in the sense of investing in the future. in addition, opponents fail to realise that actually penalising motherhood and the idea of it at a time when the birth rate is falling, not to mention the population getting older and poorer, has an impact on the sustainability of social security schemes. (fr) madam president, i, too, have listened carefully to everything that has been said up to now, and i note that, as is very often the case, having too much can make us worse off. the arguments that are being made to justify this super-maternity leave - 20 weeks, of which six must be taken before the child's birth and two after it, on full pay - are unconvincing. it is clearly not with this kind of isolated measure that europe is going to rise to the highly complex challenges of demography and female employment. who can seriously think that people decide to have a child, a baby, to take advantage of five months' leave instead of four and a half months'? on the other hand, i do not believe that denying women their freedom of choice helps improve their situation. furthermore, let us please bear in mind the effects, the collateral damage of the decisions we take. protecting women primarily means not going overboard with our demands and thus not paving the way for new forms of discrimination against them when they are initially recruited and when they return to work, as all the experts from the oecd and from the union of the middle classes, for example, confirm. i am therefore clearly in favour of 18 weeks' leave, of the principle of paternity leave and, of course, of the scope for the member states to go further. (de) madam president, i would just like to make a brief point and it concerns the recognition of parental leave periods in the individual countries. mr mann and his colleagues have also tabled amendments on this matter, including amendment 115, the first part of which really concerns whether or not the four weeks should be counted. unfortunately, this is associated in the second half of the amendment - and i will read it out now so as to be absolutely clear - with the fact that the remuneration may be the average of the remuneration for the 18 weeks of maternity leave, which shall be at least 75% of the last monthly salary or of the average monthly salary as stipulated according to national law, subject to any ceiling laid down under national legislation. what this in fact means is that we are giving up on european harmonisation when it comes to financing in this area and how much women receive during this period. that is not acceptable. i would consider it a great pity if this were voted through together because, in the final event, we are not giving up on harmonisation at european level, but rather want to increase it in order to bring about an improvement for all men and women. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, we should ask ourselves what we are actually trying to achieve with this whole debate. are we trying to bring about a small improvement in equality and a little assistance for families as cheaply as possible? of course, making family life compatible with work costs money. i would simply like to ask my fellow members from germany: what is expenditure of eur 1 billion in germany if, at the same time, we are handing out eur 450 billion in bank guarantees? what do we actually want in this area? full pay for parental leave is quite correct. what else should it be? it is not time off, it is not holiday; this is work that people are doing. of course we want the period extended to 20 weeks, because we believe that this is the only way this work can be accommodated. moreover, we do not merely want to bring about a bit more equality in working life. we want complete equality, for women and men. we need to take drastic steps if we are to achieve this, such as a statutory minimum wage in all member states. (de) madam president, the matter of maternity protection should remain a matter for the member states on account of the cultural differences in europe. austria has 16 weeks of maternity provision. extending this would cost eur 17.4 million per year for each further week. making 20 weeks' provision mandatory would cost austria more than eur 60 million. the additional costs would be even higher if there were also two weeks' paid paternity leave for every father. let us be clear in our deliberations: firstly, this is a completely personal decision by the parents, and secondly, i see this as presenting a risk of further discrimination against women of childbearing age. this could encourage an increase in precarious working conditions, to which 31.5% of women in gainful employment are already subject. the question is: is that what we really want? (ga) madam president, we had an excellent debate here this evening and, in general, many good points were made in the chamber. the points raised were idealistic, but mrs estrela deserves to be praised for making those points for us. at the same time, however, we must be practical and realistic. i have my doubts. if we take all these suggestions on board, it is possible that young women, in particular, will be unable to find employment. i am looking at this as a parent. i have two daughters and i want them to have the same chance as boys have to get jobs. that is the main thing! in ireland, we are currently in a quandary as regards finances. there are 20% of young people unemployed. four businesses a day in the small and medium sector are closing down and we are facing the worst budget we have ever had to face. thus, although it contains many good suggestions, they might be better at a later time. i do not think they are currently practical. (sv) this has been a very exciting debate. i think it shows that there is a possibility of us finding a compromise so that we can take a decision on this. i believe that it would be very good if we could do this and, of course, it is necessary for us to proceed on the basis of the fact that we have different systems. there have been different amounts of progress in the different member states. i come from sweden, where we have parental leave that is longer than a year, with a high level of remuneration and where the father is obliged to take some of the parental leave. i do not think that it would be possible to achieve something that has been so good for men, women and children, as well as for the level of participation among women on the labour market, at eu level. however, let us ensure that we obtain a minimum directive that enables us to reach an agreement. (pl) turning to the issue of women's professional activity, i would like to consider two age groups: the first group, which has been discussed a great deal today already, are young women who are very well-educated and cannot find a job due to the fact that employers are often wary of costs linked with pregnancy and maternity leave. the second group are women over 50, who are seen as less productive and less creative. according to the statistics, women aged between 59 and 60 make up only 25% of employees in this age range. the percentage of women over 60 still in work is even lower. this is why, when we are discussing precarious women workers, we should consider both of these groups and do everything we can to help women find that first job, return to work after maternity leave and increase their qualifications. (the president cut off the speaker) (es) madam president, the aims of this initiative are to improve the health and safety of working women who are pregnant or have given birth and apply measures to balance family and working life. european women are looking to the european parliament today and are expecting us to implement the modern measures that the 21st century demands. we therefore need to talk about the possibility of 20 weeks' leave, covering 100% of the mother's salary, including self-employed workers, the possibility of fathers having leave following the birth and establishing equality between men and women in taking that leave. this is not just about women. talking about the cost of maternity leave is not only one more punishment for women; it demonstrates a lack of responsibility, taking into account the birth rate crisis and the ageing population in europe at the moment, which is also contributing to the development of the economic crisis. has it occurred to you to ask, for example, what the cost of absenteeism is in europe? i have not heard a single word about this. we have the opportunity to make progress on equality between men and women, so let us not disappoint the people of europe. vice-president of the commission. - madam president, i would like to thank all the honourable members for taking part in this important, stimulating and, i would say, also very passionate debate. even though we are looking at these issues from different angles, most of us can agree on several things. maternity leave should not be penalised; we have to work very hard to achieve equality of pay; and we have to study very carefully the economic consequences of the decisions we take here. several of you referred to the issue of paternity or parental leave. i would like just to remind you that the newly adopted parental leave directive grants a minimum of eight months for parents per child. for the first time, we have legal encouragement for fathers at eu level to take leave. a whole month of leave is lost if the father does not take his responsibility. this directive will soon be in force and we will build on this progress and look carefully at further proposals on paternity leave. as i said in my opening remarks, we are now studying the situation and we will be back to you very soon with our results. allow me to underline the encouragement of fathers to take part in parenting with a personal remark. i was lucky enough to be present at the deliveries of two of my three children. of course, during that time in the hospital, the most i could do was put on a brave face and pretend that i was neither worried nor scared and try and offer my wife the highest moral support i could. sometimes, however, it was my wife and the kind nurses who took care of me, so i could offer this moral support! i will never forget the very important moments after the delivery and the first few days when i could help my wife with the newborn baby. it is very clear that it is not just mothers who need to bond with a newborn child. the fathers need to do the same and we need to encourage them and change the paternal pattern and create the conditions where fathers can also bond with their newborn babies. coming back to the reports we were discussing today, and with regard to mrs thomsen's report on precarious work, i have taken careful note of what has been said. i can assure you that the commission will back up action to improve the working conditions of precarious female workers by monitoring national employment policy and by providing structural fund support in particular. with regard to mrs estrela's comprehensive work on the commission's proposal for a strengthened maternity leave directive, we are indeed trying to strike a very difficult balance. we need to ensure the fundamental rights of female workers, but we should not give an excuse to member states to stop these very important negotiations. we need to study the models which offer us a high employment rate and high fertility rates at the same time. in this vein, the commission welcomes the amendments which are aimed at maintaining the 18 weeks minimum leave, set an alternative level of remuneration, keep the reference to sick leave, and allow for other forms of leave to be counted as maternity leave. all this under the proviso that it does not lead to the weakening of existing protection. rolling back in this respect cannot be an option for the european union. i very much hope that parliament and the council will be able to reach a compromise. the commission position aims to breach the gap between the positions of the two institutions and to provide a solid basis for future discussion. the improvement of conditions for women in europe must be our ultimate goal. they contribute enormously to society and society must find a way to pay them back. madam president, i am afraid that there are many colleagues who were given the floor and they certainly came after me and my colleague here. we asked for the floor already when president buzek started this point tonight, so i am objecting to your injustice in giving the floor in the catch-the-eye. many thanks for your request to speak. as i mentioned, there were many more people requesting the floor than we were actually able to accommodate. we had 19 people wanting to speak in a slot lasting just five minutes. i have therefore tried to give those people on the lists that i have here a chance to speak. naturally, your comments will be minuted. we will try very hard in the coming debates to make the whole thing as fair as possible. madam president, commissioner, i would like to thank you for the sensitivity that you showed in your opening remarks and your closing speech, along with your personal testimony. i think that it is very important that this is associated with the testimonies of other people, such as the other meps who have also spoken in this debate, as this will certainly help to alter certain prejudices and change the stereotypes which still exist in our society. therefore, it is also important that we also include paternity leave by making the most of the dual legal basis in this directive, which aims to promote gender equality and the reconciliation of family and personal life, because one of the stereotypes which prevails in our society is that women are associated with reproduction, while men are associated with production. men are just as much fathers as women are mothers, as well as being workers, and thus they are entitled both to professional achievement and to raising their children from birth. the member from the uk who spoke is not here. i would have liked to ask him whether david cameron is better than other europeans who would also like to take paternity leave, but who are discriminated against in at least eight member states. we are still in the first reading process, and so we will have the opportunity to improve these proposals together with the commission and the council. i would also like to thank my fellow members for their involvement. i feel that this broad consensus is very important. we are certainly living through difficult times, but this is when societies have the greatest need of daring decision makers, because, as the roman poet horace noted thousands of years ago, he who is afraid of turmoil ends up crawling. madam president, i would like to thank my fellow members for their comments on my report on precarious women workers and the commission for its willingness to take initiatives to improve the situation. as many members have pointed out, women constitute the vast majority of those working under poor working conditions and for low wages. this not only means that women in europe earn less than men, but also that women receive smaller pensions than men, and we will see many more poor women in the europe of the future, because marriage no longer provides automatic financial security in old age. the most vulnerable group on the european labour market is that of female immigrants. among this group, we see a high level of exploitation, especially among the 11 million women working as domestic workers. this group also includes au pairs. au pair means 'on equal terms', but many of the women who come from the philippines and the former soviet republics to work as au pairs do not come for cultural exchange. they come to earn money, and the scheme is exploited in many places in europe as a way of obtaining cheap labour. this situation is one that i would like to call on the commission to investigate. we should not allow this form of exploitation to be legal in europe. we must therefore exercise greater stringency in connection with the au pair scheme. pay differences between men and women begin, according to the commission's own pay statistics, when children come along. if we want to achieve complete equality between men and women on the labour market, women need to be fully compensated during maternity leave, and men need to be involved in looking after the children and thus granted paternity leave. the debate is closed. the vote on the estrela report will take place on wednesday, 20 october. the vote on the thomsen report will take place on tuesday, 19 october. written statements (rule 149) equality between men and women represents one of the fundamental principles of the european union. it was already defined in the treaty of maastricht in 1992, some years later, in the treaty of amsterdam (1997) and in the present day in the eu strategy 2010-2015. the social agenda of the european union includes, amongst its priorities, the need to promote policies aimed at supporting the reconciliation of the working, private and family life of women. in this context, in my opinion, motherhood is an absolutely fundamental right for the purposes of social stability. the european union is, at present, facing a demographic challenge arising from low birth rates and the steady increase in the proportion of older people. i believe that the improvement of provisions aimed at promoting a work-life balance for women is part of the answer to this demographic decline. i recognise the importance of introducing stronger protection from dismissal during the period from the beginning of pregnancy and the months immediately following the end of maternity leave. as such, i support the amendments that have been introduced for this purpose, including, in particular, the right of a woman to return to her job or to be assigned an equivalent position. the report's main objective is to improve security and healthcare for pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth and workers who are breastfeeding at work. personally, i consider the most important proposal to be the extension of the minimum length of maternity leave from 14 weeks to 20 weeks, which will contribute towards improving the health and psychological state of the mother, who will also therefore be able to take full care of her child. extending the minimum length of maternity leave will also encourage breastfeeding, which has a demonstrably positive impact on the health of the child and the mother. just as important in my opinion is the current proposal that the contribution to maternity leave should be the full amount of the employee's salary - that is, the average monthly salary - or at least 85%. these measures are sufficient to ensure that families, particularly single parent families, are protected from falling below the poverty line and from social exclusion. part of the report is devoted to the traditional status of women. women, unlike men, still bear the main responsibility for the care of the child and other dependents, and are often forced to choose between motherhood and professional development. it is therefore particularly important that the new forms of parental leave do not reflect or reinforce existing social stereotypes. the proposal only affects the czech republic with respect to the amount of maternity contribution, and not the length of maternity leave. women are the favourite victims of the recession due to redundancies primarily affecting precarious jobs. those most affected by redundancies, salary cuts and abuse from employers are women employed in paid domestic work, providing care and working on temporary contracts. domestic work accounts for almost a tenth of the total number of jobs in developed countries, which represents a large group of citizens, especially women, in a vulnerable situation. this encourages abusive treatment by employers, especially when the workers are immigrants originating either from the new european union member states, like romania, or third countries. i believe that the removal of the employment restrictions on romanians and bulgarians must be the first step towards eliminating discriminatory behaviour, which still imposes an inferior, precarious status on them in most old member states. the tragic example of a romanian nurse killed recently in an italian underground station, under the indifferent eye of passers-by, must ring the alarm bell about the dangers of collective discrimination and stigmatisation, which can have, as in this case, unforeseeable and extremely serious consequences. i also wish to press for the minimum period of maternity leave to be extended to 20 weeks so that women can have the time they need to look after their children accordingly. in writing. - i support this report which seeks to extend eu maternity leave to 20 weeks on full pay and to introduce two weeks of paid paternity leave. it is vital that the governments now support the ep's recommendations in the eu social affairs council on 2 december. opposing this measure will have the effect of excluding many women from the labour force, thereby losing a valuable resource. instead of penalising women for having children, the eu needs to support them and help them better balance work and family life. better maternity leave is an investment in the future good health of our society. the first few weeks of the lives of newborn children are invaluable for the development of trust, sensory-cognitive skills and a bond with both their parents. studies have also shown that social measures such as maternity leave help increase the female employment rate by 3-4%. providing better maternity leave and introducing paid paternity leave is a sensible investment. the impact assessment of this measure demonstrated that just over a 1% increase in female labour participation would cover the costs of 20 weeks paid maternity leave and two weeks paid paternity leave. in writing. - over the last 50 years, european women have made huge progress towards gender equality. among the most important goals achieved is the entry of women into the labour market. however, the increased over-representation of women in 'non-standard' employment is extremely worrying and i would like to repeat the report's calls on the commission to encourage member states to 'exchange best practices and make full use of the cofinancing opportunities offered by the structural funds . to ensure broader access to affordable, quality childcare and elderly care facilities so that women are not forced to undertake these duties on an informal basis'. it also 'stresses . the need to ensure that precarious domestic care jobs are transformed, wherever possible, into decent, long-term jobs'. precarious work has long been a cause of concern; however, the current economic and financial crisis has made the issue of precarious work and especially the issue of women in precarious employment very urgent, and i would urge the commission to act to protect women in a vulnerable situation employed in precarious circumstances. keynote speeches make much of the need to promote the status of families. the promotion of equality is a priority in employment strategies. it is time for action where it concerns families. families require concrete deeds and better coordination of work and family life. employment and birth rates among women are higher in countries where good systems of family leave and childcare services ease the burden that results from having children. good examples include sweden, denmark, iceland and finland. it is therefore possible to combine women's participation in the labour market with high birth rates, and that should be supported in the eu. i back the proposal by the committee on women's rights and gender equality for maternity leave to last 20 weeks on full pay. women and families should not be penalised for having children. in addition to the call for full pay, the proposed directive is also suggesting that maternity leave should count towards service in employment when pensions are being calculated. this issue is connected to the eu's call for equal pay. if the directive went ahead, it would narrow the earnings gap between women and men. the directive would also improve the status of multiple birth and adoptive families and that of families with disabled children. it is indeed difficult to think of any reason not to support the proposed directive with the amendments tabled by the committee on women's rights and gender equality. better coordination of family and professional life promotes the well-being of families, employment and economic development. we are unanimous regarding the need on the part of women who are pregnant or who have just given birth for special protection in society and the labour market. this is ultimately about the basic unit of society, about strengthening the status of the family. we nevertheless disagree on what sort of legislation should actually be enacted to realise this goal in the member states. i support the commission's view that the minimum period for maternity leave should be raised across the union from the present 14 weeks to 18 weeks, with compensation paid at the rate in place for a period of illness, at the very least. this would be a significant improvement in europe. when, in addition, we bear in mind the changes to parental leave made last year, we may conclude that protection of the family is improving in the eu. the committee on women's rights and gender equality, however, has adopted amendments that do not respect the differences between national systems or financial realities. the member states have widely varying maternity leave systems. cramming them all into the same package would result in poor legislation and breach the principle of subsidiarity. for example, in finland, maternity leave combined with paternity leave and a long period of parental leave lasting more than six months makes for a wideranging system, the cost burden for which is shared among different parties. the system has an additional component: the possibility of childcare leave, during which the contract of employment is not discontinued. the costs of maternity leave lasting 20 weeks on full pay, which is now being proposed, would go up in finland from the current level of eur 30 million to eur 80 million. in many member states, it would mean even higher costs. in this economic situation, such a proposal can only be made completely free of budgetary responsibility. from the perspective of equality, i also regard as worrying the dreaded scenario where women's employment opportunities could, in fact, weaken if employers were saddled with the massive costs arising. it is 15 years since the adoption of the beijing platform for action. the document summarises the status of women in the world and recommends steps for improving it. it emphasises women's working conditions, particularly in the economy, health and education. the european parliament and the council have adopted several directives to implement these recommendations. based on the results, which appeared to be largely positive, further tasks were undertaken and presented for implementation by the member states in the road map for equality between men and women for 2006-2010. february's annual report by the european parliament on equality between men and women for 2009 says that, as a result of the economic crisis and the budget cuts in the eu countries, there have been job losses, particularly amongst women. women often submit to pressure by employers, which particularly favours multinational retail chains. the workload has a bad effect on women's health, family, legal working time or training. few employers are willing to create favourable conditions for their employees for reconciling professional and family life. the most difficult working conditions are faced by female immigrants. the obstacles they face include language barriers, an unfamiliar working environment, family or cultural traditions, and so on. the crisis has impeded the attainment of many fixed objectives. the european institute for gender equality should immediately assess the current situation, and the european commission and the european parliament should take effective action to halt the worsening of the status of women. the long gestation (a fitting choice of term in this case) of this proposal for a directive is due to the conflict between those who wanted to include impossible objectives in the document in order to give it a symbolic quality, and those whose sole aim was to advance our society by promoting certain rights in practice. in the end, the compromise does not fully meet the protection requirements outlined: the protection of the health of pregnant women; the guarantee of equal treatment for female workers, including self-employed workers; and the increased sharing of childcare responsibilities between parents. however, the new features introduced - the extension of maternity leave to 18 weeks and the 6 weeks' compulsory maternity leave after confinement; the introduction of remuneration at the full amount of the woman's previous earnings; the increased protection against redundancy; and the introduction of the right to request flexible working patterns, notwithstanding the option for member states to set different limits and to maintain more favourable provisions, mean that we are indeed taking a step forward. i voted in favour of the resolution, although my opinion differs even from that of my group on many amendments, in an attempt to highlight the fundamental importance of the measures linked to health and safety protection at work. for a long time, gender inequality in the labour market has been a very important subject for the eu, and for years, it has tried to find a solution. nevertheless, even today, we cannot report positive developments in this area. thus, for example, according to eurostat data, the number of women in precarious employment - that is, women working part-time - has increased significantly, reaching 31.4%, while the figure for men is 8.3%. it seems reasonable here to locate the reasons for this in the current economic and financial crisis, which has exacerbated the problems of women in precarious employment even more. i believe that precarious employment is not just a reason for the difference in pay between women and men, but also a barrier to career opportunities. as the proportion of women in precarious employment is excessively high today and, therefore, the abovementioned harmful consequences have a disproportionate effect on the situation of such women, i think that the eu should strengthen the legal regulations on temporary, part-time and agency work. perhaps then, one day, we will be in a position to say that the eu has guaranteed equal rights between men and women and abolished gender discrimination in the labour market. ladies and gentlemen, i would like to thank mrs estrela for her creditable report on the amendment to the council directive to encourage improvements to the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding. the reforms set out in the report are important for the improvement of the rights and well-being of eu citizens and the creation of healthier competitiveness in the internal market. the european union needs a coherent social policy. the harmonisation of maternity leave systems is an important step towards a more social europe. the report proposes a period of maternity leave lasting 20 weeks on full pay. this would increase maternity benefits in many eu countries. a long and well remunerated period of maternity leave has been shown to have a positive impact on women's participation in the labour market. the greater contribution made by women to the labour market would quickly cover the costs of the reform, which many claim are insurmountable. better maternity benefits also raise birth rates. an ageing europe needs taxpayers in order to maintain security of the supply of services in the future. the call for full pay during maternity leave is also an important step in narrowing the differences in income between women and men. a period of maternity leave would no longer mean less income for women and, furthermore, full pay during maternity leave would increase women's pension accrual. in today's europe, older women are especially liable to live in poverty. the majority of precarious jobs have always been taken by women. there has been talk for a long time about improving working conditions for women but, unfortunately, nothing is changing. against this background, i wish to draw your attention to the plight of the seasonal workers picking strawberries in spain. i am familiar with their situation not only from the countless complaints received from romanian workers or the trade unions, but also from direct experience on site. every year, thousands of romanian women go to pick strawberries in spain for a period of between three and five months. some are very often subjected to abuse from their employers. the original contracts are replaced by contracts in spanish, which they do not understand. they are often not given health insurance, being forced even to pay for it out of their own pocket. their work sometimes requires them to pick strawberries sprayed with pesticides, without any protective equipment. however, they cannot complain as they are afraid that they will be sacked and sent home. i have drawn the european commission's attention to their situation through questions which have been submitted requesting a directive for regulating the rights of seasonal workers in the european union. however, the response i have been given is that this issue is not on its list of priorities. this is why i call on the commission again to table a legislative proposal on this matter. supporting women as they reconcile their working and family conditions is one of the biggest challenges of modern times. the amount or length of maternity leave certainly does not determine the decision to start a family or whether or not to have a child. nevertheless, the conditions under which these decisions are made are important. this is about the degree of certainty that women have during this time that they can dedicate themselves to motherhood, in peace and without fear, during the first weeks and months. it is also an expression of the importance society assigns to these women. it is about whether we basically consider motherhood to be merely an unfortunate obstacle in the professional life of women, who are at the mercy of the harsh conditions of the labour market, or whether society is able to provide women with the necessary protection. if greater protection for women in the labour market in the context of childbirth and motherhood primarily means an economic burden that european society is not willing to bear, then we need to think about the values of this society. this is a question of society's priorities. in writing. - many speakers have understandably referred to the economic impact of extending maternity leave from 14 to 20 weeks. unfortunately, costs often come up because they are easy to measure. however, benefits, too, can be measured. in fact, one subject which has been well researched quantitatively is the impact of paid maternity leave on prime-age female labour force participation rates (flfpr). one of the most authoritative econometric studies by the ecb clearly shows that the flfpr for prime-age women is always on the increase up to 43 weeks of such paid maternity leave. only beyond that point will the rate be actively affected. for many member states whose length of maternity leave is close to the legal minimum and, as a consequence, their female participation is low, an increase in paid maternity leave is economically beneficial. for these member states, the cost of extending maternity leave will be money well invested rather than a burden.

conventional energy sources and energy technology (debate) the next item is the report by mr reul on behalf of the committee on industry, research and energy on conventional energy sources and energy technology [http://www.europarl.eu.int/oeil/findbyprocnum.do?lang=2&procnum=ini/2007/2091" ]. rapporteur. - (de) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since i have a few extra minutes, let me begin by thanking the commission, the secretariat of our committee and the other rapporteurs. it was not such an easy task, and i am grateful that we managed to cooperate in an objective manner and to seek out the widest possible common ground on what is not an entirely straightforward issue. our work was based on three communications from the commission, and our aim in this report was to provide answers in the three areas covered by those communications, which we managed to do by a large majority in the responsible committee. the starting point was a generally accepted principle that is restated in every debate on energy policy, namely the view shared by the commission and parliament that energy policy has three major goals - competitiveness, in other words affordable prices, protection of the environment and security of supply. the conclusion that the solution lay in the continuing development of new and existing energy technology was certainly the easiest part of the report to deal with. technology is the key to the pursuit of these three goals. in a world in which demand for energy is constantly growing while the supply of fossil fuels is steadily dwindling, it is therefore crucial that we invest in research and innovation and try to make progress in these areas. we need only look at the potential for increasing the generation efficiency of coal-fired power stations, which averages 34% at the present time but could be raised to 55% through the use of state-of-the-art technology. if a third of old plants were replaced by cutting-edge facilities, fuel consumption could be reduced by 30%. that is just a small example of the opportunities offered by new technology. we also spoke about two energy sources which are very different from each other but which share the distinction of provoking the greatest political controversy. no one doubts that the share of fossil fuels, which accounted for 79% of gross domestic fuel consumption in the european union in 2004, will remain high in the foreseeable future. however long this may continue, the fact is that we will certainly have to operate with fossil fuels for some time to come. coal is a major factor that plays an important role - one reason, of course, being that it is one of the few energy sources, or indeed the main energy source, that we possess in europe, even if its availability varies between member states. this is a significant advantage, particularly in terms of the security of our energy supplies. this means - and this was an important point in our discussions - that when we say coal has a future, which the commission has thankfully described, we must ensure that the critical aspects of coal use are addressed. one of these critical aspects is the emission of carbon dioxide. one option is greater efficiency and better technology, and the other option is to try to use new technology to separate co2 and store it underground - the famous carbon capture and storage (ccs) technology. that is easier said than done of course, but there are indications that it works. we have acknowledged that in this report and have advocated promoting the development of ccs technology, because it gives us a chance to go on benefiting from coal, which is a very reliable source of energy for us in europe. this is why we have also stressed that we need to tread warily, that carbon capture can reduce generation efficiency and that it is therefore difficult to estimate when ccs technology could come on stream. above all, we must do our homework and formulate the appropriate legal provisions. the third and most controversial part of the report relates to the issue of nuclear energy. nuclear plants account for more than 30% of power generation in europe, and nuclear power has advantages that are undeniable, whatever our political views. it is there, it is affordable, and it makes a major contribution to security of supply. in terms of reducing co2 emissions, it is an extremely exciting and interesting option, and i do believe it would be reckless if we simply pushed this form of energy aside and did not even consider it. we succeeded - not without difficulty - in finding formulas to which a large majority could subscribe and which conveyed the message that airing these ideas is part and parcel of a full debate but that the decision to adopt or reject them is a matter for the member states. that is quite an important point, but our intention is to contribute to the area for which europe bears some responsibility, namely security of supply. in this respect it is a wise move to establish the high-level group on nuclear safety and waste management and the european nuclear energy forum, and it is undoubtedly right, as postulated in the illustrative nuclear programme for the community (the pinc paper), to carry this debate forward and, when we discuss investments in new technology, not to turn our backs on any potential solution. in short, an energy mix does not mean sifting out particular sources of energy but taking all sources into consideration. i hope we shall manage to adopt this resolution tomorrow in the form in which it was approved by a large majority in committee. member of the commission. - mr president, first of all i would like to congratulate mr reul on his report. it comes as the last report from the european parliament in the follow-up of the energy and climate change package from 10 january. the other two reports, by mr vidal-quadras and ms thomsen, have given the commission valuable input for further formulation of the proposals. the first concerns our preparation of the internal market package, and the second, the continuing work on the directive on renewable energy. i am also very grateful for the timely input mr reul and this house will provide in the area of energy innovation, clean fossil fuel and nuclear energy. on many accounts, the commission is already in line with the calls of parliament and is working on a number of outstanding issues identified in the report. europe needs to achieve the important goal of combating climate change. for that, and also for security of supply, we need low-carbon, highly efficient energy technologies. we also need to use fossil fuels in a more sustainable way. and it will be difficult to achieve our climate change goals without the use of nuclear energy. let me start by addressing the issue of energy innovation. the commission intends to present the european strategic technology plan at the end of november. europe has proven to be successful in setting a regulatory framework in support of low-carbon technologies. targets have been agreed for energy savings and for renewable energy. we are also building a truly internal market. there is no doubt that these are the basis for the third industrial revolution. however, this is far from enough. if we only depend upon imported low-carbon technologies, we will fail our security of supply and competitiveness objectives. the analyses currently under way in the commission show that europe is falling short in the development of low-carbon technologies. in essence, we are not able to convert the high quality, basic research that is done in the eu into world leading technologies. today, we do not focus sufficiently on matching research to business developments, by building pilot and demonstration plants to get up to full commercial scale. for europe to lead the world in innovation for climate change and energy security, it is essential to be more efficient in the management of the resources invested in energy innovation. we therefore need better, joint strategic planning at eu level, as well as more effective implementation of energy technology programmes and measures. furthermore, and as was stated in mr reul's report, we have to mobilise additional financial and human resources for energy technology research and demonstration. we have already increased the budget for energy in the seventh framework programme by 50% and for the competitiveness and innovation programme by 100%. this could not have been achieved without strong support from the european parliament. member states are also going down this road, and i am convinced that the private sector will do the same, once the framework conditions are right. this applies in particular to industrial-scale demonstration projects and early market deployment, as well as to the fundamental role of small- and medium-sized enterprises. i will now turn to the second part of the report: the challenges associated with conventional sources of energy. we must recognise that these energy sources will play a substantial role in the energy mix for years to come. we share the same view: that we need to make the transition from traditional to sustainable fossil fuels. before the end of the year, the commission will take further steps to address the use of modern technologies in power generation from fossil fuels. in particular, the commission will address the issue of the legal framework for the capture of carbon dioxide and its geological storage. we will table a legislative proposal which aims at establishing the regulatory framework in order to provide legal certainty, and to ensure public confidence in the safety of carbon capture and storage (ccs) deployment. i am also currently preparing a communication to set the political framework in support of ccs. i agree that ccs will require significant research efforts before it can be commercially viable. this is why ccs will be included among the strategic energy technologies in the strategic energy technology plan. this is also why we are singling it out for communication in connection with the legislative proposal. in parallel with continuous research and development efforts, the eu needs to move on demonstration plants. such projects will provide invaluable experience. they will allow us to optimise existing technologies, and to identify and respond to the remaining challenges. the goal is clear: to see several large-scale demonstration plants operational in the eu by 2015, and to bring the technology to the market by 2020. this will not happen unless there is strong commitment from the european private sector and strong, supportive government policies. the commission is ready to lead, but it will be necessary to get the full support of member states and of the european parliament. i will now come to nuclear energy. i am pleased to note that your message regarding nuclear energy is fully in line with our conclusions in the communication on a nuclear illustrative programme, as widely supported by the economic and social committee. i am also glad that the first meeting of the high level group on nuclear safety and waste management took place on 12 october. the group has a mandate to progressively develop common understanding and, eventually, a higher level of nuclear safety. i share the report's view that an open dialogue on nuclear energy is essential. for this reason, the commission has set up a nuclear forum, on the lines of the other energy forums. the aim of the nuclear forum is to enlarge the debate on nuclear energy, and to involve all the relevant players. on 26-27 november, the first meeting of that forum, also called the bratislava/prague forum, will take place. i trust it will mean more transparency in allowing for consultation with, and between, all stakeholders. i am pleased that the european parliament will also participate. i would like, once again, to congratulate the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent report. i thank the european parliament for its support and cooperation. we will use this report in our further work, and i definitely look forward to the debate. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on development. - (da) mr president, excuse me, but this report is not good, and neither has the work process in connection with it been good. why has the committee on industry, research and energy not listened to the statements from other committees? on behalf of the committee on development i regret the fact that we have only been asked for a statement on the commission's carbon emissions. energy efficiency and savings and our most important criticisms are far too weak. in addition, they are otherwise entirely decisive for the developing nations. there is a huge amount of energy to be obtained through savings, and there are known technologies available, and for the developing nations at least it is much, much more important than css. in general, this also applies to the industrialised nations. in addition, why is oil being forgotten completely? the high oil prices are a major burden for the developing nations, particularly within the transport sector, where oil is dominant. in addition to improving efficiency, there is a need for other transport models. however, renewable energy is crucial if the developing nations are to develop, and it is grotesque that this is barely mentioned in the report. the proposal is blunt, and the views of the committee on development are not included in any way. i would therefore like to urge everyone to address this tomorrow. draftsman of the opinion of the committee on the environment, public health and food safety. - (pl) mr president, i would agree with the opinion of herbert reul as regards diversification in electricity generation, diversification of supply and improvements in energy efficiency and usage. the fact that natural resources are continually dwindling is nothing new to scientists working in the area of energy supply. for years, leading research centres have been observing the level of usage of natural resources and have published alarming reports. the findings of these reports show unequivocally that continued reliance solely on conventional methods of generating energy could, in future, lead the global economy to an energy crisis. dwindling natural resources means that europe will increasingly have to import from neighbouring countries, which can result in a gradual dependence on suppliers. we have already seen the negative consequences of such a policy on a number of occasions in neighbouring countries. for this reason one of the principal challenges facing the european union is diversification of energy sources as well as to work on creating new energy generation technologies. positive policies in this area will be beneficial not just to society and the economy, but also to the natural environment. at this point, however, i would like to emphasise that not all countries will be able to pursue this policy in the short term. this is linked to historical conditions that resulted in the power sector, for many years, being backward in comparison with the countries of the old eu. for this reason, from the perspective of a citizen of such a country, i would like to point out that, as i said, poland or the other countries in this geographical area will have to cover more ground than the countries of western europe in modernising the power sector. please consider this particular point. taking climate change into account, the eu should become more involved in work on clean coal technology as the optimal solution for the natural environment, especially in those countries where the power sector in largely dependent on the use of coal. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (hu) thank you for the opportunity to speak, mr president. commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report before us makes no secret of the fact that there are major arguments against conventional forms of energy. the issue most talked about nowadays in this connection is that of climate change. not only do fossil energy sources contribute to global climate change, however; they also make europe more dependent on external suppliers. allow me to cite one example from hungary to illustrate my point. in a country where raw materials are in short supply, gas comprises 50% of the energy mix, 80% of this deriving from a single external source, namely russia. this results in a degree of dependency that not only has far-reaching social and economic consequences, but can also exert considerable influence on hungary's international relations. at the same time, however, these figures and others like them show that conventional energy sources are inevitably going to play a major role in europe's energy supply in the decades ahead, even if renewable energies gain ground. to state the contrary would be tantamount to sticking our heads in the sand. ladies and gentlemen, the contradiction between the necessity of conventional sources and the risks associated with them must, however, be resolved. i believe mr reul's report presents the necessary toolkit for doing just this. i agree with the rapporteur that the european union needs to focus on three fundamental objectives when establishing policy on conventional energy sources: increasing efficiency, and, connected to this, exploiting the potential of research and development, and reducing dependency on external sources. the best example of this last point is the nabucco project; construction of this gas pipeline would represent a significant step towards diversification and so it is in the community's interests to make it happen. thank you very much, mr president. on behalf of the pse group. - (pl) mr president, commissioner, energy is a crucial factor as regards market competitiveness as well as quality of life for eu inhabitants. for this reason, therefore, the fundamental political and economic goals must be effectiveness in the sustainable generation of energy, efficiency in terms of reductions in overall usage, as well as reliability and safety of energy supplies. achieving these goals will also result in a safe society. we cannot forget how much our citizens pay, either directly or indirectly, for every unit of energy. the competitiveness of the eu member state's economies depends, among other factors, on better use of regional resources in the form of fossil fuels. this will only happen, however, when the commission provides guarantees that the emission trading system will not hamper the replacement of existing power stations, e.g. coal-fired power stations, by more modern systems with lower co2 emissions. poland has already reduced emissions by 32% since 1988 while, over the same period, the countries of the old eu have done considerably less. the present figure for emissions per inhabitant in poland stands at 7 tonnes per annum, while in the old eu countries this is up to two times higher. in these circumstances it would not be right for poland to reduce co2 emissions drastically by a further 30% from next year. this is a commission decision that would have highly unfavourable social consequences. my country cannot be sacrificed to the politics of climate hysteria. it is well known that the climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change and that we have to counteract the consequences of these changes, i.e. droughts, floods and shortages of drinking water. justice, however, demands that reductions in co2 emissions be linked to a per capita figure in eu countries. it is important that emission costs should not be decided arbitrarily on the basis of reductions and unclear principles. competitiveness cannot be a function of false market incentives, and the price of energy has to reflect its real cost. it would seem sensible to use all possible methods that have been tested to absorb carbon dioxide, including biological methods, and to absorb methane. at present, however, priority should definitely be given to methods that improve the efficiency of converting primary energy into other forms based on pilot technological installations for the gasification and liquefaction of coal, as well as for the creation of hydrogen. in conclusion, i would like to thank the rapporteur mr reul sincerely for the fruitful cooperation in preparing this report, which demonstrates a comprehensive, balanced and long-term approach to the problems of fossil fuels and atomic energy. first of all, i would like to congratulate mr reul, and my other fellow members, who have come up with valid amendments, on their well-balanced report and all the hard work they have put into it. all the energy sources covered in the report have been given a sufficient amount of attention, while at the same time, the importance of alternative energy sources and new energy technologies was duly pointed out. energy diversification is of great importance in ensuring energy security, which happens to be vital to my country, lithuania. this area is definitely vulnerable, as my country is fully dependant on one supplier, without any other alternative so far. a possible solution could be the construction of a safe, modern nuclear power plant. it would be the basis for both our political security and economic stability. discussions on this report involved sharing different views on the future of nuclear energy. although we should fully recognise the importance of alternative energy sources and their possible dominating role in the future, we should nevertheless develop a down-to-earth approach to nuclear energy and face the fact that 30% of the energy produced in the eu is produced by nuclear power plants. this energy contributes to the implementation of the kyoto objectives as well as to increasing the security of energy supply. i consider the amendments so energetically presented by the 'green' politicians who condemn nuclear power in the name of the security of european citizens to be hypocritical, as it could contribute to the increased insecurity of other european citizens. i would like to encourage my fellow members to be tolerant and to support the provisions enabling each nation to decide whether it is for or against the use of safe nuclear energy. only by sharing our views and listening to different opinions will we be able to come to the right decision. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) mr president, speaking on behalf of the union for europe of the nations group in this debate on conventional energy sources and energy technology, i would like to thank herbert reul for preparing a comprehensive report on this issue. first of all, the author of the report is right to note that the most important issue, also in terms of the future of energy generated from conventional fuels, is for the countries of the european union to work together in this area. secondly, with regard to the fact that the european union's dependence on fossil fuel imports will rise to about 70% by 2030, and, in the case of oil imports, to as much as 94%, it is essential to make maximum use of fossil fuel resources within the countries of the european union. thirdly, coal is just such a resource, with germany holding as much as 7% of the world's reserves and poland 2% of these reserves. it is important not to call into question the extraction of this fuel and the generation of energy from it, since electricity generated from fossil fuels is still half the price of electricity generated from renewable sources. fourthly, because of the ecological risks associated with the generation of electricity from coal, joint european investment is needed into research in new technologies in this area, financed from funds from the european union budget. fifthly and finally, support is needed for european union countries investing in atomic energy. in this context i would like to draw your attention to the agreement that has been drawn up for the construction of a modern nuclear power station in ignalin, which is a joint project between poland, lithuania, estonia and latvia. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (de) mr president, commissioner, may i say to mr reul that, since it has been more or less announced that the greens do not approve of this report, i intend to focus on the points that i found most disturbing. these are also reflected in the amendments we have tabled. during the drafting of this report it was impossible to engage in any critical reflection on nuclear energy. all the problems in europe associated with the demise of the safety culture in our nuclear plants were off-limits, even though the incidents in germany involving reactors operated by the vattenfall company had just provided a glaring cautionary example. discussion of the difficulty of funding waste disposal was likewise off-limits, as was the increasing threat of nuclear material being misused to build bombs or possibly for terrorist purposes. i must tell you, mr reul, that there is one thing which has truly driven me to distraction, and i shall say this before we meet in bratislava. it is the fact that in slovakia now, in 2007, the italian enel company is planning to complete a nuclear plant that was developed in the soviet union before chernobyl. construction began in czechoslovakia in the early eighties, and two thirds of the construction work was completed. now enel intends to finish building the plant without new planning permission and without having the plans checked for compliance with european standards. it is a disgrace. people who sing the praises of nuclear energy have no right to go on disregarding that disgrace. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (fi) mr president, commissioner, crude oil is more expensive than ever. this also has an effect on the price of other fossil fuels. the cost of all forms of energy is rising, as four fifths of the eu's entire energy consumption is fossil fuel-based. people are not prepared to reduce consumption, so there is a need for new technologies, greater energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage (ccs) and new nuclear technology, including research into nuclear fusion. after the vote in the committee's report, the hopes and dreams for the main alternatives are linked to ccs technology and nuclear power. there are no guarantees, however, that liquefied carbon dioxide can be stored safely in perpetuity. there are no signs that there might be investment in the hydrogen economy within the context of the transport infrastructure, let alone the use of electric cars running on carbon dioxide-free electricity, as is called for in the report. it will probably take half a century to tame nuclear fusion. all in all, the commission's proposal that by 2020 20% of the energy consumed in the eu should be produced with renewable fuels is just not credible. that will not be possible, at least not with renewable fuels produced in the eu's own territory or in the eu's big member states. the report under discussion presents far too optimistic a view because it suggests that fossil fuels will continue to be used, without any real alternatives and with no restraints at all. they will only stop being used if something forces the situation. we will be forced into this if natural resources run out before 2020, but it will not happen as a result of any systematic effort on the part of the eu member states or an eu declaration. in fact, it will take not only volition, fine words and pious hopes, but also genuine action which challenges our present lifestyle. furthermore, the pricing system for electricity, where wholesale prices for electric power are determined by the power exchanges, should be rethought. the price is always set by electricity produced at the most expensive production costs as well as that produced based on the most expensive allowances. this is the price which all the producers get. unfortunately, there are no guarantees that companies will spend the excessive profits they make this way on research into energy, as it is in the spirit of the times we live in that they distribute their profits in the form of dividends to their shareholders. emission allowance trading is also a way to increase the profits of the electricity companies rather than reduce emissions. on behalf of the its group. - (fr) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the rapporteur is right to make the point that conventional sources of energy will remain indispensable for several decades to come. he is also right to call for diversification of energy sources and supplies, for safer and more environmentally conscious energy production and for more efficient energy use. we are somewhat sceptical, however, about the grounds on which these measures are urged. in the first place, the stated reasons are largely a repetition of the myth that climate change is due to carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. yet growing numbers of scientists, while not disputing the fact of climate change, for the climate is constantly changing, are calling into question the notion of global warming, the culpability of co2 and the idea that the human race is behind it all. that being the case, the famous ccs (carbon capture and storage) technology - to which the report devotes much space but the long-term risks of which are unclear - sounds like a dodgy 'quick fix'. secondly, and despite the customary allusions to the member states having primary responsibility for their energy choices, the rapporteur cannot help trying to steer them in a certain direction. consider the space that his report devotes to the nuclear option - which remains entirely a matter of sovereign choice for each member state and which cannot be considered solely from the perspective of co2 emissions. finally, no mention whatever is made of globalisation as contributing to the over-use of fossil fuels. the promotion of international exchanges of goods at the expense of shorter, local and national, supply circuits is by no means irrelevant here. what the commission has been doing for years through its ultra-liberal trade policy and the opening of our markets to global competition without a scrap of protection for our economies - whatever its underlying rationale - is very largely responsible for creating the problems that the commission now claims it wants to resolve. mr president, there is much to commend in this report. of course it makes the ritual genuflection to climate change hysteria, despite the increasing doubts over the supposed link between co2 and climate. however, it also recognises the importance of diversifying energy supplies and of using fossil fuels, including coal, in the energy mix. it emphasises the need for energy security, and in this context rightly points to the need for energy efficiency, for continuing use of domestic resources, including coal, and for nuclear energy - both the current use of fission and the vital research on fusion, which is the great hope for the future. the most remarkable factor in the energy debate is the way that the greens and their fellow travellers agonise over carbon emissions but oppose the only mainstream low-carbon-generation technology. with oil at usd 90 a barrel, it is time for ms harms to recognise that nuclear power is the cheapest, safest, cleanest, most sustainable and most predictable base-load-generating technology available. as my colleague mr vidal-quadras has said, nuclear waste disposal is simply a technical problem which has now been solved. (cs) ladies and gentlemen, first of all i would like to acknowledge the work of the rapporteur, who prepared a well-balanced and realistic report, which reflects the latest developments. i also appreciate this initiative by parliament, as it is one of the few reports dealing with conventional energy sources. i am convinced that in the next few decades fossil fuels will continue to be irreplaceable in the energy mix: they should therefore be given due consideration. renewable energy sources are important, though they cannot replace conventional sources. as stated in this report, our efforts should aim at developing new technologies which allow for energy production with less environmental impact, such as clean coal technology. nowadays, when we are experiencing ever-growing energy consumption on the one hand, and a lack of technologies to replace the existing energy sources on the other, an overly unidirectional orientation towards renewable sources could paradoxically accelerate the growth of member states' dependency on energy imports from other countries. because energy has become the most strategic of commodities, the debates on complete replacing conventional sources may be popular but are very irresponsible. i regard as a triumph of common sense the fact that this report devotes sufficient attention to nuclear energy. if we are serious about the strategy for reducing the levels of co2 emissions close to zero, we cannot reject nuclear energy, which is without question one of the cleanest energy sources. we should not remain alone in our efforts to reduce co2 emissions, but strive to convince other superpowers to join us. unless countries such as the us, china and india take similar measures, the measures we take will not have any real impact on a global scale because they can influence roughly only one seventh of global co2 production. in conclusion, i would like to suggest that the rapporteur study more carefully the differences between nuclear reactors. there is no comparison between the reactor that exploded in chernobyl and those installed in the czech republic. (fi) mr president, commissioner, mr reul's report begs the important question of what direction europe and the world are going in on the energy question. the conflicts continue. for how long can we contain them? there is no easy alternative to fossil energy, given current conditions, not even if we did what we could to save far more energy than we do now. oil accounts for around 37% of the energy we use, gas 24% and coal 16%. fossil fuels thus account for 77% of all our energy. we know that the international energy agency predicts that world energy consumption will grow by more than one and a half times each year. consumption of fossil energy is expected to increase by even more than that because the large developing countries have little faith in wind power stations. the developing countries account for 70% of growth in energy consumption, and china alone represents 30% of that growth. the reserves of fossil fuels are therefore running out and are concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. it will take decades to change the energy system. time is running out; this is actually a race against time. unless we can sort out the environmental and energy problems we cannot guarantee peace. if i could mention some areas of action: we need intensive research, product development and new technologies, and we also need to change our behaviour. in europe we do not even conduct intensive research, even though we are heading for greater dependence, higher prices and conflict. i just heard that the united states of america spends five times more money on environmental research than the union. how is it that the lisbon knowledge-based economy works in this way? finally, it needs to be said that energy has its social dimension. prices have risen by 50% in just a few years. (fr) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mr reul's report is a very good and thorough report and i congratulate him on it. i am astonished, however, at the space it devotes to coal. coal is undoubtedly an abundant energy source. it is also the world's most widespread source of fossil energy. i am concerned, however, at its increasingly predominant role in electricity generation. the impression is given that carbon capture and storage technology will solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power stations, but i must confess that i am sceptical. there are coal-fired power stations all over the world: is it possible to equip them all with carbon capture systems? how will we manage to prevent co2 emissions from the so-called 'clean' coal-fired plants? is there not a risk that, having already experienced the eras of wood burning, coal burning and oil burning, we might now be taking a backward step into another coal burning era? to conclude on a more optimistic note, the report's strength lies, in my opinion, in its proposal for the european strategic energy technology plan. the plan needs to address the necessary diversification of energy sources by 2020, 2030 and 2050 and it must also reflect the importance of resource use at regional level. (pl) mr president, of the energy sources listed in the report, it is only coal, whether it be hard coal or brown coal, that is available in large amounts within the european union. by and large, we have to import the other energy fuels. energy requirements will increase in line with growth. at present it is not clear how successful we will be in developing production from renewable energy sources or from hydrogen batteries, but these too need energy supplies. for this reason, despite enormous efforts, we should not give up on coal too quickly as an accessible source of energy. we are not doing enough to develop clean energy from coal. more resources should be put into processing coal and into improving the efficiency of boilers and generators. we must maintain energy security and one of the elements of this is the coal that is available in nearly all eu countries. we cannot afford to dislike our natural riches. finally, i would like to congratulate herbert reul and his colleagues for an excellent and balanced report, which i fully support. mr president, commissioner, it is good to see you burning the midnight oil along with us. in europe, we have a vast renewable energy potential. in scotland, we know that better than most. as ms harms has said, my group has a number of difficulties with the pro-nuclear aspects of this report. but my own view is that we must also make sure that we do research into other, non-nuclear sources of power and research into ways to make them better. in paragraph 47, carbon-capture is experimental but it is promising, and in paragraph 47 we call on the commission to lay down, as soon as possible, clear political guidelines for the promotion of research into carbon capture and storage. commissioner, i am delighted to hear you are going to do that. it is important because, left to their own devices, the member states will not come up with it. in scotland, we had at peterhead a world-leading proposal for a demonstrator site. because of political uncertainty entirely caused by the london government not making it a priority, the project is going ahead - and it is going ahead in california. europe can have a lead in this; we can be globally significant in the research potential that we have, but we must have real action. i am glad to hear that this report has some ideas which the commission is taking forward. (cs) i would like to make 10 points regarding the report by mr reul. it is an excellent and well-balanced report, which, in my opinion, is written in the spirit of antoine de saint exupry's words about our future: our task is not to foresee it, but to enable it. the report lists practically all the conventional energy sources, except perhaps, to please the green members here, for ebonite sticks and fox tails. jokes aside, i recognise the exhaustive manner with which the report encompasses the general regulations governing the energy sector. as professor semjonov's historical findings confirm, since prehistoric and ancient times the same basic laws have applied: on the one hand humans have tried to lower the energy intensity of technologies, while on the other hand they have strived to produce more energy. in my opinion, today an effective combination of energy sources and diversification of gas imports is vital. the weight of the european single market should be increased as a factor for guaranteeing the stability and reliability of supplies. there are of course environmental risks involved, which would need to be carefully assessed. the rapporteur, mr reul, refers for example to the arctic shelves, which, according to some estimates, account for up to 25% of new gas and oil sources. the commission will undoubtedly be asked to take measures to reduce the energy intensity per unit of gdp. another essential task is drawing up a reasonable technology transfer policy. (the president cut off the speaker) (sk) allow me to congratulate the rapporteur, mr reul, on his excellent report. this reports captures the status quo in the area of conventional energy sources and technologies, and at the same time draws attention, in a complex way, towards many aspects of their further use in the context of both securing energy supplies and the need to continuously increase emissions. since there is an increasing need for energy on a global scale, the european union cannot afford to completely eliminate fossil fuels since they play an important part in overall energy production although their reserves keep diminishing. in spite of the fact that the european union is on average relatively effective in producing energies from these conventional sources, some member states could do still much more in the area of introducing and supporting new, more effective technologies and developing new, more effective cooperation units. nor should the member states create needless obstacles to new investments in the use of fossil reserves through the most advanced technologies available. another issue i want to concentrate on is nuclear energy. as we know, nuclear energy generates practically no co2 emissions and i am convinced that sooner or later it will find its place even in those member states that so far have been against it for ideological rather than pragmatic reasons. since new technologies, such as fourth-generation reactors, are constantly developing (even in russia, mrs harms), there are now options in place for further improvements to their operating safety and for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel. to conclude, i would like to say that i appreciate that the work of the commission shows a tangible tilt towards more a open and objective view and evaluation of the benefits of nuclear energy, resulting in initiatives such as the european nuclear energy forum, the inaugural meeting of which will be held in bratislava in november later this year, as mentioned in this house. europe has long been lacking such a permanent platform for discussion, contributing to the exchange of knowledge, information and opinion. such exchange will be useful both to the experts and the public in general, and i assume that it will be useful to the greens as well. (de) mr president, i would like to touch on two points. the first is one on which i hope and believe we are firmly united, namely the view that conventional sources and forms of energy and technology will continue to play a major role in the future. the idea that we can replace everything with energy from alternative sources is illusory. we must, however, make conventional technology environment-friendlier - that is absolutely essential - and we must also ensure that conventional forms of technology become more efficient. these are the views we share, and in these respects the report can be strongly endorsed. the situation is perhaps somewhat different with regard to nuclear technology. it must be absolutely clear, with no ifs or buts, that every country can choose its own forms of technology, in other words it can opt for nuclear technology or choose to get by without recourse to the nuclear option. another principle that must be common to all of us is the primacy of safety - not only safety in the energy production process but also, of course, safe final disposal and, what is very important in today's world, where the significance of the global dimension is constantly growing, the non-proliferation of nuclear technology that can be used for military purposes. i would have liked to see the report focus rather more sharply on these issues. we have, admittedly, addressed them in other reports, and i believe europe must set the best of examples in this field. regardless of what might be called the ideological stance - whether we are for or against nuclear technology - safety must be absolutely paramount. i hope that we in this parliament and, of course, the commission will be increasingly vigilant so as to ensure that all safety issues, including non-proliferation, remain in the foreground, otherwise we shall be failing in our responsibility for mankind and for peace in the world. i hope that this message might yet come across more clearly tomorrow in some amendments than it does in mr reul's report. (bg) geopolitical interests and the striking of balances, the level of technological development and its impact on the economy create the necessary conditions for a second chance to nuclear energy as an important element of the energy mix. this theme is very important and topical against the backdrop of the heated debate on the climate change, the security of energy supplies and the alternative power generation solution. in my country bulgaria, kozlodui nuclear power plant acounted for 43 % of the total power generation in the country, contributing to the sustainable development of the economy in 2006. of course, these figures pertain to the period before the closing down of units three and four of the nuclear power plant on 31 december 2006. analyses reveal that in the next few decades to come the consumption of electricity will double globally. all over the world, 31 reactors are under construction and others are in the planning phase. this dynamic process comes to show that active efforts are being made to seek solutions in order to overcome the challenges facing modern economies, to provide inexpensive and clean energy, to cope with the climate change, to observe the greenhouse emission quotas under the kyoto protocol, to safeguard the security of supplies and to reduce the dependence on imported gas and oil. and if i recall yeat another fact, i.e. currently nuclear power plants generate one-third of the elecrticity in the european union, then i would conclude that perhaps the time for a nuclear renaissance has come. (cs) ladies and gentlemen, the report should be commended for including all sectors of the energy mix while looking at conventional sources in particular. we certainly need to step up the effectiveness of fossil fuel use. i am convinced, however, that there are several reasons why we cannot do without nuclear energy. sustainable development, preservation of competitiveness in the broadest sense, true environmental protection and emission reductions are just some of these reasons. we are finally beginning to discuss nuclear energy without letting unhelpful feelings and emotions guide us, although some of the amendments tabled and even some of the contributions still do not bear witness to this. i am therefore glad to hear realistic voices from the commission and other eu institutions saying that we need to incorporate nuclear energy even in the future. in many countries nuclear energy already represents a key source, and is a guarantee of the much-discussed notion of energy independence and security. it seems at last that by pursuing quotas and percentages we will not end up doing what a czech proverb describes in a colourful way as 'throwing the baby out with the bath water'. (es) mr president, the own-initiative report we shall be voting on tomorrow is the third and final such report drafted by this house and concludes parliament's response to the energy review submitted by the commission at the beginning of the year. our colleague herbert reul has done a magnificent job throughout the debate in committee and has produced a sound, consistent text which fully encompasses the concerns of the majority of meps. for a long time, fossil fuels and nuclear energy will continue to be the nub of our energy mix and despite the ambitious targets we have set ourselves for renewables, the contribution that they make will not be truly significant for several decades. therefore, we must not temper efforts to research, develop and innovate in conventional sources since fulfilling our commitments in relation to climate change, security of supply and competitiveness involves achieving a more sustainable use of these sources. the result of the committee vote was excellent as it highlighted the progress made in controlling the capture of carbon dioxide, in improving energy efficiency in the generation of electricity, in the contribution which synthetic fuels for transport can make, and in the competitiveness of the nuclear sector. one group in this house has tabled almost 40 amendments to the nuclear section seeking to change all objective and realistic references to nuclear fuels to references to renewable sources. i would like to remind them that this matter has already been voted on at a previous plenary sitting and, allow me please to tell the group concerned, that it is free to live in a world divorced from reality, but that we will all suffer the consequences if their obsessions ultimately mean that their arguments prevail. the majority of the members of this house prefer to work with facts and to use those facts to draft sensible policies which do not lead our society into collective breakdown. (bg) allow me, first and foremost, to congratulate the rapporteur mr reul on his objective and balanced report. a major distinctive feature of the report is the clear outline of the role of conventional energy sources, the need for their increasingly efficient use through new technologies to achieve the energy security of the european union with maximum compliance with the sustainable development goals and the combat against climate changes. i would like to support the conclusion that the increased investment in energy technologies at the european and national levels would not only contribute to the attainment of the eu energy goals but it would also enhance its capabilities to export facilities in compliance with the higher efficiency and security standards. i would like to single out that section of the report which deals with nuclear energy not only because of its leading place in the generation of power from conventional sources but also because of the vital importance for nuclear energy to observe the highest nuclear safety standards. in this sense, the support to the appeal of the commission to introduce common nuclear safety reference levels in the european union is a crucial aspect of the report. i would like to specially emphasize the fact that bulgaria, which intends to build a new nuclear power plant, takes great interest in the enhanced role of the european union in the observance of high nuclear safety standards, as well as in the creation of favourable investment conditions for these large-scale projects that call for big financial, material and intellectual resource input. the work of the european union, including the high-level group on nuclear safety and waste management and the existing nuclear energy forum, will contribute to the incorporation of nuclear energy into the eu policies in a more objective manner. (de) mr president, necessary though it is to enact measures to combat climate change and promote renewables, it is extremely important that parliament should also deal with the future of conventional energy sources. the reul report emphasises the huge importance of coal and nuclear power to the regional economy. we have 300 000 european jobs in coalmining alone. additional economic strength is provided by the power stations and through tax revenue. some 60% of our electricity generation is based on european coal or nuclear power. of course we must increase the efficiency and safety of these energy sources. of course we must also seek to protect the environment by developing additional legal provisions governing matters such as carbon emissions. on the other hand, we must not turn the legislative screw so tight that coal loses its international competitiveness. the fact is that renewable energy sources will not be able to grow as quickly as we would wish. we face the threat of restrictions on our independence in the field of foreign policy and arbitrary actions on the part of our energy suppliers. the only way to avoid that threat in future is with a strategic energy mix which also includes coal and nuclear power. (et) if climate change is to be brought under control it is important to reduce carbon emissions from combustion of fossil fuels to near zero. however, in order to prevent and mitigate the unwanted effects of climate change action must be taken now. clean coal technology may prove to be possible, but we cannot pin all our hopes on it at present. the european union must significantly reduce current greenhouse gas emissions and that must remain the cornerstone of our climate policy. i am pleased that the european parliament temporary committee on climate change has recently approved a strong line for our negotiations at the bali climate conference in december. where clean coal technology is concerned, the funds currently available for the necessary research can of course be increased because the matter must be researched. however, we cannot spend decades waiting for research findings without doing anything else and therefore we must now concentrate on measures which must be implemented immediately, namely reducing co2 emissions, energy-saving measures and a general transition to renewable sources of energy. the vote of the itre committee has resulted in too great an emphasis on nuclear energy in the reul report and there has been too little discussion of renewables. therefore i fully support the amendments tabled in the house, as they help to balance the report. in particular i call upon you to support the proposed amendments recommending that the european commission make renewables the central focus of its own european strategic energy technology plan. mr president, first i must commend mr reul for skilfully steering his report through about 200 committee-stage amendments to provide this house with a very balanced, consistent and honest report that is highly relevant to the challenges we face today and in the future. many of those defeated amendments have reappeared at the last minute, and we in plenary must throw them out again. these amendments damage not only the report: in the end, they damage the environment that some of the proposals claim to represent. i use the word 'honest' most deliberately, because mr reul has used real words like 'coal' and 'nuclear', rather than hiding behind the generalities of what might or might not be sustainable or renewable, and it is clear that we will continue to rely on burning fossil fuels for generations to come. of course we support renewables. we do so because they provide necessary, clean energy. however, in most member states, renewable energy can meet neither our environmental targets, nor our accelerated energy demands, nor our need to remain competitive in global markets. as responsible politicians, we must discard the dogmas of the past and recognise that all clean technologies have their role to play. quite simply, we must retain and advance the nuclear share - and we will still not be doing enough. in my country, bulgaria, we were needlessly required to close 2 000 mw of safe, clean nuclear power. (es) mr president, despite the ambitious targets we have set ourselves, it would appear that we all agree that conventional sources of energy will continue to be an important part of our energy mix. therefore, nuclear energy will also continue to play an important role as it is still necessary in order to ensure security and stability of supply in many countries. to that end it is reasonable for research to be carried out in areas where nuclear energy's weaknesses are more apparent such as safety or treatment of waste, but we should note that the report clearly endorses the idea that the nuclear option falls within the exclusive competence of the member states, as mr reul noted at the outset. however, it would appear that some people intend europe to entrust its future almost exclusively to nuclear energy, making the development of renewables, increased efficiency or research subordinate to it. there is one small detail which we should ponder: what are the public's views on this? we have very much taken the reality of the situation into account but, of course, we must have clear priorities and in that regard it should be noted that the importance of the strategic energy technology plan which the commission is due to submit to us soon is one very important aspect of this. we believe that the main objective should be to reduce the cost of renewables, to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, industry and transport, and to make progress in low carbon technologies. europe and the member states should make these objectives their political priority and the focus of their efforts to build a future energy policy. (ro) the gross energy production in the european union is achieved based on various energy sources: 31% nuclear energy, 29% coal, 19% gas, 14% sources of renewable energy and 5% oil. romania produces 13.5% of its energy from oil, 15.3% from coal and coke and 5.9% is hydroelectric and nuclear-electrical energy. as regards nuclear energy, it is essential to ensure its security and, especially, adequate waste treatment. generation iv nuclear energy systems will allow better nuclear waste management and decrease its quantity. nevertheless, an extremely important element for environmental protection should refer to the treatment of water used to cool reactors. for this reason, the investments in the security and treatment of radioactive waste should be a priority for the countries that generate nuclear energy. the black sea region is extremely important for diversifying the european union's sources of energy. the region has a strategic importance, not only for the transportation of hydrocarbons from the caspian sea region to the european union, but also for the coal resources existing in romania, bulgaria, turkey, ukraine and russia. it is important for the coal industry to provide work safety and health conditions. as long as coal is a source of energy, it is important to have the necessary investments in order to provide workplace safety. (hu) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i congratulate the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteurs. it is a particular achievement of this report that the european parliament has realised beyond any shadow of a doubt, and accepted, that ideological concerns cannot override environmental and economic necessity. some of the current member states have attempted to do just this over the past half-century but, as we know, were unsuccessful. it was in 1956 that hungary abandoned the vain political notion that it could be a country of iron and steel. fortunately the european union has not had to go to such extremes to realise and acknowledge that we will need all our knowledge and all our resources if we are to meet our energy requirements securely in the 21st century. this calls for the maximum possible diversification in terms of both sources and technologies. ideology cannot decide what sort of footing europe's energy supply will rest on in 10, 20 or 50 years' time; science must decide. the politicians' role is to demand safety, coordinate sources, and increase public acceptance. for this task i wish all of us - as hungarian miners would say - 'j szerencst', may we come out safely at the end of the day! member of the commission. - mr president, as was mentioned, this is the third report on the commission decision and the later decision of the european council. the vidal-quadras report has helped us formulate the internal market package. the thomsen report will have a huge influence on our proposals on renewables. i can also promise that we will follow the vote on the reul report very carefully, because the outcome of that report will influence the approach to ccs - first of all the legal proposal and also the report - and also our strategic energy technology plan and our future policy, as far as the euratom treaty gives us a mandate for nuclear energy. that is why this vote will be very carefully followed by the commission. at the same time i would like to emphasise a couple of points. it was mentioned that we need to modernise the energy sector. if i recall - now, in 2007 - the first debate in 2004, i believe we have achieved a lot. definitely, security of supply and climate change are closely related, with perhaps just one major difference at this stage, which is the cost for carbon sequestration, but i believe oil price developments will help. at the same time, weather challenges were mentioned. we do not invest in sufficient resources. we should really decide on priorities. without massive investment in research and development in the energy sector, we will not succeed. i believe the three-year debate was very helpful to prepare the ground. but now it is really time to address the issues. how can one claim, for example, that some member states are dependent on third countries when the structural funds are not being used for energy at all, or practically not at all! i would say also the part in national budgets for research and development is small. so these are the crucial issues to deal with. i am afraid that not much time is left until we have some serious perturbation in the market. so, we need to act, and to act now, on the basis on which parliament has worked so far. there was also mention of one particular issue: that we need sufficient energy resources. sufficient resources need energy demand management. here again, parliament has moved and the commission has moved, and at the same time i needed to start 12 infringement cases for not communicating energy efficiency action plans, the basis for action on energy demand. with regard to demand and dependence on third countries, this is also something that we should overcome. i think the saryusz-wolski report was a courageous attempt to go for it. if one member state is being blackmailed by a supplier, it should speak out. because the basic reason is that we have a common foreign and security policy (cfsp) that could give the necessary grounds for common action, and i believe that any country that has enough courage to blackmail any of the eu countries will think twice, or never again blackmail, if this is spoken of and discussed in the council. the last part of my intervention will be on nuclear energy. it is very clear that, under the reform treaty, the energy mix comes under national decision-making. that means that the decision on nuclear energy is to be made by each and every member state. but it should also be understood that conditions now definitely demand that the legislation in place should guarantee transparency and predictability, because it is a very long-term investment. mr swoboda also mentioned non-proliferation issues. we are looking at these, but in my opinion, it is very clear that the cfsp has priority and euratom should fill in and help. it is definitely the cfsp that should lead our activities on non-proliferation. two very concrete responses. first of all, mochovce. slovensk elektrrne has indeed notified its intention to construct a nuclear power plant. it is for a vvr reactor 440/213 but it is not of the chernobyl type. the commission, in accordance with article 41 of the euratom treaty, will prepare an opinion, taking full account of all the challenges this decision poses. this will take time, but you can be assured that the commission will perform the correct assessment and will not hesitate if we have any doubts about the safety of this equipment. on the issue of coming here to talk about the closure of some of the nuclear units, a debate on this issue would not be productive. this issue was agreed by the experts who prepared the ground. it was discussed at a political level and it was agreed at government level and sealed by a referendum in all the member states, including the countries where these reactors are. please do not return to this, because it distracts us from future developments. there is no way these reactors will get the green light for prolonging their work time. this is a dead end. please understand that there will be no development. i know, perhaps, you have personal views on it, but there will definitely not be developed, at least from the european commission. the opinion has been formed. it was democratically agreed, and let us keep and honour the commitment. i greatly appreciate the report that has been drawn up. it is a very difficult report and i believe it has got the accent right. i hope that the vote will definitely help us finalise the paper that we are to prepare by the end of the year. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on wednesday, 24 october.

approval of the minutes the minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed. are there any comments? madam president, today's minutes include an annex indicating that the bureaux of delegations of the joint parliamentary committees for associated states have already been elected. however, if you read the rules of procedure, you will see that rule 170(6) states that the appointment of the joint parliamentary committees is somewhat different from the interparliamentary delegations and must therefore be carried out under the same conditions as the appointment of the committees. this is how we have done it in the past. this means that elections must take place as for the committees. the fact that there are discussions between the groups of parties is another matter altogether. so, in the case of interparliamentary delegations, the plenum decides, whereas in the case of the joint parliamentary committees for associated states, in my opinion, rule 170(6) applies. i would like to make that point. there is a second point which i would also like to make. the deadline for submitting the relevant proposals was ten o'clock yesterday. however, the proposals - that is, the preliminary draft - on which we voted did not reach us until after ten o'clock and so i must call the entire vote into question. i would ask you to consider both points and give me your feedback at the next sitting. i will make the president aware of your first point, and she will discuss it with the presidents of the groups at the conference of presidents. on your second point, the services have informed me that you were given all the documents relating to the minutes of the previous sitting. in any case, your comments have been noted. madam president, i would like to ask that the results of the votes be displayed on the indicator board for at least ten seconds so that in future they can be noted down. we now have a new voting device and perhaps this can be programmed to display the results for at least ten seconds. this has been noted. i think that many here share your concern. it is important that we find out the result of every vote. madam president, i have a question on wednesday's minutes, or, more specifically, on annex 3 which was first distributed yesterday afternoon and which contains the proposals for nominations to the bureaux of interparliamentary delegations. i would like to know whether the typing error, which is actually binding, has since been corrected. it meant that my colleague sumberg from the ppe group would have become a deputy chairperson in two of these delegations, i.e. for japan and china. in actual fact, colleague jarzembowski has become deputy chairperson for the japan delegation. has this been corrected and is this binding? this correction has been made and everything is now as it should be. madam president, i wish to refer to the comments which the president, mrs. fontaine, made yesterday concerning the prohibition of the use of mobile telephones inside the hemicycle. there is nothing more important in our parliament than talking and communication, but in debates and not through external means of communication such as mobile telephones with the ringing and distortion that they cause. i ask that real measures be taken, where necessary, to impose sanctions, just as we might penalise those who do not vote. those who distort the use of words in this hemicycle must be penalised, forbidden entry or have their mobile telephones confiscated. i request that effective measures be taken. applause i shall certainly make the president aware of this, but i think that the first step is to appeal first to the courtesy and public-spiritedness of our colleagues. i am sure that, given time, everyone will find ways of treating one another with respect. in any case, i hope that we will not find ourselves having to impose disciplinary measures. we will discuss this within the bureau to see how this problem can be dealt with. madam president, firstly, i would like to point out that the german interpreting service has clearly failed. however, i also have a second point: are you aware of the significance of mr posselt's explanation? if the error, as pointed out by mr posselt stands, we do not have a properly elected president and vice-president in the delegations. this is an extremely serious matter and must therefore be treated with urgency. i would ask that this be clarified and dealt with as soon as possible by the bureau because this means we are entering the summer recess with a completely unclear situation with regard to the delegations and this must not happen in this parliament. applause on your first point, i have been told that the german interpreting service appears to be working again, and i am very relieved that this is the case. on your second point, i think that you are right. i shall inform our president of the comments which you and others have made. as you are part of the bureau, i know that you will also make her aware of this. madam president, it has become a bit of a tradition in this house for members to stand up and say that their name was not on the attendance list for the previous day. my name does not appear on the list for yesterday for some reason or other. perhaps it might be a better system if one could just go up to the front desk somewhere and point out to a member of staff that one's name was not on the list, rather than having to rise and inform the whole house. we shall be attending to this. incidentally, you have just given me the opportunity to tell our new colleagues that the procedure you have just mentioned is available to all members. this makes the sitting somewhat easier and also means that an mep does not have to come and point out the omission orally. madam president, i was very interested to hear the main findings of the second report by the committee of wisemen on belgian radio this morning. but i think it is a bit of a shame that in this high temple of communication, it appears to have been easier for the report to find its way into the newspapers, even in a far and distant land such as belgium, than onto the desks of the meps. my colleague mr staes raised this matter yesterday. i understand that he succeeded in getting hold of the report, on which i congratulate him, but to tell the truth, i had at least expected that all meps would receive this report yesterday. that is right. it seems that the report has indeed been given out to all meps. perhaps you should approach the distribution services. in any case, this is what i have been told, and i shall see to it that it is confirmed, and that everyone does indeed have access to this report. besides, you know that, unfortunately, the media sometimes manages to obtain information before the official channels are able to act. this is one of the great debates in society today. madam president, i should like to raise a point of order, and he should not take this personally, regarding the presence of the commissioner. the subject we are shortly to discuss is the 'non-competition clause in football' . that is on the agenda for this morning. the commissioner for competition policy, mr van miert, ought to be present for this. it has often been the case in the past that commissioners who did not have competence in the agenda item have attended here. i would urge you as the bureau, to discuss with the president of the commission, mr prodi, that when certain items appear on our agenda, the commissioners who attend are those who actually have competence for the area concerned. mr kinnock is not to take this personally, for it may be that he is a great fan of football, and i know that he is a talented commissioner, but i think this matter is too important to have to bring before the new parliament again. it is the commissioners with responsibility for the topic concerned that should be here when their subject is being discussed. applause as you know, in his new commission, mr prodi has nominated a commissioner with special responsibility for relations with parliament. we must be able to make mr prodi and his new commissioner aware of your proposal to have commissioners come and give detailed replies to questions which are relevant to them. having said that, the commission is a collective body, and mr kinnock certainly made use of all the necessary information in replying to us this morning, and i would like to thank him for being here. the minutes were approved french football federation fine the next item on the agenda is the commission's statement on the fine imposed on the french football federation following its infringement of the european legislation on competition. i should like to begin by responding to the words of maij-weggen. the point is well made and well taken. i know that she feels strongly about this and that she is not alone in that. whilst i obviously cannot commit my colleague, mrs loyola de palacio, who is happily a member of this house at the present time, to the development of her policy and approach in this house, there are several who feel that the time is right for further discussion between the commission and parliament on some of the procedures and conventions of this house, which obviously meets in more than one place, as well as the conventions and procedures of the college. i hope that discussion can proceed without great delay because there could be developments which would be of mutual benefit and would actually promote accountability and transparency in the service of the union. on the question before the house, i would like to make the following statement on behalf of the commission. this week, the commission issued a formal legal decision against the local organisers of last year's football world cup tournament in france. the organisers were the cfo. that decision followed the organisation's use of discriminatory sales arrangements for tickets for matches. as the house will recall, in 1996 and 1997 the system used by cfo favoured consumers who were able to provide an address in france. in the view of the commission, that constituted an abuse of the organisation's dominant position in the market which is contrary to article 82 of the treaty. this was the first case in community history in which article 82 of the treaty has been used to penalise a discriminatory practice that harms the interests of consumers without having a significant effect on the market. in reaching its decision therefore, the commission took account of the fact that there were no previous decisions of the commission or case-law from the court of justice to guide cfo in its ticketing policy. in addition it was evident that the ticketing arrangements used by cfo in 1996 and 1997 were exactly similar to those employed in previous world cup tournaments and other similar major international contests. as the house will recall, the commission responded to complaints from people outside france who were finding it impossible to buy tickets by beginning an investigation. the cfo then quickly changed its policy and made efforts to make sure that tickets sold in 1998 were available without discrimination. then 100, 000 tickets became available to everyone on a first-come-first-served basis. the commission judged that these factors - the unprecedented application of the law, the conventions relating to previous ticket sales for international tournaments, and the constructive action of cfo - justified a symbolic rather than a punitive fine. in addition, it is relevant to add that a more substantial fine on the organisers of the 1998 world cup in france would have imposed an obligation on the commission to consider action against the organisers of previous major tournaments who used exactly the same ticketing policies. this could have meant, for example, action against the organisers of the 1996 european championship because on that occasion, supporters benefitted from a sales scheme which favoured nationals over fans from abroad. the french organising committee is not a normal commercial profit-seeking company. it exists for the interests of football and it is important to recognise that all profits reverted to the game of football. fining the french organising committee means taking money away from grassroots football and from the promotion of the game and putting that money into the coffers of the european commission. i do not believe that any genuine lover of football would think that was either sensible or acceptable. i know that football supporters in parts of the union have strongly criticised the size of the eur 1, 000 fine. my colleagues and i can certainly understand such reactions when those reactions are not informed by the facts. i hope, however, that in this house and elsewhere, there will be recognition of the specific factors directly relevant to this case. the important - and i think the instructive - outcome of the case is plain. all future sports tournament organisers now clearly know that any ticketing arrangements must comply fully with european community competition rules and be non-discriminatory. secondly, they know that the commission will not hesitate to take action against any organiser that fails to comply with those rules. thirdly, they know that the symbolic approach could only be followed once, and in very particular circumstances. these realities, in the view of the commission, mean that standards of fair treatment for sports fans have been clarified and strengthened. they will definitely enjoy protection against discrimination in the future. the organisers of the euro-2000 cup in belgium and the netherlands have, for instance, contacted the commission and as a result, they have adapted their sales system to meet the requirements of community law. there has been no previous occasion on which a higher percentage of tickets has been made available to the general public with absolutely equal rights for all citizens of the european union. we intend to keep it that way. that is the silver lining. it is a pity that first there had to be a cloud. madam president, i want to congratulate commissioner kinnock on the statement he has just made. i simply do not know how he managed to keep a straight face as he read out those comments. that statement from the commission was quite appalling. i do not blame commissioner kinnock himself, but i certainly blame the action, attitude and inaction, in fact, of the outgoing commission. this is a pathetic fine from a pathetic commission. all we can say is that it is absolutely typical of the way they have conducted affairs over the last five years. i only hope that the president-elect mr prodi will take this as an example of how not to do it. i was one of 32 members of this parliament who took a private legal action before the french courts last year in a last-ditch attempt to get more tickets for fans across europe. unfortunately, when we went to the french courts, we were told that it was too late at that stage to get the redistribution of tickets ordered, although the french courts themselves recognised that european rules had been flouted in the procedure that was followed. i should like to point out that the costs to the individual members of parliament who took that legal action was, surprise, surprise, in the order of 1000 each, something rather more than the fine that has now been imposed upon the world cup organisers. the commission itself, had it wished, had the power to impose a fine of something like eur 20m - perhaps even more - if it had taken this seriously. it did not take it seriously in 1997 when it could have taken action to ensure a fair distribution. it did not take it seriously in 1998 when we had the problem and fans across europe were denied the opportunity to see the world cup. it is not taking it seriously now. what sort of message is this giving out to sports organisers? commissioner kinnock called this a symbolic fine. well, it is certainly giving a sign that it does not take it seriously at all. we are talking about big business here. the amounts of money involved are significant. something like 300m, i am told, was the turnover of the world cup; the fine something like eur 1000. this is simply not acceptable at all. the sign that is being given is that the commission is turning a blind eye, that it is not really worried. it is saying to large-scale organisers: 'you can carry on exploiting the fans' . it is also saying that this is the way to encourage - and it is encouraging - a black market in these tickets. it must do something to stop it. sport is now big business. the commission in future must show that it means business to ensure that sport, like other businesses across europe, must observe european rules and regulations. madam president, i thank the commission and commissioner kinnock for being available to make this statement following my request earlier in the week. while i welcome the fact they are here to make the statement, i am disappointed in its content. i am told i do not like football: i am a manchester city season-ticket holder. i am told that the commissioner has similar problems with a rumoured enthusiasm for cardiff city which may explain some of the difficulties we both face. nevertheless, i agree that the french football federation put on a wonderful feast of football. the french 'rainbow team' did much to confound the xenophobics and racists who, like mr le pen and our unlamented former colleague mr mgret, believe that to be french is to be white. yet importantly, there clearly was a breach of competition rules on a massive scale. commissioner kinnock talked about 180, 000 tickets being made available to football fans across europe. that was after 600, 000 tickets were sold on a discriminatory basis. the organising committee deliberately and provocatively ignored early on the requirement that all citizens of the european union be treated equally, and clearly breached article 82 of the treaty. in doing so, they massively increased their profits, selling tickets in corporate blocks as small as one. you could not buy a ticket by telephoning and paying ff500, but for ff5, 000 you could get the same ticket and the equivalent of a school dinner - i have had corporate hospitality before. if commissioner kinnock is asking me if i believe that the european commission could actually help grassroots football better than the multinational corporations who actually rely on the profits, i would actually vote for the european commission. it may not be a very popular move but i have seen very little evidence of the people who are making multi-millions of pounds out of football putting it back into football. they are putting it into franchising and other things. this also endangered the security of thousands of football fans. it turned tens of thousands of french men and women into amateur ticket touts. if they bought their allocation of four tickets each for a major match and sold them on the black market, they had enough money for two of them to take a two-week holiday in australia. it was very difficult to imagine that french men and women would not pick up tickets and sell them in that way and clearly that was happening. in these circumstances, therefore, does the commissioner not agree that football fans will think it is absolutely ludicrous, the eur 1000 fine - which was about the black-market price for a ticket for england-argentina - that ticket touts will think that this is good news and that genuine football fans will be disappointed? can he not confirm that we could have fined the french football authorities something between ff 100m and ff 200m, which was something like 10 % of the extra profits they made? does he not believe that the excuse that the organising federation no longer exists is actually a facile one when clearly it is the responsibility of the french football federation? does he not agree that the message to the organisers of europe 2000, to the organisers of europe 2004 and the possible organisers of the mondiale 2006, whether in germany or the united kingdom, is that they can ignore the rules, maximise profits and in the end, all it costs them is the small change? should the commission be treating football differently from any other multi-billion pound industrial operation? it seems to me that if this had been in the telecommunications sector or elsewhere, the notion that we would have come back with a symbolic fine in circumstances where people had increased their profits by 200m or 300m would have been as ludicrous as the symbolic fine appears to football fans. madam president, our former belgian socialist colleague, mr de coene, and i led the group of 30 meps who took the case to the high court in paris last year. the tribunal there found in our favour. they found that the european law had been broken by the cfo. they dismissed our case on a technicality, finding that we were inadmissible as litigants. but we took action because we were not convinced that the european commission was standing up for the rights of the european citizen. as a result of our action, we were assured by commissioner van miert that the commission would prosecute this to the very end. that action, as mr perry has pointed out, cost us individually more than eur 1000 each. members of this house are sick at the fine that has been imposed by the european commission on the cfo. i can well imagine why commissioner van miert did not want to come here personally to make this statement today. this is not the first time that the world cup organisers have rigged the sales of tickets against the ordinary football fan. but it is the first time that they have trumpeted their tournament as the first billion-dollar world cup. they have made millions out of discriminatory sales arrangements. if the commission had pursued this abuse of article 82 as rigorously as it pursues abuses in other areas of industry then this fine would have been not 600 but 6m or more. the commissioner tells us that the interests of consumers were harmed but that this had no serious effect on the market. i suggest to the commissioner that it has a very serious effect on the european union's reputation. he tells us that there was nothing to guide the cfo. what about the fine that the commission imposed on the italian organisers of the world cup in 1990, a fine which was, in fact, larger than the fine that is imposed on the cfo this year? what about the exchange of correspondence between the cfo and the european commission which started the previous july? unlike mr ford, who represents the southwest but supports manchester city, i do not support any football club, but i do support the right of the european citizen to be protected from discriminatory practices and the abuse of a dominant market position. i support the european union in developing its role to protect those citizens. to me, this fine sends to the european citizen the message that europe is on the side of big business and not on the side of the ordinary man or woman in the street. in my view, this is a sad-and-sorry ending to a sad-and-sorry commission. i hope that our new commissioners, when they have been approved in september, will have rather more backbone in taking up this kind of case on behalf of the people of europe. applause madam president, unlike the previous speakers, who were, it has to be said, all british - well, well, what a surprise! - i would like to protest against the commission's decision, which i find quite astounding, to penalise the french football federation for so-called discrimination in the sale of tickets during the last football world cup. commissioner kinnock pointed out, and rightly so, that this has been the accepted practice in previous world cups. and why is this an accepted practice, ladies and gentlemen? well, it is quite simply that a world cup like that is organised by a country, and paid for by the tax-payers of that country. given these conditions, it is felt to be courteous and good practice to allocate a slightly larger quota to that country's citizens. when a company floats shares for example, increases its capital, and then sells the shares, nobody says that it is illegal if it reserves a quota for its own employees, who are a vital component of the company's lifeblood. this quota is, of course, a form of discrimination and yet, i feel it is a legitimate one. i, therefore, think that the commission was wrong to apply article 82 of the treaty because there was no real abusive exploitation of power, only a quite legitimate and understandable use of a set of circumstances which were highly unusual from a financial point of view. however, madam president, i would like to move on, because this is, when all is said and done, a relatively minor matter which is of no great consequence to life in our country. there are other more serious matters in which the commission has been guided by the same extremist mind set which may bring about very serious imbalances in our country's economy and also in its employment figures. i am thinking in particular of the sanction imposed, yet again on france, for having allowed certain textile companies to reduce their national insurance contributions at a time when they were taking on new staff in an international climate which, as you know, ladies and gentlemen, is extremely tough, largely because of the international agreements negotiated by the commission itself. so these businesses are now going to have to repay the social grants which they were given because of an extremist, narrow-minded and almost plain stupid way of seeing things. it is an absolute scandal. i think that, in future, this parliament should set an example with a more considered vision, one which is more fair and impartial towards competition. applause madam president, first and foremost, i should like to quote a great dutch philosopher, michels, a famous football coach who once said that football is war. i would prefer to suggest that if football is an alternative to war then i am in complete agreement with that. i do not intend to talk about the world cup in france here, but there are a few general points i wish to make. i believe that football, and international fixtures in particular, are indeed a valuable alternative to war, however silly that may sound. football should be a celebration, and international fixtures such as world cups or european championships really ought to belong to the people again. what we are seeing now, and what happened last year in france, is a perfect illustration of this. what ought to be a celebration for the people has, to some extent, become a completely commercialised celebration. we can see that the same thing is tending to happen with national football competitions throughout europe. these show that football is becoming less and less accessible to ordinary people and has to some extent become a celebration of business, with people tucked away behind plate glass windows and in comfortable business lounges. that is why i want to call on the commissioner to take positive action for a sport that must remain accessible to ordinary people and that must be protected from commercial interests. of course, the same applies to competitive cycling, where cyclists sometimes inject themselves with the same hormones that cattle are injected with. on the same note, i would ask the commissioner to actually produce a policy that is no longer concerned with imposing fines on organisations that have infringed some competition regulation or other, but is, in every sense, a policy aimed at controlling those big organisations and ensuring that european championships and world cups that are held in europe really do continue to be celebrations for the people and not celebrations of business. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i do not think that the market should be the only factor taken into consideration as regards the organisation of sporting events. during the 1998 world cup, of the two million tickets sold, the largest share was handled directly by fifa, which sent quotas to the 203 national football associations, with a larger share going to the 24 qualifying countries, of which the united kingdom was one. another share, 600, 000 tickets, was handled by the host nation, which reserved 37 % of this quota. the idea of putting all tickets for a sporting event of this size up for sale on the european market has never been put into practice by any country, as commissioner neil kinnock has just pointed out. in euro '96, for example, the football tournament organised in the united kingdom, 42 %, not 37 % of the tickets were reserved for the host nation. secondly, having control of the tickets is to have 90 % control of security. if the world cup was a success in this area too, if we had relatively few incidents, it was largely because this control over the tickets facilitated for example, franco-british co-operation in security matters, and efficiency in handling the arrival of groups of supporters, supervising them, and following up any problems. this allowed us to escape many outbreaks of hooliganism, which we hope never to see again on our continent. thirdly, the more individual sales that are made, the greater the risk of a black market developing. this is the lesson learned by the italians themselves, from organising the 1990 world cup, and it was obviously taken on board by the french organising committee. fourthly and finally, it is understandable to ensure that where a popular sport is concerned, when the host nation has invested nine billion francs in the event, the citizens of the host nation support and participate positively in this event, and this is also a key factor in its success. but it is also understandable that care is taken over the security of these citizens and also that of the groups from abroad, whom the host country accommodates for the occasion. during this world cup, ladies and gentlemen, you saw thousands of little zidanes and marcel desaillys, coming from the working-class neighbourhoods of marseilles, toulouse and strasbourg to applaud the exploits of the great zidane and the great desailly, but also those of the great owen, the great beckham, and the great di pietro. nobody could say that this amazing world cup was tainted by racial or social discrimination. it was an open and welcoming popular celebration. it gave us a wonderful picture of sport, a picture of the diversity of our teams and of our nations, and a picture of fraternity across our continent. the supporters group which was most successful and most appreciated by the french people was that of the scots. we, the citizens of france, did not go on holiday to australia in july 1998 because the world came to france, and because we were at the stade de france, at st-denis, at the velodrome, in marseilles with the people from our working-class neighbourhoods. ladies and gentlemen, i think that the european union's priority in sport today is not to punish a member nation which has managed successfully to organise an event like this, but is rather, as romano prodi said yesterday, to engage in a real pan-european battle against doping, and this means refusing to allow the unique power of money to kill off the beauty and the very spirit of sport. applause madam president, i am here to speak on behalf of millions of women football fans. i welcome commissioner kinnock's reassurances. i must say that i was appalled at how the ticket allocation was handled by the french authorities. i know that a large number of people in britain were equally frustrated. the release of the tickets was really too late for most people to be able to take up those opportunities given their work commitments. what we need, i believe, is some joined-up thinking. one of the main objectives of the eu institutions is to ensure that citizens of all eu countries are treated fairly and equally. in this instance, millions of football fans were discriminated against. and yet, this breach is taken lightly. whatever the reasons for that particular measly fine, it will alienate a large number of fans. it is another missed opportunity to connect with the people of europe. football is a passion that unites all the countries. what better way for us to change our image and connect with the people of europe than to say that we take football as seriously as we take any branch of commerce. i should like to begin where ms gill left off, first of all by congratulating her on her maiden speech in this house. she will never feel such fear again or derive such satisfaction. i am sure the whole house thanks her for her contribution. indeed, she summed up the feelings of the commission in many ways when she said that she deeply regretted the existence of discrimination. that is the universal feeling in the commission, which is why my colleague, mr van miert, and his associates in the commission specifically sought to do something effective about preventing for all time in the future and indeed for 1998 the use of discriminatory practices by cfo. i should like to take up where mr vander taelen left off. when he said that football is a valid alternative to war i was reminded of the maxim that the first casualty of war is truth. as i listened to some of the contributions in the course of this debate, i could not escape the feeling that sometimes the first casualty of football is truth because there were one or two contributions that were made passionately, but largely without the recognition of fact. i would like to respond on behalf of the commission, with some repetition of fact. i regret it if i am repetitive, but if at first people do not hear, perhaps they will hear the second time. i begin with mr perry. i enjoyed his recitation of sound-bites about pathetic, appalling and all the rest of it. but what is he really saying when he says that the european commission has the power to impose a eur 20m fine? in theory and in constitutional terms, he is right. but is he really suggesting that the european commission should take eur 20m or eur 30m out of football and put it in the coffers of the european commission? mr ford says 'yes' , he would rather that the european commission have the money than the cfo. he demonstrated a surprising distance from the realities of public opinion. this man has been my friend for a considerable time. i admire everything but his taste in football clubs. but the fact remains that if that were the course of action taken, he knows what the headlines would be. so does mr watson, who is disturbed about the reputation of the european union. he knows the headlines would say: 'euros snatched from football' . let us be rational. is it sensible in the circumstances to take the money in large amounts from football and deposit it in the european commission's coffers, or is it sensible to take action that guarantees that on no future occasion will there be discriminatory sales of football or other international tournament tickets? then mr perry says that he wants this action to be absolutely firm and ferocious. i can understand the sentiment. but to be consistent the same action would have to be taken against the organisers of the european cup competition which happened to be in the united kingdom in 1996. football came home, it was said. are we really suggesting in this house, or anywhere else, that we should look back to 1996 or comparable competitions and say that we are dishing out eur 20m fines on those who organised these competitions? come on. let us be rational. let me return very briefly again to mr ford. he said those who make money out of football should put it back in. he knows very well that i am zealous in my support of that view. but i would suggest that we have to do rather more than attend only to international football ticket sales in order to bring about that intelligent and necessary recycling of funds. one point i want to focus on, in what mr ford said, is that the commission, he alleges, is sending out the message to organisers of euro 2000 and maybe future world cup competitions in the european union that they can ignore the rules. the absolute opposite is taking place. i had already said ten minutes before mr ford spoke that the organisers of the belgian and netherlands european championship have been in touch with the commission and not a single ticket will be sold on a discriminatory basis. they are already obeying the rules, setting the precedent, and, at all future times in the european union, that will be the way in which affairs are conducted. the football supporters and supporters of other sports quite rightly will now know that they have the protection of the law and organisers of tournaments will know that they will be the object of real and heavy punishment if they break what are now known to be the rules. this is the point. there was no knowledge of the rules. there is no case-law from the court of justice. there is no precedent of action by the european commission. the money would have been taken out of football if there had been a heavier fine. there would have to be a further effort to levy fines against previous organisers. the fact is that cfo, who i do not paint as plaster saints, the moment that our investigation commenced, stopped the discriminatory sales. everybody would have liked that to have occurred earlier, but it did happen. when mr watson says, therefore, that this is not the first time that organisers have rigged the sales, he may be right. but this is the first time that the legal competition authority has stopped the rigging, stopped the discriminatory sales and the first time that any competition authority in the world has prevented for all future time the use of discriminatory methods in the sale of tickets. mr watson accepted my point when i said that this was a case where consumers were hit but the effect was not on the market as it is generally understood. i think he conceded that because he said that was my claim and the problem was that the reputation of europe had suffered. i would put this point to him, a man for whom i have very high regard, as i do for the other participants in this debate: that reputation can only suffer if what has occurred is misrepresented. i know there is no-one in this house who will ever want to do that. i therefore appeal for attention to the facts. whilst i fully understand and indeed, to a degree, share the passions about the way in which the big business of football so frequently now is operating in ways that contradict the interests of genuine football fans, i accept all that. i ask for fair treatment in this case as indeed in many others. it was uncharacteristically unworthy of one honourable member to say that he could understand why my colleague mr van miert is not here because of the gravity of this case. if there has ever been a commissioner in the forty-two year history of the european union who has publicly demonstrated integrity and guts, it is mr van miert. the reason he is not here this morning is because he has to attend to his work, not from any cowardice. it is infamous for anybody to even infer that is the reason for his absence. thank you, mr commissioner. adjournment of the session i declare the session of the european parliament adjourned. the sitting was closed at 9.55 a.m.

explanations of vote in writing. - (pt) this convention - which aims to set out the obligations of the parties to assess the environmental impact of certain activities at an early stage of planning and imposes on states the general obligation regarding notification and consultation on all major projects that are likely to have a significant adverse environmental impact across borders - was signed by the community and its member states on 26 february 1991 and approved by the community on 27 june 1997. parliament approved some amendments, notably one extending the definition of the 'public' in article 1(x) of the convention to clarify that the public that may participate in procedures under the convention includes civil society and, in particular, non-governmental organisations, and one that opens the convention for accession by non-ece member countries upon approval by the meeting of the parties, which deserves our support. the other amendments seem less important to us. in principle, i do not believe they create any problems. we therefore agreed with the rapporteur and voted in favour of the report. in writing. - (el) the brief report contains serious gaps, which play down the importance of the issue. the legislative regulations governing the protection of the environment are a compromise between the need to protect it and the demands of big business to maximize its excessive profits come what may. preoccupation with profit makes the competitiveness of the eu's multinationals a priority above all the others. the following are symptomatic of this: i. the kyoto protocol, in which trade in pollutants is prominent; ii. the entire legislative framework, which facilitates the use and expansion of gmos; iii. legislation on the monitoring of the use of chemical substances in consumer products to a permissible level. this legislation took as many as 40 years to be completed, although it naturally has many exceptions, from 1967 (directive 67/458/ec) to 2007, when the reach regulation entered into force; iv. a still highly deficient legislative framework for the integrated management of radioactive waste; v. the distorting development of biofuels, at the expense of food crops. multinationals are nonetheless allowed to act anti-environmentally. all they suffer are some fines, which represent a very small part of the additional profits coming from the destruction of the environment. this proves the adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune. we believe that these are serious omissions. what is required is a brief but very meaningful and useful reference to these issues. in writing. - (pt) the convention on the protection of the european communities' financial interests and its protocols are on the list of conventions and protocols in the field of justice and home affairs contained in annex i to the act of accession. this convention and its protocols were adopted in 1996, with the aim of establishing a common base for the criminal-law protection of the ec's financial interests, and entered into force in 2002 following ratification by the then 15 member states. in order to avoid wasting time and effort on the laborious negotiation, conclusion and ratification (by 27 member states) of specific accession protocols to each convention, the act of accession of romania and bulgaria introduced a simplified system for the accession to the conventions and protocols concluded by the member states on the basis of article 34 of the treaty on european union or article 293 of the ec treaty. i therefore support this proposal for a council decision which simplifies the determination of the date of entry into force of this convention in relation to romania and bulgaria. i would like to speak about the package of two documents - the commission proposal and the council decision on the development of the schengen information system infrastructure and its implementation and management. i voted in favour of both resolutions and consider them to be very important eu legislative documents. it is a shame that the launch of sis ii keeps being postponed. we are so far behind schedule that it is essential to find a way out of the situation that would enable us to use the sis 1+ network after 13 november 2008, i.e. to extend the service provided by the sisnet network and to create a fall-back solution with the s-testa network. it is now clear that the human and financial resources allocated for the implementation of sis ii will have to be shared between the three projects being developed simultaneously: sis ii, sisone4all and the installation, operation and management of a communication infrastructure. this will have a negative impact on the implementation of sis ii. this is why the decision on the financing of sis 1+ and subsequently sisone4all will be of great importance: will it be financed by all participating parties or will sisnet, for example, receive funding from the eu budget? the correct distribution of eu and member states' resources will be of great significance. however, in view of the project's importance as regards the security of the eu, it is obvious that sis ii is the greatest priority. we must allocate funds for eu security and the development of communications infrastructure. in writing. - (ro) only one year after its establishment, in 2006, the european globalisation adjustment fund is already requested. i welcome the voting of the decision to mobilize the fund, which represents a first attempt to support our european citizens who face the challenges of globalisation. globalisation is a phenomenon that offers us numerous chances and opportunities, but also generates difficulties of adjustment to its consequences. therefore, it is very important for the european union to be capable not only of responding to such challenges, but also to approach them efficiently by fast mobilization of the necessary financial instruments. european citizens' safety and confidence in the future lie at the basis of our actions and initiatives. i am very pleased to welcome the orientation of this fund toward the field of labour and labour safety, but i also emphasize the importance of education in this field and the need to take into consideration this area, as well, in the future fund mobilizations. at the end, i hope that in the future, in case of need, each eu member state will benefit from the mobilization of the european globalisation adjustment fund, whose less positive effects affect us all, including in the new member states. this is the only way in which we will be able to build true sustainable development over the entire eu territory. in writing. - i voted in favour of this first ever mobilisation of the european globalisation adjustment fund. the fund was set up, following a successful campaign by the pse group, to alleviate the effects of globalisation on european workers. in this instance, the fund is being used to assist approximately 900 workers made redundant in the automobile sector in france. in writing. - (pt) in march 2007, france requested the mobilisation of the egf in respect of the redundancies of 1 345 workers of renault sa and 1 057 workers of peugeot sa and their suppliers. owing to the budgetary restrictions on this fund (eur 500 million a year), its restrictive eligibility criteria and the number of workers affected, the amount of the community contribution awarded was eur 3 816 280. thus we can see that this comes to eur 1 902 for each of the renault-linked workers made redundant and eur 1 190 for each of the peugeot-linked workers made redundant. the european commission estimated that between 35 000 and 50 000 workers could benefit from this fund, but eu data indicate that the number of workers made redundant as a result of 'restructuring' is far in excess of half a million. the situation is all the more serious as most of these workers were made redundant as a result of 'restructuring' regarded as 'within' the eu, and therefore not covered by the fund's eligibility criteria. what is in fact required is an end to the policy of liberalisation and maximising profit that is the cause of relocations and "restructuring", and measures to preserve jobs. the european globalisation adjustment fund came into being in 2006 under the considerable influence of the defeat of the constitutional referendum in france. right from the start the impression was created that this was a compensation formula, linked more to the exaggerated problem of the 'delocalisation' of jobs to new member states than to the problem of globalisation. as such, the fund is a response to the fears associated with the enlargement of the european union, essentially reinforcing them and blocking the benefits arising from the uniting of europe in 2004 for new and old member states. it is no surprise that we are starting with an application from france, linked to the difficulties experienced by peugeot and renault suppliers, for a sum of eur 3.8 million. the application is properly grounded and has received full support from the european parliament's committee on budgets. i hope that the european globalisation adjustment fund will not become a method of typical rent-seeking, in other words an easy method of obtaining eu subsidies for businesses that are experiencing difficulties, allocated on the basis of criteria that are not very precise. too many european companies are facing the problem of restructuring, in the name of competitiveness in the global economy, for a fund with an annual ceiling of eur 500 million to be able to meet all needs. in writing. - i voted in favour of this report, which gives parliamentary support to the first ever distribution of funds from the european globalisation adjustment fund, which was established with strong pse support to alleviate the effects of globalisation on workers. in writing. - (pt) the decision to use the new european globalisation adjustment fund and the response to the request from the french government is an opportunity that we should monitor carefully to check whether this fund does actually deliver the desired results. according to what emerged from the debate held on the date it was set up, this fund aims to be an institutional reform for solidarity regarding the unforeseen and negative consequences of the globalisation process. obviously, the free adjustment of the market will always be a better option than state or equivalent intervention. in any event, this fund exists in the context of the european union and of the solutions that the majority of its member states adopt for resolving social crises, so the challenge is to ensure firstly that the results of mobilising it are as expected and secondly that an intervention of this type does not send the wrong signals to the market, thereby unintentionally promoting solutions that eventually create even greater damage. since i believe and hope that this will not be the case, i voted in favour of this report. (de) mr president, i would like to thank my fellow members for the result of the vote. this is based on the result of the report on the sustainable use of pesticides. we have voted out the top levels here. we have, however, focussed on training and information for users and salespeople alike. only the expert and skilled handling of pesticides can ensure sustainability. the latest technology and the most up-to-date knowledge are being applied here, of course. we support integrated pest management. the commission is calling for integrated pest management to be made compulsory for agriculture as a whole by 2014. we need general standards for this. we cannot squeeze integrated pest management into fixed criteria, certainly not throughout europe. integrated pest management must always be developed flexibly. it requires the incitements of good technical practice and it needs drive - and that drive needs to be maintained. we must therefore discuss this once again here before second reading. we still have the opportunity, together with the council and the commission, to bring this to a good conclusion so that we in the european union can continue to make pest management actually possible. mr president, i feel very disappointed that parliament has not done more today on this pesticides package. on so many of the more radical and progressive issues, we could have gone very much further. but the one area that i want to focus on just now is the area of residents. they should be regarded as a specifically vulnerable group, an exposure group in their own right, and a small step has been taken today in order to do that, in the vote that we have just had in this parliament. people who live near schools where nearby fields are sprayed and people who work or live near sprayed fields have an enormously high exposure to pesticides. they are exposed, on a long-term basis, to mixtures or cocktails of pesticides that are sprayed in their locality throughout the year and, in many cases, for decades. until now there has not been any protection for residents as a specific exposure group. this is a major and serious public health issue, as farmers clearly cannot control pesticides once they are airborne, and studies have shown pesticides can travel in the air for miles. i wish we had gone further in terms of our ban on all aerial spraying. there have been many reports over the decades of acute and chronic ill-health in rural areas. our parliament could have done much more in this vote today to protect people from cancers, from leukaemia, from non-hodgkin's lymphoma and a whole range of other diseases, and i am very disappointed indeed that we did not take up that option, which had been put forward in the committee on the environment. so many of those more positive measures have, sadly, been overturned by the other groups. but i hope that people will look at the parliament today and put pressure on their representatives so that, when we come back to a second reading, we can try and do better by the health of people. they expect us to do better. we should have done better, and i am very sorry the other groups did not support us today. (hu) as a member representing the hungarian democratic forum (magyar demokrata frum - mdf), i will be using my vote to support both of these draft legislative texts providing for stricter regulations and greater control concerning the use of plant protection products. i believe that these provisions represent a milestone on the road towards safer and healthier food production. substances that pose a risk to health must be withdrawn, and the overall amount of pesticides we use must be reduced. in hungary, for example, the amount of chemicals used is 15 times less than in the netherlands, say, and yet while they existed the european union's intervention stores were bursting at the seams with hungarian maize. we therefore can and must move forward in the direction of producing fruit, vegetables and other foods using sustainable levels of plant protection. where member states wish to apply tougher provisions, they should continue to have the possibility of doing so. thank you. (cs) commissioner, i, too, resent the fact that human health is exposed to risk, for example during aerial spraying, and that pesticide use is constantly increasing due to a growing resistance against plant protection. there is no doubt that we need to modernise the rules on safe pesticide use in europe. i regret however, that here in parliament, through the greens and left-wing members, preference was given to populist proposals such as a ban on pesticide use either in full or at a local level. i consider that to be irresponsible. we are talking here about plant medicines and banning them would be equivalent to banning the use of drugs in human medicine. both are of course poisonous if used improperly: hence we must devote our efforts to promoting standards and disseminating information, rather than adopting scientifically unfounded, indiscriminate and overly bureaucratic measures. ladies and gentlemen, by virtue of common sense i did not support the majority of your proposals in the package. as such i do not believe that the kla report as approved is very successful. (pl) mr president, i would like to say that i voted in favour of mrs kla's report, and one reason why i did so was because this report makes reference to tightening up the proposals put forward by the european commission. there is specific mention of national action plans in the context of a reduction in the frequency of application of pesticides by 25% over 5 years and by half - by 50% - over 10 years. it is very important for the european parliament to be tougher on this matter and have a greener approach than the european commission. i would also like to emphasise strongly that my decision was influenced by the fact that in the report that was put to the vote there is a statement to the effect that all member states will set up buffer zones to stop pesticides entering reservoirs and drinking water. in writing. - (fr) as draftsman of the opinion on water quality, i saw that pesticides were implicated in the degradation of the environment, and particularly of surface and coastal waters, because they persist over time, can be transported over long distances, and constitute a diffuse form of pollution, which is difficult to locate resulting from runoffs, direct losses in the soil and the air, the washing of plants by the rain and so on. more generally, the current use of pesticides in our agriculture can have damaging consequences for our health. the commission's legislative proposals on the use of pesticides, and procedures for authorisation and placing on the market were therefore very keenly awaited. however, i find the targets inadequate and that is why, in parliament's plenary, i unsuccessfully supported the position adopted by the committee on the environment asking for an eu target of a 25% reduction in the frequency of application of pesticides within 5 years and a 50% reduction within 10 years, and buffer zones of 10 metres between fields and water courses. i am particularly sorry that this is a first reading and that the text is likely to be watered down even more. in writing. - (pt) i voted in favour of the report by mrs kla on the proposal for a directive of the european parliament and of the council establishing a framework for community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides because it pursues the objective of reducing the use of plant protection products and contributes to high safety standards for humans, animals and the environment. however, i consider it essential for the possibility of aerial spraying to be maintained in situations where there is no viable alternative or where terrestrial application involves a greater hazard, although in natura 2000 areas, in addition to the possibility of pesticides being banned, it should also be possible to restrict their use or minimise the risks involved, which presupposes a specific risk assessment. when the 6th environment action programme was adopted it was recognised that the impact of plant protection products on human health and the environment must be reduced, underlining the need to achieve a more sustainable use of pesticides and outlining a two-track approach with full implementation and appropriate revision of the relevant legal framework and developing a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. now, the rapporteur considers the title of the commission proposal to be misleading. the aim of the proposal is to regulate a particular class of pesticides, namely pesticides in the form of plant protection products. accordingly, the term 'pesticides' should be replaced by 'plant protection products' throughout the text of the directive. the directive aims to reduce the risks associated with the use of plant protection products and on the environment and human health. however, measures designed with this in mind must be proportionate and it must not be forgotten that it should primarily be a matter for the member states to help reduce the risks involved in the use of plant protection products by means of national action plans. this is the only way in which the differing conditions and situations at local level can be taken into account. in writing. - (fr) i systematically voted against the whole plant protection package to signal my opposition to a dossier that was not yet ready for the plenary session. confronting 700 meps with 300 - 400 amendments, to be voted on in 3 or 4 instalments, is simply unworthy of a legislator. we might just as well organise a lottery. that the legislator wants to combat pesticide abuse seems laudable. however, organising a system that is so bureaucratic as to be inefficient stems from poor legislation. anyway, if we want to feed a constantly increasing population the earth cannot do without plant protection products. today, the european parliament refused to accede to calls by environmental fundamentalists for unworkable rules on the sustainable use of pesticides. the main bone of contention was the proposal by the committee on the environment, public health and food safety to ban the use of pesticides within 10 metres of water bodies. this would have disastrous consequences for administrators of public spaces and recreational areas such as golf courses in countries such as the netherlands where much of their surface is covered by water. the outcome of the vote is a compromise between environmental protection and workable rules for authorities and entrepreneurs. we have a collective responsibility for precluding risks, and it is indeed true that in the use of pesticides, 'the fewer the better', but the rules must be realistic and workable. if alternatives are available, they must be used, but it is wishful thinking to ban all uses of pesticides by law and think that this will be without consequences for our economy and society. in writing. - i voted for this report as amended, which developed a reasonable compromise between preserving public safety by restricting the use of pesticides, and protecting the ability of land based industries to enhance crop production. the precautionary principle at the heart of the approach is one i strongly support. this lunchtime, the european parliament has overall delivered a message that responds to the concerns of citizens in favour of agriculture being less dependent on pesticides, sustainable and taking account of the health of farmers and other users. one step forward is the health protection section, which was totally absent from the 1991 regulation and is now clearly affirmed through recognition of the substitution principle (as for reach, aimed at encouraging the use of less or non-chemical alternatives), the priority given to the protection of the most vulnerable populations and the prohibition in principle on aerial spraying. it was essential to plug a legal loophole regarding the phase of use by professionals and private individuals. this will be achieved with the framework directive, which takes account of new habits and fashions in gardening: pesticides have even got into our homes and gardens! one major regret, though, is the rejection in the kla report of the new approach by the commission - known as integrated pest management - which consists of allowing the use of all available agricultural techniques while giving priority to environmentally-friendly ones. i am sticking to my guns: integrated production is common sense applied to the agriculture of the 21st century. in writing. - (de) the proposed directive establishing a framework for community action to achieve a sustainable use of pesticides is important, since alarming quantities of certain pesticides are still being found despite the existing framework regulations on soil, air and water. evidence beyond the existing regulations also gives cause for concern in arable crops and requires a political initiative. national action plans with concrete objectives for reducing the risks and dependencies associated with pesticides are crucial here. it is extremely regrettable that in plenary we have not followed up the amendment with the objective of reducing alarming toxic and highly toxic substances by 50% by 2013 and reducing the use of pesticides by 20% in the next 10 years. this would have been an important political signal even in the given situation. the key to the sustainable use of plant protection products is rational risk limitation. we should achieve this aim by putting into effect the principles of the directive on the sustainable use of pesticides. each country will be obliged to draw up its own plan following the guidelines defined in the directive. each country should do so taking due account of local determinants and respecting any differences. the principal difference between us is the level of agricultural development. the countries that are among the new eu member states often have enormous deficits to make up, especially as regards the quality and health of the foodstuffs produced. a reduction in the use of pesticides in these countries compared with their current level of use will backfire on us consumers. we also differ in our landscapes. in poland, vast stretches of woodland may only be protected against pests by treatment applied from the air. it is our duty to the natural environment to protect the forests, while parliament's task is to define the principles for the safe use of products that protect the natural environment. the directive has much to say about the education of farmers being the most important way of implementing the sustainable use of pesticides. it is parliament's task to support education and create the conditions whereby it will reach every farmer. the directive's guidelines should encourage both the member states and farmers, rather than put them off. in writing. - (de) i am voting against the report because there is no longer a clear line between the various amendments, which i consider important. pest management serves people and plant health and is not a warning sign for policy that has no scientific basis. (de) mr president, i believe we should be striving towards public health and consumer protection and i should like to offer my full support for these positions too. there is simply no sense in us introducing impractical solutions and creating situations in which food production is no longer possible with approved funds. for this reason i am convinced that the breyer report cannot endure in this form and that we should amend it in this regard. i have voted against it and am of the opinion and am glad that a much more sensible and practical solution has been found in the kla report and therefore in the action plans, for which i was the rapporteur in the committee on agriculture and rural development. for this reason i hope that we are also able to improve the breyer report considerably at second reading, because we must improve it. (sv) a mixed message is being sent today. i think the most bizarre part today was mr heaton-harris's attack, which claimed that voluntary groups are trying to influence parliament. the big thing that has happened is that parliament's position has been weakened as a result of extensive lobbying by lobbyists in the pay of industry, which puts its interest in selling more pesticides ahead of protecting public health and consumers. fortunately they have not been entirely successful. we still have the pesticide passport, which gives consumers a reasonable opportunity to see what they are swallowing by asking their dealers. this protection is important and we must fight for it when we negotiate with the council. however, parliament did not protect residents as the environment committee wanted. they have worse protection and receive worse information than the committee wanted. this must be rectified in other readings. in my view we cannot continue authorising the most dangerous chemicals at the present level. parliament has now avoided general reduction targets for all pesticides, which is unfortunate. however, i would like to say that we in the green group have now got through a report which can essentially be used for good negotiations with the council, but there the name becomes a little silly. just like calling the constitution a reform treaty, it is remarkable that parliament is dubbing pesticides plant protection products. if all plant protection products were concerned, we could just as easily include fences in the legislation because they offer protection against roe deer. this shows how absurd plant protection products is as a name. in writing. - (pt) i voted in favour of the report by mrs breyer on the proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market as it will help to ensure high safety standards for humans, animals and the environment by establishing strict but simplified procedures, and by rationalising resources. the adopted report abides by the principle of subsidiarity, so that member states can take account of specific national conditions, especially plant health and climate conditions, and appropriate risk-reduction measures can be adopted. in writing. - (pt) this proposal should be in line with the reasons behind the 6th environment action programme with the aim of applying current knowledge of prospective and retrospective strategies for assessing the risks and dangers to humans and the environment and to create coherency with other policies. thus, also in line with the thematic strategy for the sustainable use of pesticides, the regulation must guarantee a high level of protection for human health and the environment, giving precedence to the precautionary principle, but the measures must be proportionate and take account of the principle of subsidiarity. links to other policies should be brought out more clearly. for instance, the regulation should not run counter to the aims and quality standards of the water framework directive (2000/60/ec) and its daughter directives. this must be ensured by regular checks. each member state should retain the option of going beyond the community standard in its fundamental standard of protection or of making decisions in product licensing in order to implement established objectives of national pesticide action plans, health programmes or environmental protection measures, based on specific national conditions. in writing. - i voted for this report and am pleased that it combines the sustainable use of pesticides with effective health and environmental protection. in writing. - (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, despite voting in favour of the breyer report as a whole, i considered it expedient to support a few amendments designed to modify the original draft. it is essential that we break up the monopoly of large multinationals in the field of data sharing and access, and open up the sector to increased and fairer competition. on the other hand, this sector is affected by geographical and environmental differences, which must be given due consideration. what we need is greater flexibility in terms of mutual recognition and comparative evaluation of substances. currently in fact, small and medium-sized enterprises, which mainly produce co-formulants, are denied room for manoeuvre precisely because of the excessive power of the major industrial groups - and not just in data management and exchange either. european legislation must absolutely take into account and support their requests to prevent their slow but inexorable disappearance from the market. in writing. - (fr) historically used to protect plants against various parasites, pesticides have transformed agriculture considerably. nevertheless, today we are seeing that the massive use of these pesticides in agricultural and non-agricultural environments has a damaging effect on the environment (pollution of water, air, soil, etc.) and also on health (development of some cancers, fertility problems). in view of this, the eu has decided to modify its legislation with a view to encouraging a reduction in the use of pesticides. within the framework particularly of the breyer report concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and the sustainable use of pesticides, i voted in favour of setting up strict criteria for all toxic substances (neurotoxic, bioaccumulative, carcinogenic, etc.) similarly, out of consistency with france's national pesticide plan and reach, i also supported a 50% reduction by 2013 in the use of extremely worrying pesticides and the replacement of the most dangerous substances with safer substitutes (including non-chemical products). finally, in conformity with the spirit of the national debate in france on the environment, i voted in favour of a tax on pesticides to encourage our farmers to reduce their use of treatment products. in writing. - (de) yesterday i was not able to make use of my speaking time. the vote in the committee on climate change on the hassi report, which forms the basis for the european parliament's position for the un climate change conference, was taking place at the same time. the european union's new policy on the use of pesticides is an important step towards better health and environmental protection. of particular importance in the result of today's vote is parliament's clear position against the three-zone model proposed by the commission. the proposed system is misleading and would grossly contradict the aim of the sustainable use of pesticides. in writing. - (de) i am voting against the report because it has not been drawn up according to strictly scientific criteria and because i regard the zone model - in whatever version - as meaningless. only single authorisation makes sense in a common economic area. i am hoping for a considerable improvement at second reading. in writing. - there is no doubt that, despite current legislation to reduce pesticides, excessive amounts of pesticides exist in our air, water and food supply, affecting our health and the environment. today however, while my colleagues and i voted clearly for a reduction in pesticides in our day-to-day lives, it is important that we acknowledge the practical reality of the needs of farmers and fruitgrowers, particularly in this climate of rising food prices. we cannot legislate in the abstract! i have voted for a practical and balanced approach and voted against extreme amendments that would reduce our food supply, making farming ridiculously burdensome and impractical. let us not forget that farmers are environmentalists by nature! instead of a pesticide ban, the member states will look at training and information campaigns and best practice and integrated pest management which will benefit us as citizens, consumers and farmers. i have voted in favour of realistic targets for member states while acknowledging the diverse nature of 27 member states. with regard to use, risk has to be the central factor, taking hazard and exposure into consideration. in writing. - (fr) as regards the reports on the placing of plant protection products on the market and the sustainable use of pesticides, i followed the very responsible line of my political group. products classified cmr1, which are scientifically proven to harm human and animal health, should no longer be authorised. the obligation to inform all neighbours before spraying would only cause mass hysteria, leaving aside the fact that it would bring with it an enormous amount of counterproductive bureaucracy, which becomes obsolete anyway with the removal of cmr1 products from the market. i am of the opinion that the principle of subsidiarity should be used regarding buffer zones not to be treated, to prevent additional constraints being applied to agricultural production. i am against the creation of a special tax on authorised products because this will lead to a completely unnecessary increase in the cost of agricultural production. i am of course against the ban on spreading plant protection products by helicopter. it is unacceptable to ban this method which is the only viable method in certain regions where, for instance, vines are grown on hillsides. i am delighted that my amendments relating to the unacceptable effects of plant protection products that could, among other things, have a negative impact on the behaviour of certain species such as bees and that could even lead to the extinction of these species, have been taken into consideration. in writing. - (fr) i voted in favour of the kla and breyer reports on the use of pesticides because they signal progress towards better consideration of the impact on the environment and health of the use of plant protection products. in particular i welcome the adoption of the socialist proposal to prohibit the use of pesticides in residential or sensitive areas. i am also delighted by the adoption of our proposals on the systematic promotion of non-chemical techniques. however, i am sorry that the european right has opposed the introduction of targets for reducing the use of these products. there are many examples demonstrating that reduction is possible, and a gradual reduction strategy could have been introduced without endangering the industry and jobs. once again, the right has given preference to profits. however, small steps count, and these reports are a step in the right direction towards the sustainable agriculture of tomorrow and a healthier environment for our children.

statement by the president (zimbabwe) ladies and gentlemen, i make this statement on zimbabwe at the unanimous request of the chairmen of the groups. this is a very serious matter. over recent weeks, there has been a further escalation in the political situation in that country, with violent acts committed by the forces under government control. on 11 march, a meeting in a suburb of the capital, harare, was broken up by armed police and, in the course of this, gift tandare, a member of the opposition, was shot dead, while numerous demonstrators were injured. forty leading opposition politicians, among them morgan tsvangirai and arthur mutambara - the leaders of the principal opposition party, the movement for democratic change (mdc) - were arrested and mistreated while in police custody. on 18 march, an opposition member of the country's parliament, nelson chamisa, was beaten up, and ended up in hospital with serious injuries. he had been on his way to meetings of the committees of the acp-eu joint parliamentary assembly. this assault earned condemnation from the bureau of the joint parliamentary assembly, and in this they were supported by the assembly's african members. the bureau called on the zimbabwean government to put a stop to the violence in the country and to respect human rights and the rule of law. ladies and gentlemen, we firmly condemn each and every act of violence and oppression committed by president mugabe's government. the council and the commission should work together with all the international, regional and national forces concerned to put in place a solution, in the shape of a transition from the present regime to a real democracy. (applause) mr president, i wanted to tell the house that one hour ago morgan tsvangirai was again arrested by the police and security forces in harare. he and his staff were about to have a news conference to discuss the events which you described in your speech. i would therefore like this house to condemn that re-arrest of morgan tsvangirai and to say that the brutality against the opposition has to stop. the southern african development community has to react at its meeting in tanzania this week. (applause)

agricultural product quality policy: what strategy to follow? (debate) the next item is the report by mr scott, on behalf of the committee on agriculture and rural development, on agricultural product quality policy: what strategy to follow? madam president, ladies and gentlemen, with market globalisation and the severe crisis now affecting europe, including in the agricultural sector, one possible response on the part of the agricultural market is to place emphasis on product quality. i believe that a good eu quality policy can enhance competitiveness and create added value for europe's regional economies, since, for many rural areas where production alternatives are few, it is often the one and only opportunity for development. by supporting niche agriculture in these disadvantaged areas, we will create an economy and jobs there. furthermore, a future quality policy must also be linked to the major potentialities of agriculture which, as in the european case, is modern, dynamic, rich and diversified and can offer not only high quality food products but also services of great value to a constantly evolving society. in my report, i emphasised the importance of keeping the three systems for registration of geographical indications separate, since they represent the link with european regions, representing their traditions, history, taste and unique knowledge handed down over time. i therefore believe that, by keeping the two pdo and pgi systems separate, they take account of the specific differences in the nature and strength of the links between the products and their geographical area of production. consumers often confuse the geographical indication of where a food product was processed with the place of origin of the agricultural product as such, and are often not aware of how the food chain operates. i therefore consider that only the compulsory indication of the place of production of the primary products can provide consumers with full information on the quality of the products they are buying, since products are subject to a production cycle which exerts considerable influence on their characteristics in terms of quality and food safety. let us remember that it is our duty to protect what our fellow citizens, who voted for us, produce and eat. another two issues that i considered important to include in my report are as follows: the importance of an intensive campaign of consumer education and information, which the european union should undertake concerning the various european labels and the guarantees they represent, and the inclusion in international registries and international recognition through the wto system of geographical indications. this last point is vitally important if we want to protect against the counterfeiting of our high quality products. i would like to thank commissioner ciolo for his attendance and remind him of the importance of sufficiently protecting quality systems, which are our future, and remind him too that the economy of disadvantaged rural areas can be boosted by agricultural sector aid, to safeguard all those niche products that are typical of these areas and that keep the people connected to the locality, which would otherwise be abandoned. this would support respect for the environment and for the landscape and would create, where possible, a tourist and oenogastronomy economy linked to the various regional, cultural and historical differences in the european union. i would like to thank my colleagues for the support they gave me in the committee on agriculture and rural development and i hope that the european parliament will also give its support during the vote tomorrow. madam president, mr scott, ladies and gentlemen, i believe that the key element that gives stature to the european agricultural and agri-food model at international level is precisely its policy of quality and diversity. that is why quality policy in the agri-food sector will be one of the priorities of my mandate, one of my main priorities straight after the common agricultural policy post-2013 reform. agri-food quality policy is not only proof that european farmers are responsive to the expectations of european consumers, but it may also pave the way for the european agri-food sector to assert itself on the international market. if quality policy is to achieve its objective, we need a framework that is clear, comprehensible, well structured, easily identifiable by consumers and, as far as possible, comprehensive and sufficient. my aim is to be able to structure the content of quality policy and to make it more accessible both to farmers, who must be the beneficiaries of it, and to consumers, but without sacrificing its substance or emptying it of all content. quality policy represents a guarantee for consumers, but it also represents added value for farmers; i am in full agreement with mr scott on that. it can help to maintain the diversity of our agriculture, and can do so in a competitive way, because farms that can sell their produce are competitive. if they can make a living from what they produce, they are competitive, and, if they can sell high-value-added products, they are even more competitive, even if, at times, they are small in size. i therefore believe that, in some regions, quality policy can also help to make our farms more competitive. in this way, quality policy and the development of local markets, the reduction in food miles, and direct and closer contact between consumers and producers can achieve good results precisely in order to increase the competitiveness of certain types of farming that currently have a relatively small share of the market. european farmers are already making efforts to supply safe products, using techniques that respect the environment and animal welfare. the debate on how to make this more evident by means of the labelling system is useful and welcome, and the report contributes certain elements and certain ideas along these lines. i believe that these links between the standards maintained by farmers and labelling quality policy should also be the subject of debates that we are going to hold on the common agricultural policy post-2013. that is my intention, in any case. i believe that we need to develop and evolve our instruments in relation to communication policy, communication both with european farmers and with european consumers, and, above all, at international level. it is my belief that our quality system can be a good ambassador for our agri-food model, and even for our common agricultural policy. having said all that, i would like to conclude with the fact that mr scott's report comes at just the right time. as you know, the commission intends to present a legislative package on quality policy by the end of 2010. the report that mr scott is presenting today and which will be debated includes certain questions, ideas and proposals along these lines, and i shall strive as far as possible to take account of these ideas when i come to present the legislative proposals to you. i wish to congratulate the rapporteur and the members of the parliamentary committees who have worked on this report, and i shall be very happy to hear your views and your proposals. madam president, to be honest, the first thing i wanted to do this evening is to thank mr scott for his excellent skill in negotiating this report. it has been a real pleasure working with him and with the other spokespeople for the parliamentary groups. we are proud of the position that will be demonstrated tomorrow in the vote in parliament and on a report such as this, which defends quality and which commits to the development and enhancement of rural areas, not only as mere evidence of a traditional european culture, but as true wealth- and job-creation agents. these are jobs that we currently need so much at this time of economic crisis and such a dramatic situation in terms of levels of employment in some member states. in addition, we are pleased with the protection maintained by parliament and the position already maintained by the committee on agriculture and rural development, as it has made clear, in committing to quality of the highest standard. with regard to that highest standard, moreover, we naturally commit to maintaining that differentiation between protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication. of course, we reject ideas of levelling quality downwards and we want eu production to receive attention and be valued. i am delighted at what mr ciolo had to say. it was, of course, pleasing to hear him speak about commitment to the future of the european farming environment. we naturally hope he will listen to parliament's voice, which will be reflected tomorrow in the vote. finally, i would like to say let us hope that it never happens again that the european commission gets ahead of parliament by prohibiting things such as, for example, marketing standards for fruit and vegetables, that have caused such damage to european free competition. we want the imbalances in the market corrected and we also want to commit to quality, variety, food safety and the right quantity of production. in addition, we want eu production and the quality of that eu agricultural and food production to be defended in the world trade organisation. we are, of course, also relying on the work of mr ciolo for that, because neither our european producers nor our european consumers can go on being defenceless. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i too, on behalf of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats), should like to thank the rapporteur, mr scott, for the outstanding work that he has done, and i should like to emphasise how quality policies are not only of great external value because of what we are able to offer consumers; they are also of great importance because of what they are able to give producers. as you have all observed, competition can take many forms on the markets. in a continent as large and as multifaceted as europe, but which is characterised moreover by costs of production a good deal higher than those of the competition, it will be difficult to compete in terms of price, and we shall be able to compete only in terms of product differentiation. it is exactly from the perspective of differentiation that we must view quality policy, which is capable of offering a product and of placing on the market a product that differs from that of the competition, a product that can also be sold without precise and specific reference to a price that is lower by comparison to the competition. we are therefore in favour of continuing with the practice of community marking, which is already under way, while emphasising the need to maintain the distinction between geographic indications and origin marking. however, we should also still stress that, internationally and at the level of international trade negotiations, the union must play its part by defending origin marking and origin-marking policies so as to avoid an inevitable policy of exchange of markings, which would cause damage to our products. before concluding, i shall take the liberty of making one final point, which concerns labelling. we have already requested and shall request again tomorrow, via a specific amendment, that parliament vote on the possibility of indicating the origin of raw materials, not only for fresh, non-processed products, but also for processed single-ingredient products; that is, those in which the characteristic element is substantially the raw material. commissioner, fellow members, on behalf of the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats, we consider the report drawn up by mr scott to be extremely important, and fundamentally we agree with it. the report had four, or rather five points for debate. first, the joint european union logo. many people fail to understand that the joint eu logo is not some sort of step towards federalism, but demonstrates to the consumer that a product fulfils the eu's specific food safety requirements, while at the same time differentiating it from the world beyond the eu boundaries. i therefore ask that we support the specific eu logo. the second point is the question of the place of origin. it is a very good thing that the eu now has, in the person of mr dacian ciolo, an agriculture commissioner who has understood and supports the importance of local markets, since this is the only way we can preserve local flavours, regional flavours, and the diversity of food in europe, and it is also clear that a key role is played in this regard by food quality policy, the place and designation of origin. there was an argument with the commission, and i very much hope that the new commissioner no longer supports the earlier position that we should combine all protected designations of origin with protected geographical indication. occasionally, this causes concern, most recently in the case of tokaj wine. i thank the commissioner that these problems have, in part, been remedied, while some of them await remedy. the fourth element: the organic logo. on this there is complete agreement. and finally, the fifth element: that some members of the committee on agriculture and rural development called for the reintroduction of the previous strict standards for vegetables and fruit. i would like to return to the original form of mr scott's report. let us not go back to the days of overregulation, when we determined what the curve of a cucumber should be. on behalf of the alde group. - madam president, can i, too, add my congratulations to mr scott on his report. there is much in it that is to be commended. unfortunately, i and my alde colleagues cannot support it as it currently stands without seeing one or two changes made to it. we cannot support paragraph 19, the so-called 'wonky fruit' paragraph. i believe it is nonsense for bureaucrats in brussels to be telling consumers that they can buy only straight bananas or straight cucumbers. surely it is up to consumers to make these decisions as to what they want to buy, so i hope that parliament will use its common sense and back the joint amendment that has been submitted by the greens and the ecr group to throw out the straight banana rules and leave consumers free to chose whether they want to eat bent or twisted fruit and vegetables or whether they do not. it is surely a decision for consumers. marianne fischer-boel, the previous commissioner, did decide to abolish the standards and i would hope that we would continue to support that decision. i would also like to see some changes in paragraph 16. i understand the call for an eu logo but, unless it means something to consumers and adds value for farmers, in my view, it is a pointless exercise. it has to resonate with consumers and give some sort of return to the farming community. otherwise, it is worthless. it is not worth pursuing it and i see no evidence to suggest that european consumers are looking for an eu logo. finally, in paragraph 62, there is some criticism here of private certification systems which, in scotland, have been very successful. it seems to me a good thing for farmers on a voluntary basis to add value to their produce through quality assurance schemes, and we should be supporting them, not discouraging them. i hope we can see some changes to this report in the votes tomorrow, and if so, we will be able to support it with the changes voted through tomorrow. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - madam president, i would echo many of the comments of my scottish colleague - albeit not group colleague - george lyon. there is much in this report to admire and a couple of things where i think we could do a little better. we have brought forward a number of points and i will focus on two of them only. i and others believe that our consumers want to know where their food comes from. we believe that the provision of that information should be compulsory, so amendment 4, on precisely that point, replaces some rather weak wording with a much stronger requirement that, where we can actually have information on 'place of farming' labelling, it should be compulsory, because that is what our consumers want to see. i would also pick up on amendment 3 - as my colleague did - which deletes the attempt to reintroduce cumbersome and unworkable rules on the direct sale of fruit and vegetables to the consumer. we agreed only last year to repeal those rules and, while the consumers have not noticed much of a difference, our producers have noticed and still notice. any attempt to bring those rules back would essentially be another stick for the processors, the multiples and the supermarkets to beat the producers with, and the consumers would not benefit directly. so there is much in this report to like. i would echo mr lyon's comments on the eu logo. i think that is more to do with the ambitions of this building rather than what our consumers want. if it does not resonate with the consumers, we should not do it and we should replace it with a compulsory origin labelling scheme, which is what our consumers want. the amendments are constructive; i hope they will be successful and that colleagues will support them tomorrow. on behalf of the ecr group. - madam president, can i also express my appreciation to the rapporteur for a very good report. i think there are very many good ideas in this report and i agree entirely with the rapporteur, mr scott, when he talks about how important it is for european producers to add value and maximise the potential of their products. we must always strive to achieve the maximum potential of europe's agri-food industry. this will ultimately serve to increase our competitiveness and strengthen the economy in rural areas. in this regard, i am happy to see that mr scott dealt with the future of the pgi and pdo systems. these instruments have proven popular with consumers and producers alike. however, i agree with the rapporteur that their management and application must be simplified. also, if we are serious about their value abroad, we must ensure more protection from third countries. i would like to see more products from my own regions applying for a pgi and hopefully, the commission will take on board some of the suggestions to simplify the application procedure so we will see more applications from my own region of northern ireland. however, i must point out that there are some elements of this report which i do not support. i am against the introduction of an eu quality logo. what i support is country of origin labelling. in effect, i feel an eu logo would be meaningless, a waste of time and money and i feel the same way about the eu logo for organic produce. another concern for me are the amendments which were passed in the committee on agriculture and rural development calling for the reintroduction of the marketing standards of fruit and vegetables, which some meps are desperately trying to get back on the table. the fact is these rules were dismantled by the commission last year. i wholeheartedly supported this move and now we can let the market set its own standards. in this regard, i would urge colleagues to support the plenary amendments tabled by my own group and other groups, which are very clear and simple, and to delete these elements. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner ciolo, thank you for the encouraging words you have just spoken, and thank you to mr scott for the sensitive work that he has done on this important report. i consider that with the report that will be put to the vote tomorrow, the intention is to protect and to enhance the value of the crops and the produce characteristic of every region and member state of the european union. suffice it to say that i come from a country, italy, that has 4 500 characteristic products, and these are assets from our land that we wish wholeheartedly to preserve. we fully understand that the road to excellence is still a long one, but the message that we must convey is that it is only through the quality of european produce that our farmers will have the chance to compete meaningfully on the world market. bearing in mind also the widespread crisis that we are unfortunately experiencing, we can do nothing other than to sustain the quality, traceability and transparency of information associated with agricultural produce. it is important to know what kind of processing is used for each crop, and where the crop originates. it is important, because it is right that consumers know whether they are eating an apple grown, for example, in my region - verona or in the veneto - and that eu rules have therefore been observed throughout the entire production chain, or whether they are instead eating an apple produced in china, where the only thing that we do know is that, on many occasions, china has not even come close to observing the regulations and good practice observed by european farmers. madam president, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important point. consumers are, quite rightly, demanding that the food they purchase is safe, traceable and produced to a high standard. i would support a country of origin labelling system which promotes such standards and i believe that this will be widely acceptable to most consumers and to most within the industry. obviously, promotion and marketing will be the hallmark of the success or failure of such a policy. we must take firm action against the potential counterfeiting of products which are wrongly labelled. i - like many colleagues in this chamber - would be against an eu logo. i feel it would be largely meaningless and would not be helpful to consumers. country of origin labelling, and even geographical indicators, are important because they promote locality, local heritage and conservation of local techniques, and they protect areas which rely on the production of a particular product. i come from northern ireland, a net exporter of agricultural products. therefore, i want any labelling system to create a level playing field. anything that impacts on the export of products from countries like my own would have a detrimental impact on the industry. like other colleagues, i would support the quality assurance schemes that are available and encourage those as part of the general local indicator. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the production of high quality produce is fundamental to european farmers. i am in no doubt that there has be to a link between the quality of the product and the origin of the raw materials. i therefore consider mandatory quality labelling to be an important opportunity for our farmers. quality is a key issue for the entire food chain and an essential asset in supporting the competitiveness of european food producers. the production of high quality foods has a long tradition and is often the only employment and sales opportunity in many rural areas with limited production alternatives. in order to guarantee this high quality standard, controls and objective criteria are certainly needed. however, the fact is that financial considerations on the part of the consumer also have an effect. quality costs, and farmers need a fair income. nevertheless, consumers have the freedom to opt for an attractively priced product, although they often decide on a product that is not of such high quality. one thing must be clear, however, and that is that consumers must have this freedom and they must genuinely be able to make a decision on the basis of objective and transparent criteria. we also need to raise the general awareness of consumers in this regard. we need protected geographical indications and designations of origin. we need the introduction of a regulated and protected designation for products from mountain areas and from gmo-free areas. however, we also need the 'traditional speciality guaranteed' and 'organic farming' indications. whatever happens, these must be retained. (it) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, a new phase of reflection has opened in europe today on the issue of quality, which is intended not only as a guarantee for consumers but, above all, as a stimulus for our producers to be more competitive in a market that is far larger and far more competitive. our businesses need to gain market recognition of the distinctive and quality-related aspects associated with their products. in this sense, as mr scott's report intends - and i, too, thank him for my part - we are making progress in guaranteeing, first of all, more information on the origin, composition and characteristics of production processes. at the same time, commissioner, it is fundamental that european regulations allow organisations designated for the protection and promotion of quality products to plan their product supply and to adapt their production potential to market needs on the basis of fair and non-discriminatory principles. we hope that the approval of this report will signal the definitive establishment of quality as the lynchpin of the european strategy for the agri-food sector, and that the commission will seriously consider our committee's proposals, so that one of the principal strong points of european agriculture can be transformed into a precious competitive advantage. madam president, first, may i declare an interest? i am an egg producer. regulations must be honestly implemented to a common standard. that is essential. an eu-inspired crisis will shortly hit the uk egg industry. from 1 january 2012, the production of eggs in battery cages is banned. the ban does not apply to eggs from romania or bulgaria, and perhaps others, who have a temporary immunity under their accession treaties. as long as they are processed, these countries may legally export battery-cage eggs produced after the ban to the uk. uk egg producers who have invested very heavily in alternative systems will be expected to compete at a disadvantage against imported products which can be produced far more cheaply. i must insist first that these imported products are clearly labelled and secondly, and most importantly, that we introduce with immediate effect an additional number 'four', for eggs produced using colony systems. only then can consumers make an informed choice. (fr) madam president, commissioner, mr scott, i find it truly symbolic, commissioner, that your first speech before this house should be on the very subject of quality policy. i believe that we take the same approach to these quality products. yes, they represent an opportunity for our most fragile regions. yes, they are a means by which to make the operators of a region and, in particular, farmers, more dynamic. yes, they represent a strong signal sent out to european consumers, but also to consumers throughout the world, with regard to our agricultural model. burgundy wine, parma ham, certain spanish meats - they have meaning far beyond the borders of each of our countries, far beyond the borders of europe. the resolution that we shall no doubt adopt tomorrow offers you, commissioner, a greater degree of ambition with regard to this policy of quality products, of products identified by different signs. european policy must be clearer; it must stop producers from being taken over by certain large industrial or distribution groups, which would clearly like to deprive producers of the benefit of the added value that these products give them. during the hearing, i drew your attention to the need to give organisations that bear, in particular, designations of origin overall responsibility for managing their products. management of production rights is a fundamental part of quality production policy. moreover, almost all of our committee voted in favour of an amendment along these lines. i should like to respond to our uk fellow members with regard to paragraph 19 on the fruit and vegetables sector. yes, ladies and gentlemen, we must not go backwards, but neither must we allow the huge vacuum in fruit and vegetable policy that means that, today, distributors are the only ones calling the shots. let us together interpret this amendment as a call to find a new middle way. commissioner, you can very quickly convince us of your enthusiasm for this specific policy, which gives consumers a different image of agriculture. now present us with a good text. do so quickly; we have faith in you. (es) madam president, commissioner, the quality of agricultural production is a crucial factor in the food chain and represents a vital asset for supporting the competitiveness of european producers. all this is reflected in the scott report, in which other considerations are also highlighted which the commission will need to take into account when implementing this policy. the eu quality logo, as an expression of the agreement of our producers on production requirements within the union, must be reserved exclusively for agricultural products produced in the european union. it must grant greater protection to protected geographical indications, both in the world trade organisation and in the bilateral agreement negotiations. european legislation on integrated production must also be drawn up that affords visibility to this more sustainable method of production and harmonises the existing criteria in each member state. finally, we must take into account the imbalances produced in the marketing chain, the importance of relying on sectoral marketing standards and the need to draw up eu guidelines for best practice for the operation of the systems related to agricultural product quality and their mutual recognition. i refer, in particular, to the control of private certification systems which are often used as a requirement for accessing large-scale distribution outlets. (fi) madam president, it is very important to go to the heart of this matter and say that agriculture based on farming families is local in nature, provides employment, strengthens regions, is humane and also takes account of animal protection issues. the individual product resulting from this and the quality of the goods are what succeed in europe and the world at large. where a product comes from is important. local specialities are of immeasurable value. the region that i come from in finland produces a delicious goat's milk cheese. i can recommend it to you all. there are special products like this all over europe. we have to ensure that they find their way onto the market. as we have a new commissioner here, i would like to say to him that it must be possible to practise agriculture everywhere in europe. if we remember this, we will have an excellent future, with safe and pure food originating here. (de) madam president, many thanks once again to the rapporteur for his excellent report. high quality agricultural products provide european agriculture with a major location advantage, allowing it to hold its own in the face of international competition. as a result, they play an important part in the development of rural areas within the european union. the european union's agricultural products already meet high quality standards. european standards have a global reputation for being very high. unfortunately, not all consumers are aware of this. it is therefore important for the european union to improve its quality policy and, at the same time, improve its information policy. this will be an incentive for producers to focus more on quality and food safety. consumers have a right to enjoy agricultural products in the eu without concern and without compunction. voluntary 'made in the european union' labelling and mandatory regional labelling, as well as mandatory proof of origin, are not mutually exclusive. on the other hand, when it comes to packaging sizes and the geometric shape of agricultural products, we need to take a sensible approach. the purpose of the european union is not to be concerned about the curvature of cucumbers. the same applies to the size of pizzas. i would seriously warn against overregulation here. if we want regional economic cycles, we need to focus on quality and not on degrees of curvature. if the industry wants uniform cucumbers in uniform jars of uniform weight, that is up to the industry and not the european union or the european parliament. therefore, let us focus on quality and not packaging units. in this regard, i trust in the common sense and wisdom of the european parliament and of our new commissioner for agriculture, mr ciolo. (ro) let me begin by congratulating the rapporteur for tackling this issue of agricultural product quality. the demands of the market are diverse and are increasing all the time. in the european union, the majority of aspects relate to food hygiene and safety, health and nutritional value, as well as certain social requirements. in addition, consumers are becoming increasingly more aware of the contribution made by agriculture to sustainability, climate change, food safety, biodiversity, animal welfare and the water shortage. faced with these new commercial challenges, the european farmer's main asset is quality. the european union offers the benefit of quality, which is attributable to an extremely high level of safety, guaranteed by current legislation, throughout the entire food chain which not only farmers but producers, too, have contributed to. however, there are a few aspects capable of enhancing quality. i believe that it is the european union's duty to promote good quality products, along with taking action to protect them globally. in this context, i think that tighter control must be exercised with regard to those organic products originating from third countries, thereby guaranteeing fair competition between organic products produced in europe and those from third countries. (el) madam president, commissioner, the quality of agricultural products constitutes a priority for consumers by increasing competitiveness for producers and by strengthening the area in which they are produced. that is why efforts are being made to safeguard them, including with labelling. today, however, community legislation restricts compulsory labelling of the place of production to just certain products, thereby vouchsafing them special treatment and leaving out agricultural products of major nutritional value and priority for consumers. we therefore call on parliament to adopt a more consistent and logical stand, in order to defend consumer interests by favouring compulsory labelling of the place of production for all agricultural products, including processed products containing just one ingredient, such as milk. (ro) the agricultural product quality policy may provide a solution for many farmers. the focus on quality rather than quantity may entail long-term benefits for many households. this is why the european union needs coherent policies in this area, which, at the same time, will offer european farmers the opportunity to be competitive on the global market. against this backdrop, the scott report is welcome, as is the package announced by commissioner ciolo. at the same time, we will also need something else to enable us to achieve the quality objectives, namely, a strong common agricultural policy in the future, along with a consistent budget. an agricultural product quality policy and a reduction in the european agriculture budget are two incompatible ideas. we also need to make sufficient instruments available to farmers so that they can develop their own quality policy and, last but not least, we need farmers from member states in the west and east to enjoy equal opportunities. (de) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, when discussing quality logos and mandatory designations of origin for food, we must not forget that our political decisions need to be implementable in practice. i cannot see how amendments 4 and 5 can be implemented in practice and i will therefore be rejecting them. quality logos should, in principle, be viewed as beneficial if they are voluntary. they give producers and processors of goods the opportunity to be successful in niche markets. however, we need to take account of the fact that, through the market dominance of a few chain stores, many voluntary private logos are interpreted as quasi standards. this robs producers and processors of their entrepreneurial freedom and also narrows the choice for consumers. there is a similar situation with regard to the mandatory indication of the place of origin for agricultural products, such as milk. implementing this requirement in agriculture and in the processing industry would scarcely be possible from a technical point of view. we need to be careful that good intentions do not descend into excessive bureaucracy. (pl) madam president, i would like to call attention to the pertinence of item 9 of the scott report, which emphasises that, in the wto negotiations, the commission must seek to secure an agreement on the 'non-trade concerns' which will ensure that imported agricultural products meet the same requirements, in the areas of food safety, animal welfare and environmental protection, that are imposed on agricultural products produced inside the european union. the problem is that this is probably the 150th time the european parliament has said that the same requirements should be applied to importers as those applied to producers within the european union. there has been no response, and we are still dealing with a situation in which our producers, farmers and manufacturers are having to comply with high, expensive standards, while importers do not meet these standards. this leads to unfair competition. as was rightly emphasised in the report, this has to change. (de) madam president, the control of foodstuffs is a utopian fantasy. the pressure for control and the consequences are, too, it seems. we are thus in a right old stew! in the case of health risks, authorities should put out warnings, but they are not obliged to. we have seen the result of this recently in the listeria-contaminated cheese scandal. food inspectors often have to battle with deficient labelling - and it is not only the inspectors; consumers have the same problem. they are completely overwhelmed by the labelling jungle. for example, 'farmer' can be stated on the packaging, even though the product has been industrially processed, or it might say 'of austrian origin' even though the ingredients come from all over the place. quality-conscious customers are prepared to pay more for high quality foods. the question is for how long, if rogue traders are also operating in this area. if control systems are geared to small holdings and hardly any attention is paid to what large eco-holdings are doing, then something is wrong with the entire system. (de) madam president, commissioner, you said today that products with a designation of origin are a spearhead for our industry. you are right about that. it is particularly true of products that are produced under difficult circumstances, for example, in mountainous areas, and which require higher margins. the designation 'mountain produce' is therefore particularly important. i would like to address two points. i think that, with regard to these products, we should give farmers the opportunity to organise themselves into inter-professional committees and support consortia where they can also take market decisions. that would not contravene competition law and, if it did, it would, in any case, be a much smaller contravention than the concentration of chain stores we have seen over the last few years. with regard to quality standards, about which much has already been said, i am aware of the discussion in the press and also the talk about curved cucumbers. however, producers want and need these rules. we should take that into account in our debate and also in the vote tomorrow. (pt) certification mechanisms could constitute a contribution to increasing the value of farmers' work, improving their income and promoting quality and food safety. however, since the current certification procedures are complex, time-consuming and, above all, expensive, their results have been negative, especially for small and medium-sized farms. increased production costs and the distribution of income throughout the value chain becomes even more unfavourable to the producer with the inclusion of yet another business agent in that chain. given this, and as an effective guarantee of transparency, quality and security for customers, certification must be carried out by public bodies and must not incur a higher cost for producers. above all, however, if there is to be a good policy, there needs to be another agricultural policy, a profound reform of the common agricultural policy which supports local protection, the right to produce and the right to food sovereignty, which will protect farmers and consumers from the consequences of the deregulation of world trade and the unchecked liberalisation of the markets, locking them either within the framework of bilateral agreements or within that of the world trade organisation. (lt) the european union's agricultural produce is well known in the international marketplace and valued for its high quality. in terms of the future prospects of the common agricultural policy, i am convinced that product quality must remain the essential goal in the future. high quality agricultural products are not simply our business card on a global scale; they are also a very important part of the economic and social life of the eu's region. policies on quality should be developed by providing more clarity with product certification and labelling that can be understood by all european union consumers. in order to safeguard the production of quality agricultural products, we must lay down clear rules for labelling products that may contain genetically modified organisms. this problem has become particularly relevant since the commission's decision to allow the use of genetically modified potatoes for animal feed. until we lay down labelling and certification standards for such products, there is a threat to future eu food quality policy and the health of us all. (pl) madam president, thanks to the instruments of the common agricultural policy, the agricultural market in the european union is characterised by the supply of agricultural and food items of high quality. high standards, suitable food quality and sufficient supply are components of food security, something which is so important. it is important that information on the quality of goods reaches the consumer. we know that every product allowed on to the market must meet minimum standards. special quality which exceeds minimum standards must be detailed on the product to improve its competitiveness by drawing attention to its additional qualities, for which the consumer must pay. other important information which should also be on food products is the place of origin and processing of the raw product. consumers must know what they are buying and for what they are paying. the absence of this information weakens the competitiveness of agricultural and food items produced and processed in europe in comparison to imported goods produced without regard to animal welfare, environmental requirements or the social standards of employees. (de) madam president, mr scott's successful report is very much in the interests of consumer protection. the safety, including from the point of view of health, of agricultural products really must be a top priority. i would like to point out the key importance of improving designations of origin for foods. every agricultural product in the eu must be clearly labelled with the origin of the raw materials. consumers must not be duped by fraudulent labelling. take china, for example. imported seeds arrive in austria and then the so-called 'pressed seed oil' is sold there. worse still, fattened animals are transported across europe under deplorable conditions in order to produce so-called 'tyrolean bacon', for example. we therefore need to focus on regional supplies, and, in the interests of our consumers and our farmers, we need to support local farmers and small butchers. (bg) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i congratulate mr scott on this report which clearly signals the european parliament's desire and determination to participate actively in the forthcoming debate on the future of the cap. i welcome the suggestion about creating a logo which clearly shows that a particular product is produced and processed solely within europe. i believe that this will provide another show of support and an original guarantee of the high quality of our products. in my view, a protected designation of origin and geographical indication system must be implemented. this will allow us to retain the distinctive nature of the regions and their character and make people feel that what they have produced is identifiable and valued on the market. this is why i believe that we must retain the traditional speciality guaranteed instrument and consider it as a good example of our diversity in unity. there is nothing wrong in knowing that we are eating feta from greece, white brined cheese from bulgaria or mozzarella from italy. food quality and safety are among the main challenges that we must resolve in the future. let us preserve the quality of our products and their competitiveness and let us guarantee a decent income and living for our producers and farmers. thank you for your attention. madam president, i do not propose to go over all the issues raised here, especially since there is going to be a vote tomorrow, but i would nonetheless like to highlight certain points that have been made repeatedly in the speeches. with regard to the merging of the various geographical indication systems, i fully understand the concern of certain members. i can assure you that it is not my intention to destroy something that works, that functions, something to which consumers are attached. we just need to make the quality protection system clearer and more consistent, all the more so given that we are trying, by way of international negotiations, to gain recognition for these systems. therefore, it is important that these systems already be clear and easy for our partners to understand so that they can be recognised. it is therefore not my intention to merge for the sake of it. the end result will be a system by which we can make simplifications, without touching things that are already easily identifiable by consumers. as regards the european quality logo, we must also discuss and decide in this chamber which objectives we want it to achieve. is the aim simply to reflect compliance with the basic standards that all european farmers meet and that imported goods also meet? indeed - i wish to point this out - all imported agri-food products must meet minimum food hygiene and safety standards which are met by our own products. we therefore have to see which is the best way to successfully differentiate our products from the others. do we need a european union logo, or should we instead indicate the places of origin, the locations of production? the best mechanism needs to be identified, and we shall, in any case, give consideration to this. with regard to geographical indications at international level, rest assured that my concern is to ensure that this system is recognised by our partners. we are trying to ensure this in negotiations conducted by the international labour organisation, but also whenever we have an opportunity to do so when negotiating bilateral agreements. we are therefore going to pursue this approach and, moreover, in my mandate, i want to be able to strengthen the policy for communicating and promoting these quality signs internationally, since quality is an asset and, as such, it can give us a greater presence on the international stage. with regard to the reserved terms 'mountain', 'island' and so forth, we are looking into the possibility of introducing these kinds of systems. here too, we need to decide how to proceed so as to ensure that they do not represent an additional cost for those farmers who want to introduce them. as regards interprofessional organisations and their role in the management of protected designations of origin, or pdos, it is our intention, particularly as regards milk - since the majority of pdos and protected geographical indications (pgis) are concentrated in that sector - to carry out a study to see what impact the ending of quotas will have on the smooth functioning of these quality protection systems, and i hope that, on the basis of this report, we shall see which measures will have to be taken should the need arise. madam president, ladies and gentlemen. thank you, commissioner ciolo. i should like to begin by talking very briefly about the land. the land is that from which we harvest our products and which we must preserve for the future and for those who will have to do the same. that is why, taking this simple thought as a starting point, i should like to move on to producers, to those who work the land, who must be recognised also by those who subsequently enjoy the commercial produce they find in the supermarket or some other shop. it is therefore only right that we respect first the land, which yields the produce, then the processor, if any, but above all the consumer. i should like to make a proposal for the benefit of consumers, and i am not sure whether it will be welcomed or not: why not ask consumers what they want to know? in this way, we will know which potential label consumers are able to read and to understand, and thus perhaps make it much simpler than the complicated labels we have today. why must consumers not know that they have the choice of drinking a litre of milk from europe or a litre of milk from brazil? it will be for them to choose whether a litre of brazilian milk is better than a litre of milk produced in the european union. be that as it may, i consider and i hope that this report will be useful for commissioner ciolo by providing further details to help grow that thread i referred to earlier: the land, the producer, the processor, if any, the consumer, safety and, above all on the issue of safety, quality. we have all spoken about quality, and i believe that we are all in favour of raising the quality of our produce even more if it means eating well and eating healthily. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow. written statements (rule 149) the issue of an agricultural product quality policy has found an authoritative and unanimous response from the european parliament's committee on agriculture and rural development, thereby making the existing legislation more complete. european agricultural producers have finally gained recognition in european legislation on the quality of their produce linked to the region of production. this represents a guarantee for sheltering them from market globalisation and for ensuring that the 'informed' consumer can reject produce that does not bear the obligatory geographic indication of origin, that is not certified clearly, and that does not comply with marketing and anti-counterfeiting rules. consumers will be able to make their purchasing choices in full knowledge of the rules relating to their desired product. the european parliament will continue to fight for the protection of both farmers and consumers. the health of the latter depends on the quality of the produce of the former. an amendment of mine on the protection of product characteristics, which the committee on agriculture and rural development has approved, recognises that the regions have an essential role as producer partners, in particular, of the producers of traditional and organic products, and calls for regions to be involved in the recognition and promotion of products with a geographical indication, traditional products and organic products. i am pleased to note the recognition of this indication. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the subject of the quality of agricultural produce is of fundamental importance when it comes to informing the purchaser and the consumer of the characteristics of products and as regards continuing to guarantee that purchasing products from the european union is synonymous with high quality derived from the various regional traditions within the union. over the years, agricultural product quality policy has evolved in a fragmented way, characterised by a succession of sectoral instruments. market globalisation and the economic and financial crisis that has struck europe have not spared the agricultural sector. to emerge from this, we need to focus on the quality and safety of our produce. the continuing search for quality must form an essential component of the strategy pursued by the eu's agri-food sector on the world market. i believe, furthermore, that serious consideration must be given to the commission's proposal to introduce a european quality logo for products originating and processed wholly within europe. this logo would, in fact, represent formal recognition of the efforts made by european farmers to maintain high standards of production. finally, it is definitely a good idea to simplify legislation in order to reduce the bureaucratic burden on businesses while, at the same time, guaranteeing that the quality standards achieved by european producers are maintained. the agricultural product quality policy is not a static policy, separate from the other policies connected with agriculture. on the contrary, the reform of the common agricultural policy should also include policies dealing with adaptation to climate change, the preservation of biological diversity, secure supplies of energy or water, ensuring decent living conditions for animals, and european fisheries. the product quality policy can help to increase the competitiveness of european farmers and to maintain economic profits in rural areas in a time of crisis precisely by targeting the quality of agricultural products and high quality foodstuffs. it must continue to apply without exception that purchasing products from the eu means purchasing high quality products, which are produced on the basis of various european regional traditions while following the highest production standards in terms of food safety. i support the commission proposal for introducing a european quality logo, which would be used for products coming from and also exclusively processed in the eu. consumers confuse the designation of the place where food is processed with the place of origin of the agricultural product. it is necessary to emphasise that the production process itself can dramatically influence the quality and characteristics of a product in a negative way. i also welcome the retention of the systems of registering geographical indications and traditional specialities, as these indications are significant for european agriculture not only from an economic perspective, but also from an environmental and social perspective.

development impact of economic partnership agreements (epas) (short presentation) - the next item is a short presentation of the report by mr schrder, on behalf of the committee on development, on the development impact of economic partnership agreements (epas). mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about the impact of economic partnership agreements on development. 'economic partnership agreements' really is quite a mouthful, particularly in german. it is a horrible phrase, and no doubt very few people in germany will concern themselves with this topic, despite the fact that it will be one of the most important topics in coming years. what is it all about? the cotonou agreement states that economic partnership agreements should be concluded between the european union and the acp (african, caribbean pacific) states by the end of 2007. the background to this was that developing countries that were not, and are not, in the acp group of states complained to the world trade organization (wto) that the european union was according the acp states special privileges. we have now managed to set up, at least in part of the caribbean, an economic partnership agreement of this type, which we hope will be a success. my report states that this agreement will form a new basis for development cooperation: we are helping them to help themselves. we are trying to link together trade and development, by which i mean trade policy and development policy. there has, of course, been a certain amount of friction, in particular here in parliament between our committee, the committee on regional development, and the committee on international trade, relating primarily to the compatibility of this agreement with the rules of the wto and especially the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. my report originally included two paragraphs - numbers 5 and 17 - relating to parliamentary scrutiny. at the request and on the advice of the chairman of the committee on international trade, i deleted both of those paragraphs completely and submitted an alternative draft report with these paragraphs deleted, on which we will be voting on thursday. apart from the two deletions, my draft report is identical to the first draft. it sets out both the opportunities and the risks of the economic partnership agreements, but it particularly emphasises the potential positive effects of these agreements on the people in those countries. before i finish, mr president, i would just like to say one more thing: some of our fellow members have repeatedly claimed that people in the acp states had too little time to conclude these agreements. that is not true: they had from 2000 to 2007; then they had another year until 2008; and we still have time. we are not, however, saying to people in these countries that they can do it whenever they like: time is running out. it is in the interests of the people in the acp states, and i therefore call on all members of this house to vote in favour of my report on thursday, including those who originally intended to vote against it. this is not an argument between the left and the right; it is about helping people in the acp states to become more self-confident and, in the foreseeable future, to become equal partners in international trade. member of the commission. - mr president, the commission welcomes the report by mr schroeder, which represents a balanced overview of the diversity of opinions surrounding the development impact of the economic partnership agreements (epas). the dossier continues to evolve. we have signed a full economic partnership agreement with the caribbean region, whilst we have negotiated interim agreements with countries and regions in africa and the pacific. these interim epas provide for a trade regime compatible with wto rules and preserve important trade preferences for these countries. the interim agreements are only transitory in nature, as they will be replaced by full regional epas. the pace of these negotiations will be set by the regions concerned to ensure those objectives and coverage match their own integration processes, capacity, needs and political priorities. in parallel, the programming of the 10th european development fund has moved on. most of the regional and national programmes are signed. in anticipation of the epas, these programmes include considerable support to help our african, caribbean and pacific (acp) partners make the most of the agreements: direct support for the implementation of the agreements and indirect support to build up infrastructure and productive capacity. the commission recognises the essential role of development finance. at the same time we welcome the fact that the report acknowledges that the development objectives and outcomes of the agreements are a much wider issue than just financial support. we also recognise the essential role of reform in the acp regions in reaching the development objectives, as set out in paragraph 14 of the report. this includes fiscal reform and changes to revenue systems. the reforms offset shifts in the tax base due to liberalisation and are in themselves valuable steps to ensuring sustainable public financing in the acp. another essential objective is to support regional economic integration in the acp. the interim agreements do not yet include all acp countries. this is exactly why these agreements are only temporary pending full agreement. the full agreements will be flexible and comprehensive. building up supply-side capacity to trade and engage in goods and service sectors underpins the economic value of a trade agreement. the commission's view is that protectionism is never a valid policy option. however, we do acknowledge that protection - the legitimate use of measures to protect sensitive sectors and emerging industry - is a valid and essential policy tool. this is why the epas contain all sorts of flexibilities, and in particular exclusions and asymmetrical commitments for the acp side, as called for in the report. on the eu side, our markets are completely open for acp products, with increased cooperation to meet technical and health standards and facilitate trade. acp countries will only open their markets gradually, with the possibility to maintain exceptions. the commission does not see our commitment to the epa process ending on signature. this is the start of a process of enhanced dialogue, careful implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the effect, especially as regards the development impact. all of this will use the institutions established to implement the agreement to ensure transparency and the participation of parliamentarians and civil society. the commission therefore welcomes the report by mr schrder and will provide a detailed reaction to the points raised in due course. - the item is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow. written statements (rule 142) in writing. - (fr) on thursday parliament will give its verdict on mr schrder's report on economic partnership agreements (epas). i would be extremely disappointed if our institution's first vote on this both very technical and highly political subject (since the whole future of our relations with the acp states is at stake) were to result in the adoption of mr schrder's report. the socialist group in the european parliament will not vote in favour of this text, since it in no way reflects the concerns both of europeans and of our acp partners about the epas and the way in which they are negotiated. in contrast to the rapporteur's position, the pse group has tabled and will vote in favour of a motion for a resolution which puts development back at the heart of the epas' priorities, which rejects the liberalisation of public services and any negotiation on the singapore issues or on services against the acp states' wishes, which promotes regional integration, which calls for huge financial support to bring the acp states' economies up to standard, and which takes account of the specific characteristics and fragilities of these countries, be they least developed countries or otherwise. these are the conditions that would make the epas acceptable agreements. unfortunately we are still a long way away from them.

approval of the minutes the minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed. are there any comments? mr president, could i object to yesterday's minutes. you will see in item 7 that i have been named as mr rather than mrs mcnally. i can assure you, mrs mcnally, that our minutes will reflect the true situation! mr president, i rise on the endearing ritual recorded in yesterday's minutes as item 16, page 17, questions to the commission. can i ask you to correct an inaccuracy there: it says that question no 51 by my colleague, mr bowe, fell as he was absent. he was far from absent, of course, because he was sitting in front of me waiting for an answer. that question fell because of lack of time to ask it, as was the case with 105 out of 120 questions tabled by members so far this month. but if you count the supplementaries asked by other members in the chamber you will see that there were nine additional questions. some were relevant, others arguably less so. those 120 questions often represent the genuine concerns of the public, rather than the politicians, such as my shrimp fishing communities in norfolk. they need to be addressed concisely and quickly. there are other mechanisms for obtaining lengthy answers on complex policy issues from commissioners. so will you please ask the bureau to review the operation of question time because some simple reforms on the number of supplementaries and the length of the answers from commissioners would go a long way to help this place seem a lot less remote to a lot more people. mr president, i just want to place on record my thanks to my colleague for defending my honour and also thank the commission. i promptly received a written reply at the end of that question time. so that clears up that matter, too. we will come to the comments in due course. (parliament approved the minutes) mr president, on the minutes: i notice that mrs bonino, commissioner, was there to answer a number of questions on fisheries and consumer affairs, but what concerns me greatly is that we have three important reports on fisheries and one oral question on friday and yet i understand that the commissioner is not going to be present. that is highly regrettable and i would ask the president to ask her to attend that session so that she can hear the views and opinions of this parliament. mr teverson, i have already said that we will be looking into this! meeting of 5 october 1996 in dublin the next item is the report by the european council and the statement by the commission following the meeting of 5 october 1996 in dublin. i am very glad to welcome the president-in-office of the council of the european union, the irish foreign minister dick spring. welcome, mr spring. mr president-in-office, you have the floor. mr president, it is certainly an honour for me to have this opportunity to report to this house on the special meeting of the european council held in dublin on 5 october. the decision to hold a special meeting was taken at the florence european council last june. the european council decided that a special meeting would be useful in order to discuss a range of issues facing the union in the period and in order to keep up the momentum in the intergovernmental conference negotiations. the dublin meeting on 5 october allowed the members of the european council to have a general exchange of views on a range of issues. they did this without being required to focus on specific texts or conclusions - that task will be for the second european council in dublin on 13 and 14 december. i am happy to be able to report that on 5 october we reaffirmed the timetable set by the florence european council for completion of the intergovernmental conference. the conference shall complete its work by the middle of next year - that is by the amsterdam european council in june 1997. we also confirmed the need to maintain the level of ambition of the conference. we must ensure that the outcome is adequate to equip and strengthen the union to meet the internal and external challenges which it faces and will face at the beginning of the new century. external relations issues were also discussed at the dublin meeting. there was a particular focus on the middle east peace process, and immediately following the meeting i visited the middle east for discussions on the need to accelerate this process. i propose to report to you in some detail today on the two main issues discussed in dublin: the intergovernmental conference and the middle east peace process. since the beginning of ireland's presidency of the council, work in the intergovernmental conference has focused on presidency papers. these papers largely set out draft treaty texts covering all the major issues under consideration at the conference. this process of negotiating on the basis of specific texts has helped to clarify delegations' positions and has enabled the presidency to refine its initial drafts into a suggested approach on most of the main areas of work. the approach is one of what might be called the successive approximation of texts. in short, we are progressing steadily towards our aim of producing, as requested by the florence european council, a general outline for a draft revision of the treaties for the second dublin meeting in december. our meeting on 5 october was very useful in advancing this process. it was, of course, a special meeting. as i mentioned, there were no written conclusions and no decisions were taken on the specific substantive issues under consideration at the igc - that was not the purpose of the dublin meeting. despite the informal nature of the meeting, the presidency was determined to ensure that parliament continued to make valuable input to the process under way at ministerial and at preparatory level through your own contributions and those of elisabeth guigou and elmar brok. your remarks to us, when we discussed the intergovernmental conference in dublin, were against the background which the taoiseach had set out in his letter to colleagues in advance of the meeting. we emphasize first that the structures of the union must be adapted in a balanced way so that the union continues to work effectively and is firmly anchored in public acceptance and, second, that the union must be prepared for future enlargement and the many other challenges which it will face in the years ahead. dublin i gave the european council the opportunity to engage in a useful and open exchange of views on the main issues, which will, of course, have to be taken further at the european council meeting in december and into the dutch presidency. it enabled me, as chairman of the intergovernmental conference, to make an oral report on progress at the conference. in confirming that the timetable is on track and that the political will exists among all member states to meet the deadline of concluding the igc by the time of the european council in amsterdam in june next year, the european council responded to the growing sense of urgency felt by all the institutions that the process must not be delayed. in particular, in this context it sends a clear message to the applicant countries waiting for the conference to end so that they can start the accession negotiating process. i would take this opportunity to underline the priority which the irish presidency attaches to enlargement. it is my firm belief that one of the major contributions which we can make to the accession process is to ensure that substantial progress is made in the intergovernmental conference by the end of this year. dublin i also reaffirmed a general willingness of member states to pursue ambitious objectives in terms of the content of the treaty. from the perspective of the irish presidency the meeting was helpful in advancing the substantial work of the igc. there was a wide measure of agreement among heads of state or government that a primary objective of the reform of the union under consideration at the conference is to provide concrete responses to direct concerns and expectations of our citizens. there was strong emphasis, for example, on the part of many of the participants on the need to demonstrate that we can strengthen the treaty provisions on employment at the level of the union. furthermore, there was wide agreement on the need to demonstrate that we can, at the level of the union, play an important role in combating the problems of international crime and drug-trafficking more effectively. there is growing recognition that the igc should make the necessary changes to ensure that the union is able to ensure greater coherence of its international action in the political and economic fields and to exercise a constructive international political influence especially in terms of helping to resolve conflict and promote peaceful resolution of disputes. moreover, there is emerging agreement that the institutional adaptations must be made to the union structure and decision-making processes so that the union can be made more efficient, effective, visibly democratic and firmly rooted in public acceptability so that the union can cope with further enlargement. clearly, following the pattern of all intergovernmental conferences in the past, some of the more sensitive institutional issues are likely to be settled at the end of the negotiations. the issue of flexibility will be a major concern. in this regard i should mention the very interesting contribution made by my colleagues in the council, klaus kinkel and herv de charette, to this debate. dublin i has played a constructive part in advancing the work of the igc. the irish presidency remains on target to fill our mandate to produce an outline of a draft revision of the treaty for consideration at the european council in december. as you are all aware, a special meeting of the european council took place at a time of heightened tension in the middle east following the outbreak of violence in the region. as a result the european council devoted a large part of its deliberations to examining the means by which the union can contribute to the revitalization of the middle east peace process. the union responded quickly and clearly to the escalation of tensions which culminated in violent clashes in jerusalem and throughout the west bank at the end of september. we have undertaken a number of actions to try to restore momentum to the peace process. on 1 and 2 october the general affairs council adopted a declaration on the middle east peace process which set out the position of the union at this critical juncture. at a time of deepening crisis we called upon both parties to avoid resorting to disproportionate force and to exercise restraint. it also set out clearly those areas where it believed that progress is crucial to the peace process. in particular it stressed the importance of early and full implementation of existing agreements and the need for negotiations to proceed on the basis of the principles of the 1991 madrid conference establishing the middle east peace process and the terms of the 1993 declaration of principles on palestinian self rule. a special meeting of the european council decided that i should visit the region immediately to convey a message to prime minister netanyahu and president arafat, to outline the union's position and to discuss how progress might be made in restoring the climate of confidence that is needed to get the peace process back on track. the message from the european council welcomed the resumption of negotiations on 6 october following the washington summit, reiterated the union's conviction that only full implementation of the terms of existing agreements can ensure the security of both israelis and palestinians and offered the full support of the union for efforts to revitalize the peace process. a copy of this message was conveyed to president clinton, recording the eu's appreciation of the us efforts to ease tension and get the process back on track and assuring the us of the union's continuing engagement in common efforts in support of this objective. in my meetings with leaders in the region i stressed the importance attached by the european union to the urgent revitalization of the peace process. i also emphasized the eu's intention to make an enhanced commitment to the search for progress in the middle east commensurate with the union's economic contribution and involvement in the peace process so far. my meetings with prime minister netanyahu and foreign minister levi were friendly and constructive and the prime minister clearly indicated his appreciation of the efforts of the union in support of the peace process. our continuing contacts with the leaders of the israeli government, which reflect the union's close and long-standing relationship with israel, have enabled me to convey clearly the eu's concerns on the need to restore momentum to the peace process. i met president arafat in gaza on 6 october, our second meeting within a week. we held a wide-ranging discussion on the situation in the region and on the key issues under discussion in the current israeli/palestinian negotiations. president arafat welcomed the union's continuing economic assistance for the palestinian people as well as its continuing support for the peace process. at the request of the egyptian government i travelled to cairo on 7 october for meetings with president mubarak and foreign minister amr moussa. both of them stressed that the union is well placed to play a positive role in influencing both sides and supporting the peace process. these meetings emphasize the shared concern of both egypt and the union at recent events in the region as well as our shared commitment to the advancement of the peace process through the implementation of existing agreements. the meetings were held in a very friendly atmosphere, reflecting the continued excellent quality of the union's relations with egypt. in addition to these extensive contacts with regional leaders, i met the us foreign secretary of state warren christopher. following this meeting the union has continued to maintain its existing close contact and cooperation with the united states in support of the ongoing peace negotiations. following my visit to the region, i remain convinced that the union has an important and positive role to play in support of the middle east peace process. we will continue to keep in close contact with all the regional parties in pursuit of our common objective of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. the special european council also requested the general affairs council to consider a mandate for the position of a european union envoy to the middle east. the idea of appointing an eu envoy to the middle east reflects a strong willingness on the union's part to become more actively involved in efforts to assist in the revitalization of the middle east peace process on the basis of its major contribution to the process so far and its already wide engagement with the region. preparatory work on the mandate for the post of envoy is under way and the matter will be considered by the council at our next meeting on 28 and 29 october. at our meeting in dublin on 5 october foreign ministers also discussed the situation in former yugoslavia against the background of the recent elections in bosnia. the union focus is now on contributing to the efforts of the international community to support the peace consolidation process. in this context we heard a preliminary presentation from commissioner van den broek on the commission's proposals for the eu's regional approach to the countries of the area. this proposal will be considered in detail at the general affairs council next week. the heads of state and government had an exchange of views on developments in eu/russia relations. this was the first opportunity they had had to discuss the matters since the successful conclusion in july of the russian presidential election which was a historic milestone in the consolidation of democracy in russia and a clear signal from the russian people themselves that they wish russia to continue on the path of reform. the need for the eu to deepen its relations with russia was stressed, as was the need for continued support for the reform process. the importance of early completion by all member states of the ratification procedures for the partnership and cooperation agreement was emphasized. developments in relation to chechnya were also discussed. the european council also discussed ways of strengthening the eu's relationship with the ukraine and of assisting the reform process in that country. ministers for foreign affairs discussed the current situation in belarus with regard to the proposed referendum on constitutional change and expressed concern at the divisions between president lukashenko and the parliament. they agreed that any referendum, if its results are to be respected in and outside belarus, must be conducted only after full and open debate in which all sides can take part and with free reporting by press and media based on open access to all sides. ministers decided that these concerns should be conveyed to the belarus authorities. the irish presidency is only half way through its term of office. six months is both a long time and a very short time. there are many issues on the agenda of the european union and progress in these issues is a central requirement of any presidency. this special meeting afforded us a very useful opportunity to move forward the union's agenda and to prepare the ground for an ambitious but realistic european council in dublin in december. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of the special european council in dublin was not to take decisions, but to inject some momentum into the intergovernmental conference negotiations. this objective was achieved, thanks to a determined and effective irish presidency. it was important that the heads of state and government should be able to have open and frank discussions without, at that stage, having to negotiate specific conclusions. from the very constructive exchanges we had, i shall keep in mind a three-fold message. firstly, there was a very clear confirmation of the envisaged timetable. the intergovernmental conference must complete its work by the time of the amsterdam european council in june 1997. this is extremely important with enlargement in prospect. as i said yesterday before this parliament, 1997 will thus be a turning point, with the conclusion of the work on the reform of the treaty and the launching of discussions on the agenda for 2000. if the union wishes to control rather than merely accept the commitments made for the year 2000, it must stick to a coherent and logical timetable. and in order to meet the completion date of june 1997, the dublin european council must have a global draft treaty which will form the basis of later negotiations. all the heads of state and government share this view. the second message coming from the dublin council concerns the very clear intention of the heads of state and government to concentrate on essentials and i believe this to be a major source of encouragement for the rest of the work. but what are the essentials? the first is a response to the real concerns of our citizens: internal security and employment. on these two crucial themes, i must say that i am more optimistic today than i was a few weeks ago. then there is the definition of a genuine foreign policy. i took advantage of the dublin meeting to emphasize once more the need both to strengthen the instruments at our disposal, whether community or intergovernmental, and to integrate them into a global and coherent vision of external relations. i have the impression that the commission's point of view is beginning to be better understood, particularly as regards the strengthening of the common trade policy. there is, lastly, the implementation of genuine institutional reform, especially with enlargement in prospect. this is undoubtedly the subject on which most progress has still to be made and the reactions of delegations are still very much behind what is necessary. here also, however, there is a growing awareness of what is at stake although, as is not unusual at this stage of the work, the players are not yet really showing their cards. the third message is related to the second. by emphasizing their determination to concentrate on essentials, the heads of state and government have sent a clear signal about the levels of ambition to be achieved. they do not want a rag-bag of an intergovernmental conference, concealing what is really at stake behind a multitude of little reforms, not to say gimmicks. i find that encouraging, even though i am well aware of the divergence of views, sometimes considerable, that still exists. for its part, the commission will continue to recommend an approach which is as ambitious as possible while remaining realistic. to end this brief intervention, i may say that i came back from dublin rather reassured. the chosen formula for open exchanges without conclusions was a good one even though, i know, it may be frustrating in many respects because no specific decisions were taken. the fact that members of the european council were involved immediately confers on the work a more political character. i would also add in this connection that your intervention, mr president, at the beginning of the meeting was outstanding and introduced a much-needed visionary touch. we have excellent technicians in europe whose role is of course vital but this role must be exercised within the context of a clear political vision and this vision should be defined at the highest level. meanwhile, the technicians have gone back to work with, i hope, renewed enthusiasm and i note that they are progressing quite well at this moment. the irish presidency is fortunate in having outstanding experts under the direction of noel dorr and in having politicians like john bruton and dick spring who provide enlightened leadership. with such a happy mixture, it will fulfil the mandate conferred on it with distinction and, with the help of its partners and of the european parliament and the commission, it will advance our common cause. thank you very much, mr president-in-office. we now come to the debate. i call mrs green to open the debate on behalf of the group of the party of european socialists. i want to thank the president-in-office of the council for coming here today and making a statement on the informal summit and i congratulate the irish presidency for actually insisting that meeting took place in the face of opposition from at least one member state. i must say that, in my group, we shall judge the igc by its emphasis on the issues which we consider important for the citizens of europe. my group is ambitious for europe. we have expectations of europe. europe really must move forward to prepare itself for enlargement - the president-in-office made this plain. we in this group are firmly wedded to the principle of enlargement but the council must understand that our constituency, here in this parliament, is the electorate of the european union and our first allegiance is to them. enlargement which is illplanned, which destabilizes the security of the existing union or which paralyses the union even more than can happen now is simply not acceptable. mr president-in-office, the people of the union want peace in europe. europe's role in conflict resolution is something which i know has particular resonance in ireland and to which i know you are deeply committed. can i make it plain in your presence, mr spring, that my group was the instigator of the concept of european support for peace and reconciliation in northern ireland. we are utterly committed to it and, despite the barrage of press coverage in ireland in recent days, i give you my word that we will do nothing to damage it. the people of the union also want to see a real political priority being given to securing their future. please ensure, mr president-in-office, that the leaders of our countries make real progress on generating jobs inside the union. we applaud the growing support for the employment section in the treaty and urge you to ensure that it has real bite and does not just contain pious entreaties. perhaps one of the most depressing features of recent months has been the attack by the council or by individual member states, on that part of the union's activities relating to the socially excluded. in what is simply a meanminded attack on the most vulnerable, we have seen action at the court to stop the commission spending a comparatively paltry sum of money on the elderly, the disabled, the socially excluded. it is this type of activity which, in my group's view, does more than anything to demonstrate to europe's people that the governments, when they come together, are only concerned with a headlong rush to outperform each other and prove their macho credentials. we need the igc to find an answer to the problem of the legal base for spending on the socially excluded. we need a clear signal that europe understands that it is the role of national governments to lead the fight against poverty and exclusion in each of our member states but that the european union can add value to that fight by its own legitimate and concerted action. europe's citizens do not know or greatly care about the intricate details of our work here but they do now understand the signals about the sort of europe we are developing. they are using the democratic system to signal to us their concern and, by refusing to understand or respond to these signals, we are encouraging the development of those who would see the break-up of european integration. my group restates its belief in the closer integration of europe and we want to see the igc move rapidly to prepare for enlargement in an environment of calm, peace, prosperity and hope for the future. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, first and foremost i should like to congratulate the irish presidency. i believe that once again it has been proved that a smaller european union country can also play a very creative role when exercising the presidency. this is not the first time this has happened and it stands in sharp contrast to the presidency of some of the larger countries. speaking in the house on behalf of the ppe group in september i called for the igc to finally rouse itself. i asked two questions at this time. the first was whether the timetable would be respected. i believe that the statement by the president-in-office of the council has cleared up that question and we can take it that the igc will complete its work in june of next year. my second question was whether the council had reconciled itself to limiting its objectives to a minimum and postponing fundamental reforms. in this case too i believe we have a positive reply. the irish presidency will be submitting a draft treaty text to the december summit in dublin. mr president-in-office of the council, i believe that we must now conclude that the european union is facing what the president of the commission yesterday described as three major deadlines: on union enlargement, on resolving a number of societal questions in the european union about which our citizens are very concerned, namely regarding their future and security, and on the common foreign policy. enlargement of the european union is undoubtedly a major geopolitical project for peace and civilization. its aim is to bring together all of europe's democratic nations within the european union. but the point must also be made that a european union which grows from 15 to 25 or 30 member states will not be able to function with the institutions in their present form and we have no other alternative - however much the attention of our citizens may be focused on the problems they encounter in their day-to-day lives - but to draw attention to this fact and to continue to insist that the igc must take decisions which allow the council still to take majority decisions and for parliament to be the democratic counter-balance to decisions taken by the council in the framework of the codecision procedure. there is no avoiding the fact that this matter must be resolved. if not the european union will inevitably unravel and be diluted into an association of countries in which there remains scarcely any intergovernmental role at all. this would be fatal for european integration. but there is a second important task. we wanted the internal market. we wanted economic and monetary union. we realise that this is the necessary economic basis in order to create employment. but this internal market and union enlargement from 15 to 20 or 25 member states raises major questions for society. even if the individual member states continue to play a major role, it is unacceptable for the european union not to provide a response in the framework of employment policy, or even to take the initiative. it is just not possible at this point in time for the member states to bear sole responsibility for internal security, for the security of our fellow citizens. our fellow citizens feel insecure. i put the question to you, mr president-in-office of the council: has not the time come for the governments and government leaders of the member states who constantly raise objections and impede the development and negotiations of the igc to now take a look at essentials. and for the governments to join with the commission and european parliament and say to our fellow citizens that a number of crucial issues such as employment, such as security and the protection of our fellow citizens, are not going to be solved if every country continues to act alone when a joint approach is necessary. my country's prime minister said in madrid last monday that a number of countries are busy blocking progress. when are we going to turn our attention to the essentials? i ask you to also convey this message to your colleagues in the creative manner in which ireland exercised the presidency and that finally they will be prepared to get together in tackling the major fundamental issues facing european society. mr president, ba mhaith liomsa i dtosac cad mle filte a chuir roimh aire gnthai eachtracha na heireann chuig parlaimint na heorpa i maidin. mr president, i very much welcome the president-in-office of the council and ireland's foreign minister to the european parliament this morning and i thank him very much indeed for his report on the recent summit held in dublin. while the summit did not result in any significant decisions, it certainly provided a valuable opportunity for the heads of state or government to discuss the state of progress of the negotiations in the intergovernmental conference. in my view the draft treaty, which is to be presented to the december summit in dublin, must give priority to issues of widespread concern, such as employment policy and the fight against crime. i was disappointed to note that certain member states continue to oppose the inclusion of a chapter on employment policy in the new treaty. i do not agree with the british prime minister's view that this problem should be tackled at national level. over the last decade national governments in many member states have devoted much of their energy to creating new job opportunities, in most cases without any significant degree of success. the time has surely come for european governments to work together to try to solve this huge social, economic and political problem. the fight against crime also demands strong cooperation between member states if the activities of drug smugglers, money launderers and organized crime syndicates - all of whom operate on the international stage - can be effectively and comprehensively tackled by the forces of law and order in our individual countries. countries on the periphery, such as ireland, with extensive sea coasts must be supported at eu level in their efforts to track and intercept drug-smuggling. i welcome the ongoing efforts to reform the institutional structures of the union, which i hope will simplify the decision-making and administrative systems of the union before enlargement to the east. however, it is my strong belief that it is more important to assess the impact of enlargement on existing european policies and, if necessary, to reform the actual policies rather than concentrate on administrative and institutional reform. the addition of ten or more net beneficiary countries will have a major impact on the budget. the arrival of new member states with a high level of dependency on agriculture will, naturally, have major implications for the common agricultural policy. the clear need of these countries to upgrade their industry, transport networks and environmental protection systems, will all have a major impact on the existing structural funds' policy. i was genuinely disappointed that these issues were not addressed during the dublin summit. the future of the common agricultural policy and structural funds, together with the obvious need for a bigger budget in an enlarged union, are all difficult political issues which should be tackled in parallel with the intergovernmental conference. agreement on the final contents of a new revised treaty must be accompanied by an agreement on the future direction of the major common policies and on the framework for enlargement negotiations. all these issues are closely interlinked, particularly in the case of existing net beneficiary countries, such as spain, portugal, greece and ireland, and those countries with significant agricultural sectors, such as france. following the dublin summit there seems to be a consensus in favour of agreeing on a revised treaty at the amsterdam meeting of june next year. this is an ambitious target. however, it is not essential for the igc to conclude in the first half of next year: it is of far greater importance that the member states use the igc to confront the issues which are of general concern to our electorates and to lay the foundations for a successful enlargement of the union to the east, even if this requires an additional six or twelve months. in at least some member states the electorates will be called upon to pass judgement on the results of the igc and their verdict will depend on the extent to which the new treaty addresses their concerns, which are much broader than mere institutional reform. mr president, how should we judge the extra informal european council in dublin which was convened at the express instigation of the french president chirac? has the igc been roused? on the one hand the president-in-office of the council stated, and i quote: ' i think we have had a very successful summit to have been able to give the very strong unanimous impulse to the intergovernmental conference' . on the other hand, the european , for example, was much less positive in its analysis of the summit. i quote: ' the dublin summit ranked among the lamest gatherings the european union has ever staged. far from kick-starting the igc into life it publicly demonstrated that the original maastricht treaty has left europe confused about what to do next' . the truth no doubt lies somewhere between the two. dublin certainly did not produce a spectacular outcome. but that was also not to be expected. first of all, this was an informal meeting which was more concerned with reconfirming political ambitions than achieving major breakthroughs. although that is what we would have liked to have seen. secondly, it was not possible to resolve any real problem points due to the slow progress of the igc negotiations. thirdly, not much could be expected of the british government on the eve of the conservative party conference. but i do express the hope that this summit which i found so disappointing will help people to arrive at concrete and substantial decisions at the next formal dublin summit at the end of the year and that the citizens will be closely involved as you can explain the purpose and use of such a meeting and thus restore their faith and trust in europe. the reply which john major gave as to the reason for this dublin meeting - and i quote: ' we are here because we are here' - can certainly no longer suffice. europe's citizens are entitled to a better answer than that. mr president, as far as our group is concerned, unemployment in western europe is the most important problem to be solved. we fear that the proposals which are currently being submitted at the intergovernmental conference are inadequate., this is because they are not directly linked to economic and monetary union policies. principally the economic unions current policy gives rise to high unemployment, reduced economic demand and to a dramatic deterioration in social welfare levels in member states. for this reason, the european union policy must be discussed at the intergovernmental conference and it must be reviewed. in the proposal for a parliamentary resolution there is mention of a joint defence policy. we believe that this is irrelevant in the current political situation in western europe. it is the remains of an out of date way of thinking. what we need now is an all european and global structure to prevent conflicts and to handle crises. the union must also acknowledge the fact that some member states are non aligned. we were, therefore, very surprised when we read in the document from the dorr group, dated 8th october, that such states were exneutral, in other words, previously neutral. i would like to point out that the neutral policy in these member states has significant popular support. there are many points on the intergovernmental conference and its results which are unclear, but we can already see that there is strong resistance to some important points. we can see that there is strong resistance to the view that meetings of the council of ministers should be open. it is our view that all legislation within the union, in the council of ministers, should take place openly and we have the right to demand this as one result of the intergovernmental conference. with regard to the environment, there is strong resistance to a tightening of article 100a(4) which would give member states the true right to have tougher environmental legislation in some areas. we would take an extremely negative view if this demand for environmental improvement is refused. it is important that the results of the intergovernmental conference are in line with the thinking of individual citizens. for this reason, our group advocates national referenda once the intergovernmental conference is over. personally, i am convinced that such referenda would show that there is no support in many member states for greatly increased central power within the european union. mr president, let me remind the house that this summit was intended to kick-start the floundering intergovernmental conference. but, of course, you can rely on the council to stick by its usual slogan: business as usual. the way in which the summit was handled, too, followed a well-beaten path: if a summit seems likely to fail, or if nothing - absolutely nothing at all - emerges from it, there are two ways of glossing over this failure. one is to set up a new working group to continue negotiations and celebrate that as a step forward, and the other is to make a lot of noise about things that everyone knew anyway. quite clearly, the second alternative has been selected in the case of dublin. but can the grimly determined confirmation of the timetable for maastricht ii really, seriously, be a success in view of all the speculation about maastricht iii? hans christian andersen wrote wonderful fairy tales, and i can't help but remember one of them as i listen to and look at mr santer and mr spring - ' the emperor's new clothes' . the emperor surrounds himself with admirers and flatterers until a child pipes up with the simple truth: ' he hasn't got anything on!' that's the way things are today, that's the way the council is: it's got nothing on. it isn't working on any genuine initiatives for a consistent employment policy, for the desperately needed democratization of the european union, for the foundations of a civil law system, for the development of europe as a whole, for the process of conversion to social ecology. just how much does have to go wrong before the council eventually grasps where its ignorance of public opinion is leading? aren't the results of the elections in austria and finland a sufficiently clear message? the unconditional clinging to rigid, unrealistic criteria, the speculation with models of a centralized europe, the attempt to dictate the shape of europe from above instead of letting it grow from below - all this carries within it the real explosive of integration policy and generates euro-scepticism instead of acceptance. anyone who fails to listen to the critics of the eu will give more power to the arm of europe's opponents, will make them strong. but who is going to give that message to the council? i believe that the intergovernmental conference should, first and foremost, be a major project to counter european absolutism, which brings me back once again to hans christian andersen. let me just add a few personal words to mr spring as a minister of the irish government. i should like to reaffirm this: i should like to say that our group is completely behind the peace process in northern ireland. this has no direct connection with the so-called dublin summit, but i wanted to say it anyway. mrs roth, i must reject your assertion that the president-in-office has nothing on as speculative sexism! mr president, our fifteen heads of state or government were lucky that the dublin european council was only informal. if that had not been the case, what in fact could they have put on paper except for some progress in the field of internal affairs and justice? this is all the more true in that, if progress was made, it was only between thirteen or at most fourteen member states, whereas ratification of changes to the treaty requires unanimity. however, let us be positive. the date of june 1997 was confirmed for the conclusion of the negotiations and the irish presidency was given a mandate to present at dublin in december a first draft of the modified treaty. that is good. however, let us remain vigilant so that keeping to the timetable is not dissociated from the conclusion of an ambitious reform of the treaty and so that the irish presidency's draft deals with the important issues at stake and is not limited to reporting negotiations and to presenting options in the most sensitive areas. in order to achieve that, we must have a little more self-confidence and even courage. it is regrettable that making a political judgement about the dublin summit could ever have been considered pointless and unnecessary in this parliament, when it is more than ever necessary to speed up the negotiations. is this not the time to say clearly that enlargement will not be possible without a wide-ranging institutional reform of the union, that we could not accept any postponement of the real issues at stake for the intergovernmental conference to a later reform, and that monetary union needs to be complemented by major progress along the path to political union? and besides, how in the future can we face the clear risk of paralysis, particularly if considerable progress is not made in extending majority voting? we consider that mechanisms for stronger cooperation are necessary, in the context of the treaty, enabling those who wish it to advance along the path to political union while guaranteeing that this cooperation is permanently open to all member states. in conclusion, how can we not be worried at the sad spectacle that europe is presenting on the international stage? let us not be fooled. if the intergovernmental conference cannot set up institutional machinery capable of producing a genuine external and common defence policy, we shall perpetuate the lamentable image the union is presenting to the middle east. hence my question to the irish president-in-office: what will you really do, in the middle east crisis, since what has been said so far is rather conventional? these are some of the political considerations i wished to express before this assembly, on behalf of my group. mr president, the informal dublin summit produced no specific conclusions other than an official confirmation: that the intergovernmental conference must finish its work next june at the amsterdam council. ultimately, this deadline does not leave the conference much time to complete the huge reform needed to adapt european institutions to enlargement, reform that we are all waiting for but one that, despite eighteen months of varied discussions, does not yet appear to be really taking shape. this is what president santer was saying in moderate terms just now when he emphasized that this is a subject, and i quote, ' on which most progress has still to be made' . admittedly, following close on the dublin summit, the french and german governments published a joint letter about stronger cooperation, but there is no evidence in this of the flexibility we would need for enlargement. rather, we need clauses for looser cooperation with the east. however, this essential path appears to be blocked by the dogma that what the community has established so far is inviolable. one day, we shall undoubtedly have to break down this bolted door. on this same question of adapting the institutions to enlargement, president santer gave a hint yesterday by emphasizing that keeping unanimity did not appear to him to be possible with 27 members. we think, on the contrary, that it is majority voting that would be impossible, because national interests and realities would be so divergent in a europe of 27 members. only a variable geometry would be capable of reconciling these two positions, but it must be truly variable, without pre-established federalist objectives, without obligatory respect for what has been established so far and with the recognition that members have a right to withdraw! mr president, i would today remind the house that 40 years ago the hungarian people rebelled against the soviet communist regime - an uprising prompted by a longing for freedom that claimed more than 200, 000 victims. meeting in dublin, on 5 october last, the heads of state and government confirmed that, in compliance with the time-limits decided on in florence, they will be presenting a complete draft revision of the maastricht treaty at the december summit. you will understand that we remain sceptical because yet again, this time in dublin, the summit was conspicuous by its lack of any real substance. as is now the usual story, the priorities were identified as job creation, the fight against crime and the - now desperate - need to adopt institutional reforms to deal with the pressing demands of enlargement. lots of talk and little action. job creation, for instance: unemployment has reached unacceptably high levels and this will be made worse by the painful effort needed to adjust to the criteria established under maastricht. but despite the cost that has daily to be paid under the european union's monetary policies which require the application of high interest rates to prevent capital flowing out of the union, employment continues to be held up as a priority. in an effort to limit interest rate increases, governments are in fact forced to apply a policy to control and stabilize public finances that is ill-suited to job creation. the likelihood is that the effect of currency fluctuations will be, along with industrial disintegration, job losses. a specific example of this is the transfer within multinationals of entire areas of production to those countries which have devalued their currencies. the redistribution of production between undertakings and partners is inimical to general prosperity and causes jobs to be lost. a recent study in 1995 revealed that, for the countries of the european union as a whole, the global cost of currency fluctuations was a two per cent fall in growth and the loss of 1.5 million jobs. then we have the fight against crime, a priority that will be worthless if pursued in isolation and unless a genuine common internal policy is put into effect. that is immediately clear if you consider how impossible it is for the courts to prosecute criminals who move to another member state; in such cases they are able to act only by means of letters of request - a lengthy and impracticable process which leaves the person under investigation plenty of time to regularize his situation. finally, institutional reform: the main task of the igc, the conclusion of which will be reconfirmed in june 1997, will be to make the adjustments necessary for enlargement - enlargement which might be summarized as: ' europe whatever the cost!' . this is madness! we say that it is necessary to start not from the head but from the base if we are to construct a united europe acceptable to citizens. mr president, it is difficult to express a view on an informal summit without a conclusion. we are therefore awaiting the results; developments in the intergovernmental conference will show whether there has been a political impetus and whether a draft treaty has been drawn up. the european parliament is, however, seriously concerned because we can see that there is a stalemate: the intergovernmental conference seems in fact to be paralysed by conflicting views. it even appears doubtful whether the negotiations have actually begun. it is claimed that the results will be clear in the end, but nothing so far seems to point in that direction even though the subject of the intergovernmental conference is deepening the union with a view to future enlargement. what is behind this sense of stalemate? i think it realistic to believe that there are those who think of an intergovernmental conference as of little relevance in institutional terms - basically a technical affair that just appears to produce some small results. those who have taken that view actually believe that it should be monetary union that deepens and redesigns the institutions. those countries that participate in monetary union from the outset will be the ones that set under way the kind of europe that counts, with the exclusive focus on spurring on monetary union. thereafter, perhaps, we shall have a third intergovernmental conference on the institutions, as some have already hinted. were that to happen, the very construction of the union would be called into question. were that to happen, it would in fact be monetary union that created its own institutions, pushing political union into the background. differentiated integration could shatter the unity of the institutional system and the acquis communautaire . some people have already talked in terms of a european parliament with variable geometry; others have called into question the role of the commission as an initiator. all of this will clearly be a crisis point in the construction of europe. although i am concerned, i at any rate hope to see other alternatives. i would alert the house of the need identify the risk and counter it with a policy. the intergovernmental conference therefore becomes hugely important; there has to be a clear parallel with monetary union; we need to place the political element centre-stage again and shift the balance towards political union; that is possible only if we set the institutional reforms under way against the backdrop of a united approach to the construction of europe. i shall end here, mr president. unless there are major changes in that direction, unless we have renewed democracy, transparency, efficiency and decision-taking capacity, the threat to the construction of europe may lie just around the corner. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank the irish presidency for the way it has approached the igc so far, and as far as an evaluation of dublin i is concerned, my view is that dublin i and dublin ii must be viewed jointly. i believe, also, that dublin i achieved its objectives of confirming the timetable and generating political momentum. that political momentum needs to be generated in order to ensure that the negotiations do not become the preserve of the technocrats. happily, the irish presidency has made it clear, with its questionnaire on majority decisions, that technocratization is not the right approach. the case-by-case procedure and majority decision process show that this cannot be a solution - that matters must be decided politically, in order to achieve the necessary advances and ensure the european union's ability to act. there are many examples of this, in foreign trade for instance. unless we succeed, when granting mandates, for example in the services sector, in arriving at the majority decision process then, because of the package solution that will take place when mandates are next granted, we shall have a less strong european union: the commission, too, will have less authority at the negotiating table than it did during the uruguay round. this is just one example to illustrate that we should not be talking about progress so much as endeavouring to preserve the status quo; but the status quo can only be preserved if we do make progress in certain institutional matters. i would, however, also like to utter a word of warning about the deparliamentarization taking place in some areas. this applies to ideas associated with the third pillar: some things which play a part in foreign relations indicate that deparliamentarization may result from the initiatives by specialized ministries in various national capitals. unless we are on our guard at this intergovernmental conference, this will happen to the detriment of the european parliament and to the detriment of the national parliaments. that must not be allowed to happen. nor do the proposals regarding the introduction of a new pillar 1a in the area of the third pillar make the treaty any clearer or more comprehensible for the citizen. as regards questions relating to the first pillar, the need is to strengthen the existing institutions of the first pillar, including the commission and parliament; in no circumstances must we follow the council's desire to create special conditions for its national institutions. and that includes safeguarding the commission's exclusive right of initiative, in all respects. strengthening the institutions in the area where we are successful - that should be our approach. we should certainly not tamper with the chapter on monetary union and make amendments to it. but we do hope to gain recognition for an employment chapter which is not merely social policy; for that reason, the employment chapter must not be integrated into the social policy sector but belongs between economic and monetary union on the one hand and social policy on the other. this, i think, might be a middle road to lead us all further forward. i was very pleased to hear the upbeat assessment of the informal summit by both the president of the commission and the president-in-office of the council. but i have to say both as a citizen and as a parliamentarian that the discussions so far have seemed to me turgid, unfocused and to show a lack of political will and motivation. that is a great tragedy potentially for the future of our continent. i want to ask the president-in-office two questions. first of all, it has been widely reported in the british press that one of the ways forward now will be core member states, leaving others behind, so that european integration can happen where it is required, without being held up by others. is that true? secondly, is there likely to be a second igc - which would be absolutely wrong? but what i would now like to do is make an appeal as a citizen. we have at the moment a situation unparalleled perhaps in our continent over the past 200 years where we can stabilize the security and democracy of central and eastern europe. i have two daughters, one five and one nine years old. to me their future security and the security of their children hinges upon reaching a suitable settlement so that we can expand the european union to those central and european states. if we fail in that this and next year, then we shall have lost a chance that may not ever come back in our lifetimes and will threaten their security and their children's security well into the future. that is the challenge that we have here and i ask the president-in-office to continue his good work to make sure that the dublin summit delivers an agenda that can be accepted by the other member states so that we have a successful conclusion in amsterdam. the importance is no less than that. mr president, i have just listened to what the president-in-office of the council had to say on the situation in the middle east. i feel that it was rather half-hearted. it would be tragic if the european union still maintained a passive attitude when faced with a situation as critical as this. we have all seen the pictures of the highly significant incident marking the visit of jacques chirac to east jerusalem. if a french president is treated like this, we can imagine the kind of treatment reserved by the netanyahu government for the average palestinian. this cannot go on any longer. for my part, i have just returned from a visit to jerusalem, ramallah and gaza. in israel, i met the 'peace now' movement and representatives of all the left-wing parliamentary groups and of likud. i was able to take part in the first and very moving meeting between israeli and palestinian parliamentarians in the knesset. in palestine, i was able to have a long meeting with president arafat, after a fascinating visit to the orient house in east jerusalem. what i saw and heard on these occasions leaves no doubt in my mind. those wishing to preserve the peace process must assume their responsibilities now. the european union can do so. it is rejected from the negotiating table by tel aviv and by washington, but nobody can prevent it taking strong political action by suspending the application of the interim europe-israel trade agreement as long as the netanyahu government does not respect signed agreements and does not open up genuine negotiations with the palestinian authority. the council is meeting this monday on this matter. its decision will be eagerly anticipated. three weeks ago, it issued a very clear statement with particular emphasis on the link between the europe-israel agreement and the peace process. since then, nothing has moved on israeli government side. there is a total blockage. in my view, the time has therefore come to pass from words to actions. the same call may be made to member states' national parliaments: do not ratify this agreement until the peace process is put back on the rails. peace is in danger. mr president, let us not lose the chance to help preserve it. mr president, i am very concerned over the sudden passivity which currently characterises the unions action on the middle east. until now, the eu has played quite a positive role both through support for the palestinians and through tough statements. not so long ago we, in the committee on foreign affairs, received a visit from the irish presidency which then held forth with much tougher speeches than is currently the case. for just this reason, it is important that parliament adopts a powerful resolution now. i hope that the rumours in the corridors are totally wrong, that a resolution would not be supported because it is necessary to wait for a report on the subject which will be available at the next session. internal parliamentary deliberation cannot play any part if parliament is to take a stance on current political issues. in addition, we in the green party have continuously emphasised that, while we justifiably criticise the israeli government fiercely, we must also remind our palestinian friends that maintaining democracy and freedom of speech in the palestinian areas is a fundamental requirement of a successful peace process. mr president, at the dublin summit, the stage was set for a number of majority votes in which the national parliaments can be voted down. but why should the eu's laws and standards be absolutely the same in all parts of the union? why can we not let a country have stricter rules on additives in foods which are transported straight from the factory to the consumer, and then allow artificial preservatives in those areas of the eu which actually ask for permission, for example to put medicines into cheese and sausages? how does mr santer explain the fact that we in denmark will have to allow natamycin and mycin in cheese and sausages? natamycin can be obtained from pharmacies as a remedy for such things as inflammation of the eyes or of the internal female sexual organs. why should we be treated for inflammation of the internal female sexual organs through bread and cheese? why must we no longer ban colourings which can produce allergies? why can we not make our own laws to control our everyday food? why should all the rules be the same everywhere? there is only one logical reason for this uniform legislation: the wish to create a single state without internal frontiers. it is this obsession with a united states of europe from which frontiers have been removed which is now effectively also leading people to dislike useful international cooperation. because the fact is that it makes no sense to have common rules on the curvature of a cucumber or the size of strawberries. what makes no sense is to turn standards into binding legislation, instead of just an option for those who wish to trade across frontiers. we would once again call on the commission to check the 21 000 eu rules for excessive centralism, and to create more freedom for the member states. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the dublin intergovernmental conference was mainly concerned, it seems, with the fight against crime, with employment and with the palestinian question. as regards the fight against crime, the calls from the european parliament and the summit for a real internal security area barely conceal the real aim, which is community-controlled cooperation in matters relating to the police, to justice and to several other policies, with top priority for immigration policy. it is as well always to remember that international or transnational crime, whatever form it takes - terrorism, drugs - is in reality a direct consequence of the abolition of internal border controls in the union and the inability of states or the unwillingness of some of them like the netherlands to provide proper controls at the external frontiers. the existence and the current functioning of the union are the source of very serious problems that are then, paradoxically, argued as grounds for new community powers. as regards unemployment, mr president, at no time were the two main european causes of this scourge tackled: namely, the single currency and the deflationary policies it involves on the one hand and free trade on the other. in fact, from a simple instrument enabling the single market to function more efficiently, economic and monetary union has become an inviolable dogma, a basic european myth that can under no circumstances be called into question. many member states will undoubtedly meet the maastricht criteria in 1998, the year during which the elect who will take part in the third phase will be chosen. but this will be at the price not only of some cooking of the books, but of the sacrifice of social security systems and of budgetary rigour which, at best, according to some countries, will have brought the deficits below the required levels and at worst will at least have demonstrated the willingness of states to comply with the criteria: all to the detriment of general prosperity. as for the palestinian question, the french president did his best to secure a political position on the matter. germany, still frightened of being suspected of ulterior motives whatever opinion it expresses, did not want questions of interest to israel to be discussed. in reality, there is nothing other than vague desires to escape from the american yoke, against which intense diplomatic activity was directed. the israeli representation to the communities are reported to have asked european members of parliament not to support union policy. in other words, if you have not done everything for israel, you have done nothing for it. mr president-in-office, president santer, in recent years the european union has done a great deal in the middle east: there has been huge economic aid to the palestinians, bilateral agreements with the countries of the region, vital assistance for the elections in palestine, the barcelona conference and support for the peace process. none of that has been given political recognition. there is no question that the peace process is currently in the throes of a serious crisis. the european union has adopted a stance that we welcome, the position of the council which seems to us to be sufficiently clear, and i have to say that i also appreciate the work done by the president-in-office in the region during recent weeks. the issue that has not been resolved concerns the political role of the union. the council is thinking in terms of a special envoy, but it seems to me that that envoy will have to be one of the foremost political and governmental leaders we have available to us - no-one else will do. we have already made the mistake of giving an official responsibility for the conduct of the palestinian elections. but we have above all to gain acceptance for the union's political role, and that is not the case as far as israel is concerned. mr levy has declared that role unthinkable in the peace negotiations, but we need to secure a seat for the european union at the negotiating table alongside the united states envoy. up to now that demand has been made discreetly - but not any more. we have now made it publicly. this was done by dick spring on behalf of the council; it was done in damascus by jacques chirac who was, incidentally, shabbily treated in israel. italy's prime minister, renato prodi did the same in cairo. now that we have made the demand publicly, we should seek to obtain satisfaction. so far it has met with rejection. how are we to make progress? this is a fundamental political issue for the union at this time, and we need to know whether the council is devising a strategy to achieve that outcome. in the resolution on the dublin summit both the socialists and the ppe are, i believe, asking the council and the commission to draw up a detailed and committed report on the middle east for the month of november, and that is why we do not consider a european parliament resolution that is hasty and partial to be appropriate at this juncture. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, we have heard that the dublin summit has created the political impetus the intergovernmental conference so badly needs. we applaud that and we look forward to a first draft of the treaty filled with demanding content through the good offices of the irish presidency. the timetable is important, the content much more so. the european parliament, legitimate representative of the citizens of the union, has made clear what that content should be. i am not going to go over well-known resolutions, just some essential points. first, the union must be given the instruments and procedures necessary for this area without frontiers to be an area for work, business, tourism and culture, but not an area for terrorism, drug-trafficking, slave trade and abuse of women and children, immigration and clandestine labour mafias, and all the other forms of organized crime. secondly, it is essential to organize cooperation between the member states to combat unemployment and marginalization, without endangering the economic and monetary stability that is being so painfully achieved, and establish the route to successful economies, without ruining the european social model which our group is committed to maintaining. tying the hands of the union in the fight against poverty and social marginalization would be intolerable, particularly in this world year for the eradication of poverty. thirdly, we must transform our ineffective and stumbling cfsp into a credible and effective foreign and security policy. you yourself, and the president of the commission, have already said all there is to say on the matter, and i do not think i need insist further. mr president, none of this will be achieved without reforming our institutions to give them greater transparency, greater efficiency and greater democracy, which means strengthening parliament's triple legislative, budgetary and control role. democracy and transparency cannot develop without developing the parliamentary system. for two centuries they have been inseparable on our continent. there is no real democracy without a parliament with the powers and independence necessary to fulfil this triple function. it seems unbelievable that this truism has to be restated in 1996. mr president, at a time when our citizens are apprehensive about the future, it is our duty to remember always that peace and prosperity in our union require a daily search for the greatest common advantage, and that will not be achieved without a strong, democratic and respected parliament. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, the irish presidency and the dublin council have been dealing with union issues at a crucial moment in the life of the community. for one thing, the great issues are being identified. for another, a certain disaffection is spreading within the community which is sometimes demonstrated in a spectacular way, as in the european elections in austria and finland. it would really be very difficult, almost suicidal, to maintain a panglossian vision of the union, but a tragic vision of the tensions that await us would be exaggerated. i think the irish presidency has shown a capacity for meaningful action on the issue of the middle east and i want to state, like the colleague who preceded me, that the frontier of european dignity does not run just through bosnia, but also through the relaunch of the peace process in the middle east. and with elections coming up in america, only europe can do whatever is possible as an external factor to keep the peace process going. here, mr president, may i congratulate the members of the french delegation and the various parties on the very dignified and unequivocal attitude maintained by the french president, mr chirac, in israel and jerusalem yesterday. in addition to vision in foreign policy, i believe the irish presidency has been successful in stressing the essential theme of the european model of society and prioritizing employment. a society without employment - a society which 'kills' employment, a society which has no hope of employment - is a weak society and at this moment our material comfort may really be under great threat. it has also set the timetable for the intergovernmental conference. the timetable is something, but the content is more important. and that content really involves a widening of community powers, the community taking over the third pillar, and certain processes on which we cannot yet be very optimistic. there are certain tendencies: we do not see sufficient progress, as much progress as we would like, in the move to qualified majority voting or in the co-decision processes essential to revitalize this parliament - to give it purpose, so that it does not simply duplicate legislation passed elsewhere. all in all, we remain hopeful, we congratulate the irish presidency, and we trust that in the months that remain the irish presidency will provide further impetus leading up to the text to be presented in december at the next dublin council. mr president, to the extent that the dublin summit dealt with the areas of the third pillar - combating organized crime and drug trafficking - it has become clear that this is a case where the gap between what the public expect and what has actually been achieved is growing wider and wider. so far, if i may say so, our respective council members have advanced with the utmost caution and suspicion in this area, pausing to pick the occasional daisy but with no sign of any willingness to press forward resolutely. the explanation, so we hear, is that no real progress can be made until after the british elections. that explanation is an illusion. what is preventing any progress in the combating of organized crime in europe is not the british elections but the lack of will to find a joint solution to such problems - a lack of will not just in the united kingdom but in other countries, too. and we hear it said that a joint solution would be a breach of national sovereignty. that is a fetish from the nineteenth century, which a few governments carry around with them like some pagan image. the real meaning of sovereignty is the expression of national independence. it ensures the fulfilment of national interests. today, national sovereignty is abused as a pretext for preventing the joint solving of important problems. that was never the point of national sovereignty. this misinterpretation of national sovereignty is directed against the public interest rather than fighting for it. organized crime, the control of immigration and population increase in europe - these are problems which, today, can only be solved by a joint approach. it is not true that the elimination of the internal borders made cross-border organized crime in europe possible in the first place. the truth is that the disappearance of those borders is a consequence of present-day mobility, because the stagecoach has given way to the jet aircraft. modern policy has to come up with answers to this. and they can only be european, europe-wide answers. the council must finally make up its mind to find answers to these problems. mr president, i did not personally expect much from this special dublin summit. unlike those who had great hopes for it, i am not therefore disappointed by its results. ultimately, this summit simply reflected the work of personal representatives, each of whom knows that they are marking time, which is hardly surprising as there is no political impetus, either from foreign ministers or from heads of state and government. my concern therefore remains as deep as it was after the florence european council and it is necessary, i believe, to alert all europeans to this. however, despite its low profile, the first european council in dublin will not have been pointless. heads of state and government themselves in the end became involved in the intergovernmental conference. they declared their intention to make concrete progress at dublin ii. let us hope that that will come to pass. it is essential if the european council wishes to keep to the timetable it has set itself: to finish by june 1997 in amsterdam. however, keeping to the timetable must not be achieved to the detriment of the contents of the treaty. it would be better to allow an extra few weeks or months and to ensure that the result matches the target, which i remind you is to allow the union to get closer to its citizens and to face up to enlargement. i should like here to pay tribute to the irish presidency, which spared no effort in trying to maintain the level of the conference. i urge it to preserve this spirit in preparing the text which will serve as the basis for discussions at dublin ii, since the ambitions of this conference must be reaffirmed. i hope that the irish presidency will incorporate in its proposals all the elements we know to be indispensable in order to face future commitments. beyond the question of the institutions, of the reform of the second and third pillars, which are very important, it is the model of european society which is at stake. i hope i am not mistaken. i have some hope regarding the 'employment' chapter that parliament called for, since i note that today, quite apart from the proposal from the european parliament, five countries including the holder of the presidency have tabled a text and that a majority of member states has agreed to incorporate the 'employment' chapter in the work of the igc. can we in fact claim to be close to a europe of citizens if we fail to deal with this problem and if we also fail to deal with the tragic question of social exclusion? similarly, we must win the trust of the people over the reform of institutions and must formulate for the single market rules and common policies functioning with a qualified majority and introducing balanced competition in the interests of everyone. this conference must not become a dead-end. it would be naive to think that the single currency could on its own induce political reform. on the other hand, failure or a limited outcome from this conference would lead europe to rush in the wrong direction, with the single currency being introduced under the worst psychological conditions and completely at odds with the expectations of its citizens. i therefore believe that it must be a very ambitious conference and that only ambitious reform could be accepted by this parliament, even if it means that the conclusion is postponed until after the amsterdam summit. mr president, mr spring, as president-in-office of the council, first of all can i sincerely welcome you to our proceedings and, secondly, on behalf of our group chairman, wilfried martens, and of our group, can i assure you of our wholehearted support for the northern ireland peace process and for the irish government's handling of it as well as of our total support in providing any european funding necessary to assist in that process. the maastricht ratification process was made more difficult because european citizens were not convinced that the european union had the capacity or the will to resolve their problems. we are in danger of making the same mistake again, particularly in the field of internal security and especially in relation to the fight against drugs. the irish presidency is to be congratulated on making this issue one of its top priorities. regrettably, however, there is no evidence whatsoever from the dublin council or other council meetings that the same sense of urgency is shared by all member states. the international drugs trade is a thousand billion dollar business. these resources enable it to corrupt the very integrity of our society and its institutions because those engaged in this task are able to buy legal and political protection and corrupt aspects of our judicial and law enforcement systems. against such a formidable foe, the european response is fragmented and totally inadequate. this is best demonstrated by the fact that, this week, we discussed the 1997 budget of the european union which allocates a pathetic ecu 25 million to tackling this problem on all fronts at european level. however, inadequate resources are only one part of the problem. regrettably, member states have differing and often conflicting views about how to tackle the drugs problem, whether in the fields of legalization, sentencing, prevention or rehabilitation. if we are serious we must learn to speak with one voice and act as one. in this context, i was horrified by the recent remarks of commissioner bonino who recently advocated the legalization of so-called soft drugs. this is not her portfolio and her remarks undermine the approach of the commission, the council and parliament in this sensitive area. if she wants to continue to promote these views, then she should resign her commissionership. if we want to ensure the success of the current igc, then the european union must demonstrate to our citizens that we can solve their problems. nowhere is this more apparent than on the issue of drugs which concerns parents in every member state. we must be able to assure them that we can win the battle against those forces of evil that prey on the most vulnerable in our society. before we ask for new and increased powers in the current igc, we must be able to demonstrate to our citizens that we are using our existing powers to the utmost limit on their behalf. mr president, i too would like to congratulate the irish presidency, all the more so since, along with belgium, it has shown that it is not necessary to be a big country, either in population or in area, to play an important role at european level. however, i say to myself that in your place i should ask what play are we acting here, what theatre are we in, what part are we playing? i heard mr martens, leader of the european people's party say, rightly, that europe should be democratized, that it should be concerned with its citizens, that the problem of jobs should be solved. i have no doubt at all of his sincerity, i rate it very highly, but the british conservatives are, after all, in his group! they could persuade mr major that he must give qualified majority voting to council and democratize europe! as for the problem of jobs, it was helmut kohl himself who said that employment was not a european question and that it should be the individual countries that created jobs! for myself, i am fully aware that in my country, where there will be a strike next week, we can do nothing on our own. mr kohl must be persuaded to act in order to create jobs! it has been said that we should be concerned about our citizens. but the citizens themselves also wonder why they should be driven to distraction like that! the heads of state or government decide to fund largescale work and then mr theodor waigel is the first to say: no, we do not want to fund it! but, good heavens, he must be persuaded that the european parliament wants to fund it! i am now going to speak very briefly on a matter of common concern: we - it is you i am getting at once again - have to discuss the budget and we see that the council presents us with an unacceptable one. instead of, dare i say, hand-to-hand fighting against the budget by using our power, what do we do? we hesitate, saying that we must be afraid of the germans, that we must be careful, that we should try to be calm and negotiate nicely. and what will be the result of all this? we, in this assembly, are european members of parliament who do not want to fight: you do not want to fight, and i really believe that instead of indulging in fine words we should perhaps from time to time have a little nerve, a little willingness to act, a little punch. we have had a demonstration in belgium and i ask you: what have the people shown us? that we should stop lying to them, that we should not let them think that we can solve everything when we are not given the resources to do so! mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, mr president of the commission, may i briefly present the position of the group of the european people's party on the situation in the middle east. in the first place, i want to express our satisfaction at mr spring's visit and the meetings he held - thanks to that visit, the european union was where it ought to be - and to express the hope that they will continue on behalf of the union, and that the president-in-office of the council will be kind enough to come and see us again with a general report on the situation as it will no doubt evolve. perhaps it would also be appropriate, mr president-in-office, to consider a permanent working party linking council, commission and parliament services, thus anticipating, on an occasion like this, the creation of the crisis detection unit on which parliament has already given its own verdict. we should maintain permanent contact with each other to ensure that there is real european action - european action something akin to what was achieved recently in such a resonant way by the president of france, whom we must congratulate on the manner in which he conducted himself in difficult circumstances. at the same time, we must also point out that there was a certain ambivalence in that visit, because it was made in his capacity of french head of state, with all the weight that carries, but certainly not as the united voice of the european community. we have seen important action, but it was clearly national. mr president, we do not believe the union is just a coffer to take resources out of. it needs to have a united political presence. that has not been the case, unfortunately: we have been much more of a coffer than a political voice, despite mr bildt's admirable work on bosnia. and we believe there must be further development of the oslo agreements, which include an important aspect: the security of the peoples concerned and, naturally, the security of the people of israel. but we cannot be satisfied with deadlock, like the apparent situation in hebron. it is not possible - it is simply not possible - that, in such a climate of tension, there should be an artificial influx of 400 settlers creating difficulties for 150, 000 palestinians. peace must return to the region on the basis of the various agreements we have signed - the madrid conference, the oslo agreements, the agreement between the european union and israel. and i end, mr president, by saying that it is important that our meetings, like the one in barcelona, relate to the whole region and we hope the whole region will be taken into account at the coming meetings, where, no doubt, the presidentin-office will honour us with his presence. mr president, i should first like to congratulate the irish presidency on its approach to the igc. this was a good approach. it was a constructive approach and also, in my opinion, a rather successful one - especially as the irish presidency intends to submit a draft treaty text in december. i find this important. it also means that the netherlands can start on real negotiations and make a real attempt to conclude matters by june and that we will not have to start from the beginning again. i therefore thank the irish presidency for its dynamic approach. as parliament's rapporteur on the igc i would, however, like to once again stress the important points. first of all it is to make the european union more transparent. this is also exceptionally important in the council. their discussions and votes should be made public. it is also to make the union more democratic, also in regard to the role of parliament, and it is to break with the veto in the decision-making. i believe this to be absolutely essential. in the area of policy, i believe that something must be done on the subject of employment. this must be laid down more clearly in the treaty. action must also be taken in the area of internal security, the fight against international crime and in the area of foreign policy. in my opinion these are the six points to which the igc must provide a positive response. let me turn to foreign policy. it is a good thing that the decision was taken to send mr spring to the middle east. but i must also say that the image at present being created by the union's activities is rather blurred. mr spring went to the middle east on behalf of the union, but now mr chirac is visiting the region. he himself suggests that he is also there on behalf of the european union. and then there is mr prodi in cairo who has also made a number of statements which are credited to the european union. all of this points to the urgent need for the union to speak with a single voice and to coordinate its actions. because a poor image is being created. one final comment. yesterday evening there was a debate on burma. in the debate parliament once again expressed the general view that some kind of action must be taken against this country. an economic boycott is favoured. may i call on the irish presidency to follow the united states and to get to grips with this problem. this is absolutely necessary. it is true to say that burma is in the same situation as chile and south africa were in the 1980s. let us not wait until the situation deteriorates there. i have received two motions for resolutions on the european council meeting in dublin and four motions for resolutions on the peace process in the middle east, pursuant to rule 37(2) of the rules of procedure. mr president, i thank the members of the european parliament for the remarks which they have made here and for the welcome they have given me and for the general tenor of their remarks. i find this to be a very useful exercise. it is a very important link between the council and parliament to have the opportunity of coming before you to address the house in relation to the dublin i summit with the president of the commission and then to hear your views. this is what the art of politics is all about. i have had the opportunity of listening very carefully to 25 contributions from various parties and their leaders and from the various groups. this is a very important exercise, because we want to strengthen the working and institutional relationship between parliament and the council. let me say, as irish foreign minister, that i also welcome the reiteration of support from the european parliament for the northern ireland peace process. that is extremely important and it certainly is very important for us, at what is a difficult time in the peace process, that we have a very strong message of support from the european parliament for the process where i know we all want to see our negotiations brought to a successful conclusion. the special meeting of the european council in dublin reaffirmed the timetable of florence, i.e. the igc would be completed by the meeting in amsterdam in june 1997. it also confirmed the need to maintain the level of ambition of the conference; the internal and external challenges to the union are such that we must ensure that the union is adequately equipped and strengthened. that was a very common theme through many of the contributions here this morning. the one message i want to get across to parliament today in relation to the igc is that we will be ambitious and we will complete the work on time in accordance with the mandate we received from florence. the meeting in dublin was a special meeting of the european union, it was not an informal summit. the meeting in dublin was a european council, all the members of the european council were present and, as is the practice at meetings of the european council, the president of the european parliament addressed the members of the european council on matters of concern to the european parliament. at the same time, it was a special meeting of the european council and it was characterized by the fact that it did not produce formal written conclusions. that was made very clear from the outset and there was never an expectation that there would be formal conclusions. the contributions made here today focused on the main areas of concern to parliament, the council and the commission: the references made to employment and social exclusion which remain at the top of the european union agenda; also, the question of drugs and our efforts to combat drugs. whereas three to four years ago people talked about drugs and expressed concern, we are now seriously addressing the question of drugs and international crime for the first time in many years. there are a number of measures being brought forward and hopefully joint actions will be brought forward before the end of our presidency to make sure we address what is a very serious issue, this scourge of drugs, for all of us as politicians and indeed as parents. we have to work together. no single country in europe, no single country in the world is going to address the drugs question on its own. that has become very apparent and we need cooperation at international level. we are doing everything we can in that respect. the question of the enlargement of the european union comes in whether it is in terms of political stability or questions of security. we must prepare for enlargement. it is high on the agenda and we will do everything we can during the irish presidency to make sure it receives the attention which it warrants. we are committed to enlargement. six months after the conclusions of the intergovernmental conference negotiations are going to open and, as one member said, there is a great deal of preparation to be done. that work is ongoing by the commission in relation to the challenges of enlargement. there are many challenges facing the union in the context of enlargement, but there are also many opportunities. we have to keep both in mind when discussing the question of enlargement. in relation to economic and monetary union, work is going ahead at technical level and a full report on the various issues will be presented to the dublin summit in december. in external relations many questions were raised here this morning and, for the foreseeable future, the priorities will remain the middle east peace process, former yugoslavia, our relations with russia and eu/us relations. we also had the summit with japan a number of weeks ago. in relation to the middle east peace process, which many members have commented on here this morning, i, in my report on the special european council, made a detailed statement on our approach and the activity in support of the middle east peace process. we set out very clearly the measures in the european council that we believe are necessary to restore momentum to the peace process. we will continue actively to use our influence with the regional parties with a view to promoting progress on the basis of the existing agreements. the union will continue to monitor the talks between israel and the palestinians, which are at a very complex and delicate stage, as we have seen over the last 24 to 48 hours. my recent visit to the region underlined the union's full support for the efforts to revitalize the peace process and other visits to the region by european leaders, such as that of president chirac, are further concrete expressions of european interest and engagement in the middle east and of our common concern to promote the objective of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace. inquiries were made and questions were asked whether or not we would be taking further action and we are at the moment putting together plans for a troika visit to the region before the end of the irish presidency. to reply to mr teverson who asked two questions: flexibility is on the agenda and it will have to be debated. france and germany have made a contribution to the debate, but the outcome will have to be acceptable to all member states given the nature of the intergovernmental conference, and i do not see that process as aiming to isolate any one member state. will there be another intergovernmental conference? as chairman of the intergovernmental conference, i certainly hope not. this is the opportunity for europe to get on and make the decisions. certainly, at dublin, the focus was on making decisions and getting our business done by amsterdam in june 1997. that, i believe, is in the interest of all member states and certainly is in the interest of europe for what we want to do for the future. i welcome the opportunity of having this exchange with you. i welcome the contributions made by you and the focus that you have put on the issues as they are before us for the council. i will certainly benefit from this discussion as we have our general affairs council meeting on 28 and 29 october. it is my intention for the remainder of the irish presidency to work very closely with parliament and to share with you the ambitions of the presidency and the energies and efforts which we are going to put into the presidency to make sure that we address the issues. there are many of them to be addressed by us on a day-to-day basis and i certainly look forward to working with you in the future. i would just point out to mrs roth, who made some references to the president of the commission and myself in some hans christian andersen expression, that i would welcome an opportunity of explaining to her many of the issues on the agenda by the irish presidency. i am sure i could convince her that not only are we well clothed, but we are fully briefed as well! (laughter and applause) that concludes the debate. the vote will be taken at midday. elimination of poverty the next item is the statements by the council and the commission on events to mark the international day for the elimination of poverty. it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak to parliament to mark world poverty day. globally there are various definitions of poverty and varying estimates of the number of people living in extreme poverty. the united nations estimates that there are 1.3 billion people, mainly women, children, the elderly, the disabled and indigenous people, migrants and refugees who subsist on less than the equivalent of one dollar a day and are excluded from full participation in the life of their society and the benefits of citizenship. in one form or another, poverty and social exclusion are to be found in every country, every city and every town on the face of this planet. poverty and exclusion are profoundly disturbing phenomena. we in this relatively advantaged part of the world must ask ourselves why one group of countries has succeeded in eliminating absolute poverty while others have not; why technological and economic progress has succeeded in bettering only the privileged few, not the world as a whole; why, when tentative steps towards broadly-based economic growth happened in the 1960s, they petered out leaving many countries with only the crippling burden of debt; and the most challenging question of all: does the very pattern of wealth accumulation ensure that in the world at large and within individual countries the enrichment of one person entails the impoverishment of another? the world poverty summit in copenhagen last year set us all the ambitious aim of eliminating absolute poverty world-wide. it also set us a second important objective: the substantial reduction of overall poverty and inequalities within countries. in my capacity as social welfare minister in ireland and as president of the social affairs council in europe, it is in regard to this area of relative poverty and inequalities within the union that i wish to address the main body of my speech today. the very clear message i took from copenhagen was that the onus for action in countries such as ireland rested with ourselves and so i came home resolved to launch a serious assault on poverty. i found that there were, of course, immediate practical steps to be taken which had at least a partial impact on poverty. over the last two years we, in ireland, have accordingly increased the universal child benefit by almost 50 %. it is a good, targeted anti-poverty measure and it was an important first step. but beyond immediately practical measures to tackle poverty i felt that we needed something more: a substantial change in mind-sets and in administrative practices, a change in the process of decision-making. based on my proposal, the irish government has made a commitment to a national anti-poverty strategy which has the aim of placing the needs of the poor and the socially excluded at the heart of the government policy development process. this is a mammoth task but we are making progress in stages, in full consultation with the voluntary and non-governmental organizational sector in ireland. the key policy areas identified for action are: educational disadvantage, unemployment - particularly long-term unemployment - income adequacy, regenerating disadvantaged areas with concentrations of poverty and tackling poverty in rural areas. the next stage of the proposals for action in each of the five key policy areas will be brought to government for decision. as the strategy develops i hope we will be able to share our experience with other member states in whatever forum may be appropriate and useful. i am very hopeful that the entire exercise will stimulate positive change. consider educational disadvantage, for example. research suggests that a country increases its gdp by 9 % for every extra year of primary education it gives its people. education also reduces inequality. the world bank says that just a 1 % rise in the proportion of the labour force which receives secondary education increases the share of income received by the poorest half of the population by between 6 and 15 %. it adds that countries that give priority to basic human capabilities in schooling, health and nutrition not only directly enhance wellbeing but are also more likely to see improving income distributions and higher average incomes over the long-term. while some people might argue that this holds true only for the developing world, the oecd states that it is also true for the industrialized world. it says that if countries do not have enough educated workers, skill shortages and inflationary bottlenecks build up, people with good qualifications are in high demand and their wages go up, but the rest are left behind. thus an expansion of basic education provision can be both a targeted anti-poverty measure and an investment for general economic growth. everybody wins from such an assault on poverty. as the resolution before you today states, it is estimated that more than 52 million people live in poverty in the european union. these figures include 17 million people unemployed and three million who are homeless. poverty is now acknowledged as a serious problem by the european institutions and a challenge to the way europe should develop in the next century. the current european consensus on tackling poverty could be summarized to the effect that social and economic progress must go hand-in-hand: high levels of unemployment, poverty and social exclusion undermine the european union's commonly agreed objectives of high standards in employment, social protection and equal opportunities for women. the role of the european union has been to encourage member states to adopt minimum standards of social protection to ensure that social entitlements gained in one state may be transferred to another, to monitor progress towards higher standards of social protection and to fund a number of initiatives and programmes against poverty. all this is eminently worthwhile but the question is: is it enough? i think all of us who are committed to european integration will admit to a lack of certainty at the moment. we are busy with the big projects, such as emu, and at the same time we are worried that europe is failing to address the real needs of so many of our citizens. nor, for the most part, do we have a clear vision of how the european union can be made to do this effectively in the near future. there are valid criticisms to made of the maastricht treaty's imbalance between the economic and social dimensions but the question now is: how do we modify maastricht to reflect best such an equilibrium? let us consider the social dimension. the inter-governmental conference which opened in turin last march and which continues under the irish presidency, offers us an opportunity to redress the shortcomings of maastricht and to begin to establish a framework in which social policy considerations and the market are in balance. a major aim of the irish presidency is to advance the work of the igc in this direction. the florence european council set a challenging mandate for the igc in providing that the irish presidency should aim to bring forward to the dublin council in december a general outline for a draft revision of the treaties with a view to the igc being able to complete work as envisaged by mid-1997. the overriding objective of the irish presidency is that the igc should contribute to the development of the european union in a way that corresponds to the aspirations of the people of europe, is relevant to their everyday concerns and responsive to their needs. this means that we must confront squarely the current situation whereby in the european union there is a serious lack of balance between the strong legal and financial instruments available for economic policy and those dealing with poverty, inequality, unemployment and the labour market. in purely economic terms the integrated market of 350 million people will be highly inefficient if 52 million people are too poor to consume the goods and services offered in that market. equally, the onus on public expenditure to support a large number of elderly, unemployed and poor people generally could be a heavy burden on the union whose working-age labour force of 133 million is already less than half the total population. again, if we can develop strategies which will lessen the burden on welfare systems and equip those 52 million people to contribute and to consume on a par with the rest of society, then everybody wins. i have sought to use my time as chairman of the social affairs council to encourage a reflection on how social protection systems might contribute to such a spiral of positive social gain. the starting-point must be a recognition that the economic and labour market context in which these systems operate has changed dramatically within our lifetime. imbalances between the supply and demand for labour have given rise to an unprecedented, persistent and high level of unemployment. this can reach very high concentrations in certain regions, in urban ghettos and among groups such as young people and those who are poorly educated and unskilled. this is precisely the type of poverty and inequality which presents us with the principal challenge at european level if we are to meet our copenhagen commitment. in the past the main aim of european social protection was to provide an adequate replacement income to people experiencing unemployment or illness. happily, europe can record a great deal of success in regard to this objective. however, it is necessary for us to re-examine critically whether these original objectives are sufficient in the current climate and to review whether there may not be aspects of our social protection policies which of themselves can impact on the incidence of unemployment and therefore on poverty and inequality. to that end i hosted an informal council in dublin last july. in essence the council agreed there that the challenge facing social protection systems is to take on new objectives concerning the prevention of unemployment and the reintegration of the unemployed. in view of our discussions in july i would propose a resolution for agreement at the social affairs council in december which sets out how the union and individual member states might implement this role in a complementary way. it is vital, given the unprecedented degree of focus on the unemployment issue generally within the union, via the essen process and the santer pact, that social protection ministries should increasingly engage with, and contribute to, these processes rather than see their role in terms of passively dealing with the consequences of unemployment. it is, moreover, vital to the interests of the people of europe that labour market and employment policy decisions are not taken solely on the basis of fiscal priorities. thus i am confident that by the end of the irish presidency we will be able to report progress on the way europe is tackling unemployment. it is, however, a matter of personal regret that we are unlikely to be able to record any progress on such simple, limited but valuable proposals as the fourth exclusion programme commonly known as poverty iv and actions in favour of the elderly. look again at how the commission's three earlier programmes against poverty worked. they reached out to local groups. they gave rise not to a big programme which was remote from citizens but to a series of small local initiatives. paradoxically, the supposedly remote and undemocratic bureaucracy of brussels taught ireland, for instance, some lessons on how to reach out to, and involve, some of our most marginalized citizens. it seems to me a great pity that such worthwhile programmes, which did not in my view threaten national competences, should have foundered on the rocks of subsidiarity. my primary aim in relation to union action against social exclusion is practical. i want to be able to re-open the route by which ireland has learned and mainstreamed the lessons of poverty i, ii and iii, not just for ireland's sake, of course, but for all the union who gained similarly from the poverty programmes and, indeed, for all those who will join us in the future. that is why ireland has proposed a specific treaty change in the area of social exclusion. as a result of such a change three things would happen. firstly, the competence of the european union to engage in anti-poverty programmes would be clarified so that such actions will have a clear legal basis. secondly, this will permit more significant european poverty initiatives in the future. thirdly - and perhaps most importantly - we would keep the idea that europe has responsibilities in the fight against poverty squarely on the agenda. ireland already supports incorporation of the social chapter into the treaty. our igc proposal is also consistent with the view of the commission in its igc opinion which urged clear treaty provisions for cooperation between states on matters of social policy such as the fight against marginalization and poverty. the commission has since expanded on that earlier opinion in its contribution to the igc of 23 september where it proposes an updated and fully integrated social chapter. in my view this proposal would complement my government's proposal. more broadly, i want to see the aim of fighting exclusion and one of its principal causes, unemployment, become more central to the activities of the union. i repeat: the current igc offers us the opportunity to improve on maastricht, to reconcile the claims both of competitiveness and social protection within the union and to eliminate the potential for social dumping between member states. our social protection systems, properly managed and modified as appropriate to reflect changing economic, demographic and labour force circumstances, serve us very well as a positive factor in the productivity of the union. we have to integrate social and economic policies, not segregate them. the alternative is to continue to consign millions of european citizens to lives of diminished hope and opportunity. i welcome this opportunity to reflect on the potential of social policy and in particular on the potential to develop social protection and social exclusion policies in a european context. i should like to thank you for the opportunity of sharing my views with you as to what we can do together to respond to the needs and hopes of the people of europe. in turn, i look forward to your views and those of the commission on poverty, social policy and related issues. as a former member of this parliament, it is always a pleasure to return here and share in discourse with parliamentary colleagues. (applause) my warmest thanks to the president-in-office of the council, mr de rossa. madam president, i too am pleased to have the opportunity today, speaking on behalf of the commission, to mark the international day for the elimination of poverty. despite the many positive changes that have taken place in the last decade, poverty is still the greatest problem facing the world. as the president-in-office said, some 1.2bn people live in abject poverty and more than half of them go hungry every single day. the fight against poverty in developing countries is, of course, enshrined in the maastricht treaty and is one of the key objectives of the european union's development cooperation policy. in december 1993 the council of ministers adopted a resolution on this very subject, which forms the basis for our current activities. this resolution clearly states that the fight against poverty should be integral to the preparation and the implementation of all development policies and programmes. it also emphasizes that the yardstick for development measures by the community and by the member states must be the improvement of the living conditions of the poor and investment in human resources. today the european union provides about ecu 4bn per year in assistance to some 100 developing countries around the globe. this figure does not include food aid or emergency humanitarian assistance. the bulk of european union assistance goes to the countries of africa, the caribbean and the pacific, for whom the seventh european development fund covering the five-year period from 1990 to 1995 amounted to some ecu 10.8bn. the next edf period from 1995 to the year 2000, will in total provide some ecu 13bn of assistance and all of this will be, of course, by way of grant terms. in the global perspective europe is a comparatively rich region of the world and many would say that, in comparison with the developing countries, we do not have a serious poverty or social exclusion problem. but i wish to say that any complacency within the european union would, of course, be misplaced. the motion for a resolution, which you will debate later, underlines parliament's commitment to developing an appropriate strategy in the european union and in the member states to combat poverty and social exclusion. the commission shares that commitment. the commission is committed to a citizens' europe and the people who live below the defined poverty threshold in the member states - reckoned to be in the order of some 52m people - risk becoming the forgotten people of europe. here in europe, it is important to tackle relative poverty as well as absolute poverty, because if we do not tackle relative poverty and social exclusion we run the risk of undermining social cohesion in europe. and if we do not maintain social cohesion within the member states, then we will not deliver the full potential of the european union. there is both a moral and an economic argument for activity and not passivity. i recently told parliament's committee on social affairs and employment that we live in a very disquieting time insofar as social action is concerned here at european union level and we must insist on the insertion into the treaty of a proper legal base with qualified majority voting for the adoption of programmes in the social sphere. if that outcome is not secured, the future of programmes and actions of any consequence in the social policy area at european level is in serious danger. much more needs to be done if all member states are to be brought to agree on this vital point. the active involvement of this parliament and its individual members and the help of all the relevant ngos is essential. there needs to be intensive lobbying of all to ensure that all are aware of the strength of feeling that exists on this subject. the igc has been mentioned. it cannot be allowed to ignore this matter. nothing less than the human face of european social policy is at stake here. indeed, the whole concept of a people's europe geared towards improving the quality of life for all its people is at stake too. i would like to make an appeal here at this part-session today. i appeal to you, president-in-office, minister proinsias de rossa, to take this message back to the council and to your colleagues in the presidency currently responsible for the igc negotiations so that, together, we ensure that the intergovernmental conference gives us a firm basis for social action in the future. i would also include parliament in that appeal. i appeal to parliament also for its active involvement and support for a europe-wide mobilization of all those who strive daily to address the needs of the poor, the vulnerable and the disadvantaged. these matters should be of primary concern to us all. madam president, i wish to thank the irish presidency sincerely for helping to initiate this debate to mark the international day for the elimination of poverty and because the irish presidency has made the fight against exclusion one of its highest priorities. i also wish to thank the commissioner for making his stand on this vital issue so clear today and two weeks ago when he came before the committee on social affairs and employment. the resolution we have tabled here today is not just concerned with poverty inside the borders of the european union but also globally - and i agree with what both the minister and the commissioner have said on that front. to make it absolutely clear, in our resolution i will accept some of the amendments by mrs schrling, on behalf of the green group. although our resolution is not just concerned with poverty inside the european union there has to be something badly wrong when in this wealthy part of the globe over 50m of our fellow citizens are shackled by poverty. article 2 of the treaty - it is worth re-reading - promises sustainable growth, a high level of employment and social protection and the raising of the standard of living and the quality of life. for too many millions of our fellow citizens those words are no more than empty rhetoric. our finance ministers are mostly locking themselves into the final drive towards economic and monetary union, and i support that move towards monetary union. but let us accept today that it cannot and must not be won at the cost of the hopes, the needs and the aspirations of so many of our people. there has to be balance. but i wonder where the balance is when, to my shame, my own government has been instrumental in securing in the court of justice the suspension of payment of ecu 12m to the elderly, the poor - those pushed to the very margins of our society. the word has to go out far and wide - the commissioner is absolutely right on this point - to the people of europe, the churches and the organizations working with the excluded to represent their interests. they have to demand that their ministers - not all ministers are like mr de rossa - will work within the intergovernmental conference to deliver two things that we really need to do our job at european level. firstly, an employment chapter to give us the tools to begin to tackle unemployment and particularly long-term unemployment in a coordinated way across the union. secondly, a solid basis in the treaty for programmes of action to assist those excluded and most in need. only with the action to give reality to those promises in article 2 will this become a union worthy of the name. without that, quite frankly, the union will not deserve to succeed. i sincerely wish to thank minister de rossa personally for his commitment to the battle in this field. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, how can we hope to succeed internationally in the fight against poverty if we cannot even agree on a common basis in europe? the legal basis does, in fact, seem to be a crucial obstacle to the further development of a successful poverty programme in the european union, because the united kingdom and germany are refusing to allow further progress at eu level, on the grounds that this is a national matter under the principle of subsidiarity. the action before the european court has succeeded, for the moment. so it is dubious whether they will agree to the adoption of programmes and schemes designed to react to the needs of europe's poor, vulnerable and disadvantaged. under commissioner flynn's proposal, council decisions would in future have to be taken by a qualified majority. i doubt whether the countries in question will vote for the proposal at the intergovernmental conference. another factor is that definitions of the term poverty vary from country to country. some countries also have reservations, considerable reservations in some cases, about the so-called alternatives or the second labour market. in this situation, from the commission's standpoint at least, the only hope is a favourable final judgment by the european court. assessing the results of this programme is certainly very difficult. the objectives, at any rate, can be rated as unambiguously positive. the reintegration of marginalized people into society by finding them meaningful employment through a social programme is certainly desirable. and those concerned must be helped to continue developing their own skills by way of appropriate training and retraining. the areas suggested, independent recycling works and small-scale craft-based enterprises, which will eventually be viable without subsidies, can be rated favourably. the tandem concept, by which the individual concerned is allocated an experienced social worker as a guide, is the right answer to the problem of reintegration. intensive involvement of the older population of the so-called ghettos in aspects of education is being tried, as in america. the homeless - of whom there are, after all, 3 to 5 million in europe - are to be put to work building their own future homes. that too is another good idea, where the resocialization of the marginalized and the creation of jobs go hand in hand. the promotion of social activities, though not yet to be equated with regular employment, is important. it remains to be noted that clear criteria for the target groups are observed. the commission has laid down six criteria, of which those concerned must satisfy three. this, too, seems to me to make sense. the council and commission must reach an early agreement to enable them to provide rapid, unbureaucratic assistance in the future. it is irrelevant here whether the main focus is at national or european level, or whether europe provides the framework and the member states coordinate the individual initiatives. the critical thing is that action should be taken immediately to benefit those afflicted by poverty. that is what i ask, on behalf of the ppe, on this international day for the elimination of poverty. i should also like to thank the irish presidency and commissioner flynn for their commitment. madam president, i would like to join my colleagues in welcoming the president-in-office to the house and also to welcome commissioner flynn. however, after those two platitudes, there are serious and very hard-hitting measures and issues to be discussed. i think that when we look here today and listen to the speeches that are made, each of us will lay out our stall, we will say how we feel so badly that the most powerful economic bloc in the world, the european union, has so many people long-term unemployed. we will say we must do something, we must continue the fight, we must do x, y and z and at the end of the day we end up with a court decision and a government saying that you cannot spend money on that. and what has the president-in-office done here today? he has shown us the kind of actions that could be taken, the positive steps that could be made. unfortunately, the president-in-office has not been able to convince his colleagues in the council of the value and the benefit of those and we must push harder to ensure that we get those messages across. in his speech the president-in-office mentioned the national anti-poverty programme strategy which he put in place in the irish government. that is something that could be used as a blueprint for a european model. please get it on the agenda. it is even more horrific for me as an irish person - and i am sure commissioner flynn as well - that the whole idea of an anti-poverty strategy in europe came from a former irish commissioner, commissioner hillery. we can see the tremendous work that was done with the tiny amounts of money that were given in the previous programmes and all that was achieved; it allowed people to feel empowered. the point about the paul partnership in limerick or the pavee centre in dublin, which were funded under the poverty programme, was not that they were agency-led or agency-based but they were issue-led by the people who were involved and the people who were affected most of all. unfortunately i do not have enough time to go on, but to conclude - and seeing as how we are in an irish vein - i want to quote you george bernard shaw, who said: ' to hate our fellow man is not the ultimate sin. to be apathetic towards him, that is the essence of inhumanity' . madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the quality of a society is to be measured in terms of how it treats its poorest members and not in terms of economic performance. i believe that we should stress this point on the international day for the elimination of poverty and at the same time stress that the european union also has a responsibility in this area. i should like to thank the irish presidency for the initiative it is taking on this point. however, i must also express my concern at the fact that here in the budget debate we have to fight so hard in order to obtain, in the council procedure which follows, the small amount of money which is available from the european budget to fund programmes concerned with combatting poverty and with the situation of elderly people in europe. we should be ashamed at this and i am not optimistic regarding the outcome of these negotiations with the council. but i do wish the irish presidency success in this and offer it my full support. but we must do more. we also have the duty to look at areas where we can do something about poverty. if i as rapporteur for example, look at the demographic data on europe i see that progressively fewer numbers of people will be productively participating in the labour market, that we will have more elderly people, and fewer young people. we must pursue an integrated policy in regard to social security costs. at european level we must also have the courage to consider shifting the charges on work to other areas if in future we want to be able to increase retirement pensions for europe's citizens. we must do that together, as otherwise people will always say that certain items cannot be included on the agenda due to reasons of competition. we must also ensure that this whole problem is debated at the next wto negotiations. if we do so then we can look the underprivileged in the eye. otherwise we cannot. madam president, i think we should also thank the minister and the commissioner for their sensitivity about international poverty day, because the minister is right. according to the last report on human development from the united nations, 1, 300 million people are poorer than 15 years ago and 89 countries are poorer than 10 years ago. thirteen million children die every year from preventable disease and 200 million children are undernourished. meanwhile the world spends 800, 000 million dollars on military budgets - and i do not even want to calculate the volume that represents. the commission has set out a grand definition of what constitutes poverty: people lacking in social, economic and cultural rights and who are excluded from the normal life of the community. the truth is there are 52 million poor people, three million homeless people and 17 million unemployed people in europe. in my own country - i refer to my country and portugal, perhaps because they are very close together - there are seven million poor people and a third of the portuguese population is at the poverty level. and the levels of unemployment, insecure employment, poverty affecting women and the situation of older people, increasingly numerous, are going to spread poverty in europe, a privileged continent compared to the rest of the world but a continent with enormous problems. it seems to us that the cuts proposed by the council in the budgets for the coming year and the cuts proposed by the individual countries to meet the convergence criteria are producing definite social data proving that we are not going in the right direction. the blocking of the poverty iv programme is a disgrace. the pilot projects in poverty iii demonstrated their effectiveness in helping people make progress. so you are right, commissioner, minister. the revision of the treaty needs to include a legal framework making it possible to advance in that direction and, of course, to take decisions by a majority to prevent the continued blocking of important programmes in this area. madam president, dear colleagues! this is not just a celebration of the international day for the eradication of poverty, but also the international year and decade , 1997-2006, for the eradication of poverty. the initiative taken by the un to focus on the worlds poverty problems and on the fact that the differences between poor and rich and south and north are growing all the time is absolutely necessary. we need to remind ourselves that a fifth of the worlds population, in other words, the rich industrial nations, have at their disposal 85 % of the worlds resources, expressed in gnp. there are currently more people dying of poverty and starvation than as a result of war. according to fao statistics 800 million people suffer from hunger. unfortunately this year, and this day has perhaps not been observed as it ought to have been. we politicians, of course, have a particular responsibility in this respect. it is for this reason that i welcome the council and commissions speeches here to day. i also welcome the resolution which we in the social committee have adopted through our president. the resolution raises many important aspects, particularly the focus on the 52 million poor in europe. of course we have a particular responsibility to fight social rejection and poverty within europe and the eu but we must not forget the world outside. according to the undps "human development index' only four countries in europe, those such as azerbaijan and armenia, fall into the lower half of the table of 174 countries. against this background, madam president, it is shocking and sad that the eu is reducing its development aid to the poorest countries and to non governmental organisations. dear colleagues, let us not only show solidarity when we vote for the resolution but also when we vote for the budget here tomorrow. madam president, it is undoubtedly fortunate that, once a year, we give thought to eradicating the poverty which continues to increase in a world where prosperity goes hand in hand with inequality. it enables us at least to pay tribute to the outstanding work of the ngos. nevertheless, let us not be hypocrites. looking only at the european union, the fight against poverty will require a pugnacity which, it must be said, the european institutions have not always shown us. the facts are there, however. poverty today is spreading. it affects nearly 55 million people over the whole union and we know the extent to which young people, women and single-parent families are the first victims. so what can we do? i listened to you, mr president-in-office, with considerable hope and i believe that education and the fight against unemployment are equally effective elements in this difficult struggle against exclusion. however, the european union will only be really effective if it can renounce the economic ultra-liberalism at its heart, if it can focus its action on the construction of a social europe that cares for the dignity and well-being of its citizens. madam president, i trust you will not hold it against me if in just one minute's speaking time i do not look for examples of poverty far from home but try to open people's eyes to the misery and poverty suffered by so many of our own people. in structural terms, poverty in the european union countries is a problem which principally threatens to affect families with children. combatting poverty in our own countries must therefore principally take the form of offering material and moral support to families and above all families which often have to survive on one income - and very often a very modest one at that - by ensuring an in-built priority for our own people when it comes to employment and social welfare. in my own country i see that the government is doing the very opposite and seeking to make so-called savings on child benefit while at european level you need only take a quick glance at the budget to see, without any exaggeration, that a great deal of money is being thrown out of the window. i am therefore very critical of yet another international day against poverty, yet another day with a lot of hot air and little substance. madam president, president-in-office, commissioner, colleagues, in recommending this resolution to you i want to draw your attention to the views of the people of europe. the most recent 1994 eurobarometer survey on the perception of poverty and social exclusion in europe indicates that most europeans believe that the levels of poverty and social exclusion have increased in the last ten years and that the gap between rich and poor is growing. the europeans surveyed, who were a large and representative sample, attribute the growth in poverty and inequality to the increase in long-term unemployment and the loss of solidarity within european societies. our citizens believe that there should be a concerted, integrated approach by the public authorities to combat poverty and social exclusion, 89 % believing that the european union should be intervening. despite what has been said this morning, little is known about the action that the eu has taken, and amongst those who do know about it the majority believe that it is insufficient. i believe that the perceptions of our european citizens are accurate. the european union has not taken concerted action to address the multidimensional issues, the causes and consequences of poverty. that is why in this resolution we are calling for a commission taskforce to be established with the common purpose to develop far more integrated strategies and to coordinate the use of community resources to combat social exclusion in the european union. that is why within our resolution we are calling for solidarity and condemning the action of certain member states, led by the united kingdom, who have caused the suspension of the funding programmes aimed at benefiting the poor and socially excluded including the elderly. that is why we are calling for changes in the treaty. it is not just a call to arms, mr flynn, but a call for compassion and a call for action at european level. madam president, the effect of poverty on an individual is more devastating than anything, save for violations of his rights and dignity. poverty is an assault on the family. only the poor know what it is to be poor. in my report of march this year, i stated that there are 52 million people living in poverty in europe; although dating back to 1988, that statistic should prevent us sleeping at night. but how are we to defeat this scourge and provide relief to these people living in poverty? well now, one solution is that all of europe's citizens should be educated and trained to be better at sharing poverty. let me make myself clear. citizens trained to save, to distribute resources in circumstances in which industry expands not for its own sake but to achieve a social objective; where our energies are used for the common weal and politics achieves its highest goal of thinking first of those who have been abandoned, the misfits, those without families, the sick, the handicapped, the unemployed, those who are homeless and lack the comfort they need to survive. winter is approaching and a severe crisis in employment will take away any prospect of development. an industrial revolution that we neither foresaw nor fully evaluated will affect men and women together with their children at the peak of their working life - and none of us will be able to anything in the immediate future. when it made 30, 000 employees redundant, ibm in america has had to take on psychiatrists to help the scientists who were on the brink of insanity and extreme poverty. now, my friends, let us not let world poverty day go by in vain! let us do something concrete, let us give these poor people - and give to them directly! - a subsidy to secure the minimum for survival, not just the legislative basis: a few ecu will do the trick. let us set up reception centres directly linked to our institution. we have to understand that the principle of subsidiarity does not provide adequate responses to ensure that this europe of ours is appreciated for what it is, that is to say a supreme body which, in order to be united and to unite, needs first and foremost to secure the primary good, namely the health, dignity, development and protection of its children, europe's citizens. madam president, last friday i went to a neighbourhood in my constituency where up to 80 % of the households are in receipt of some form of welfare payment. they have many problems and yet in spite of these - or perhaps even because of these - there is an enormous commitment to community spirit to fight back. some time ago they submitted a well-researched, modest but focused proposal to the commission for funding to systematically tackle the problem of a high drop-out rate from school at an early age. this phenomenon, perhaps more than most, perpetuates social exclusion. their application so far has gone nowhere. this is not because of its quality, nor is it because of an unwillingness on the part of the commission to consider it. it arises because of the mean-spirited eurosceptically-driven case brought by the uk government against the commission on the question of legal competence in the domain of social exclusion. i felt ashamed, madam president, in this neighbourhood that refused to be marginalized, that right now there is nothing i can do. however, my political conviction is reinforced that whatever happens in the court of justice, which we must respect, the intergovernmental conference must change the rules for social policy to avoid being taken hostage by individual states. i refuse to accept that neighbourhoods that exist on a social or economic margin should be of no concern whatsoever to europe. if today's debate, mr president-in-office, can underline any message, the message is: take the courage and conviction from here that the rules must be changed. madam president, i too wish to thank the president-in-office and the commissioner for their statements. although we do not have analytical data on poverty at a european level, the estimates given by the commission and the individual member states show that it is on the increase. it is on the increase above all because of the growth in unemployment; the increase in the number of insecure and atypical jobs; and, increasingly as compared with the past, it has to be recognized that it is possible to have a job and still be poor. above all, as well as producing poverty, the growing prevalence of insecure jobs causes other harm: it both increases inequalities and poses a threat to social welfare systems. all governments are having to contend with budgetary problems and all governments are having to contend with the problem of being constrained to reduce public social welfare measures. what then is to be done? a suggestion for the commission: in the same way as we have economic indicators on inflation and gross domestic product that are able to gauge the performance of the economy and the effects of economic and monetary policies, we need to set in place, at a european level, poverty indicators as a means of checking on the effectiveness of the social policies that are being applied. i wish therefore to ask the commission to undertake effective action in that direction. i listened with great interest to what the president-in-office had to say. two things have to be done promptly. one of them immediately: succeed in persuading all of the member states that we have to reach agreement on the issue of the legal bases and provide for resources in the community budget. i think we should be ashamed of having cut resources. the second issue concerns the intergovernmental conference. i wish to put a question to myself and to honourable members, to the commission and the council. if europe does not manage to promote social justice, to affirm the right to work and the dignity of the individual, then i think it is legitimate to ask: ' what is the point of the integration process?' madam president, i cannot help but be impressed that, here in the european parliament, one of the richest places in the world, we are holding a debate on the problem of growing poverty, a fact in today's society. out of respect for those suffering from it we cannot restrict ourselves to good intentions, possibly finding solutions which do not really solve the problems at the root. realistically we must bear in mind that poverty, like all social problems, cannot only be done away with by increasing public spending which, although undoubtedly necessary, calls for a dynamic market economy, but it is attracting private investment which in the end creates jobs. on the other hand, it is vital to bear in mind that poverty is to a great extent the fruit of improper planning, with people flocking to the big metropolitan areas, leading to a vicious circle where increasing amounts of public spending are being wasted. in portugal, the area around lisbon, despite a huge concentration of public resources, has been one of the fastest growing regions in the whole eu in recent years. even if this is not to their personal taste, politicians have to promote a much more balanced urban network as this is the only way of fighting effectively against this scourge which puts us all to shame - it is the only way of really helping people suffering from poverty. madam president, only chance dictates that we have now moved on from the debate on the reform conference to the subject of poverty, but it is highly appropriate! all of us here are joining together to agitate for action against poverty, while at the same time the council of ministers is binding our hands. the main cause of poverty is unemployment, and it is certainly no matter of chance that it is precisely the united kingdom and germany, who filed the suit against the poverty programme, that have also opposed the employment chapter in the new treaty. those two national governments are responsible for the fact that ecu 12 million are now frozen, and many projects are likely to have to wait 20 months before a decision can be taken. in every country, low incomes are associated with reduced educational opportunities for children, poor diet and health care and increasing homelessness. a particularly striking statistic is that the german society for the protection of children believes there are as many as 50, 000 so-called street children. in west germany and the united kingdom there has been a widening of the divide between rich and poor since the 1980s, and in fact both categories have increased in size. parliament and the commission long ago offered to negotiate with the council of ministers to establish legal bases for various programmes. despite the irish efforts, nothing has been done. it is essential, therefore, that in future the council of ministers should adopt social programmes by a majority rather than unanimously. poverty is not a natural disaster. to combat poverty and to integrate the poor into our society, we need a long-term strategy which effectively and continuously coordinates national and european concepts. mr president-in-office, it is not just that about one-seventh of the european union's population is afflicted by poverty. it is not just that the number of poor people correspond, in terms of population, to one of europe's large countries or to about half of the fifteen that we call small countries. what matters is that they constitute a second, parallel world, the world of next-door. consequently, the fight against and the elimination of poverty should be the european union's prime target and first priority. i fear that it is not. i wish it were, and we are striving to make it so, to rid the european union of the shame of its refusal to promote programmes to combat poverty. there is no place here for any legalistic sterility or bureaucratic or accounting small-mindedness. mr de rossa, i enjoyed your speech. i hope that your country, and i wish the same to you too mr flynn, that dublin will become the place where institutional reviews are brought in that result in the creation of a new legal base for a social policy to fight poverty. madam president, in order to make up for my forgetfulness, i should like to introduce gender mainstreaming into my two amendments to the resolution on poverty. a differential analysis according to sex revealed to mr boutros ghali in copenhagen that 70 % of the very poor are women. the proportion is the same in europe. poverty has become a female condition here. women, who have entered the world of work in massive numbers, mostly have insecure or part-time jobs. they suffer discrimination of all kinds. they form 55 % of the long-term unemployed and 90 % are heads of one-parent families. women in europe are therefore still the excluded among the excluded. despite all these obstacles, here, like everywhere else, they do two thirds of total work. they are the main agents in promoting lasting development and in providing for the education of future generations. i therefore stress that our committees must institute gender mainstreaming so that all the eu authorities and the governments of member states include women in action programmes for the elimination of poverty, on a par with men in taking political, economic, social and cultural decisions. i insist that the igc officially recognize equality between men and women as a fundamental right. madam president, i appreciate being given the opportunity to respond to the debate here this morning. it is clear from the contributions made that the view of this parliament is similar to my own, namely that the future of europe must be rooted in a vision of society where market values are framed in the context of human values and where market forces are marshalled in the interests of society as a whole. at the core of this vision is the concept of social solidarity which embraces the right of the individual to benefit from the support not only of the family but also the community and the concomitant responsibility of the individual to contribute to providing those social supports. it must be emphasized time and again that currently thirteen of the fifteen member states support the programmes which are blocked at the moment. one of the critical issues which is blocking the programmes is the fear that by continuing with the kind of programmes that are proposed under article 235 subsidiarity will in some way be overtaken or set aside. we must find ways to reassure the member states and regional authorities that subsidiarity is not at risk from these kinds of programme. we must also find a way of changing the treaty establishing qualified majority voting to enable these programmes to be put in place, not only the programmes which are currently blocked but other ones which may also be necessary in the future. i appreciate the commissioner's contribution and that of the chairman of the committee on social affairs and employment, stephen hughes, and indeed all the contributors who have been so supportive this morning. i hope this will be heard by the member states who are involved in the igc. i certainly will be bringing it to their attention and i hope all the members will do likewise. i thank the president-in-office of the council. i have received a motion for a resolution pursuant rule 37(2) of the rules of procedure. the vote will take place in a moment. votes madam president, i think there is so much commotion in the chamber and such different ideas of what is being put to the vote that i would be very grateful if we could vote again to check that the vote was correct. would that be possible? as was clearly stated, it was a roll-call vote. your vote is recorded. if you pressed the wrong key, you can still tell us and that will appear in the minutes. but you know very well that i cannot take the vote again. whilst accepting that you cannot take that vote again, if members notify the services that they wish to change their vote and that takes us over the threshold at 313, can you inform the house whether it will now be declared as carried in that situation? i am well aware that for some members there was perhaps a problem, but quite honestly i cannot take the vote again. madam president, it would be wrong if our votes were determined on the basis of faulty equipment. i tried to press the green button to vote 'yes' but it did not register. it is wrong if we are making decisions in this parliament based on faulty technical equipment. madam president, through no fault of yours there was nothing on the screen to indicate which report we were voting on. there is a lot of noise in the chamber and it is impossible to follow this vote. there is a delay between you calling the vote and what is appearing on the screen. it is very difficult to follow this vote. ladies and gentlemen, even if a moment's daydreaming distracts your attention from our voting sheet, you still have, fortunately, our group leaders to guide you. i listen to you with a great deal of respect, obviously, and i am taking note of your remarks, but that is all i can do. the danish social democrats have voted in favour of the proposal to amend the list of extraction solvents, since the change does not affect the level of protection in denmark. however, it is stated in the commission's text, as part of the annex, that these approvals should in future be carried out by the commission alone. this refers to the so-called committee procedure, where it is neither possible to obtain access to the documents, nor to keep track in any way of the decisions which might be taken. clearly, it should be possible for the many technical decisions to be taken by commission officials, but the danish social democrats find it worrying that these matters should be left to the committee procedure, as long as there is no proper openness in this area. lehne, ford and linzer reportsbonde (edn), gahrton (v), holm (v), lis jensen (edn), krarup (edn), lindqvist (eldr), sandbk (edn), schrling (v), sjstedt (gue/ngl) and svensson (gue/ngl), in writing. (da) the three reports on freedom of movement of persons in an eu without internal frontiers are an important sign of the shift from cooperation towards the formation of a state, and even though there are some attractive proposals in the reports, the scandinavian opponents of such a union cannot support the dismantling of the internal frontiers and the establishment of a common external wall. in a system of free international cooperation, each country can control who enters and leaves its territory. it is this right, one which is normally associated with a nation, that is now being established for the eu. this is an important function of a state. the next step is, of course, to create a common citizenship, with common rights and duties. also part of a state are resources such as a currency, armed forces and police, and these are now also being created for the eu, which is thereby coming to resemble a state, rather than a form of practical international cooperation between independent countries. we as scandinavian opponents of such a union are strongly in favour of international cooperation, and we wish to see cooperation involving all the nations of europe. however, this should be cooperation, not a state, and we warn those who wish to build a state that, with their excessive centralism, they are also poisoning the ground for sensible international cooperation and trade. we are in favour of trade and cooperation, and of sustainable development through highly internationalized economies, but we are forced to reject even attractive proposals when they form part of the establishment of a new state which will crush the democracy of our countries. without democracy, there can be no progress. we cannot remove the frontiers between the member states and transfer decision-making from parliaments to market forces and committees of officials behind closed doors without this leading to rebellion or decline. we hope that the rebellion will take place in a peaceful way when the maastricht ii treaty is put to a referendum, since the decisions being taken here in parliament are out of touch with the electorate outside. let us abandon the plans for the new state frontier. let us return to our citizens' wish for practical cooperation between our countries. the danish social democrats do not feel that the time is ripe to remove the controls on persons at the eu's internal frontiers. we are therefore abstaining on the reports on this subject by mr lehne, mr ford and mr linzer. regardless of the need to implement the internal market, in our view we have to take the problems of drugs and arms smuggling very seriously. these problems have not become any smaller because of the internal market. only effective controls on persons at the internal frontiers give us a reasonable chance of stamping out this form of crime, and therefore we cannot do without them until these problems have been solved. ford report madam president, i am speaking on behalf of the socialist group in the european parliament which will be supporting my report on free movement. it is a pity that the commission does not stay here for the explanations of vote, because it might learn something about why this parliament adopts particular positions. the treaty of rome states that there should be free movement of goods, services, capital and people. the first three of these have had their seven-league boots on for some time, while the last has been left to hobble forward unaided by the commission. even now the directive the commission has given us is a little bit of a poisoned chalice: it is free movement 'if' ; free movement 'if' spain and britain sign the internal frontiers directive; ' if' spain and britain resolve their problems over gibraltar; ' if' the dublin convention is ratified. but parliament wants progress now and the socialist group wants progress now so that we get free movement of europe's 12 to 14 million legal third-country nationals living in the european union; free movement for the 4 million black europeans we have in our midst; free movement of blind people without the nonsense of the current quarantine regulations for guide dogs which, as we know, do not work. the commission recently responded to a question of mine by saying that in the last five years not one single case of rabies had been detected while dogs were held in quarantine, costing us tens of millions of pounds. free movement of football supporters, unrestrained by over-officious policing when they have not been convicted of hooliganism or racism. we will be watching very carefully now what the council of ministers does on these proposals. parliament will not tolerate delay. we welcome open borders. it is satisfying that the internal market is being created so that people can move freely across borders. we have had a similar system in scandinavia for a long time and it works extremely well. but, the fact that people can move freely across the borders involves risks, however, not least of which is that drugs can be moved across borders more easily. in order to prevent this from happening and yet still allow free movement compensatory measures are called for. such compensatory measures can, for example, include increased police co-operation. if it deems it appropriate a member state ought to be able to check a person at its national border if it suspects that that person has violated the countrys laws and regulations. to speak about removing internal border controls without linking this to additional activities is wrong. the removal of internal border controls must be linked to additional, compensatory measures. so far no real proposals for such additional measures have been put forward. first, we must be clear what we mean by additional measures, because there is a risk of increased drug trafficking between member states of the eu and because criminals will be given greater opportunities to use the lack of border controls to avoid being brought to justice. each member state should be free to decide for themselves what form and level of internal border control to implement between eu member countries. free movement of people within the eu will not be put at risk by the fact that people may be checked at internal border controls. if, for example, sweden is to maintain its current regulations concerning the import of alcohol, we must have the opportunity to check people crossing our borders. linzer report madam president, the commission has presented us today with three proposals for directives seeking to remove all controls from persons at all internal frontiers of the union. this line of thought seems to us insane. this is certainly not the time, when migratory pressures are increasing around europe, to implement a reform conceived in another age, when the berlin wall still separated us from the east and the african economy had not yet plumbed the depths it has reached today. the council seems to have reacted well by proposing common action which would have reinforced controls on nationals of third countries travelling inside the union, but which was broadly at variance with the three draft directives of the commission. unfortunately, the council seems to have retreated before the arm-waving of extremist supporters of free movement who, nevertheless, represent virtually no sector of public opinion. we call on it for a burst of courage. in fact, not only is the principle behind three draft proposals for a directive a bad one, but the methods give nothing in return. the so-called compensatory measures would compensate nothing at all and the so-called safeguarding clause is only for thirty days, a derisory period of time in face of the strength of the migratory pressures and their duration, which is reckoned in decades. moreover, the three proposals make absolutely no reference, not even in visas, to the permanent right of member states to preserve the security of the public in their own territory, a right they have under articles 36, 48, 100a and others in the treaty. this omission, which is certainly not fortuitous, speaks volumes about the commission's intention to abolish all the defences of states in this area. finally, we can get the measure of the commission's audacity when we see it peremptorily brush aside the general declaration of states that are signatories to the single act, according to which none of these provisions, and i quote, affects 'the right of member states to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illicit trading in works of art and antiques' . according to the commission, this declaration is worthless since it would render article 7a of the treaty ineffective but, clearly, states adopted this detailed formulation because they felt that article 7a was ambiguously drafted and wished to clarify it. the commission has no right to delete such texts with the stroke of a pen, except to demonstrate its outrageous claim to be above the wishes of the people! it is obvious that citizens from other countries should have the same rights as citizens of the union to move freely across the borders. but this involves just the same increased risk of movement of unlawful substances such as narcotics across the borders as free movement for union citizens does. it is, therefore, of greatest importance that free movement is supplemented with compensatory measures. of course citizens from other countries who have residence and work permits for one of the eu countries should be able to move freely within the european union in just the same way as citizens from eu countries do. but, in our opinion, this reports places exactly the same incorrect demands as fords report on the removal of personal controls at internal borders. it is wrong to speak about removing the internal border controls without replacing them with additional measures. removal of the internal border controls must be linked to additional, compensatory measures. so far, no concrete proposals for such additional measures have been presented. first, we must be clear what we mean by compensatory controls, because there is a risk of increased drug trafficking between member states and because criminals will have greater opportunities to use the lack of controls to escape being brought to justice. each member state should be free to decide for themselves what form and level of internal border controls to implement between eu member states. free movement for people within the eu will not be put at risk by the fact that people may be checked at internal border controls. if, for example, sweden is to maintain its current regulations concerning the import of alcohol we must have the opportunity to check people who are crossing our borders. oomen-ruijten recommendation information and education have always been the cornerstones of consumer policy. community measures to allow free movement of products and consumer protection must recognize the need to make it easier to evaluate quality and prices. with comparative advertising authorized in some member states and prohibited in others, the current situation works to the disadvantage of consumers. it is assumed that advertising is a means of properly informing consumers so that they can make better choices. it is therefore important for european citizens that set limits should be defined with regard to advertising so as to increase their right to the protection of their economic interests and their right to correct information as the basis for proper choice. the aim of this directive is to harmonize the conditions for comparative advertising with a view to completing the internal market and thus facilitating the free movement of publicity services within the union. i will vote in favour of this important harmonization of the legislation to control comparative advertising. poggiolini recommendation the community health monitoring programme, based on article 129 of the treaty on european union, is designed to protect the health of the citizens and prevent disease. correct operation of the community health monitoring system will allow all the countries of the union to set priorities in health policy based on reliable comparative data on health, and improve the viability and effectiveness of health management. i also entirely agree that a european health observatory needs to be created to establish a set of health indicators, develop a data collection and distribution network for these indicators and improve analysis of them. i end by urging the european parliament to stand firm against the council on the budgetary allocation for this vital programme for the union, because the amount allocated is ridiculous and an affront to the interests of the citizens of the union. the danish social democrats believe that cooperation between the eu countries in the health sector is a good thing, when we are talking about research and the exchange of statistics. many countries, including denmark, may well need good ideas on how to organize their health services, and agreements can also be concluded between countries on specialized treatments. but when, through the eu, we start to touch on the actual treatment of illness and the payment arrangements for such treatment, we are going too far. we can appreciate that members from countries where the health service has collapsed see a hope in the eu, but the payment of tax and thus the financing must continue to take place nationally. it is clearly stated in article 129 of the maastricht treaty that the community - and thus the 15 member states - shall contribute towards ensuring a high level of health protection by encouraging cooperation between the member states and, if necessary, lending support to their action. this proposal for a programme of community action is entirely in keeping with the letter and the spirit of the treaty. it is not a question of any kind of harmonization, but of a measure whose aim - on the basis of comparable health data - is to enable the individual eu countries to establish health policy priorities and to make health policy more cost-effective and hence more efficient. nevertheless, in adopting its common position on the commission's proposal, the majority in the council of ministers has been unable to agree on anything but to water down what is in every respect a sensible proposal for a programme of action in the field of public health. this applies both to its financing and the shaping of the practical framework for implementing the programme. i therefore entirely agree with the rapporteur's criticism of the common position, and with the recommendation from the committee on the environment. riis-jrgensen recommendation the danish social democrats have voted today in favour of the european parliament's proposal to change the name and the e number of alternatively refined carrageenan. the reason is that we do not wish to see the approval of an additive which may be confused with the additive carrageenan, under the same e number. this is partly because it is a less pure substance than carrageenan, and partly because the substances are not the same. carrageenan, for instance, is approved for use in breast milk substitutes, despite the fact that various studies have indicated problems with stomach pains and, in some cases, gastric ulcers in infants. if alternatively refined carrageenan is approved with this name and virtually the same e number, we believe there is a justified fear that the substance will be approved for babies. furthermore, we believe that we must avoid misleading consumers and, with a view to the future use of alternatively refined carrageenan, that a clear line should be taken on this new additive. it should therefore be called pes - processed euchema seaweed - and given the e number e 408, instead of e 407a. this recommendation from the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection should be supported by a clear majority in parliament. the recommendation seeks to ensure that there is no confusion between processed euchema seaweed - pes - and carrageenan. in accordance with the report adopted by the house at first reading, the committee on the environment is recommending that the two products - pes and carrageenan - should be marketed under different e numbers. the importance of this for consumers and their safety is clearly highlighted by the lobbying activity carried out recently in parliament by representatives of the pes producers. if the question of the choice of e number was unimportant, these pes producers would have taken a passive stance on the matter. the rapporteur and the committee should be complimented on the consistency they have shown in dealing with the proposal to amend directive 95/2/ec, and parliament should vote massively in favour of this recommendation, both for the sake of consumers and on grounds of principle. florenz report we all know there is no life without water and its importance has made it the subject of numerous interpretations throughout history, from the concept of 'numen' in classical greece to the cause of confrontations in the middle east. water is one of the key factors in the life of human beings, so the union needs a clear and consistent policy on this resource. the rapporteur ably points out that water quality standards and their achievement in the union cannot be dispersed across more than 50 directives, sometimes actually contradictory, and urges that a framework directive be submitted to parliament, as indicated in the fifth action programme, for integrated and sustainable management of the water resources of the union. i conclude by recalling, once again and as always, that without strict control of both the quality and the use of our community water, it is doubtful whether we can maintain and indeed improve water quality. the commission would appear to have been lacking in enthusiasm and foresight when considering this important area. if the commission had shown the same energy as it showed for the emu, i would certainly have been satisfied. unfortunately, it appears that the commission lacks the background, the environmental understanding, an allround perspective and proposals for concrete actions to be able to put forward a policy on the issue of water. the area that is most lacking, in my opinion, is the all-round perspective; other areas also affect water policies. this includes, particularly, the agriculture policy, subsidised by the eu, by which artificial plant breeding, containing many poisons, lead to serious pollution of water. the same applies to industrial policies where lax environmental policies affect our water, and to transport policy and energy policy etc. the commission must take an all-round view on the issue of our water which includes all of these points, otherwise the commission words will just be a waste of more paper (which will also pollute our water). it is important that the eu puts forward a progressive policy in this area, but implementation shall take place at national and regional or local level. the commissions's communication on water policy sets out a strategy for a coherent water policy which is intended to lay down the basic principles for managing water in the community. the aim is that it should lead to a framework directive on water. unfortunately, the commission's communication is not adequate to meet these goals. parliament's committee on the environment has therefore proposed that it should be reinforced. it is calling on the commission to establish criteria for prevention at source, to set tougher limit values for substances in water, and to use a combination of emission standards and environmental quality objectives in water policy. in a letter to the committee on the environment, mrs bjerregaard has promised to comply with these demands. in the light of this letter, the pse group will vote in favour of parliament's report, since it guarantees, together with the letter from mrs bjerregaard, a sound water policy for the future. dublin european council madam president, the conflict in the middle east is extremely urgent. it is one of the most important and most dangerous global conflicts at the moment. the peace process has come to a halt; not much is happening. the european union has a relatively good reputation in this field. the eu has been quite active, particularly this parliament both through its resolutions and statements and through direct contacts via delegations to encourage cooperation with the palestinian legislating council. we have shown our interest and our activity through visits, overseeing elections and through acting as hosts for a palestinian visit. many sections within the eu have complained that eu activity, economic assistance and strong action on the middle east conflict has gone on relatively unseen. now the conflict is once again on brink. serious events are taking place at the site of the conflict. it is incredible that the european parliament, in this current situation, will not speak out at all and all because, as we all know here, the large party groups are in the middle of a pure parliamentary deliberation on whether a statement now would compete with a report which will be placed before parliament in a months time or even later. i must say that i am extremely surprised that this has been allowed to happen. the development of events in the middle east cannot wait for the internal parliamentary decision making process. the point of making a quick statement here is that we must make it while the events are current and while it can have some effect. how will those in the middle east perceive the fact that several party groups have put forward proposals and that they have resulted in absolutely nothing. this can only be interpreted as a lack of interest on the part of the european parliament or that party political deliberation must take precedence over serious action for peace. madam president, i am deeply disappointed. i have enjoyed and hope to continue enjoying good cooperation with my colleagues in the large party groups on palestine but i am deeply disappointed by their action here today. madam president, to close our debate on the dublin summit, the europe of nations group, faced with the consensus motion from the socialists and centrists, tabled a motion for a resolution demanding a radical reorientation of the intergovernmental conference. of course, our proposal was rejected by the majority of this assembly, but we were anxious to set a date. it seems to us, in fact, that the conference is marking time today because it is stumbling along in the wrong direction. sadly, we see it devoting its precious time to secondary problems, like details of decision-making procedures in the european parliament, to low priority questions, like the list of citizens' rights to be included in the treaty, rights which are already well protected at national level, or to palpable absurdities, like the extension of majority voting in the council. furthermore, the debate on the flexibility of the union, which is perhaps the most important debate today from the strictly institutional point of view, still drags on in total confusion. on all these matters, it seems to us that the council is a little too much a victim of the intellectual terrorism of the federalists. this morning's debate illustrated this very well. how did a statement from the commission come to be made after the council's report, when the council was in fact alone competent to give an account of an informal meeting that was essentially intergovernmental? the saddest thing of all is that the intervention of the commission showed a real political will, while that of the council hardly showed any. if we wish to redirect the conference along a useful path, as described by the motion for a resolution we tabled, the council simply must free itself from superstate dreams and agree to institute procedures appropriate to a europe of nations. madam president, when the french head of state is shouted down here in the european parliament, we are right behind him because it is france that is abused. when he is insulted in jerusalem by the israeli occupying police, it is again our country that receives the insult. the israeli leaders should know however that no lasting peace can be based on injustice and apartheid. the first injustice was inflicted upon the palestinian people driven from their land by the israelis, who claim exclusive historic possession of their land going back to abraham. with this type of argument, a thousand conflicts could be triggered worldwide. moreover, the palestinians, whether christian or muslim, also claim to be descendants of abraham. the second injustice was inflicted upon the christians in lebanon, whom mr kissinger wished to deport to america to make room for the palestinians. but peace in the middle east can only be based on respect for the rights of all peoples to live freely on their land. the palestinians have a right to palestinian land and to a palestinian state. lebanon must be evacuated not only by israel and by syria, but also by the palestinian and iranian militia, while the americans, who, incomprehensibly, support the taliban and the pro-iranian kurds, should stop interfering ineptly in anything and everything. madam president, the dublin meeting exemplified the futility and impossibility of carrying through a european cfsp. for, whereas the french president, jacques chirac, proposed common action in the middle east in order to prevent the palestinians being left on their own to face the israelis and the american arbitrator, whose sympathy was clearly one-sided, this wish for a common european approach came up against a blank refusal, particularly from the british and the germans whose diplomacies are in fact aligned with that of america and israel. moreover, the timidity of the european parliament over middle east affairs is also explained by the pressure exerted on members of this parliament by american and israeli diplomacy. it might also be pointed out that the attitude of the israeli state to the european union is particularly outrageous since basically it is 'pay but keep quiet' . this is clearly intolerable and shameful. the best way to reduce the general publics mistrust of the eu is to stop putting forward proposals which build up the eu "on high' . every such proposal within foreign and security policies, the emu etc. serves only to increase the mistrust. the intergovernmental conference must be viewed from this perspective. poverty i am going to give a proper oral explanation and not try your patience by reading out a written statement. there are two points i should like to make clear. first, the resolution as finally adopted made it abundantly clear that it would be a dangerous illusion to believe that poverty in europe can be defeated at the expense of poor nations and peoples elsewhere in the world. the reverse is true. poverty in europe can only be defeated in the long term within a world prosperity order in which europe will be a valuable member of the family of nations rather than the world champion of the export game, living at the expense of others. secondly, the point was several times made in the debate - although the appropriate amendments were eventually rejected - that the poor and marginalized are in some sense the opponents of those who are integrated into society, have jobs, are organized in trade unions and are relatively well paid. i trust that this attempt to divide the employed workforce and divert attention from the serious problems of distribution between capital and labour will fail. we must clearly see that the task at issue is a task for both sides. the issue is not just to redefine the status of dependent labour and integrate those who are currently marginalized, but also to reinforce people's rights - though not necessarily to reinforce the individual private purchasing power of those who are now integrated into society. we have reached the point of dealing in a 'beggarly' way with the bulk of a vast international wretchedness, as if we were imposing a tax of honour on the burden of shame, which in the european union today numbers over 50 million of our fellow human beings who live on the borderline of poverty and exist at the margins of social, economic and cultural life. the disgrace is made worse by the sure prospect that the situation will get worse, as working peoples' standard of living is degraded day by day and thousands of people are sacrificed on the altars of economic and monetary union and the pursuit of the notorious indices and convergence criteria on the one hand, and on the other hand the profits of a handful of multinational monopolies and certain privileged social strata, with oppression of the large majority of popular social levels by programmes of savage austerity, mass redundancies, cuts in the social services and headlong increases in unemployment. all this, in order to implement maastricht, the white paper, and to revise them in a clearly anti-populist way by the celebrated igc. protection and improvement of the incomes of working people is the most important element of a policy of social justice. there must be a radical reorientation of the development models that are being implemented, which show marked deficits of social perspective, with the result that ever-increasing numbers of employees are thrust into the zone of poverty and social exclusion. it is important to adopt measures which upgrade and improve the participation of human potential in the processes of development and production, aiming to increase the proportion of those in work, and measures to stabilize the employment created by reducing seasonal and part-time jobs. along with income enhancement and support it is essential to plan and put into effect educational programmes, and to design social programmes with participation by local professional agencies that will permit improved social integration, access and participation by all in the sectors of new technology. it is exceptionally important to put immediate and specific measures into effect for the quickest possible escape from their situation of social exclusion, of the millions living under conditions of poverty, so that they can be restored to and reactivated in the social process under conditions of equality and dignity. there must be a coordinated effort to eliminate discrimination and phenomena of racism and xenophobia. the council's statement comes nowhere near to such an outcome but is content to ruminate over constantly reiterated declarations in order to divert attention from the substance of the causes of poverty, its continued presence and exacerbation. however, the demonstrations, protests and strikes in most community countries bear witness to the deception and self-deception of the socio-political system that governs community and national policies, implemented by vested interests, and its overthrow is the only way out of the vast contradiction between the super-rich european union, as it is portrayed, and the tragic burden of poverty that afflicts over 50 million citizens of europe. 1996 has been designated by the un as the international year for the elimination of poverty. bearing this in mind, we would expect to see eu action in this area stepped up. instead, the complete opposite is happening. the german and british conservative governments are vehemently opposing the fourth poverty programme. the interim decision by the court of justice on 24 september will in effect prevent the commission from supporting the 800 or so applications from anti-poverty organizations all over europe. as commissioner flynn said recently: ' these cases prove once again the absolute need for a clear legal basis in the treaty, allowing the adoption of programmes in the social area by majority vote ' . but we must go further. not only must we try to repair the damage caused by poverty - long-term unemployment, urban degeneration etc, - we must also find ways of preventing exclusion. this must be at the heart of all national and european policies. i therefore welcome the initiative of mr de rossa and the irish government in following up the social summit in copenhagen by coming forward with a national anti-poverty strategy. this would appear to be a suitable approach, not only for the national level but also possibly for the eu. minimum social rights must be established across the eu, on the right to work and on social protection for example. combatting all forms of exclusion and poverty must be made a goal of all eu programmes and policies. analyses of the impact on poverty and social exclusion must be carried out before new eu legislation is adopted or new eu instruments implemented. the dearth of comparative information on the extent of poverty throughout the union must be remedied. finally, the commission and the council of ministers must examine the progress made by each member state in achieving the commitments entered into at copenhagen, before the end of this year. this in turn should be updated every year during the un decade against poverty. (the sitting was suspended at 1.20 and resumed at 3 p.m.) europe agreement with slovenia the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: a4-0277/96 by mrs iivari, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on the proposal for a council and commission decision on the conclusion of the europe agreement between the european communities and their member states, of the one part, and the republic of slovenia, of the other part (10587/95 - com(95)0341 - c4-0419/96-95/0191(avc)); -a4-0282/96 by mr posselt, on behalf of the committee on external economic relations, on the economic and trade aspects of the europe agreement between the european union and slovenia. mr president, the adoption of the europe agreement with slovenia has been delayed for an unusually long time in comparison with the procedures with other new democracies in central europe. the actual negotiations went quickly. they began on 15 march 1995, and the agreement was initialled in july the same year. however, it was only signed in june 1996. the reason for the delay in its signature lay in the complex situation which arose in the region after the second world war. at that time the territory, which had belonged to italy, was incorporated into yugoslavia and its inhabitants were evacuated to italy. when yugoslavia subsequently disintegrated, slovenia gave an undertaking to pay financial compensation for the loss of property left behind in the area. however, italy demanded that its nationals should have the right to recover the property they had lost. at the same time the newly independent slovenia adopted legislation banning foreigners from owning property in its territory. in itself the europe agreement means that slovenia undertakes to bring its legislation on ownership of real estate and land into line with eu legislation and to eliminate all discrimination against nationals of eu member states with regard to the movement of capital. the question was what the timetable for this should be and how the relevant legislation should be reformed. numerous attempts by the slovenian government to secure adoption of the council's draft failed when the required majority failed to back it in parliament. however, on 11 april 1996, after laborious negotiations, the slovenian parliament gave the government a mandate to sign the agreement on the basis of the compromise proposed during the spanish presidency. under this, slovenia pledges to guarantee all citizens of the union the right to acquire property from the beginning of the fourth year after the entry into force of the agreement. in addition, citizens of the union who have lived in slovenia for at least three years will have the right to acquire property as soon as the agreement enters into force. this protects the rights of italian nationals who used to live in the former yugoslavia, but have fled from the country, to reacquire their property. the domestic-policy issue of the ownership of property was hotly debated, both in slovenia and in italy. i am glad that it was resolved precisely during the italian presidency. relations between the italian and slovenian governments are now good. the whole process is also quite interesting from the general point of view. the development which led to the democratization of the countries of central europe and the independence of the baltic states was positive. it affords genuine opportunities to build a common europe. at the same time, however, it reopened historic wounds, and painful issues concerning nationhood and borders came to the fore. the war in the former yugoslavia is the most tragic instance of this. now it is important to take care together to ensure that there is no backsliding into the injustices of the past but that we set out to build the future. justice should be sought, but at the same time what is needed in europe is both determination and self-restraint to enable the establishment of new cooperation to be a success. measured against many criteria, slovenia's economic and political development has been encouraging. it is in the front rank of the countries which have concluded europe agreements, when it comes to the preconditions for accession. the european parliament, for its part, expedited the approval of the europe agreement with slovenia in its resolution of 30 november 1995. i hope that parliament can now take a positive decision, to enable slovenia to catch up with the other associated countries which have stolen a march on it in their relations with the european union. mr president, elections to the european parliament were held in finland on sunday. i had a good result, but not quite good enough to allow me to retain my seat. accordingly, i should like to thank all the colleagues with whom i have enjoyed good working relations in the european parliament and wish you all success in building a common, peaceful europe. thank you very much mrs iivari. we also wish you the best of luck in your new assignments. mr president, the economic figures for slovenia are excellent. even though some figures may perhaps have to be revised downwards at the end of the year, the macroeconomic figures are excellent. they show that the per capita income, adjusted for purchasing power, is 9, 000 dollars, and they also show that slovenia has already met two of the five maastricht criteria and hopes to meet all five by the year 2000. if slovenia has taken much longer than other states of central and eastern europe, which have long been associated with the eu, to reach an association agreement, the reason lies in the country's difficult history. that was also the reason why the committee on external economic relations, in its report, had to examine the political and historical background to this association agreement. on 26 june 1991, i had the pleasure of being the only european union citizen to participate in slovenia's independence celebrations. i was not at that time a member of this house, but i had the opportunity to experience, on the spot, the way in which the so-called international community had almost ostentatiously abandoned that country, delivering it up, as it were, to the tanks of serb-dominated communist yugoslavia. slovenia perceived this abandonment as an encouragement to attack, which it duly did two days later. at that time, however, one country - austria - which is now a member of the european union did play a very positive part. most of its leading politicians, and especially most of its provincial governors, were present on that historic day. i shall never forget how a leading slovene said at the time, ' today we are independent for the first time in our history. tomorrow we could all be dead.' thank god, it didn't come to that. but the slovenes naturally relied heavily on the european parliament, and they found strong support here. years before the events of 1991, a slovenian civil rights campaigner by the name of france bucar referred here to the human rights situation in yugoslavia. subsequently, he became the first president of the first freely elected parliament in slovenia. a journalist called andrej nowak worked here on behalf of his people and later became slovenia's first ambassador to the european council. he died long ago, sadly, but he too was a pioneer of this association agreement. the slovenes belong to europe, they are a deeply european people. i still remember what mr de michelis once said: if slovenia becomes independent, we shall isolate it for 50 years. well, today, it is not slovenia that is isolated but mr de michelis. but i also remember how, at that time, when the slovenian capital was encircled by troops, an italian member of this house, marco pannella, was the first to break through and make contact with the democratic forces of slovenia. i sincerely appeal, then, to all members also to remember that this house was calling for the recognition of slovenia at a time when no member state was yet ready to do so. after many vicissitudes, the problems on both sides have been solved and the association of slovenia has finally become a possibility. of course we can see the problems that arise with reprivatization, just as they do with privatization. we can see the problems with minorities, some of which have been solved in an exemplary way although others are still outstanding. but we will oppose a suggestion that criteria should be imposed upon slovenia that have not been imposed upon any other associated state. there must be no 'lex slovenica' , and we must give slovenica the same opportunities within our community as we give the czechs, the poles and others. i believe that slovenia, with its cultural tradition, its political pluralism and its 1400 years of integration into europe, will be a valuable partner and a valuable member of this union. i emphatically welcome the fact that, on 10 june, slovenia was finally able to make its application for accession to the european union on the same day that the association agreement was signed. we appeal to all member states to ratify that agreement immediately. mr president, the association agreement with slovenia is the first that the european union has entered into with one of the states to have emerged from the break-up of the former yugoslavia and it is therefore an instrument charged with responsibilities and values which have to be looked at from a more general perspective. there is the geo-economic aspect whereby slovenia occupies a crucial position within the broad lines of the european union's expansion eastward, and it is certainly in a position to encourage such development as a result of its sound economic and financial structure. then we have the geopolitical aspect: this involves passing on positive values to other state units produced by the yugoslav diaspora, something that will happen if slovenia formally and effectively adheres to the european principles of supranational democracy, avoiding discrimination based on nationalism, upholding in short the principles of european citizenship. finally, there is the constitutional political aspect that has to be understood in european constitutional terms. slovenia wishes to enter europe with a view to adjusting its constitution in full to the law of the european community, including in relation to the right of establishment and property ownership. on that last point, the laborious annex to the agreement is not the product of a bilateral dispute with italy, as some wrongly assume, a dispute that was, moreover, resolved during the italian presidency. it did and does involve a major issue of european principles. it would certainly be paradoxical were a state to seek, in agreement with the union, to retain fifty years on in its constitutional, administrative and civil law chauvinistic institutions that can be traced back to the kind of war for whose avoidance in future the union actually came into being. the great prospects it holds for the future warrant voting for the agreement. the national parliaments will then be the crucial fora for ratification and further clarification as we look to future developments in this accession process. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we are finally getting there: the council granted the mandate on 6 march 1995, the agreement was signed on 10 june 1996 after many difficulties, and tomorrow the first of 17 ratifications is to take place. this gives me great satisfaction, as a politician and as a man! special thanks on this occasion are due to mr iivari and mr posselt, not forgetting the president of the european parliament, klaus hnsch, whose speech in laibach during early april helped to defuse a very difficult situation. in addition, the european parliament's delegation for relations with slovenia has endeavoured - most recently, just two weeks ago in slovenia - to play its part in helping to solve the differences of opinion. we have found that some such differences still exist, partly because of the forthcoming elections in slovenia, but that the majority are firmly resolved to continue moving closer to europe. there have been and still are problems, make no mistake about that. but they can be solved. there are problems in the bilateral area, but there have been favourable developments. i think it should also be stressed that, after initially avoiding the issue, the dini government and the prodi government and, in particular, secretary of state fassino in the new government have made massive efforts to achieve closer relations, dtente and an improvement in the situation. slovenia is becoming an associate member. slovenia has submitted its request for accession. discussions are in progress regarding its participation in the western european union and its membership of nato. this development is tantamount to slovenia's return to the family of european nations, even though there are still a few problems to be solved, in a new spirit, in slovenia's bilateral relations with italy, partly on the law of property and partly on historical questions. there are still unresolved questions connected with reprivatization and the moratorium, but i have no doubt they will be solved after the elections of 10 november. then there will really be no further obstacles to the return of a country which was an integral part of europe for centuries and is so european in its past development and its present attitudes. slovenia will then share in the negotiations, and in the decisions, as an equal partner. mr president, in exercising co-decision when voting for an agreement associating a third country with the european union, this house is at the same time taking on the responsibility of the right and duty to ensure that the agreement applies, beyond all reasonable doubt, to human and minority rights also. that duty becomes absolute where, as in the case of slovenia today, the agreement represents a necessary step on the path to accession. it in fact seems logical that anyone wishing to accede to the european union should comply in full with its founding principles. i have to point out to this house, whose responsibilities extend beyond assiduously rubber-stamping the realpolitik of governments, that the agreement we are about to vote on is not based on the conviction that slovenia wishes to resolve its political dispute with the italian minority and the exiles in accordance with the agreements with the european commission, but in fact marks a generous opening of political credit for that country on the part of the european union and italy. it follows that, since the european parliament cannot be sure, before the vote, that slovenia has the will to resolve these disputes, it is at the same time undertaking the moral and political commitment to ensure that slovenia meets its obligations promptly after the agreement. we should bear in mind today in the house the circumstances which resulted in these disputes, that is to say the enormous suffering, inflicted for ethnic rather than political reasons and well after the end of the second world war, on a minority with roots going back centuries and a highly developed culture. but that will not lead us to oppose the agreement because we believe that however sad and cruel the past, the well-being, progress and security of the european union largely depend on our not being influenced by that and on establishing strong and new links of convergence and cooperation. it would, however, be wrong, including in relation to this house, which should be well aware of what it is voting upon, not to point out that, contrary to the solana agreement, slovenia persists in not permitting the purchase of property by foreigners and is restoring property confiscated under communism to slovene citizens only and not others, be they italians, germans or citizens of other countries or ethnic groups, who were forced to leave slovenia. slovenia is also banning the participation in political elections of one party, the dieta istriana , because it is in favour of the return of the exiles to their country of origin. in the wake of the solana compromise agreement but above all after this vote, those three issues in the dispute between italy and slovenia will become an integral part of the dispute with the european union. it will not be long before we have the slovene elections: we have no desire to influence the outcome but we must voice the hope that slovenia's future parliament and government will rapidly comply with the agreements with the european union and with italy, aware that that is the only way in which slovenia will be able to obtain full membership of the european union. the house has already recognized, in an almost unanimous vote, the great political balance shown by italy in dealing with the slovene question. and today the rapprochement between italy and slovenia is progressing to the satisfaction of both sides, and indeed there is a growing realization of the major interests that exist. nor is there any doubt that a solid bilateral relationship between italy and slovenia is consistent with the eastward enlargement of the european union as well as an important element in gradually stabilizing the balkan region. it is, however, our hope that the slovene parliament and government will understand that this happy interlude could suddenly come to an end if it does not give a rapid and satisfactory response to the legitimate demands of the minorities and exiles. europe and italy have generously done their part, it is now the turn of slovenia. mr president, commissioner, the slovenian government has produced a remarkable performance. in mid-1991 slovenia was still a victim of intervention by the so-called yugoslavian people's army. now, just 5 years later, the independent slovenia has developed into a fully-fledged democracy with good guarantees for its minority groups - not yet good enough, but good for the time being given the circumstances. slovenia now also has a social market economy and probably europe's highest growth figures. with the signing of the framework agreement on the dispute with italy, the final obstacle has been removed to allowing slovenia to take up its well-earned place in europe. the europe agreement is a good first step. not only the european parliament but the national parliaments too must quickly support this agreement. as you know, this association includes, among other things, political dialogue and the progressive creation of a free trade zone. it offers the prospect of union membership and slovenia's application should also receive every positive attention. i believe that this former yugoslavian republic will be ready for emu as early as the year 2000. the europe agreement is an important first step on the road to eu membership. it provides many instruments for more intensive cooperation which must be actively used. we also support the proposals of both rapporteurs, mr iivari and mr posselt, whom i congratulate, to further intensify this cooperation. projects which come to mind are inclusion in the trans-european networks, phare, interreg, and support for slovenia's privatisation programme. of course a great deal of work remains to be done in connection with the pre-accession strategy and on a structured dialogue as with all other central and eastern european countries. i will end here, mr president. we have every confidence that the outstanding problems will be solved in the framework of our closer relations. eu membership would also further improve the excellent relations. i repeat that i have every confidence that slovenia will be among the first group of nations to join the enlarged eu. but it is of course up to slovenia itself, in cooperation with us, the union, to prepare itself for entry. this europe agreement is the first step in doing so. mr president, i wish to confirm the view of the green group which has already in the past lent its support to the agreement associating slovenia with the european union and, with an eye to the future, to slovenia's accession to europe. the reasons that delayed the agreement, namely the dispute with italy concerning the rights of the exiles who left slovenia and, above all, the problem of the property that was abandoned, seem now happily to be resolved and, as i have already said previously, i believe that the problem has been made easier to resolve because of the favourable stance taken to this association by the european parliament in the past. i believe that, even if it needs further definition and clarification, the agreement proposed during its time in office by the spanish presidency of the european union is helpful to good relations between italy and slovenia and could act as an example for future relations between the european union and other countries which have emerged from the ashes of the former yugoslavia. from that point of view, i do not agree with those who consider the spanish compromise to be inadequate, because we cannot ascribe to a new state the responsibilities of other regimes and earlier states. i say this as the son of a family which had to abandon its own property in the former yugoslavia, in what is now the republic of croatia. in fact, i hope that it will soon be possible to conclude a similar agreement with croatia also. being in favour of that agreement does not prevent me from raising a number of issues which i think have at any rate to be dealt with during the stages of association. first and foremost, we have the problem of political transparency. in regard to the forthcoming elections, the greens have been concerned to note that the dieta istriana is to be excluded; although mainly present in croatian territory, it has the right to be represented within the political world of slovenia, as istria is also in part in slovene territory and the dieta istriana is the expression of an inter-ethnic view embracing croats, italians and slovenes. the formal issues raised to justify excluding the dieta may be correct in legislative terms but they are not, in my view, politically convincing. there are also problems of financial transparency that need to be checked upon and that we have plenty of time to resolve during the association stage. economic cooperation between italy and slovenia can be further developed. i also consider it useful, from the economic point of view, to set under way cooperation with the ports of capodistria and trieste. there is also the problem of the krsko nuclear power station. many parties in slovenia consider that power station to be completely unsafe. i think that the european union should inspect the safety of the power station and assess the possibility of replacing it with more secure energy sources. finally, there is the problem of transport. while it is true that the trans-european transport networks provide for an option concerning the eastern european countries, it is also the case that there is currently an excess of road traffic travelling towards slovenia, notwithstanding austria's decision to reduce tir levels through its own territory. we need also to reach agreement with slovenia to shift the transit of goods increasingly to rail and away from road. mr president, it rarely happens in this house that the rapporteurs are not thanked for their work; in this debate, however, i am going to do just that and not thank the rapporteurs who have endeavoured, through their reports, to poison what could have been a calm and serene debate. i say that conscious of belonging to the radical trans-national party of marco pannella, cited by mr posselt, which was among the first to fight hard for the recognition of slovenia. you are wrong, mrs iivari, when in your explanatory statement you distort historical and political reality, saying nothing about the fact that if there has been a serious delay over the association agreement, this is solely the result of slovenia's refusal to meet the demands of the european union - including those designed to resolve the bilateral dispute - formulated in the so-called 'solana compromise' which the new italian government then wished to get rid of, gaining a major victory in florence but in so doing also destroying any possibility of finally being able to resolve the very serious problems bound up with the bilateral dispute. the fact is that, as a result of that action, the measures that need to be taken of returning the abandoned property and, in general, restoring the position and reaching agreement on the bilateral dispute have been lost for good. it is true that major responsibility has to be assigned to the prodi government here, but the reconstruction of events in this report by mrs iivari is wrong because our 18 month wait was caused by the union taking refuge behind that document, and slovenia, as we know, intends to retain in force its legislation on property in a manner inconsistent with the rules that apply in the rest of the european union. it is a very serious matter, mr posselt, to write what you wrote arbitrarily in the explanatory statement to your report, and i have requested and obtained the consent of president hnsch to its removal from the document that will subsequently be officially approved. to reconstruct the past without the slightest allusion to the persecution suffered by the italian community, the revenge and political killings, the exile forced upon hundreds of thousands of people, is very serious and unacceptable and means that my group will not vote for the report if it continues to contain very serious falsehoods which are likely to give the public a completely misleading image of the european parliament. mr president, despite the horrors of the civil war in the former yugoslavia, slovenia has developed into a stable democracy which guarantees the fundamental rights and freedoms of minorities. as the country was at war for just a few days, all the conditions were present for a successful switch to a market economy. as its traditional export markets in the former warsaw pact countries were lost, slovenia managed to turn its attention to the west. a rigorous monetary policy and strict fiscal discipline were the other conditions for a favourable economic development. the europe agreement can give a new impulse to the slovenian economy. this is urgently needed at the present time due to the lower rate of economic growth, increasing unemployment and the deteriorating balance of trade. the slovenian government is facing the typical problems of western economies, such as managing labour costs and ensuring that social costs do not undermine public finances. maximum possible free trade relations between the union and slovenia should stimulate slovenia's further economic development. the field of transport offers particular scope for the development of relations between the eu member states and slovenia. geographically, slovenia is a link between western europe and the balkans. this is why the slovenian government is giving priority to the creation of an adequate infrastructure. the inclusion of slovenia in the tens is of great importance in this respect. but it will be several years before the road network has the capacity to absorb the increasing transport demand. the europe agreement therefore includes limits to the free transport relations between the union and slovenia in order to give the slovenian transport sector the necessary time to prepare for the internal market. to briefly summarize, with the signing of the europe agreement slovenia is included in the pre-accession strategy with a view to union membership. partly by virtue of its culture which has been strongly influenced by western christianity, slovenia is an obvious candidate for membership. we express the hope that the slovenian parliament will be able to promptly ratify this agreement following the elections on 10 november. mr president, as neighbours of slovenia who, from the beginning, have followed and supported that country's struggle for independence with much sympathy and active involvement, we austrians naturally have an interest in bringing slovenia into the eu. but assistance and sympathy cannot be unilateral. so we as free democrats cannot understand why slovenia is today unwilling to revoke the decrees of the yugoslavian partisan government of jajce and declare them invalid, as croatia long since did - those decrees that have brought so much harm and injustice, death and misery to the german-speaking former austrians in that country. not only that, but for some obscure reason slovenia is still unwilling to grant an equitable minority status to these german-speaking people or those in the gottschee area. i must emphatically contradict the previous speaker on this point. this step has already been taken long ago with other minority groups, such as the hungarians. furthermore, we have justified and still unresolved misgivings about the safety shortcomings of the krsko atomic power station, which posed a genuine threat to the area around the austrian border, especially during the struggle for independence. again, we have justified fears that insufficient consideration has been given to the moves towards closer economic ties which are laid down in the agreement, and in some cases take place automatically, or to free movement in the labour market - including family members. (the president interrupted the speaker) . that comes about because the smaller groups are given so little speaking time. so, to repeat: we have justifiable misgivings in the economic sector and regarding freedom of movement in the labour market. all of these are problems which have to be overcome primarily by austria, and to some extent by italy too. it is easy enough for the other states to go ahead cheerfully with adopting resolutions - they don't have to bear the consequences. that is partly why the land government of carinthia expressed its misgivings about the agreement on 9 october this year. finally, we note the absence of any sign of goodwill by the slovenians towards their neighbours regarding some form of accommodation over the dumping policy practised by the slovenian duty-free shops, which has such disastrous effects on small traders in the border region. so we cannot vote for the agreement as it stands. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, slovenia too has now entered into a europe agreement - late, but certainly not too late. this is a country that has reached very high standards of economic and democratic development, when you bear in mind where it started. and it is true to say that austria was one of the neighbours which, at an early stage, supported slovenian independence and offered a helping hand during the first turbulent weeks. there is no doubt that here we have a country following a line of development which may ultimately bring it into the circle of member states of the european union. it is certainly very significant that, despite all the problems and delays that have occurred, it was under the italian presidency that this agreement was concluded. i would regard that as a good omen for the future, despite my consternation at a few things that have been said in today's debate not only by italian members but by austrian ones too. there is no doubt that national and minority identities do cause many problems in central and eastern europe; but nor can there be any doubt that those problems cannot be solved by accusations, the opening-up of old wounds and mutual denunciations, but only by a shared vision of the future, directed towards shared objectives. we shall of course be voting for this agreement, although there are many things that must be asked of the slovenian government. krsko and the dumping policy of the duty-free shops have been mentioned, but the critical factor is the spirit of teamwork in a region which needs a new economic beginning and a new humanity. mr president, there are now nine states with which the european union has concluded association agreements that hold out prospects for those states to accede to the union in due course. so the basic question of whether the union should be enlarged eastwards has already been answered. however, the question of when and how - the timing of accession and the conditions on which it takes place - remain open. whereas, before the events of 1989-90, the countries of central and eastern europe seem to be a relatively homogeneous bloc, at least from the western european standpoint, we can now see that the candidates for accession differ so greatly in terms of their initial cultural, religious, geopolitical and economic circumstances that it is impossible to treat them all in the same way. in other words, just as their starting points differ greatly, so too these individual central and eastern european states, whose objective is to become members of the european union, will have to take very different roads to do so. if we today, as the european parliament debating the reports by mr iivari and mr posselt - whom, incidentally, i take this opportunity to thank for their extremely good reports - call for ratification of the europe agreement between slovenia and the union, we mean this to be a signal to this young slovenian state. we mean it as a rallying call: you are on the right road! we mean it as recognition of the outstanding efforts made by the slovenian state and people to find their way back into a european association of states to whose economic, political and cultural development slovenia has made important contributions in the course of its history. the european union sets high standards, both economically and politically, for the would-be new member states from central and eastern europe. but i believe that slovenia has deserved, by its efforts so far, to be received into the european union as soon as possible. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the matter we are discussing is a high profile issue. another troubled frontier in europe is beginning to move back, a frontier that has moved in the past, witness to great tragedies and sufferings, not forgotten and not yet consigned to the calm of history. i am speaking as a member of the rex committee and will be looking only at the economic problems identified in this area, particularly in the region of the frontier between italy and slovenia. as far as the osimo agreements and the subsequent bilateral agreements with italy are concerned, they must be complied with in full, and, in approving the association agreement, the european parliament must act as guarantor. on the issue of the development of the slovene economy towards a market economy, it is worth pointing out that in slovenia the pace of privatization is uncertain, while on the capital markets there are still limits on transactions abroad and foreign banks wishing to open branches are experiencing difficulties. it would be helpful for experts from the commission to help the slovene government to develop the new legislation in the direction of european harmonization. as far as transport and infrastructure of european significance is concerned, we consider that ljubljana should be linked via high-speed train with the european networks along the east-west axis - budapest, ljubljana, trieste, venice - while on the north-south axis there is an interest in completing both the route from maribor to capodistria and the intermodal transport system which follows the current italy-slovenia frontier. the isonzo basin, situated between slovenia and italy will have to be subject to a general planning scheme in terms of both the use of water resources and management of the waters flowing back from novagorizia. the wine-producing region of collio will have to be protected by european registered designations of origin. turning to the problem of employment, it has to be pointed out that the italian regions on the frontier with slovenia are economically at the margins, and this is reflected in the unemployment rate in the region of 15 % compared with an average in north-east italy of 6.4 %. the dismantling of frontiers will result in further unemployment which will have to be offset using european policy measures, both regional policy structural measures and exceptional measures to exploit trans-frontier cooperation. gorizia, finally, is the last city in europe stilled divided by a frontier resulting from the second world war. on the basis of a european undertaking, gorizia and novagorizia could become a laboratory of ideas and initiatives between different cultures and ethnic groups, so that instead of being an encumbrance, the frontier becomes an opportunity for collaboration and growth. finally, i wish to make a technical comment on mr posselt's report. part a, which is the only text on which we are required to vote, is the product of the collective efforts of the rex committee, which i approve and to which i subscribe. the explanatory statement (part b) is the work of the rapporteur alone and i have reservations about it but these are not relevant to our vote. mr president, i have to ask this union how and with whom it wishes to become great. if the aim of bringing slovenia closer to the union is to consolidate a civil and democratic system within that country, as well as to promote economic development, then it is welcome. if, however, slovenia intends to enter europe and obtain economic benefits only, riding roughshod over the sacrosanct rights of democratic freedoms, then i am in complete disagreement. slovenia should explain what it intends to do in response to italy's demands for the return of property taken away from hundreds of thousands of italian refugees who fled from the former yugoslavia in the 1950s and whether it intends according italian citizens in slovenia the fundamental rights of freedom and democracy, language and culture enjoyed by the slovene minorities in italy. i support the initiatives designed to promote the integration of that state into the european union, but i call upon the authorities themselves to encourage political initiatives to secure for all of the population and ethnic groups resident in slovenia the basic guarantee of freedom, democracy, language and culture before it becomes part of this union. i would stress the great effort made and the substantial progress achieved by slovenia towards the great democratic change as of 25 june 1991, the date on which it invoked the right of peoples to self-determination. that same right of self-determination, i have to say, is being suppressed within the union by many member states in regard to whole regions and population groups which have always guaranteed within their own confines those principles of freedom. the most recent example of that is padania! i therefore call upon the member states of the union to ensure and take action to see that democracy is guaranteed and there is mutual respect for cultural and social differences. mr president, members from the alleanza nazionale seize this opportunity of reiterating their belief that before it enlarges to take in other countries the european union should consolidate its current base and establish also the political unity to which we attach greater importance than mere economic unity. as regards the agreement with slovenia in particular, we have to regret the way in which that country, abetted by the prodi government, has disappointed the legitimate hopes of those italians who, having survived the deadly ethnic cleansing on a vast scale carried out 50 years ago by the communist army of the former yugoslavia - 350, 00 italians herded out of yugoslavia in just a few months and tens of thousands of italians buried alive in the mountains of the former yugoslavia - are calling for their stolen property to be returned. that should already have been done not only as a proper gesture on the part of slovenia but above all as evidence of the kind civilization that cannot be measured by weighing up different criteria and has to be demonstrated through gestures of high moral value, such as the return of goods to their legitimate owners and their descendants. the european union which constantly - and frequently in words only - sets itself up as the life-guide and beacon of justice of the people, must start ridding itself of the mind-set of bankers and traders, sadly neglecting the moral values which are the real test of the achievement of a mature civilization. mr president, can i say first of all how much i regret that this will be the last plenary session attended by mrs iivari. her assiduous work for the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy will be greatly missed in the future. could i go on to say how much i welcome this agreement, which is not before time, and give my congratulations to all those involved in resolving the difficulties. and credit must be given of course to the spanish presidency for breaking the log-jam during their period in office. this is of course an important agreement, important because slovenia, as a number of members have said, is clearly a strong candidate for future membership of the european union. i would hope that some of our colleagues will remember that what we are about in this institution is building a new europe and not refighting the battles of the old europe. of course slovenia must not itself assume that membership of the european union will stem automatically from this agreement. there is still a lot of work to be done. slovenia should in particular bear in mind that membership of the european union involves taking on the acquis communautaire in full, with no exceptions beyond temporary derogations. however, i do not want to go over old ground that members have already covered in this debate. i want to pick up one particular issue and address my remarks to commissioner van den broek. the european architecture now consists of a series of agreements - the european economic area, for example, the association agreements with central and eastern europe, the cefta, the free trade agreements with efta countries. the full benefit of all these will not be felt until we move towards pan-european rules of cumulation. i recognize the work that has been done by the commission in this, and particularly welcome the decision taken in july by the budget council to introduce diagonal communication between the eea, switzerland and the central and eastern european countries. nonetheless, what we need is to push towards total cumulation of rules of origin if we are really to maximize the economic potential of these overlapping agreements. i hope that the commission will give this major priority in the coming period, notwithstanding the discussions that may take place in relation to future enlargement of the european union. mr president, i have heard a strange equation being made in this house: an incorrect report is said to mean an incorrect agreement. but the agreement itself is the substance, the report is merely incidental. i shall not at any rate use the adjective historical to describe the report, for a very simple reason. the page has been turned, and what has actually to be described as historical is the ideological and political separation between the community - now the union - and europe's other life-force. currently, the agreements are in fact as they should be, not easy certainly but as they should be, seeking to define not so much co-existence but something more important in the circumstances of a shared continent. i cannot therefore say that i am not in favour of an agreement of this nature, but that does not in any way mean that i forgive anyone for what has happened in the past, and when i say 'anyone' , i mean just that. but were europe to stop at reckoning up the wrongs and the rights - with the former, the wrongs, being ascribable to totalitarian regimes and dictatorial systems - it would not be a europe of today, far less of tomorrow, but the europe of the civil wars of the recent and more distant past. we have therefore strongly to confirm that the europe which is today opening up to slovenia and will in future be opening up to other countries of central and eastern europe, is a democratic europe in which respect for the rights of minorities and for all human rights is law, that same law which gives entitlement to citizenship. we are a continent that has had a complex history and the frontiers of the nation-states have been a complex matter also. gardening issues, the americans say, but theirs has been a different history. issues that have nothing to do with gardening - we might say - but only if we rely on the rationale of nationalism and the resultant closing-off into nation-states. the scope of the agreement is different: it is european and within it even the complicated 'gardening' issues can be given a national solution that respects the rights of all. i do not, however, wish it to be forgotten that an italianspeaking political grouping has not been accorded legitimate recognition. this is a serious matter which needs to be remedied rather than explained. nor can it be said that this is a small flaw in a quite different framework. even if it were just a small flaw - and perhaps it is - it would still be an unacceptable violation of a civil and political right. i wish at any event to express confidence that the wrong will be righted, by voting in favour of the agreement, justified - against the backdrop of the complex situation in slovenia - by the fact that that republic continues to be an island in the turbulent waters of the former yugoslavia, thus offering possibilities of increasingly close cooperation including with the neighbouring countries and representing a sound and vital new source of european integration. it is within that context that the remaining disputes should be resolved, in particular with italy and the italians who once lived and are now living there. mr president, i have listened to the debate so far with close attention, and in doing so i have been sorry to note a very short-sighted view of things by some speakers. this agreement is not just about buildings or about italy - it is about the closer integration of slovenia into the europe we all share. this is a welcome development, and we should indicate as much by voting for it. there is one thing, though, that seems to me to have received too little coverage in this debate - the need to provide more information and instruction for the citizens of the union as to what this agreement actually means. one important issue here is to provide that information so that our citizens, too, can approve this agreement. as has already been mentioned, slovenia and the union, thus including my own country of austria and province of styria, can benefit economically from these agreements. but what has not yet been mentioned at all is the fact that all of us - not just the slovenes but all of us in europe and throughout this larger area - can hope for a gain in terms of our foreign and security policy from the fact that we have an opportunity to extend the domain of peace and stability to include this bitterly contested balkan region, with beneficial results for us all. what has been missing from this debate so far is any reference to the fact that, for the first time, this agreement includes far more in the way of provisions on nuclear security than any previous agreement of the same kind. it has also been pointed out that we have opportunities in the field of transport infrastructure, if we take advantage of them. in this context, however, there is another point which should be made from the austrian point of view, though with a somewhat different emphasis from what we heard earlier. we should never lose sight of an important sine qua non for this association agreement and, in particular, for slovenia's future membership of the european union. for us, and therefore for slovenia as a future member state, european union means human rights, the rule of law and the safeguarding of minority rights. so we call upon slovenia, as a matter of urgency, to ratify immediately the european council convention on the protection of minorities! in this way, we can ensure that the german- and italian-speaking minorities in that region will enjoy appropriate legal guarantees. on the same basis, i also appeal to slovenia to find a humane solution, in a new spirit of european cooperation, to the problem of the expropriations which, on two occasions during the twentieth century, have left their mark on that region. mr president, may i first take this opportunity to thank mrs iivari for her report on the europe agreement and mr posselt for his report on related economic and trade aspects. i should like to join with mr titley and on behalf of the european commission extend my very best wishes to mrs iivari as this will be the last plenary session she attends. as the various honourable members pointed out, ratification of this europe agreement by the european parliament is an extremely important step for slovenia with a view to membership of the european union. it also gives a clear signal to the governments and parliaments of our member states of just how important it is for the national parliaments to be as dynamic in their consideration of the europe agreement as the european parliament has sought to be. slovenia has had its sights set on joining the european union ever since it first declared independence in june 1991. i remember very well the events of that time and how slovenia stood on the edge of the abyss and was nearly sucked into what later developed into a full-blown tragedy for yugoslavia. fortunately this was prevented and the european union was also able to play a positive role in this. i remind you of the agreement signed in brioni in july 1991, sponsored by the european troika. i should also like to once again express my appreciation for the efforts made by the spanish presidency in particular in overcoming the problems encountered in concluding the europe agreement with slovenia. i agree with all those who said that it is time to look to the future, to make the most of the agreement which has been reached and to seek a constructive atmosphere in which to solve the remaining problems which are no doubt present. i should also like to draw your attention to the major contribution made by the president of the european parliament, mr hnsch, in april last year. i believe that his speech to the slovenian parliament played a major role in preparing both the union and slovenia for the signing of the europe agreement on 10 june of this year. it was on this day that slovenia applied for union membership, thus confirming its commitment to european integration. in reply to comments made by a number of honourable members i should like to repeat that slovenia has agreed to make the necessary constitutional and legal changes in order to permit the implementation of the provisions laid down in the europe agreement. this was made very clear to me during the discussions i had three weeks ago with the slovenian president, government and members of parliament. it was also confirmed by prime minister donovtsjek to the delegation from the european parliament during their recent visit to ljubljana. after the europe agreement had been signed the interim agreement with slovenia was also initialled, and we would like to see this enter into force on 1 january next. yesterday the commission approved the proposal on this and according to the timetable it will be possible to sign the interim agreement on 5 november. as you know, this will make it possible to already implement at the beginning of next year all the economic and trade elements of the europe agreement in anticipation of its ratification. i understand that the timetable for this decision and the consultation with parliament is very tight. i understand that parliament is under pressure and i have therefore ensured that parliament and the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy have been kept fully informed of progress made and i thank you for your support and cooperation in implementing the urgent procedure which is necessary in order to prepare for the signing of the agreement on time. slovenia is already working in close cooperation with the european union with a view to thorough preparation for membership. i would draw particular attention to the great efforts made by the slovenian government to provide answers to the commission's questionnaire within the deadline which expired on 25 july last. the answers to these questions will be very important to the opinion on slovenia's application for membership, the opinion which the commission will deliver after the intergovernmental conference. when the europe agreement has been ratified and is in force, slovenia will be able to participate in the pre-accession policy on the same footing as the other associated central and eastern european countries. a positive signal today will give the new slovenian government which is to be formed after the 10 november elections even more encouragement to meet future challenges, especially in the framework of the national accession strategy, with equal success. in addition to the liberalization of its legislation on the ownership of real estate, slovenia must consolidate its economic reforms and its reforms of the government apparatus so that it can effectively manage a market economy and soon be ready to compete in the internal market. i would like to draw attention to the commission's positive and constructive working relationship with the slovenian authorities. i hope that the new government will continue in this same spirit and i foresee a further widening of the bilateral relations, the ultimate aim of which is to welcome slovenia as a new member of the european union. finally, i would like to state that i have every confidence that both the commission and the european parliament will guide slovenia on the path towards the european union with constructive support wherever possible, but also critical support where necessary. i have in mind in particular the problems which still remain and which can be solved through good dialogue and good cooperation. mr president, we are most certainly looking forward to further cooperation with slovenia and a successful integration process. mr president, apart from thanking the commissioner for his splendid work and assuring him that we shall be pushing ahead intensively with the interim agreement, i should also like to make a brief personal statement on the comments by mr dell'alba, who after all has accused me of falsifying the truth. i believe that i have the right to do so under the rules of procedure. i am sorry, but there was no personal allusion, rather a political debate in which a member expressed his disagreement with your report. the joint debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 10 a.m. action plan for russia the next item is the joint debate on the following oral questions: b4-0854/96 by mrs lalumire, on behalf of the group of the european radical alliance, to the council, on the european union action plan for russia; -b4-0855/96 by mrs lalumire, on behalf of the group of the european radical alliance, to the commission, on the european union action plan for russia; -b4-0857/96 by mrs schroedter, mrs aelvoet and mrs roth, on behalf of the green group in the european parliament, to the council, on an action plan for russia; -b4-0970/96 by mrs schroedter, mrs aelvoet and mrs roth, on behalf of the green group in the european parliament, to the commission, on an action plan for russia; -b4-0972/96 by mrs kjer hansen and mr cars, on behalf of the group of the european liberal democrat and reform party, to the commission, on the european union strategy towards russia; -b4-0973/96 by mr miranda, mr carnero gonzlez, mr piquet, mr vinci and mr pettinari, on behalf of the confederal group of the european united left/nordic green left, to the commission, on the european union action plan for russia; -b4-0980/96 by mrs hoff, mrs krehl, mr truscott, mrs iivari and mr wiersma, on behalf of the group of the party of european socialists, to the council, on the european union action plan for russia; -b4-0981/96 by mrs hoff, mrs krehl, mr truscott, mrs iivari and mr wiersma, on behalf of the group of the party of european socialists, to the commission, on the european union action plan for russia; -b4-0983/96 by mr lehne and mrs oomen-ruijten, on behalf of the group of the european people's party, to the council, on relations between the european union and the russian federation. mr president, commissioner, the council adopted the action plan for russia on 13 may 1996. this was a praiseworthy initiative. its main aim was to support the path to reforms on the eve of the russian presidential election, which promised to be rather difficult. a further aim was the selection of a number of actions to be taken while waiting for the partnership agreement itself to be ratified by all members of the union and for it to come into force. but, however justified this plan may be, it seems to me to have some shortcomings. that is why i wished to question the council and the commission so that they can, in the near future, explain their guidelines a little more clearly and describe their proposed actions in greater detail. to us, after all, russia is a partner different from others. because of its size, its geostrategic position, its history, both ancient and more recent, and its political and military strength, russia is bound to play an important role both for us and with us. nevertheless, the country has immense problems. and this vital partner is also an unpredictable partner, which requires from us a policy based both on a long-term view of our objectives and a great deal of short-term pragmatism. we shall have occasion to talk about these matters again when i present my report on relations between the european union and russia. concerning the action plan for russia, i should today simply like to emphasize this: as regards our contribution to the democratic and legal reforms in russia, it seems to me that the plan lists actions but does not adequately stress the immense importance of the work, which will determine the establishment of the rule of law in russia, which in its turn will determine the success - or failure - of the economic reforms. in this connection, i should like to emphasize the importance of tax reform. if we could help to set up a russian tax system worthy of the name, we should have done some really useful work, for one of the evils gnawing away at this country is the pitiful inadequacy of the tax revenues. there can be no democracy and no rule of law without a minimum of tax income. as for economic cooperation, many ideas are put forward in the plan, including some in the fields of nuclear power, the environment or the modernization of the production system. on this point, we must insist not only that our aid should be massive but that our programmes such as tacis should be better adapted, better monitored and better coordinated with programmes carried out by our member states or by financial organizations such as the imf, the ebrd or the eib. but we must also be concerned about the social situation. this is so serious that it could endanger the whole edifice of reforms. clearly, the sheer magnitude of what is required is such that the european union will never be able to give as much help as is necessary. in spite of everything, however, we must never neglect this social dimension in our programmes. thus, the tacis programme should give more attention to health, education and social protection. lastly, i regret that political cooperation is not mentioned in the plan of action. of course, it does mention cooperation in the fields of justice and internal affairs or questions relating to security in europe. but all that is really very inadequate, since nothing is said about the practical means of combating the various kinds of trafficking carried out by the mafia which are corrupting russia and the eu countries. in the same way, the section on foreign policy is also inadequate. this should be set in its global context, particularly in the context of the enlargement of the union to the countries of central and eastern europe. all these are matters for the council and the commission. in parliament itself, we shall be speaking about them in more detail when we debate relations between the union and russia. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, let us remember that the council's sudden notion about this action plan for russia could not conceal the fact that it amounted to an attempt to boost yeltsin's election campaign. nor, of course, the fact that it was yet another attempt to persuade the world, and especially the usa, that a common european union foreign policy is not just hot air. but, apart from the fact that any such action plan for the russian federation supports the dominant role of the russians within the cis, and apart from the danger that this may be misunderstood as supporting their claims for hegemony, this action plan really is nothing more than hot air. it contains nothing that had not in any case previously been included in the partnership and cooperation agreements, the interim agreement, the tacis regulation and other forms of economic aid. but, of course, it is true that russia does need extensive support with the process of democratic and economic reform and with coping with the disastrous destruction of the environment within russia. what russia needs most of all is an open europe, willing to plan a joint security structure instead of adopting senseless decisions, such as the expansion of nato and the drawing of new frontiers by means of the schengen agreements, which in reality have the effect of partitioning europe and furthering confrontation. this, however, cannot excuse the inactivity of the western europeans when political intervention was urgently needed, as in the case of chechnya, where massive violations of international human rights took place. i need only recall our more than shameful silence on the crime of the war in chechnya after it became known that russia had used a new weapon of mass destruction - the vacuum bomb - against its own civilian population. i expect the commission's statement to provide specific answers. i want to know what really has been done in the last six months to further the cause of democratic evolution in russia. to this extent, the action plan is a very welcome project, but there are still unanswered questions, one of which is what representations the commission has made to the russian government regarding alexander nikitin. the commission is already taking advantage of the excellent results of the bellona report to prepare urgently needed tacis programmes. i know from my visit to murmansk that the aid programmes are producing results there. but alexander nikitin is still being held in an fsb jail; i was not even able to visit him. indeed, he is being tried for espionage, though he has done a genuinely valuable service for his country and has supplied the essential information for the work we are doing. he has been charged under a secret decree with having betrayed his country. i consider it urgently necessary for the commission to say, in highly specific terms, when and where it is taking action and what means it is using to bring pressure to bear. mr president! it was in sharp contrast to the oppressors in the soviet union, to the injustices, the environmental nightmares and the economic misrule that western europe managed to drive back the large communist parties and bring about the fall of right-wing dictatorships in spain, portugal and greece. this was an unparalleled success. equally remarkable in its way is the success of democracy in that same russia, which has managed to struggle out of the soviet strait-jacket. free and democratic elections for parliament and president have now been held several times in russia. there are also newspapers and media forms which are largely independent and a system of justice prepared to protect the human rights of its citizens. environmental awareness is increasing and the economy is also showing signs that it is beginning to function. this development was far from obvious in a country which had been governed since time immemorial by autocratic tsars and communist party secretaries - so it is all the more welcome. but perhaps someone is asking themselves: "has this chap not realised how unstable the situation in russia is, with a large reactionary socialist party, right-wing nationalist loudmouths such as zhirinovsky, with chechnya, fragile nuclear power stations, unpaid soldiers, corruption, gangsters and a president suffering with heart disease on his way to the operating theatre?' yes, of course i am aware of this and much more besides. but russias many and difficult problems should not cloud our view of the russia which has done well, the russia which we wish to seize hold of, to strengthen and to raise up. this is the basis of our action plan and our debate today is about how the union can help to develop a russia which is sound, humane and working towards peace and cooperation with other democracies. in this respect, i and other liberals would like to see the following from the european union: 1.that the union opens its doors to increased trade, in other words increased imports from russia of both goods and services.2.that the union financially supports the creation of russian institutions which promote diversity, respect for the individual, the environment and economic development.3.that the union increases exchanges with russia of students and researchers.4.that the union facilitates increased cooperation between russia and its neighbours in central and eastern europe through better coordination of the phare and tacis programmes.5.that the union makes it absolutely clear to russian leaders that disintegration of russia is not in the interests of the union but that we expect that russian statesmen shall always respect the rights of minority groups and individuals.6.that the union, together with russia and other states involved, works towards a new european order, an order which guarantees freedom and peace for russia as well.7.that the union, as a long term goal, keeps an open view on russian membership of the european union.what, commissioner van den broek, is the commissions answer to our requests? mr president, commissioner, on 13 may the european council adopted an action programme for russia. the purpose of that programme was, in the run-up to the russian presidential elections, to reaffirm the importance of a real, genuine partnership between the european union and russia and at the same time to keep open the prospect of further reforms. in recent weeks it has once again been made clear that this partnership is of great importance in ensuring security and stability throughout the continent of europe. the power struggles within the kremlin, focusing in particular on the position of security adviser to the russian president, in recent days have created uncertainty throughout the european union, and especially in the states associated with it. we are very glad that this job has now gone to mr rybkin, the former president of the duma, because we hope that that previous experience will enable him to reinforce and restructure the process of dialogue with the european union institutions. but the internal stability of russia is important to us not just because russia is our immediate neighbour: it is also important because it offers the only hope of solving the serious economic problems of that country. the successful introduction of new systems and the economic reconstruction of russia would make the republic a reliable partner for us. the war in chechnya is a heavy burden in itself, and especially on the russian budget. we hope that the peace negotiated by general lebed will be preserved in the future and that a new start can be made on reconstruction in that region. further to this, absolute priority must be given to the economic reforms. recent reports received by us suggest that 75 % of the russian population are living below the poverty line, and that millions of russian workers have already been waiting months for their wages to be paid; this social disaster could be another contributory factor to uncertainty and instability in russia. the action programme before us today can help to ensure that the european union helps russia to overcome its problems and further the process of reform. but that will not be enough - additional, radical measures are needed. we hope that the council and commission, together with parliament, will prepare a further programme of measures, into which previously existing instruments must be integrated at once. we hope that we will be able to continue discussions on this during the drafting of mrs lalumire's forthcoming report in the foreign affairs committee. in my view, the partnership agreement remains the central element in the west's strategy for partnership with russia. both sides are going to have to continue making great efforts to breathe life into that agreement. i hope that we in the european union will be able to make our contribution to those efforts. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i too should like to open my remarks by emphatically stressing the importance of russia as a partner in europe. in our discussions, we often overlook the fact that russia is the largest country in europe in terms of population and that, even though it is no longer a superpower comparable to the usa, it nevertheless remains in point of fact the most powerful country in europe. it is, then, absolutely inevitable that we in the european union should have an enormous interest in maintaining the best possible relations with this partner and neighbour. not only that, but we should also do everything we can to help ensure that russia, which has experienced and still is experiencing a great deal of turmoil, should enjoy the most stable economic, democratic and political conditions possible. this in turn makes it obvious that, in the present situation, everything that europeans can possibly do to bring about those stable conditions should be done. our activities in connection with tacis, and especially with the tacis democracy programme, are a very clear signal of the importance that we attach to this policy as a whole. from the many occasions on which delegations from this house have visited russia in recent years, i have formed the impression that our tacis programme has generally been very positively received, and that very specific successes are already apparent. that is not to deny that there is always room for improvement in specific areas, and of course we in this parliament will continue to pay careful attention to these. i also regard the political action programme, which has now once again been adopted, as a further helpful step in supporting the positive trend of events in russia. i should therefore like to express my emphatic support for this action programme. there is just one aspect i would like to point out. in recent months and years i have very, very often formed the impression that, as far as european activities are concerned, not just in this case of aid to russia but in other sectors too, there is often a discrepancy between the politically based intention, as in the case of this programme of action, and the assistance actually provided. when projects like this action programme are decided upon, what they contain should actually be implemented from the european standpoint. there must be none of the petty bureaucratic obstacles we are forever hearing about, the end result of which is that much of what has been politically decided is not passed on and never achieves what it is supposed to achieve. in point of fact, political developments in russia are still causing a degree of concern. even so, at least in my view, great strides have already been made towards increased stability. the changes that have now taken place with regard to the security adviser, in other words the decision to appoint mr rybkin, which i also welcome, make it clear in my opinion that a high degree of stability has already been achieved. naturally, this has caused some turmoil, as does any political decision of such importance. but the fact that subsequent events did not go as predicted by the minister for the interior on television signifies, to me, that such changes in important political positions in russia today can and do proceed as routinely as they do in the world's other democracies. there is one other aspect i should like to mention: on the many visits we have made to russia in recent years to observe elections, i have formed the impression that people conduct those elections - go to the ballot boxes, cast their votes - in a very serious spirit, wanting genuinely to construct a democracy in russia. this in no way changes the fact that we must naturally be alert to many developments and also draw attention to errors, as a reliable partner and friend does. we did this, for example, to very, very good effect in connection with the evaluation of the conflict in chechnya. we have done the same thing with a number of human rights violations. and we are going to have to continue doing so in future! mr president, in the few minutes available to me i will try to address the questions raised. the florence european council welcomed the steady improvement in relations between the european union and russia, an improvement marked notably by the entry into force of the interim agreement in february 1996 and the adoption of the action plan by the council on 13 may 1996. this action plan, which covers support for the democratic process, economic cooperation, security and foreign relations aspects and justice and home affairs, will be implemented promptly and efficiently in full cooperation with the russian authorities. the partnership and cooperation agreement provides the essential framework for the development of the union's relations with russia. pending its entry into force, the trade provisions of the pca are being implemented by means of an interim agreement. the council regards the action plan as an important element in the intensification of relations between the eu and russia. the plan covers a wide range of spheres of action identified by the council on 20 november 1995 and concentrates on a number of priorities. the main features of the action plan were presented to the russian side by the troika and the italian presidency in both rome and brussels before the council adopted the plan. the action plan will clearly require close and ongoing coordination between the actions of the european community, whose principal support instrument remains the tacis programme, the actions of the member states and, where appropriate, the other main donors in order to ensure maximum efficiency in terms of synergy and complementarity. it is for the union to ensure that implementation of the plan is the product of joint effort with russia and of close cooperation between the union and its member states. in the first pillar areas, progress has been made in the area of contractual relations towards the ratification of the pca with russia. the interim agreement, which provides for the entry into force of the trade provisions of the pca, is being implemented, while negotiations have taken place on the new agenda, as provided for in the pca. in the area of regional cooperation, the commission has, of course, brought forward its initiative with regard to baltic cooperation, and cross-border cooperation is also being supported under tacis. the actions set out under nuclear energy, nuclear safety and the environment and efforts to modernize the production system are, of course, of very great importance, given the damage done to the environment in russia in the past. these actions are also being implemented or examined under tacis. in the area of cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, action to combat organized crime is to be addressed at a seminar in finland in early december, which will be attended by experts from russia and the member states. this will deal specifically with the impact of organized crime and drugs on russia and the union. cooperative measures to combat such activities will also be addressed. the above is not an exhaustive list of ongoing measures. further actions will, of course, be addressed in the future. a number of the specific actions contemplated under the action plan are covered by procedures which already exist, such as the tacis programme. the commission, of course, is best placed to explain how tacis can help with the implementation of the action plan. in the context of the development of the union's overall relations with russia, the council greatly appreciates the valuable contribution of the european parliament. the present debate provides a useful opportunity for an exchange of views on these important issues and we look forward to similar opportunities in the future. to address the further areas to which the honourable members refer, i would point out that where research is concerned, russia may, under certain conditions, already participate in several projects under the fourth framework programme. within the framework of available budgetary resources, cooperation programmes in the research and development sphere should undoubtedly be encouraged in the parties' reciprocal interest, subject to effective and adequate protection being given to intellectual, industrial and commercial property rights. cooperation in the sphere of justice and home affairs i have referred to already but in relation to asylum and readmission matters this is one of the plan's five major priorities. follow-up of the problem of refugees and displaced persons in the cis is also high on the list of areas for action. on the combating of organized trafficking and crime, the plan provides that such cooperation could take the form of regular exchanges of information, having due regard to national and international legislation on data protection, the setting-up of a network of contact points and participation in seminars. as far as the eib's participation is concerned, it should be remembered that the european investment bank's role is to finance the development of the member states of the european union. it intervenes externally only on the basis of specific unanimous decisions of the board of governors. in the case of russia, it should be stressed that the ebrd, the world bank and tacis already finance operations and the contributions of the member states supplement that funding. as a result the financial commitment of the member states and the international organizations towards the russian federation is already quite substantial. on the question of cooperation on nuclear energy, the council would point out that it has authorized the commission to conclude on the basis of the euratom treaty two cooperation agreements in the fields of controlled nuclear fusion and nuclear safety, the purpose of the latter being to help improve nuclear safety and, in particular, to find and implement scientifically and internationally agreed nuclear safety guidelines. in this context the member has mentioned the case of alexander nikitin. the council is aware of the case and of the concerns of parliament. the case is currently subject to russian legal procedures and the council is following it closely and notes that parliament is also pursuing this issue. in addition to the tacis programme for the approximation of laws in the context of the energy charter, action under tacis will continue to aim to increase both the diversity and security of supply of hydrocarbons in europe. on 5 july 1996, following the elections in russia, the presidency made a declaration on behalf of the european union voicing inter alia the union's determination to press on with the establishment of close relations within a substantive and constructive partnership with the russian federation on the basis of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. the union is monitoring closely the situation in chechnya. it has welcomed as a positive development the recent accords between the russian authorities and the separatists which were concluded with the help of the osce assistant group in chechnya. both in public declarations and in contacts with the russian authorities, the eu has consistently stressed the importance and usefulness of the assistance group both in helping to bring about a ceasefire and in the search for a wider negotiated political solution of the problem. in conclusion, the council can only stress the great importance it attaches to the entry into force of the partnership and cooperation agreement at the earliest possible opportunity. this agreement is to form the basis of relations between the union and russia and will consolidate legally and internationally the possibility of cooperation in all areas of mutual interest. pending that entry into force the action plan constitutes clear evidence of the union's resolve to strengthen its relations with russia and to concentrate on specific practical issues and objectives. madam president, i will try to be brief as minister mitchell has already provided extensive information on the approach to russia. in regard to what mrs lalumire has just said, i should like to further stress that the action plan as such was not intended to further supplement the wide-ranging intended cooperation with russia on the basis, in particular, of the partnership agreement and the interim agreement which has since entered into force, but rather to give concrete content to and provide a concrete action plan for the implementation of the framework agreement. a memorandum has also been drawn up on this subject. we will be pleased to submit this to parliament as this also includes, for example, everything which has been achieved in the various areas with the existing tacis instrument and the existing tacis budget. a great deal has also been said today about how we can possibly support the strengthening of democracy in russia. many projects have been launched in this area. one very interesting project, for example, is our cooperation with the council of europe, a joint programme in cooperation with russia, designed to help russia fulfill the necessary conditions for membership of the council of europe. this is therefore closely concerned with adapting the constitutional and other legislation. there are other projects which i happen to know about and which relate to stimulating certain town twinnings, indicating that attempts are also being made at a lower administrative level to strengthen democratic institutions. the same applies in the area of education. i should also like to mention a number of other very important policy areas, such as the environment, and i acknowledge mrs schroedter at this point, and nuclear safety in which cooperation with russia is of course very important. of the total budget available to us for nuclear safety projects, which means the safety of nuclear reactors, one half of that which is available under tacis is spent in russia. it is in russia that we find the most nuclear reactors and the greatest risk. i am leaving aside the whole chernobyl business in the ukraine, because that is in fact a g7 project and not exclusively a tacis project. in short, i should like to conclude my intervention at this stage by saying that i will also be pleased at a later date and in a commission context, where necessary and perhaps also more regularly, to further discuss with parliament the follow-up to our cooperation with russia as it is of course something which can only be totally achieved on a progressive basis. quite complicated projects are also often involved. we are dealing with government bodies which are far from being totally transparent and are also still in the process of reform. i thus readily admit that when it comes to giving practical substance to our cooperation it is still very often a question of trial and error from which we also have lessons to learn. i am in any event grateful for the interest shown by parliament in providing new impetuses for cooperation with a country which finds itself in an exceptionally difficult situation. difficult in a political sense, as the leadership has serious health problems as we all know and the changes at the top are creating a certain political uncertainty. the economic situation nevertheless offers some glimmers of hope. inflation, for example, has fallen considerably over the past year. on the other hand, there are enormous economic problems with unpaid wages and an economy which clearly needs new impulses from abroad which are not coming because the investment climate in russia is such that it is not a particularly attractive prospect at present. in short, everything is linked. i should in any event like to assure parliament, also further to what minister mitchell has said, that cooperation with russia is contributing to the country's stability and is naturally a matter of top priority for the council and the commission. madam president, russia has already made a degree of successful progress along the road to democracy in recent years, though much still remains to be done. the eu action plan to assist this progress is very ambitious, supporting not only russia's democratic and economic reforms but also regional cooperation in matters of nuclear security, environmental problems, humanitarian aid and measures aimed at a future european security system. madam president, this is a massive workload that the european union is taking on, as expressed in this action plan. unfortunately, this falls far short of proving that the eu has sufficient resources to take on a leading role in russia. apart from providing support through the tacis programme, the european union must also evolve other programmes for russia and take appropriate action if the problems existing there are to be solved. closer institutional links must also be created. i should mention here in passing that the partnership and cooperation agreement has still not been ratified by every member state. in brief, the european union is only one small player in the massive russian social scene, with limited influence. the financial framework even of the tacis programme is limited by comparison with what other international organizations are doing, and certain member states of the european union, such as the federal republic of germany, have greater political influence in russia than does the european union as a governmental institution. in order to be taken seriously in russia, the european union needs to raise its profile and strengthen its support for economic and democratic reform; the action plan can only be a first step. recent weeks have shown that political stability in russia is still not fully established. the very outcome of the presidential elections, in which general lebed came third in the first round of voting, with the support of 11 million russian electors, thus making yeltsin's victory possible, is an indication of a very difficult period of development, during which nationalism, in russia as elsewhere, is gaining more ground than previously. the deposing of general lebed, the dissatisfaction with the ministers for the interior and for defence, the problems in the russian army and, last but not least, the absence of the sick president from the presidential position that holds so much power in russia indicate that the political situation in russia is an enormously difficult one. the european union cannot afford an unstable russia. we have a historic opportunity genuinely to promote democracy in russia, and also to contribute to a peaceful solution to the conflict in chechnya. an inward-looking russia, involving its own authoritarian variation on democracy which has more to do with the romanovs than with a modern social constitution, is not an option for the eu. madam president, by adopting the action plan for russia, the european council has clearly declared its wish to support the reforms now in hand. but the plan is inadequate. what it covers, the ideas that will govern its implementation and the resources that will be given to it must be defined. russia is at present in a paradoxical situation. many disasters had been predicted for it - civil war, public disorder, famine - but happily none of these has occurred. there was the terrible war in chechnya but today the weapons are silent and negotiations are taking place. the democratic reforms have had undeniable effects. repeated elections - parliamentary, presidential, local, regional - bear witness to the stabilization of institutions and above all to a growing democratic awareness in russian society. but democracy cannot survive in chaotic social conditions. it cannot exist without a state which embodies all social interests. this is where the main weaknesses of russia lie, weaknesses which are slowing down its modernization and which could eventually call into question the progress already achieved. i will list four of them. first is nuclear insecurity: russian nuclear power stations are dangerous: chernobyl is the prime example. there is also traffic in fissile materials. with the nuclear problem we must associate that of the environment, ravaged by three quarters of a century of a development policy which despised nature to the point of destruction. the result of this is a general deterioration in the health of russians, accentuated by the accompanying collapse of the whole health system. this is illustrated by a tragic piece of demographic information: the reduction in human life expectancy over the last fifteen years and the parallel increase in infant mortality. the third problem is the security of individuals and property, and state security too, which is threatened by an explosion in crime, admittedly including some petty crime but mostly consisting of economic crime increasingly linked with international criminal networks. the fourth problem, which stems from the process of economic transformation, is the growing inequality in society. a considerable proportion of the population is poor, a situation felt all the more acutely by them, faced as they are by the growing wealth of the rest of society. in order to alleviate the social suffering, to ensure that the most deprived are protected, and to provide security for everybody, russia must be a strong state responding to the public interest. but the russian state is weak. it is weak in the face of selfish and strong local powers. it is weak in the face of crime. it is weak in the face of a helpless and divided society. for the russian state to be able to exist at all, for it to be able to play its proper role, it must, above all, have a financial basis and clear law. what is most urgently required of the european union is help for russia in setting up the tax system it currently lacks, together with the means to make that system work and a legal system to make it really effective. this is no mean task. it will be accomplished only if a well-defined, comprehensive and coherent project, accompanied by the necessary resources and mobilizing all the european institutions - financial institutions, various programmes like tacis - is implemented in a common effort to resolve all the problems i have listed. failing such a project, such a conception and such a concentration of resources, the plan of action will remain strictly theoretical. europe's future is well worth such an effort. madam president, all of you - christian democrats, gaullists, centrists and liberals - wish to help russia to establish the rule of law and respect human rights. this aim is praiseworthy. but do you really think you are credible, while the mafia and your own parties interpenetrate each other in italy, france and elsewhere, while in belgium and france pornographic, sado-masochistic and paedophile literature is on every newsstand, and the freedom to publish such literature is viewed with so much indulgence here? do you think you are credible when in france the so-called minister of justice will shake hands with the paedophile murderer patrick henri, when the same mr toubon wishes to stifle the freedom of the press by forbidding it to talk about corruption and immigration and when he wishes to impose a law even more totalitarian than that of the communist gayssot, a law destroying liberty for use by thought police and police with ulterior motives: what the great journalist annie kriegel not long ago called the intolerable thought police? you - the marxists and socialist-communists of all shapes and sizes - are now shamelessly demanding more democracy in russia, worried as you are, you say, by the authoritarian tensions in the country. i must be dreaming! you did not demand such a thing in times gone by! but why not, first of all, at least check that gulags no longer exist, closely tied up as they would be with the rest of the communist nomenklatura? and why not demand that a census be taken of these camps, that the tens of thousands of victims be accounted for, that the torturers, many of them still alive, stand trial? fifty years after nuremberg, national socialism never ceases to be judged over and over again. today, on the fortieth anniversary of the budapest uprising, is it not time to begin the still-necessary grand trial of international socialism, of its 80-year-long crimes against humanity, against peoples and against nations? this is what the russian people are waiting for: they must shed themselves of the worst of pasts before they can discover the path to the future. madam president, while there has been some progress along the road to democracy in russia, much remains to be done. the eu action plan is highly ambitious, as has already been said, setting out not only to support russian democratic and economic reforms through tacis, but also addressing contractual relations, regional cooperation, nuclear energy and nuclear safety, the environment, economic reconstruction, humanitarian aid and the future european security structure. these are massive tasks which the eu seeks to tackle in its proposed action plan. unfortunately there is not yet a scintilla of evidence that the eu is currently equipped to take on such a role. certainly the eu will have to target support from the tacis programme better and consider opening other eu programmes up to russia if it is to have an impact on the problems facing that country. there will also have to be closer institutional links in place of the ad hoc arrangements which exist today. frankly, the eu is currently a bit player in russian society, with only limited influence. the support provided by the tacis programme pales beside the financial support provided by international institutions like the imf which supplied russia with a 10.9bn standby loan. even individual member states, such as germany, have greater influence in russia than the eu as an institution. so, to be taken seriously the eu needs to raise its profile and support for economic and democratic reform in russia. democracy and economic reform need the support of the eu and this house now more than ever before. there is a growing tide of nationalism in russia, as we have heard, and growing disenchantment with the perceived failure of western-inspired reform and values. the success of alexander lebed, which has already been referred to, in the presidential elections last summer where he came third, with 11 million votes, was an indication of this political trend. the fact that a man who admires general pinochet, called mormons scum and filth, promised to shoot criminals and describes himself as a semi-democrat is regarded as a moderate nationalist in the russian political firmament, shows the worrying drift of politics in russia. it is easy to scaremonger about the situation in russia, but the fact remains that over one-third of the population live below the breadline, while the social infrastructure in the country has disintegrated. the eu and the west need to support the social as well as the economic recovery of the country. the eu has a historic chance to encourage real democracy in russia and to support the peaceful settlement of the conflict in chechnya. the alternative is an inward-looking russia, developing its own authoritarian style of democracy which has more in common with the romanovs and tsarist russia than a modern constitution. i have received six motions for resolutions pursuant to rule 40(5) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow morning. employment and labour market policy committee the next item is the report (a4-0316/96) by mr theonas, on behalf of the committee on social affairs and employment, on a proposal for a council decision setting up an employment and labour market policy committee (com(96)0134 - c4-0396/96-96/0097(cns)). madam president, with its proposal to set up an employment and labour market policy committee, the european commission is doing something about the lack of a permanent structure in the sector of employment, a move comparable to the creation of the committee on economic policy, which was founded in 1974 and aims to promote the coordination of the economic policies of member states in both the short and the long term. since march 1995 the attempt has been made to fill that gap by an ad hoc group of personal representatives of the ministers for labour, convened by a decision of the council for social affairs. however, that group encountered many difficulties in carrying out the duties assigned to it, mainly because of the inadequacy of the means at its disposal, in other words the lack of a formal and permanent structure assisted by its own adequately staffed secretariat, which, within its terms of reference, was charged with the analysis, monitoring and preparation of related reports and comparative studies. the need to set up a committee with a stable and permanent structure was asserted in the joint report by the council and the commission submitted to the madrid summit, while the european parliament too, with the resolutions it approved in november 1995 and june 1996, called for better coordination between macroeconomic policy and structural measures in the labour market sector, and for the upgrading of the ad hoc group on employment, to enable it to cooperate better with the committee on economic policy in preparing the joint report on employment policy submitted to the european council. madam president, your rapporteur does not believe that the constitution of this committee can on its own solve the most explosive problem of our times, namely unemployment, nor that it can promote employment in europe decisively. that is the task of the more general policies of the european union and the member states, though these do not seem to be contributing much towards it. however, the constitution of the committee may contribute to the development and implementation of the common strategy for employment, and mainly, help with the formulation of common indices that would be useful for the closer monitoring of policy in the area of employment and of the implementation of the multiannual programmes. it can also make important contributions to the better information of working people, their representatives, the social agencies, and the european parliament and the european union's other institutions, by presenting useful statistics on employment, comparative tables of relevant data for each member state, information about new forms of employment, data concerning the deterioration of social conditions in the member states, and information about any negative or other consequences of the policy of promoting more flexible labour relations and reducing regulatory interventions in the labour market. those are precisely the functions which the three amendments tabled on behalf of the committee on social affairs and employment are intended to strengthen, which concern further clarification of the committee's role - amendment no 1 - enlargement of its competences - amendment no 2 - and the obligation to forward the reports and recommendations it draws up to the european parliament - amendment no 3. finally, i would like to point out that the role entrusted to the new committee is different from that of the permanent committee on employment in which the council, the commission and representatives of employers' and workers' organization participate, and that its aim is to ensure dialogue between the three sides on issues of social policy for employment. in conclusion, the proposal for a decision submitted by the commission is largely inspired by the orders relating to the constitution and operation of the committee on economic policy and rests on the same legal base, namely article 145 of the treaty. besides, to the extent that the committee in question will fully replace the ad hoc group of ministers for labour, its effect on the european union's budget will be marginal. madam president, may i begin by thanking the speaker for an excellent report and for the good cooperation when the committee on social affairs and employment formulated this report which has just been presented. the reduction of unemployment and the creation of new jobs is one of the most important tasks in the european union. previously, it has been possible for individual countries to reduce unemployment through their own labour market and economic policies. this is no longer sufficient as we have seen. it is not sufficient in a world where capital now flows freely across borders. obviously there will continue to be action at a national level to reduce unemployment. but there is also a new requirement now for action at community level. the council has been aware of this and has mentioned it at many council meetings in essen, cannes, madrid and florence. but, really very little has been done to live up to those proud words which have been presented at the council meetings. in addition to actions at national level and at community level, macroeconomic initiatives and labour market policies are required; they must complement each other. an economic policy is required which prioritises not only the fight against inflation and budget deficits but also the fight against unemployment. a labour market policy is required which prioritises active labour market policy actions over and above the passive payment of labour market subsidies. labour market ministers and finance ministers need to work together on employment policies. they also need the same resources to be able to follow up on the long term programmes which the member states have taken upon themselves to implement to create employment. there is currently a committee on economic policy which gives support to council finance ministers in the form of analysis, proposals and evaluation. labour market ministers require the same support. this was realised at the informal council meeting in crdoba, when a request was made to the commission to prepare an appropriate proposal. the proposal which the commission has prepared is good. in parliamentary discussions on the budgetary deficit doubts have been expressed about the establishment of a committee on employment and labour market policies. let me lay them to rest. this committee will be financed by the labour market ministers in the same way as the existing committee is financed by the finance ministers. establishment of the committee will not involve any extra cost and it will simply establish a balance between finance ministers and labour market ministers in terms of employment policy actions. the committee will follow up national programmes. such evaluation requires common indices. we have pointed this out in parliament before and we point it out again today in our proposal. unfortunately, the commissions proposal does not include such common indices. the establishment of a committee on employment and labour market policy will naturally not solve unemployment problems in europe. but it is a start when it comes to creating a stable structure within the community to be able to get to grips seriously with the problem. discussions are now underway at the intergovernmental conference to insert a chapter on employment in the report which would give the union greater competence in the area of employment. the fight against unemployment will be given the same place and status in the report as the fight against inflation and budget deficit. for this, an employment committee which has the same status as the monetary committee is required. for parliaments part, we support such a proposal. it will mean that we have an opportunity to make a real effort against unemployment at union level and that coordination between member states will increase. todays proposal to establish a committee on employment and labour market policy is one step on the road to the creation of a better structure within the union to be able to conduct a more active labour market policy. the committee will have contact with parties involved in the labour market through cooperation with the standing committee on employment and will naturally have contact with the committee on labour market policy. this will be an excellent support mechanism for the labour market ministers in their work. madam president, the number one problem of economic and social policy facing the member states of the european union and the community is unemployment. unemployment is a challenge, too, to the union as such. the trans-european networks must be created, though this is difficult to achieve at present. that leaves the employment policy options which were also recommended at the essen council in 1994: joint focal points with employment policy activities and appropriate multiannual programmes by the eu states. the informal ad hoc working party on 'follow-up to the european council in essen' , which was established around the beginning of 1995, was supposed to nurture an exchange of information and experience between the member states and to review the application of the programmes in question. the present document finds that an informal group is actually insufficient to deal with the matter efficiently. the proposed employment and labour market policy committee would form a more stable framework. since 1974 there has been a standing committee on economic policy, working towards the ecofin council. a comparable committee for the council of labour and social ministers is needed, because although unemployment is an economic problem it is also a major social one. in mr theonas' valuable report, the view is expressed that the commission should be involved to an appropriate extent in the committee's work and that parliament should be consulted. a standing committee on employment and labour market policy can make an important contribution to the coordinated implementation, nationally and between the social partners, of the priorities adopted in essen. those priorities are action to assist problem groups in the labour market, young people and women, reducing ancillary wage costs, a modern wages policy and investments in the vocational training sector. what we want is not just economic upturn but its conversion into a sustainable process of growth which creates new jobs. for this reason, the ppe group will be voting in favour of the theonas report. madam president, we are now setting up yet another committee. in this case it is a matter of advising on employment and labour market policy. i remained rather quiet in the committee on this subject, although i did support the rapporteur in the final vote. i kept quiet because i have a number of questions which i would like the commissioner to answer. exactly what approach is this committee to adopt? will its meetings be public, as the committee on budgets has requested? will the committee members be asked to declare their financial interests? how will the committee approach the whole subject of an active labour market policy? what will be the committee's approach in relation to the existing standing committee on employment? these are all questions which i believe require a clear answer, not because i am considering proposing that my group should vote against setting up such a committee, but because i believe that if we set up this committee then it must operate exceptionally well. because the reason we are setting it up is in order to improve the operation of the labour market. i believe this to be the umpteenth debate on employment in europe this week. we discussed employment in the debate on the statement by the commission president. we discussed employment in the budget debate. this morning we discussed employment during the poverty debate. i notice that some of my colleagues again speak of employment when debating this committee. the fact is that we always display a form of impotence when it comes to this question. my question to the commissioner is therefore: does he expect the committee to be able to achieve what the council has to date been unable to achieve? will a truly active labour market policy be pursued if we set up such a committee? for example, will the employment promotion agencies, which is one of commission president santer's proposals, work together if such a committee is set up including at least four members from each member state? in short, i have a great many questions, not because i am opposed to the committee but because i believe it to be essential for such a committee to provide truly excellent support. i would therefore also like to ask the commissioner how he believes the committee's opinions should be dealt with and how parliament is to be involved in implementing the committee's opinions. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, this week is actually the third or fourth occasion to date on which we have discussed employment. but the question which arises is how this community can also equip itself with the necessary instruments really to be able to coordinate the policies of the member states and the added value of a european employment policy. other speakers have already pointed out how many questions are still unanswered here. i, too, once again urge the commission to give us clear answers. the essential thing for me - and the reason why we shall be supporting this report - is that it offers a starting point for creating the kind of machinery needed to improve this coordination - including improvements on the part of the social affairs council - and that is certainly a good thing. but this must not be allowed to happen simply on the old principle of 'if you can't solve a problem, set up a committee to bury it' . i believe we should make quite sure that the commission bears that in mind. strengthening the social affairs council relative to the almost omnipotent ecofin council can only be a first step towards getting an effective, independent employment policy up and running in this union, a policy free from the illusion that employment is something that happens automatically once growth, monetary union, competitiveness and the profitability of capital are in place. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal put to us is for the setting up of a new committee called the employment and labour market policy committee. i see that the cancer of european bureaucracy is spreading. the creation of this committee is yet another symptom of the disillusion and the mistaken centralizing and bureaucratic ideas which are infecting the european political class. this committee will not be able to conceal the tragic failure of the maastricht economic and social policy for europe and will content itself with observing and commenting on the disastrous consequences for jobs of the choice of a socially criminal free-trade policy. while committees and watchdogs multiply, unemployment, insecurity, poverty and the relocation of enterprises are increasing at a frantic rate. no gimmick will be able to contain the legitimate anger of the european peoples who are suffering. so we must not set up new committees: we must change the policy, guarantee preference for our peoples when vacancies are being filled and protect our community market. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, you will remember that the european parliament was not wildly enthusiastic about the modest essen results but we made up for this when it came to the follow-up procedure. such a follow-up procedure may not create jobs but we were convinced that this was the first modest step towards a european common employment policy. our experiences with the single market and the emu convergence strategy have taught us that the combination of political will, a good timetable and a good follow-up procedure can serve to point everybody in the same direction and this is what we also wanted to do in the case of the employment strategy. i am convinced that this was also the commission's motivation. in this cooperation procedure, however, the social affairs council and ecofin are still not fighting with the same weapons. ecofin has repeatedly shown that it is not really concerned about employment. it is therefore high time we had a committee for the social affairs council which can put its contribution to employment strategy on a more equal footing. but i doubt whether this proposal will in fact put the social affairs council on an equal footing, and for two reasons. first of all, employment policy is based on two inseparable pillars: a macroeconomic pillar and structural employment policy. commissioner, this two-pillar approach is not being consistently applied to the new committee. whereas the economic policy committee can have a clear impact on employment policy and on economic policy, there are no plans for the employment and labour market policy committee to be able to make a necessary contribution to economic guidelines, for example. how on earth are we going to be able to ensure that, in the guidelines, economic policy concentrates primarily on employment if this committee is not allowed to have its say? the european commission disappoints me by not making this provision in article 103(2), for example, as both the swedish and belgian proposal submitted to the igc did lay these necessary bridges. secondly, i should also like to stress a point which has already been made by mr andersson: a follow-up procedure stands or falls on certain tests. if the council and commission really take the priority actions for employment seriously, then we must have indicators in order to measure the efforts of member states, in the area of training for example. if training is important, commissioner, why then can no guarantee be given that every year a certain percentage of the labour force can follow training. then comes the ultimate test: the halving of unemployment by the year 2000 as a concrete test of employment policy. i am convinced that if this committee has no indicators at its disposal it will remain at most a paper tiger and at most capable of producing reams of paper. i therefore hope that the commission will also vote for our amendment. finally, madam president, i should like to say that this committee marks just a small new step towards a cohesive european employment strategy. i dare to hope, ladies and gentlemen, that the missing pieces to the puzzle will be provided during the igc and that the committee will come to play an increased role in the union's employment policy, in accordance with the treaty. madam president, the proposal which we now have before us is an important proposal as it follows on from what was decided at the essen summit on a european employment strategy. employment is one of the european union's top priorities. it is good to set up a committee on employment which will be responsible for monitoring the employment policy of the member states. the committee can also encourage better coordination of employment policy between the member states. it is also important to involve the social partners when promoting employment in europe. it is furthermore important for this employment and labour market policy committee to be funded out of the council budget. if not, we will have problems of comitology as the committee does not satisfy the requirements of comitology. the committee is a body supported by the social affairs council charged with the implementation and development of european employment strategy. this committee is an answer to the request by the committee on social affairs and employment in the igc report on social policy for which i was rapporteur. it is a counter-balance to the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy. it thus provides a better balance between the european union's economic and social policy. it is primarily a question of removing the differences between the internal market and social policy and creating a single economic and social union. it is a pity that this employment and labour market policy committee is being confused with the standing committee on employment. we have many examples of this. in this respect it would have been much better to have looked for another name for the latter committee, which has to be adapted in any event and where we must ensure that there is no duplication of tasks. i therefore very much regret, commissioner, that the commission has made no proposal for that committee. i fear that you are failing to get to grips with this committee. we know that representativeness is the sticking problem. a decision must be taken on this and as quickly as possible, as if not we will all be much criticized for bureaucracy. we will now have to do this later. parliament does not interfere directly with this new committee and we want to keep it that way. the council does not interfere with parliament's budget and parliament does not interfere with the council's budget. this house does indeed want to be kept informed of the committee's reports and recommendations. but as far as the rest is concerned we still have much to learn as the overall strategy is not yet clear to me. madam president, the current level of unemployment that we have in eu member states at 20 million people is perhaps our greatest challenge. one reason why it is so high - there are several - is the emu. it goes without saying that if one scales down, makes economic savings and cuts back in 15 member states simultaneously, without introducing stimulation for the economy, that unemployment will be high. the emu project is one reason why it is so high and it must be met with resistance. the best would have been to say no to the emu. next best would have been to introduce criteria into the emu which also covered goals for employment, the environment and regional responsibility. none of this has happened. the creation of a committee on employment to find joint strategies and solutions is at least a move in the right direction. but i would like to say that this is no solution. those who believe that the committee will solve the problem of unemployment in the eu are wrong. each country must take its own responsibility for unemployment; responsibility shall remain with the member states. the committee must not take over and create a supranational employment policy or conjuncture policy. this would never work and, in my opinion, this is not the intention of the proposal from the commission. so: summarise, produce reports, come forward with ideas and recommendations, but no supranational policies at eu level please. at least this will be a good step towards the solution of our greatest problem. madam president, the hopes expressed in the white paper on growth, competitiveness and employment of creating 15 million jobs by the end of the millennium and the hard facts of today are worlds apart. there will soon be 20 million men and women out of work in the european union, and they deserve better than declarations of intent and expressions of concern. so it was an important signal for europe when the council meeting in essen decided to evolve a comprehensive strategy of cooperation between the member states to deal with employment. the concentration on those particularly affected by unemployment, increased investment in vocational training and the increase in the intensity of employment give reason to hope that the campaign against unemployment may be waged aggressively, with something more concrete than paper and words. no one disputes the need to set up the committee on employment and labour market policy. however, in order to be able to work successfully and effectively, it does need a stable organizational structure. the expected reports on progress made and on omissions will pave the way for public debate, including debate in the european parliament. so we need informative data, analyses and conclusions, and we need them quickly, commissioner. the results will lead to a qualified exchange of experience with the council, the commission and the social partners on employee protection and social standards, on the conditions for greater mobility and flexible working hours, and, i have no doubt, on opportunities for young people, of whom so many are with us at this very moment in the gallery. we expect information on the feasibility and efficacy of many policies and schemes which, though they may still be separate today, may in future be pursued jointly. madam president, parliament, the council and the commission are at one in supporting the fundamental objective of combating unemployment in the eu. however, while parliament and the commission are able to reach agreement on specific action, the council is withholding its consent in important areas. the decision situation is determined by the attitudes of the economics and finance ministers, notably including those of the federal republic. they can benefit from the preparatory work of a special committee, unlike the council of social affairs ministers, which has difficulty in forming a suitable counterweight to promote an active employment policy in the eu. the stop-gap arrangement of an ad hoc group which does work for the social affairs council but is inadequately resourced cannot meet the actual requirements. the commission proposal to the effect that a regular committee on employment and labour market policy should be set up, working both for the social affairs council and for the general council, conforms to parliament's intentions. the commission should have no problem accepting the amendments suggested by the committee on social affairs and employment. no one will expect the labour market situation to improve simply because a committee is set up. what can be expected, though, are useful contributions and specific suggestions to help solve the employment problem. i should like to take this opportunity to call upon the commission, and especially on the commissioner who is with us here today, to lose no time in presenting the long-awaited proposals to increase the efficiency of the standing committee on employment, which has existed since 1970 and includes representatives of both employers and employees. madam president, let me first of all thank mr theonas and indeed members of the house for the very efficient and speedy way in which they have dealt with the commission proposal to set up this employment and labour market policy committee. the importance of the proposal has been recognized by the members of the house here this evening and that is very reassuring for me and for the commission. we attach very great importance, of course, to the rapid development of this stable structure to assist the development of the european employment strategy. the european council requested the setting up of the structure in madrid last december. the commission adopted the proposal in march this year and the irish presidency has been very active in seeking progress at council level. they really want to see this matter adopted by way of decision at the social affairs council on 2 december. i believe it is useful for just a moment or two to go back on the reasons why the council gave us the mandate to set up the structure in the first place. the background is simply this: firstly and fundamentally this initiative has to be seen in the context of developing a more balanced european employment strategy where the structural, and especially labour market, policies are considered just as important as macroeconomic policies. this is a major plank of the approach initiated by the essen european council and strengthened by the following european councils. in operational terms this balanced policy mix must be reflected in a fairer balance between the social affairs council on the one hand and ecofin on the other in the definition of a european employment strategy. that is the basis behind the proposal. secondly, the social affairs council must benefit from a strong analysis and proposal capacity in order to fulfil the mandate it was given in essen jointly with ecofin and the commission to keep a close track of employment trends in the union, monitor the relevant policies of the member states and to report annually to the european council on further progress on the employment market. in particular it must be in a position to make a substantial contribution to the production of the annual joint report on employment for the council. the need for that good analysis was referred to by mr mann. that is something this committee will do as well. the commission proposal responds faithfully to all of those requests. the committee that we have proposed has the following characteristics and they are very important: stability, that is thanks to an elected chairman; a solid capacity for analysis and proposal, thanks in particular to the commission's close involvement; a status permitting a fruitful cooperation with the economic policy committee, the body which supports ecofin council; and provision for effective collaboration between the council and the commission. i would like to emphasize that we are not talking here about comitology. i know this is a very sensitive issue for the european parliament. comitology applies in the context of the delegation by the council to the commission of certain executive competences. it is therefore a question of implementing decisions taken by the council. here on the other hand the purpose of this employment and labour market policy committee is to propose policy debates and policy recommendations for the council and for the european council in the field of employment. so the committee itself will not take any enforceable decisions. it is important to understand that. the committee will be there to assist the european institutions in making progress in the definition and the implementation of a common employment strategy. compared with the present situation where the council deliberations are prepared by an informal council body, the ad hoc group, the committee represents progress in terms of transparency, and of interinstitutional balance. i believe the european parliament should welcome this because it is something the european parliament has been calling for some time now. however, i have to say that at this stage the trend emerging from the discussions at council level is towards a certain lowering of the status of the committee, compared with the original proposal. i will not hide from you that i am concerned about that tendency. i do not think that is the way it should be going. for that reason i attach great importance to the message which is given by parliament in its opinion on this proposal. i am very encouraged by the type of response i am getting because we want to see a strong committee, rather than a weakened one. i welcome the generally supportive approach here this evening for the draft resolution and i welcome several of the proposed amendments which better define and even strengthen the role of the committee. let me go through them quickly. amendment no 1: i find the suggestion to add in the recitals a reference to the committee's contribution to the definition and implementation of the european employment strategy very useful indeed and i will suggest to the council that they take it on board. amendment no 2: the introductory sentence. as in the case of the recitals, i am happy to support an amendment in article 1(2), establishing in general terms the contribution of the committee to the european employment strategy before the detailed description of tasks. in the first indent i have no difficulty with the idea behind the request to mention the use of the common indicators and i can inform you that a reference to these indicators in article 1 has already been agreed in the course of the council discussions. as regards what mrs van lancker said about the indicators, i support that view and i would like to tell you that progress is being made on the question of the indicators. it is not agreed yet. but a lot of the member states are coming over to that idea and i would hope that in the joint report to dublin we will be able to accommodate that much more successfully. in the third indent, i hope that the committee will contribute to a better coordination of the member states' employment policies as proposed under the amendment. as you know, the commission has proposed in the context of the igc to include provisions organizing such coordination in the treaty. however, in advance of the treaty revision i find it somewhat premature to introduce such a provision as part of the committee's mandate. i do not think that i can accept that at this time. later on, of course, we hope the igc would agree to this. in the fourth indent: it is really a question of style here, related to the proposed modification in the introductory sentence. i have no difficulty with it. the fifth indent: this particular amendment aims at mentioning the role of the committee in the preparation of two specific reports; the employment in europe report and the joint employment report from the commission and the council. the first, the employment report, is a commission report. the 1996 report has been adopted by the commission and i believe it will be discussed in parliament very soon. the report should in effect be considered as part of the analytical support which the commission will provide to this committee rather than as an output from the committee. as far as the joint report on employment is concerned, we believe that the mention made in the recitals should be sufficient for us here. although the submission of a joint report to the european council is at the moment an important element of the essen procedure, we cannot foresee whether or when this will be replaced by another instrument and we would not like to be too specific about having this in the mandate of the committee for this reason. in the sixth indent it is proposed that the committee should regularly consult the two sides of industry at community level. as you know - and this has been mentioned by several of the contributors - the standing committee on employment has been set up specifically to ensure a dialogue between public authorities and the social partners in the field of employment policy. with our recent communication on the future of the dialogue we have proposed options to make the standing committee more efficient and a reform will probably take place. i believe that the proposed amendment would create some confusion as to the respective roles of the standing committee and the employment committee and i am not proposing to accept it for that reason. this being said, i would like to stress that the decision contains a provision on coordination between the two committees and this is important to make sure that the contribution of the social partners is heard and taken into account. there was some reference to that. let there be no confusion so far as employment is concerned; we have enough committees. this committee is different, i want to have a good understanding between that and the standing committee on employment. finally, amendment no 3: it says that the reports and recommendations drawn up by the committee should be forwarded to parliament. i would like to make it clear that i fully understand parliament's concern that they be kept informed of the committee's activities. however, my impression is that this amendment, as formulated, will not be accepted by the council because strictly speaking it would be for the council itself and not for the committee to decide that a given report or a recommendation should be forwarded to parliament. i would therefore favour, as an alternative to this amendment, a general provision providing and establishing that parliament will be kept informed about the activities of the committee. i would like to say to mrs boogerd-quaak that there should be no confusion as to what this particular committee is about. it is not a legislative committee, nor is it an executive committee and consequently we must understand the relationship and the cooperation that will exist between it and the standing committee, always remembering that the standing committee is based at ministerial level. so i believe this is a very good proposal. i am pleased that the house is supporting it. we need to give the social affairs council, labour ministers and ministers of employment the same kind of clout as epc gives to the ecofin ministers of finance. that is the whole thrust and we would like as strong a committee as possible to achieve that aim. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow morning. question time (council) the next item is question time to the council (b4-0971/96). mr president, on a point of order. why was my question to the council not printed? it was submitted on 19 september, which should have made it sixth on our paper. it is a matter of great importance to one of my constituents, a lecturer at the language institute in naples, who has been treated quite disgracefully in a member state which is flagrantly disobeying and disregarding european employment law. i feel that this is something that should have been put on the agenda. we checked it had arrived. nobody told us it was inadmissible in any way and i would like to know why it was not included. i note what you have just said. question no 1 by hans lindqvist (h-0716/96) subject: incorporation of the schengen agreement in the eu the schengen agreement on the abolition of internal border checks and the strengthening of external borders is theoretically an international agreement between the states party to it. is it the council's intention that the schengen agreement should be incorporated into the machinery of the eu? what would be the implications of such a step for the campaign against drugs and for asylum, visa and refugee policy? does schengen entirely remove the need for passports, or will other identity papers be required? as pointed out by the honourable member in his question, the schengen agreement is an international agreement, concluded by certain member states within a context quite different from that covering the treaty on european union. the honourable member will understand therefore that the council, as an institution of the union, is not in a position to reply to the question as to whether the schengen agreement should be incorporated into the european union. the overall question is being examined by the intergovernmental conference, which is responsible for the revision of the treaties. with regard to the possible consequences arising from the communitization of the schengen agreement in the areas of drugs, asylum, visa and refugee policy, it is hardly possible at this point to initiate anything like a credible evaluation. i agree that it is a very important matter to which the council will have to devote particular attention as necessary. but, as i have indicated already, it would be premature to draw any inferences at present. finally, with regard to the policy on passports within the context of the schengen agreement, the council has no authority to provide a reply since it is a matter which is the exclusive responsibility for the authorities which are party to the schengen agreement. thank you for the answer, even if there was little of substance in it. i, myself, will attempt to describe the possible results of the incorporation of schengen into the eu. i am aware that currently there are igc discussions underway and that there are proposals on this issue. the speaker for the council is also aware of this. we have had a common passport union in scandinavia for many years. this means that it is not necessary to show ones passport when crossing between the scandinavian countries. we still maintain our border controls, however, and we still have the opportunity to check people at the border. the incorporation of schengen into eu would mean that border controls would be removed, as this is the main motive of the schengen treaty. there is also a risk, as i and many others see it, that we will have tougher asylum, refugee, immigration and visa policies through the introduction of common regulations, as presumably the least generous regulations will become the norm for everyone in the eu. this will mean tougher asylum policies for many member states. is this to be the result of the introduction of schengen to the eu? i also believe that one of the reasons for the possible incorporation of schengen into eu regulations is an attempt to create a more unified and homogeneous state. i would very much like an answer as to whether this is the aim. speaking personally, i share some of the concerns which the member raises. in fact, as a member of the reflection group, i raised the whole question of the use of passports within the union. fundamentally, i feel there is a serious conflict in the description of european citizen which is in the maastricht treaty if somehow we are strangers to each other and must show passports while we travel within the union. my own country has a particular problem with the schengen agreement, not with the principle of it, but because of a long traditional arrangement with our nearest neighbour and because of a border situation with northern ireland. i can say, however, that this whole area is being discussed at the intergovernmental conference. personally i feel that if we defended our external borders in the union as carefully as we sometimes watch the internal member state borders, we would do more service to the union. i hope the day will come when passports will not be used anywhere within the european union. it is something i advocate. i understand very well that the council cannot anticipate the results of the intergovernmental conference and make my comment about how schengen will be incorporated, but it should be possible to hear the councils objective in this area. is it the objective of the irish presidency that issues currently regulated via the schengen treaty will be regulated by eu law after the intergovernmental conference? if this is the case, will they be regulated in the third column or within primary justice in the first column? firstly, schengen is not a treaty-based agreement. secondly, the council will consider the report of the intergovernmental conference as a council of ministers and the various member states will put forward their views. there is no one view within the council so as the representative of the presidency, i cannot speak on behalf of the council. some member states within the council feel that schengen should have a treaty base, others that it should not and they do not want to sign up for it. personally i would have no difficulty with it being treaty-based and, in my view, the day the passport goes will be the day we have really reached a union. it is something i feel strongly about but i cannot say there is one view within the council on this matter. yes, it is possible to be frightened by schengen. i, myself, also come from sweden and have lived with the scandinavian passport union. we have had schengen in sweden between sweden, denmark, norway and finland. we have been able to maintain control over narcotics and we have been able to conduct different refugee policies and that is what we wanted. at the same time, people have been able to cross the borders without showing their passports. it is, therefore, possible to have a passport union within the eu. let people cross the borders freely but, at the same time, have strong controls against narcotics, weapons and such things. it is perfectly possible. i would remind the house that i also come from a schengen-type arrangement between britain and ireland which has been in existence since the foundation of the irish state. there is no passport control between ireland and britain and there never has been since the foundation of the state. however, there are complications in the whole schengen process. as an irish citizen i would find it extraordinary that norway and iceland, which are not members of the union, may have advantageous arrangements for travel in the union which are not available to citizens of my own state. this is an implication which also needs to be addressed. but i would hope that in the long-term all member states would have the good sense to sign up for schengen. i can tell you that objectively it is something which my state wishes to do. i repeat that as far as i am concerned we will not be a union until the day the passport goes. it is pointless talking about citizenship of the union when we are foreigners to each other and have to produce a document, in most countries signed by the foreign minister, in order to travel between our countries. i share the sentiments of members here but i would remind the house that any treaty-based amendment can only be introduced if there is unanimous agreement to those amendments. as they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together: question no 2 by anne mcintosh (h-0718/96) subject: action against child pornography in the light of the increasing reports of incidences of paedophilia in the european union, will the irish presidency of the council, as part of its campaign, take action at european level to prevent the trade in child pornography? would the council consider the introduction of uk-style legislative measures to eradicate this illegal trade, in particular by setting up a database of convicted paedophile offenders and the exchange of information between police forces? question no 3 by lyndon harrison (h-0825/96) subject: effects of the single market on children and young people the treaty on european union recognizes the potentially negative effect of the single market in many areas such as social, environment and health and safety policy. yet in no place in the treaty is it even accepted that the single market will have an effect on children and young people in the european union. does the council agree that children have been affected in specific ways by the single market, and that they may suffer more severely than adults from effects such as movement of families across borders and more freedom of movement for paedophiles? does the council therefore agree that this effect of the single market should be recognized in the treaty by a specific reference to children and young people? in relation to both of these questions which concern the protection of children, during the september plenary session of the european parliament, the house will recall that i addressed them on the issue of the abduction of children for the purpose of sexual exploitation. today i would like to underline that the council shares the concerns of the honourable members of the european parliament in relation to child sexual exploitation and is determined to ensure that no effort is spared in tackling the most appalling criminal behaviour which is involved in the sexual exploitation of children. the eu demonstrated this concern when, following the tragic events in belgium, it issued on 6 september a declaration welcoming the outcome of the world congress in stockholm and stating that it would work towards the implementation of the stockholm recommendations. parliamentarians will be aware that these recommendations included a call for commitment to make the commercial exploitation of children a criminal offence. they also called for the prosecution of offenders, whether local or foreign, and the development and implementation of laws to establish the criminal liability of all those involved in child prostitution, child trafficking and other unlawful sexual activity. on the specific issue which miss mcintosh raises in her question, that of child pornography, the criminalization of both the trade in and possession of such abominable material is included in the recommendation and i can assure the honourable member that the eu will do everything in its power to implement this. the union lost no time in beginning the work of translating the declaration it made into positive action. by the time ministers of justice and home affairs held their informal meeting in dublin on 26 and 27 september, they were in a position to focus the meeting largely on the issue of sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings. at this meeting ministers reinforced their commitment to maximize their cooperation in this area and reached political agreement on three important measures. the first of these was an irish presidency proposal tabled in the wake of the revelations of events in belgium to extend the mandate of the european drugs unit to cover trafficking in human beings. this instrument will cover the activities of paedophiles and those who supply children to them as well as trafficking in children for the purposes of sexual exploitation. if affected, it will confer immediately on the edu powers to combat this form of activity. this work will be continued by europol once the europol convention is ratified. this measure will facilitate cooperation and the exchange of information between police forces and allow the edu to provide any assistance that it can in relation to these activities. the second measure was a belgian proposal to establish a programme for the exchange and training of persons responsible for dealing with sexual exploitation of children and trafficking in human beings. finally, agreement was reached on a joint belgian/presidency proposal concerning the creation of a directory of competences and specializations in the fight against paedophile crimes of this nature. the implementation of these proposals will contribute significantly to international cooperation between operational police forces. ministers also discussed a range of other measures proposed by belgium to strengthen the instruments with a view to responding further in a concrete and practical way to the concerns of the people of europe. they accordingly instructed senior officials to examine urgently and report to them by november on the following: adoption of agreed definitions of this kind of behaviour so that penalties in all countries of the european union are standardized; adoption of measures to ensure prosecutions are effectively taken; adoption of measures to ensure the interests of victims of sexual exploitation are taken into account by the criminal justice system; the effectiveness of existing international instruments for cooperation in the criminal justice area, especially concerning children. ministers also underlined the importance of the earliest possible ratification of the europol convention in fighting this type of organized crime and agreed that they would do everything possible to achieve that result. the work which i have outlined represents concrete steps already taken by the council to deal with this problem. the council will not stop there but is intent on pursuing this issue vigorously until everything within its power has been done to ensure that we have within the member states of the eu an area where our children are safe and where there can be no refuge for paedophiles and those who shamefully profit from the sexual exploitation of children. the council is aware of the view expressed by mr harrison that the question of the rights of minors should be considered in the intergovernmental conference with a view to the introduction of treaty provisions in relation to them. this is a matter which is currently under consideration in the igc but honourable members will understand that i am not at liberty to go into details of the discussion at present. i should like to thank the president-in-office for a very full reply. there were one or two omissions, however. for example, if we are setting up a register at european level, what action do we propose to take with the names entered on that register? in the united kingdom, for example, we are going to disclose the names of those who have a record of criminal offences involving children to potential employers. is that the type of action we could coordinate at european level? of more concern to me is the fact that you did not mention how we are going to control adverts currently being put on the internet through the known paedophile ring, which is very difficult to trace. that is an area where we can usefully insist on action being taken at european level. i welcome what the president-in-office said but i think we need to take action further than has been suggested. first of all, with regard to a register at eu level and what we intend to do in using this - should we, for example, let employers know? this is an implementation matter which will require some detailed consideration. i am not in a position to say exactly how it will be used but i can assure the member that if the register is there the will is there to use it in every way possible to prevent paedophiles from continuing with their illicit and outrageous activities. in relation to the internet, in the first place member states will be examining the discussion paper which the commission recently published. i expect that it will also have the effect of stimulating a wide debate on the issue. this will be very valuable and the council will respond very constructively to future proposals on matters of this kind from the commission. i should point out that the industry council of 8 october considered this matter. the matter is being examined by the commission at the request of the industry council, following on from that meeting. this is not an easy situation to deal with because it requires certain voluntary assistance as things stand. i do not know whether technically, for example, it is possible to control the internet without having some control of those who input into the internet. but i can assure the member that it is actively under consideration both by the industry council and by the commission. the council of ministers will do everything in their power to assist in this regard. i am sorry to disabuse the president-in-office but i am afraid his reply to my question was inadequate. i had asked about the development of the single european market, in which three of the four freedoms are a danger, in my belief, to children. he has talked about the freedom of movement of workers, in this case, paedophiles and those who have the ability to range across borders and inflict damage on children. but i am also talking about the freedom of movement of services, like tv broadcasting, with implications for children in respect of advertising or programmes with adult content. i am also talking about the free movement of goods, whether we are talking about drugs, food products or toys or whatever. in other words, mr mitchell, we need to address ourselves to the question of the development of the single european market and whether it can have adverse effects on children, some of which are entirely unlooked for. i am very grateful for your statement in september recognizing that children and young people may well be understood to be legally citizens under the european union, but we want to have clarification on this important issue of the development of the single european market and on whether those bad effects on children can be mitigated by proper action at european level. i cannot say whether the advent of the single market has contributed to lack of control in these particular areas, but i can say that, with the benefit of hindsight, we need to look at how we can strengthen controls in this particular area. it seems to me, for example, that the problem exists, not just within the european union, but with citizens of the european union plying this terrible trade outside the union where a single market does not exist. it is not therefore entirely correct perhaps to attribute to the free movement of people the extent of the problem which exists. but i can assure the member that, in relation to the working of the single market and the free movement of people, the justice and home affairs ministers will consider the point raised. i would like to thank the president-in-office for the full answers that he has given to questions relating to child abuse and to paedophilia. i would like to ask him about the last part of his first answer to us when he told us that there was some thinking going on in respect of children and the igc. we as a parliament want to see rights of children included within the intergovernmental conference and as part of the european treaty. is this a matter which is being given serious and active consideration by the president-inoffice, and have proposals along those lines been prepared? as indicated in my reply, i cannot speak for the council on this matter. from an irish perspective i would offer the following comments. the possibility of strengthening the non-discrimination principle in the treaty is under consideration at the igc. the irish presidency has tabled a paper on this question which envisages the possibility of a general provision on non-discrimination as well as a suitable legal basis to adopt legislative measures to prevent such discrimination. discrimination on the grounds of age is one of the aspects covered in this regard in the irish presidency paper. the possibility of strengthening the justice and home affairs provisions of the treaty in order to assist in the fight against international crime is also being considered. in relation to the other treaty provisions, the suggestion has been put forward very strongly that we should incorporate in the treaty specific references to children and their rights as citizens. the initial advice which i have received is that citizenship, as described in the union treaties, applies to all persons who are citizens of a member state. however, given the fact that the matter has been raised here in the house and has been raised with various ministers in their member states by a number of organizations, i think this is a matter which is worth re-examining. i have asked that this be communicated to the chairman of the intergovernmental group and the matter is being examined. if there is to be a change, however, it would require full agreement of the other member states, but it is something which we are examining. thank you, mr president, for your replies. this is not the first time we have debated this matter. i should like to have more details on the following point: the belgian deputy prime minister has proposed that a european organization be set up, identical to the one already existing in washington, which searches for missing children, but whose exact name i have forgotten. do you agree with his proposal? is this part of the arrangement proposed by the irish presidency? this proposal has much merit and we will certainly look at it. there is not, as far as i am aware, a specific proposal under consideration in the council of ministers at present, but the belgian minister's proposal has much merit and i would like to see it examined. question no 4 by otto von habsburg (h-0720/96) subject: political situation of the principality of monaco, the principality of andorra and the republic of san marino has the council given any consideration to the future development of the legal and political situation of the principality of monaco, the principality of andorra and the republic of san marino which are surrounded by territories of the european union? would the council be prepared to make these states an offer which would enable them to be more involved in the objectives and work of the union without having to sacrifice their sovereignty or independence? the political and legal status of the three states in question does not undermine in any way the policies of the european union. andorra and san marino have concluded agreements with the community making them part of its customs area and of the regulation of issues of mutual interest. the day-to-day management of these agreements is regulated by decisions of the mixed committees established by the agreements. monaco is also indirectly part of the community customs area. its association with the objectives and work of the union is effected by means of the guarantee agreement of 1918 and the customs convention of 1963 between the principality and france. if it were to arise that future developments going beyond the framework of the abovementioned agreements were to risk undermining the functions of the single market or other union policies, the council considers that the commission and member states, acting on issues pertaining to titles v and vi of the treaty on european union, will take all necessary measures both at community and union levels. i should like to thank the president-in-office for the detailed information he has provided on economic and financial matters. however, i should also like to know whether there is a structured dialogue with these states, or whether such a structured dialogue might not serve a purpose, for example, in connection with questions of internal security, because there are wide aspects of internal security which concern these states in particular. structured dialogue only takes place with the associated states. but i can say that there is regular dialogue with these states and the european union. i personally met with the foreign affairs minister of san marino within the last ten days and we had a very worthwhile exchange. i am not aware of any pressure from any of the states mentioned in the question for improved dialogue with the union and i believe that the dialogues which exist are working reasonably satisfactorily. i was very interested to hear the president-in-office's reply. i would just like to broaden the issue a bit and ask about a similar situation which exists with the isle of man and the channel islands. here are some islands which are wholly within the territory of the united kingdom, reliant on europe for many services and facilities and have the british monarch as head of state - certainly her portrait is on many of their bank notes - but these places are apparently outside the european union. is this not just a loophole and a tax haven so that some wealthy people can stash away their riches and exploit the system to get richer still in a more favourable tax climate, or is there a real purpose for their separate existence as such? does not their existence and pseudoindependence undermine to some degree the status of the european union? i wonder whether the president-inoffice is aware of any dialogue existing with these islands to end this rather elitist anomaly? i am not in a position to hand down rulings that might be better sought from the court of justice. i do not have a legal definition of all arrangements with the union. as far as i am aware, arrangements with the isle of man and the similar jurisdictions mentioned by the honourable member were dealt with at the time of accession and are not presenting any difficulties. whereas some of these areas certainly are under the british crown, there is no doubt whatever that, for example, the isle of man is the most irish of locations. i am not aware that there is any existing difficulty. arrangements for the isle of man and similar territories within the united kingdom are well catered for and are not presenting any difficulties, and have been well catered for since accession in 1973. given the problem which glasgow celtic football club had with monaco over the transfer of john collins, would the president-in-office enlighten us as to whether freedom of movement of footballers and other community citizens is part of the agreement with monaco? if it is not, will he give us an assurance that there will be urgent discussions between the community and monaco to settle problems such as celtic football club has experienced? that is a separate question but i can assure the member that ireland has not experienced any difficulties in this regard. we have had freedom of movement for the irish soccer team as regards britain for a long number of years now. question no 5 by michl ebner (h-0749/96) subject: action programme for minority languages in early 1994, the commission submitted a communication on minority languages in the eu in the form of an activity report for 1989-1993. this represented the first official communication on the preservation and promotion of minority languages. does the council intend to ask the commission to draw up an action programme for minority languages? what kind of decisions will be taken in the future about our minority languages and cultures? the council is fully aware of the importance of preserving linguistic diversity within the union. it is this diversity which gives our continent its extremely rich cultural heritage. as was stated in reply to a question by mrs terrn i cus in november last year, it is precisely with a view to safeguarding the differences between the languages and cultures of the member states that political direction in this area must respect the principle of subsidiarity. the council must be careful to ensure that any action at union level adds real value to actions at national level. regarding culture, action by the union is dictated by article 128 of the treaty. the recent meeting of culture ministers in galway served as a useful opportunity for an exchange of views on the union's cultural policies. in addition to council action under article 128, under the prerogatives conferred by the treaties, the commission conducts its own activities regarding minority languages and has its own budget conferred on it for this purpose. the honourable member will understand that i am unable to comment further on what is essentially a task for the commission. i would also note that the european bureau for regional and lesser-used languages which is based in dublin and which has as its aim the preservation and promotion of the lesser-used and indigenous languages of the european union is part-funded by the commission. the irish government also contributes to the administration costs of the bureau. no specific proposals have been received from the commission with regard to minority languages. the council can, however, assure the honourable member that its full attention will be given to any proposals which the commission may bring forward in this regard. the bureau in dublin, to which you have just referred, has had to cut back its activities because of the fact that financial resources are no longer flowing to the extent that would really be logical and necessary under the budget. there are also a number of other initiatives that have had to be restricted for the same reason. on the occasion of the commission's last invitation to tender, there were more than 1000 applications in this area, but far too little financing available. you have stressed the importance of the minority languages and protection of minorities, mr president-in-office, and i am grateful for that, but we should be setting more dates. we are also, for example, setting a number of requirements for those countries wishing to join the union. we are asking them to take a number of measures which, in point of fact, are not actually being complied with by all states within the existing european union. in other words, we are asking more from others than we can offer ourselves. incidentally, i should like to ask you how possible it is that the european parliament's demand that the protection of minorities be incorporated into and enshrined in the intergovernmental conference will actually be met. i think that with enlargement we have an opportunity to look again at the whole question of minority languages. the whole union will become an impossible place if all the languages of the union are to receive official status and be used in the whole conduct of the business of the union. since that is not going to be a reality and already is not a reality, we have to give some thought to how we treat those minority languages which are not used in the everyday business of the union. coming from a country which has its own minority language, irish, a language which, incidentally, is very much on the increase in dublin where there has been an explosion of all-irish primary schools, i certainly would like to give encouragement to the line taken by the honourable member. the future of the union will be assured once we ensure that the diversity of the union is protected and acknowledged. i include in that adequate acknowledgement for minority languages. i do not think it would be fair or reasonable to hold out the hope that all languages in the union will become working languages. the advent of enlargement, however, gives us a fresh opportunity to re-examine this matter. i do not think the question was about asking that the over thirty minority languages supported by the magnificent irish bureau become official languages. that was not the question at all. the question concerns the budget line and the nurturing of a precious piece of europe's heritage in making sure that these languages can survive as they are mostly literary with enormous amounts of music and so on. i really want to ask whether the council is going to look sympathetically, when it receives the budget, at the proposed increase we would like to see for making sure we can nurture these languages. we are not asking for them to be working languages, that is a red herring frankly. i would like to see the council support our request for more money for these languages. i am sorry if the member thought i was introducing a red herring. i was putting the whole thing in context. i would assure her that the presidency will be very supportive of the line taken by her. i cannot assure her that the council of ministers would agree. not every member state takes the same view. we can inform the house that the white paper on foreign policy which was published by the irish government earlier this year stated that, if a suitable opportunity arose in the course of the intergovernmental conference, the irish government would seek an improvement in the status of irish in the union. you can take it, therefore, that we would also seek an improvement for other minority languages. certainly the sentiment of what the member raises is something the presidency, speaking as the presidency, would support. first, as chairman of the intergroup working group on minority languages, i would like to thank you most sincerely for your support for the maintenance of the budget line and its possible topping-up. even so, i would also like to put the question of whether it may not additionally be possible to make better use of other programmes too. mrs ahern and i this week invited representatives of the irish language, members of the various confessions in northern ireland, to come here. i am glad to learn that the irish language is now being nurtured in the north, too. the question is whether increasing use could be made of cross-border programmes such as interreg and others for this kind of cultural cooperation, which furthers the cause of peace, and for the nurturing of minority languages. i know that commissioner wulf-mathies takes a positive attitude to this. i also have a positive attitude towards this. in case i get myself into any difficulty or any trouble at home, the irish language in ireland is not considered a minority language. in fact, it is the first official language. when i spoke about other minority languages i meant those within the union. so even the definition of what is a minority language is something which needs to be examined. this is a whole area which will become much more centre-stage in the context of enlargement because there will be, in the context of the union, that much more pressure from member states to accommodate minority languages. as far as i am concerned, the member is pushing an open door. this whole point has a lot of merit. i was rather set back to hear the president-in-office make the statement that there were no proposals before the council. in april 1994 there were seven major proposals sent from this parliament, one of the last pieces of legislation passed in this parliament concerning the lesser-used languages, which were sent both to the commission and the council. no action has been taken so far on any of the seven proposals which, as it happens, arose from a report which i had the privilege to introduce into this house. so it is not entirely true to say that there is nothing before the council. there is and i would like now at this late stage the president-in-office to check back through the files and find those recommendations from parliament which were adopted here unanimously. they covered the physical, financial, cultural and all the other aspects of the lesser-used languages. finally, i am glad, president-in-office, that you corrected yourself about irish being a lesser-used language. i do not have to say any more. may i say, first of all, that there is no proposal before the council from the commission. that is the essential point i was making. secondly, i have made it very clear that the white paper on foreign policy, published by the irish government earlier this year, said that if a suitable opportunity arose in the course of the igc the irish government would seek an improvement in the status of irish in the union and that members could therefore take it that we would also take a similar attitude to other languages. there is no great difference between the expressed sympathies of the members and the response of the presidency. question no 6 by hugh mcmahon (h-0752/96) subject: registration of pharmaceutical products smoltine and azamethipos given the importance of smoltine and azamethipos for the scottish and irish salmon farming industry, can the council give an assurance that the registration of smoltine and azamethipos will be based on objective scientific criteria and that, despite the failure of the veterinary committee to agree registration, the council will speedily resolve this problem to satisfy both the interests of the consumer and aquaculture industry in the union? i understand that the question of the registration of the pharmaceutical products mentioned by the honourable parliamentarian is still under consideration within the commission. the matter has not been referred to the council as yet and so it would not be appropriate for me to pre-judge the views of the council on this subject. however, as the honourable parliamentarian is no doubt aware, under community legislation, eu veterinary medicinal products legislation requires that all veterinary medicinal products must meet certain objective scientific criteria before being placed on the market of member states. i thank the president-in-office for his reply. there is a very interesting and constitutional question because commissioner bangemann assured me last month in this chamber that the matter had gone to the council. now i wonder if commissioner bangemann was telling a lie and whether i should raise the question of commissioners coming before the house and not giving us accurate information. this is very serious for european elected representatives. i would ask the president-in-office to persevere with this issue. i will obviously pursue it with the commission to find out what exactly happened. but my information is that because there was a deadlock with the veterinary committee, the matter is referred automatically to the council. it is very important for the salmon industry in scotland and ireland. they are at present facing a predatory practice by norway which we are debating later this week. it is very important to have this chemical to eliminate sea lice, which was introduced because it has been proven not to be harmful to marine life. so this is very important for the future of industries in very vulnerable and peripheral areas. i thank the president-in-office and i will pursue this with the commission yet again. i thank the member for his comments and, just in case there is any mistake, i will also check the matter. i am advised that the matter is still under consideration within the commission and that the reply i gave is accurate but i will check that for accuracy and communicate again with the member. question no 7 by georges berthu (h-0757/96) subject: abolition of article 235 in its written reply to my oral question h-0686/96 , the council states that opinion 2/94 of the court of justice concerning the possible accession by the community to the convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms does not relate to the provisions of article 235 in their entirety, but is limited to the specific case of community accession to the convention. by what process of reasoning does the council believe itself to be in a position to claim that, when the court states, for instance, that article 235 'cannot serve as a basis for widening the scope of community powers beyond the general framework created by the provisions of the treaty as a whole' , it is issuing a specific opinion, limited to the case before it, rather than a general view of article 235? if this is a general view, as common sense seems to indicate, is the presidency minded to propose to the igc that it should remove all ambiguities and affirm the democratic and transparent nature of european decision-making procedures by supporting the abolition of article 235? in my capacity as president-in-office of the council, i am unable to adopt a position on the assessments and the proposals contained in the first part of the honourable member's question. the only institution and power to interpret community legislation in general and the provisions of the treaty is the court of justice. in reply to the second part of the honourable member's question relating to the intergovernmental conference i have to point out to him that the council as such has no part in the conference to amend the treaties. under article n of the treaty on european union the government of any member state or the commission may submit to the council proposals for the amendment of the treaties on which the union is founded. speaking as president-in-office of the council, i am not in a position to refer to the discussions at the intergovernmental conference relevant to the honourable member's question. mr president, the council refuses to draw conclusions from the opinion of the court of justice of 28 march 1996 which nevertheless is perfectly clear since it says that article 235 cannot serve as a basis for widening the powers that the treaty confers on the community or for revising the treaty. the council then seeks ways out of this - i have raised the question several times - and we understand this since it very often makes use of article 235 itself, leading to a violation of the treaty. i will give you quite a recent example of this. the commission has just published, with the informal recommendation of the council, a legal regulation about the euro which contains a revision of the treaty since one of the provisions of the regulation consists of changing the name of the currency from the ecu to the euro. the name ecu is properly provided for in the treaty. it is not an abbreviation nor an acronym, it is a name which comes into the treaty several times. the council wishes to use article 235 to carry out this disguised revision of the treaty. this is absolutely intolerable. clearly, not only must article 235 be abolished but the conversion from the ecu to the euro must also be abandoned. i do not share the member's general views as expressed on article 235. article 235 is clearly intended to cover action by the community to attain one of its objectives in fields not expressly covered by other specific provisions in the treaty and it has proved the most useful and necessary tool in the development of community policies. the member refers to a particular case in relation to accession to the european convention on human rights and freedoms, which the court ruled on. this was a specific case not a general ruling. in fact the question of article 235 was examined by the reflection group and in its report it underlined in paragraph 125 that - and i quote: ' the group is not inclined to incorporate into the treaty a catalogue of competences of the union and prefers the present system which details in each case the legal base of actions and policies of the union. as a result the group favours maintaining article 235 as an instrument capable of responding to the inherent, evolutionary character to interpret the objectives of the union.' that is a quotation directly from the reflection group report of the fifteen member states, the commission, and european parliament. question no 8 by per gahrton (h-0758/96) subject: transformation of the eu into a state as a result of emu sweden's prime minister, gran persson, said some time ago that emu could lead to the emergence of an eu state. this is because emu requires closer coordination of member states' economic policies, for which (according to former commission president jacques delors and others) the eu would need an 'economic government' , as its economic policies could not reasonably be conducted by a committee of central banks behind closed doors without grave consequences for democracy. does the council agree with the view that, in order to safeguard democracy, implementation of emu would require the eu also to have an 'economic government' , which in turn would entail its transformation from a cooperation-based organization into a sort of state? in reply to the honourable member i must stress that in accordance with the duty of reserve which attaches to the function of president-in-office of the council, i am obliged to abstain from giving an assessment or commentary on statements made outside formal council meetings. i would like, nevertheless, to draw the honourable member's attention to the fact that the provisions for economic and monetary union are set out in a very precise manner in title iv of the treaty on european union. preparations for economic and monetary union must be, and are being made, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the treaty. it is interesting that the council representative has not denied the conclusions drawn by the swedish prime minister, that emu could mean that the eu would develop into a state. this is an interesting message in itself, as this is one of the big issues under discussion in sweden at the moment. the discussion is concerned with whether the introduction of a common currency, according to the statutes of the maastricht treaty, will mean a fundamental change in the eu from a cooperation organisation to an organisation with state-like features. it is perhaps well known that resistance to emu is quite strong in sweden. if, in addition to this, either directly or indirectly the fears expressed by the swedish prime minister that we, in this way, by the back door, without explaining to people what is happening, create a european super power which as a next stage would require, as jacques delors said, a government, then these are unheard of matters in hand. i would have thought a clearer comment from the council representative would have been interesting. i would hope that members of the house would not attribute to me things that i did not say. the fact that i did not comment on what the swedish prime minister said does not mean that i agree with what he said. i made it very clear that i am obliged to abstain from giving an assessment or commentary on statements made outside formal council meetings. the european union is an evolving union, it will only evolve as far as the treaties allow it to evolve. the treaties will only be agreed by unanimous agreement of the member states and the purpose of the european union is to ensure that the peace and stability that we have had in the second half of this century, compared to the mayhem which caused the loss of 60 million lives in the first half of this century in europe alone, remains the order of the day. it behoves us, as politicians, not to be raising fears and using terms which alarm people. nobody is going to be coerced into anything. this whole enterprise can only come about by agreement. quite frankly, i think the way we are going about our business as we head into the 21st century is a lot better than the way we went about our business heading into the 20th century. i hope that the peace and stability and the resulting prosperity which we have enjoyed in the second half of this century will continue as a result. that is the civilized conduct of statesmanship, it is the civilized conduct of diplomacy and it is the civilized conduct of politics. nobody should jump ahead and put any sort of term on it. the whole situation as i said is evolving. as they deal with the same subject, the following questions will be taken together: question no 9 by jan andersson (h-0764/96) subject: action to combat synthetic drugs the production, trafficking and use of synthetic drugs is on the increase in europe, where, at the same time, criticism is being levelled at the countries of south america and asia which produce cocain, opium, etc. such criticism will not be credible if europe does not first solve its own problems. the irish presidency has placed action to combat drugs high on its agenda. what proposals will the council make for tackling the production, trafficking and use of synthetic drugs? question no 10 by raymonde dury (h-0816/96) subject: ban on rohypnol is the council aware of the extremely harmful effects of rohypnol on users, especially when combined with other substances? can it confirm that the hoffman laroche multinational company, based in switzerland, has refused to withdraw this medicine from the market in the united states? will it specify in which eu member states this product is on sale in pharmacies? does the council intend to take steps to ban this product, which is apparently as dangerous as lsd? does it agree that rohypnol should be classified as a 'drug' ? as pointed out in mr andersson's question, combating europe's drugs problem is indeed one of the major priorities of the irish presidency. there has been much activity in this area thus far during our presidency; we would hope to see rapid results from the measures taken. the irish presidency's task is to prepare a programme of activities which will take into account the guidelines laid down at the madrid european council in december of last year. this work is well advanced and progress will be examined at the dublin european council meeting in december. combating the problem of synthetic drugs is one of the most important elements of this programme. these socalled designer drugs can be manufactured from ingredients that in themselves are quite legitimate and are used in everyday industry, but when combined are lethal. in many ways the ready availability of these drugs, their varied forms and the ease with which they can be produced make them even more dangerous to our young people than the traditional root-based drugs like cocaine and heroin. as pointed out in mr andersson's question these designer drugs are also being manufactured in member states of the union and also in our european neighbours. urgent action at european level is required to block the manufacture of such drugs. measures under discussion by the council which will help limit the production, trafficking and use of synthetic drugs include: a community-wide initiative to encourage member states' customs administrations to enter into agreements with relevant bodies and companies in the private sector with a view to enlisting their help in the fight against drugs - work is well advanced on this measure; measures to ensure enhanced cooperation between police and customs authorities; the exchange of personnel and expertise between law enforcement authorities of member states; the compilation of a handbook on prevention and deterrence of illegal drug production to assist law enforcement authorities tackling this problem; the development of a directory of member states' specific law enforcement skills, knowledge and expertise in the fight against drugs trafficking which will incorporate expertise in the area of synthetic drugs; exchange of information on drug trafficking routes and synthetic drugs with the countries of central and eastern europe; this will be one of the major themes of the drugs seminar which the irish presidency is organizing on 23 october to which all these countries are invited to send experts. as precursors are an essential component of synthetic drugs, control of precursors has also been prioritized by the presidency. substantial progress has been made by the commission in concluding precursor agreements with third countries and enhancing the central database and during exchanges of information at seminars and workshops on this matter. the council is considering practical law enforcement responses to the control of precursors. the council also supports the full implementation of the recommendations of the chemical action task force. as the honourable members are no doubt aware, priority of action against synthetic drugs was also emphasized at the recent informal justice and home affairs council in dublin. turning to the issues raised in mr dury's question the council is aware of an abuse problem concerning rohypnol especially among drugs addicts who are on methadone maintenance. however, as far as i am aware, convincing evidence has not yet been put forward to suggest that the harmful effects of rohypnol on its own or in combinations with other substances are any worse than those of other similar substances which are available on prescription. i refer specifically to benzodiazepines. the question of which eu member states this product is on sale in is a matter which would have to be confirmed with the manufacturer. the council has no immediate plans to ban this substance. the exact reasons why it is so popular among drug addicts is still unclear and until this is established it would be unwise to consider banning its use. i would like to thank the council for a very detailed answer. i would just like to make one brief point on the previous question, as the swedish prime minister is my party colleague. this was an isolated quotation which did not reflect in any way what the swedish prime minister said about the emu. i would just like this said so that we do not believe that he has poor judgement. on the issue of the fight against narcotics, i consider what has been said to be positive as are the actions to be taken against synthetic drugs. these are actions which aim to limit the supply. we know that the supply, particularly that from poland, and trade across the border from poland, is on the increase. but this is only part of it. my main concern regarding the fight against narcotics in europe at the moment is the increased demand. we will never stop narcotics if we do not fight against demand. we must therefore ensure that we conduct a policy in member states which makes young people and others say no to narcotics. let us also work towards this within the council. i hope therefore that you have both actions to limit supply and also actions to limit demand. the honourable member has raised a very important point. i am a member of the irish government's task force on the demand side of the problem which recently published an interim report. one of the reasons why, particularly in our inner cities and in our more disadvantaged areas, people turn to drugs is because of the old saying 'the devil finds work for idle hands' . there are in fact so many people who are long-term unemployed, who are living in difficult housing conditions, who are not being retrained for employment and who do not have educational opportunities. unless we target resources to the demand side, we literally cannot win simply by tackling the supply side. i commend to the honourable member and to members of the house an examination of the local development programme currently under way in ireland. we are holding a conference in november for europe on this particular subject. it has a signal contribution to make in tackling the demand side. i certainly share the concerns expressed by the honourable member. mr president, i do not know who prepared the written reply made to me in connection with rohypnol, but really! as a result, the officials should be asked, if need be, to seek information in the usa since studies do indeed exist there on the appalling effects of rohypnol. the american authorities have asked the multinational hoffman-laroche to withdraw this product, which is a medicine and has disastrous effects when taken with other products. i am asking you the question because near where i live in brussels, i have seen rohypnol being passed between young people: you would only need to see the state these young folk were in to realize, quite clearly, that there is really a drug problem here. that is what led me to ask the question. my own belief is that we should check, at the commission or elsewhere, at lisbon, country by country, where we stand legally as regards rohypnol and that we should ask the usa if they have carried out any research on the substance. perhaps we should also have an exchange of views with the multinational hoffman-laroche since, in fact, it too has its share of the responsibility in this type of phenomenon. it earns a lot of money from medicines: it is a very large multinational! it could, from time to time, have a more public-spirited attitude to the products it manufactures, in other words, an attitude of critical reflection on the effects - unwanted i can well imagine, but all the same real - of this type of product. this is a very serious matter and one which the presidency takes very seriously. i will ask for a report on the effects of rohypnol in the united states. i will examine the matter further when i have received that report and i will ensure that the relevant council minister receives a copy of the report. question no 11 by winifred ewing (h-0812/96) subject: single currency and the issuing of banknotes article 105a of the treaty on european union clearly states that, in the event of a single currency and the introduction of 'euro' notes and coins, only those banknotes issued by the ecb and national central banks will have the status of legal tender. protocol 3, article 16 states that 'the ecb shall respect as far as possible existing practices regarding the issue and design of banknotes' . three scottish commercial banks currently issue their own banknotes, which are not legal tender. would it remain possible for the three scottish clearing banks to continue issuing their own banknotes, thus respecting existing practices, in the event of the introduction of a single currency? in december 1995 the european council in madrid agreed that the third stage of economic and monetary union will begin on 1 january 1999. this was confirmed by the european council in florence in june 1996. the single currency - the euro - will come into being at the beginning of the third stage. the reference scenario adopted by the european council in december 1995 states that by 1 january 2002 at the latest, euro notes and coins will be introduced into circulation. protocol no 11 of the treaty on european union states that the united kingdom shall not be obliged or committed to move on to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by its government and parliament. the government of the united kingdom has indicated that it will not decide whether the united kingdom will participate in the third stage beginning on 1 january 1999 until closer to that date. as the honourable member states in her question, article 105a of the treaty, which does not apply to member states not participating in economic and monetary union, assigns to the european central bank the exclusive right to authorize the issue of banknotes within the community. the article further provides that the european central bank and national central banks may issue such notes and that the notes issued by the european central bank and national central banks will be the only such notes to have the status of legal tender within the community. as the honourable member further points out, article 16 of the protocol on the statute of the european system of central banks and of the european central bank requires the european central bank to respect as far as possible existing practices regarding the issue and design of banknotes. if the united kingdom participates in economic and monetary union, it will be a matter for the european central bank, after its establishment, to decide whether scottish banks should be authorized to continue to issue banknotes without legal tender status. president-in-office, thank you very much for that clear answer, because my party has been to meet mr lamfalussy, who has confirmed that situation. i just wish to say that, of course, as the scottish banks have been issuing for over 200 years these notes that are not legal tender, we do not come under the maastricht rules and, therefore, we are not posing a problem to anyone. the problem is as always - not just for the people of scotland but for everybody - one of public acceptability. the german foreign ministry indicated to me when i raised this in the debates that public acceptability would be strengthened enormously if everybody could have something familiar on one side of the note or the coin. however, in the case of scotland, as we have no legal tender status, we have every right to say: let us carry on an excellent practice which is very acceptable and has gone on for over 200 years. question no 12 by pat gallagher (h-0801/96) subject: price rises and a single currency the widespread perception among the general public that many retail businesses used the currency changes as an opportunity to raise prices was a contributing factor to the unpopularity of the process of decimalization of the irish and british currencies some years ago. the support of the public in participating countries will be a vital ingredient of a successful launch of the single currency. in this context what plans does the council have to ensure that the introduction of the euro will not be seen by traders as an opportunity to impose price rises on consumers? the reference scenario agreed by the european council in madrid in december 1995 states that notes and coins in the single currency, the euro, will become available by 1 january 2002 at the latest. the commission has presented proposals for a council regulation setting out the provisions for the use of the euro. these include detailed rules on rounding. these rules aim at ensuring that the conversion rates will not be rounded or truncated and so guard against the possibility that rounding inaccuracies might be exploited as a profit. in addition, i understand that the commission is considering ways to ensure that the public will be familiarized with the euro-pricing and to make it difficult for enterprises to conceal price increases. healthy competition and vigilant consumers are of course the best means of ensuring that traders are not in a position to conceal price rises in the changeover to the euro. should it be found necessary for the council to implement measures to counter any such risk, i am confident that the council will be prepared to take the measures identified. finally, in accordance with article 105(1) of the treaty on european union, the primary objective of the european system of central banks, that is the european central bank and the national central banks will be to maintain price stability. i have no doubt that in the implementation of this objective the escb will bear in mind the point mentioned by the honourable member. i thank the president-in-office for his comprehensive reply. members from ireland and the uk will be very familiar with the advantage that was taken by many traders in the process of conversion from the old system to decimalization. i would ask the minister to use his good offices to ensure that the necessary action is taken. i fully appreciate what he has said and he has said it in good faith but i am concerned that the necessary action is taken against offenders to ensure that the consumer does not pay as happened before. i would like to give the honourable member the assurance that we will do everything in our power to ensure that the question he raises is addressed and that this problem is examined well in advance. i thank him for raising it in the way he has. i will ensure that it is brought to the attention of the president of ecofin as a matter of course. it is a point which deserves particular attention well in advance of the actual introduction of the currency. question no 13 by irini lambraki (h-0771/96) subject: measures to reduce tension in diyarbakir following the recent dramatic developments in diyarbakir it is imperative that the international community take immediate measures, as the number of victims of turkey's savage use of military force is increasing in a frightening manner. what does the council intend to do to reduce the steady increase in tension in the region, and what measures does it intend to take to protect the lives - at least - of the thousands of kurdish inhabitants of the region? the council remains concerned about the unsatisfactory human rights situation in turkey and this naturally includes the incidents in diyarbakir. the council has made it clear repeatedly - and continue to do so - that observance of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms is an essential element for closer relations between turkey and the european union. it insists that the fight against terrorism must be conducted with full respect for the fundamental values of democracy and human rights. the honourable member may be assured that the need for progress in the areas of democratic reform and respect for human rights will continue to underlie the council's approach to relations between the european union and turkey. mr president, i thank the president-in-office both for the answer he gave me and for the sensitivity which his answer shows. i have only three comments: unfortunately, mr president-in-office, neither our resolutions nor your good intentions, as the council, have improved the dramatic situation of the kurds in diyarbakir. what is needed is specific action, and i do not know if you have any in mind. like yourselves, we too in the european parliament condemn terrorism, but the excuse of terrorism should not be used by composite states and societies to justify the genocide of their residents. i ask you to give special consideration to the problems of kurdish farmers in diyarbakir, since winter is approaching. with the excuse of fighting terrorism, 3000 villages in the area have been laid waste and diyarbakir itself, a town with a population of 300, 000 some 3 years ago, now has a population of 1.5 million who are dying of hunger in the streets. i do not know what measures you could take to prevent the death of thousands of children from hunger in diyarbakir. the european union recognizes the need for further improvements and progress in the whole area of implementation of human rights and democratic freedoms in turkey. we have continued to make it clear to the turkish authorities that observance of the rule of law and basic liberties is the basis of continued rapprochement between the european union and turkey. we have received assurances by the turkish authorities of their intention to pursue the process of constitutional and legislative reform. we will continue to urge early progress in introducing and implementing the further reforms necessary adequately to safeguard human rights which do not meet the standards we expect. the commission, for its part, has supported turkish ngos and professional organizations promoting human rights for a number of years, including the human rights association, the human rights foundation and the turkish medical association. the commission will continue to cooperate and grant aid for various projects aimed at promoting human rights in turkey. this can be taken as an indication of the ongoing concern of the union about the matters which the member has raised. question no 14 by john cushnahan (h-0774/96) subject: resources to combat drug trafficking with the abolition of internal frontier controls, does the council appreciate the importance of providing adequate protection at eu seaports and shorelines to prevent international drug trafficking? what new measures does the council intend to implement in this area? it has been one of the major priorities of the irish presidency to secure more coordinated and effective action at european union level against drug trafficking and drug abuse. an example of this is the setting in motion of a thorough review of the adequacy of cooperation in protecting the external borders of the european union against the importation of drugs by land, sea and air. as i have already said in a reply at last july's parliamentary session, the presidency has already initiated a discussion on the external frontier customs strategy. it has put forward proposals on training, technical aids, control equipment, intelligence, risk analysis and improved communication. it intends to propose a joint action to serve as a legal base for the allocation of funds from the budget of the european communities. these proposals are aimed at achieving a more effective level of cooperation against drugs smuggling and will fulfil one of the action points of the list adopted by the madrid european council meeting in december 1995 with regard to drugs. the council will also give priority to the review of the naples convention on mutual assistance between customs administrations, on the customs 2000 strategy programme for the third pillar, and on eu participation in the strategic plan of the world customs organization for implementing an operative measure on the balkan drug smuggling route. the presidency will also bring under scrutiny the present arrangements for joint customs surveillance operations at the external frontier. this examination will be with a view to improving their efficiency. a global mandate will be sought from the council for these operations so that council approval does not have to be obtained each year as at present. it will also seek to encourage cooperation between member state customs authorities and private trade and shipping interests in the fight against drug trafficking. i should like to thank the president-in-office for his reply. i acknowledge and pay tribute to the irish presidency for making this issue one of the top priorities during its term in office. i wish them well in trying to persuade our european partners to give it the same priority. i invite the minister to make a comment, in view of my dismay at the budgetary provision for next year of ecu 24m. it is hardly an indication of a strong priority to combat what is a $1, 000 billion international business of drug trafficking. i also pay tribute to the minister himself. i am well aware that he was involved in this issue long before he became a minister. he was always very committed to dealing with the problem of drug abuse, particularly in his own native city. i should like to remind you, president-in-office of the recent drug finds in ireland in moneypoint (co clare) and cork, also the large seizures in, for example, ports like rotterdam and amsterdam where 450 tonnes of drugs were seized last year. i remind you of the comments that i passed on to your office by the commander of the rotterdam police authority on the lack of judicial and police cooperation in protecting shorelines and coastal areas. is the council prepared to consider the long-term solution of establishing a european coastguard? in the shortterm, would the council, along with other european institutions, provide assistance to countries like our own which have a heavy burden with responsibility for policing some +20 % of european coastal waters but with inadequate resources to deal with this problem? the eu must allocate more resources particularly for the naval services in those countries in the short-term. however, in the long term, let us plan for a european union coastguard. i am at one with the honourable member, mr cushnahan when he raises this issue. i have to say - and there is no point in not calling a spade a spade - that i think the amount of resources we have committed to the european fight against drugs as distinct from the fight member states engage in individually that the european union budget is feeble in relation to the extent of the problem. the irish presidency has sought to improve on this situation; we have made it a priority. it intends to propose a joint action to serve as a legal base for the allocation of funds from the budget for the european community. it further intends to propose a global mandate from the council for operations which i have outlined so that the council approval does not have to be obtained each year as at present. there is a lot of concern expressed about this matter in this house, at council of ministers meetings, at european council meetings, by commissioners. there seems to be a will and now we have to find a way. there was a will and we found the way for emu. this is a priority. we are always asking how to make the union relate more to the citizen. this is one way we can make the union relate more to the citizen but we cannot do it on a budget for this year of ecu 40m. it simply cannot be done. i do not have the budget figure for next year, but ecu 40m this year is simply not sufficient. it is not anywhere near sufficient and it is not taking the problem seriously. certainly we will do everything we can to ensure that resources are increased. i think this house should push the boat out in this regard because the concern is being expressed. it is time that we met our concerns with resources. as i have said, the presidency and the council's concern will be to ensure that the external frontiers of the european union are adequately protected against drug smuggling. drugs come in by land, sea and air. different routes are used depending on the nature and origin of the drugs. drugs are brought in by various means: by people, personally; in unaccompanied cargo; hidden in cars, ships and containers; and especially in the case of cannabis, in small craft. clearly there is a need for tightening up. no one action or approach, including enhanced naval protection, is likely to be effective on its own. it will be important to ensure that the various possible approaches to the question, before they are applied, are likely to make an effective contribution to the security of the external frontier against drug trafficking and that they are then applied in a coordinated way. i think that the proposal to have some sort of coastguard cooperation is one which is worthy of more constructive and detailed examination. people talk about defence and security. security is a different thing to defence. the drugs issue is a security issue. already in ireland, for example, there is cooperation between the irish air corps and the raf on search and rescue. it could be something as loose as that or it could be something more structured within the union. but we need - and this is something in the whole area of the petersberg tasks, which are being examined - to look at this aspect. it is time we looked at ways of protecting our external borders, including our coast, against these drugs. it is too late when they arrive on the street. i feel that there is a very worthy proposal here which should be examined. i cannot give a commitment or an answer but i think it is worthy of examination in a professional way so that we will be able to give a conclusive answer. i thank the president-in-office for his response. i should like to ask for clarification on the question of the amount of money to be allocated this year. is it ecu 40m, ecu 24m or, as some of my colleagues believe, is it a smaller amount? secondly, as the president-in-office is so much in favour of the idea of concerted effort and concerted action at european level, could we have a commitment from the president-in-office that the monies which are presently in a bank account in brussels and are to be allocated to the irish naval service for the upgrading of equipment and for the provision of extra ships be released as soon as possible to enable the irish naval service, which in effect is the western wing of any european coastguard service, to protect that large area against the illegal importation of drugs. finally, with regard to preventing countries in south america in particular finding it an economic necessity to grow the raw product of drugs, are any new proposals coming from the council with regard to assisting those governments in south america? in relation to the money in the account in brussels, if the member puts down a question i will endeavour to answer it. i do not have information in the brief to assist me in answering the question. i understand, subject to re-examination, that the figure available over three pillars in 1996 is ecu 40m, about 32m. in relation to the growing of the produce, this is a central consideration to any tackling of the problem. a lot of the tackling of the problem of drugs is a matter for member states individually, but there is a role for the union. the european union could undertake the task of taking the case to other regions where the drug is grown. there are about five regions of asia from where something like 80 % of the heroin coming into western europe derives. also there is a clear indication in south america, for example, where traditionally cocaine was sourced, that heroin is now being produced there. that has horrendous implications because here there are already established routes throughout the world. there is much merit in the point made by the honourable member. it is something which is on the agenda. we are looking particularly at the area of the caribbean. this has been discussed at the asian/european ministerial meeting and is being pursued by our officials. question no 15 by mara izquierdo rojo (h-0777/96) subject: andalusia and the com in olive oil in andalusia, one of the most prominent regions of the eu, olives are the most important crop, not only in economic but also in social and environmental terms. moreover, this autonomous region is the biggest olive producer in europe and the world, employing 140 000 people in regions and marginal areas which are not suited to any other type of farming. does the council not consider that, before taking any decision, it should consult andalusia to ensure that the reform does not make the present regulatory arrangements in this sector worse? is it aware that the preliminary draft text submitted by the commission has aroused strong opposition in andalusia? does it think this is the way to allay the discontent of andalusian farmers, following the 'mad cow disease' debacle and the reform of the fruit and vegetables sector? the council shares the opinion of the honourable member as to the necessity of maintaining conditions suitable for the economic, social and environmental circumstances for the pursuit of a production as important as that of olive oil, notably in the regions of the community characterized traditionally and predominantly by this type of farming. the timeliness of embarking on a reform of the community olive oil regime is generally recognized. however, the council can only give an opinion on the basis of a formal proposal by the commission. at this stage a proposal has not been submitted. in any case, it is evident that in the context of the examination of any future proposition, each member state will be able to highlight the interest of its producing regions. mr president-in-office of the council, many thanks for your reply, which i appreciate very much because it means a lot to know that the council of ministers shares the opinion of andalusia at this time, is sensitive to the situation, and understands that 140, 000 jobs are certainly at stake, so that this decision is highly important, not just for agriculture, but for employment, social policy and the environment. the council of ministers speaks well - but it is not going to make the decision. the council of ministers should work in coordination with the commission and needs to be aware that at the moment the commission is reticent about what is being asked. before such a wide-ranging decision is presented to the council there should be a period of reflection and consultation so that the sector itself can make its view known. it would be barbarous if a decision like this was taken against the will of andalusia, the leading european and world producer. and it will be an unprecedented travesty, when there have been periods of reflection and consultation on other reforms, if that does not happen in this case and nobody knows why. many thanks to the president-in-office of the council for understanding the gravity of the problem. the member has quite rightly taken the empathy which we have, as presidency, with the situation she outlines. the council can only give an opinion on the basis of a formal proposal by the commission, so perhaps she might wish to pursue the matter with the commission? andalucia will be consulted in the normal way through the consultation process with member states as far as the council is concerned. but i wish to conclude by reassuring the honourable member of our understanding and sympathy towards the problems she expresses. i wish to thank mr mitchell particularly for some very good answers. you prepared very nicely the answers on drugs. that concludes question time. questions not taken for lack of time will be answered in writing. (the sitting was suspended at 7.10 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.) protection of financial interests the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: a4-0288/96 by mrs theato, on behalf of the committee on budgetary control, on the draft council regulation concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the commission in order to protect the european communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities (8055/96 - c4-0358/96-95/0358(cns) - reconsultation); -a4-0313/96 by mr bontempi, on behalf of the committee on civil liberties and internal affairs, on the draft second protocol drawn up on the basis of article k.3 of the treaty on european union, to supplement the convention on the protection of the european communities' financial interests (7752/96 - c4-0137/96-95/0360 (cns)). mr president, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps you are asking why another two reports on the protection of the eu's financial interests are on the agenda. is it because we are making such rapid progress with regulations to prevent fraud and irregularities with community money? no, quite the reverse! we are making slow and painful headway. the subject of my report on behalf of the committee on budgetary control on on-the-spot checks and inspections goes back to march 1994. at that time parliament had drafted a resolution calling on the commission to submit proposals for more wide-ranging measures to prevent the misuse of the community budget, including on-the-spot inquiries. a first step in the right direction was regulation 2988/95 which entered into force in december 1995. however, to a large extent the question of on-the-spot checks by the commission remained open. the commission subsequently improved matters with a second proposal for a regulation early this year. in our resolution of may 1996 we assessed the proposal as generally satisfactory; nevertheless we tabled 13 amendments, which the commission largely incorporated. i warmly thank mrs gradin and her staff for their efforts in this respect. but then we had objections from the council. we are now being consulted again, on the basis of the council's changes to the commission proposal and parliament's opinion. i have described the chronology of events in order to ask how long the union and the member states will go on just standing and watching the activities of defrauders, especially in the transnational area, since they are so slow in producing legislation. according to the commission's report, more than ecu 1.1 billion of the community budget went missing last year as a result of dishonest wheeling and dealing. the real figure is probably quite a bit higher. on the one hand our maxim is to economize and reduce budget expenditure. that is precisely what we are doing with the first reading of the 1997 budget this week. on the other hand, large sums are disappearing unlawfully because the necessary protective measures are not being set up. let me take up a few points in the proposal submitted by the council. first, it emphasizes the need for subsidiarity. parliament never disputed that. the commission should carry out checks on transnational irregularities and thereby ensure an equivalent level of protection of the community budget in all the member states. also, any member state can ask for these checks to be made. not included are cases which are already subject to sectoral eu or national checks. secondly, the checks are administrative. we do not dispute that. but what is important is that the same conditions should apply to the commission inspectors as to the national ones, i.e., in particular that if they find suspicious circumstances they must have access to all information and facilities and their administrative reports must constitute admissible evidence in the same way as those drawn up by the national administrative inspectors. articles 1, 7 and 8 make this clear. thirdly, of the original 13 amendments, 7 are satisfactorily incorporated in the new text, 2 others in the recitals. the council did not take up our proposal that the commission should confine unannounced checks to urgent cases, in order to avoid delays. but we can live with the present version, provided the community and the national administrations are willing to cooperate in such a way as to produce practical and satisfactory results. the fourth point, however, remains open. no penalties, such as blocking the funds or exclusion, are imposed for the event that the access to the information, documents, premises, etc., of recipients of eu money referred to in articles 5 and 7 is refused. in this case we have to maintain our call for administrative penalties and are therefore tabling an amendment -just one, incidentally. it is now up to the commission to state whether or not it is prepared to submit the appropriate proposal in order to remedy what we regard as a very serious weakness. i want to thank the irish presidency of the council for the open-mindedness it showed in repeated talks, some also with our committee. we hope it can bring the question of on-the-spot checks to a conclusion before the end of the year. mr president, after presenting this report on what is called the second protocol to the convention on the protection of financial interests, but could be better defined as the protocol on the liability of legal persons, not excluding involved firms, i have to express the sense of contradiction i feel at the moment and which i think i can communicate to honourable members. on the one hand i certainly value and therefore feel satisfaction about the acceleration there has been in recent months - during the spanish, italian and irish presidencies - in the fight against fraud and hence also the fight against crime, thanks to the adoption or the proposal of new instruments. such instruments include last year's convention on the protection of financial interests, the first protocol on corruption of foreign public servants, whether or not elected, and two regulations, one of them being examined this evening thanks to the outstanding work done by the committee and the rapporteur, mrs theato, that is, the convention on extradition. some of these instruments have already been directly approved by the council as well. i would also mention the convention on corruption which should have replaced the first protocol. satisfaction on the one hand, i repeat, because some of these instruments, like the protocols on corruption or the liability of legal persons are highly innovative and therefore of notable political value. to give an example, the oecd, the council of europe and other international organizations have long been calling for legislation to deal with foreign public servants who cannot be prosecuted under our arrangements, as everyone knows, or to raise the deterrent power of regulations relating to companies. but while i feel satisfaction, i remain conscious that the instruments chosen are institutionally weak and there is a risk they will be ineffective. here i would like to point out to the commission and also to the council, that it may be worse to legislate without ensuring respect for the law than not to legislate at all. that raises expectations and then lack of results brings disappointment. from this point of view the weakness of the instruments, the weakness of the conventions, is striking. all of us, the committee on budgetary control, the committee on civil liberties, the whole parliament, have made this point on several occasions. the comparative study carried out on the european legal area, the state of ratification of the conventions and legal cooperation provides a discouraging and worrying picture. the conventions emanating from the council of europe have rarely been converted into reality for lack of ratification, much as we consider the convention on recycling positive, even though it has only been ratified by five countries of the european union since 1990, the date it was approved. we have an impressive list of conventions in the area of political cooperation. between 1987 and 1991 major conventions were adopted on transfer of convicted persons, ne bis in idem , simplification of extradition procedures, transmission of restraining orders, enforcement of foreign criminal convictions, and so on, but none of these conventions have come into force. and on fraud, as mrs theato mentioned earlier and i also want to mention now, we have recently approved important conventions but unfortunately, given previous experience, our fears are wellfounded that everything is taking a long time, if it can ever be put into effect. that is why i have a sense of contradiction: positive assessment on the one hand, and great concern about the instrument chosen on the other. the instrument we are voting on today actually seems very interesting because it is innovative. this is the first time a provision has included the principle of liability, here properly called criminal or administrative, because the arrangements vary, and it is as well to proceed with caution because legal persons are involved, not just natural persons. some european countries have criminal legislation on the matter, others do not: italy, spain, greece and belgium do not have any form of criminal provision, the rest do. in a system of economic exchanges where there is organized crime, including economic crime, and we cannot be satisfied with the results produced when only natural persons can be dealt with, i think it is time we had standard provisions. under roman law, nec societas delinquere potest relates to the complexity but also the weight and the role firms may have. those who have followed the activities of the various european criminal fraternities, including the italian one, know this is an important point. in this respect i found the council's text balanced, and we have tried to achieve the same balance in our opinion. for obvious reasons it is impossible to transfer sanctions on natural persons mechanically to companies. it is difficult to prove guilt; there may be a far less deterrent effect on companies covered by insurance. but is something missing from this instrument? something important is missing: the part about legal assistance and cooperation, the part which has been removed. i would also agree that this point should be dealt with in a separate instrument, as long as the proposal is made right away, commissioner kinnock. in the last few days a call has gone out from seven european judges. it has been given great prominence. it is a very strong and explicit call to all the institutions, including the community institutions, to create a european legal area to fight crime and corruption. i fully support that call and i also think we should take action to ensure that this parliament, together with the commission, listens to those judges and gives them a proper hearing. but parliament's request must be followed by government action. the fact is, i do not want the promise of a future instrument to remain in limbo, in view of the removal. we need to fight crime by giving the judges powers of mobility which they do not have today. it is well-known that in some cases direct links between judges is impossible, and often things have to go through chancelleries which means months if not years are lost. europe is also a legal area and we cannot keep silent and remain powerless in the face of the expectations of the citizens and their right to security. i end by remarking that this is precisely the basis of our proposals to move to the first pillar, which are also contained in numerous documents on the struggle against fraud. i believe that if fraud is to be better and more effectively controlled, it is absolutely necessary to make a political effort and also an effort of imagination to return the matter to its natural area, which is one of community competence and guaranteed and effective democratic measures. i wonder how it is possible to launch excellent ideas like this and then not follow up the facts in the conventions. a disappointment like this could destroy europe's reputation when it is certainly going through a difficult time. mr president, i would like to give the position of the committee on budgetary control on mr bontempi's report. but first let me sincerely thank my honourable colleague for his clear and also courageous report, which he has drawn up with his usual thoroughness. as i said earlier, the commission, parliament and especially the member states are treading a very long road, at times coming to a standstill, in their attempt to crate a legal framework for the criminal protection of the community budget. parliament has always emphasized that it would have preferred rules in the form of a directive because it is difficult to achieve equivalent protection with agreements and additional protocols. but since the convention procedure was adopted, we will help ensure it is implemented quickly. as the fifth irish presidency on this question, i hope that the irish presidency will bring this second additional protocol to the convention on the protection of the eu's financial interests to a successful conclusion. unfortunately, it is still impossible to tell when the overall package will be ratified in all the member states. we can only accept the protocol on the criminal liability of legal persons as a council compromise if there are no further efforts to water it down. that means we must have rules on penalizing natural persons who act in contravention of the community budget in the name of legal persons. member states may not draw out of this unilaterally. penalties must be imposed for the money laundering of the proceeds of fraud - which are usually large sums, dishonestly obtained on an international basis. the rules on administrative and judicial assistance are disappointing. mr bontempi has already discussed that. we must at least call for the legal protection of exchanges of information with the national judicial authorities and the creation of a register of fraud prosecutions as a minimum objective for the commission. the primary responsibility of the country in question in the event of fraud and the responsibility of the european court of justice also need clarifying and let me also stress the need for cooperation between the national courts. if a consolidated text of this kind is adopted before the end of the year, that would be another small step forward in the fight against fraud. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, first i want to join mrs theato in thanking mr bontempi and add my thanks to mrs theato herself. it is always a difficult business: people cannot praise themselves, but mrs theato is equally committed colleague in an area that i would not want to confine just to the text of the convention before us. since both mr bontempi and mrs theato have said a great deal in relation specifically to the text, i shall make a few comments of principle on behalf of our group. first, not because of the late hour at which we are discussing the subject but, to put it nicely, because of the apparently lukewarm interest in the subject in this house - and i am not trying to criticize colleagues - i think it would be right to say that this is very typical of a subject that really deserves immense attention but is in actual fact perceived as a marginal, rather technical matter. it is true that members do not leap up from their seats when we consider dry documents. it is not one of the great moments in parliament for us to come and discuss the second supplementary protocol; but the actual issue which has forced us to talk about it should in fact make all the alarm bells ring in every political camp of this house and also in the national parliaments and governments! i do not really need to say or emphasize this here among us who are here together in this chamber, for you all know it: corruption and fraud in the form in which we are getting to know it, in the ever more sophisticated form in which we are encountering these two phenomena, are no longer just acts of crime that have to be fought with the instruments of criminal and community law but have meanwhile become serious threats to the democratic legal structures not only of the european union but also of its member states. mr bontempi just referred to developments in italy. they are known, partly because of the massive action taken by the italian authorities, the italian state, the italian public to combat the invasion of corruption and fraud into increasingly large areas of public life. but italy is only one member state of the european union and what concerns me so much is the fact, as i have said here once before, that systematic fraud and systematic corruption - and not just coming from and supported by criminal circles but also from the legal economy and official government offices - are no longer a purely italian phenomenon but are on the advance in all the member states of the european union without this being fully realised. if in a country such as the one i come from bribe money that is paid out can be deducted from taxes, regarded in a sense as working expenses which the operator simply has to pay in order to do his deal, it is justified to ask whether that does not simply open the door wide to corruption! then we have to ask why the largest member state of the european union did not bolt the door a long time ago, for since we do not have a harmonized criminal law we can go on having discussions in this house as long as we want. so long as the national criminal prosecution authorities, so long as the national criminal law provisions and the national fiscal law provisions, for instance, remain as they stand, it is pointless! we will not be able to combat it in my country! since we have just been talking about legal persons, let me draw your attention to a particular point: the fight against corruption, the fight against fraud also has something to do with public awareness and individual moral perceptions. if the employee of an enterprise - and mr bontempi referred to this too in his explanatory statement - is praised for landing a contract for his firm at whatever cost, using any means whatsoever, including criminal ones, then i can understand the wage-dependent employee of the firm saying: ' i will even use that kind of method to protect my job.' so long as the firm as a legal person does not place itself under a moral code, i cannot reproach the employee! that is why the objective of the second supplementary protocol is so very important, quite apart from the original question cited by mr bontempi and going back to roman law of what needs to be added to a legal concept at the end of the 21st century, namely that it is no longer the individual alone who is behaving wrongly but that the structure that encourages him to do so is at least as much to blame. in that regard i hope these considerations will find their way into this convention! you are right, mr schulz. the problem is not just that the debate is taking place at this time, but also that it is doing so in an empty chamber. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, today we are once again faced with the half-hearted nature of europe's attempts to combat fraud, as has already been pointed out by previous speakers and by the two rapporteurs. on the one hand we are dealing with a draft council regulation, or in other words a measure under the first pillar. on the other hand, we are discussing a draft protocol and thus a legal instrument from the arsenal of the third pillar. at the last session in strasbourg we already criticized this irritating ambiguity and we were supported in our stance by commissioner gradin. if we take the two reports which we now have before us together, a clear picture then emerges of the absurdity of such a hybrid solution. suppose that the council regulation enters into force and uclaf carries out on-the-spot checks and inspections in various member states on the transactions of various companies. if then in certain cases major negligence or serious irregularities come to light it will be up to the legislation and the courts in the member state in question to decide what action is to be taken and in what way verdicts and sentences will be pronounced. but above all it will be the individual member state which decides whether or not legal proceedings will be initiated and to what extent fines or penalties are to be imposed. let me give you two examples of different situations. example one. in some countries legal persons are criminally liable. in other countries, such as belgium, this is still not the case. this means that a civil or administrative case must be brought or otherwise the criminal liability of the natural person must be invoked. example two. in some countries, belgium among them, the laundering of money from illegal transactions is broadly defined. in other countries this is not the case and practices are permitted which are not tolerated in belgium. they are simply not considered to be an offence and are therefore not the subject of legal proceedings and resultant penalties. these differences bring a number of problems, especially when it is a matter of the same damaging practices in respect to the financial interests of the european community, because what is a criminal offence in one country will not be an offence in another, thus presenting the euro fraudsters with an interesting choice. this non-fictional example shows that we need better solutions, but i will not of course oppose the regulation or protocol we have before us today. because this is better than doing nothing at all. but it is not enough. both our rapporteurs, mrs theato and mr bontempi, have also already made this clear and i congratulate them on their work. i also support the amendments proposed by both committees. but i do want to point out one specific problem. the rapporteur, mr bontempi, is aware of this. we discussed it in committee. in the committee on civil liberties and internal affairs we not only brought amendments which sharply define the responsibilities of the responsible commissioner and of uclaf. we made the list more flexible and supplemented it with sanctions, also adding the question of money laundering in a separate vote which in my opinion was open to dispute. there is already a money laundering directive and this directive includes all the elements, also in respect to proceedings against legal persons and thus companies. i fear that when we now include money laundering in the protocol we will weaken the situation of the directive because the directive is the strongest measure. this belongs to the first pillar. in the light of all this, i believe that we need more clarity from the commission on the subject of the criminal liability of legal persons - and banks and other financial institutions in particular - and the possible consequences, also in cases of fraud committed by other legal persons and in particular by companies or organizations. i should like to ask the commission to provide clarity and make it clear here in a statement to parliament which the choice is to be, the first pillar or the third pillar. i should like to once again express my appreciation for the work of the two committees. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, every day the news brings us examples of the spread of fraud in europe. in the last few weeks we have learned of the arrest of a political figure in one member state of the european union who has falsified invoices and fraudulently obtained money from the commission for fictitious contracts in the tourism sector. more recently we registered the solemn call of an association of geneva magistrates for real international cooperation in the fight against fraud to overcome the inertia of national administrations. for example, italy has waged an intense battle, especially at the criminal level, but other countries have not. all this has created grave disparities. so the situation is alarming and today's regulation from the council is hardly going to succeed in allaying our fears. the first necessity is to attack fraud through the penal system in the same way in every country of the union. as the rapporteur, mrs theato, has actually understood very well, the council's position on the commission's onthe-spot inspection methods is revealing in its reticence. in fact the council, which has rejected the most important amendment from the european parliament on the key question of sanctions, certainly recognizes a power of intervention to the commission, as long as that power is purely administrative and strictly bound by the principle of subsidiarity. the council in fact refuses to grant any power of sanction, because otherwise it would give the commission a power of control, but by doing so it actually reduces any effectiveness that control might have. for our part, we do not intend to bring the application of the principle of subsidiarity into the debate provided it is not conceived of and interpreted as a right of veto on the part of the member states. subsidiarity should add something to the community, not work against the community. so, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, i cannot disguise a certain discouragement and a certain anxiety from you when i note once again that the member states frequently concentrate their efforts on obstructing the development of the commission's powers in this matter and, more generally, in everything relating to the fight against fraud, as mr bontempi has so rightly emphasized. all say they condemn fraud, but few actually try to prevent it. it involves more than legal issues and jealous guarding of prerogatives; there must be proof of real political will to carry on an effective struggle against the spread of fraud. if a scandal of european proportions should explode because of bad management of union funds and the spread of fraud, the construction of europe we all work for so patiently and passionately, would run a grave risk of collapse. mr president, parliament is right to make a major stand on the combat against fraud. i believe that if there is one area of policy where we can do ourselves credit this is the one. too often everything to do with europe is associated with financial mismanagement. this must change. i believe that the subjects we are debating this evening - and i should like to thank the rapporteurs for the work they have done - represent a further step in the right direction. it is a good thing that uclaf is to obtain the necessary facilities to carry out its work in all the member states and to conduct on-the-spot investigations into all suspect matters. as a liberal group we accept everything to do with the principle of subsidiarity. if the member states can do it then they must do it but it is also a good thing that the commission officials are there to support the national authorities where and when it is necessary. we also believe it is regrettable, and mrs theato has already said this, that it is not possible for commission officials to carry out independent inspections. it would be better if that were the case. national member states must have nothing to hide in this area and if a commission official wants to carry out an independent investigation then that should be possible. we do not, however, believe this to be a matter of essential importance, but a pity all the same. what is a matter of essential importance is the option of not imposing sanctions. what is the sense in issuing regulations when we cannot say whether or not they are being respected. and if they are not being respected what sense does it make if you cannot take any sanctions whatsoever to penalize people or to instigate proceedings. unfortunately there is nobody from the council here this evening to say how we are to remedy this shortcoming. perhaps the commission can give us some explanation. we believe that this is a major drawback in the present proposals. but you cannot have everything at once. it is a step in the right direction. we will therefore support it, but more must follow. over coming years we hope that parliament will take bigger steps in this direction. mr president, it goes without saying that i congratulate both rapporteurs on two reports that have support across the house. in the context of this debate, however, we should state quite clearly that crime and criminality are two of the fundamental european growth industries today. there are higher and higher levels of profit to be made illegally from public funds and there is a lower and lower rate of detection and, in some cases, risk of detection. it is becoming so easy to make a good living out of crime at the taxpayers' expense that when we talk about the level playing field, in so many areas of activity involving public subsidies you could say that the level playing field is now crooked. this report is extremely important, because although mrs theato's report accepts some of the council's amendments, we have to say that we accept them with a degree of reluctance because we know whence they come. subsidiarity: yes! but if the council is to use subsidiarity as the basis on which it asserts its right to do nothing, then, of course, we have to repudiate it. administrative penalties: of course, we can say yes! but administrative sanction without penalty is no sanction. what we see tonight - and that is all i want to take my two minutes to say - is the contempt with which the council holds the views of this house. it clearly feels we can have these two important debates taking place without even a junior clerk from the council coming to take a minute that he could at least pretend that he has sent to his political masters. that is an act of contempt for this house and it should be made quite clear that this house will persist to go further than these reports allow us. it is on that basis that we support both reports tonight. mr president, commissioner, i am now becoming an assiduous frequenter of night sessions which, symbolically perhaps, since night is linked to fraud and robbery, bring us here to speak to so few people. the truth is that the bontempi and theato reports show two people who are deeply interested in finding a convincing solution to combating organized crime. i should like to tell mr bontempi that, without being caius or justinian, and having read the quotation according to which 'collectivities cannot commit fraud' , i should like to say that the legal problem which is being posed now is that: ' states may take part in fraud' . at this moment in time, the main problem facing europe is that, despite all of the legal frameworks and all of the machinery which can be set up, public administrations, as a result of subsidiarity, are not letting go of any of the prerogatives they have nor are they collaborating in the fight against crime. that is the real issue from a philosophical and political point of view. this is what is happening: a brutal crisis in the legal system, an enormous crisis in the justice system such that now, thanks to the lack of justice in other fields, we are witnessing the biggest public demonstration since the war. we are all involved in this fight now. however, unless we have a code of practice with a legal basis that states must willingly adhere to - just as tv journalists must obey a code of practice, it will be impossible to fight against corrupt firms or states in cahoots with organized crime. i just would like to wish both rapporteurs all the best and thank them for their huge efforts. i am a fan of theirs. mr president, it will already be apparent to you that we have before us two excellent reports, both of which address the vital subject of how to protect tax-payers' interests. unfortunately, there are not more tax payers here this evening, but nevertheless i am sure the business can faithfully be undertaken even as they retire to their beds. first, mrs theato is to be congratulated for the clarity and constructiveness of her report on on-the-spot checks to combat fraud. the text on which agreement in principle was reached in the council in june, as the house will know, is the result of considerable effort by the commission, the council and particularly the italian presidency to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. i believe that it responds in great part to the major concerns expressed by parliament in may of this year, reference to which has been made in the course of this debate. it is obviously important for this text to be put into practical effect as quickly as possible and, once parliament has decided on its position, the council should be able to adopt the text in time for the regulation to come into force on 1 january next year. this new regulation will enable more effective investigations to be carried out by commission anti-fraud inspectors. it will lead to an equivalent level of protection of the community's financial interests everywhere in the union. that provision for equivalent protection of the budget is a new element in the union's anti-fraud strategy and over time it will clearly vastly improve controls. the regulation confirms the central responsibility of the member states for the prevention of irregularities and gives the member states the facility for preparing these controls, together with the commission - an approach which is obviously consistent with the partnership approach in the commission anti-fraud strategy. commission inspectors will be able to carry out controls directly on economic operators and they will benefit from access to information to the same degree as national inspectors, a point made very forcibly by mrs theato in the course of her contribution. the reports will be assimilated for the purpose of admissibility as evidence in courts with reports produced by national inspectors. i might add, mr president, that uclaf is now in the process of checking the efficiency of all instruments and procedures available at national level to protect the financial interests of the community. the result of this work will become available next year. as you may know, parliament proposes the introduction of some form of sanction against operators who refuse to cooperate with the commission inspectors or deny access to information. obviously we are not unsympathetic to the purposes of that amendment. however, since my colleagues commissioners gradin and liikanen have launched the sound and efficient financial management 2000 project, it is clear that the issue of sanctions is now under very active consideration in partnership with member states and this is also obviously directly related to control and auditing eligibility and penalties. i am therefore sure that we will be able to find solutions within the remit of sem 2000 that will, i hope, meet the concerns registered by mrs theato. in response to the specific and forceful point that she made in the course of her contribution seeking a commission proposal on administrative penal sanctions, i can say definitely, mr president, that the commission will integrate the content of mrs theato's proposed amendment in its 1997 anti-fraud work programme. the commission fully supports the spirit of the amendment, as i indicated, and the reason for not embracing it now arises simply from the need to find answers in terms of legal provision, which would give full effect to the commission's powers to carry out controls, an objective which i am sure that mrs theato and her colleagues heartily support. now to the bontempi report on the draft second protocol to the convention on the protection of the community's financial interests. according to the rules, under the third pillar, honourable members are consulted by the presidency and not by the commission and the text on which this house has been consulted reflects an intermediate compromise established at the end of the italian presidency, with some further amendments. however the commission, in the person of mrs gradin, at the justice and home affairs council in june insisted, as only mrs gradin can, that parliament should be consulted. so i am happy to offer my comments on the report. obviously the presidency will have to make its own comments when it gets the opportunity. generally speaking the commission is very satisfied with mr bontempi's report. we can go along with most of the amendments although i have some minor remarks on a few of them. the fact that we support the various amendments does not, unfortunately, carry the same weight in the third pillar as in the first pillar, as the house will know. there is no monopoly of initiative. the commission can only promise to argue as well as it can for the points accepted this evening. i am sure that honourable members will understand that. on the title, amendment no 1, it is the commission's view that it is better that we stick to the more general terms of the original proposal. we welcome amendment no 2 which calls for a separate instrument on judicial cooperation. this was an important element in the original commission proposal but it has now been dropped in the council negotiations. as honourable members might know, a horizontal instrument which aims at improved mutual judicial assistance is currently before the council. however, i cannot exclude the possibility that a separate instrument aimed at fraud against the community budget will still be needed, in particular when it comes to defining a particular role for the commission in judicial cooperation. amendment no 3 rightly draws attention to the adoption of the protocol on corruption as the relevant date. amendment no 4 meets our concerns relating to the need to cover all forms of legal persons involved in fraud. however, this matter is obviously largely regulated by national law and in order to respect subsidiarity i do not believe it is area into which the commission should venture. we therefore suggest that the text stays as it is. amendment no 5 defines the scope in the title and we can agree with mr bontempi on that and on amendments nos 6 and 7. the latter rightly provides for criminal or administrative penalties when a company lacks the proper organization, supervision or control and thereby makes itself vulnerable to fraudulent behaviour. amendment no 8 does not pose any problem to us and we can also accept amendment no 9 in part. we particularly welcome the exclusion of fraudulent enterprises from participation in public procurement. however, we do not see any use in restricting the application of a judicial winding-up order only to companies with fraud as a primary purpose. in serious cases it might be necessary to close down and restructure any kind of enterprise that is guilty of fraud. to exclude important fraudulent behaviour from winding-up orders seems to us to be rather weak. we can accept amendments nos 10 and 11 which delete those articles of the proposal that are taken up elsewhere in the text. changing title iii as suggested by mr bontempi in amendment no 12 obviously clarifies the point but we do not believe this is absolutely necessary in view of the clarification in the text that follows. on amendment no 13 the commission fully agrees on the need to confiscate the proceeds of fraud and to take conservatory measures. most of the problem is, however, already solved in the text that is being negotiated by the council. we also subscribe to the call for full reimbursement of the proceeds of fraud to the community budget. however, this issue might be better solved in the context of the clearance of accounts procedure under the normal budgetary rules rather than in the present third pillar instrument. amendment no 14 deals with whitewashing of criminal proceeds and money laundering. the amendment actually suggests a slight softening by talking of sanctions only in cases of serious corruption. the commission still believes that all corruption cases are serious and should be liable to sanctions. we agree of course that legal persons should be held liable for money laundering but the text proposed is still under scrutiny by our legal service and might pose some problems. amendment no 15 introduces the notion of mutual assistance in enforcing penalties. mutual assistance normally occurs, of course, before the court cases. enforcement of the penalties is the remit of member states and we suggest that it should be kept as such. may i remind honourable members that we now have in the on-the-spot checks regulation the possibility of checking that measures by member states to protect the budget are equivalent. it means that member states must provide for comparable deterrents and that, in our view, should provide a safety net. amendment nos 16 and 17 widened the scope of fraud to include corruption and we readily accept that. amendments nos 18 and 19 come back to the request for judicial cooperation under the issue of competent authorities. amendment no 19 even suggests that the unit for the coordination of fraud prevention be given a special role and that mrs gradin as commissioner responsible for fraud is appointed mediator. i am at liberty to say that mrs gradin is, of course, very honoured by the proposal but she also takes the view that it is barely realistic at this stage in the discussions. however, mr bontempi's suggestion raises a real issue. member states are increasingly creating their own national specialized bodies to deal with fraud against the community budget. those units like the guardia di finanzia, the oecd, the defo in belgium and the recently created iclaf in france would need a privileged interlocutor at the level of the commission. it might be useful to reflect on how to provide a legal framework for swift and efficient contacts between anti-fraud units in member states and the anti-fraud unit in the commission. in practice work is carried out smoothly and efficiently on an informal basis but a formal framework might be called for. i can promise the house that the commission will reflect on this issue in a very constructive manner. it is clear that the rapporteurs deserve much credit for their reports. the commission really needs support in this most difficult and complex area of judicial and penal cooperation. we believe that both mr bontempi's and mrs theato's reports have provided exactly the kind of well-informed support that the commission is looking for. i thank them and i also thank the house for its great patience over what has inevitably been a very lengthy commission statement. mr president, i want to offer warm thanks to the commissioner for his very clear statement. the question that was raised several times in relation to my report, first by me and then by other speakers, concerned penalties in the event that the commission officials were refused access to premises and information during inspections. it is not possible to incorporate penalties in this draft regulation; nor do we want to delay it. if i understood you correctly you made it very clear that the commission will be dealing with this very soon in the framework of sem and incorporate penal measures. i assume i understood you correctly; for that affects the amendment i tabled on this draft regulation. it would be most helpful if you would confirm that. i can confirm that the honourable member has correctly interpreted the motives and indeed the objectives of the commission. our view is that a very comprehensive and stringent view should be taken of affairs and, within the powers available to us, we want to try to ensure that we reach the same objectives as those desired by the honourable member. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. marine equipment the next item is the recommendation for second reading (a4-0294/96) on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism, on the common position adopted by the council with a view to the adoption of a council directive on marine equipment (c4-0370/96-95/0163(syn)) (rapporteur: mr kaklamanis). mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the subject we are to debate is marine equipment, a subject related to safety at sea, the safety of ships and those who work on them. a subject that is extremely topical and, i would say, sometimes acute - and i refer to recent shipwrecks which we have discussed at length, both on the committee and in plenary. related decisions exist and have been taken in the context of the international maritime organization, but these proved insufficient. so the aims of the directive we are debating, are: 1) to improve safety standards on ships sailing to and from european union ports; 2) to promote the integration of the internal market by ensuring that the equipment on those ships will be of uniformly high quality; and 3) to see that the equipment in question does not affect the competitiveness of european shipping. finally, by renewing and improving marine equipment we also aspire to protect the marine environment. these are ambitious aims. the final text we arrived at is not exactly what everyone on the transport committee would have wanted, but this text certainly covers an existing gap and certainly improves the current situation considerably. the final text is the product of a compromise with the council and the commission. through the person of the commissioner here present, mr kinnock, a commissioner who knows both how to debate and how to listen, i want to thank the relevant service of the commission for its cooperation. however, there were three points in the final text which our committee, the committee on transport, refused to accept because they infringe, or if you will, they go against firm principles held by parliament. on those three points we have come back with rapporteur's amendments, ones of my own, which were approved unanimously by all of us on the transport committee. i would be happy if the same thing happened tomorrow in plenary as well. mr president, i do not think details of this report need be gone into now, both because they are very technical and because, from what i see, the colleagues who do me the honour to be present this evening at this time, know them perhaps better than i, your rapporteur, do myself, since they are older and more experienced members of the european parliament's committee on transport. i hope this report, with the commission's help - and we expect quite a lot from commissioner kinnock - will make some small contribution towards improving safety at sea, the safety of ships and those who work on them, so that we may not have such frequent cause to mourn the shipwrecks we all know about as we did during the past year. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, once again today, the house can take satisfaction from helping to encourage safety in european waters. parliament and the committee on transport feel a sense of pride and responsibility at having played their part in shaping many directives through their reports on marine safety. and in this context, let me pay tribute to my colleague, who wrote the report on marine safety which has been a textbook for what we are dealing with today. there is broad agreement in the commission, the council and parliament that something reasonable will come from this directive. some member states still find it hard to put safety at the top of the agenda, and are more concerned about the conditions for competition. the situation is improving, however, not least because of the commitment shown by parliament. i do not need to mention the names of ships or to describe tragedies here in the house to make this directive easier to understand. firstly, we have a legal framework. secondly, we have the task of harmonization and laying down standards. for many, these two things may be very technical, not political. thirdly, we need to elevate this task, so that international testing methods can be used. fourth, it is important that this directive should be applied internationally, and i am thinking here of the fact that european shipping extends worldwide. it is therefore essential for the commission to ensure - as i know it is doing, and i know that commissioner kinnock is working on this - that the imo is also involved in future action. and fifth, it is important that the directive should be able to incorporate or adopt - whatever word we use - further improvements, so that we are not isolated from developments. in conclusion, i would say that, perhaps unlike the rapporteur, i welcome these amendments which have been voted through parliament, and i should like to congratulate the rapporteur on his willingness to cooperate. in my view, this is a good report. i hope that it can also be implemented in the member states, once it has been adopted. we often find ourselves in the position that implementation lags behind. and my final comment to the commissioner is that i believe that anything which comes under the heading of marine safety or safety in transport should be something to which we hold the council of ministers in future. mr president, i wish to strongly welcome this proposal for a directive on marine equipment as another essential step forward in the improvement of maritime safety in the european union. we cannot overemphasize the need for such action. maritime disasters have caused a tragic loss of human lives in the last decade - over 12, 000 lives have been lost at sea. these many accidents have prompted us in the eu to prioritize safety at sea to try to prevent such a loss of human life again. this proposal, therefore, is welcome because it is the first piece of community legislation dealing with the effectiveness of marine equipment. there is no doubt that safe and reliable equipment can be one of the key elements which prevents tragedies at sea in the future and i hope that this directive will do just that. the directive tackles two key issues: one deals comprehensively with standards for all marine equipment and the second ensures that those bodies appointed to carry out testing can reach the high standards that we require. i cite an example from my own constituency, because it highlights very well the pressing need for this directive. i refer, of course, to the test earlier this year in dover on the ro-ro vessel stena invicta , carried out by the uk maritime authorities. the evacuation, which took place in perfect daylight conditions, failed because of the failure of vital pieces of marine equipment. in particular, one in five of the life rafts on that ro-ro ferry failed to inflate. that delayed the evacuation in perfect conditions for the people on board that ship by over 20 minutes. think what could have happened if that had been in rough seas at night. that was an exercise. next time it could be for real. i am, therefore, extremely pleased that this proposal, which covers, for example, inflatable life rafts, will enforce high standards throughout the european union and i hope in the uk, in my constituency and in dover. indeed, i would welcome the commissioner's views on that exercise in the context of this particular proposal, which clearly sets high standards for key pieces of equipment, such as inflatable life rafts. we simply cannot tolerate any more a sloppy attitude to safety at sea by any member state. i wish to conclude by thanking the rapporteur, mr kaklamanis, whose report will greatly contribute to safety on all our ships. mr president, in addressing you, i would like to protest at the mis-spelling of the greek notice displayed in this chamber, which reads 'ellinka' , and from this platform i ask you to act and get it corrected as soon as possible. as you know, we have had mis-spellings in the chamber in brussels, and we must correct those here as well. turning to the subject, i must say that we agree with the common position parliament is debating and will be voting on. we also agree with the rapporteur's comments and the amendments he is proposing, and i would like to ask the commission and commissioner kinnock in person to do what he can, so that these few amendments, which i hope parliament will approve tomorrow, will be accepted by the commission as well and by the council after it. it is indeed a noteworthy common position, and the commission, parliament, and i must say the council too have all played their part in arriving at this happy outcome. i take this opportunity to remind us all that safety at sea is an issue that cannot be invoked to serve any other aim. safety at sea is an aim in itself, i would say it justifies itself, and it is the duty of us all to ensure the safety of shipping to save both lives and property. but i must stress that the safety of shipping must not be used as an excuse for the enaction of measures unrelated to it. to explain these generalizations, i must tell you that in your statement on 'maritime strategy' , the need to ensure safety at sea, which nobody questions, is used to promote solutions related, for example, to shipping registers. there is no connection other than in the commission's documents, between provisions - and indeed ones governed by directives - relating to national registers of shipping, and issues concerning the safety of shipping. but this, of course, is not the time to talk about that. i hope that next week and in the weeks that follow it we will have the opportunity to discuss this really contradictory text, i would say - please excuse the expression, commissioner - which of course i hope can be improved after debate and dialogue. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, really i can only confirm that, which is why i am also cutting my speech by half. so many right and good things have been said that it would be wrong to repeat them all over again. i believe the main point is not just that all the member states of the eu should sign the imo rules but that they are also applied uniformly. that is the decisive point if we want to protect the people, to protect the environment and also - and i believe my danish colleague agrees with me - to create equal conditions of competition in every part of the community. it also meets the wishes of the industry. that is why the report by mr kaklamanis is a very good report and that is why i will confine myself to amendment no 1. in my humble opinion the justification for amendment is sightly unfortunate. the reason we ask for the sentence 'this paragraph shall not apply to radiocommunications equipment' to be deleted is not in order to exclude the testing of radiocommunications equipment from this directive. it is quite clear from the annexes that the radio equipment must also undergo the necessary tests. much more to the point is that we do not want to have several procedures side by side but a uniform, sensible testing procedure which will help us avoid bureaucracy and therefore provide a fair procedure both for the equipment makers and for the shipping companies. regardless of its justification i therefore hope that you, commissioner, will approve amendment no 1 for the right reasons, of which i am sure you are aware. i do not want the same to happen as unfortunately occurred in the case of overland transport services when we worked very hard in this house to draft sensible amendments that the commission could support and then the commission did not put a single one of our amendments before the council. oh yes, it did put one, but a minor one. so i hope, commissioner, that you will approve the three modest but clear amendments and will also support them before the council. amendment no 1 in particular is designed to simplify, to standardize and to help create sensible framework conditions for the equipment makers and the shipping companies. i wonder whether you will follow the house this time. i am pleased to note the support of the committee on transport and tourism for the common position on the marine equipment directive. i agree that it is a clear improvement on the original proposal. i am also pleased to be able to give my support to amendment no 1 because it is the words that are put forward in the amendment and not necessarily the justification that the law has to take account of. therefore we support and accept the amendment as tabled by the committee since it will avoid the unnecessary application of overlapping provisions to the same piece of radiocommunications equipment, without in any way jeopardizing safety performance. i regret to say, however, that the other two amendments are not acceptable largely for procedural reasons which i do not think the house, on reflection, will find objectionable. i said at first reading that the principle of independence for notified bodies would be set out in annex c of the measure. that is what has happened in the common position which states that a notified body must be independent and not be controlled by manufacturers or by suppliers. amendment no 2 merely repeats that call and it is, in our view, an unnecessary duplication of the provisions already laid down in annex c. i therefore invite the house to look again at amendment no 2 and annex c and see for itself that its concerns have been fully taken into account. as for amendment no 3, i am changing the type of committee referred to in the common position. i have just to remind the house that all the community measures on maritime safety have established regulatory committees. the common position is merely continuing a standard practice which i hope the house will also support. i conclude by thanking the house for supporting this new measure which represents yet another important step towards greater maritime safety. as mr watts said in his contribution, every safety loophole that is closed by the legislation produced by this house and the community is real progress in safeguarding human life and, indeed, the environment. again, i am very grateful to the committee on transport and tourism and particularly to the rapporteur, mr kaklamanis, who has done a characteristically thorough job yet again. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. roadworthiness tests the next item is the recommendation for second reading (a4-0295/96) on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism, on the common position adopted by the council with a view to the adoption of a council directive on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (c4-0369/96-95/0226(syn)) (rapporteur: mr beller). mr president, commissioner kinnock, we are now into the final straight with this seventh directive. the first was in 1977, the others amended the original text to make road travel safer for persons and vehicles, understood in the broad sense. the logic of this report may seem rather stringent, but that is not the case, mr kinnock. this is what has to be done if we want to achieve safety in harmonizing the sector across the various member states. we do not have to make room for the lobby and so-called political agreements. so why exclude fire brigade and police vehicles from the scope of the directive in article 4(1)? why exclude vehicles of historic interest manufactured before 1 january 1960 in article 4(2)? why put off the date of compliance with the directive in article 11(1)? i would like to see it already applied in 1997, if only in the second six months. why remove the proposal to ban vehicles from the road it they do not meet the minimum requirements for braking systems and exhaust gases, by demanding deterrent legislation from the individual member states. mr president, commissioner, i am retabling all the amendments adopted at first reading. they have the consensus of the house, except for the one on granting the member states the power to carry out more rigorous and frequent controls not restricted to braking systems alone. and as regards the tests to be carried out by the various member states on historic vehicles built before 1 january 1960, the speed-limitation devices must be checked to ensure that the maximum values recorded cannot be exceeded. i am retabling amendment no 5 on extending roadworthiness tests to two- and three-wheeled vehicles. i am also retabling the reduction to three years and one year in the intervals between tests on vehicles weighing less than 3.5 tonnes which are used for the carriage of goods, the extension of category 5 to vehicles used for the public transport of passengers - amendment no 8 - and cold-start tests on carbon monoxide emissions for petrol vehicles. these tests must also be carried out at authorized centres appointed for the purpose by the various member states and subject to spot checks. as you see, commissioner, we are not far apart, and i count on the support of the house tomorrow so that we can consider all the problems in a more general light. then, as i said at the start, we will see what form and substance we should finally give the seventh directive. mr president, i wish to begin by saying to commissioner kinnock - because i know his heart is always close to south wales and i come from a mining village myself - that this week is the thirtieth anniversary of the aberfan disaster and we always remember aberfan. i hope he will pass that on to the people of south wales. i thank the rapporteur for his hard work on this directive but, i have to say, that on closer examination my group has some reservations regarding the amendments submitted by the rapporteur and subsequently voted on by the committee on transport and tourism. the subject of roadworthiness tests is a complex one and no one would deny that there is a need to harmonize such tests throughout the union so that we can be assured that a vehicle deemed safe in one member country will be accepted as such in another. certainly, at the moment, standards vary, causing a great deal of concern with regard to road safety. however, my group believes that in some instances the rapporteur has overcompensated for this and extended the scope of the directive far beyond what was intended or, indeed, desired. to illustrate the point, i turn to recital 26 in amendment no 3 which would delete the possibility for member states to exclude from the directive motor vehicles of an historic nature - veteran vehicles, if you like. my group believes that such an act will not only reduce the possibilities to maintain such historic vehicles but does not recognize the loving care owners of such vehicles lavish on them. in my view these vehicles are probably amongst the best maintained on our roads. indeed, as someone who lovingly follows the maintenance of steam locomotives, i know that they are the best maintained. the same goes for fire appliances, which the rapporteur believes should be included in the directive. i notice in his report he talks about police vehicles as well but there is no mention there of police vehicles, just fire appliances, which is included in his amendment no 6. it is my experience that these vehicles are very well maintained as a matter of course. anyway, being so few in number, they do not pose a road safety threat. other areas where my group has problems are article 11 and amendment no 7, which seeks to shorten the delay for implementation to six months. this is simply just not practically possible. amendment no 5 asks for a feasibility study on extending the scope of the directive to two and three-wheeled vehicles. the commission, as i understand it, has all the information it requires on this matter. so why another study? amendments nos 1 and 10 seek to amend the ways of testing the carbon monoxide content of exhaust from a cold start. whilst my group can support such a move on modern vehicles, to do so with a blanket coverage would not only be unfair on owners of older vehicles but also discriminatory. also we are not so sure that cold-start testing was not included in this directive anyway. three amendments where we can agree with the rapporteur are nos 2, 8 and 9 - some of which seek to tighten up the regulations to include vehicles greater than three-and-a half tonnes that carry passengers, to increase the frequency of testing and to ensure the removal from our roads of vehicles that do not conform to the roadworthiness regulations. whilst my group appreciates the difficulties this may cause in the council of ministers, we cannot accept the fact that vehicles deemed as unroadworthy, having failed the approved test, should be given any leeway or time to put them back on the road. in conclusion, my group will support just three amendments and believes that, on the whole, the commission's directive is one that we can support. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after we all survived the first reading in the committee on transport and in plenary i must say quite frankly that i am somewhat surprised now at second reading to see the socialists suddenly diverging from our common road. but at this point we should no longer be surprised at anything relating to the socialists' politics. what we are discussing today is a major component of our single market legislation. it concerns the approximation not just of type approval but also of technical tests and integrating them on a european basis. let me base myself partly on the amendments. the crucial one is of course amendment no 8, the reduction of the frequency of tests to three years after the date of first use, and thereafter every year for the listed categories of vehicle, which now also include vehicles for the public transport of passengers. i think that is a decisive point in relation to transport safety questions, which are of course more serious in the case of older vehicles than newly approved ones. in the case of amendment no 10, which goes back to my initiative - it concerns the cold start of vehicles - i would like to point out that the socialists in particular call for such things on every conceivable and inconceivable occasion and keep demanding environmental standards which are no longer feasible for the industry. at present we are discussing the motor-oil programme in the committee on the environment. i am drafting the opinion for the committee on research. here we have something which is already being tested in the united states, for example, and is included in the measurement cycle. and suddenly we are told: no, we cannot do that, it would be outrageous because it was never included in the directive. even if we may not manage to get this through here because the socialists do not support us, we will certainly manage to have it included in the motor-oil programme or in later euro-3/euro-4 legislation. i wonder how enthusiastically the pse group will then approve it. we will reject amendment no 6 - and here we agree with mr brian simpson. i myself am a local politician, we ourselves have a municipal fire-brigade, and they really are the most beautiful vehicles you could ever see. they are always perfectly polished, perfectly maintained, always filled up, the oil level is checked at least once a day and these vehicles really are in top condition; here the exception is definitely justified. i also regard it as acceptable for the old-timers to be granted special protection. that is why we will reject amendment no 6. amendment no 7: i do believe it is possible to bring all this into force in the space of six months. here we really should deal a bit fairly with one another. similarly, in the case of amendment no 9 i can only support the rapporteur. we have to exert a little pressure here to ensure that certain vehicles are taken off the road if they do not satisfy certain genuinely important requirements for the safety of other transport users, for instance in relation to brakes. speed limitation devices are another question that still needs examining. today 50 % of the value of a vehicle is accounted for by electronics. those are questions we are not examining. so something cannot be right here. and surely a speed limitation device is the most harmless thing one could ask for. we will still have much to do in this area of electronics in future in relation to the regular tests. the epp will also support amendment no 5 concerning two- and three-wheeled vehicles. after all we have been waiting for ages for the commission's words of wisdom on this. to summarize, the epp will support all the amendments except for amendment no 6. mr president, the proposal for a council directive on roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers was submitted for two principal reasons. firstly, the inclusion of checks on speedlimitation devices installed in lorries and coaches in roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers. secondly, the consolidation of the 1977 directive which has been amended on numerous occasions since its introduction. in the common position the council adopted a number of amendments tabled by the european parliament, but at this second reading the committee on transport and tourism proposes a number of further amendments to the common position. we cannot, however, support all of these. first of all there is the amendment which allows the member states to apply stricter tests in other areas than brake systems. such demands are not yet laid down in the type approval for entrance to the market and would therefore distort competition. the same applies to the emission standards for cold starting and the determination of the carbon monoxide content. also, unlike the committee on transport and tourism, we would like to leave the decision on whether or not to test vehicles of historic interest to the member states. we will be supporting most of the other amendments, but generally endorse the commission's proposal. mr president, in the second reading, parliament is asked to give an opinion on a proposal for a common council directive relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers. the report on the subject undoubtedly contains mainly positive elements that should be accepted and supported. i am very pleased that from now on each member state will recognize the evidence provided by another member state that a motor vehicle registered in the latter, together with its trailer or semi-trailer, has successfully passed a roadworthiness test that fully complies with the provisions of the present directive. i wonder however what mr ferber wished to imply. we have opted for a reasonable policy and a feasible one - although this is another matter open to discussion. i am sorry, however, that the common position has disregarded the obligation for member states to conduct tests on vehicles prior to the first registration and to carry out regular checks on speed limitation devices. this is indeed a double-edged weapon, for we must face facts and accept that the speed limiting device is an electromechanical instrument which can theoretically be falsified. from this point of view, checking is essential. however, such testing presupposes monitoring equipment which is highly efficient in detecting defective or inaccurate speed limiting devices or ones that have been tampered with. we must therefore ask ourselves, and the commissioner is right in this case, whether all member states are ready to make it compulsory for their various testing services to be equipped with such test equipment, whose very efficiency makes it expensive. the common position seems to me a step in the right direction. despite my concern to see legislative provisions come into force as quickly as possible, we believe that the six month deadline suggested by the rapporteur is too short for member states to be capable of complying with the new provisions. as for the frequency of tests, it seems to me that amendment no 8 of the rapporteur, providing for testing three years after the date of first use and then annually, is the most reasonable. i sincerely believe that the aim of the present directive is a step in the right direction. it clearly involves very strict testing. it goes without saying that vehicles that do not pass will be taken out of circulation, as provided for by amendment no 9 of the rapporteur. in conclusion, may i say: thank you, commissioner, you have done a good job. thank you, mr rapporteur, we have made progress, and that is something. mr president, could i welcome the commissioner at this late hour to the chamber. i hope you will join me in my admiration of mr simpson's new look. i think he is looking remarkably smart and it is a pleasure to see the socialists following the conservative style of dress. could i just say i would like to support what mr simpson has said on the position, as he called it, of 'veteran' cars. i would crave the support of the rapporteur in an otherwise very good report in asking him to consider withdrawing amendments nos 3 and 6. the position of classic cars is that they have long enjoyed a special exemption under our own united kingdom rules. i am sure the commissioner and the house will agree that the united kingdom rules are exemplary. for new cars, we already insist on a roadworthiness test after the initial three years, and thereafter annual tests. i hope the commission, and indeed the house, will support us in maintaining an exemption under the rule of subsidiarity to this directive for classic cars. otherwise i am sure my group will support this excellent report and i would like to congratulate the commission on bringing forward this directive. i hope also that the commission will actually, when the directive has been adopted, ensure that its provisions are implemented in each and every member state. first of all i should like to respond to the very sober note struck by mr simpson with his reference to the anniversary of the aberfan disaster 30 years ago. that has particular resonance for me because i held a class every week in the village and i was there on the morning of the disaster and for some time after it - indeed, dealing with the families for several months after it. i do not think anyone can ever forget the appalling horrors of that time or everything that has followed from it. the committee on transport and tourism and its rapporteur, mr beller, have worked quickly to bring this proposal back to the house for a second reading. i appreciate that very much since it will obviously facilitate the final adoption of this measure before the end of the year. it is regrettable, therefore, that the haste with which the common position was reviewed appears to have resulted in some amendments that are not acceptable. i refer in particular to three of the four amendments which were put forward previously, at first reading, and which, as i explained at the time, i simply could not support. amendment no 1 refers to the accelerated working method on official qualification. that implies that the proposal is mere codification which is certainly not the case as significant new elements have been introduced into the basic text. consequently the cooperation procedure is fully applicable, illustrated by the fact that we are having this second reading debate. amendment no 5 asks the commission to submit a report on the feasibility of extending road worthiness tests to two- and three-wheeled vehicles. if i could remind the house, i already committed the commission to drawing up rules for testing these vehicles and to base a proposal on the established testing scheme existing in several member states. neither i, nor indeed parliament, need a report. on the contrary, what is needed is a proposal. i intend to submit such a proposal for action to the commission before the end of this year. the third amendment, which falls into the repetitive category - amendment no 10 - calls for a cold start test in relation to the carbon dioxide content of exhaust gases. again, as i said at first reading, if cold start standards do not feature in the type-approval requirements for a car, it is unjustifiable to impose a test which a car is simply not designed to be able to pass. however i said that i would keep this under review and certainly if type-approval requirements are amended to include cold start standards then there may be scope to modify testing requirements accordingly. i can understand the reasoning for the fourth amendment, which returns from first reading - amendment no 8 - relating to testing frequency. i fully accept the political statement that the house wants to make. indeed the commission's original proposal many years ago was itself based on three years for the first test, two years for the second and then annual tests. i hope that one day all member states will adopt such a standard, as some have already done, as miss mcintosh reminded us. in the meantime it is not practical to force the pace on those member states which even now benefit from derogations from the present provisions. nevertheless, i repeat my undertaking from first reading to include an assessment of testing frequency in my report to parliament scheduled for 1998. i now turn very quickly to the new amendments that have been proposed. amendments nos 3 and 6 seek to remove the possibility for a member state to exempt from tests fire appliances and certain vehicles of historic interest. the recommendation for second reading seeks to justify these amendments by claiming that they reinstate the possibility for member states to test such vehicles. but the common position provides this possibility already. parliament's amendment, however, would have the effect of imposing unnecessary tests on a relatively small number of vehicles which are generally maintained to very high standards already. i cannot support amendment no 2 which would extend the possibility of carrying out more stringent and more frequent tests to all standards and not just to braking systems as at present. our long-term goal is to harmonize testing standards at levels which guarantee safety, and this amendment is incompatible with that objective. with regard to amendment no 4 i have to advise the house that checks on speed limitation devices are problematical. we recognize, therefore, the need to give the matter further study and when this is completed we will make proposals that address the issue. i must also ask the house not to think that what is adopted here today can be implemented tomorrow. the sixmonth deadline for the implementation of this directive, as suggested in amendment no 7, is clearly inadequate. i therefore have to insist on one year simply for practical reasons. i come, finally, to amendment no 9. the house will be aware that i have a lot of sympathy for this amendment although i also recognize that if the spirit of the common position is respected then the objective behind it will, in any case, be attained. however there is also a practical difficulty because there is as yet no common response to dealing with vehicles which do not meet test standards. some vehicles cannot leave the test centre; some can be take away to be repaired; while in other cases pass certificates may be issued on the undertaking that the defect is corrected before the next test. that situation is clearly unsatisfactory and i intend to investigate it further and include it in my 1998 report. then we may be able to do something. i very much regret that i am not able formally to accept any of the amendments that have been conscientiously tabled. i hope the house will understand that i would not be properly playing my part in the legislative process if, on this occasion, i were to do otherwise. i thank the committee, and particularly mr beller, for the attention that they have given to this issue. i am certain that my disagreement with them on this occasion will not prevent the pursuit of our joint objectives on many other occasions. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. fourth r & d framework programme the next item is the oral question (b4-0856/96-0-0172/96) by mr scapagnini, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, to the council, on the increase in funding for the fourth framework programme of activities in the field of research, technological development and demonstration (1994-1998) (rtd) (c4-0092/96-96/0034(cod)). mr president, ladies and gentlemen, minister, only two and a half years have gone by since the european parliament and the council completed the conciliation procedure on the fourth framework programme in april 1994. that occasion, as we know, marked the first true application of the conciliation procedure introduced by the treaty of maastricht. in that act of co-decision of 26 april 1994, the parties decided to review the financing of the framework programme, leaving open the possibility of a funding increase of ecu 700 million in view of the development of european financial perspectives. this possibility of financing should have been adopted not later than 30 june of this year. while parliament completed first reading in june, the council wanted to take its decision in the light of the outcome of the ecofin council of 14 october. furthermore there was no follow-up to the proposal put forward to parliament's committee on research to postpone the research council until after the ecofin council. the fact is the presidency has agreed to the research ministers becoming hostage to the finance ministers. up to now it does not look as if the presidency has taken any apparent action in the research council to overcome this impasse. in fact the research council of 7 november asked the commission to find additional financial resources in the area of the third budget line in the current financial perspectives. and i am sorry to say that in addition to that, the presidency has refused to inform the committee on research, technological development and energy of the results of the research council. in my capacity as chairman, with the agreement of all the members, i wrote to president hnsch on that occasion asking him to raise the matter at the meeting of the trialogue planned for this week thus safeguarding the rights of parliament vis--vis the council. i want to stress that, through the relevant committee, parliament has demonstrated its openness to a compromise, as is now happening as regards consideration of the budget. but the council does not seem to be making much effort to find some form of dialogue. to be successful, the co-decision procedure cannot be initiated only after the council has adopted its common position. the irish presidency should examine the reasons holding it back from continuing the useful informal contacts initiated last july which seemed so promising. but, mr president, this is not just an interinstitutional question. the basic problem is whether the council of ministers really wants to respect the commitment taken in april 1994. without that financial commitment there can be no progress in important areas like aeronautics and space research, multimedia education and research into water and renewable sources of energy, and that is bound to have major repercussions on competitiveness, employment and environmental protection in the european union. in the debate on the 1997 budget - and the vote will be taken tomorrow - the european parliament is considering the possibility of putting ecu 100 million into the reserves for research and technological development. this amount, planned as an addition to the actual achievements of the fourth framework programme, should not exceed the limits of the financial perspectives. to this end a formal decision is needed on the revision of the fourth framework programme. it is also planned to include another ecu 100 million in the 1998 and 1999 budgets if the programme is extended to 1999, which the european parliament already voted for at first reading. these considerations should be interpreted as a clear political signal from the european parliament to the research council and the commission, because they make it explicit that the supplementary funding for the fourth framework programme no longer depends on the revision of the financial forecasts. we hope the council can react to this signal and adopt its common position on the fourth framework programme in december. but i want to invite the irish presidency and in particular minister rabitte who demonstrated such readiness to respond positively to the offer of the european parliament committee on research, technological development and energy in preparation for the common position, avoiding arguments about formalities. only through cooperation between our institutions will it be possible to achieve the common objective of european research, thus contributing to the creation of new jobs and encouraging investment. mr president, i thank mr scapagnini for raising this matter. the council re-examined the question of the commission's proposal for a financial supplement to the fourth research framework programme during its last session on 7 october 1996 but was unable to reach a common position. you will recall that when submitting its proposal for a supplement to the research framework programme the commission indicated in its explanatory memorandum that a substantial increase in the present ceiling of category 3 of the financial perspective would be necessary. on 7 october last the council attempted to identify a limited number of themes which might be implemented on a trial and experimental basis but in the absence of any indication from the commission as to availability of funds within the existing financial ceiling, it was not possible to make progress on this basis. in view of the above, the council decided to await a possible identification by the commission of additional resources within the ceiling of category 3 of the current financial perspective and to re-examine this question at its next session in december so as to finalize then its position in the light of the budgetary situation. it should be recalled that the framework programme decisions of 1994 to which mr scapagnini refers committed the council and the european parliament to undertake a mid-term review of the framework programme, the amount of ecu 700m constituting a maximum target figure for a possible increase of the overall amount depending on the situation at that time regarding in particular the financial perspective. following the outcome of the ecofin council on 14 october 1996 it is now clear that there will be no revision of the financial perspective. therefore the original commission proposal for a financial supplement of ecu 700m is no longer a realistic working hypothesis. the council has carried out its obligation to undertake such a mid-term review and has had to recognize that in the present budgetary circumstances it is not possible to envisage an increase of the framework programme on the lines proposed by the commission. the council is now awaiting a clear position from the commission in order to proceed further with this dossier. on the matter mr scapagnini raises about my own willingness to maintain contact with parliament and this matter being the subject of a letter he wrote to president hnsch on 10 october, i wish to put on the record that i took part in direct contacts with parliament and its committee on research, technological development and energy on 6 march, 26 june, 9 july, 25 september in dublin and last week at the socialist group meeting. in may i invited mr linkohr to dublin but unfortunately he had to cancel at the very last minute. on 7 october i had the research council meeting in luxembourg followed by my presidency address as chairman of the consumer council to answer to the european parliament, to the consumer committee on 8 october. despite that schedule, i offered to see the energy, research and technology committee again on the evening of 8 october but that was not suitable and i fully understand that. at official level my colleagues and the irish representation in brussels have been in regular contact with your secretariat since december of last year and, as you know, my officials also met with meps of the energy, research and technology committee on 16 july here in strasbourg and several times in ireland. so, i would argue that my record and that of the irish presidency as a whole stands up to scrutiny. there is really not any reluctance at all on our part to maintain contact with parliament. we have been very anxious to do that from the very beginning but unfortunately we have had to do it within the stresses and strains of the requirements of the presidency. mr president-in-office, i have listened very carefully to your reply to the question put to you by the president of the committee on research, technological development and energy. this reply did not disappoint me as i did not expect anything else from you. nevertheless, i am forced to say today that the council has clearly proved itself lacking in dealing with the matter. you yourself recalled the codecision of april 1994 in which i played a very active part, providing for a decision on your part before 30 june 1996. the european parliament itself got on with things quite quickly, as did the commission, by making a proposal according to a timetable enabling the council to come to a decision before 30 june. you have not done so. you pleaded that it was necessary to wait for the decisions of the florence summit, and so on and so forth: in short, you have decided nothing. in october, you had a 'research' council. we had several contacts with you, as you recalled just now, and at that time you made yourself readily available to us. parliament, like you, noted in these contacts that the absence of any revision of the financial perspective changed the problem and that it was now clearly necessary to find ways towards a financial compromise. everybody agrees about this, but nothing is happening. on 7 october, there was still the same deficient report from the council, which did not even manage, independently of the financial package, to reach agreement over some of the priorities. nothing at all came out of this council. two councils wasted, despite the fact that they have on the table the proposal from the commission, together with the resolution and the report from parliament. today, you say to us that we still have to wait. but wait for what? i do not believe there is any indication in the text of the treaty that the 'ecofin' council is a super council. the council is a single legal entity, and the research council is not legally of lower status than the 'ecofin' council. in reality, mr president, the 'research' council - and you certainly are not alone responsible for this, far from it, you undoubtedly bear less responsibility than others - the 'research' council virtually went down on its knees before the 'ecofin' council. and it expects the 'ecofin' council to say to it: ' here you are, here are a few crumbs' . today we are concerned with the budgetary procedure and a proposal will be voted on tomorrow morning by the european parliament with a view to setting up a reserve of ecu 100 million for 1997, with the intention of reaching ecu 300 million for refinancing the framework programme over the next three financial years. you cannot say that the european parliament has not shown imagination and willingness in the matter. you are now waiting for the commission to make you a counter-proposal and i believe in fact that an amended proposal from the commission would now be welcome so that next december's council could finally be a council that comes to a decision on a common position. for it is in the codecision with the european parliament, mr president, that things have to be decided, not in the upper levels of the 'ecofin' council, not in the council of finance ministers. it is at your level that this must be done. it is at the level of your relations with the european parliament, clarified by the commission. that is the treaty, the whole treaty and nothing but the treaty. and i say to you straight away that if, in december, the council does not assume its responsibilities, we in the european parliament will consider using any legal method of denouncing the shortcomings of the council. mr president, officially this is an oral question to the council. but commission representatives are present and i would like to go into the matter in a little more depth. let me repeat what we all know. on 26 april 1994 we had the result of co-decision between parliament and the council. this was the first co-decision act since maastricht and at the time the two institutions were quite happy with the procedure. the council and the european parliament, and let me stress this fact, the council too, were satisfied with the result at the time. barely two and a half years have passed since then, and although the refinancing should have occurred before 30 june, we find ourselves in a desert. i cannot think of any other term to describe it. the research council has not taken any decision, it is waiting for ecofin. ecofin has asked the commission to present a new proposal. well, i really do ask myself whether the european institutions have become unable to act. what are we as parliament doing? the linkohr report concerns a commission proposal that not only calls for an increase in funding but - and i say this plainly to the commission - is also an entirely new version in terms of content. after the linkohr report i heard that the commission had somehow or other produced a new proposal that was not, however, any different from the first one, although our colleague's report was different from the commission proposal. so why are we actually here and why are we working? second question. in the light of our responsibility for the difficult financial situation in the member states - even my own country, germany, is not doing particularly well financially - we as parliament are proposing a reserve of ecu 100 million with the prospect, as you have just heard, of maintaining this increase over the next two years too. we have received no response to this proposal, which is a quite genuine proposal. so i want to ask why not? during this period - and i am coming back to the commission now - the commission has been working away on a fifth framework programme, but why in fact? it evidently seems unable to bring the middle of this fourth framework programme to a conclusion. what is actually happening with research now? what can the researchers expect now? what can the smes expect of this commission now? in short, we are in a right mess, that is all i can say! mr president-in-office, can you actually give us and the citizens of europe a plausible answer to this question: why are you prepared to put so much money into maintaining the existing and in part obsolete structures and so little into the only thing that protects jobs, namely research and development and strengthening the innovative power of the smes? i regard that as in total contradiction to the declared aim of president santer, which was to reduce unemployment in the european union. you can all see how difficult that is from the efforts the member states are making at national level and from the fairly meagre results. here again i do not exclude my own country. for the rest, i have to say this: as far as i remember, you were not there on 8 october, mr president! that you or one of your representatives went to the socialist group last week is not officially known to the european parliament. mr president, you are a minister and enough of a politician to know that has something to do with party politics! we still exist too! mr president, i am glad that mr scapagnini has asked this question. my fellow committee members have already explained the technical details. i do not therefore intend to repeat them. however, i have the feeling that the council is trying to hide something somehow. they are shifting the blame onto others, such as the ecofin council. this feeling is hanging in the air the whole time. the question is why they do not want to invest these resources. what is behind it? it is a question of important research which is needed for the european union and for the member states. it is research which is needed to renew energy sources and for the development of it. these are areas where we can be competitive and where jobs can be created. it is therefore important to obtain access to these resources. we in the green group naturally support this kind of research. what we do not support, on the other hand, is research concerning fusion. the council has already cut resources for the save ii programme and the thermie programme, which i truly regret. it is therefore important that we obtain an answer from the research council and the minister here today as to what is really going on. mr president, to what extent is the council actually still able to decide - that is the crucial question here, which goes far beyond the subject of research. that is not your problem, mr president-in-office of the council, it is not mr rabitte's problem; the council as a whole is unable to decide and, as previous speakers have made very clear, is putting off the decisions. here one has to ask what the european union and the institutions look like from outside. the commission proposes task forces. this gives the impression that suddenly something very special is happening at european level. large task forces are to be set up, the industry adapts itself! and what is the end result? no decision, hot air; in the end we are disgracing ourselves. today we still do not know whether we will get nothing, get 100 million or 200 million, get it perhaps in two years' time? neither we nor those who are watching us have any information on that. but we also have a problem with the commission. for strictly speaking the commission will have to revise its proposal, internally at least, in view of the presumably realistic background of about ecu 100 million for next year. there is talk of a number of task forces, and this is also mentioned in the council decision. the european parliament has also given its views on a number of task forces. if we now only have 100 million available for the next year, that will have to be distributed. and then the commission will have to tell us where it puts the priorities. so strictly speaking this is a problem we all three have and that could certainly be resolved in the appropriate trialogue, not through spontaneous action but in a proper, organized trialogue. in my view that should be possible. the problem is exacerbated by the fact that we have already begun to discuss the fifth framework research programme. and this increase in the funding of the fourth framework research programme is a kind of qualifying round for the fifth framework research programme. these task forces are a test of what we may find in the fifth framework research programme. there are certainly some very interesting ideas in it. but decisions also have to be taken. parliament made you an offer, the committee on budgets put this offer, and parliament will take a decision on this too. that is a good basis and a realistic one on which we could work. i very much hope it will not take much longer until we really do achieve a basis of trust so that we are not just seen, from the outside too, to be producing hot air but really can also take decisions. mr president, i am grateful for the opportunity to intervene and i do so mainly because of the extensive references made to the commission particularly in the contribution by mrs quisthoudt-rowohl. i think i should take the opportunity, not in any defensive sense, to respond to the point that she put about 'what resources research can expect from the commission' . i quote her precisely and i respond by saying the common sense view: only the resources we have and are allowed to spend. i sympathize with the objections that have been lodged to the restraints imposed upon research funding. i sympathize very strongly with those objections but frankly they are not issues to be taken up with the commission. perhaps time could more profitably be used by the honourable member in taking them up with members of ecofin, not least of course the representative of her own country, on the economic and finance ministers council. his response might be illuminating. can i also say, mr president, that following the failure of the ecofin council to agree on a revision of the financial perspective, it is clear that the council considers the commission proposal for the financial complement of ecu 700 m to be obsolete and that it is up to the commission to identify additional financial resources within the ceiling of category 3 of the current financial perspective. even if the revision of the financial perspective is not pursued any further the commission would not wish to change its position on the need for and the possibility of a financial supplement to the fourth framework programme. the need for such a supplement is not only demonstrated of course by the commission proposals, it has also been justified by the urgent additional research requirements which result from bse and the possibility of related diseases occurring in humans and indeed in other species. it is only the scale and not the principle of supplementary funding that is dependent on the revision of the financial perspective. for clarification i quote with your permission the decisive paragraph in the commission's explanatory memorandum. it says: even limiting its proposal to ecu 700 m the commission stresses that the present ceiling in category 3 of the financial perspective should substantially be raised to allow for a satisfactory financing of research and technological development framework programmes and trans-european networks. consequently, the commission reserves the right to modify the present proposal when it presents it proposals for the revision of the 1997 and 1998 financial perspectives and to modify the proposal according to the decisions of the budgetary authority on the subject. in the absence of a revision of the financial perspective satisfactory financing will not be possible. however this does not mean that supplementary financing is altogether excluded. the commission is therefore considering ways and means of how to break the present deadlock in council and is determined to produce a workable answer in time for the next research council which is scheduled for 5 december under the very able presidency of the minister who i am very glad to see is with us this evening. mr president, i agree, firstly, that the question is an important one. i also agree that the deadline of 30 june was not realized. but members would have to agree that since 30 june i have attempted to move this dossier forward. it a complex one for reasons we all know, and we have made very considerable progress in bringing it back towards the top of the agenda. that should not overshadow the importance of discussions getting under way on the fifth framework programme. therefore, it is important that it is brought to finality. i would point to the conclusions of the last council meeting of 7 october when it was agreed that the matter would be brought to a conclusion at the december council. commissioner kinnock's remarks are very welcome in the situation in which we now find ourselves. there is not much point in tracing the history of this particular dossier. everybody here in parliament tonight is familiar with that. it should be recorded that when the preliminary draft budget for 1997 was being presented, the commission made it very clear that it did not include provisions for the ecu 700m to which mr scapagnini referred; it did not include the commission's proposal for that increase in the financial envelope of the fourth framework programme. that was subject to evaluation and an assessment in the circumstances that now prevail. i have also heard what members have said about parliament's proposal for a reserve of ecu 100m. again, i unequivocally welcome that. one can begin to see a possible consensus taking shape, because it is not possible to ignore the budgetary process. i accept - and have always accepted - that the budgetary process involves both council and parliament. but it is going to have to work its way through; the information that mr scapagnini has given us is helpful and i hope we can work on that. mr linkohr raised the question of what this means in terms of the council being able to arrive at a decision. perhaps they may have been some dilatoriness earlier but the council is committed to finalize it at the december meeting. in answer to the other question: there are certain priorities that probably have brought consensus within the council on what the priority areas are. the commissioner referred to the question of vaccines and diseases and specifically the question of bse; aeronautics has featured prominently; transport intermodality and multimedia are also possibilities. i have a preference myself and i have said before to parliament that in addition to dealing with questions like the bse vaccines programme and aeronautics, landmines is something that ought to be considered. there is a compelling morality here apart from any other considerations. a strong case has been made by members of parliament to me as president-in-office. i would record again my own sincere commitment to advocate that position to my colleagues within the council. the budgetary process must take its course and therefore it would be very foolish to send out positive signals saying that this difficult dossier is being brought to a conclusion. a the same time one can certainly see a chink of light at this stage. i welcome the positive remarks from parliament and from the commissioner. it will not be for want of any effort on the part of the presidency if we fail to bring this to a positive conclusion. i am determined we should do so. the issues involved are important ones and it is important that we resolve them so that we can deal with the major issue which is the shape and content of the fifth framework programme. mr president, i should like perhaps to clear up an ambiguity, because i understand the president-in-office of the council to be saying on the one hand that the council could take a decision on 5 december but on the other that we must wait for the end of the budgetary procedure. the budgetary procedure will not of course be completed on 5 december since we shall at that time be between the first and second reading. nevertheless, precisely because the budgetary procedure will not have been completed it is absolutely essential that the 'research' council of 5 december takes up a clear position. that would be the best way for ministers of research to help parliament, faced with the other branch of the budgetary authority: the council. mr president, two very short final questions. one to the commission which is also keeping us in suspense, without an answer. when is the commission actually going to respond to the council's demand? and finally, one specific question to the council in the light of the statement by the minister: is the council prepared to resume the informal meetings with the committee on research, technological development and energy as soon as possible, and really make the dialogue work? i can reply briefly in response to the question: hopefully by midnovember. i have no difficulty at all about such informal meetings being resumed with a view to resolving this entire matter as soon as possible. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 10.00 a.m. (the sitting was suspended at 11.25 p.m.)

4. concentration and pluralism in the media in the european union ( - before the vote (es) i have asked to speak pursuant to rule 166 of the rules of procedure, in relation to rule 45(2) of the rules of this house. rule 45(2) was recently amended to prohibit amendments to motions for resolutions contained in own-initiative reports. the result, as we shall see in the forthcoming vote, is that if a parliamentary group wishes to amend one line or one paragraph of an own-initiative report, it is required to table a completely separate alternative motion for a resolution where the only difference is one comma, or the insertion or deletion of a single word. perhaps at the time it seemed like a good idea when the rule was being amended but what is happening now is that it is making it difficult to reach agreements within this chamber, and reaching agreements should be one of our main objectives. it is impossible to reach any agreement between political groups if the only thing we can do is table a separate text, as we will see in the vote shortly. mr president, i request that the amendment to rule 45(2) be reviewed because the effect it is having is absurd and it is interfering with the political relationships between groups in this chamber. (applause) i must point out that the european parliament, in its wisdom, took that decision. (objection by mrs pack) i am afraid so, mrs pack, but that cannot be altered. in the meantime, we must adhere to the letter of the law. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mr guardans should perhaps ask his group as it was one of the proponents of this rule. i should nevertheless like to say this: the report on which we are voting today, the mikko report on concentration and pluralism in the media, is the first report which we are approving under this procedure, which prevents us from having a full debate, which prevents us from tabling amendments, on a day when there has been a serious, very serious, attack on freedom of expression in italy, with the announcement of the sacking of 25 journalists from the only television channel over which berlusconi does not at present hold sway. i think that the way in which we are debating these problems is also indicative of a lack of will in this house to introduce rules, laws or directives on media concentration and pluralism which are increasingly urgently needed in the european union. (applause from the centre and the left) mr president, i would to thank everybody who contributed to this extremely important and high-profile report on media pluralism and concentration in the european union. the report is about safeguarding democracy. we have tried to include everything that strengthens democracy in this report. that is why you should try to focus and think twice before you vote. what are you in favour of, and what are you opposing? we are sending this message to our citizens today. please think. (applause) on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (hu) mr president, as shadow rapporteur for this topic, i would like to join those who say that this system is not good as it is. i would have liked to express the opinion of the people's party in the parliamentary debate, but, as shadow rapporteur, i was not given the floor. i would like to ask why, if pluralism in the media is so important, pluralism of opinion is not so important? i would have liked to explain the fact that we do not agree on some things, but i was not given the floor. of the whole parliament, two people were allowed to speak on this topic; the rapporteur and the commissioner. we absolutely must consider whether this system is good, because we are curious about each other's opinions, and this is called pluralism of opinion. please, mr president, help us to bring this to fruition. (applause from the right) ladies and gentlemen, i give mr cohn-bendit leave to speak, but then we must proceed to the vote. we can draw the appropriate conclusions about the consequences of our own decision. if we have made a questionable decision, we have the right to amend it ourselves, but the amendment must be made in accordance with the proper procedures. (de) mr president, this particular piece of nonsense you just referred to was adopted by the majority of this house in spite of our voting against it. it was your decision! give your chairman hell now so that he gets it amended! (applause from the centre and left) we do not really want to give anyone hell, but conclusions can be drawn if the majority of the house so wishes. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i have no intention of looking in any detail at the inaccurate statements that mrs frassoni has made, but i feel that i must make one clarification to the house. in italy, it is not president berlusconi but other groups which own television channels. mr president, in italy, there are three state television channels: rai 1, rai 2 and rai 3, there is the mediaset group and then in italy there is la7 . (protests from the centre and the left) ladies and gentlemen, there is no reason to get worked up. you took a decision. if parliament has taken a decision that the majority may deem to have been unwise, it can be changed. but a rule is observed until such time as it is amended. that is the principle we follow in parliament. (applause)

resumption of the session i declare resumed the session of the european parliament adjourned on 3 december 1998. approval of the minutes the minutes of the last sitting have been distributed. are there any comments? mr president, i want to speak on pages 6 and 7 of the minutes. as you have acknowledged yourself, a qualified majority was needed to adopt the statute, an absolute majority of members of parliament. so i imagine it was a mistake that recital g), which received 270 votes, was declared adopted, and likewise amendment no 84 to the annex, with 264 votes, article 1(1) of the annex, with 251 votes for the first part and 212 for the second, article 2 of the annex, with 279 votes for the first part and 288 for the second, article 8(1) of the annex, with 311 votes, and, finally, article 5 of the annex, with 297 votes. these provisions appear in the draft statute which was adopted. i believe they should not have been declared adopted and i do not think we can approve minutes containing such a manifest error, especially as important provisions are contained in the text in question. mr fabre-aubrespy, you will remember that you raised this question when the text came to be approved in the form in which its various parts had been adopted. it is when the vote is taken that the majority has to be established, and the majority was established at that point and easily obtained. i also told you that i would refer the matter to the committee on the rules of procedure. you wrote me a letter which i shall forward to the rules committee in order to have a definitive interpretation. for the moment, these parts of the text are deemed to have been adopted in accordance with my interpretation of the vote at the time, right or wrong. they therefore stand adopted. the text has been forwarded to the council, which moreover has just taken note of it at the european council meeting in vienna. however, your written protest will be forwarded to the rules committee without delay, so that it can consider this interpretation. mr president, i asked you last time to consider improving the bicycle facilities in this building, such as by allocating one car-parking space in the covered car park for bicycles. i have not had any reply from you, although the president at the time assured me she would look into the matter. i would therefore ask you again, as i did last time, to ensure that improvements are made so that cyclists do not always have to take second place to car-drivers. set one car-parking space aside so that cyclists have more room to store their bicycles out of the rain. thank you, mr eisma. i shall investigate what exactly happened and why no reply has been forthcoming. rest assured that you will receive a reply in due course. mr president, i have just found out that mr zaldivar, the president of the chilean senate, who supported general pinochet's coup d'tat, is coming to the european parliament tomorrow in support of pinochet. may i ask in what context and on what grounds this visit is taking place? you are misinformed, mr duhamel. the president of the senate, mr zaldvar, was exiled for many years precisely because he did not support the coup d'tat by general pinochet. he is coming here to visit me, like any other speaker of a parliament. i do not know the reason for his visit. that is not something that i ask other speakers. i have parliament's resolution. it was easy to reply to him, because parliament has already adopted resolutions on the subject. mr president, i have a point of order based on rules 2, 5 and 119 of the rules of procedure. messrs falconer, balfe and other like-minded members will be pleased to hear that i have taken legal advice and that i intend to apply to the court of first instance to have the bureau's decision of 15 and 16 december 1997 annulled, in accordance with the beate weber procedure. once the quaestors have taken a formal decision, a two-month period begins in which this application must be made. i shall spare you the arguments - one legal and one fiscal - but if i give this document to your secretary-general, mr president, i should be grateful if, as the experienced and authoritative lawyer that i know you are, you would consider whether the decision taken at the time to impose penalties for a refusal to participate in roll-call votes should not be reviewed in the light of the new members' statute. i would be most grateful if you could forward me a copy of the legal advice, mr janssen van raay. i shall then, of course, pass it to the bureau. this is not a matter of my personal preference, even though it might seem so at times. it is a bureau decision, and in due course, the bureau will decide whether the issue should or should not be reviewed. mr president, i am very concerned about members' safety and there is something i would like to warn you about. one friday in brussels, i had a group of visitors on the fifth floor of the leo building, and at a certain point several people said that they could smell burning. it took 20 minutes of telephoning around the various services before any alarm was sounded. if there really was a fire in the building, this would be far too long. would you ask the security services in brussels to carry out tests to see whether members would be in danger in that sort of situation? there was not a fire on that particular occasion, but we were not to know that. thank you very much, mrs van putten. your comments have been noted and will be pursued with the security services. to date, what seems to happen is that nobody can do anything for 20 minutes because the lifts stop working during an alarm. however, the occasion you have referred to is different and we shall investigate exactly what happened. you will be informed of the result of the investigation. (the minutes were approved) agenda the next item is the order of business. the final version of the draft agenda as drawn up by the conference of presidents pursuant to rule 95 of the rules of procedure has been distributed, to which the following amendments have been proposed: monday: no change tuesday: mr president, i would like to ask for a small change to tuesday's agenda. the reports from the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy are on the agenda, including my own report. however, a report on fisheries is slotted in between one of the economic committee reports and my own, which is then followed by another report on fisheries. in terms of time management for both members and commissioners, this does not make much sense. as this concerns the second reading, i would like my report to be taken before the souchet report. it will take five minutes. that is a better solution, because our fisheries colleagues will not have to wait. so i would ask you to make this small change, which would also be appreciated by commissioner de silguy. i would gladly do that, mrs lulling, but you know that amendments to the agenda must be proposed by a political group or 29 members one hour before the opening of the sitting. unless i am mistaken, i have not received such a request. but i see that mrs oomen-ruijten is asking for the floor. mr president, this is something we overlooked, for which i sincerely apologise. i think mrs lulling's request is entirely reasonable. her report would take perhaps ten minutes to discuss, and i think it is important to bring it forward. i gather from the expressions of colleagues on the other side of the chamber, particularly mrs green, that they would not object to this. things as they stand are organised very illogically. if there are no objections, i shall put the request by mrs lulling to the vote. (parliament approved the request) mr president, i am not asking for a change to tuesday's agenda but, on behalf of our group and pursuant to rule 129, i call for the elles report on discharge for 1996 to be referred back to committee. the committee on budgetary control considered the report the other day and the essential paragraph, which grants discharge, was passed by 14 votes to 13, when there had already been a vote on this issue. the report as it stands contains glaring contradictions. recitals g), i) and j) would normally imply refusal of discharge. the same applies to article 5, for example, and to several others in the decision. the final article, granting discharge, contradicts the rest of the resolution, and it will not be possible to remove this contradiction because we have just learned that the committee on the rules of procedure, the verification of credentials and immunities is going to propose that parliament reject the amendments to the discharge decision. if the members of the committee on budgetary control, especially the rapporteur, had known that the committee on the rules of procedure was taking this position, i doubt if the proposal put to the committee on budgetary control would have been worded in the same way. the proposal actually left the committee on budgetary control free to decide whether to grant or refuse discharge. so in view both of the internal contradiction in the report and the rules committee's new position, i am asking, under rule 129, for the elles report to be referred back to the committee on budgetary control. is there a speaker in favour of the request? mr president, i must admit that events in the last few days have been totally unpredictable so far as the 1996 discharge report is concerned. i would have thought that the 1996 budget would have been rather more important than the 1996 discharge but history has told us otherwise. what we have heard this afternoon from mr fabre-aubrespy is correct. we now have a report which is extremely tough on the whole question of management of the 1996 discharge and yet a very narrow majority, achieved by our socialist labour colleagues when one of us happened to leave, means that we are now facing acceptance rather than rejection or refusal to grant. in the light of the fact that we also have an unprecedented ruling that we now have to apply the rules of procedure in our vote rather than the treaty, i suggest that we refer this report back to committee and bring it to our next part-session. does anyone wish to speak against? mr president, i should like to oppose mr fabre-aubrespy's motion. once again he has demonstrated that he is a bad loser. i have never known a 14/13 vote to be an unacceptable majority. when he says we had new information, we have had no new information at all from the committee on the rules of procedure, the verification of credentials and immunities. all we have had is a reaffirmation of the existing rules. in committee we had a very thorough debate. as mr elles rightly says, we make some very tough criticisms. but we have often made tough criticisms of the commission without refusing them discharge. at one stage we asked for a deferment of discharge but since then we have had an improvement in the commission's position. i have to say that it still has some way to go, but there are sufficient grounds for progress, in the view of the majority of the committee, for us still to go ahead and grant discharge. i hope that now we will reject mr fabre-aubrespy's motion, having had this fully debated in the committee. i see that the chairman has asked for the floor but the chairman is a very partial person in this question, having herself tabled an amendment to reject. the chairman is entitled to express an opinion under rule 126. mr president, a while ago, i requested that you have the degree of incompatibility between the treaty, particularly article 206, and annex v to the rules of procedure looked into, as well as those areas that are vague. i have just been in the committee on the rules of procedure, the verification of credentials and immunities, which you had asked to decide on the discrepancy that i have raised. no clear opinion, if i may express it thus, was stated on the matter. you will receive a letter from the committee on the rules of procedure explaining its viewpoint. however, i should also like to say that as i have understood it, the treaty ought nevertheless to take precedence. the matter has not been settled yet. it will be explained to you how far these matters are or are not compatible. i do not want to talk about discharge or refusal of discharge at the present time, even though lord tomlinson dwelled on this matter. i only want to say that as a member of the european parliament, i am of course free to decide how i do or do not vote. i put the request for the elles report to be referred back to committee to the vote. (parliament rejected the request) mr president, i should like to tell mr colom i naval that i do indeed know how to lose. but that is not by any means my problem at the moment, because we will certainly know one way or the other on thursday. my question to the president is about when the members of the committee on budgetary control will have the opportunity to reflect upon the findings of the committee on the rules of procedure, the verification of credentials and immunities. a certain insecurity did of course prevail when we pronounced our opinion. that is why i would ask you to make some suggestion as to procedure, because in my view we simply cannot accept the opinion of the committee on the rules of procedure on the subject without an exchange of views. that is why i would ask you when there is going to be a discussion on procedure. mrs mller, the committee on the rules of procedure will put forward an interpretation, which is what the committee on budgetary control requested. this interpretation will be put to the vote in the house without a debate. i hope that it will be possible to vote tomorrow, at the end of the morning sitting. the interpretation will naturally be read out to the house. this is the system laid down in the rules of procedure: the interpretation is to be read out and it will then either be adopted or rejected. mr president, i do not think it is right that we should have to vote on the basis of information provided by certain members about a decision apparently taken by the committee on the rules of procedure. none of us has any documentation and we are being asked to take a decision. i would ask that in future we should be provided with the documents or reports we need before we are asked to decide on anything. mr martens, we did not vote on the decision by the committee on the rules of procedure, but on a request for referral back to committee, which is something quite different. the rules committee will give its interpretation, which will be announced to the house. rule 162(4) reads as follows: 'should a political group or at least twenty-nine members contest the committee's interpretation, the matter shall be put to the vote in parliament. adoption of the text shall be by simple majority provided that at least one third of parliament's members are present. in the event of rejection, the matter shall be referred back to the committee.' this means that as soon as we have the interpretation by the committee on the rules of procedure - which i do not yet know myself - it will be read out to the house. everyone will have the text sufficiently far in advance to be able to exercise the right provided for in rule 162(4). by contesting the interpretation, therefore, a group can ask for it to be rejected. parliament will vote and take its decision after everyone has had time to read the interpretation and decided whether or not to contest it. mr president, last thursday afternoon the conference of presidents was told that it would be informed of the results of the discussion in the committee on the rules of procedure on wednesday afternoon, to prevent us from having to have an endless procedural debate here. i would like to ask you how these two things can now be reconciled. first of all, i would not like us to arrive here at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning to find a document that the groups have not had a chance to read, study and compare with statements by other groups, because the problem at issue here is an extremely serious one. secondly, i think we must be logical in the order in which agreements are reached here in the house. if the matter is to be examined in the conference of presidents, then we cannot have a vote on it here in the plenary before that. mrs aelvoet, the conference of presidents is not competent to interpret the rules of procedure. there is a system, laid down by the rules themselves, which i have just read out. as soon as i have the interpretation, it will be announced to the house and i will ensure that the text is sent immediately to all the groups. whether the announcement is made this evening or at 9 a.m. tomorrow, you will have at least three hours before the vote in which to decide whether to contest this interpretation. those are the terms of rule 162(4) your group, or 29 members, can contest the interpretation and parliament will take its decision at the end of the morning. the conference of presidents is not competent in this area. i am sorry, but no agreement can override the rules of procedure. the rules must be respected, and that is how we shall proceed. mr president, before you close the item i initiated by asking for referral back to committee, i would like you to clarify something you said. i think the conclusion you have drawn from the rejection of my request for referral went too far. rule 129(2) does indeed state that a request for referral back to committee may be made only once, but that is during each of the three procedural stages. these are: agenda-setting, which we are now doing; the opening of the debate, which will be tomorrow morning; and the final vote, which i think will be on wednesday morning. so the rejection of my motion by no means rules out other requests for referral back to committee. we simply cannot do so again now, while we are setting the agenda, and we will only be able to do so once during each of the other two stages. that is correct. you are quite right. mr president, i would simply like to ask you to move to the next item on the agenda. i think we have spent enough time on this point and everything has been decided. thank you. i think that everything is settled, but it is no bad thing for members to be able to express their views on such an important issue. mr president, i just wanted to draw attention to the improper nature of this procedure. an issue that should have been settled before the meeting of the committee on budgetary control is in fact being dealt with two or three days before the vote, putting us in this kind of situation. that type of thing should not happen in this house. if neither the treaty nor the rules of procedure are clear about how we are to proceed, then it is your duty to resolve the matter in good time, before the committee on budgetary control meets and not after. then we would not have a situation like this. i agree entirely with you, mrs pack. for that to be the case, however, the relevant committee should consider the matter earlier. the committee on the rules of procedure met as soon as it could. i apologise for this. wednesday: no change thursday: the group of the party of european socialists is proposing that mrs palacio vallelersundi's report on the quality of the drafting of legislative texts and mr cot's report on 'better lawmaking 1997' should be taken as a joint debate. mr cot has the floor to explain the purpose of this request. mr president, i will be brief because this is a very simple matter. the two reports are very closely linked because one deals with the procedure and the other with the substance, so it would be absurd to have two separate debates on two reports given that the connection between them is so obvious. mr president, i support what mr cot has said. it makes sense for both reports to be debated jointly, as they deal with the quality of text and the quality of ideas. form and content are always closely connected. we shall now proceed to the vote. (parliament approved the request) friday: no change (the order of business was adopted thus amended) supplementary and amending budget 1/98 the next item is the report (a4-0497/98) by mr tillich and lord tomlinson, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on the draft supplementary and amending budget of the european communities 1/98 for the 1998 financial year - sections i and iii (c4-0677/98). i give the floor to mr tillich as rapporteur. mr president, at the end of april 1998, the commission submitted the draft supplementary and amending budget for 1998. the council and the european parliament agreed during the 1998 budgetary procedure that if the commission discovered that the payment appropriations were not sufficient for the 1998 financial year, then we - both council and parliament - would give favourable consideration to a supplementary budget for 1998. the commission fulfilled its duty and submitted the supplementary budget. this draft plans to increase payment appropriations in the third and fourth categories by ecu 200 million, including ecu 100 m for phare. there is a further ecu 100 m for the european social fund, ecu 150 m for section i, the european parliament, and the ecu 400 m that you mentioned a moment ago for emergency food aid to russia. in various trilogues and in both conciliations with the council, parliament and council agreed that this report on the supplementary and amending budget would be taken as a package together with the notenboom procedure and the budget for 1999. i would like to assure colleagues that in its proposals the council was most accommodating towards the european parliament. parliament is supporting the allocation of ecu 400 m for emergency food aid to russia as the council wanted, but on condition that distribution is guaranteed, action is taken to prevent fraud and the food reaches the needy. on 8 december, during the conciliation, there was a common vote on this between the three institutions in order to reach agreement on the remarks for the budget line, and today the commission delivered the latest proposal as an annex to the supplementary and amending budget. i should like to point out to the house that it is important for us to vote today because the deadline is tomorrow. if today at first reading we do not agree this supplementary and amending budget that the council has already adopted, it will be dropped. then we would not have a supplementary and amending budget for 1998 and consequently it would not be possible for us to ensure the financing of our buildings in time. as regards the amendments that have been introduced by colleagues, i would like to add firstly that these are covered by the remarks on the budget line, and secondly that we shall have a debate on the regulation tomorrow which should, i am sure, cover what colleagues have asked for. mr president, part of the supplementary and amending budget is ecu 150m for section i of the budget. that relates to parliament and this money is allocated for parliament's buildings. if we debate that in two and a half minutes, it means that parliament is gaining ecu 60m a minute during this debate for capital purchases towards our buildings. the resolution adopted by the committee on budgets is explicit that the council has included this sum of ecu 150m for the buildings of parliament so that we will be able to continue the policy of purchasing its buildings where the conditions are appropriate. the purchase of buildings for parliament will lead to significant savings for european taxpayers. all members of parliament will realise that in brussels in particular, but subsequently for the ipe iv building in strasbourg, we have been using the annual ramassage to make capital injections for our buildings. this policy has been so successful that perhaps members of parliament do not know that we already own what was known as the d1 and the d2 parts of our brussels building and a substantial part of d3. with this supplementary and amending budget, we will be closer towards becoming the owners of the d3 building and therefore the whole of the leopold complex. if we continue with the process of ramassage , we will be able to do the same not only here in strasbourg with the ipe iv building but also for some of parliament's buildings in luxembourg. that is all part of the ambition, as well as making sure that the belliard i and ii buildings are purchased and made available for the committee of the regions and the economic and social committee. this supplementary and amending budget takes us another large step along the road to being able to own our buildings, to save money for the future. i commend it to the house. we shall now proceed to the vote. (parliament adopted the resolution and the president declared supplementary and amending budget 1/98 adopted) interpretation of the rules of procedure i should like to inform the house that i have just received a letter from the chairman of the committee on the rules of procedure, containing the interpretation to which i referred during our debate on the order of business. the interpretation reads as follows: 'the committee on the rules of procedure considered that the provisions of annex v were not at variance with the general provisions of the rules concerning the tabling of amendments, which could be accepted under rule 125. amendments proposing the opposite to the proposal of the committee responsible, on the other hand, were inadmissible.' also, in two separate votes, the committee decided firstly that the provisions of annex v remained applicable; secondly, it decided to re-examine all the provisions on the matter, pursuant to rule 162(2). this text will be forwarded immediately to the political groups, to the rapporteur, and to the chairman of the committee on budgetary control. the interpretation will appear in today's minutes. any objections must therefore be put forward at the beginning of tomorrow's sitting. should any objections be received, the matter will be put to the vote at noon tomorrow. this will all be made clear in a note addressed to the recipients of the letter. fifth rtd framework programme (1998-2002) the next item is the report (a4-0493/98) by mrs quisthoudt-rowohl, on behalf of parliament's delegation to the conciliation committee, on the joint text approved by the conciliation committee for a european parliament and council decision concerning the fifth framework programme of the european community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) (c4-0646/98-97/0119(cod)). mr president, ladies and gentlemen, it took four conciliation meetings for us to obtain this conclusion and this conciliation result, which i think is a record. now the question that naturally arises is whether the result actually justifies all the effort. as rapporteur, i believe i can say that yes, this is a good result from the point of view of parliament. from the beginning, we could see that the council had adopted the main points of the structure and content of the framework programme, some of which had been adopted by us with an overwhelming majority, leaving only details to be modified. that was not the difficult part of the procedure as a whole. in its great wisdom, or for fear of the potential developments, the council introduced some changes and some articles which were not at all acceptable to us. we are in the run-up to agenda 2000, in the run-up to perhaps a new financing of the european union, which may also have effects on research policy and mean that changes may have to be made. however, as a legislative authority it was not acceptable to parliament that the council alone was to vote and decide on possible changes. we have succeeded in again making full codecision necessary for all future changes to the framework research programme, as stipulated in the treaties. a further point which was very important for us, although it may not have met with much of a response in the public discussion, is that we are living in a time of rapid change and great flexibility. in the period 1997/98 we cannot know what problems may arise in the period 2000/2001 and what issues may need to be resolved with the help of research, innovation and innovative products. we have therefore insisted on a review of the content of the programme halfway through its term. we are not keen on starting a cumbersome procedure in two or three years time. but if new trends are being introduced at that time, possibly by a new commission, then we would like to have a say in them, and this is also something that we have succeeded in making sure of. a third point that we were very concerned about was that small and medium-sized enterprises are taken into consideration in the framework research programme. we have seen that recently a great amount of progress has been made in this area, not least due to the efforts of the commission. however, if small and medium-sized enterprises are regarded as the backbone of our economy as far as job creation is concerned, then we must remove all potential difficulties from their path so that they can have as large a share as possible of the research funding that should eventually lead to jobs. we have increased the share of small and medium-sized enterprises accordingly. we have also introduced rules to facilitate access. the council has approved these demands, albeit after lengthy discussions. that brings me to what i have to say is one of the bitter aspects of the result of the conciliation, which is the overall budget. i cannot deny that we would have preferred to see a different figure precede the billion. in view of the small difference in the amount, i would say to the council that it was really quite small-minded of the ministers not to have given way. it was only a difference of 0.26 % after all. i am fully confident that the commission and the commissioner can save this amount through good, streamlined and efficient management in their area, and will not insist upon taking it away from research. as article 1 states, at a later stage parliament will also follow the management of the programme. i have to say that a conciliation is actually fought with very unequal weapons. in council unanimity is needed. ministers say that they have fully agreed on something and then hide behind the person who just happens to be opposed. in parliament majorities are needed. for approval of the result of a conciliation, we need a different type of majority than that required for rejecting the common position of the council. this is simply no longer progressive or in keeping with the times. i am firmly of the opinion that the amsterdam treaty, which has extended our rights and facilitated many procedures, will serve well here. i now come to a very pleasant part of my statement, which is to thank the commission for its constant cooperation and our very fruitful discussions. we were not always of the same opinion, commissioner! i would also like to thank members on the other side of the house. dear colleagues, i am aware that some of you went to the limits of the possible. you did not necessarily allow yourselves to be budged, and neither did we. but i know that it was as difficult for you as it was for us to reach this result of the conciliation sometimes, particularly where institutional matters were concerned. i would like to emphasise that the rights of this house are at stake in the run-up to the election, and this result of the conciliation came about in the end because all of you showed solidarity. i can only say that this solidarity should form a precedent in this house where all of us - the elected representatives of the citizens - are involved. for that i thank you very much indeed! i now have a final comment on the specific programmes which are going to be discussed in a moment. once again, we were aware of the fact that the council had already reached broad agreement on these specific programmes. it gave out a few, very unfortunate, press releases in this regard. i would say to the council that we are going to take a very close look at whether the amendments which will be discussed today and voted on tomorrow shall find their way into the final version of the text, and here we shall also insist upon our rights. in conclusion, i can say quite honestly that everything has been resolved, but it took one and a half years of work to do so. i should very much like once again to thank all those who have helped. as rapporteur i am happy, and i shall be looking forward to a unanimous vote tomorrow in favour of the result of the conciliation. (applause) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to start by heartily congratulating the rapporteur on the result achieved in the conciliation procedure. the fifth framework programme for research is the first small step in the right direction. sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and the integrated development of the rural area and mountainous areas should also be funded and find expression within the context of research and science. nevertheless, i think it is highly regrettable that no serious approach to this forward-looking policy can be discerned in the proposal for agenda 2000. i personally am very angry about that. the austrian presidency of the council made this subject a high priority, and held a conference of international experts on the subject. i hope that ultimately those findings will also be taken into account in future european policy. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we had already introduced a multitude of amendments for the committee on transport and tourism at first reading. we were after a separate emphasis on transport policy, which was unfortunately not possible. however, we were very glad that it was possible to preserve the results and content of the first reading until the third reading now in the conciliation procedure. i recall in particular intermodal transport, a subject which we were very concerned about. one of the great successes of this conciliation procedure is that we have also managed to preserve the significance of aeronautics and space travel. i would like very much to thank all of those involved, particularly the rapporteur. we regret that it was not possible to make available enough money for transport, which is an important field and a motor for european integration. the council was unable to take up the big challenges that this field offers and would rather go on backing its national policies. i think that transport is an area in which more europe would be better than less. mr president, although i am speaking on behalf of the socialist group, i am in fact doing so more as chairman of the delegation which conducted the conciliation negotiations. these, as mrs quisthoudt-rowohl has said, proved extremely difficult: in fact it took four meetings, two exploratory ones and two at which we really tackled the substance of the matter. i should like to draw some general conclusions. first of all, the incompatibility of unanimous decision-making in the council with the conciliation procedure emerged clearly. there can be no equality of legislative competence if the council is bound by the unanimity rule, which automatically leads to vetoes; the parliament is unable, under such circumstances, to exercise its powers of codecision to the full. secondly, i have the impression from this and other experiences that the concept of codecision has not been fully taken on board within the council. we noted once again during this latest conciliation on the fifth framework programme that the various delegations, speaking on behalf of their respective countries, stressed how arduous it had been to arrive at the common position, regarding that in itself as an extremely difficult compromise to achieve, almost as if parliament should then simply decide whether to take it or leave it, rather than embarking on fresh negotiations to reach a further compromise. thirdly, i should like to take this opportunity to highlight the shrewdness of our delegation's attitude and conduct, as well as the ability and experience of the various colleagues who are so familiar with the subject in question. they enabled our delegation to present a united front at every important juncture, demonstrating a unanimity which is often very difficult to achieve in this house. i must say that we were assisted partly by an austrian presidency which was keen to move in the direction advocated by parliament, and partly by the commissioner, mrs cresson, who was of course on our side, given that parliament's proposal dovetailed with that of the commission. nevertheless, the obstacles were truly enormous. i wish to draw attention here, as did the rapporteur, mrs quisthoudt-rowohl, to the two main issues. first of all, there is the council and the way in which it has taken up the concept of codecision: a council which inserts into its common position what it itself describes as a 'guillotine clause' demonstrates a lack of skill, not least from the tactical point of view. presenting parliament with such a position means failing to understand the substance and even form of the reaction likely to be triggered by such a clause. the clause in fact stated that not a single euro would be available for research after 31 december 1999 and that, in the absence of any decisions on the new financial perspective, it would be the council which decides. in other words, codecision had come in through the door and was being thrown out of the window. the real point was this: paradoxically, on every other occasion when we have gone to conciliation we have argued over figures, but this time we had to talk more about institutional procedure, even before we could complete our discussion of the figures. in our opinion, as we have said several times, this represented an infringement of the treaty, or at least of the interinstitutional agreement on the financial perspective. and here, after the council's statement of its common position, it might have been useful if the commission as such - and not so much mrs cresson - had pointed out that a principle of the treaty was being undermined, given that the commission is guardian of the treaties. nevertheless, i am reasonably satisfied in this regard, since we did achieve a fairly positive outcome. with respect to the funds available, as mrs quisthoudt-rowohl said, there could have been more, but we might equally have obtained less. on balance, i believe that the outcome is a good one, as long as we abide by the terms of the negotiations. however, i would raise one 'but', one contradiction: the governments say that the priority is employment and that we must invest in research and innovation in order to boost job creation, and then in the final analysis the council - that is, all the governments together - will not even countenance the idea of increasing by ecu 2 billion the funds available for the fifth framework programme. therefore, what was said at this conciliation conflicts with what was discussed and decided at vienna: grand statements and the new proposed pact for jobs, but no specific initiative just at the very moment when conciliation was coming to a close. other speakers will address themselves to other aspects; i would merely thank the rapporteur, the chairman of the committee, mr scapagnini, and all the colleagues who participated with such commitment. i invite the house to demonstrate its wholehearted support for the outcome of this conciliation. mr president, commissioner, francis bacon said that whoever fails to find new solutions should expect new evils as time is the best inventor of all. those are the words of a great european 400 years ago. but it seems that europe is still learning that lesson. innovation is a condition for survival: it is the antidote to inertia, it creates new, hitherto unthought-of markets and it promotes a more effective and more human society. in order to have social innovation you must have research, research in high-tech areas such as biotechnology, research applied to industry and also research in the social and economic areas. the fifth rtd framework programme has acquired coherence throughout the debate with its three readings and long conciliation process and is now presented to us as a balanced programme deserving of broad support. it could even be seen as a model of interinstitutional co-operation. the prospects offered by this fifth framework programme for researchers, enterprises and the well-being of citizens should not be jeopardised by a lack of agreement over the european union's financial perspectives. the conflict between the defenders of so-called 'stabilisation' and the defenders of 'cohesion' should give way in the council to an overall perspective that takes into account all of the interests at stake. in the text that we are going to vote on, the winners are transparency, information, small and medium-sized enterprises, and the fragile sectors of society, such as the disabled and the elderly, and a fillip has been given to the outlook for peace, with the specific references to biological and chemical disarmament and the exclusion of nuclear armament. nonetheless, i hope that the council, on 22 december next, will strengthen the socio-economic research component, as portugal has been asking, which in itself will make it possible to predict trends and factors of change in a rapidly changing society such as ours. fundamental questions such as citizenship, participation, exclusion, violence, governability and the role of the media call for a close and continuous study that should meet with appropriate responses from society. we must also strengthen the interdisciplinary perspective, the international perspective of european research. that is why i hope that the marie curie bursaries are going to be opened up to nationals of countries that are not members, as symbolic recognition that science, like music, is a universal language. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the liberal group i should like to congratulate mrs quisthoudt on her success in concluding the decision-making on the framework programme. i should also like to express my appreciation for the solidarity shown by all the groups during the conciliation procedure. parliament spoke to the council with one voice and was solid, yes, solid in defence of its own powers. we refused point blank to accept the guillotine clause, and through close cooperation which was entirely consistent with the aims of the programme we achieved excellent results on both the budget and the contents. i would like to thank all my colleagues for their cooperation, and my group wholeheartedly supports the results we have achieved. there are a few comments i should like to make. starting with the substance of the programme, my group is delighted that the council even at first reading agreed with parliament's proposal that we should choose four research areas for the next four years. the council and parliament also agreed to give priority to the first two areas, namely biotechnology and information and communications technology, in acknowledgement of the fact that employment in europe in the future will largely depend on the successful development of those sectors. technology, as i cannot emphasise too often, is the key to economic growth, competitiveness and employment - in short, europe's prosperity. if we in europe can apply new technological developments and develop new services, it will not just mean more jobs, it will also give a powerful boost to the economy and put us in a much stronger competitive position. this is what europe needs to maintain its position on the world market. all of us - council, parliament and commission - share this view, but despite all the fine words from the member states and the council, the european union's research expenditure lags far behind that of its main competitors, the united states and japan. as i said, unfortunately, the member states are happy to support research with fine words, but not with money. the ecu 14 billion that the council originally proposed was not even as much as the budget for the fourth framework programme. the policy pursued by a number of member states is designed to reduce their contribution to the european union. if we look at the position of, say, the netherlands, which is a net contributor, then this is quite right. yes, quite right. we are not idiots. but sitting up until all hours of the morning on three occasions haggling over ecu 40 million spread over four years is really going a little too far. research and technological development is exactly the sort of area where european cooperation is needed. the framework programme plays an essential role, and this is where, in my view, european investment in research really comes into its own and brings major added value. the decision-making process for this framework programme has not exactly been a thing of beauty, but there is hope. it is a sign that after the ratification of the amsterdam treaty the council might decide on framework programmes by a qualified majority. the council is still not used to the codecision procedure, as mr imbeni just pointed out. codecision means joint decision-making, and this means that the council and parliament have to reach a viable compromise. for the council arrogantly to insist on its own hard-won compromise is not good for decisions on european legislation. good decision-making, i would point out to the council, demands greater flexibility from the member states. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the rapporteur's determination and the efforts of the chairman of the conciliation committee, mr imbeni, the european parliament and the council have reached agreement on an amount which is certainly not enough but does make it possible to continue the european union's research effort. the principle of a mid-term review ensures that developments in the financial perspective are taken into account, along with progress made in science and technology. parliament also won the day on five important points: maintaining a 10 % rate for financing research by small and medium-sized enterprises, research concerning biological and chemical disarmament, no funding of cloning for purposes of human reproduction, taking account of research into ageing and disability and, finally, the establishment of a ren descartes prize for talented and promising researchers. i want to highlight two areas in the fifth framework programme which will have direct consequences on daily life in europe. one is information and communication technologies, accessible to all, respecting the rules of info-ethics, which aim to allow everyone to express their own personality and to facilitate the exchange of information. the other is technologies of living resources, supporting not just the cell factory but also the fight against infectious diseases and ageing. the bio-ethics arrangements are now in place to prevent deviance, and specific socio-cultural characteristics of the member states must be taken into account, particularly as regards embryo research. the joint research centre must become a reference centre serving the concerns of the european parliament and hence of the citizen. finally, in the field of research into nuclear energy, we certainly must not abandon permanently research into controlled thermonuclear fusion. we need to maintain scientific and technical vigilance in this domain, which retains its potential for the future. similarly, i think it is essential to pursue and extend research into the safety of nuclear fission, with a view to perfecting ever safer reactors, such as the epr, in collaboration with several european countries, but also with a view to better management of the end of the nuclear fuel cycle. we must continue research into high-temperature reactors in industrial enterprises and research must be done on experimental modules for hybrid reactors; the necessary technologies need to be validated. they can then be assembled with a view to making an experimental prototype. through research that is conducted transparently, nuclear energy is actually the most reliable way of responding to the growth in demand for energy, without increasing co2 emissions. in conclusion, under these conditions the fifth framework programme for research and development will make it possible to identify the skills of european researchers and laboratories as well as to look for complementarity between them right across the european union. it will demonstrate the effectiveness of european added value. it will take us from a europe of researchers to a europe of research. that is one of the major challenges of the fifth framework programme, serving knowledge, but also serving the citizens, in an ethical context. with the fifth framework programme europe will be able to take its place in the western world, earning world recognition through the skills of european researchers. mr president, i should like to congratulate the rapporteur on her diligence and her persistence during the many meetings of the conciliation committee, and likewise all the members of that delegation and in particular the chairman. as he has pointed out, we wanted real co-decision and this was being blocked. we finally obtained an acceptable result and for that parliament has to be grateful. i have to say that the devil is in the detail and i want to make some comments on the secrecy and lack of transparency of the euratom research programme in particular. it is now apparent that nuclear fusion has no future. it is therefore madness to continue the budget for the framework programme. i believe that the commission has accepted the logic of this and we will see what transpires. in particular, i want to refer to the radiation protection programme run under the euratom treaty. within the programme there is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. the programme is decided at closed meetings to which only existing research coordinators are invited and by government advisory committees. these people represent mainly the radiological protection boards of the member governments and, as such, represent those in the member countries who get euratom grants. a case in point is ireland where three of the four members of the national advisory committee, namely jim malone, physicist, nuclear medicine department, st james's hospital and rpii board member, peter mitchell, department of physics, ucd and rpii consultant, john cunningham, radiation chemist, rpii assistant chief executive, are employed by or otherwise affiliated to ireland's radiological protection institute and are funded by euratom. the remaining member is a civil servant in the department of energy. every other irish national advisory committee involved in the ec programme has a broad representation from all interested parties and has 12 to 16 members. so the way the euratom programme is managed is unacceptable. there is a similar lack of openness in the so-called independent review of submitted projects to this programme in euratom. somehow the reviewers seem to get funded. application to see the complete list of reviewers is refused. why is the list of reviewers not published? it is for all the other programmes. it is absolutely essential that radiation protection research should be conducted by those without vested interests and should therefore come under the environment and health section of dg xii. i want to press that point most firmly. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should also like to express my thanks to the rapporteur for the clever and committed way in which she has dealt with the situation. we have worked well together. yes, we have also argued, but we have achieved success. the increase of eur 1.7 billion in the fifth framework research programme compared to its predecessor, which was obtained by parliament, seems at first sight to be a considerable amount. however, what must be understood is that it is only about 4 % more than the increase to allow for inflation in relation to the previous programme. this is not exactly the clear and self-assured signal of a resolute departure into the information society that we had intended. i should remind you that the usa launched an offensive this very year to bring its annual aid for research up to 3 % of its gdp in the very near future. european aid, however, will remain at roughly 2 %, because unfortunately, aside from a few exceptions, national research is also diminishing. unfortunately, as a result of obstruction by some member states, the council could not be persuaded to cross the apparently magical boundary of eur 15 bn. we will thus be far from reaching the strategic ceilings on research in the overall eu budget that were wisely instituted by previous councils. that is regrettable and in this regard the fifth framework research programme will be a compromise, many sections of which can only be accepted by parliament because otherwise the continuity which we have now achieved in european research funding would be jeopardised, and this would be painful for all involved. ultimately there was nothing else for it, because this programme in principle suffers from a congenital defect, as has been said repeatedly, namely that parliament decides in accordance with democratic rules by a majority vote while council decides unanimously. that will only change when the treaty of amsterdam enters into force. then it will be possible to approach the budget strategically, and rival minority interests will cease to be a significant obstacle. restructured management of the fifth framework research programme will allow the commission at least partly to deal with the dilemma of a range of subjects that is still too broad by establishing links. it also wants to bring together its different strategic advisory bodies into a european research forum. we welcome this and shall support the commission in the process. tomorrow's decision will not mean that parliament will relinquish its demand to be involved. rather, it will accompany the implementation of the programme. a realisation of the concentration and flexibility that everyone wants will be part of the critical accompaniment. adjustments to the programme which may become necessary will be made only according to the codecision procedure. in view of the eu's considerable negative trade balance with the usa and japan in the field of high technology, the general under-funding of european research is worrying. a certain balance could only come about by consistently making maximum use of results. in this respect, we have improved considerably the opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, some of which are highly innovative and labour-intensive, to participate in this programme, and this is one of parliament's big successes. it has been achieved, as has already been said, by members being united. optimising the possibilities and, as said so often, achieving a european added value will also lead to the general integration of socio-economic research into projects and increased funding for it in the fourth action line. innovation in fact not only has a technological aspect but also a social one. converting research into profitable application on a massive scale will also depend to a considerable degree on how far it is possible to organise the new global information society in a way that is socially fair, and therefore involves comprehensive participation. i think that is where our greatest potential lies. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group i should also like to thank the rapporteur. i was searching for an image before, and then it struck me that this is like being faced with a bunch of individualists with their own pet ideas, and reconciling them is akin to the task of organising a large number of wild horses to make a good impression in a spanish riding school. that is what you have achieved. once again, thank you very much. it was not easy, but you have succeeded! on the framework research programme as a whole, i would like to say in all objectivity that it was the european parliament once again that pushed through an increase, something we have seen in each decade. my advice to the commission would therefore be to work closely with parliament, as this will be worthwhile in future too! however, as the council is being so tight-fisted with its money it has to be told that the only thing more expensive than research in the long run is no research. if we want to secure our future, as many people have said, then broadening the knowledge base is the only way, and at the beginning that is simply going to cost money. secondly, i would like to say that once again i have had the bad impression that research does not really have a lobby. where are the large research organisations in europe that supported us? everyone wants a small piece of the large cake, but they do not want to see the cake as a whole made larger. if that does not change, and if science in brussels does not acquire a stronger lobby equivalent to that of other sectors, then it will continue to find things difficult in future as well. let us now turn to the tasks for the future. my first point is one that the rapporteur rightly raised a short while ago, namely that the lifespan of products is becoming shorter and shorter, and knowledge evolving faster and faster. because european research policy concerns itself with applied technology and its goal is therefore to bring products onto the market, it is important that as the lifespan of a product becomes shorter, the application procedure does the same. i know there are limits to this, and of course there are also the budgetary and financial checks, but we must find ways to make sure that the end result is not that the system of financial supervision is in order while research is in ruins. that should not be the outcome. we should not have financial controls which last for three or four years, during which time nothing is achieved in the field of research. we must make the procedures shorter. this becomes even more important as more countries participate in the fifth framework research programme. central and eastern european countries will be part of the research programme as well via the phare programme, and switzerland will join them in a few years once it has signed the agreement. that means that if management is not streamlined - of course after taking on board the rules arising from the financial and budgetary checks - then we will be dealing with a more complicated system than in the past. the second comment that occurs to me here is that we also need some form of monitoring, not merely budgetary monitoring but better monitoring of research. there has to be a strategic and operational goal. ultimately there has to be some result. the issue is not just that money should be used sensibly but that there also has to be something to show for it. we do not just want to search, we also want to find. that is forgotten again and again. in order to do this, instruments must be developed which go beyond what we presently have. over the next few months we will surely have time to think about this. i am sorry that an application for research on disarmament did not get through. the council proved to be quite stubborn. however, i would like to mention a report that i read a short while ago in le monde , in which the americans referred to the existence of new problems in the field of atomic, biological and chemical weapons, or weapons of mass destruction. we cannot deny this, and will have to deal with it because it is also a part of security. research has to be used not only to develop new weapons but also to protect ourselves from their misuse. above all it must be used to dismantle the weapons upon whose reduction we have actually agreed. once again, i thank the commission very much indeed. i think we have done a good job. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, later this week we will be dealing with the results and conclusions of the vienna summit. however, one thing has been clear from the outset, namely that the most important matters discussed by the heads of state or government were employment issues. i think that the conclusion of the conciliation procedure for the fifth framework research programme lays a very important foundation stone for tackling employment issues in europe in a different and more forward-looking manner than has perhaps been the case for a long time. in europe, many people live together in a very small area. our territory is appreciably smaller than that of other continents, it is populated by many people, and we do not have the natural resources of other continents. the resources that we in europe have are knowledge, ability, our aptitude and skills. this explains the importance of research programmes, which aim to create european added value and to achieve more than can be achieved by teams of researchers in individual countries. they are also concerned with what can be accomplished when researchers work together and combine their ideas and results and when, as the previous speaker said so clearly, these results can also actually be implemented. research is not an end in itself, rather it is the basis for the social and economic development of our continent. for that reason, when organising the research programmes we should not merely be thinking about covering many important subjects in the projects and programmes. i am extremely happy with many of the subjects, because we are venturing into areas of research that are important and necessary for the future of europe. we have also taken on areas of research that people thought had been dealt with long ago and which in my opinion will be of greater significance in future, such as foodstuffs. however if we do not actually transpose the research results in terms of employment, the development of new products, the inevitable social restructuring and transition to a new type of society that moves away from the industrial society in which we still live, or whose upheaval we are experiencing, then even the best research will be of no value. in our discussion on the fifth framework research programme in particular, we should be considering the mid-term evaluation and orientation of the programme to be at least as important as a final point which i should like to turn to now. we in parliament have worked together very well and in the right way, and in this regard i would like to express my great thanks to the rapporteur, the chairman of the delegation to the conciliation committee and other colleagues. the council should have understood that a larger sum than this - 14.9 something, a figure reminiscent of a special offer in a cheap shop - was required. it is not acceptable to preach repeatedly about the importance of research and then, when it actually comes to making money available for research, to become so stingy with small amounts all of a sudden. i hope that the different procedure in the treaty of amsterdam will improve things. finally i would like to say that, as an austrian, i am happy that the austrian presidency has concluded - and indeed was able to conclude - such a difficult procedure. i very much hope that with this programme we will be able to achieve the objective of european added value in research. mr president, if we look at the developments of the past few weeks and compare them to a piece of theatre, we can see that there are three acts. in the first act the european parliament pushed through considerable improvements. in the second the council accepted them, but incorporated some catches. in the third there was the lengthy conciliation procedure. thus it is a piece of theatre in three acts. i do not know for certain if it is a play, a drama or a tragedy, but i am aware that it is not a comedy, essentially due to the conduct of the council. there are three areas in which it behaved like a bulldozer. firstly it attempted to take research hostage for interests that were altogether different and had absolutely no connection with it. that kind of behaviour is by no means acceptable. secondly, as mrs graenitz has just pointed out, we have heard about the importance of research for innovation, employment and so on, in sermons from various sources, but when it came to committing money, the tap was turned off purely due to a rigid adherence to principles, and nothing was invested in research. it did not even have to do with making savings, as the money withheld from research now flows into other areas of internal policy. my third point concerns the specific programmes, and here, as the rapporteur pointed out, press releases are being published as though everything had already been decided without parliament. i very much hope that this bulldozing behaviour will not be typical of the council in future. all of this would lead us to believe that we are dealing with a drama here, not a comedy. but on the other hand, we have accomplished something. there has been a strategic change of direction in european research, away from the sectoral thinking and rare technologies, and towards a strategic approach to the european development model and qualitative competitiveness in europe. in this respect, what mr linkohr referred to is implicitly and explicitly contained in the research programme. we are concerned with the integration of research into european policy to create more employment and thus of course with the matter of how research fits into the social context. in this regard i am very glad that parliament has managed to have socio-economic aspects of the information society taken into account, that the ageing of our society is to be a focal point of research, and that the city of tomorrow is to be a subject for research as a central problem of urban areas. the direction that we are aiming in is thus clear. so, be it drama, tragedy or play, i will be voting in favour! mr president, mrs quisthoudt-rowohl, ladies and gentlemen, with this third reading in the european parliament, we have reached the second-last leg of a long and sometimes difficult journey. as this journey comes to an end, i want to express my sincere thanks to everyone in parliament whose dynamism, intelligence and negotiating ability have made success possible. first mr imbeni, who was authoritative and effective in his difficult role as joint chair of the conciliation committee, and next mrs quisthoudt-rowohl, rapporteur for the fifth framework programme, who produced work of the highest quality at each procedural stage and demonstrated realism and a great sense of the public interest when it came to conciliation. my thanks also go to all the members of the committee on research, technological development and energy and its chairman, mr scapagnini, who has devoted himself to this new framework programme for many months. thanks too to all the members of parliament who contributed to its progress through the other committees and the house. in her report on the joint text that emerged from conciliation, mrs quisthoudt-rowohl gives a very clear and detailed account of the development of the procedure and of these last two stages in particular. the final agreement which is to be ratified by you tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen, and by the council on 22 december, is a compromise like all agreements, and i would like to make four points concerning it. first, a solution was found to the difficult question of the amount of financing. of course, the amount is not as high as parliament and the commission had proposed. so to have real impact we will have to apply the principle of concentration of resources more strictly, which means mobilising a critical mass of funding for specific targets. however, i would stress that the budget for the fifth framework programme will be 4.6 % higher in real terms than that for the fourth framework programme. in a difficult budgetary context, this increase is a positive sign and an encouragement both to the scientific and industrial community and to member states, where the research effort is tending to contract at a time when public and private research expenditure is continuing or picking up in the united states and japan, as some of you have quite rightly pointed out. secondly, throughout the procedure there has been a strong convergence of views between parliament and the commission, and their mutual support and highly effective collaboration certainly played an important role in securing the agreement. thirdly, thanks to the austrian presidency's spirit of openness, parliament has broadly succeeded in having its views on the fifth framework programme taken into account in the final decision. for the last time, we had to overcome the obstacle to codecision represented by unanimous voting by the members of the council. in spite of that constraint, the scientific and technological choices will express significantly the vision of your institution, ladies and gentlemen, you who represent the people. finally, the fifth framework programme will be broadly consistent with what our two institutions wanted. the research programmes will be clearly geared to economic and social needs, with priority given to business competitiveness and employment. the key actions will introduce a new approach to research. this will focus on actual problems rather than being broken down into fields and disciplines. through the external advisory group just established by the commission, the programmes will be implemented in close association with the scientific community, industry and users of the research. they will be managed in a more flexible and effective way. there will be real emphasis on transparency, especially as regards the european parliament. so the combined efforts of the three institutions have succeeded in endowing the union with a powerful instrument to exploit its scientific potential and industrial resources in the service of europeans. it would have been extremely regrettable to interrupt the european research effort, and the adoption of the new framework programme within the required time-frame means continuity can be assured. now comes the real challenge. we must implement the fifth framework programme as soon as possible. the commission has already taken all the necessary steps and will ensure that the first calls for proposals are launched, as planned, at the beginning of 1999. it will make sure this is done even more effectively, as mrs quisthoudt-rowohl rightly insists. this new framework programme can be implemented in the spirit which presided over its conception. i am sure that the debate that is about to begin on the specific programmes will demonstrate that here the commission can count on the support and collaboration of the european parliament, its suggestions and its constructive vigilance. so i will conclude by thanking parliament in advance for its contribution to this great enterprise. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. specific rtd programmes (1998-2002) the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: a4-0451/98 by mr tannert, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, on the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on 'quality of life and management of living resources' (1998 to 2002) (com(98)0305 - c4-0433/98-98/0177(cns)); -a4-0452/98 by mr malerba, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, on the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on a 'user-friendly information society' (1998-2002) (com(98)0305 - c4-0434/98-98/0178(cns)); -a4-0453/98 by mr argyros, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, on the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on 'competitive and sustainable growth' (1998 to 2002) (com(98)0305 - c4-0435/98-98/0179(cns)); -a4-0454/98 by mrs estevan bolea, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, on the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on 'preserving the ecosystem' (1998 to 2002) (com(98)0305 - c4-0436/98-98/0180(cns)); -a4-0455/98 by mr marset campos, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, on the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on 'confirming the international role of community research' (1998 to 2002) (com(98)0305 - c4-0437/98-98/0181(cns)); -a4-0456/98 by mrs plooij-van gorsel, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, on the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on 'promotion of innovation and encouragement of participation of smes' (1998 to 2002) (com(98)0305 - c4-0438/98-98/0182(cns)); -a4-0457/98 by mr lange, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, on the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on 'improving the human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base' (1998-2002) (com(98)0305 - c4-0439/98-98/0183(cns)); -a4-0458/98 by mrs mcnally, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, oni. the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, to be carried out by means of direct actions for the european community (1998-2002) by the joint research centre (com(98)0305 - c4-0440/98-98/0184(cns))ii. the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme for research and training to be implemented by the joint research centre by means of direct actions for the european atomic energy community (1998-2002) (com(98)0306 - c4-0431/98-98/0188(cns)); -a4-0459/98 by mrs matikainen-kallstrm, on behalf of the committee on research, technological development and energy, on the proposal for a council decision adopting a specific programme (euratom) for research and training on 'preserving the ecosystem' (1998 to 2002) (com(98)0306 - c4-0430/98-98/0187(cns)). mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the life sciences have hitherto been divided among three different programmes but they are now combined in a single, problem-oriented programme. the commission has found a poetic title for it, 'quality of life and management of living resources', but if i have understood the contents correctly, then it actually has to do with life sciences. there is going to be an increase in funding compared to the fourth framework programme, in fact a considerable increase of 42 %. in relative terms, this is the biggest increase for a sector in the fifth framework programme and reflects the importance that has to be attached to the development of life sciences in the european community. european life sciences and technologies have already had successes over the last few years. most significantly, the number of employees and firms in the eu has risen considerably in 1996 and 1997, by over 40 %. but here, too, there is a negative side because this figure is less than half as high as the american equivalent. this path can still lead to success, but only if progress is made in the scientific foundations and infrastructure in this field and in the social consensus on it, particularly of course with regard to the hotly and widely disputed gene technology. enlightened social discourse is therefore a prerequisite, not only for legitimising the aims of funding research, but also for making the best use of the results, and parliament is reinforcing its demands to make it a part of the programme. in addition, some colleagues are demanding that new bans on research funding and moratoriums are written into the programme. let me tell you, i do not think much of that! for example, it will not provide us with a way to solve problems resulting from the possible eugenic misuse of gene technology. the most effective solution here is still the ostracism of those who behave in this way, thereby contravening the ethical consensus. the funding programme should consist of projects and not bans. projects that are ethically controversial simply do not belong in the body of the community programme. of course, the consumer's decision is extremely effective. products which contain undesirable substances, or which have been manufactured in an undesirable manner, and which are accurately and clearly labelled, are not going to stand a chance on the market. that is and always will be the bottom line. i would therefore explicitly support the extension of accompanying socio-economic research which looks at the relevant issues, and the obligation of the commission and those running the project to be part of the public discussion. parliament has insisted on writing this into the programme. the programme describes very many interesting individual projects, illustrating the importance that is being attached to the life sciences, as i mentioned at the beginning. but it also seems to me that it highlights the dilemma of community funding of research, which is that 125 priority themes are still supposed to be funded, more than in this case. if there are 125 priorities, that means that there must be other, non-priority, projects. the sum total is colossal. it will then be allocated by the commission down to the thousandth part among the key actions, as the budget allows. that therefore leaves no room for manoeuvre at all in response to the quality and number of project proposals submitted under the various key actions. it will not facilitate compliance with the principles of concentration and flexibility. in this regard, parliament calls for practical steps, such as the establishment of financial margins. the days of breaking down the claims for funds in such a precise manner ought to be a thing of the past. in spite of the multitude of amendments, the way in which the programme has been worked out is basically such that parliament would not call into question the commission's fundamental idea. so i would recommend then that having regard to the amendments proposed by the committee on research, technological development and energy, the programme should be approved. mr president, i wish to speak on the second thematic programme, the one concerning a user-friendly information society or ist, information society technologies. this programme is in fact a priority which is directly linked to the potential for boosting economic growth, wealth and employment, as was underscored by the ministers meeting at the recent vienna european council, and as emerges from a commission document on the prospects for the information society. following the conciliation procedure, this programme has been allocated a budget of ecu 3 600 million, which is lower than the allocation accorded to the acts, esprit, race and telecommunications programmes combined. this is a cause for some concern, even though the reduced investment in research could be offset by the growing presence of information technology in the other thematic programmes. one case in point is the networking of all the european research establishments, which accounts for 3 % of the thematic programme; here i have put forward amendments stressing the need for involvement in the coordination of every thematic programme, so that this ambitious networking scheme can be taken forward in a coherent way. as far as the commission's proposal is concerned, we would ask parliament to endorse certain important rectifications suggested by myself and largely endorsed by the research committee. i should now like to run through these rapidly. i have suggested curtailing slightly the funding for the action on electronic commerce, transferring this to services for the citizen. indeed, if we expect administrations to act as trail-blazers in the implementation of new services for citizens, we must somehow encourage this approach. i have also highlighted the importance of basic technologies, emphasising the move towards platforms, technical and industrial standards, patents and ultimately whatever can promote the creation of products and services which are widely used on the international market - not only on the european one - and can thereby generate economic and commercial success. i have included a reference to information technology in the machine tools and production sector, a sector which is absolutely crucial to the competitiveness of our industrial system and to complement the thematic programme on sustainable development. i responded to concerns regarding the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in this programme by accepting the cross-party amendment in favour of a minimum guaranteed sme participation of 10 %. i would however point out with satisfaction here that, according to the commission's data, the participation of smes in it programmes has traditionally been around 26 %; i therefore believe that this amendment should be understood more as an encouragement to boost the qualitative and quantitative participation of smes. i recommend for their sakes that the exploratory awards scheme, modelled on the craft programme, should be maintained to provide assistance during the phase of drawing up proposals. since information society applications have a satellite dimension, we are constantly in a situation of competitive disadvantage vis--vis the americans; i am therefore pleased to note that the programme takes this aspect into consideration. whereas i can certainly agree with the ideas behind the amendments from the committee on women's rights, some of these, in particular amendment no 8, strike me as impracticable. in conclusion, i believe that it is vital to make clear to the commission that not only a high degree of flexibility and focus, but also care and attention are required to avoid duplication between the various programmes. i believe above all that parliament must keep an eye on the commission in this respect. i nevertheless thank the commission for its cooperation, and am relying on the council to adopt the proposed amendments. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, since we have reached agreement on the fifth framework research programme in the conciliation committee, we can also discuss the specific programmes today. this evening i am presenting a report on behalf of mr argyros. the specific programme 'competitive and sustainable growth', provided unfortunately with only eur 2.7 billion, is made up of the most significant priorities for the european union. it is therefore of fundamental importance for a successful implementation of the fifth framework research programme as a whole. allow me to make four general comments on this programme which should be taken into account when it comes to selecting the research partners. firstly, and i think quite self-evidently, the activities undertaken should be in tune with the proposed requirements as they are presently stated in the programme. secondly, and this is an important point which we have discussed again and again in this house, i think that the commission's publications should also be made available in accessible forms, for example electronically. thirdly, in committee we laid down some conditions for selecting the companies to be funded, and i would ask the commission to accept these. the contribution made by a company should improve the overall competitiveness of the sector, and therefore due attention ought to be paid to applying the sectoral approach to individual research projects. there should ultimately be an improvement in the position of the european economy as a whole on the world market. the knowledge that has been acquired through the research programmes should be analysed and made available, and should also lead to new processes and products. fourthly, we must also of course remember that our competitors in the usa and japan are carrying out similar programmes, and we have to be able to react to these accordingly. a wide range of themes for research is available in the four key actions and the two horizontal measures in this specific programme, which i would also like to comment on. in the first key action, our concern is that alongside what has been proposed, additional new methods of management and human resources are also developed and entrepreneurial activity further encouraged. that is very important. however, it is also necessary for us to think about methods for the recovery and restoration of the damaged environment to its original state. in addition, the committee suggests that this should also cover production and the textile and construction sectors. in the second key action, we are faced with the huge task of continuing the development of different transport systems and intermodality in order to be able to react in a suitable manner to the great challenges in this particular field. i mentioned this when i presented my report on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism a few minutes ago. i think it is extremely positive that we in the european union are for the first time making a separate priority of the field of aeronautics and space flight, because the business news of the past few weeks has shown in quite a dramatic way that this is the way to do justice to the european dimension of the sector. finally, when it comes to funding the research infrastructure, some thought ought to be given to using existing structures, particularly so that the small and medium-sized enterprises can be appropriately integrated. on behalf of mr argyros, and also on my own behalf, i would like to thank all of you for your friendly cooperation with the rapporteur. madam commissioner, mr president, ladies and gentlemen, it has fallen to me to give you the details of the fourth specific programme, which is part of the first action and concerns energy and the protection of the environment. although the commission had originally proposed separating these two issues, the council felt it was best to deal with them both together. this was therefore what parliament did, in a programme entitled 'preserving the ecosystem'. a special feature of this programme, and one which is not very helpful, in my opinion, madam commissioner, is that it includes demonstration projects. we are all calling for more resources to be devoted to research. i agree with previous speakers that ours are not old or antiquated industries. rather, they are obsolete, and what they must do is modernise their facilities. subsidies and other aid are not what is called for. it is true that, for example, parliament's committee on research, technological development and energy is strongly in favour of subsidies for renewable energy. of course we all support renewable energy, madam commissioner. nevertheless, for it to succeed, become more efficient and play the part it should on the market, what is required is more research, more innovation and fewer subsidies. i shall now refer to the six key actions that make up this specific programme: four relate to the environment, and two to energy. firstly, i should like to congratulate the commission and thank it for including, as a key action, everything concerned with research into technology relating to the management of water resources. we know that what mankind will lack in the twenty-first century is water. no particular difficulties are anticipated in connection with energy; if there are any, they will be speedily resolved. there will, however, be serious problems regarding water supply. the european union must develop technology, equipment and much more efficient management techniques so as to be in a position to export significant amounts of equipment and services. i therefore feel that both aspects of the programme on water resources are very important: the management of water resources and water quality. the second key action covers climate change and biodiversity. these are truly crucial issues. what more is there to say about climate change? it is of great concern to us all and so closely connected to the dreadful disasters that are affecting people with such meagre resources to draw upon. being so poor means that for them the consequences are far worse. furthermore, it is on climate change that the future of mankind surely hinges. everything else depends on it. biodiversity is also closely connected with it the third key action concerns the integrated management of marine ecosystems. we have used the sea and its resources in so many ways, yet the sea, which covers the majority of the surface of our planet, tends to be forgotten. it hardly figures in research and investigation. i very much hope, therefore, that the integrated management of marine ecosystems will receive a significant boost. the citizens of the future will also be heavily dependent on them. finally, the fourth action under 'environment' relates to the city of tomorrow and cultural heritage. madam commissioner, as has often been stated in this house, cathedrals, tapestries and great palaces are all part of europe. they represent a great cultural heritage that we must not lose. substantial investment in resources and technology is needed if we are to conserve it well, not just patch it up. if we take inadequate measures to restore our cultural and historical heritage, we shall gain nothing. this programme is also of great consequence, therefore. the objectives have been well chosen, but unfortunately there are too many of them. as mr tannert said referring to his programme, the commission has used the word priority in a sense i simply cannot grasp. there are no less than 130 priorities in this specific programme. i do therefore feel justified in saying that the objectives are all very well, but there are just too many priorities, assuming we all take priority to mean the same thing: something worth highlighting, something that deserves to come first. i am confident that the commission in its wisdom will be selective concerning the programmes and will make more efficient use of resources. there are two subsections or two key actions relating to energy. one concerns the development of cleaner energy and includes renewable energy. the other aims to achieve a more effective and efficient use of energy. it must be recognised that in the european union we use too much energy in the home, in transport, in particular, in our factories and in production. it is with regard to this area that i have serious doubts as to whether the programme as it stands will prove useful. mr linkohr said that the results would have to be quantified, and that parliament would have to exercise an important supervisory role. i agree with him. such parliamentary control will be of great help to the commission, and i am not referring merely to budgetary control, though that should also be undertaken. i have in mind the monitoring of results, of innovation, of the efficiency of the groups of researchers working in the various countries, and of the efficient use to be made of the scarce resources available. it should be stressed that the resources available for these two programmes are somewhat limited. i am opposed to amendment no 9, because it means that 42 % of the budget would be devoted to demonstration projects, in particular to those involving renewable energy. madam commissioner, that amounts to subsidising them. renewable energy will never make headway if you allocate 42 % of this budget to subsidising small projects concerned with solar panels, biomass, renewable energy and so on. they certainly deserve to be supported, but not in this way. the trouble is that renewable energy is not competitive, and only new technology can reverse this situation. i should also like to mention amendments nos 25 and 27, and i hope the commission will include them, because they refer to gas. europe is to promote a major gas programme, and we have rather fragile and rigid gas systems. something will also have to be done therefore regarding the storage of non-liquefied gas. more needs to be done too concerning further prospecting for hydrocarbons in offshore areas. once again, the need to support smes must be stressed. we all genuinely want to improve employment prospects. research can achieve this. i doubt if it can be achieved through subsidies, but it may be possible through the commission's skilful handling. all the commission's flexibility will be called for in order to succeed in this. mr president, madam commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the quality of european research is improving year on year, it is becoming more cohesive and a distinctive european identity is being forged, which is the sum and product of the activities carried out in each country. all four framework programmes have made a significant contribution to this progress, highlighting common concerns, shared objectives and compatible methodologies. nonetheless, the international dimension of our research effort still appears fragmented, and it is failing to make sufficient impact. a determined effort is therefore needed in this area. indeed, we are still feeling the effect of the negative consequences of the second world war, which resulted in thousands of european scientists emigrating to the united states, which then became a focus for many of our young scientists. an additional effort is therefore needed to ensure that european science, with its own particular nature and personality, becomes a point of reference and meeting place for thousands of scientists from the rest of the world. this would be in line with the special role the european union plays in other areas. with regard to social issues, it is renowned for its vision of social solidarity and for its relations with third countries. on the ethical plane, it is a strong defender of human rights and democracy. in the political sphere, it promotes tolerance and peaceful coexistence. these contributions would be further enhanced through the development of an equally important role for european science, encompassing all these values. we view the commission's proposal in a positive light. however, following on from what i have just said, we are putting forward a number of amendments with a view to strengthening the international role of community research. these relate to five paragraphs. our first aim is to include our ongoing concerns to combat sex discrimination, and to enable women to achieve the equal status they demand. secondly, we want to present a unitary image of european science as a whole. thirdly, we hope to begin creating the necessary infrastructure for the useful application of our science, which would result in it becoming a point of reference. fourthly, we aim to be sensitive to the social needs of many third countries, and to what they lack. our fifth aim is to ensure a greater role for the european parliament in this area, in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of amsterdam. the first paragraph concerns providing equal opportunities for both sexes with regard both to objectives and also to methodology and specific measures. the second paragraph - the unitary image of european science - suggests a simple initiative: publishing a european scientific journal along the lines of science or nature , so as to reflect the depth and importance of our scientific research at world level. the third paragraph relates to the creation of a europe-wide scientific information infrastructure, in other words, a european centre for scientific information. this would make available to scientists in europe and in the rest of the world all existing scientific output in the form of articles, books, reports and so on. information would be properly indexed, analysed and updated. it would therefore no longer be necessary to depend entirely on american early warning systems and databases, which currently dominate the field. the fourth paragraph, concerning sensitivity to the needs of third countries, covers a range of approaches. the first concerns special treatment for third countries. what has been done in the mediterranean area should be extended to the rest of the world, so that these countries benefit from proper treatment, as is proposed for latin america and certain other regions. the second approach relates to maintaining, and if appropriate, increasing, the number of such links and the exchange of information involved. a third approach refers - as we often do, although it is high time we got to grips with these issues - to sensitivity concerning the economic, health, democratic, agricultural and industrial problems in those countries. suggestions here range from environmental measures to the study of the risks involved in the registration of genetic patents. the fourth approach is of mutual interest and relates to shared property rights over discoveries and patents obtained through joint economic input. as for the fifth approach, it concerns the elimination of unnecessary bureaucratic and technical obstacles, to allow a better exchange of information and stronger links with the countries working alongside us. finally, the fifth paragraph refers to the role of the european parliament, as the representative of the will of the european people. parliament needs to be informed in good time so that it can intervene as appropriate. we believe that, together, these measures will ensure that european interests are adequately protected. mr president, there are two different programmes involved here, and i should like to begin by talking about my own report on smes and innovation. small and medium-sized businesses deserve to be given a prominent place in european union policy because, even apart from the employment considerations, they have enormous economic importance at european level. of the 17 million firms in europe, a good 99 % are small and medium-sized businesses accounting for more than 70 % of europe's jobs, 50 % of its investment and 60 % of its wealth. smes are thus the most important economic factor in europe. most businesses are extremely small. almost 15 million firms have nine workers or less and just over one million firms employ between 10 and 99 people. smes are also not a homogeneous group, which means that a different approach is needed for each target group. i am therefore pleased that in the framework programme too, the definition of smes is now restricted to firms employing up to 250 workers. the competitiveness of these firms largely depends on their ability to innovate, which is why it is vital to promote innovative activities, facilitate the dissemination and exploitation of research results and support technology transfer. action at european level is needed to supplement the initiatives taken by the member states in order to help smes to globalise their activities and gain access to new technologies. this specific programme must help to optimise the effort devoted to promoting innovation and encouraging smes to take part in the framework programme. it is merely a coordinating instrument designed to support the thematic programmes, and therefore has a small budget of ecu 363 million. i take the view that all the projects should be carried out in their natural environment, in other words within the thematic programmes, and i am therefore delighted that parliament and the council have supported my proposal to earmark at least 10 % of the research budget in each thematic programme for projects involving smes. secondly, ideas and new technologies need to be disseminated as effectively as possible, and a great deal of attention must therefore be given to innovation in the thematic programmes. what can be done to encourage the dissemination of r&d results and their transformation into new and better products, processes and services? when projects are started up, appropriate output indicators must be decided upon and developed, such as publication of results and patents, since these are the only way to quantify and legitimise the effect of european research investment. at the same time, i would stress the importance here of disseminating knowledge. we need to have a sound infrastructure so that knowledge can be used throughout europe and the wheel does not have to be constantly reinvented in all 15 member states. there are still far too many untapped opportunities. this was true four years ago and it is still sadly the case today. for example, small firms lack information about new ideas developed by universities and research institutes, the possibilities for technology transfer and, as i said earlier, access to assistance programmes. when i entered the european parliament four years ago, in the first report i wrote i stressed the importance of disseminating information for smes. if europe is to be able to face up to competition from the major powers - the united states, japan and china - the 15 member states must work together, particularly in the field of research and technological development, and the framework programme provides an excellent instrument for this. my third point is that people still tend to think that if there is enough research, the commercial applications will develop themselves. the opposite is true. a new product may be produced, but there is no money to develop it further. banks and venture capitalists often dare not finance high-tech projects if they fall outside their area of expertise. the have too little in-house knowledge to be able to calculate the technological and financial risks involved in developing these new products. this was why the technology rating institute was set up in the netherlands in 1995 to try to make it easier to fund promising technological innovations in smes. it is europe's job to disseminate knowledge about such successful initiatives, and this is what is going to happen over the next few years through the entas system - the european new technologies appraisal system - that is to be set up by the ing and other european banks and the frauenhofer institute in germany. national networks of knowledge centres must learn from each other, set a good example to each other and contribute to cluster formation in europe. this should generate a great deal of innovation and costs relatively little to do. my final point is that a shortage of manpower is a typical feature of smes. to make the procedures and conditions for taking part in the framework programme clear for smes, all the thematic programmes must define and apply specific measures for smes such as exploratory awards, feasibility studies and craft in the same way. they must also be accessible via a single central contact point in the commission. however, the first signs are already there that the commission is going about this in the wrong way. for example, the proposed work programme for the ict programme makes no reference to craft. i would therefore like to ask commissioner cresson how she intends to coordinate the various dgs involved in the implementation of the framework programme, particularly with regard to the measures for smes? i would like to have an answer on this fairly soon. i should like now to move on to my second task, which is to deliver the opinion of the committee on external economic relations on a number of specific programmes under the fifth framework programme. on behalf of the rex committee, therefore, i should like to congratulate the four rapporteurs, messrs tannert, malerba and argyros and mrs estevan bola. europe has a very solid tradition when it comes to research and the application of science and technology. the strategic aim of the programme before us is to establish a link between research capacity and production capacity primarily in order to promote technology exports, thereby bringing more jobs and greater prosperity to europe. the added value and the fundamental role of the european union in the field of research is consequently to promote cooperation between europe's research partners. by going beyond frontiers and making use of each other's knowledge, european companies both large and small will be better equipped to face the international competition. but partnership does not come to a halt at the boundaries of the european union. europe is currently witnessing a globalisation of the world economy and its hitherto disparate markets. less than two weeks ago, i spent five days in the bay area of san francisco and saw for myself how new small businesses, or 'start-ups' as they are known, are sprouting like mushrooms in the biotechnology sector. new activity means new jobs, which europe so desperately needs. cooperation with the united states in this field could also encourage the european biotechnology industry, and the same applies for the information and communications technology sector. up to now, the european union and the framework programme have concentrated on cooperation within europe, but in the future, global cooperation, which already characterises the high-tech sector, will become increasingly important. the committee on external economic relations was therefore delighted with the agreement signed a year ago between the european union and the united states on scientific and technological cooperation. there have always been close links between the united states and the european union. our bilateral economic relations generate the largest trade flows in the world. the european union and the usa are each other's main investors, and the quality of this relationship has a major effect on world trade. more intensive scientific cooperation is therefore justified and could lead to a better understanding of each other's views and the settlement of trade disputes with the united states such as in the field of biotechnology, internet security, encryption, privacy and data protection. these disputes arise from our differing views on the human and environmental consequences of these new technologies, and differences in consumer behaviour within the union and in the usa. if we are to prevent a constant stream of trade conflicts in these areas and develop universally acceptable legislation, cooperation with third countries and in particular with the united states within the framework programme is an absolute necessity. mr president, the question of what holds together the innermost part of the world is not a very original one as it is very old. it is however more relevant than ever, because of course our social development is moulded by many different factors, together making up what we call the european development model. to that extent, it is crucially important with respect to our future development for us to ask at this point what really holds our society together in the innermost part, and then to tie that in to research activities in all sectors. that is why i very much welcome the fact that we have here a specific programme that supports the mobility of researchers and focuses on socio-economic research, particularly with regard to the innermost part of our society. this delicate plant was produced by parliament and began to bloom in the fourth framework research programme. there were many problems and excesses, the strategic direction could have been better, but in the last few years it has improved considerably and the last call, the third one, was excellent. at this point i would also like to praise director mitsos from the commission, who really handled it well. praising the commission is something we ought to do once in a while these days! nonetheless, i have taken the liberty of proposing improvements on seven points. firstly, in the provisional allocation of funds, it is foreseen that only 10 % is to be made available for socio-economic research. i think that in our provisional allocation we could easily fix the figure a little higher, as the areas of responsibility have increased somewhat within the framework of the conciliation procedure under the fifth framework research programme. i would therefore suggest a provisional figure of 15 %. secondly, i think it is important for us to know about the mobility and research content of the programme. transparency must be ensured, in particular by using the internet, with regard to the participating institutions and the themes. thirdly, i think it important that socio-economic research is not just carried out as a sideline, but is connected horizontally to the other research areas. that is why there are some proposals - amendment no 37 in particular - for greater coordination of this research with other research areas. fourthly, i would like to mention some small improvements with relation to content. these involve structural changes, particularly as regards the ageing of our society, the effects of structural changes on employment and people's mentalities in our society, and the forms of participation. in many areas it turns out that participation is no longer taking place in traditional policy areas, but more in non-governmental organisations, citizens' initiatives and so on. these aspects should also be reflected in the content. fifthly, of course, the networking of researchers is also important. i do not want to take up the cudgels for social science research, but i sometimes have the feeling that european cooperation has not yet developed very far in the area and a little help could still be given to establishing a european research network. this is also important of course when it comes to making applications. the creation of a network ought therefore to be supported. my sixth point concerns support for equality of opportunity, also where participation in this research programme is concerned. it cannot be acceptable for instance that time spent bringing up children is not taken into account when the marie curie fellowships are awarded. that point has to be clarified, as indeed does overall support for equality of opportunity. last week i attended a symposium where there were 150 participants, and only two of them were women. there is obviously room for improvement here. my seventh and final point is that we also have to promote the results. it is of no help at all to have good studies if they are lying in a drawer. in the area of the social sciences especially, this often happens. the results should be promoted on the internet, for example, but should also be transferred directly to the users, the politicians, in this parliament, in the national parliaments, and presented on the ground, in order to make them useful in the social process. mr president, i am presenting two reports, both under my name and both about the jrc. the first is the fifth framework report and the other is the euratom nuclear report on the work of the jrc. the jrc is the living embodiment of what european added value means. it is something that should be very much better known by the members of this house and by the general public. that is true of all the research programmes but in particular of the joint research centre where scientists from all over the european union come together to work on problems which are relevant to its citizens. like the european union itself, the jrc's role has changed and its emphasis has changed. it started off with a very largely nuclear emphasis and did valuable research in the nuclear field. that emphasis is now lessening and the new mission of the jrc as it takes us into the 21st century is being highlighted more and more. mr allgeier, the director of the jrc, and mrs cresson, the commissioner, have between them shown very great clarity of thinking in defining the role of the jrc so that everyone is clear about its task. its task principally is to be a tool for policy makers in the european union and for those carrying out implementing programmes in a variety of areas. for example we need the 'technology foresite' work which is done in seville where they look at forthcoming technologies. we need the testing and standards work that is done in ispra and elsewhere. recently, for example, they tested the methods used in every member state to monitor air pollution and they found great discrepancies in these tests. that was a very valuable piece of work. alongside the clarity of purpose we need some reform and some restructuring and that is being done very efficiently. the jrc possesses facilities which no one member state could possibly afford to build and there ought to be better use of some of those facilities. as the european parliament has a duty to monitor what is going on in the research establishments, we would like observer status. we would like two observers on the board of the jrc. if for technical or legal reasons that is not possible we would like an exploration of other ways in which we could carry out that task. given the size of the ispra site and the complications of maintaining such a site, some renegotiation has to go on with the italian authorities and i hope that is in progress. in this, as in every other programme, we need to emphasize that the equal opportunities policy of the european union is not just a pretty phrase. it means that this must be implemented. here i would pay tribute to mrs cresson, a woman commissioner for science who has grasped that if we are to have an equal opportunities programme, there must be research, in her words, 'by women, for women and about women. she has set up a special unit at dg xii, and should be congratulated and supported. i move on to the euratom part of the jrc. in view of the reduced budget, a sensible decision has been made to cut the fusion research in the jrc and a higher emphasis will be put on nuclear materials and safeguards control. the faro facility is very important: this is a way of studying real accidents. my amendment no 20 highlights the fact that it is not the job of a research programme to pay for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. there must be urgent discussions with the budget authorities and the committee on budgets about how the ecu 100m needed for the full decommissioning at ispra and elsewhere can be paid for without impinging upon the research programme; this would be wholly inappropriate. i would like us to look at the suggestions of professor rubbia, amongst others, on on-site separation and transmutation of nuclear waste. if we do not find a solution to the problem of nuclear waste, the public will lose heart at any suggestion of the use of nuclear power. this may be a promising way forward. i should like to say now - pre-empting a little but my time is in one block - why i have tabled an amendment to mrs matikainen-kallstrm's report, on which i congratulate her, and i certainly agree with her suggestion that the title be changed to one which is more straightforward. my amendment no 19 suggests that, in view of the amount which has to be cut in the fusion programme, the commission should come up with a new plan and should bear the following points in mind when it looks at the international thermonuclear experimental reactor: there is a sharp decrease in interest and ability to participate by the planned partners and, as far as i can see, a site is not available. the timescale is inappropriate for the fifth framework programme. we are not going to be doing that work within this timescale. there is certainly scope for a cost reduction. the jet facility in culham in the united kingdom has very many achievements and is an important part of the fusion programme. my suggestion for a cut in the budget does not include the jet facility. indeed, so long as parliament is consulted, there is probably a case for its continuation after 1999. it has fixed costs. however, i cannot believe - even though we want to study the socioeconomic aspects of nuclear fusion, and i am all in favour of them - that they cost ecu 920m, or anywhere near that amount. we need to continue our on-going research into the fusion programme and i do not suggest in any way that we should not. but i ask the commission, if this amendment is adopted, to look again at the programme as it is drawn up and get something that is slightly more appropriate for the available budget. mr president, the need for energy will approximately double over the next fifty years. most of the increase in demand will occur in the present developing countries, which will obtain their increased quantities of energy mainly through the use of fossil fuels that accelerate the greenhouse effect. to some extent we can influence the consumption of primary energy sources by means of energy saving measures, but these are only possible in industrialised countries, and even there their effect on total energy consumption is minor. the increased use of renewables will be considerable, but will have insufficient effect as far as contamination of the environment is concerned. knowing that the earth's resources of uranium and natural gas are finite, we could say there is no environmentally acceptable energy solution that exists at the present time, especially with regard to carbon dioxide emissions, which would meet the growing demand for energy and prevent the worsening of the greenhouse effect. for several decades now we have been researching the theory of nuclear fusion, and fusion has actually been achieved in trial reactors. in trialing the commercial exploitation of fusion we have reached the point where it is necessary to create the next demonstration project. we now have the iter research project which should get under way soon and which is jointly organised by the eu, japan, the usa and russia; its purpose is to produce the technology for the future commercial exploitation of a nuclear fusion power station. the barriers to the exploitation of nuclear fusion are at present technical, so mere theoretical research is no longer enough to ensure development. for the time being the developing world will not be able to develop an energy source that commercially exploits fusion, so the programme will have to be undertaken by the industrialised countries. when we consider the timescale for exploiting fusion, which is estimated at approximately fifty years, it is clear that investment in the continuation of this work will be needed if the research currently being carried out is not to be discontinued, the commission's proposed funding cut and the iter project postponed. current research being undertaken into nuclear fusion costs ecu 500 million per year, which is just 1 % of the total cost of the oil imported by the eu. the production of energy from fusion does not produce fuel-derived radioactive waste. research into fusion and its possible commercial exploitation will not involve elements that would encourage or facilitate the manufacture of nuclear weapons. we also have to remember that research into nuclear fusion has led to an abundance of innovations, such as in the field of materials technology, and we have thus been able to exploit the results of the research well before any production of commercial energy has commenced. to stop the greenhouse effect from ultimately causing irreparable damage before the introduction of fusion energy, we must invest in the production of energy from sources other than fossil fuels. making present nuclear power stations safe and more efficient will be vital if we wish to work to produce energy without harming the environment. the commission's original proposal was to fund research for the modernisation of current nuclear power plants and the treatment of nuclear waste. i believe these will be areas of nuclear fission research which will be well suited to this programme. ladies and gentlemen, we are taking decisions on energy alternatives that will affect future generations. now, by taking the right decisions, we can solve the problems of the production of energy for europeans in the future. by voting in favour of research into fusion energy we can guarantee those future generations a life that does not rely on respirators. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i shall now comment on the three horizontal programmes from the perspective of the committee on external economic relations, in other words as regards the international role of research, innovation, smes and human potential. on the first topic - the international role of community research - it is essential, in my opinion, that technological research in the european union should be a match for research worldwide and should remain competitive; i would even say that the benchmark should be the international relevance of our research and discoveries. the fifth framework programme would be impoverished if this openness were not ensured. nevertheless, we might ask ourselves under what conditions non-eu partner companies should be allowed to participate, and to what extent the money of europe's citizens should be spent on partners not belonging to the union. special conventions will need to be drawn up, but our committee would see fit to lay down two vital criteria: firstly, research conducted in conjunction with external partners should be of benefit to the european union, thereby improving its competence and its qualities; secondly, there should be a reciprocity criterion, meaning that if, for example, the partners - the american researchers - have access to a european research programme, the opposite must also be possible. this, in my view, is a key point which the commission as a whole, not just mrs cresson, must press in its international relations. i am thinking here of technologically advanced countries such as the united states, japan and canada. whereas we have by now found ways of solving conflicts and competitive difficulties, for example in the commercial sector through the world trade organisation, the world of research is still a fairly closed, impermeable one in most countries. as regards the emerging and developing countries, on the other hand, and above all nearby countries such as those applying for accession and the third countries of the mediterranean, i should very much like to see research becoming a tool of cooperation. in these cases, however, additional financial instruments are needed to complement the rtd framework programme: i am of course thinking of the agenda 2000 programmes and the meda programmes. in this context, technology transfer and the involvement of third countries will add to the merits of the framework programme. mr president, commissioner, it has been a long road to the final decision on the european community's fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration. today i can tell you that although there was an initial protest about this programme, the committee on fisheries can accept the result of the conciliation procedure despite a general disagreement on funding and possible deficiencies with regard to content. but i would like to explain to you why we shall be following its implementation very carefully. in its opinion on the proposed fifth framework research programme, the committee on fisheries described the research needs of the fisheries and aquaculture sector. it noted that, in contrast to the fourth framework research programme, the proposal does not contain a programme solely devoted to fisheries. the design of the new framework programme means that fisheries interests will have to compete with other research interests in several programmes and key actions. that does not make things any easier for fisheries. moreover, a solution also needs to be found for the future funding of activities relating to fisheries, which have so far been defined as studies and kept outside the research programmes. these activities include the collection of basic data for stock assessments, which have so far been funded through the structural funds. the committee on fisheries stresses the need to avoid any risk of interruption in the funding of the very important activities concerned, and the need to extend support for such activities to the aquaculture sector. we have heard that in accordance with article 130i, the framework programme will be implemented through individual specific programmes, in turn consisting of key actions as they are known, or work programmes. the first specific programme, called 'quality of life and management of living resources' thus covers many key actions of relevance for the fisheries and aquaculture sector. the most important of these is 'sustainable agriculture, fisheries and forestry, including the integrated development of rural areas'. the priorities for research, technological development and demonstration in fisheries and aquaculture have been defined in such a way that most of the relevant research needs should be covered. the key action 'health, food and environmental factors' is absolutely relevant here, and the key action 'control of infectious diseases' provides a natural framework for research on prevention and control of fish diseases within aquaculture, since it has now emerged that this key action will not be limited to human diseases. the key action 'the cell factory' could possibly also be of some interest to the aquaculture sector because of the genetical problems that may arise there. that is all i have to say on the first specific programme. the second and third programmes are not very relevant for fisheries and aquaculture, so let me move directly on to the fourth thematic programme, 'preserving the ecosystem'. this programme is of the greatest importance to fisheries and aquaculture, especially in the attempts at what is known as the conceptualizing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, because understanding how environmental changes may affect the marine ecosystems upon which fisheries and aquaculture depend is extremely important. up to now we have always complained that the current state of knowledge rarely permits forecasting of concrete effects on fish stocks or predictions of the consequences of a troubled ecosystem for the fishing industry. the other specific programmes predominantly concern amongst other things the need for international cooperation with third countries in the mediterranean region, as well as russia, the usa and canada. it is a subject that we will be increasingly preoccupied with in the fisheries sector as we search for new resources. the committee on fisheries has clearly defined the contents and affirmed their importance. we look forward to their realisation. we have heard about the growing demands that are being placed on the framework programme, and in view of these each penny of the amount had to be fought for. of course this was tiring at times, but it was worth it. my thanks to all those who were involved. we are also very relieved that with the framework programme, an important part of employment policy that we have all been waiting for is to be implemented. in a modern europe we ought never to neglect the field of research. it is often the true beginning of all things. of course this also has to be reflected in our budget. mr president, i wish to focus on the section in the framework programme covered by mr argyros, which deals with competitive and sustainable growth. it is very gratifying to see that so many suggestions in the opinion from the committee on employment and social affairs have been incorporated into the report. greater emphasis is now being placed on sustainable growth as a means of creating jobs and improving quality of life: in other words, a horizontal approach is being advocated. equally, there is recognition that the programme will need to be monitored and, where necessary, adjusted. this will be necessary to keep pace not only with scientific and technological progress, but with economic and social developments too. i am convinced that societal considerations will increasingly dictate the future course of research. what is more, politicians and decision-takers will be requiring advice on socio-economic and environmental issues. research can contribute towards smoothing the way for social change and safeguarding ecological balance. i am disappointed that we failed to obtain budgetary resources for such work and i therefore call upon colleagues to support the green group's amendment no 30. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i will start with the report by mr tannert. in the fifth framework research programme, european research is supposed to be more in tune with the needs of society than ever, and more concerned with searching for solutions to its pressing problems. the biotechnology field potentially contains many answers, which we are seeing already in the medical, pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors, where work is being done worldwide. the european union must intensify its efforts here considerably if it wishes to remain competitive. but just as biotechnology answers questions, it also throws them up, especially in the field of gene technology. there is for example the safety of manufactured products that are genetically engineered, and there are also the highly sensitive ethical aspects. i would fully agree with the rapporteur that research on gene technology depends mainly on whether we can arrive at a social consensus on the issues associated with it. that is why objective information and a widely-conducted discussion in the field of ethics also have to be among the aims of this programme. the green group in the european parliament is calling once again for a moratorium on research involving foetal tissue and research on embryos in vitro before implantation until a full ethical evaluation has been undertaken. but for my group the moratorium on research is not a feasible option. it is an unrealistic demand because we can never have a conclusive ethical evaluation. it is always going to have to take place in parallel with the research. it is crucial in embryo research that the provisions in national legislation are complied with, and that the common, basic ethical principles are taken into account. european research projects should be evaluated carefully from an ethical point of view before they are begun. but a complete moratorium would lead to a standstill, which is something we especially want to avoid with this programme. now let me turn briefly to the report by mr lange. by and large, the amendments can be supported and also have the approval of my group. i very much welcome the fact that this specific programme continues the efforts to promote the training of european researchers. it is hugely important for europe's competitiveness that the quality of our researchers and scientists is continually reinforced. it is important to achieve a lively and effective cooperation between european researchers. as for socio-economic research, the commission's aim that socio-economic aspects be identified as a key action in this horizontal programme is an idea that is very much to be welcomed. but in any case it has to be said that not everything that is scientifically interesting and feasible requires comprehensive european research funding. i think therefore that the chosen figure of 10 % of the funds from the specific programme for socio-economic research is sufficient. thank you very much indeed to both of the rapporteurs. mr president, i should just like to make one point on the estevan bolea report and that is about renewable energies, specifically geothermal energy, better known in my part of the world as 'hot rocks technology'. many of our member states have a very good record in this area. europe has a good track record in that it has been successful with its research in the past. and yet this is not specifically mentioned in the commission proposal. perhaps it is included under the title 'any other energies'. in my own mind that is not at all sufficient. hence amendment no 19 which specifically mentions geothermal energy. i would remind the commission that the united states is currently putting something like usd 100m into research into this particular area. they are looking for export markets. they are areas where we, as the european union, will miss out if we do not make sure that we keep abreast of this technology. will the commission support geothermal technology? will it please support amendment no 19. mr president, i congratulate all the rapporteurs on the excellent reports they have produced. i can agree with almost all of them. i am pleased to see that the tannert report clearly spells out that research into human cloning will not be permitted in the present framework programme. my personal belief is that human cloning in any form should not be tolerated under any circumstances. the user-friendly information society programme presented by our colleague, mr malerba, is of great importance. every single element of the four key action areas will have a major role for future progress and development, not least for the creation of jobs. in recent weeks the taoiseach of ireland, mr bertie ahern, announced the decision to create a major digital park. in so doing he said: 'linking cities and villages into this busy network will not only give new jobs to ireland but will provide the one-stop media shop for local services in health, education, tourism, business development and all public services'. speaking on behalf of the irish delegation in my group, it will come as no surprise to many that i have some difficulties with those reports dealing with research of one kind or another in the nuclear sector. the sellafield lies, leaks and cover-ups saga has been consistently denounced by my fianna fil delegation in this parliament, right back to the early days of windscale. we are totally opposed to the proposed new expansion of sellafield. there is no justification - economic or otherwise - for the reprocessing of nuclear waste. we will not support any programmes which would in effect contribute to a continuation of the lethal contamination from sellafield. that money would be far better used for research into projects in non-nuclear renewable energies as set out in the programme, preserving the ecosystem, the subject of the estevan bolea report. in conclusion, i have one comment on the overall fifth framework programme. i am convinced that the time has come for europe to stop being perceived as a follower of american and japanese research fashion and become, in a coherent and united approach, a world leader in the field. we can do it if we wish. mr president, i would like to emphasise three points in connection with the fifth framework programme for research and the special programmes attached to it. the first concerns the users of research. according to the commission's proposal, the intention behind the fifth framework programme is greater interaction with users. it is very important that by the word 'users' the commission does not just mean those engaged in business, but the real end-users of research, the people. organisations that represent the people and democratically elected decision-makers must also be able to participate in the planning and monitoring of research. secondly, i would like to focus on the special attention paid to women in the research programmes. mr lange's report, now under discussion, pays commendable attention to the issue. we have to make sure that both sufficient resources are available for research into the status of women and the promotion of equality, and that women are represented in groups involved in the selection and appraisal of projects. the third important issue concerns the opportunities for applicant countries to be included in the fifth framework programme. negotiations with those countries, which are desirable for their participation in the programme, must be swiftly concluded, so that they may be included right from the start. in this connection i would also like to stress the importance of research into health and safety at work, which is also well worth investing in. finally i would like to state that i am in full agreement with what mr fitzsimmons said just now about nuclear research, which is that we should invest in renewable energy resources. mr president, the programme 'preserving the ecosystem' would more correctly have been called 'repairing the ecosystem', because with many of these programmes - and i need remind you only of the structural funds - we are continuing to destroy and rob the planet before we are even aware of all that it has to offer. this can be said about the forests and seas, and everything else too. of course what makes me particularly angry is the funding which has been provided - ecu 2.125 billion for 130 priorities - which will not do justice to any of the priorities. this path will not lead us to renewable energy. we need anything but fusion, on which we have spent billions without seeing any results so far. what about energy efficiency? obviously, with so little money we cannot make progress on that either. for the future of course it is important for us to find out what resources and valuable medical substances can be obtained from the sea before they are plundered. none of these things can be achieved with what we have here, and i deeply regret that. i also think it inappropriate for so much money to be going into computer science. as for the nuclear industry as a whole, i do not think it is at all right to continue to invest money in it, because it must itself take responsibility for the consequences in accordance with the principle that 'the polluter must pay', instead of always making the general public pay in its place. mr president, i cannot start my first speech in this chamber without referring to my predecessor, dr alan macartney, who i know was held in very high regard here both for his work in committees and in parliament. there could be no more fitting tribute to alan macartney from the people back home than the very decisive result of the by-election which brought me, also a member of scotland's party of independence, to this parliament. if one of our major purposes is to create the conditions that will encourage economic growth and improve employment opportunities, then small and medium-sized enterprises must and do play a substantial part. i was pleased to note that smes figure in these programmes and, in particular, that a proportion of the budget will indeed be available to be directed particularly towards projects from smaller enterprises. as a former proprietor of a very small business myself, i am only too well aware of how difficult it can be to find the extra time, energy and finance required to pursue innovative projects. and as until recently i was also the leader of a local authority in scotland - a very successful one too - i know from the experience of our economic development and european units that many of our smaller businesses have a wealth of talent and ideas which require more encouragement. i hope that there can be considerable flexibility in the decision-making processes and in the running of these programmes so that they can indeed be fully accessible to our small and medium-sized enterprises. the scots have a well deserved reputation for innovation and inventiveness. in my particular part of scotland, the north-east, we have many businesses, enterprises and academic and research institutions working on projects and ideas that are very worthy of dissemination both throughout europe and in the wider world. dundee, for example, one of the two cities in my area, is well and truly becoming a centre of excellence in life sciences. aberdeen is acknowledged as the energy capital of europe. i know of much work being done to develop projects in a whole range of fields including telematics and renewable energy resources. incidentally, i come here from a party which is non-nuclear in its outlook and i support the comments of our colleague a few minutes ago. we have projects to maintain the high quality of our water supply systems, also referred to earlier in this debate. we in scotland have much to offer by way of research and development. i hope that through participation in these programmes not only will scottish projects, scottish businesses and scottish institutions benefit, but the ideas generated therein will benefit europe and the world. i look forward very much to my participation here in this chamber in promoting scotland and indeed promoting european projects back home in scotland. mr hudghton, i did not interrupt you because i wanted to thank you and congratulate you on your first appearance in parliament. i wish you all the best as an mep, but would point out that here in parliament we all keep to our allotted speaking time. mr president, in the context of this joint debate on research and technological development, i will be speaking on the report on the programme for innovation and participation of small and medium-sized enterprises. the decisive role of smes in employment and in our countries' territorial balance can never be over-emphasised. it is very much better to promote the maintenance and development of a coherent and close-knit fabric of businesses in the countryside rather than to invest vast sums in urban policy with very uncertain results. that fabric has now been seriously damaged by recession and it is essential to rebuild it, in particular by encouraging the development of the industries of the future, which are currently creating most wealth, growth and employment. it is essential to be in a position to protect the intellectual property involved here, both at community level and at third country level, because this is absolutely necessary if the costs inherent in research and development are to be amortised. and instead of salving our consciences by incorporating into this fifth framework programme for research an sme section which is poorly-funded and will therefore have little impact, it would surely have been better to start by carrying out an audit of the legal obstacles currently facing people starting up in business and of the brakes on the development of smes created by certain community regulations themselves. our legal systems simply must be geared towards facilitating the development of smes, instead of hindering it, as is seen in particular in the case of some regulations which tend to strangle businesses at birth, the very time when they most need capital. it would have been useful to give some thought to the essential improvements that need to be made to company law with a view to adapting it to the rules of technological industry and risk capital, a vital instrument in facilitating access for smes to private finance for innovation. a policy geared to making extensive free trade agreements without prior impact assessment and adopting artificially high standards for our small and medium-sized enterprises has undeniable negative effects. mr president, i call for a pragmatic policy, not an ideological one, a policy that will really facilitate the development of these small and medium-sized firms. they are now the principal source of job creation in the european union. mr president, research is the future, it is the breath of the human spirit. however, responsibility is called for! i am very glad that thermonuclear fusion is not under discussion in mrs mcnally's report. however nuclear fission safety, control of nuclear materials, the decommissioning of nuclear power stations and waste management are. we are going to have to decommission a great many nuclear power stations in the future, something that we should perhaps have done much earlier. waste management is going to keep us busy for a very long time. although we do not have a solution for nuclear waste yet and it will continue to be radioactive for centuries, indeed for millennia, we go on producing more every day! it is a grotesque, tragic and dramatic form of human irresponsibility. it is i think perhaps too late for us to carry out research in this area. i am grateful to mrs matikainen-kallstrm for pointing out in her report that the routine generation of substantial quantities of radioactive materials may also constitute the biggest obstacle in the development of fusion. she refers to extremely important areas such as nuclear fission, operational safety, nuclear facilities, radiation protection and once again, waste management, which has been mentioned several times today. i know that mrs matikainen-kallstrm has taken a great deal of trouble over her report, but like many of the others who spoke before me, i regret the fact that there is no talk of any key action for renewable energies here. the waste must certainly be brought under control. you are responsible on behalf of the people in this respect. when one tries, as i do, to conduct politics in a christian-democrat spirit of responsibility then it is simply impossible - for me at least - to support a programme which admittedly offers us a great many advantages, but also leaves behind for those who will come after us problems that are presently regarded as insoluble. i would ask my colleagues to have some understanding for the way i am going to vote. mr president, referring to the report by mr argyros on the special programme for competitive and viable economic development, i would first of all like to note with satisfaction the rapporteur's effort to address issues concerned with ensuring transparency in the management of appropriations connected with the programme's activities, promoting the social dimension in the objectives served by the funds made available each year, extending the special actions to branches such as the textile industry, which is a very important industry in europe and indeed a labour-intensive one, reserving a larger proportion of the budget for improvements in land and sea transport technologies and making research results available to small and medium-sized enterprises so that they can derive benefit from them. however, i should like to point out that the worldwide economic crisis has highlighted the need for economic development which benefits society while fully respecting the environment. that, indeed, is what is meant by viable and sustainable development. but now, the word 'competitive' is being added. is that coincidence? surely not. that word establishes a framework wherein the main effort will be directed in an extremely one-sided manner towards intellectual, scientific and technological development in order to promote the interests and aspirations of large-scale multinational capital. competitiveness is ranked above all else, and the rights and acquisitions of working people, the environment and a balanced ecology are all placed in thrall to it. development of any kind and environmental protection are conditional upon company profits. experience, particularly recently, shows that any reference to competitive development is very worrying for working people and the general public. it is essential to grasp the point that technology is the product of scientific development and the human intellect, and that it must not be used in ways that pose a threat to nature, mankind and its needs. mr president, i shall begin with the malerba report, on which i have tabled some amendments. whilst i am very much in favour of a user-friendly information society, i still have some misgivings. there is a danger that the resources of the information society and the internet will be exploited for purposes of electronic surveillance. it is incumbent upon us in this parliament to distance ourselves from any attempt to use this programme to facilitate the development of such communication or surveillance technologies. i also have a point on the argyros report on competitive and sustainable growth. i have tabled an amendment on reducing the environmental impact of air traffic. parliament is very vocal about developing better fuels for motor cars and cutting petrol use, yet we seem to overlook the fact that aeroplanes are also major guzzlers. competitive ways must be found of producing fuels which will spare the environment and reduce consumption. this should be seen by industry as a positive challenge, rather than a negative threat. mr president, the fifth framework programme is primarily designed to promote the interests of a common research policy. over time, the structure has become clearer and the subject areas more specific. fragmentation into lots of small projects and the overlapping of different projects is to be avoided, and from this point of view the question has to be asked whether earmarking 10 % of the budget for smes will really promote scientific development. the rapid assessment of applications is extremely important for research institutions and especially for businesses, and establishing clear criteria is also important in order to provide a degree of certainty. it also prevents lengthy discussions on contracts and bureaucratic procedures, both of which are seen as obstacles. because of the rapid developments in science, it has to be possible to alter specific programmes half-way through. the extremely rapid progress made in genetic technology, which could generate new resistances and harmful trends in nutrition, means that further biomedical research and ethical consideration is required. scientific research is not seen as something free from value judgements, as is clear from the fact that human cloning has been excluded from the framework programme. we are delighted about this; a pause for thought about other genetic technologies is also needed, and full, unbiased information would be extremely welcome. sustainable development is an important basis for research, and energy and environmental protection must form an integral part of this. cooperation between government, the private sector, industry and the services sector can set a good, encouraging example here, particularly for applied research. however, there must also be scope for fundamental research, which should be as independent and objective as possible. as for the future of the nuclear fusion programme, we would point out that the knowledge we have acquired here must be kept for future generations, but in view of the fact that other sources of energy are now in full development, we no longer need to attach high priority to it. we support the idea of setting a maximum for nuclear research, which will certainly be advisable once we have a clearer and fuller picture of everything that is going on in the nuclear sector. it is extremely important to think about waste management and safety here. mr president, i wish to refer to mr malerba's report on the user-friendly information society, part of the broad fifth framework programme. i should like to put forward four observations on this report. first, the total european union investment - not just that allocated within the fifth framework programme, but overall investment in the field - together with the investment made by each of the 15 member states individually falls far short of the investment in this sector by our main competitors, the united states and japan. we have to realise that information science is at the cutting edge of technology and should therefore welcome this initiative and carry it through. furthermore, as the resources available are limited, they must be distributed wisely. in this respect, i welcome the rapporteur's suggestion to concentrate resources on objectives 1 and 3, namely, systems and services for the citizen and new technologies, rather than on objective 2, which relates to electronic commerce. this requires improved regulations, and thus calls for legislative action rather than investment. i should also like to point out that the final chapter is ill-defined and therefore somewhat vague. our resources must be concentrated at the cutting edge, in those key sectors where investment will bear most fruit. finally, i should like to refer to two types of amendments, following on from what our colleague from the green group said. at this stage, it would be extremely dangerous to start a witch hunt concerning the promotion of investment in this important sector. many problems are indeed emerging, relating to safeguarding the rights of the individual, the right to privacy, for instance. however, we should bear in mind that the internet arose as a result of research undertaken by the military, and later developed into what it is today. caution is therefore advisable. in addition, i should like to endorse the rapporteur's opinion on some of the amendments put forward by the committee on women's rights, relating, for example, to the introduction of gender quotas. these do seem to go rather too far. mr president, i am already very disappointed with the manner in which the european parliament's report deals with gene technology. on top of that, i find the talk of social ostracism that i hear, as opposed to the imposition of bans, very nave. we were promised years ago that there were at last going to be standards, and after years of research programmes in this field it could be expected that the commission would finally establish ethical standards instead of routinely insisting that this is what the research projects are supposed to be contributing to. it is becoming increasingly clear that they are merely waxing lyrical, and their real concern is with making unrestricted progress in this risky and ethically questionable research. returning to the subject of research involving foetal tissue for instance, even the federal chamber of doctors in germany has spoken out in favour of a moratorium. but the commission is obviously unable to admit that this type of research is dubious, both scientifically and from an ethical point of view, and that some limits must finally be laid down in the field. this applies to the softening agent in babies' toys. the commission says that bans cannot be imposed because research is needed, and yet its research programme contains absolutely no attempts at research that could finally put this issue on the agenda, namely environmental medicine and all these other questions concerning for example chemical substances. mr president, the adoption of the fifth framework programme was a key moment for research in europe, as we have all seen. parliament managed to make its own voice and that of europe's citizens heard, by introducing various themes which are crucial to the development and improvement of life and research in this europe of ours. as i have stated on several occasions in all the institutional forums, only through research and technological innovation can we get the better of the unemployment which is afflicting europe. conducting research means creating jobs for the future and improving the lifestyle of our children; efforts must therefore be made in europe to improve the attainment and dissemination of research findings, and to facilitate access to them. today's adoption of the specific programmes must be seized as a further opportunity for companies, researchers and all the citizens of europe. we naturally welcome a whole range of themes within the various programmes. among these i would single out an extremely important one: the quality of life and management of biological resources. europe has ample experience of research and applications in this field, and i would stress that - over and above all the ethical considerations - biotechnology and genetic engineering are having and will continue to have a crucial impact on the future of medicine and on our future well-being. i would also stress, on behalf of the committee which i chair, that a good deal of important work has been done in recent years, both on the framework programme, on which agreement has been reached - albeit painstakingly - with the council, and on the specific programmes where, as you know, several amendments have been put forward. in conclusion, i hope that the council will take due note of parliament's suggestions, not least when adopting these programmes to which codecision does not apply: it would be a serious mistake not to take account of the opinions of those, like ourselves, who represent the citizens of europe. mr president, i should firstly like to congratulate my colleague mrs quisthoudt-rowohl, the rapporteur, for all her very hard work in bringing the fifth framework programme to this point, including, i am pleased to say, paying a visit to devon, my constituency, to hear about many research projects engaged in at exeter university and plymouth university. i welcome her interest. i welcome the outcome of the conciliation procedure. there were many researchers out there who were anxious about future funding and the prospect of funding being cut off. we should emphasise very strongly the importance of the fifth framework programme for networking across national borders. the importance of this work cannot be overstated even though it represents a very small proportion of overall spending in europe on research. i urge the commission to pay more attention in future to providing consistent assessments of bids, to telling unsuccessful applicants why they did not succeed, and to make payments on time because delays cause great difficulties, particularly for small businesses. i welcome the emphasis on smes participation. we should remember that they face particular difficulties in participating in these transnational large projects. i welcome mrs mcnally's support for the work of jet at culham. that should reassure the staff who work there and who were anxious about their future employment prospects. above all, i wish to emphasise the benefit of the fifth framework programme as a catalyst for progress, innovation, competitiveness, quality of life and employment in europe. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would first like to thank the nine rapporteurs very much and congratulate them on the quality of their work. i want to extend those thanks to all the members of the committee on research, technological development and energy, and to its chairman, mr scapagnini, as well as to the chairs of the different committees involved in the debate on the various specific programmes within the fifth framework programme for research. examining all the proposals from the commission was a vast and complex task. it was all the more difficult because it had to be completed within tight deadlines, in parallel with the discussion of the fifth framework programme within the conciliation committee. the european parliament has fulfilled its mission flawlessly, producing reports containing a range of pertinent and constructive suggestions. rather than go into detail on the very large number of amendments tabled, i will summarise the commission's position on some important points. however, a detailed position paper is available from the sessional services. broadly, the commission accepts many of the proposed amendments in terms of content and spirit, if not in their precise formulation. the commission agrees with several of the 'horizontal' amendments, which apply to all the programmes or express parliament's position on general points in the words of different rapporteurs. these amendments reflect the agreement reached on the fifth framework programme within the conciliation committee, and relate, firstly, to equal opportunities and the participation of women in the implementation of the research programmes. i personally attach great importance to this point. on my initiative, the commission will soon be presenting a communication on this subject, which will describe specific measures to be taken to promote equal opportunities and the participation of women, following up the symposium i organised last year on 'women and science'. they also cover the participation of small and medium-sized companies. as agreed in the conciliation committee, 10 % of the resources for the four thematic programmes will be earmarked for smes to resolve the technological problems they have to confront. i would add, to respond to what has just been said, that a 'one-stop shop' will be established to facilitate access of smes to the programme. incidentally, the number of smes which benefit from the research programmes has increased by 30 % over the last four years. finally, they refer to information for the european parliament, which will be given greater powers to monitor in detail the implementation of the programmes, including, of course, the joint research centre. the commission would like to fix a date with parliament, within the next three months, to report on how the first stages of implementing the programmes have gone. i would now like to comment on the nine reports. i cannot cover everything, but i want to highlight the following points. in his report on the 'quality of life and management of living resources' programme, mr tannert rightly stresses the importance of attention to ethical issues. in the particular case of research involving human embryos, the commission shares parliament's reservations. these problems are complex. knowledge and technology are advancing rapidly and account must be taken of the interests of couples and the infirm, but of course there are boundaries which cannot be crossed. the commission is pleased to note the support given to the 'user-friendly information society' programme in mr malerba's very detailed report. in line with parliament's wishes, it will propose a new distribution of the budget for this programme benefiting key actions, services to the citizens and essential technologies and infrastructures. a little later mr malerba also spoke on the problem of international relations as regards research. it goes without saying that cooperation will be reciprocal. as regards interconnection of high-speed research networks, the commission thinks this could perhaps benefit from a financial contribution from programmes other than the information society programme. however, this contribution would only relate to uses specifically linked to the fields covered by these programmes. the commission will evaluate and analyse these needs to determine the best means of meeting them. among the amendments tabled by mr argyros to the proposal for the 'competitive and sustainable growth' programme, the commission is particularly interested in those which accentuate the sustainability dimension in all planned research. this greater stress is particularly apt. the actual principle of the programme is to develop technologies that are competitive and also respect the environment. in fact i would say the environmental aspects make them that much more competitive. mrs estevan bolea's report on the programme on 'preserving the ecosystem' is a very precise analysis of energy and environment needs and the actions planned in that field. while continuing to emphasise the close links between issues arising in these two fields, the commission takes note of the fact that parliament and the council support the idea of implementing two separate sub-programmes. the commission also recognises the importance to be attached to renewable energy. i would remind you that it was at its initiative that the european union set itself a target for raising the share of renewable energy from 6 % to 12 % by the year 2000. however, we do not think it is either possible or necessary to fix a quantitative resource threshold for research in this field. some of the technologies involved combine the exploitation of classic energies and renewable energies, and account must be taken of the absorption capacities of the fabric of european research and industry. we are delighted with mr marset campos's support for the programme on 'confirming the international role of community research'. like him, we think the actions in this programme should be structured according to the individual economic and social needs of the various regions of the world. but we do not think explicit links need to be established at legislative level between the various actions and excessively precise country categories. the amendments tabled by mrs plooij-van gorsel to the programme on 'promotion of innovation and encouragement of participation of smes' contribute a number of useful details, notably in the definition of new approaches to be implemented. so the commission will adopt them. special attention to smes is also covered by one of the general amendments, which the commission accepts, on extending the agreement reached in the conciliation committee. i can assure mrs plooij-van gorsel that the specific measures for smes will be included and applied in all the thematic proposals in a harmonised and effective way. the same applies to the equal opportunities issue raised by mr lange in his report on the programme on 'improving the human research potential and the socio-economic knowledge base'. like the rapporteur, the commission attaches great importance to the socio-economic aspects of research, especially to the contribution made by such work to the definition and implementation of public policy. it therefore accepts the amendments aimed at strengthening this dimension, as well as the coordination of activities pursued in this field right across the framework programme. mrs mcnally has carefully analysed the two proposals on the programme of activities for the joint research centre in the non-nuclear and nuclear fields. the limited number of amendments bears witness to the level of agreement between parliament and the commission on the nature and content of the joint research centre's mission to serve union policies and union citizens. these two specific programmes authorise a redeployment of the scope of the jcr into fields such as environment or consumer protection and a refocusing of its nuclear activities in the domains of security and safety. this reorientation has also meant that the issue of the nuclear legacy of past jcr activities has been clearly stated, and has underlined how essential it is to dismantle obsolete installations and process nuclear waste. as mrs matikainen-kallstrm illustrates clearly in her in-depth report on the programme on 'preserving the ecosystem' (euratom), the position as regards research on thermonuclear fusion has evolved over the last few years. this is also mentioned by mrs mcnally. the medium and long term prospects have changed. we can now exercise a certain flexibility in the management of the key action on nuclear fusion, without undermining in any way the scientific work carried out in this field. so, with a view to optimum use of community funds, and taking fully into account the degree of urgency involved, the commission proposes revising the distribution of euratom programme resources, allocating ecu 955 million to indirect actions, including ecu 768 million for fusion, and ecu 305 million to the jcr, including ecu 24 million for the vital tasks of dismantling obsolete nuclear plant and waste management. on the latter point, the commission is working on a medium and long term action plan to resolve these hangovers from the past. this approach requires everyone in the community institutions to shoulder shared responsibilities, and i hope i can count on the support of the european parliament. i would like to conclude with a few comments on the procedure followed. as i have said, we are facing very tight deadlines. anxious to avoid the risk of delaying the launch of the fifth framework programme, the commission decided to present to the council authorities the parliamentary amendments it envisaged adopting in whole or in part, and to negotiate in advance their incorporation into the final text once these amendments have been voted through by parliament. it was able to do so thanks to the spirit of collaboration and openness demonstrated by parliament, and i want to thank you sincerely. with the fifth framework programme, which will be launched at the same time as the euro, i was determined to make european research serve the union's great aims, beginning with competitiveness and employment, as well as the expectations and needs of our fellow citizens. and to answer a question asked earlier, as well as researchers and industrialists there will also be users in the advisory groups, who will be able to give us their assessment of the programmes. from the start the european parliament has been fully associated with this enterprise and it has been able to make its mark. in their structure, content and conditions of implementation, the specific programmes will bear the stamp of this parliament. parliament can take full credit for the impact these programmes will have on the european economy and european society. i am delighted with this and i thank you most sincerely for your invaluable contribution. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon. (the sitting was closed at 8.50 p.m.)

report on the deliberations of the committee on petitions during the year 2006 (debate) the next item is the report by carlos jos iturgaiz angulo, on behalf of the committee on petitions, on the deliberations of the committee on petitions during the year 2006. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the work of the committee on petitions is an admirable resource enabling us to gain an in-depth understanding of the problems and complaints of citizens regarding european affairs. while these cover a wide range of policy areas, they frequently touch up on land-planning and environmental issues. they essentially involve all member states and encompass broad sections of civil society, from individual citizens to multinational ngos. your rapporteur rightly, i think, underlines the importance of the work entailed in the 1 000 or more petitions you receive each year. there are three aspects of the report and the resolution that i should like to mention. the first of these is a recent development: the visits the commission makes to places where a particular problem has arisen. these visits may have considerable media impact and will undoubtedly give your work a higher profile. in addition to being covered by the press and the media generally, these missions engender very detailed reports which, in my opinion, are of high quality. i believe these are important records of your activity and certainly deserve wide publicity. those of you who managed to hear the radio programmes last week about the activity of the committee on petitions will have understood how important it is that you should give those submitting petitions a personal hearing in the presence of all the necessary experts. this represents a large investment in time and resources, but i am sure it would be worthwhile. the second point i should like to emphasise has always been a favourite in these debates: the coexistence or even duplication of a petition and complaint, possibly giving rise to a contravention procedure. the report indicates that in 2006 at least, the commission once again did not keep parliament as well informed as the latter would have liked. you must surely have foreseen that at this point i would answer by referring to our recent communication on the enforcement of community law, entitled 'a europe of results'. this communication contains commitments on transparency, the setting of priorities, modernisation, better cooperation with the national authorities and everything you could wish for in these cases of duplication. that is not all, however. we have already started work on a document outlining the policy. the document will put all this to use in the environment sector, which, as i understand from your report, is one of the sectors you are most concerned with. the third and final point i should like to mention applies more to the future. let me assure you once again that we intend there to be the best possible cooperation between the commission and parliament. such cooperation is mutually beneficial. systematic cooperation leads to a better exchange of information and hence an improvement in the level of service offered to our citizens in all sectors. this is what we all want, so let us try to ensure that the examination of petitions is exemplary. once again, i congratulate the rapporteur for raising this issue. rapporteur. - (es) madam president, i firstly wish to thank commissioner dimas for his comments and reflections, and i would of course also like to thank all those who made this report possible, including the secretariat staff, all my colleagues who took part in the committee's debates and those who have enhanced this report by tabling amendments to improve it. i thank you all. ladies and gentlemen, i am tabling this report pursuant to rule 192 of the rules of procedure on the deliberations of the committee on petitions during the parliamentary year 2006. the current report provides an overview of the main elements that characterised the activity of the committee on petitions last year. it points out its achievements, and also indicates certain areas where further progress is needed, since obviously we must continue to improve. of all parliament's committees, it is the committee on petitions that is in closest proximity to the citizens. citizens can approach it on either an individual or group basis, and the committee attempts to provide them with the best solutions, ensuring that the petitions are managed in a transparent and effective way and that the citizens obtain comprehensive answers to the issues they raise. the right of petition, enshrined in the ec treaty in articles 21 and 194, is a significant feature of european citizenship as it enables any european union citizen and any natural or legal person residing or having a registered office in a member state to address the european parliament on matters falling within the eu's remit. i therefore wish to point out with some enthusiasm that the statistics once more show a steady flow of petitions. for example, 1 032 petitions were submitted in 2005 and 1 016 in 2006. approximately one third were declared inadmissible. it should be pointed out that the main areas of concern for petitioners generally continue to be the environment and the free movement of goods, persons and capital. the petitions reflect an important image of the application of european legislation and the impact it has on individuals. through their petitions, european citizens highlight the shortcomings and difficulties of the transposition and application process: they are in an ideal position to monitor the implementation of eu legislation at national level. the proportion of inadmissible petitions also indicates a continuous need to raise public awareness and inform european citizens more successfully about eu legislation and policies, and about their legitimate right to petition the european parliament. in order to achieve this, a concerted effort is required by this european institution, but it must be accompanied by the efforts on the part of the various national institutions in each member state. i also wish to state, in relation to the european commission, that the committee on petitions relies on the commission's expertise in investigating the possible infringements of community legislation that are brought to light in the petitions. the commission's recommendations remain instrumental in defining the most appropriate answer to petitioners' problems. nevertheless, the committee encouraged and continues to encourage the european commission to avoid standard, occasionally rather general answers based on a strict interpretation of its competences and the information provided by the member states. the committee on petitions continued to emphasise the importance of ensuring that the assessments of the petitions should put greater emphasis on citizens' real problems, and to ask the european commission to carry out independent investigations that could provide for a more coherent approach to specific issues. i also want to point out that in its dialogue with the european commission the committee has constantly underlined the important role petitions play in achieving the common goal of bringing europe closer to the citizens. it should also be said that the committee and the european ombudsman had a constructive relationship based on constant dialogue and mutual respect for each other's competences and prerogatives, and two reports were presented. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (de) madam president, firstly, i would like to complain once again about the fact that this report in particular is being dealt with at such an inconvenient hour in terms of its public resonance. i have five comments to make in all. my second point is that we need decisions about treaty infringement proceedings from the commission. it is not enough, commissioner, to produce a document that is simply designed to record one's own determination, which is what the interpretation has just said; rather, it is essential to bring about real improvements. your job is to facilitate decisions about treaty infringement proceedings which you then publish, if necessary with the ensuing judicial decisions or legal rulings. thirdly, the council is becoming more political. with more qualified majority voting, the council is taking on more overall responsibility, as co-legislator, for its legislation and thus for the execution of these laws. we wish to emphasise once again that we would therefore very much welcome much more involvement by the council in the activities of the committee on petitions and, for example, the designation of a senior official to coordinate petition-related matters. my fifth and final point is this: we do not just want to criticise others. with this report, we want to send out the message that we ourselves, as the european parliament, need to improve. you can read about this in paragraphs 25 and 26. we need a better process in the european parliament. we need appropriate human resources, we need appropriate response times, we need better workflows, we need a more transparent procedure for citizens, and we need a better method of sifting out unimportant and inadmissible petitions at an early stage so that we can focus on those that are admissible and important. parliament has taken a significant step forward here by setting up a committee of inquiry, so we are well on track. on behalf of the pse group. - madam president, i do not support amendment 1 to paragraph 15, and i am surprised that mr atkins has put his name to it. i believe that it undermines the committee on petitions and the work of the ombudsman, and i would urge members to oppose it. the committee plays an important role in bringing the union closer to the citizen. indeed, we have succeeded on many occasions in gaining recompense and fair play, both for individual complainants and for entire communities. the european parliament is increasingly seen by citizens as an important platform from which to defend their environment, the quality of their drinking water and their archaeological heritage. there are weaknesses, however, which have to be addressed in the mechanisms available to the committee and to the commission in terms of seeking redress and to enforce decisions on governments and local authorities for negligence and, in some cases, deliberate avoidance of the implementation of european law. there are examples: the m30 motorway project in madrid, which i, myself, visited on behalf of the committee, where the authorities are still not implementing the agreed actions to remedy their breaches of eu law; a similar case regarding lettori in italy, who have been frustrated in their search for fair play for over 20 years; and the inadequate laws and procedures to protect drinking water and archaeological heritage in ireland. i believe that, as a petitions committee and as a union, we owe petitioners at least the implementation of decisions that have been made against governments and local authorities. commissioner wallstrm today pointed out in this parliament that the law is only as good as its implementation. clearly, there are lots of laws at european level not being properly implemented at national level, and citizens will not have confidence in the european union until they are. on behalf of the alde group. - madam president, first of all i wish to congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent report. i myself became a member of the committee on petitions just over one year ago and during that time i have had first-hand experience of the very valuable work that is done by the committee. but how often do we as politicians hear of the democratic deficit, and how often are we therefore urged to engage with citizens? well, the committee on petitions is a tangible, hands-on, practical way of engaging with european citizens. there is an essential element of truth in the statement that all politics is local, and while individuals throughout the eu-27 are concerned with the big issues of globalisation, eu enlargement, emigration, energy supply etc., they are most often concerned with how these issues affect their lives, their families and their communities. equally, with european legislation, citizens are concerned with how this impacts on their lives and their communities. and where they perceive misapplication or unfair application of european legislation, they want a relatively simple, easy and effective way of dealing with that situation. that is what they look for in the committee on petitions. if their petition is declared admissible, they want it dealt with in an efficient and timely way, and in this i particularly support the rapporteur on paragraphs 9, 10 and 12, where he calls on both the commission and the committee to improve their timeliness. i also agree with the rapporteur on paragraphs 25 and 26, where he calls for the need to strengthen the committee secretariat and the need to find the necessary financial resources to continue the development of the e-petition software system. in my opinion, the petitions committee is very much part of the public face of the european institutions: citizens can access the committee and have their case heard, and it is a crucial part of eu citizenship. but the system must work efficiently. if it does not, it is the worst of all possible outcomes, because not only do citizens consider that the misapplication or non-application of eu legislation negatively impacts on their lives, but the very system that is there to support them in fact lets them down. that is why a well-functioning, properly resourced committee on petitions, working in good cooperation with the commission and the council, is core to supporting and validating the rights of eu citizens. i fully support the suggestion to enhance the visibility of the citizens' portal in relation to the right to petition. if citizens know that they have the right to petition and they have the expectation of a fair and timely response, then we are strengthening eu legislation, we are giving it greater legitimacy and transparency and we are strengthening the european union. finally, i would like to say to the commissioner that we must improve the functioning of the committee, as outlined in this report, and that wonderful phrase 'connecting with citizens' can become a reality rather than just an aspiration. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) madam president, i should like to thank sincerely the rapporteur, mr iturgaiz, the members of the committee on petitions and also its secretariat, headed by mr lowe, for the trend-setting work they have undertaken during the past three years of this parliamentary term. the committee on petitions has dealt with all manner of issues that were distressing the citizens of the european union and were important to them. these issues included the preamble to the constitutional treaty with the reference to god and to christianity, the bankruptcy of individuals involved with lloyds and equitable life, and the catholic broadcaster radio cope in barcelona. the committee on petitions also dealt with land use plans for valencia, excise duty on motor vehicles, the rospuda valley by-pass in poland, infringement of european union directives affecting ireland (tara), and the orlans by-pass in france. in addition, the committee considered the activities of the so-called jugendamt, the german authorities dealing with young people; many complaints were lodged against the jugendamt. as mr iturgaiz stated, the committee on petitions is very important to the people of europe. it brings the eu institutions closer to the citizens and is crucial in terms of making societies aware of the real nature of these institutions. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (es) madam president, mr iturgaiz, i would like to thank you for this excellent report. i wish to start by asking the president to pass on the serious concern of all members of the committee on petitions about the committee secretariat's total lack of human resources. i would also like her to pass on this concern to the ep's bureau, which is responsible for providing sufficient resources for this extremely important task of maintaining fluid communication with the eu citizens. secondly, i wish to take advantage of the presence of commissioner dimas here. since many of the petitions relate to the environment and many of them are from spain, i would like to discuss how they could be better handled. firstly, as guardian of the treaties, the european commission is obviously not fulfilling its role when it fails to act with sufficient speed in relation to many petitions. on numerous occasions we are faced with situations where we act in articulo mortis: in other words, by the time we get around to considering infringement proceedings, it is too late. then, as some of my colleagues said, we must take a look at the information supplied by the petitioners. there are far too many cases, notably in spain, where there has been no clear response to the petition and not even an attempt to take a serious look at the information provided, for example the petitions on opencast mines or ski resorts in the middle of natura 2000 areas. on the other hand, the european commission has taken exemplary action on other petitions, and here we could cite the case of the rospuda valley in poland. nevertheless, we are concerned, as i have already mentioned, that in many cases the commission arrives on the scene too late after a flagrant breach of environmental laws. we have, for example, the case of the 501 highway in the autonomous community of madrid, where infringement proceedings were initiated when the work had already finished. we are also concerned about the application of the environmental impact assessment directive and the strategic environmental assessment directive. these are not being applied properly in many countries, especially spain, where the projects are chopped up so that the directive does not have to be applied. lastly, application of the water framework directive remains extremely patchy, and in some cases relating to large properties in spain where mandatory reports have been issued against the spanish government itself, the european commission refuses to take precautionary action. thank you, david. i assure you that i will convey to the bureau your request concerning additional human resources for the work of the petitions secretariat. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (es) madam president, it is true that one of the directives most frequently infringed is the directive on environmental impact assessment, which is compulsory for all building and planning. our problem is simply that we arrive on the scene too long after the petitions have been submitted by citizens, when the irreversible damage has already been done. in spain we have seen some extremely negative effects along our entire coastline as a result of very aggressive building projects. currently a regasification plant is being built right in the middle of el ferrol estuary, which is of great community interest and part of the natura 2000 network, and no environmental impact assessment has been carried out. this is the only regasification plant in spain that will not have an environmental impact assessment, thereby creating a lack of security and infringing clear directives. we will each of us have to strive to speed up our responses so that the citizens see that their rights are not being violated. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - madam president, i consider the committee on petitions one of the most valuable committees in parliament, if not the most valuable. it is the form in which the citizens tell us how the many laws we tinker with in other committees affect them or do not affect them. without this feedback we are doomed to work in a vacuum. but, in terms of doing our work properly, there is something missing in the procedure: the council and the permanent representation of the member states. how can we get results for a citizen in dispute with their country without that country being represented in the petitions committee? the second thing i want to mention is a particular petition. the people of ireland came to the petitions committee, with three petitions in all, in connection with our most important sensitive archaeological site: tara, the home of the high kings and of st patrick. the petitions committee has responded and has asked for the destruction to stop. the commission has brought a case against the irish authorities and yet, by the time anything happens, there will be a motorway, probably there for already three or four years, and all the destruction will have happened. the irish people will not get over their disillusionment. madam president, i should like to congratulate my colleague, mr iturgaiz angulo, on his excellent report. having been a member of the committee on petitions myself since the beginning of this year, i too have to admit that i am becoming a keen supporter of this committee and the importance of its role. i dare say, however, that many members in this house are not giving this committee the importance that it deserves, and this should change. if eu citizenship means anything, surely it must mean that citizens of europe can stand up for their rights and make their voices heard, regardless of whether they stand up against companies, local or regional authorities, public agencies or even their own national governments. this right can best be exercised through the use of the petition to the european parliament - a right that is recognised as a basic right in the treaty. provided that their complaint concerns rights under eu law, people can rely on europe and on us, as representatives of europeans, to support them. the petition is a great tribute, i would say, to europe and what it stands for, but it is also a great credit to member states, because member states themselves signed a treaty which gave the right to petition, even if the petition can often be used as a tool against member state authorities themselves. so i strongly urge eu citizens to stand up for their rights, to use the petition as a tool to defend themselves on eu rights. those who will do so will surely find us standing right there behind them. (pl) madam president, the european parliament received 1 016 petitions in 2006. as in 2005, approximately one third of these petitions were not within the sphere of competence of the european union and were therefore deemed inadmissible. this is indicative of the need to ensure that the citizens are properly informed about the remit of the union and its institutions. in this connection, i should like to emphasise the enormous contribution made by the committee on petitions to the work of the european parliament in terms of communicating with the citizens and promoting transparency and responsibility in the union's decision-making process. the close cooperation between the committee on petitions and the european ombudsman is also to be commended. nonetheless, greater commitment from the council is urgently needed. in particular, a senior official should be appointed to coordinate petitions, as many of the latter involve sensitive political issues relating to the transposition of community provisions into the national legislation of the member states. the only way to meet the citizens' expectations in terms of swift and effective responses to their complaints is by speeding up the process of examining petitions and ensuring cooperation between the various institutions. in conclusion, i should like to thank the rapporteur for a very well prepared document. madam president, i too wish to congratulate the rapporteur on his excellent report. at the same time i wish to congratulate the chairman of the committee on petitions, its members and secretariat for the splendid work they are carrying out. the committee on petitions, despite the fact that on occasion its attendance by meps is rather slim, is, i believe, one of the most important committees which links the ordinary citizen of europe with the eu institutional order. it provides the mechanism through which our constituents can feel closer to the eu, and it greatly facilitates a feeling among citizens that the eu institutions are not faceless and blameless bureaucrats, but that they also can be held to account, and responsibilities can be asked for and criticisms directed at those that do not do their job as well as they should. importantly, this report shows that the continued dialogue of the committee on petitions with the ombudsman and the commission has been a most useful exercise, but, sadly, the cooperation with the member states and the council leaves a lot to be desired, and this is an area where significant improvement is needed urgently. (pl) madam president, the contribution made by the committee on petitions to communication between the european parliament and the citizens of the member states is invaluable and responds to society's expectations. it is a fact that every year approximately 1 000 petitions are received, some 2 500 documents, and that as many documents again are sent out annually. clearly, therefore, such direct contact with the european parliament is necessary for the citizens of our countries and encourages them to hope that their problems can be resolved. of course, this does not mean that the authors of these petitions are always right. they encompass differences of opinions and interests. nonetheless, the very fact that the committee on petitions examines the petitions makes it possible to appreciate the problems that are of concern to society. it also provides an opportunity to improve legislation that is not always unambiguous or transparent, to eliminate legal loopholes and to prevent infringement or incorrect transposition of community legislation. i would like to thank the committee on petitions for the outcome of its useful work. madam president, i am here and am delighted to be so, because i think that the work that the committee on petitions does - and i want to congratulate the rapporteur on the work in terms of his report - is very different to any other committee and, indeed, any other report you will find. we are, i suppose, as members of the committee, and to use that well-worn phrase which i do not like, 'close to the citizen'. i think that is very important. they ring our office, they know our assistants, they ask for help, and we do that. we give them help and bring their petitions to parliament. we also deal with a wide range of issues, and that requires members to educate themselves on all of those issues that come before us, from environment matters to financial services to whatever it is. we are the committee that most frequently meets, greets and deals with 'real people' - and, again, that is a phrase i do not like to use, but it is a very important one when we speak here in this chamber so late in the evening. but the truth is that we rely greatly on the commission to come back to us with answers, and sometimes the quality, and indeed quantity, of the responses at meetings is poor, i have to say; not always, but in some cases it is not timely and we could do our business a little bit better. i would support all of the efforts and the mentions made in the report that we do just that. i believe, though, that it takes a particular individual to come to the committee on petitions of parliament. there are many citizens who would like to do it, but would not be able to, so we are dealing with people with great determination and obviously people who are angry as well about what is happening in their member state and they want action. i will give you an example of a landfill dump called whiteriver in my own country, in co. louth. it is on our agenda at some time in the future, but even the threat of the committee on petitions dealing with this issue has resulted in positive action on the ground. so, sometimes, we have an effect and we may not even know about it before the petition comes to parliament. i want to mention particularly last year's equitable life, which was a child, if you like, of the committee's work. again, in relation to equitable life, it was very important for us not to promise more to people than we could actually deliver. what the people wanted from us was obviously some measure of redress in terms of compensation for their losses. we could not do that and we were very strict in saying that, but i think it was important that we pointed out where the responsibility lay - and it lay with the uk government. i think it is also important that we keep the pressure on those with the responsibility, again the uk authorities, in relation to equitable life, to get them to take action. a lot of our work is political and it is about pressure points and we have to be determined in order to get results. i would say this and i have said it to my colleagues in the ppe-de group: i think we need a quality-control measure on the work of the committee so that we can do our work better, that we ask petitioners after we have gone through the process what they thought of us in terms of the work we did. i think we should not be afraid of that. lastly can i say, because i say it every time i get a chance, european city guides needs to be addressed, and i hope it will be. member of the commission. - madam president, i would like to thank all the speakers in this very interesting debate for their positive contributions. i agree with most of the speakers, especially ms mcguinness, mr tomaszewska and mr matsakis, who said that this committee is one of the most important committees and that it connects european citizens with the european union's institutions. i fully agree and i am willing to cooperate as much as possible in order to respond to the concerns of european citizens. i would like to answer two main questions: how to conciliate the precautionary principle with the need to have evidence before attacking a member state. i am aware of the issues raised by mr hammerstein and i would like to say that legal enforcement action can only challenge decisions formally taken by member states in breach of european union law. the commission cannot initiate legal proceedings on a judgment of intent. therefore, until a decision is formally taken, there is no room for legal action. regarding the issue of the speed of action, the commission needs to respect the procedural requirements of the treaty and to make sure that it has developed the right arguments and compiled the necessary evidence where court action is needed. this can take time. nevertheless, in december 2006, the commission - myself, actually - for the first time obtained an interim order from the european court of justice in the environment domain, suspending illegal hunting rules in italy before the main legal action was heard. on 18 april 2007, we obtained our first interim order in relation to an infrastructural project. each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits, even if recent initiatives from the commission, supported by the european parliament, such as those relating to illegal hunting in italy, which i have previously referred to, or to the rospuda valley, illustrate the interest of using this procedure in order to protect the environment. it should not be used as a routine mechanism. this mechanism should only be used for high-profile cases where the adoption of interim measures can have a pedagogical effect. in conclusion, i would like to thank the rapporteur once again for his very informative report, which i sincerely hope will contribute to raising the visibility of the work of the committee on petitions, and i assure you, once again, of the commission's firm commitment to collaboration with you all. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12 noon.

order of business the final draft agenda as drawn up by the conference of presidents at its meeting of thursday, 13 january 2011, pursuant to rule 137 of the rules of procedure, has been distributed. the following amendments have been proposed. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to take the opportunity of the order of business to formally request that baroness ashton comes to the chamber of the european parliament to report on the actions that have been taken, or that she will take, regarding what is happening to the world's christians. we should like her to come here with a report, so that parliament may be informed about everything in detail. i am sorry, mr salatto. we are having an official debate about that on wednesday at 15:00. (el) mr president, i should like to refer to rule 173 on compliance with the rules of procedure, in order to point out that rule 116 is being infringed, because this is the third consecutive plenary part-session of the european parliament which has not included question time with the council in the order of business, as provided for in rule 116. please could you explain why that is and what the reason is and ensure, in future, that you defend the right of the european parliament and of its members to exercise parliamentary control over the council. we will make a decision about this very soon. it concerns the treaty of lisbon and the new relations between the european parliament and the council. we now have a bicameral parliament in the european union. the european parliament and the council legislate on equal terms. relations in the union have changed, but i would propose that we do not continue this discussion, because this matter will be clarified in the near future. thank you, mr chountis, for calling attention to this. it will be clarified very soon. (de) mr president, what i find questionable is the fact that, with a view to possible future changes, a parliamentary right - namely question time - is being withdrawn without any basis whatsoever. as you said yourself, the decision has not yet been taken. that being the case, we should continue with question time until a decision has been taken, rather than pre-emptively acquiescing to a decision that has not yet been made. i will tell you quite honestly that i think it is wrong because, in matters relating to foreign policy and enlargement policy, the council is not a second chamber but a body that, clearly, we must subject to parliamentary scrutiny. (applause) i would like to thank both of you for raising this matter. i want to assure everyone that i will raise this at the next meeting of the conference of presidents this thursday. as you know, the order of business is drawn up at these meetings. we will decide how this matter will be handled in future. the conference of presidents is responsible for the order of business, and we will discuss the matter this thursday. thank you. we proceed to the order of business. monday the group of the greens/european free alliance has requested that the debate on the situation in tunisia be wound up by the adoption of a resolution, which is something we had not been planning. so there is a proposal to adopt a resolution on the matter. i understand mr cohn-bendit wants to say something about this request. mr president, you are aware that the events in tunisia have got out of hand, and also we can be pleased that mr ben ali has left the country. the situation in these next few weeks will therefore be very tense in tunisia. i think that parliament needs to draw up a short resolution to ask some very specific things of the council and the commission. you are aware that elections may be held six to eight weeks from now, so we do not have the time to wait until february. the union must act, we must act now, and our action must be based on a resolution that we should vote on on thursday at noon. i understand that, in view of the situation, this house will be very enthusiastic about finally being able to approve a resolution on tunisia. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i do not believe that the resolution will alter the situation in tunisia, so therefore i am against it. concerning debates held pursuant to rule 122 of the rules of procedure, the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left has made a request for the debate on 'brazil: extradition of cesare battisti' to be removed from the agenda. mr tavares would like to move this request. mr tavares, you have the floor. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - mr president, some colleagues took the initiative of putting an urgency resolution on the agenda on brazil's refusal to extradite cesare battisti to italy. i understand their motives, but as i shall demonstrate, this is not, at present, a human rights case. it is not an urgent case and it is not even a 'breach of the rule of law' case. furthermore, it comes at a terrible moment when brazil is facing the worst natural disaster in its history. cesare battisti is in prison. he is awaiting the decision of the brazilian supreme court and the supreme court is currently not in session during the southern hemisphere's summer holiday. there is no reason to believe that there will not be an independent decision. i expressed my solidarity with the families of the victims in this case, and rest assured i have no sympathy with political violence either from the right or the left, but we should use the urgencies to debate southern sudan, the case of buchtar tabuni in indonesia, or the palestinian man shot dead in his bed. is the parliament going to allocate to president dilma rousseff, just after her groundbreaking election and for no sound formal reason, the kind of debate that we usually reserve for people like mugabe? i would ask you to remove brazil from the urgencies on the agenda. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of my group and, i think, all of parliament, i should like to really emphasise our sympathy with the people and government of brazil for their real sorrow in relation to the floods of recent days. hundreds of people lost their lives and we should like to make our sympathy felt. at the same time, on behalf of the proposers and, i hope, all of parliament, i reiterate our firm intention to debate this issue, because the request for justice has still not been heard, and because the cesare battisti issue needs to be further deliberated upon by the european parliament, which must make its voice heard in the international arena. (nl) mr president, i would like to support the request made by mr tavares because this is not a matter of urgency. mr battisti is in prison and there is no reason to believe that he will be released any time soon. we should not, in my view, interfere in the personal matters of people who are still on trial.

explanations of vote oral explanations of vote madam president, this is a report that gives me the opportunity to mention the city of liverpool, which is in my constituency. it has enjoyed the benefits of being city of culture and has performed extremely well in that role, and the people of liverpool have responded magnificently to it. whilst many of the aims of the european year are laudable in this report, we have to consider the budgetary implications that accompany it. excessive bureaucracy and the focus on state-led efforts to foster what is termed 'creativity and innovation' are not really to be welcomed. it would be a much better use of taxpayers' money if we removed these types of promotional exercises and concentrated simply on giving people real choice of decision-making. (nl) madam president, is it any wonder that some member states are demonstrating aid fatigue - to quote this report verbatim? i think not. ever more member states and other donors have had enough of continuing to pump funds into all manner of corrupt regimes that really do not give two hoots about good governance or the prosperity of their own citizens. approximately one year ago we learned from an unimpeachable source, the aid agency oxfam, that the wars in africa had already cost roughly the same as the hundreds of billions of euros in development aid received by the continent in the last few years. it is time africa took meaningful steps in the fields of democracy, good governance and the fight against corruption first of all. only then can we talk of highly targeted development aid. simply advocating without qualification an increase in development funds and presenting all manner of percentages as dogma is totally irresponsible, and so i voted against this report. (nl) madam president, it is a clich, but young people are our future, and so i would be the first to admit that the quality of our instructors and of teacher education is extremely important. the question is, of course, whether it is for the european parliament to lecture the member states on this. is it for parliament to express its opinion on the composition of the teaching workforce at all levels of school education in the member states? must education in the member states conform rigidly to the 'multicultural society' - we know what is meant by this - and must education in the member states conform to the 'gender aspect', whatever that may be? must all this be made compulsory in teacher education because europe says so? as far as i am concerned, parliament can think what it wants, but it has absolutely no competence in this sphere. education falls within the competence of the member states, and that is the way it should stay, in my opinion. this is known as subsidiarity, and must be respected. (fi) madam president, i wish to say a few words about this report by mrs badia i cutchet on improving the quality of teacher education, which i think is an excellent one. it is true that teacher education very largely falls within the competence of national governments, and so it should. since, however, we have a common aim of promoting pan-european union competence, knowledge and innovation and of developing the european economic area, we need to have certain common rules. that is why we also need wider forms of cooperation in the exchange of best practices in the area of teacher training, because at present, as we all know, there are differences between the course levels for teachers in the member states which are simply far too great, according to the oecd's pisa survey. this gulf has to be narrowed and we need a mechanism, an open coordination system at eu level, so that all children and young people can receive an adequately sound basic education. in this respect the report is excellent. i would urge you all, if you have not read it yet, to read mrs badia i cutchet's splendid report. thank you. (sk) i should first of all like to thank the rapporteur for the report on the bologna process and its impact on student mobility. the introduction of harmonisation of the three-cycle system of higher education in the countries of the european union, quality assurance and, above all, the recognition of qualifications represent a fundamental objective of this intergovernmental initiative. in today's vote, i unequivocally supported doris pack's report, in which the rapporteur emphasises the partnership approach and cooperation in policy-making and implementation of the bologna process. this initiative represents an example of dynamic cooperation not only among eu countries, but also beyond. i also agree with the view that the mutual recognition of qualifications should be further simplified and that the bologna process should be more uniform at the national level in member states. support for student mobility is a basic prerequisite for the creation of a european higher education area. (de) madam president, the rasmussen report is entitled 'hedge funds and private equity'. if we look at the content of this report more closely, it has virtually nothing to do with hedge funds and private equity any more, but now rightly refers to the financial institutions and financial players as a whole. this is important. we have proposed a list of items for regulating the financial markets and eliminating the chaos in these markets. i am pleased that mr rasmussen largely adopted our position in the negotiations with us. madam president, the european union is a solution in search of a problem. whatever the question is, the answer is always more regulation, and so these recent events in the financial markets have been predictably seized on as a justification for further brussels rules. i am reminded of the situation that pertained after the attacks of 11 september 2001, when a number of proposals for the harmonisation of justice and home affairs, which had been kicking around for years, were repackaged as anti-terrorism measures and, in the febrile atmosphere that followed those terrible attacks, nobody wanted to be seen voting against. similarly, a bunch of legislation for which there is really no proportionate need in remedying the problem is now being repackaged as a measure for financial stability, and it would take a brave mep to risk being seen as a speculator's friend, as we saw in the result of the vote today. i must say that, looking at the underlying causes of the recent financial problems, it seems to me that 'too much government' was the problem, not the solution. interest rates were kept at too low a rate for too long, and that was a problem in europe, in the united states and in japan. if too much government was the problem, it is difficult to see how we can solve that problem by additional regulation at brussels level. madam president, in many ways i would echo the comments of my good friend and colleague, mr hannan, in relation to the lehne report, because in many ways the lehne report is yet another attempt to impose legislation and regulation on the markets. we should not rush to judgement here. nor should we rush to judgement to impose regulation and legislation in respect of markets as a whole in europe. markets, by their definition, are different. markets in europe, in the different countries, are different, and therefore we should not try to impose a blanket coverage of regulation which would apply to all of them. the essential thing europe and the european union has to remember at all times in these matters is that we are in a global environment. europe and the individual nations of europe are competing with the world, and, if we erect barriers against ourselves, then we will damage our own interests and those of the people we represent. (de) madam president, i am speaking here also on behalf of the austrian people's party delegation. we voted in favour of this report, quite simply because we have to do everything we can to combat terrorism in good time. i should like to draw attention to one point, however, against which we would speak out most decisively, as i am of the opinion that parliament has made a mistake. we should not be replacing the crime of 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence' with the crime of 'incitement to commit a terrorist offence', for the very simple reason that proof of incitement cannot be provided until the act has already taken place; that is, until people may have already died. we are in favour of the possibility of timely intervention when a terrorist act has not yet been committed - that is, beforehand - so that lives can be saved. (nl) madam president, i am of course in favour of combating terrorism effectively, and i consider this particular field - the fight against terrorism - to be one that requires very intensive cross-border cooperation in europe. for once, therefore, i am less in agreement - you could say in disagreement - with the more eurosceptic voices. i feel that, in this field, they are playing the national sovereignty card too rigidly. having said that, we should have the courage to speak rather more clearly - in this report, too, for example. terrorism in europe originates from the extreme left and/or islam. so does incitement to terrorism, and this is taking place not least in some of the mosques, answerable to nothing and no one, that are currently shooting up like mushrooms in europe. there lies the heart of the problem of 21st century europe. islam is incompatible with our western values and freedoms, and i fear that we shall come to heartily regret our open-door and open-border policy. madam president, this is an important matter. it is probably one of the most important matters that we face in the west today - the threat of international terrorism. i probably depart a little from my own party on this, in that i take the view that, if we have to pay a price in civil liberty to protect the true liberty of our citizens - namely their health, safety and well-being - then that price will have to be paid. during the second world war, measures were taken in my country which were not in accordance with civil liberties, in order to protect the population from the external threat. people accepted it. we face today, in europe and in the civilised world, a threat from those who are not civilised and who do not regard human life as sacred and something to be sanctified. therefore, if we need to have laws to prevent them doing their evil work, then we should have them and have them speedily. (pl) the attacks on the world trade center in 2001 made the whole world aware of what a huge threat organised terrorist movements are. thanks to access to modern technologies, these groups have got their hands on previously unattainable means of communication, which, in conjunction with black markets for weapons, make them the number one enemy of the democratic world today. despite taking firm action, the european union has not succeeded in protecting itself from such events. in recognising the particular need to act in order to guarantee the security of eu citizens, i wish to make the point that the best way of combating organised terrorist groups is supranational cooperation between the institutions responsible for security. the common foreign and security policy has established a good basis for this, and its development is in all of our interests. (nl) madam president, i voted in favour of the lefranois report. it is not perfect, of course, but at least it pays attention to the problem of islamists who incite to violence and call muslims to jihad. we all know that there are innumerable mosques that are hotbeds of fundamentalism, where young people are recruited for terrorist organisations and where the faithful are called daily to a holy war on our european values. it is high time that the final whistle was blown and that tough action was taken against accomplices to terrorist acts, too. (de) mr president, i voted in favour of this report, quite simply because we have to take every measure to ensure that cross-border police and judicial cooperation is organised efficiently. to do this we need data exchange, but we have to ensure that there are uniform standards across europe for this. what made me uneasy - and against which i should have liked to vote, but there was no separate vote - was amendment 10. here, mrs roure did not want this framework decision to be without prejudice to essential and very specific national security interests. by contrast, i should like framework decisions, too, to naturally be without prejudice to very specific national security interests, which concern the internal security of a country, and to naturally enable autonomous action. i consider this absolutely vital in the interest of individual member states. (nl) madam president, this house has just decided by a vast majority, after the committee did likewise, that under no circumstances may racial or ethnic origin or a number of other parameters be considered during the processing of personal data. in my opinion, the original article 7 of the council proposal was prudent and balanced, but parliament - whose political correctness is legendary, of course - amended it. parliament is on the wrong track with this. not only the fight against crime, but also any kind of sound management of public affairs requires accurate basic information - and a person's ethnic or national origin could be particularly significant in this regard. this has nothing to do with racism or discrimination. it never ceases to amaze me how the same meps who, in a stalinist way, call for bans on public speaking or even prison sentences or the loss of parliamentary immunity for right-wing dissidents, get cold feet when it comes to common-or-garden data processing - in the context of the fight against terrorism, mark you. madam president, today's vote was an important moment for citizens fighting for their rights, their european rights. national governments at times abandon their citizens and reject their legitimate claims. through petitions european citizens can raise their voice, can hold their government accountable. ultimately they can have the justice they deserve. but this is not an important moment only for the european people: it is a crucial time for the european parliament too. today the european parliament, by voting in favour of the hammerstein report, shows its commitment to defend and protect european citizens. today the european parliament has the opportunity to regain at least part of the confidence and trust that some in europe have lost. many of our fellow citizens have worked hard to be in the eu, but membership is not only about duties - it is also about rights. we are here today to show our commitment to the europe which our citizens expect from us. (nl) madam president, the group of the greens/european free alliance has just taken advantage of the voting on the hammerstein report to hold a vote sneakily - on the quiet, as it were - on the seat of the european parliament, even though this actually had nothing to do with the report as such. i should like to clarify that i voted in favour of this amendment by the greens as i agree that the travelling popular theatre that is the european parliament is already squandering enough of our taxpayers' money without the monthly migration from brussels to strasbourg adding to it. therefore, i, too, advocate - and this is reflected in my vote - one seat and one place of work in europe. for the sake of clarity i would just add that, as far as i am concerned, there would then have to be an open debate, and that in my opinion this one seat does not necessarily have to be brussels. after all, the presence of the european institutions in this city and this region also entails social, political and human costs that do need to be discussed and are on no account to be underestimated. (pl) mountains are an important area of biodiversity, a refuge for many animals and a location for unique plant species. they are often also called water towers, as they provide the source of rivers. their landscape and environmental benefits are valued by tourists all over the world. the lives of those who dwell there and the agricultural activities engaged in this terrain are, however, far from easy. in most of the eu's mountainous regions we are seeing a process of depopulation, a fall in the level of activity of the people who remain there and an abandonment of agricultural activity. this is particularly true of rural areas that are less attractive to tourists and are forgotten. problems include the significant distance from towns, harsh climatic conditions, communications difficulties, high production costs and inadequate access to services of all types, including even education and health care. regional disproportions between mountainous and lowland areas are clearly apparent. there is therefore an urgent need for special support for those known as hill farmers, who not only grow traditionally environmentally friendly produce, healthy foods, but also take care of the environment and maintain cultures and traditions. the common agricultural policy should do more to support these regions and the people who live there in their struggle against the challenges they face. madam president, there is none so blind as those that cannot see. i notice mr hannan and mr sumberg have, unfortunately, left the chamber at this time, but anyone who thinks that there is no financial turmoil should just pick up the newspapers and read, or watch the television. to believe that the rasmussen report and the lehne report did anything else other than try to adequately convey the necessity for us to be able to act and that this has to be done at a collective legislative level is to ignore the truth; it is also to ignore the reality of a global world economy. frankly, sitting back in a little england may help some people relieve their consciences, but it does not help people meet their mortgage payments, it will not help people keep their homes, and it will not keep people in services and in industry. it is only through the european union and through activity of regulation, where we are extremely good, that we will be able to do something about it. it is true that the markets expect us to be delicate, but they do not expect a knee-jerk reaction either. but the fact is that, if we do nothing and just stand still and say nothing, then, frankly, we will in fact be accused of cowardice in the face of strong tumult and crisis. madam president, i fully support the purpose of the lefranois report, but in this context i would just like to use my explanation - having supported it and not being in a position to be able to speak on it - to urge commissioner tajani to speed up the ongoing bilateral agreements with other third-country airports' authorities in relation to airport security - which was clamped down on because of the terrorism incidents - particularly bilateral agreements around the whole area of the purchase of duty-free liquids. it may be a very small issue in the context of the major challenges facing us globally today, but we in the eu have to win the hearts as well as the minds of our citizens in terms of what we do. again this summer, when people visited relations abroad or when relations in australia and the us and other places came to visit ireland, the uk, germany and france, they had all their - what they thought were legitimately purchased - duty-free liquids taken from them as they transited in the main hub airports in europe to their final destination. this is a small issue - those of us who travel every week will put up with the nonsense of having our lipsticks taken from us, and i am sure it makes a huge contribution to combating terrorism. i do not want to make light of a very serious problem, but i just want a little sense, rationale and bilateral cooperation brought into this, so that our citizens - our electors - can understand what we do and why we do it. madam president, as regards the hammerstein report i followed the ppe-de line and voted against the green amendment about the two seats of parliament. i want to explain why i did so. it is not because i agree with this monthly and sometimes bimonthly trail to strasbourg. i understand historically why we have got in the position we are in. i understand that 12 visits to strasbourg per annum are part of the treaty and we are signed in, but in a rational and calm way. those of us who have serious concerns about the lack of access, the difficulty of doing work, the need to transport all our files, our staff, the committee staff, parliament staff, the group staff, to strasbourg for four days 12 times a year believe it can no longer be justified given the enormous expense. it is a beautiful building and once they have sorted out the difficulties i feel that we could find another very serious use for that building. strasbourg and france deserve no less, but a major institution must be housed in that building. but to expect us to work efficiently in terms of human resources and costs and to continue this pilgrimage to strasbourg can no longer be justified, so having voted one way i support those who say one seat for plenary sessions, but please, a rational debate, not a polarised political debate, on the issue. written explanations of vote i voted in favour of the report by my german fellow member mr markov, on behalf of the committee on international trade, amending the proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council on community statistics relating to external trade with non-member countries and repealing council regulation (ec) no 1172/95. i welcome the commission's decision to make legislation clearer, simpler and more transparent; to adjust the system of extra-community trade statistics to the changes to be introduced in the procedures regarding customs declaration; to increase the relevance, accuracy, timeliness and comparability of external trade statistics, and establish a system for quality assessment; to support the linking of trade statistics with business statistics; to respond to user needs by compiling additional trade statistics using information available in customs declarations, and finally to control, in line with the european statistics code of practice, the privileged access to sensitive external trade data. i support the amendments aimed at making greater use of comitology with scrutiny. in writing. - (ro) i voted in favour of this report because the draft regulation represents the legal framework required for improving the quality and transparency of extrastat (the statistics on foreign trade between member states and third countries), by including a single customs declaration in customs procedures, so as to simplify data reporting procedures. the appropriate enforcement of this regulation will make it increasingly possibile to compare foreign trade statistics and to strengthen the control over access to inside information regarding sensitive issues of foreign trade. in writing. - we have often asked ourselves whether it is worth dedicating a year to a particular topic. the whole idea is to raise visibility of the topic itself. it is a way of attracting attention and giving extra focus to a particular subject. there can be no harm in this. the idea has become so popular that we have to make a judicious choice when selecting the subject. it is often a question of priorities. creation and innovation are an ideal subject because they affect the very essence of what europe represents and the direction which europe has to take. creation and innovation cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. they have to be understood on what they can contribute. first and foremost is their importance within the manufacturing sphere. also, the importance of creation and innovation has to be viewed within the services framework. it is only through creative and innovative ideas that europe can remain competitive. it is only by being one step ahead that certain sectors can survive. to an extent europe has recognised the need to invest more heavily in research and development, and this is synonymous with the current subject of creative and innovative ideas. i voted in favour of the report by my greek fellow member mrs batzeli, approving the proposal for a decision of the european parliament and of the council concerning the european year of creativity and innovation (2009). i support the series of amendments aimed principally at clarifying the objectives of the proposal and making them more concise. as regards financing, i also agree with the removal of all references in the proposal to the lifelong learning programme so that, where appropriate, programmes and policies in other fields, such as culture, communications, enterprise, cohesion, rural development, research and the information society, can also be used. i voted in favour of the batzeli report on the proposal for a decision of the european parliament and of the council concerning the european year of creativity and innovation (2009), as i believe creativity and innovation are essential for europe to be competitive in a globalised world. creativity is a key driver of innovation for both economic and social reasons. the european year of creativity and innovation will stimulate political debate, alert the public to the importance of innovation and creativity and disseminate information on best practices within the union. i also believe it is important that parliament has opted for co-decision in this area, which will allow it to have influence in this important dossier. in writing. - (sv) we have previously criticised the various campaigns for 'european years' devoted to various themes, such as intercultural dialogue and creativity and innovation. these 'european years' are a charge on the eu budget, hence on the taxpayers, but they have little effect on reality. if there is a demand for 'european years', they should be financed through private sponsorship and not by the taxpayers. we have therefore chosen to vote against the report presented, even though it only dealt with detailed amendments to the commission's proposal. i voted in favour on condition that the commission committed itself to bringing innovation to all areas. during the year of creativity and innovation, innovation should extend to all organisations and institutions, whether public or private, profit-making or non profit-making, and to all aspects of life; in particular it should promote social innovation and innovation in support of environmental sustainability. we should also take into account non-state authorities, who have a key role to play in this area. in addition, a concept of open innovation should be encouraged. innovation which, as well as being based on internal capabilities, incorporates all its possible sources - users, suppliers, networks, etc. - and which, going beyond products and technology, includes the intangible and generally manifold aspects leading to value creation. finally, we need to extend the culture of cooperation, working in networks and using tools and methods aimed at creating the dynamic capabilities in those networks that will enable them to evolve with their environment, and generate cutting-edge research and visible results in terms of competitiveness and creating value for society. i voted in favour of the report by mrs batzeli on the european year of creativity and innovation (2009). i regard information and promotion campaigns, events and initiatives at european, national and local level to promote creativity and initiative as extremely important. creativity is also an important factor in the development of personal and social skills. this year of promotion is intended to improve europe's creativity and capacity for innovation to enable it to rise to certain challenges of globalisation. this report underlines the importance of creativity and innovation. i see this year of promotion as a great opportunity for disseminating information concerning creative processes and various practices. in writing. - i support katerina batzeli's report on making 2009 the european year of creativity and innovation. the report not only outlines the initiative in more detail, but also adequately attends to the dangers of such european years becoming pr exercises. in regions in which nature confronts people with difficult basic conditions, they have to act in a creative and innovative manner in order to survive. the peoples of europe can therefore look back today on a history of groundbreaking achievements, and specialist firms are in demand worldwide on account of their wealth of ideas. europe is also regarded as a cultural stronghold, however - and particular attention should be paid to this in the context of the european year of creativity and innovation (2009). along with vilnius in lithuania, linz is currently preparing for its role as european capital of culture 2009. creative and innovative projects, with the involvement of the surrounding regions, will provide a cultural experience of a particular kind. it is to be welcomed if, under this prestigious title, whole city districts gleam in renewed splendour, and new building works and projects are started - provided sustainability is not forgotten in the process. in the eu, emphasis must be placed on ensuring that funds are not blown on one-off events, so that structures set up do not disappear into the ether immediately after the year ends. a capital of culture project is only successful and innovative if culture remains permanently in place in the city concerned. more importance should be given to this particular consideration in the current report, and so i abstained from voting. in writing. - i voted in favour of the report by my spanish colleague mr daz de mera garca consuegra, approving as it stands the proposal for a council regulation amending regulation (euratom, ecsc, eec) no 549/69 determining the categories of officials and other servants of the european communities to whom the provisions of article 12, the second paragraph of article 13 and article 14 of the protocol on the privileges and immunities of the communities apply. the council decision establishing the european police office (europol), providing for the financing of europol from the community budget, will apply from 1 january 2010 or the date of application of the proposal amending council regulation (euratom, ecsc, eec) no 549/69, if this is later. to ensure that the europol decision applies from 1 january 2010, it was necessary, in good time, to amend council regulation (euratom, ecsc, eec) no 549/69 specifying that immunity from legal proceedings does not apply to europol staff taking part in joint investigation teams set up by at least two member states at their own initiative. in writing. - this amendment appears to limit the immunity from prosecution of europol officials but it only does so for those operating as part of joint investigation teams. this is a smokescreen to make it appear that europol officials' immunity will be limited when in fact europol's powers will be extended after 2010 and the immunity of its officials will be even more far-reaching. i do not believe that europol officials should have any immunity from prosecution whatsoever and therefore i voted against this amendment. in writing. - augustn daz de mera garca consuegra's report on the status of staff regarding privileges and immunities seeks to clarify pre-existing guidelines on the issue. i therefore voted in favour of the report. i voted in favour of the report by my finnish fellow member mr virrankoski proposing to approve draft amending budget no 6/2008 of the european union for the financial year 2008, which includes the following: strengthening of the framework programme for competitiveness and innovation - entrepreneurship and innovation by increasing the commitment appropriations by eur 3.9 million; an increase of eur 2.24 million in commitment appropriations to cover, among other things, part of the rent and related costs of a new 'arc' building for eurojust; adjustments to the number of posts in three executive agencies; creation of the necessary budgetary structure to accommodate the fuel cells and hydrogen joint undertaking (fch ju), which is the fifth joint undertaking to be set up under the seventh framework programme, and allocation of eur 30 million in commitment appropriations and eur 1.9 million in payment appropriations. i entirely share the rapporteur's view that under article 179(3) of the financial regulation, the european parliament, as a branch of the budgetary authority, should have been informed of the building project for eurojust, because this has a significant financial implication for the budget. i voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my dutch fellow member mr berman on the follow-up of the monterrey conference of 2002 on financing for development. we need to constantly reaffirm parliament's commitment to poverty eradication, sustainable development and the achievement of the millennium development goals (mdgs), as the only way to bring about social justice and an improved quality of life for the one billion people around the world who live in extreme poverty. the european union is the biggest international donor for development, providing nearly 60% of official development assistance (oda) worldwide. i support the proposal to open up access for small-scale entrepreneurs to micro-credit, particularly farmers, as a means of increasing food production and providing a sustainable solution to the food crisis. i also welcome the proposal to call on the european investment bank to set up a guarantee fund in support of micro-credit and risk hedging schemes that respond closely to the needs of local food producers in the poorer developing countries, but this proposal only makes any sense under a commission mandate. in 2001 the eu made a big commitment: to devote 0.7% of its wealth to development in 2015. in 2007 europe turned its back on this commitment, with a drastic fall in its collective effort. this adds up to eur 1.7 billion that the poorest people of the planet will not have received. eur 1.7 billion that would have provided healthcare for thousands of children at a time when 11 million people are dying each year owing to a lack of access to healthcare. eur 1.7 billion that would have provided access to primary education for some of the 114 million children without it. the eu's primary responsibility when it comes to international solidarity is this: to keep its word. the eu must, however, guarantee the effectiveness of its aid in order to make any real improvement to the situation of the most deprived. the monterrey conference of 2002 prepared a roadmap, particularly concerning the end of 'tied aid', the acceleration of debt cancellation initiatives and the introduction of innovative finance schemes like the 'tobin tax'. six years on, the eu still has a long way to go. the doha conference in a few weeks should enable it to start moving forward again. half of humanity is counting on it. in writing. - (sv) the united nations millennium development goals report for 2008 says that the international community must continue to be prepared to take significant responsibility for the challenges facing humanity. extreme poverty and hunger, infant mortality, poor maternal health, hiv/aids, malaria and other diseases and the lack of universal primary education are just some of the challenges which merit attention and recognition by all countries in the world. reflecting the position of junilistan, the report notes that in many cases these challenges call for international coordination. however, junilistan thinks that cooperation of this kind should be channelled through organisations with broad international legitimacy and long experience, such as the united nations, and not through the eu. junilistan also opposes the passages in the report which blatantly advocate direct control of the bilateral aid schemes of individual eu countries. aid is and must remain a national matter. for that reason, junilistan has voted against the report. in addition to the many questions and comments that the report's content (and omissions) raise, its condemnation regarding the volume of official development assistance (oda) should also be highlighted: '. notes the alarming decrease in eu aid in 2007 from eur 47.7 billion in 2006 (.) to eur 46.1 billion in 2007 .'; 'points out that the eu will have given eur 75 billion less than was promised for the period 2005-2010 if the current trend continues'; 'expresses serious concern that a majority of the member states (18 out of 27, especially latvia, italy, portugal, greece and the czech republic) were unable to raise their level of oda between 2006 and 2007 and that there has even been a dramatic reduction of over 10% in a number of countries such as belgium, france and the united kingdom; .'; 'observes that the 2007 decreases in reported aid levels are due in some cases to the artificial boosting of figures in 2006 by debt relief; .'; 'views as totally unacceptable the discrepancy between the frequent pledges of increased financial assistance and the considerably lower sums that are actually disbursed .'; words that speak for themselves . i voted in favour of the report. funding development aid is not an easy task. it is not easy to explain to european taxpayers why their money is being handed out so far from its country of 'origin'. on the other hand the demand for aid funds, arising both from a desire to implement the millennium development goals (mdgs) and from promises made earlier, is huge. on an eu scale, the attitude of certain states is becoming a particular problem. some member states, such as france and great britain, have cut back their official development assistance (oda). it does not require much effort to imagine what a very disincentivising effect this has on countries that are less wealthy than these, in which development aid is only just beginning to appear. we also need to take a good look at the way in which aid statistics come about. each country would like to allocate as much outlay as possible to the category of development aid. this leads in effect to some pretty ridiculous situations. in my country, poland, a report was published last week on aid in 2007. it transpires that the greatest beneficiary of polish aid was none other than china. this is not because china is the poorest country in the world; nor is it because china has become a priority country for polish development aid. china has become the greatest beneficiary of polish development aid simply because an export trade contract with that country has been included in the category of development aid. in writing. - a common european position is needed on the effectiveness, transparency and flexibility of the way development assistance is financed before the doha conference on financing for development in late november. thijs berman's report goes some way towards helping achieve that goal. i agree that reform is needed to secure greater representation of developing countries to the imf and world bank. indeed, i further agree with the rapporteur's calls to encourage member states to adequately prepare a timetable to reach the target of 0.7% of europe's gnp going to public development aid in 2015. i therefore voted in favour of the report. in writing. - (nl) the members of the people's party for freedom and democracy (vvd) in the european parliament voted in favour of the berman report, one of the reasons being that it makes useful comments about the possible role of the european investment bank in developing countries. however, the members of the vvd distance themselves from the 0.7% target for development cooperation laid down in this report. it is not the quantity but the quality of development cooperation that counts. in writing. - turbulent global finance has put the governments of the member states under serious strain. the estonian government, for example, has been struggling for months to draft a balanced budget for the year 2009. although i supported thijs berman's report, i have serious doubts about reaching the targeted official development assistance level in the next couple of years. as the eu has no command of coercive measures regarding development aid, it would be naive to expect that the member states would significantly increase their contribution when experiencing financial uncertainty. the european internal market is one of the most important achievements of the process of european integration. only a well-functioning internal market can guarantee competitive conditions for businesses activities and assist the development of the european economy. the internal market scoreboard is an instrument that makes it possible to monitor progress in the introduction, proper transposition and correct application of directives relating to the internal market. analysis of the data contained in the internal market scoreboard provides some exceptionally interesting information about the work of member states in introducing eu legislation. it is a typically political instrument that should, however, not be treated lightly, but should serve as an instrument encouraging responsible individuals to carry out more rapid and proper transposition. this particularly concerns the new member states, where the deficit as regards transposition of law is often greater than the objective stated by heads of state or government. the internal market scoreboard should also be used more frequently in discussions about the state of the internal market. it is therefore essential to come up with a more accessible form of scoreboard that could also be used by citizens interested in internal market matters. the rapporteur has drawn attention to the fact that certain directives, such as the services directive, are more important for the effective functioning of the internal market than others. i share the rapporteur's view on this and as a result i think that the european commission should take notice of indicators that better reflect the immediate significance of directives for businesses and citizens. in writing. - (ro) through my positive vote today for the internal market scoreboard, i am expressing my support for the timely enforcement and accurate transposition of internal market directives into national law, because these directives constitute the prerequisite for the effective working of the internal market, and for promoting competitiveness as well as social and economic cohesion within the eu. the two scoreboards, those for the internal market and consumption market, respectively, jointly contribute to the improvement of the internal market, which is beneficial to consumers. the scoreboard should encourage timely and accurate transposition, but at the same time it should become a tool enabling policy-makers to identify barriers and fields that require new initiatives. i hope that the result of today's vote will lead to the strengthening of the solvit network and that member states will promote the services of this network for the benefit of consumers. member states must also make sure that solvit centres are adequately staffed, so as to reduce the length of time required for examination and to solve complaints at a faster rate. in writing. - a priority of all education ministries must be the recruitment of the best candidates to the teaching profession. the profession has to be sufficiently attractive. teachers must benefit from remuneration which reflects their importance to society. investment in education is never wasted. more resources have to be allocated to teacher training. the profession has to be fulfilling. it has to be seen as a good career. supporting teacher education through the lifelong learning programme is essential. a certain freshness is achieved through teacher exchange programmes between schools in different countries. the place of a teacher is in the classroom. bureaucracy in the form of increasing levels of administration and paperwork result in less time spent by teachers with their pupils. an added concern is violence in school. aggression in schools, either by pupils or their parents, is on the increase. all efforts must be made to curb violence and aggression in schools. i voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my spanish fellow member mrs badia i cutchet on improving the quality of teacher education and i strongly support the analysis that 'raising the quality of teacher education leads to substantial gains in student performance.' i fully agree that providing more and better-quality teacher education and recruiting the best candidates to the teaching profession should be key priorities for all education ministries. there is an urgent need to encourage mobility and the learning of foreign languages. however, we should also be promoting excellence in native languages, since this is what enables pupils to acquire other knowledge more easily. all this cooperation will be very useful when the time comes for organising school exchanges (of pupils and teachers), regardless of the level of study, based on the model already used for the erasmus programme for students. in writing. - (nl) as a former teacher at what was known as a multicultural problem school in antwerp, i can only welcome the rapporteur's expression of concern about the quality of teaching in the eu. however, it is for the individual member states and not the eu to work out what can be done about the quality of teaching. if there is one field in which the principle of subsidiarity and respect for the diversity of the various cultures must hold, then that is most certainly education. education does not have to be multicultural as stated in this report; it only has to be of good quality. in my experience in flanders, for example, i have seen all too often that it is the multicultural 'concentration schools' - those with a high proportion of migrant children - that bring quality down. ideological blinkers are not the way to remedy this. i therefore voted wholeheartedly against this report. i voted in favour of the badia i cutchet report on improving the quality of teacher education as i believe that improving education in the european union is a key factor in promoting high-quality education and training, which in turn contributes to job creation and boosting europe's competitiveness and growth, in line with the objectives of the lisbon strategy. on the subject of violence in schools, i should like to reiterate the rapporteur's recommendation on the need to create the tools and procedures to tackle the phenomenon, for which cooperation between teaching staff and parents needs to be stepped up. in writing. - (sv) we have chosen to vote 'no' in the final vote on this report. this is an extremely important matter - so important that it must remain the political responsibility of the member states and their devolved authorities. the member states must have exclusive responsibility for the organisation of education and the content of training provision. this is another attempt by the european parliament's committee on culture and education to meddle in an area which currently does not fall within the union's responsibilities, but which some want the union to become involved in for the good of us all. this own-initiative report is a waste of taxpayers' money, which the european parliament should have nothing to do with. in writing. - the badia report has much to commend it. the quality of teacher education has direct and important impacts upon our children's education and eu-wide cooperation to ensure a high standard of teaching is to be encouraged. i do consider, however, that decisions relating to curriculum content and the governance of schools should be taken within the cultural and political context of different nations' separate education systems. at times the badia report tended towards prescribing issues on an eu-wide basis, and i accordingly abstained on the final vote. in writing. - maria badia i cutchet's report has my support. to preserve the high quality of our respective education systems we need to have well-trained teachers. teacher training must develop in tandem with the demands of the modern classroom and i believe that this report recognises this fact. in writing. - the report from ms badia i cutchet on improving the quality of teacher education today touches on some important issues. the report is right to point out the need for adequate remuneration for teachers along with adequate training and teaching equipment. ultimately, however, it is up to the national governments who fund our education systems to manage the education of our children. in ireland, children today are still being taught in prefabs instead of proper, safe buildings. the pupil-teacher ratio remains too high to allow for the best possible education of our children. these problems need to be tackled first and foremost in ireland by means of adequate investment in the short- and long-term. the development of information and communication technologies is currently imposing greater demands upon the teaching profession since the educational environment is becoming more and more complex and varied. i voted for mrs badia i cutchet's report which deals with the commission's communication entitled 'improving the quality of teacher education'. the communication assesses the current situation in the eu as regards the education and training of teachers. the report reflects upon the various options in eu member states. within the union, there are more than 27 different teacher training systems, but the challenges facing teachers are essentially common to all member states. teachers are required to have a quality of teacher training which has a direct effect not only on pupils' level of knowledge but also on the formation of their personalities, particularly during the first years of their school experience. teachers are also subjected to enormous mental stress, leaving them little energy for self-education. in the past, teaching was a respected and valued profession. today, the teaching profession is not attractive. teachers, most of whom are women, do not enjoy the corresponding level of social recognition, status and, above all, remuneration. for example, in my country, slovakia, teachers' pay is way below the national average. i believe that the report will attract the attention of member states, ensuring that the teaching profession is properly appreciated. we are voting today on two reports that appear to be mutually complementary: mrs pack's report on the bologna process and mrs badia i cutchet's report on improving the quality of teacher education. the objective of these two initiatives is to improve the competitiveness of european education, and consequently to increase the potential and competitiveness of the european union as a whole. placing the emphasis on education is an excellent way to go, but neglect is easy. in many countries we are dealing with all the fundamental sins of the teacher education system. there is a lack of incentive and motivation for the best graduates to choose the teaching profession; the status of teachers (especially at primary and secondary level) is frankly low, teachers are poorly paid and there is no investment in their development. the relationship between the quality of teacher education and the quality of teaching, and consequently the level of knowledge of pupils, is obvious. neglect in this area may therefore have disastrous consequences, not only cultural, but also economic. the recommendations for member states that are contained in the report seem to be the right ones, and these are: employment of the best candidates, improvement in status, teacher recognition and remuneration, investment in training at all stages of an individual's career, exchange of best practice among the 27 different education systems in the eu, and an increase in schools' powers. a high level of teaching is an essential element of a high quality of education, which should be a crucial factor in europe's long-term competitiveness and its capacity to create new jobs. it transpires from the commission's analysis that: on-the-job training is compulsory only in 11 member states (austria, belgium, germany, estonia, finland, hungary, lithuania, latvia, romania, malta and the united kingdom), where there is on-the-job training, this usually lasts less than 20 hours a year and never exceeds five days a year, only half of the states of europe offer new teachers any form of systematic assistance during the first few years of employment (e.g. induction into occupation, training, pedagogical care). if pupils are to be suitably prepared for life in the eu, teachers should be required to apply the latest educational methods. an improvement in the quality of teacher training may guarantee that the eu has the highly-skilled employees it needs in order to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. i voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my excellent german colleague mrs pack on the bologna process and student mobility. i share my colleague's view that an increase in student mobility and the quality of the different educational systems should be a priority of the bologna process beyond 2010, which aims to establish a european area of higher education. to encourage student mobility, a whole series of measures needs to be taken since the problem of mobility goes beyond the scope of higher education and concerns the scope of social affairs, finance, immigration and visa policies. special assistance must be provided to students from disadvantaged groups in society by, for example, proposing inexpensive and decent accommodation. i support the introduction of a single european student identification card in order to facilitate mobility and to enable students to get discounts for accommodation and subsistence, culture and transport. in writing. - the aim of the bologna process, launched in bologna in june 1999, is to establish a european higher education area by 2010. the main objectives of the process are the reform of the higher education system and the elimination of remaining barriers to the mobility of students and teachers. i voted in favour of the report since i agree that our universities need an innovative and methodical curricular reform that would better support student mobility and the transfer of qualifications. also, i support the rapporteur's recommendation to obtain reliable statistics on student mobility and the socio-economic profile of students. next year's 10th anniversary of the signature of the bologna declaration signals the need to redefine the aims of the process. seriously redefining these goals will require reflection on how the bologna process has been implemented in the member states. we will need to examine whether the policies followed in the name of bologna have actually led to the desired consolidation of a european area of higher education that can meet the challenges of competitiveness on an international scale. i support this initiative - it is a tangible contribution towards identifying problems and challenges that have arisen over 10 years of implementation on the one hand, and issues that need to remain priorities on the other. this is the case with student mobility, the cornerstone of a richer and more competitive education and an essential contribution towards developing the concept of european citizenship. it is essential to call on the member states to assess the impact of this process as regards ensuring that young people are adequately qualified and prepared. as our rapporteur points out, we must not lose sight of the goals of the process or of the notion of students being at the heart of all questions concerning their education. i voted in favour of the pack report on the bologna process and student mobility as i believe that high-quality, effective and innovative european higher education that is accessible to every european citizen is vital for the european union to continue to be competitive and successful in the face of the demands of globalisation. with this in mind, i believe measures such as promoting reciprocity in terms of the flow of students, ongoing training of teachers in the various areas of study and developing means of financing student mobility are essentials for achieving the bologna process objectives. although the rapporteur says she is particularly concerned about student mobility within the european union and considers that member states should be supported in their efforts to modernise and innovatively reform their respective higher education systems, the fact of the matter is that the entire report tackles this question by focusing on the bologna process and on what is deemed absolutely necessary in order to face the challenges of globalisation, insisting that the process should be deepened. we therefore abstained, as we disagree with this analysis. however, we do agree that it is time for reflection and debate on the bologna process, in particular to try to determine how education systems have changed and how these developments and changes have affected the quality of higher education in the various member states. access to high quality education must be an option for every citizen, regardless of their citizenship, country or area of birth. in addition, mobility can have extremely positive effects, not only for the individual taking part in a mobility scheme, but also for higher education institutions and society as a whole. moreover, its social dimension should not be forgotten, as has happened up to now. in writing. - (sv) this own-initiative report from the european parliament's committee on culture and education, as usual, exceeds the committee's competence in putting forward new ideas on how the eu should become more involved in education. this is a field which currently falls within the responsibility of the member states, and that is the way we think it should remain. among other things, the report proposes the introduction of a single student id card in the eu. we find it hard to believe that these proposals in themselves would increase mobility for students; they are more likely to increase the bureaucracy associated with student activity. the rapporteur also writes in her explanatory statement about the need for a legal framework for students at eu level. these proposals seek to circumvent the arrangements agreed in the eu regarding the levels of political responsibility for various policy areas. we have therefore voted against this report. next year's 10th anniversary of the signature of the bologna declaration signals the need to redefine the aims of the process. seriously redefining these goals will require reflection on how the bologna process has been implemented in the member states. we will need to examine whether the policies followed in the name of bologna have actually led to the desired consolidation of a european area of higher education that can meet the challenges of competitiveness on an international scale. i support this initiative - it is a tangible contribution towards identifying problems and challenges that have arisen over 10 years of implementation on the one hand, and issues that need to remain priorities on the other. this is the case with student mobility, the cornerstone of a richer and more competitive education and an essential contribution towards developing the concept of european citizenship. it is essential to call on the member states to assess the impact of this process as regards ensuring that young people are adequately qualified and prepared. as our rapporteur points out, we must not lose sight of the goals of the process or of the notion of students being at the heart of all questions concerning their education. the aim of the bologna process is to establish a european area of higher education by the end of 2010. it is intended, among other things, to help students choose from the rich educational assortment on offer. the introduction of three cycles of education, educational quality assurance and recognition of qualifications and study duration periods are crucial to the functioning of the area. clearly the attractiveness of the european area of higher education will be greater, the better and more evenly spread the quality of education in the different member states. it is therefore crucial to support member states in their efforts to modernise and reform their higher education systems. all european citizens must have the opportunity to access higher education, regardless of their citizenship, country or place of birth. increasing student mobility is one of the anticipated benefits of the bologna process. mobility has a positive impact not only on individuals who move, but also on higher education institutions. exchange of views, heterogeneity and drawing on the experience of others are, after all, components of the academic experience. we should not forget either that there is a social dimension to this: mobility provides for the acquisition of invaluable and rich experience in the sphere of scientific, cultural and social variety. in writing. - (ro) although i voted in favour of this report, i would like to point out two issues that need to be carefully analysed and regulated by the commission. first of all, we need to look at the geographic distribution of scholarships granted through the lifelong learning programme. most of the universities that benefit from student exchanges are concentrated in the old member states. at the same time, the number of students in the new member states is much lower. the commission should take urgent action, such as by accrediting an increased number of universities capable of participating in academic exchange programmes, thus increasing the attractiveness of new member states as destinations for students from all over europe. the commission must also make sure that a proportionate number of students from each member state get the opportunity to have a european scholarship. secondly, i believe that article 11 of the report should be applied to all member states, notwithstanding its recommendation status. this period of academic mobility, be it for a term or for a year, can contribute significantly both to the knowledge and to the personal development of young europeans. however, i must add that the inclusion of such a provision should be accompanied by corresponding financial support for the member states. various sectors that are critical of the bologna process consider that the change will cause university education to become elitist. this report calls for special assistance to be provided to students from disadvantaged groups in society by, for example, proposing 'inexpensive and decent' accommodation, and taking into account that extra support after arrival is often necessary. although i tabled an amendment on this point to extend it to all expenditure, in other words, so that the assistance is not limited to accommodation, i think that the report is based on a concept of universal education that is accessible to the whole of society. in the voting mrs pack and her report on the bologna process and student mobility received my support. this is a good, business-like report. in the eu today we continue to see inadequate outlay on scientific research and academic education. the bologna idea, which is already nine years old (and currently unites 46 countries), should lead in 2010 to the appearance of a european area of higher education. the underlying principles of this process come down to three priority fields of action. these are: the education cycle (which covers three stages: bachelor, masters, doctorate), provision of high-quality education and recognition of qualifications obtained and periods of higher education study. what is needed, then, is multiple and cohesive actions in all member states, including in our universities. evaluation systems in the form of what are known as ects points should be clear, understandable and unified. this will enable us to sustain the potential for the flexible and mobile education of young people at a variety of academic centres and the very necessary exchange of professorial-level staff. although higher education does not form part of eu competence, we must nevertheless - while maintaining the independence of member states in this matter - strive for close cooperation and coordination. we must also remember to provide eu citizens with equal opportunities to access education at as high a level as possible, and this requires both organisational changes in the education system and appropriate financial outlay. in writing. - doris pack's report 'the bologna process and student mobility' is a constructive contribution to the debate on student mobility. the ability for students across the eu to be able to move freely between europe's borders must remain a core element of the bologna process. students from all backgrounds should have the opportunity to benefit from the wealth of cultural and intellectual opportunities the eu offers. i therefore voted in favour of the report's recommendations. the objective of making it easier for students to choose from a wide range of high-quality courses as part of the bologna process is, of course, to be welcomed. the eu has also placed an important emphasis on student mobility, and furthermore wants to improve the mutual recognition of training. the fact that not everything is running smoothly in this regard as yet is beyond question. not only are there serious problems with recognition, some courses converted to bachelor's and master's degrees are supposedly so specialised that a change in the place of study - either at home or abroad - is no longer possible, which runs counter to the objective of a european higher education area and of increasing mobility. critics also believe that the ects (european credit transfer system) is being administered so differently from country to country that achievements are barely comparable any more. in this respect, the intention to take stock provisionally will be beneficial, and so i, too, voted in favour of the report. in writing. - (ro) i voted in favour of the report on "the bologna process and student mobility" for several reasons: the bologna process was one of the most revolutionary elements in the world market of education and training. the labour market itself was not ready for such a change. it is still not fully receptive to the 3-cycle educational system (bachelor, master's degree, doctoral degree) in the 3-2-3 structure; on the other hand, before the new system was applied, enterprises often hired undergraduate students. another element of progress was student mobility in european schools and the common degree system, facilitated by the etcs. the success of these mechanisms has been proven by the tendency of major universities around the world of moving students to several geographical locations, particularly where they have older branches. another revolutionary proposal is that of ecvet (european credit system for vocational education and training), meant to transfer, acknowledge and accumulate the results of learning acquired by an individual in formal, non-formal and informal contexts, with a view to obtaining qualifications, irrespective of the time spent learning or acquiring these skills and apritudes. this is a worldwide trend. mrs pack deserves our thanks for her contribution to the development of and creative reflection on the bologna process, which is an initiative enabling students in europe to choose their own educational path and career without reference to state boundaries. this initiative, which enhances the competitiveness of the european education system, enriches the nations themselves through cultural and scientific penetration. clearly questions of the content of education and raising its quality at every level currently lie in the hands of the eu member states. in this respect there is still much to do. mobility, and increasing it at european level, which is the principle motif of mrs pack's report, happens, in poland for example, on the principle of the outflow of a valuable workforce, which quite often cannot be recovered. i agree with the report's thesis according to which the most important thing is student mobility, with the creation of a system of incentives and facilitations, so that young people may take advantage of offers to study wherever they like. one particularly important matter, though, would appear to be that of fully educated and developed people returning to their country in order to make use of their potential in their country of origin. this is definitely a challenge for the new member states and i think that prudent continuation of the bologna process is a step in this direction. a united europe is not just a matter of a single currency, free movement of people and a common market in goods and services. it is also, or even primarily, the intellectual, cultural and social dimension of europe. the intergovernmental initiative known as the bologna process, which began just under 10 years ago, is chiefly aimed at making it easier for students to choose courses of the highest possible quality. one of the most important elements in the idea of setting up a european area of higher education is increasing student mobility and the quality of education, as these are what specifically create the opportunity for personal, social and scientific development. i think that, in striving to improve the quality and attractiveness of education, what is important is actions taken at both european level (the european parliament treats mobility as a priority issue) and national level. we must bear in mind that in the european union higher education is not among the duties of the european commission. the content and organisation of studies remain within the remit of the individual states, which is why their role, and that of the universities themselves, is so great. they should place emphasis on the need to create european curricula for doctorates, and make an effort to provide special assistance to students from social groups that are in an unfavourable situation. another important aspect is dialogue and a two-way exchange of experience between businesses and universities, so higher education institutes should strengthen cooperation with the private sector with a view to discovering new and effective mechanisms for co-financing student mobility. i voted in favour of the own-initiative report by my hungarian colleague mr szjer containing recommendations to the european commission on the alignment of legal acts to the new comitology decision. for the sake of quality legislation, it is becoming increasingly necessary to delegate to the commission the development of the non-essential and more technical aspects of the legislation, as well as its prompt adjustment to take account of technological progress and economic change. however, this delegation of powers must be facilitated by giving the legislator the institutional means to scrutinise the exercise of such powers. it should be noted that the current alignment of the acquis with the comitology decision is still not complete, since there are still legal instruments that provide for implementing measures to which the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny should be applied. i support - and to my mind this is essential if european democracy is to function properly - the granting of additional resources in the european parliament for all comitology procedures in preparation for the eventuality that the treaty of lisbon enters into force, but also during the current transitional period, in order to ensure that every comitology procedure between the three institutions functions satisfactorily. i agree with the report when it says that for the sake of the quality of legislation, it is increasingly necessary to delegate to the commission the development of the non-essential and more technical aspects of the legislation as well as its prompt adjustment to take account of technological progress and economic change. however, such delegation of powers must be facilitated by giving the legislator the institutional means to scrutinise the exercise of such powers. parliament should be the guardian of this scrutiny, something which, despite the subject having been discussed for so many years, has still not been completely resolved. there are still parliamentary committees that have been lacking information in decisions taken under the comitology procedure. parliament therefore needs to remain very vigilant. it is very important to further examine how the supervisory structures in the european union can be improved. however, the report by mr rasmussen concerns the recommendations to the european commission on hedge funds. on procedural grounds, i do not support the amendments by the group of the greens/european free alliance to the recitals. the recitals are not the place to draw up value judgments on the current situation on the financial markets. i voted against amendments 6 to 10 inclusive this morning not because i oppose european supervision of financial markets, but because this report is not the right place to launch this initiative. i would advocate that the committee on economic and monetary affairs deliberate upon supervision of financial markets and the desirability of reinforcing this at european level. if a good report is presented on this, there is every likelihood that i shall yet be able to support this initiative from the greens. in writing. - (hu) contrary to expectations, the financial crisis that started in america last year, triggered by the unregulated, speculative financial processes there, has now, far from abating, shaken the whole world, including europe. the current crisis requires a long-term change of paradigm by european decision-makers in two areas, so that in future they will not only reduce the danger of a financial crisis but also promote stable economic growth. the developments in america have demonstrated that the market itself is not capable of dealing with these and similar crises. it is therefore necessary that we create, as soon as possible, the central european financial supervisory authority which was proposed by the hungarians last year and was subsequently embraced by the french presidency and which would, among other things, see to it that such risky, speculative transactions in the banking and financial system can be subject to conditions that can be monitored and calculated. this would be the prerequisite for europe gradually to take over america's broken role in the world of finance. in order for the european economy, which has also been hit by the current crisis, to get on track for the growth it wants as soon as possible, it would be necessary to bring funding for real economies to the fore as soon as possible, instead of the risky, speculative transactions of the finance and banking world. a prerequisite for this is that the european central bank should not only, as up to now, concentrate on fighting off inflation, but also promote the recovery of the real economy using preferential interest rates. we voted against this report as, notwithstanding the odd token gesture and criticism in relation to the financial crisis, it does not include any specific measures to effectively combat the increasing financialisation of the economy, unregulated speculation, the proliferation of financial instruments and products to secure ever-greater speculative profits, nor does it decide on an end to tax havens or banking secrecy. as we stated in the plenary debate, it is always the same people who will suffer the consequences: workers who lose their jobs and the general public who have to pay more interest, including here in the european union, particularly in countries with weaker economies, as is the case for portugal, where the debt ratio is around 120% of gdp, while household debt is roughly 130% of disposable income. we therefore stress the priority of supporting the creation of jobs with rights, production, solving poverty, improving the purchasing power of workers and pensioners, supporting quality public services and increasing low-interest credit facilities to support micro, small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. in writing. - (sv) hedge funds and private equity are high-risk investment vehicles. in order to restore confidence among investors, among the public and - not least - among the supervisory authorities, operations must be subject to both transparency and satisfactory legislation. junilistan welcomes many of the points and proposals for action contained in the report. despite this, we have chosen to vote against the report in its entirety. we have done that because the report gives preference to measures at eu level, despite the fact that it ought to be obvious to everyone in this situation that solutions to the potential risks associated with such vehicles as hedge funds and private equity should be sought primarily at global level. in writing. - it is regrettable that the report by rasmussen on hedge funds and private equity has been watered down following the compromise negotiations between the three largest groups in parliament. it is also regrettable that the amendments tabled by the greens and the gue/ngl group, which were taken directly from the rasmussen draft report, were not adopted during the plenary vote. for example, one of the paragraphs which has been weakened from the original draft emphasised the need for enhanced appropriate levels of transparency towards the public, investors and supervisory authorities, including, in the future, any new eu supervisory body. in spite of this, we decided to support the report in the final vote. this is due to the urgent need and necessity to counteract harmful financial speculation and instability in the markets. in this respect, the report could be seen as a step in the right direction. in writing. - the rasmussen report comes at an appropriate time in the week following the financial turmoil which saw scotland's oldest bank being sacrificed by, in the words of scotland's first minister, "spivs and speculators". the scottish financial sector has been let down badly by the uk's regulators and i support tighter regulation of the market. i voted in favour of the report which contains a number of recommendations which are worthy of consideration and look forward to the day when independent scottish regulators will work in this area in cooperation with our eu partners. in writing. - both global and local financial markets are developing complex financial instruments, making it very difficult for financial institutions to develop adequate regulations and supervise systems. as a result of this, there are possibilities for actions which are not transparent and cases of speculations by financial market participants, which lead to the perversion of the financial markets. in this regard, i support amendment 2 tabled by the greens group, which calls for substantial reinforcement of the european regulatory and supervisory framework in order to maintain financial stability. in writing. - it is regrettable that the report by rasmussen on hedge funds and private equity has been watered down following the compromise negotiations between the three largest groups in the parliament. it is also regrettable that the amendments tabled by the greens and the gue/ngl group, which were directly taken from the rasmussen draft report, were not adopted during the plenary vote. in spite of this, we decided to support the report in the final vote. this is due to the urgent need and necessity to counteract harmful financial speculation and instability on the markets. in this respect, the report could be seen as a step in the right direction. in writing. - (fr) i voted in favour of the hard-won compromise negotiated by the three political groups in this parliament and i am pleased with the comprehensive, balanced content of the report. the rapporteur had tried to place the burden of the financial crisis with hedge funds and private equity, but these products are neither the origin nor the catalyst of the current crisis, and i congratulate the rapporteur on having recognised this and put it right. the recommendations we are making to the commission are intended to cover all relevant actors and financial market participants and to close the loopholes in existing regulations to address and combat those practices that contributed to the property market collapse in the united states becoming a global financial crisis. we are thus addressing bad risk management practices, the lack of transparency of certain investment products and conflicts of interest in credit rating agencies, which are the main causes of the financial crisis we are currently experiencing. in writing. - colleagues, the recent financial crisis has many victims, of which hbos - who last week were taken over by lloyds tsb - was one. to see such high-profile casualties is not only destabilising for the world economy, but for those who entrust their money and their future to these companies. what the world has learnt from the last few weeks is that our approach to market regulation is outdated. we need global measures to regulate a globalised financial system. the eu and the european parliament therefore has a significant role to play in resolving the root causes of the crisis and must act responsibly by voting in favour of mr rasmussen's report. in encouraging hedge funds and private equity firms to be more prudent and transparent in their dealings, the eu will help construct a solid framework that will help restore much-needed stability to the financial sector. in writing. - it is regrettable that the report by rasmussen on hedge funds and private equity has been watered down following the compromise negotiations between the three largest groups in the parliament. it is also regrettable that the amendments tabled by the greens and the gue/ngl group, which were directly taken from the rasmussen draft report, were not adopted during the plenary vote. in spite of this, we decided to support the report in the final vote. this is due to the urgent need and necessity to counteract harmful financial speculation and instability on the markets. in this respect, the report could be seen as a step in the right direction. however, a stronger hand is required in applying these ideas. the secretive nature of many hedge funds is unacceptable as the system as it currently stands does not allow for transparency for the public. it is therefore difficult to assess the nature of hedge funds, and their capacity to contribute to sustainable social cohesion and economic stability cannot be ascertained by citizens. the concerns mentioned in this report, which are accompanied by due acknowledgement of the importance of the financial products in question, lead me to agree on the whole. bearing in mind that we are going through a period of obvious turbulence in the financial markets, it is important to react firmly, but also calmly and with knowledge of the facts. much of the economic success of recent decades in europe, the united states and in fast-growing economies is precisely because of the agility of the financial markets. in terms of the corrective action the current system needs, it is important to tackle the roots of the crisis, but without wiping out the virtues of the system. this is how the european commission needs to understand this call for action by the european parliament. in writing. - (sv) the role of the european parliament in the eu system is to be the voice of the people. this voice is strengthened in particular by the work done in the committee on petitions, which takes up questions arising from citizens' initiatives. a good example is the 'one seat' campaign - to move the seat of the european parliament from strasbourg to brussels - which was taken up for formal discussion through the efforts of the committee. certainly, some recommendations to the member states are rather extreme and some proposals are not very well considered. nevertheless the work of the committee on petitions is a crucial part of the work of the eu on behalf of citizens, which for me was a crucial factor in my decision to support this report. the financial world is rocking on its foundations. ordinary american taxpayers are paying the price of a rescue plan (usd 700 billion) whilst those who caused the problem are getting off scot-free. in the form of the rasmussen report, the european parliament had an instrument with which to do something to improve scrutiny of certain areas of the financial sector: hedge funds and private equity. with the crisis now so urgent, we had an opportunity to call on the european commission to introduce strict legislation. the group of the greens/european free alliance therefore tabled various amendments to this report but, since these were rejected by parliament, we voted against the report. there is to be no european authority to monitor the financial sector, no european legislation on the registration and monitoring of hedge funds, no limit on private investment companies taking root excessively. in the very week when the capitalist system is on the point of imploding, the european parliament has missed its opportunity. we greens are signalling that we shall continue to devote ourselves to severely curtailing a free market whose only objective in speculating seems to be to make the fastest possible profit for a small group of people. this is socially and economically irresponsible. i have always been in favour of market liberalisation, as, in my opinion, it is the main prerequisite for competition among market participants, which is always beneficial to consumers, enabling them to choose and purchase goods at the lowest possible price. however, in voting for the transparency of institutional investors, i support the rapporteur, mr lehne, who is asking the commission to propose certain standards to prevent investors from 'robbing' companies (the case of the partial sale of companies) and abusing their financial powers so that companies encounter problems in the future and there is no benefit either to the company itself or its employees, creditors or business partners. in my view, the european commission should investigate the measures implemented by the member states to prevent the partial sale of companies. in writing. - i support the general approach of klaus-heiner lehne's report on the transparency of institutional investors. recent events in the financial markets point to the need for global action to improve market regulation. well-functioning markets depend on the respect of transparency across the board, and this report is a step in the right direction. i voted in favour of its recommendations. the acute and ongoing crisis of casino-style capitalism is burdening american taxpayers and the entire world economy because of the failure of the profiteering games played by companies. radical changes to the regulatory legal framework for the inspection of transparency and audits are needed. the commission must act immediately and propose a comprehensive framework for a common model of transparency. the policy of less legislation has failed miserably. transparency should be a guiding principle in how markets operate - financial markets in particular. however, this should not be the only consideration, lest the principle should become the rule, confusing the desired result (healthy and efficient financial markets) with the proposed means of achieving this (sufficiently regulated and supervised markets). in the context of the current political and economic debate on financial markets, it is important for the commission to interpret this recommendation in this sense, committing itself to defending the quality of european financial markets. let us not forget that the greatest economic benefits for society stem from the smooth and fundamentally free functioning of these markets. in writing. - (sv) transparency is crucial to restoring confidence in the financial market. recent months have shown what problems can arise in a complex and fast-moving market if there is no possibility of understanding and following advanced products as well. there have certainly been problems in the otc market, but there must also be transparency in other areas of the financial market. in the light of this broad complex of problems therefore, i chose to abstain in the vote since the amendments which would have given the report the breadth it needed were not adopted. i voted in favour of the report by my hungarian fellow member mr hegyi, amending the proposal for a regulation of the european parliament and of the council modifying, as regards the implementing powers conferred on the commission, regulation (ec) no 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tses). i support the proposed amendments aimed at using the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to adopt certain measures concerning products of animal origin derived from or containing ruminant materials. the same goes for assessing whether the level of protection applied by a member state is equivalent, by way of derogation from regulation (ec) no 999/2001, as regards measures following detection of the presence of a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (tse). we voted in favour of this report as transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (tse), commonly known as mad cow disease, is a serious threat to our health. as we know, this deadly infectious disease spreads through a protein which can be found in infected meat and causes deterioration of the human brain. it has been possible to reduce this epidemic, thanks to strict european regulation. in this report, the rapporteur builds on the work of the previous rapporteur by adding new elements to be regulated by the regulatory procedure with scrutiny. we therefore agree that the commission's proposal should be amended so as to guarantee that controls are not reduced. we have to be extremely cautious to ensure that the regulatory procedure with scrutiny does not slow down the implementation of measures against this disease. we also have to avoid creating loopholes in the legislation when granting derogations to member states. hence the importance of this report. let us hope the european commission bears it in mind. after the well-known scandals concerning this disease, the public in the member states rightly needs and deserves this transparency. in writing. - gyula hegyi's report on amending regulation (ec) no 999/2001 as regards the implementing powers conferred on the commission seeks to propose amendments to the regulation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathy - a deadly disease spread by infected meat. updating the regulatory procedure associated with this issue to one that involves the european parliament more is a positive step. the report therefore has my backing. every year the eu has to contend with two billion tonnes of waste, 40 million tonnes of which are hazardous waste. the quantities of waste products similar to domestic waste produced probably constitute the major part of this together with industrial waste, even though the latter does, of course, contain a disproportionately higher risk potential. the statistics reveal all this, which is why the eu has set itself the lofty aim of reducing the amount of waste to be disposed of by 20% by 2010. in any case it is to be hoped that, in the agricultural waste sector, for instance, the need to obtain statistical data does not end up tying our farmers up with red tape. since i was not able to find any indication of this in the report, i voted in favour of it. in writing. - (ro) i voted in favour of this report because, through this new legislative proposal, the regulation on waste statistics is adapted to comitology, that is to regulation by control. the european parliament's resolution also calls on the commission to submit the evaluation reports on pilot-studies in time, in order to avoid the double reporting of data concerning waste statistics. in writing. - (ro) insufficient data on waste generation and management prevents the european union from enforcing a harmonised policy regarding waste. statistic tools are necessary for an evaluation of compliance with the principle of prevention of environmental degradation as a consequence of waste usage and the monitoring of waste at the time of generation, collection and disposal. member states have recognised that there are insufficient statistical data and that the definitions contained in this report are not enough to lead to comparable results between the states. this is why data collection can be done much better at community level, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. as far as agriculture, fisheries and forestry statistics are concerned, we should take into consideration the degree of coverage by this report of the treatment of agricultural and biological waste. therefore, there are several essential issues that need particular attention in order to ensure the accuracy of data and consequently the harmonisation of statistical information at community level. in writing. - (lt) the spectrum, like other natural resources (sun, water, air), is a public asset. market mechanisms themselves, despite being an effective means of generating optimal economic value (private and public), cannot satisfy general interest and generate public assets, which are vital for the creation of an information society. therefore, the coordination of political and market measures is a must. better coordination and a greater level of flexibility are necessary in order to make full use of this limited resource. however, it is also necessary to maintain the balance between flexibility and harmonisation in order to achieve the added internal market value of the spectrum. the spectrum does not recognise national borders. to enable member states use the spectrum effectively, better cooperation must be achieved within the eu, especially in the area of the expansion of european service and negotiations on international agreements. although the management of the spectrum remains within national competence, it is only eu principles that can ensure that the eu's interests are defended worldwide. i am in favour of the further protection of economic interests in locations where mineral water is exploited, as guaranteed in the european parliament's directive on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters. the income obtained by districts and businesses, particularly in the maopolska province, constitutes a significant contribution to the development of the region and its attractiveness as a health resort and tourism destination. it is worth pointing out that these areas are often agricultural and have little opportunity to generate income because they are located in hilly and mountainous terrain, although they conceal beneath their surface very valuable mineral and spring waters with therapeutic properties. the eu mineral water document specifies a europe-wide standard on natural mineral water. this regulation determines the conditions under which natural mineral water is to be recognised as such and lays down guidelines for the use of mineral water sources. specific rules for supplying the market with mineral water are also laid down in the guidelines. the discrepancies in these regulations interfere with the free movement of natural mineral water, creating different competition conditions, which have a direct impact on the functioning of the internal market in this product. in this particular case the existing obstacles could be removed by each member state agreeing to accept mineral water recognised by other member states in their territory with the introduction of general guidelines on meeting microbiological requirements for the product, which would determine the name of a certain mineral water brand. the principal aim of any regulation on mineral water is to protect consumers' health and prevent consumers from being misled by information on the product, thus guaranteeing fair trade. in writing. - needless to say, roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles are an important ingredient for the safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians. they are also essential in the fight against climate change in terms of co2 emissions. on the other hand, the government of a country has the obligation to provide a framework which contributes to the health and safety of drivers, passengers and pedestrians. malta and gozo have one of the highest densities of private cars per capita. cars in malta are extremely expensive, due to a high registration tax. this is making it very difficult for citizens to change to more efficient cars. the government must address the issue of car registration immediately and should do so in the next budget. people use private transport because the situation of public transport is not acceptable. it is about time a general overhaul of public transport was carried out. in addition, the state of many of our roads is terrible. the allocation of structural funds by the eu for 2007-2013 is 53%. under the circumstances all major roads have to be brought up to standard. in writing. - ukip considers terrorism as a major problem. we simply do not believe that the eu should decide about the actions to be taken to fight terrorism. we feel nation states are best placed to decide appropriate security measures trough intergovernmental cooperation. in writing. - british conservatives supported the report whilst having some reservations with regard to the necessity of the eu's involvement in this area, given that there is already in existence a council of europe convention covering the same issues. we favour close cooperation between member states but also in the context of a global approach to the war on terror. we are, however, unconvinced of the effectiveness of 'one size fits all' approaches at a european level. i voted against the proposal to insert a new offence of 'provocation' or 'public provocation to commit a terrorist offence' into european law in implementation of the council of europe convention because i believe that the definition put forward by the commission is too vague and is based on purely subjective elements, jeopardising human rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly freedom of expression in europe. in fact, any public statement, or any statement reported in the media, or any message posted on the internet that might in some way - whether directly or indirectly, on the basis of 'intent' and with 'the danger that such offences may be committed' - be considered incitement to commit a terrorist offence, will be made a crime at european level. the declared objective is to come down on 'terrorist propaganda' on the internet. the rapporteur has attempted to clarify the european commission's text in order to make it more respectful of human rights, seeking to introduce greater legal certainty. despite this, i believe that we should reject this proposal, partly in order to send a clear signal to the commission and the council, which have already announced that they do not wish to accept parliament's proposals. in writing. - (sv) the swedish freedom of the press act represents fundamental values in swedish society. we cannot accept laws to combat terrorism which are at variance with the swedish constitution. there are many other ways and possibilities by which to achieve the same aims. the proposals we voted on today do not offer any scope for an opt-out which would allow us to retain our legislation in sweden. we support the improvements which the european parliament has proposed but cannot support the proposal as a whole. since a settlement in line with the swedish constitution has been reached in the council, however, we choose to abstain instead of voting against the report. the lefranois report proposes a number of good measures to improve the efficiency and coordination of the fight against terrorism within the eu. i therefore voted in favour of it. the eta attacks a few days ago and the murderous attack in islamabad have demonstrated that we can never be too vigilant and efficient in this fight. cross-border cooperation in the fight against terrorism - which, nowadays, is mainly islamic in origin - is essential if we want to achieve results. however, we cannot disregard past mistakes either. after all, for years the schengen area has been offering potential terrorists and criminals an ideal environment to carry out their criminal plans, often with impunity. there is an urgent need for europe to reflect on its open-border policy and the pernicious consequences of this policy with regard to immigration, crime and islamic extremism. if not, the framework proposed here will also prove worthless. i voted in favour of the lefranois report on the proposal for a council framework decision amending framework decision 2002/475/jha on combating terrorism, as i believe we need to adapt the instruments for combating terrorism to the new information and communication media available to terrorists. revising the eu framework decision will allow the inclusion of the concept of terrorism in specific preparatory acts, such as recruitment and training for terrorism and public provocation to commit terrorist acts, which will become criminal offences in all member states. it is also important to highlight the important amendments tabled by the socialist group in the european parliament, with the aim of guaranteeing the fundamental freedoms of speech and association. the current international and community legal framework includes a set of instruments that are more than necessary for combating real terrorism and the organised, violent and transnational crime that is associated with it. the aim of this proposal is to step up the set of security measures, which, on the pretext of the events of 11 september 2001, have put citizens' rights, freedoms and guarantees at risk. this proposal, as the rapporteur herself points out, puts forward ambiguous definitions that do not safeguard respect for fundamental freedoms. as in 'framework decision 2002/475/jha on combating terrorism' - with its definition of 'terrorism' - once again the possibility remains open for implementing security measures and criminalising individuals or groups who speak out against or write about state terrorism. this proposal does not represent any added value in combating real terrorism and the associated transnational crime and in fact poses genuine threats to the security and fundamental freedoms of citizens in the various member states. as we have pointed out, rather than security measures we need to tackle the real causes fuelling terrorism. as we have already stated, 'we will not trade freedom for security, as we will be left with neither'. we therefore voted against the report. on saturday 20 september a suicide bomber caused a lorry to explode in front of the marriott hotel in the heart of the pakistani capital, reducing it to a burned-out ruin and killing at least 60 people. this attack was attributed to the pakistani taliban linked to al-qaeda. on sunday 20 and monday 21 september it was the turn of eta, the basque separatist organisation, to spill blood in three attacks. the preparations for these attacks are thought to have been made in france. terrorism has no borders, and the schengen area offers it the perfect cradle in which to recruit, indoctrinate and make the logistical preparations for attacks. in france the interior minister michle alliot-marie said on the subject that 'french prisons are a hotbed of recruitment for radical islamists.' an honest admission! it is a fact that terrorism has many causes, but today they mainly lie in the armed combat of radical islam. curiously, there are no legislative texts aimed at detecting and preventing recruitment in prisons or in certain so-called 'sensitive' neighbourhoods. the european union intends to give itself a body of legislation to combat terrorism. (explanation of vote cut pursuant to rule 163 of the rules of procedure) in writing. - (de) i voted in favour of the report by mrs lefranois, since a central tenet of the fight against terrorism has to be the prevention of terrorist offences. provocation to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism are three preparatory acts that are also to be regarded as offences. in so doing, however, fundamental rights must continue to be protected. i therefore voted for the use of the term 'incitement' rather than 'provocation', since this is more accurate and gives less leeway. action must be taken against the internet as a virtual training camp, as the new information and communication technologies mean that it is becoming increasingly easy for terrorists to disseminate their propaganda. the eu must counter terrorism clearly and decisively, and the adoption of the three new offences is an important step in doing so. freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the right to respect for the privacy of correspondence and secrecy of telecommunications, which also includes e-mail and other kinds of electronic correspondence, should not be curtailed, however, and so i support the amendments by mrs lefranois. we certainly have sleepers within the eu, who could become active at any time. it should not be forgotten, though, that terrorists do not appear from nowhere, but come into a country and grow up in an environment hostile to that country. if the eu really wants to pursue counter-terrorism effectively, it has to grapple with measures to counter the formation and expansion of parallel societies and suchlike, instead of condemning wholesale those who highlight the problems of coexistence with migrants. equally, counter-terrorism should not lead to a stealthy cutback in citizens' rights, which even the european court of justice recently brought into the arena, or result in the fight against crime receding as a result of the obsession with terrorism. if we bear in mind that islamist zealots are at the forefront of the terrorist threat, cracking down on islamist preachers of hatred and criminalising terrorist camp training at european level is long overdue. on this note, i voted in favour of the lefranois report. in writing. - (ro) the recent attacks in the basque country show once again that terrorism is a daily reality and that we need effective instruments to fight it. the council's new framework decision on fighting terrorism is certainly a step forward and i welcome its adoption. i am surprised that the commemoration of 7 years since the new york terrorist attacks of 11 september 2001 went unnoticed by the european parliament. we should try not to forget the victims of those attacks, and we should have stressed that transatlantic relations are a priority among the day-to-day tasks of the european parliament. legal clarity of the legal framework for combating terrorism is just as necessary as clarity and determination in this whole regard. in this sense, the commission's concern about the mechanisms, means and methods involved in recruiting terrorists, particularly those who are recruited in european countries - who are often born and bred here - is understandable. in this area, we need to ensure that police authorities and the state have the necessary means to act, preferably in a preventive way. actions aimed at combating this phenomenon that do not involve police or judicial authorities are also relevant. it is a question of ensuring that, alongside the reaction of the legal system, there is also an alert and attentive political system that can take action, whether by strengthening integration, promoting the voice of the moderate majority, or tackling the marginalisation associated with illegal immigration. for all these reasons, the political authorities need to be attentive and active. whilst it is impossible to prevent all acts of terrorism, it is possible to avoid an environment that promotes, provokes and fuels terrorism. one of the main aims of the european union within the framework of a policy for a common area of freedom, security and justice is ensuring the security of its 500 million citizens. to achieve this, the european union and its states must face up to modern terrorism. the most controversial issue in the content of the proposal to revise the council framework decision on combating terrorism is the demand for the introduction of the concept of public provocation to commit terrorist offences. there is a very fine line between freedom of speech and breaking the law. we cannot allow a situation to develop where increasing security causes a restriction of citizens' rights and freedoms. for this reason i take the position that it is indispensable to ensure the highest possible legal level for the framework decision under discussion, and this should primarily be done through a tighter definition of the concept of public provocation to commit terrorist offences. the newly created document must be clear and harmonious from a legal aspect in order to make it an effective instrument in combating terrorism, while at the same time providing a high level of human rights and fundamental freedoms. the attacks in madrid and london have shown us what an important problem terrorism is for the eu. the year 2008 reaped an enormous harvest, beginning on 1 february with the attack in baghdad during a funeral, which caused the deaths of 30 people, and ending on 20 september with the attack on the marriott hotel in islamabad, in which over 60 people died and over 250 were injured. there have been as many as 49 terrorist attacks in total during 2008. for the sake of comparison it is worth adding that this is the same number of attacks that took place between 2002 and 2007 (inclusive). one of the most effective ways of combating terrorism is to eliminate its causes. this is why i think that the european union should apply every effort to combat terrorism on a global scale, with respect for human rights. the eu should make europe safer by enabling its citizens to enjoy freedom, security and justice, which must to a large extent depend on the will of the member states. i voted against this report out of absolute conviction. the roure report demonstrates for the umpteenth time how political correctness is blinding europe. it is evident that, in the fight against crime and the fight against terrorism, the government has the right to gather as much data as possible on potential suspects, including 'ethnic' data. even the rapporteur admits this. however, why should the civil authorities not process data in other fields too - while respecting personal privacy - if this guarantees good governance? why, for example, should the italian government not take the fingerprints of illegal immigrants if this is the only means of identifying them? the original council proposal on the matter was sufficiently balanced. similarly to the left, taking action against dissidents throughout europe like a full-blown thought police - as a fleming i know a thing or two about that - the intention here is to act as a watchdog of civil liberties. it is too ridiculous for words. bearing in mind that this is a case of the council 'consulting' the ep, we would like to emphasise that although we have supported amendments put forward by the ep, even though they water down previously adopted positions, we believe that this proposal falls far short of what is needed in the area of 'protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters'. in addition to other crucial aspects in our negative assessment of this proposal, we highlight the fact that it does not rule out, even though it attaches (pseudo) conditions, 'the processing of personal data revealing racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs or trade-union membership and the processing of data concerning health or sex life', which is unacceptable! as was pointed out in the debate, it is a proposal based on a lowest common denominator for an issue of such overarching importance as safeguarding the rights, freedoms and guarantees of the citizens of the various member states, that is below what is laid down in other legal instruments, particularly those of the council of europe. ensuring the protection of personal data is an urgent and indispensable issue. it cannot be achieved through a legal instrument that - because of its gaps and flaws - does not guard against the possibility of non-compliance or non-protection. that is why we abstained. i voted in favour of the report by mrs roure, which guarantees a high level of data protection with regard to the processing of personal data. combating terrorism should not be at the expense of citizens' fundamental rights, which is why it is imperative to guarantee the protection of personal data. the council's agreement has some deficiencies and therefore cannot guarantee this. this report remedies the shortfalls and modifies the council's agreement to the effect that the use and dissemination of personal data is more strictly regulated. the report words the proportionality and purpose of data processing more precisely, imposes stricter controls on transfer to third countries, and calls for a group of experts, which is to function as both supervisory authority and performance location. the lengthy discussion in the european bodies shows the contentiousness and sensitivity of the subject. reaching agreement on it is difficult, but should not lead to a superficial result or the watering down of data protection in the eu. personal data must always be handled with extreme care and with every possible safeguard. in writing. - while the measures put forward by the commission in this framework decision fall short of what i would have liked to see, i supported the general principle of setting a minimum level for personal data protection. the civil liberties committee of parliament did some good work in improving the proposal, which i hope will be taken on board. sinn fin supports the highest possible level of data protection for citizens and will continue to support any measures which improve the privacy and rights of citizens in this field. the council's proposal can on no account be accepted in its present form. its forfeiting of the protection of personal data is unacceptable. a comprehensive legal framework on personal data is needed to ensure that there is substantial protection and no processing of such data by the state or by individuals, at either international or national level. the european parliament's criticisms and recommendations on the council proposal are generally a move in the right direction, but they are not enough. in writing. - (sv) we swedish social democrats chose to vote for amendment 1 to the report on the deliberations of the committee on petitions during the parliamentary year 2007. the reason for this is that we think the european parliament itself should be able to decide on its own seat. however, we think that, in the interests of our climate and environment and on economic grounds, the european parliament should only have one seat: in brussels. in writing. - the petitions committee of the european parliament performs an invaluable service to the european union citizens, channelling their concerns to the commission, questioning national, regional and local authorities on irregularities in the application of eu law, and taking on instances of violations of citizens' rights. the sharp increase in the number of petitions received by the european parliament last year illustrates both the citizens' growing awareness of how parliament can serve them and the need for the committee to be adequately funded and staffed. no less than 65 petitions concerned ireland in the year 2007, and the country has been visited by a committee fact-finding mission due to the breach of eu directives concerning water and the environment. i am convinced of the crucial role of the petitions committee as a resort for citizens faced with breaches of rules, as well as a bridge between them and all levels of administration and government within the eu via their elected meps. this report deserved an abstention. it is a good thing, of course, that european citizens are able to petition the authorities - including their 'european authorities' - but i regret the federalist undertones of this report. one example is the completely irrelevant way it extols the charter of fundamental rights chiselled into the treaty of lisbon. another example is its call for even greater efficiency - read 'interference' - towards member states on the part of the commission. the way in which this report has been used to argue in favour of one european seat, to be located in brussels, also disturbs me. naturally we are all sick of the waste of money caused by the 'fragmentation' of the european parliament, but this one seat could of course just as easily be located in strasbourg. in writing. - (sv) this report is in fact an activity report from the european parliament's committee on petitions. but, since the report refers at several points to the treaty of lisbon in glowing terms and in the hope that it will soon be ratified, we have chosen to vote against the report in its entirety. our fundamental view is that the treaty of lisbon has been rejected, since voters in one member state and in one referendum said 'no' to the treaty. yet there are many more member states in which there is no doubt that a majority of voters would have rejected the treaty of lisbon if they had been given the chance. that ignorance, which the european parliament's committee on petitions shows at various points in its report, is something we cannot endorse. as regards the question of a single seat for the european parliament, we back the principle that it is for the member states together to decide on the seat of the european parliament, but we also think it reasonable for the european parliament to express an opinion on the matter. in writing. - i voted in favour of mr hammerstein's amendment 1 to his own report. we have today discovered that next month the european parliament will once again embark upon its monthly trek to strasbourg at a cost of billions of euros to the taxpayer. we must end this travelling circus, and parliament itself must be at the heart of the debate. i voted in favour of mr hammerstein's report on the deliberations of the committee on petitions during the parliamentary year 2007, as it provides a transparent presentation of the positive effects of this committee's actions. the committee itself, chaired by mr libicki, has shown through its actions that it is very much needed. it enables eu citizens to submit petitions concerning breaches of their rights as citizens by public authorities in the member states. rule 191 of the european parliament's rules of procedure states that 'any citizen of the european union . or . person residing . in a member state shall have the right to address, individually or in association with other citizens or persons, a petition to parliament on a matter which comes within the european union's fields of activity and which affects him, her or it directly.' i consider the provision of the epetition database to be a significant achievement in the work of this committee. thanks to this database it is now possible to gain online access to all documents relating to each petition. mention should also be made of the significant rise in the number of petitions submitted electronically. last year this amounted to 42%. the committee on petitions cooperates well with the relevant departments within the european commission and with the european ombudsman, and also with the appropriate representatives of the member states and regional and local authorities, in providing appropriate explanations. the fact-finding visits by committee representatives are very helpful to its work. the well-functioning secretariat does a lot to increase the effectiveness of its work. in writing. - (lt) the signatures of more than 1 million eu citizens have been collected in support of the eu-wide citizens' initiative calling for one permanent seat for the european parliament. this gave the people involved the right to submit a petition to the committee on petitions to appoint a permanent seat for parliament. in my view, the european parliament's existing system of working arrangements is inefficient and involves unjustified financial expenses. taxpayers' money is being wasted instead of being put to good use with the aim of creating added value for citizens. back in 2005, during the preparation of the report on the european parliament's budget, i suggested that the european parliament work from a single seat, thus eliminating travel expenses and enabling parliament to save on financing travel by its members and staff. however, in today's vote i am not supporting the amendment tabled on behalf of the group of the greens/european free alliance on a permanent seat for the european parliament in brussels. in my opinion, it is not right to presume that brussels should exclusively be appointed as the permanent seat of the european parliament. this is a matter that falls within the competence of the member states. in writing. - i welcome the report's acknowledgement of the rising significance of the committee on petitions. this year has seen a 50% increase in the number of petitions received compared to 2006. i also recognise the rapporteur's concerns about the length of time taken by the commission and the court of justice to resolve cases referred to the committee. i voted in favour of the report. in writing. - i welcome the hammerstein report on the petitions committee today. in particular, i welcome the report's taking to task of the irish government on many issues. the irish government's decision to push ahead with the m3 motorway through the heart of one of our most historic national sites is unjustifiable. the project should be abandoned or re-worked to protect our national monuments. the campaign must continue in ireland and europe to make sure that this happens before it is too late as the government is trying to ensure. i have voted in favour of the hammerstein report on the work of the committee on petitions. it supports the work of that committee, which is one of the primary channels of communication between citizens and the european institutions. the effectiveness of the committee on petitions in negotiating and supporting citizens' causes needs to be improved by strengthening its institutional role and further improving its cooperation with the european commission, the european ombudsman and the authorities of the member states. in writing. - the failure of parliament to support amendment 1 on the issue of the one seat is disappointing. this is the second strasbourg part-session which we have had in brussels, and we have proved that we can meet effectively and vote in brussels. we no longer need to hold sessions in strasbourg. i encourage colleagues to sign written declaration 75 calling on parliament to meet in brussels and end strasbourg sessions. in writing. - (sv) we swedish social democrats have chosen to vote against the report, since we are opposed to the introduction of special support for hill and mountain farmers in the form of a dairy cow premium. although we welcome a comprehensive strategy for hill and mountain regions, increased support to the dairy sector is not the right way to go. if the aim is to reduce the share of the common agricultural policy in the eu budget as a whole, transfers from the first to the second pillar are also not appropriate. the report on the situation and outlook for hill and mountain farming identifies, if only in a piecemeal way, the specific problems faced by farming and stock-rearing in those regions. among other things, these are inaccessibility, high transport costs and difficult soil conditions for crops etc. however, the report does not mention the responsibility of member states and the eu for the lack of infrastructure, and for the substantial absence of specific measures. such measures should be aimed at minimising the natural disadvantages of these regions in producing and marketing agricultural products, and at making good use of comparative benefits. the eu uses vague wording and empty expressions of good intent. whatever measures are taken turn out to be ineffective and fail to halt the depopulation of these regions. the same unproductive stance is maintained in the report, which tries to whitewash community policy. it contains no mention of the steady reduction in eu agricultural funding, the fiscal budgets and the negative impact of the cap. on the contrary, the eu is merely repeating the same old measures, which it is trying to adapt to the framework of the forthcoming cap health check. an essential pre-condition for improving living conditions, and increasing agricultural income in hill and mountain regions, is the struggle of the farmers themselves against the cap, and the demand for special funding for hill and mountain regions in a bid to improve infrastructure and support the agricultural production process. in writing. - (sv) the european parliament's committee on agriculture and rural development wants to bestow favours on all the special interests it comes across in this sector. if special provision now needs to be made for hill and mountain farmers, the question arises whether special measures and agreements need to be drawn up to protect agriculture in norrland. we are strongly opposed to this report on grounds of principle. junilistan notes once again that it is fortunate that the european parliament does not have codecision powers on the eu's agricultural policy. if it did, the union would be caught in a trap of protectionism and costly subsidies to all the various groups involved in agriculture. the members of the people's party for freedom and democracy (vvd) in the european parliament voted in favour of the ebner report, one of the reasons being that it gives a good impression of the specific problems of hill and mountain farming. however, the members of the vvd do not agree with the provisions of the report that anticipate the decision-making procedure in respect of the cap 'health check', particularly the plea for a 20% national reserve. in writing. - this report highlights the key role mountainous regions play in terms of the environment, agriculture and even culture and tourism. most importantly, it is recognised that these areas are essential for maintaining pockets of biodiversity and the implementation of a forestry strategy. however, these unique areas can also present significant challenges for people living and working in them, especially in terms of infrastructure, communications and high production costs. it is for this reason that these areas deserve a coordinated and integrated strategy, much like the approach which relates to the european union's coastal regions. of course, sheep farming is intricately linked to agriculture in these areas, and it must be recognised that sheep grazing is especially important for their environmental stability. however, although this industry is currently facing many challenges, the commission has aggravated the situation with its recent proposal on electronic tagging. moreover, although special assistance for sheep farmers is urgently required, unfortunately it does not seem to be forthcoming. in writing. - i and my british conservative colleagues welcome the focus that this report places on mountain and hill farming, which does need specific measures to ensure that environmentally beneficial farming practices can continue in such regions. unfortunately the ebner report calls for a number of measures using primarily the first pillar, including the introduction of a dairy cow premium for mountain areas and for the upper limit of resources under article 69 to be raised to 20%. we do not favour the introduction of new coupled subsidies within the first pillar. they are not consistent with the ongoing reforms of agricultural policy and do not offer good value for money for the european taxpayer. the challenges faced by these regions can best be met through rural development funding in the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. for this reason we will not be supporting this report. i voted for mr ebner's report because i consider it an important signal from the european parliament to the mountainous regions of europe. i base this on personal experience as i live in a mountainous region in northeast slovakia, in the foothills of the high tatras. i have undertaken a few studies on the attraction of life in mountainous regions. i thank the rapporteur for incorporating into the report my draft amendments which i submitted to the committee on regional development and which received support when the committee voted. mountainous regions can provide quality agricultural produce and more diversity of agricultural products in the european market and there is therefore a need for greater coordination of rural development and structural support for the development of common programmes and maintenance of other activities, such as the exploitation of biomass and agri-tourism, thus increasing the incomes of local people. mountainous regions have a constant requirement for sustainable, modernised and multifunctional agriculture. sustainable forestry exploitation will make it possible to produce energy using wood residues. the preservation of certain animal and vegetable species, upholding traditions, ecological activities and tourism will make a contribution to the fight against climate change by protecting biodiversity and capturing co2 through permanent grassland and forests. i am convinced that mountainous regions require new means of protecting their territory against flooding with the emphasis on flood prevention, whilst farmers and foresters could support anti-flooding measures by means of the direct area-related payments which they receive under the common agricultural policy. in writing. - i support this report looking at promoting sustainable development in mountainous regions. the move to a more market-orientated cap means that mountainous regions, where agricultural production is less competitive, are not only facing new challenges but also, i believe, new opportunities. mountainous regions may not be able to adapt as easily to competitive conditions and may entail extra costs so that they cannot produce very competitive products at low prices, but the focus needs to be on exploiting the resources available, including the beauty of the natural landscape to attract tourists, and exploiting the potential competitive advantage of these regions, including the array of regional and traditional products, the wealth of traditional knowledge and manufacturing procedures, which give their products competitive edge. i differ from some of my colleagues here in the european parliament in that i do not believe the solution to the challenges facing mountainous regions is to throw more cap money at these regions. where there are clear public benefits to supporting farming in mountainous regions, such as environmental benefits, i believe that public funding under the rural development pillar would be more appropriate. exploiting the potential of mountainous areas is key to their sustainable development, not simply throwing more public money at them.

9. bali conference on climate change (vote) motion for a resolution: - before the vote: (fi) mr president, i would just like to say that one important point in the finnish version of this resolution has been translated wrongly. in section 1, which concerns the bali negotiating mandate, there is a misunderstanding in the finnish, which suggests that this resolution would be dealing with the eu's internal negotiating mandate before the bali conference. in fact, the bali mandate means that at the bali conference the countries which have ratified the climate treaty will try to obtain a negotiating mandate to make it possible to establish the next climate treaty. in other words, the finnish text in section 1 which says 'to agree on a negotiating mandate for the conference' should say 'on a negotiating mandate for a treaty at this conference'. - after the vote: mr president, i should be recorded as voting against amendment 7. i am afraid the wrong light came on when i pressed the button. it should have been a vote against. this does not change the result of the vote, but it is a sensitive issue for me. i would therefore ask that my vote be recorded as a vote against. it will be noted as you have said.

greenhouse gas emission reductions and risk of carbon leakage (short presentation) the next item is the report by bas eickhout, on behalf of the committee on the environment, public health and food safety, on the analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emissions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage. rapporteur. - madam president, if members look at their e-mails and all the requests from lobbyists and industry, and the pros and cons on the climate, they can conclude that climate is very clearly back on the political agenda. that is a very good thing, because climate has never been off the scientific agenda. if you look at how science has been evolving meanwhile, the arguments for stronger climate policies have become stronger and stronger every day. however, in the political field, it was rather quiet on the climate front after copenhagen and cancn. now it is clearly back on the political agenda. that is a good thing. however, what is very important is that in the meantime it has become a different debate. it is not only a climate argument any more. it has become more and more an economic debate, an economic argument. if you look at the new industries relying on climate policies, they are asking for more ambitious climate policies. or look at our oil dependency and the situation in northern africa: the debate on oil dependency is becoming more and more important for our economic position in the eu. but look too at all the letters from industry, really lobbying for going to 30% because it is in their interest; it helps their profits if we step up our climate ambitions. this very clearly indicates that there is a fundamental shift in the debate on climate policies. that is very important. it is not the economy versus ecology; it is the economy and ecology. that is crucial. so what is in the report? of course, we are asking the commission to come forward with a proposal to move to 25% reduction domestically. this is very important, because that is the way to become less dependent on oil; that is the way to harvest the health co-benefits; that is also the way to really harvest the potential of energy savings. so energy savings are also a crucial part of the report because, if we meet our energy savings targets, we are already on the path of achieving 25% domestically in the eu. in the report, we are asking for 30% overall; so 25% domestically, but 30% as a whole. there are a lot of offsets still in the market, so if you have 25% domestically, we are discussing 30% as a whole as well. that also limits somewhat the role of offsetting, which has also been part of the debate; that is also in the report. this is also a discussion on the adjustment of the emissions trading system. let me be very clear. if we are stepping up climate ambitions through energy savings and we only do something relating to energy savings, the carbon price will go down; studies estimate from eur 15 to eur 0 per tonne carbon. so we also need to do something in the ets system to make sure we have the right price and really have the incentives to move to green technologies. it is going to be a crucial vote tomorrow for a future economy, a green economy. i urge the commission to follow up the request we will make as a parliament tomorrow by coming forward with a legislative proposal. the council is moving, parliament will set out its position tomorrow, and then it is up to the commission to come forward with a proposal. we know when we are discussing a legislative proposal that in the council there will be no veto for any country any more. we will have a majority in parliament, as we will see tomorrow, and a majority in the council to really step up our climate ambitions and make sure that the true future economy is the green economy. (de) madam president, mr oettinger, ladies and gentlemen, the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats in the european parliament supports mr eickhout's report because it sends out a strong message both internally and externally that we are not giving up on combating climate change. it is an internal signal that we are taking seriously the promise made in the 2008 climate package of 20% renewable energy and 20% energy savings. mr oettinger, you have presented us with a proposal today and we have a great deal of work ahead of us. both of these measures together will result in a 25% reduction in co2 emissions within the eu. who could be opposed to this? it is not possible, because it is a package of legislation which we have adopted. in addition, we have a responsibility to the rest of the world. we also have to achieve a level of 5% clean development mechanisms (cdms). that makes a total of 30%. i hope that this will not be watered down. the amendment to paragraph 3 would destroy the entire report. if this amendment is passed, we will be voting against the report tomorrow. i hope that this will not be the case, because we need to send out a strong signal. (pl) madam president, i have the impression that we are dealing with a new kind of madness and a new secular religion in europe. there is no scientific basis to prove that humans have a decisive role to play in increased atmospheric co2 emissions. the climate is affected by cycles lasting several centuries. researchers such as professor jaworowski, an outstanding climate researcher from poland, have issued expert opinions on these issues. why does greenland have the name it does, and yet it is entirely frozen today? the answer is that it once was a green island, but the climate changed, independently of human activities. we therefore need to oppose this new secular religion and madness, which is placing a question mark over whether there was any sense at all in countries such as poland joining the european union, since it would be forced to spend much more money on reducing co2 emissions than its net gains from cohesion policy to date. if a 20% reduction in co2 emissions is pointless, a 30% reduction is thus even more so. i will therefore vote against. (de) madam president, i believe that fukushima has also changed the world with regard to co2 emissions. this is simply about ensuring that we have a reliable energy supply. we will have to supplement or replace nuclear energy with gas and coal. burning gas and coal will, of course, result in co2 emissions. therefore, the level of 20% which we have currently set ourselves is very high. we should be pleased that we have a reserve in the form of energy efficiency, because this reserve will allow us to support the new forms of energy that we need to replace nuclear power. gas and coal will play an important role in replacing nuclear energy. i believe that the trade unions and the employers are seriously concerned that co2 policies will result in jobs moving outside europe and that the entire raw material industry, whether it involves steel, aluminium or paper, will leave europe, if we introduce regulations that are too strict. i would like to warn everyone that we are pushing ahead too quickly in this area. our policies must be viable and realistic. - (sk) madam president, in my speech i would like to draw attention to the opinion of the committee on industry, research and energy, which pointed out in item 3 of the opinion that the current provisions of commission policy in the area of climate change will lead to industry being relocated outside europe, and i am afraid that the imminent price increase for carbon dioxide emissions will accentuate this trend even further. at the same time, the committee's opinion draws attention to the fact that the current reduction in the output of emissions in europe cannot be interpreted as a signal that the eu is on the way to achieving the goal of reduced emissions. it should rather be understood as the result of reduced industrial output and the relocation of production away from europe, as a result of which unemployment is growing in europe. i therefore firmly believe that the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to promote the innovation of new green technologies more consistently, so that we address the need to protect air quality not just through administrative and financial instruments, but rather through support for research and the implementation of new technologies in real life. (pt) madam president, europe's energy and climate strategy must combine economic competitiveness with energy security and environmental concerns. the purpose of going beyond the 20% target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be to reconcile these objectives. i agree with stepping up reduction efforts from 20% to 25%, in which the extra 5% corresponds to an increase in energy efficiency. it is essential, however, to find solutions that maintain the competitiveness of european industry. in that respect, i welcome the fact that for the first time there is a broad consensus in parliament for the inclusion of a sectoral approach. this approach will make the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target set for a particular country compatible with the holistic, global treatment of each industrial sector, thus preventing carbon leakage. (pl) madam president, the public expects us, as politicians, to be pragmatic, rational and efficient in all of our actions. taxpayers can forgive us many things, but they will not forgive us if we spend their money and have nothing to show for it. when we discuss global warming, we should approach it as a rational project. let us leave aside for a moment issues relating to the legitimacy or otherwise of this theory, which formed the basis of our political decisions on this issue. we are aware that the science is disputed, but we do not wish to resolve this dispute here. i should however like to highlight the fact that a characteristic feature of greenhouse gases is that they know no borders. even if the european union adopts the tightest possible limits on greenhouse gas emissions, the outcome will be the same if china, india and other developing countries do not also adopt such limits at the same time. in addition to the fact that european taxpayers' pockets will be hit, unemployment will rise if production is limited, and jobs will move outside the borders of the european union. in view of the above, let us act rationally if we are to act at all on this matter, so that this is a global process, for only then will it be effective. if it is true that a month's worth of greenhouse gas emissions in china corresponds to an annual 20% decrease in europe, then this says a lot. (ro) madam president, i would like to begin by congratulating mr eickhout for drafting this report. i regard the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in europe as vital, based on the conclusions from the cancun summit. this means that the eu must retain its role as global leader in the area of environmental protection. this is why it needs to reform the implementation of its green policy. i should emphasise how important it is to review the mechanisms for monitoring emissions and the need to take them into account within the entire budget. it would also be useful to improve the eu's current emissions trading scheme. with this in mind, a recommendation has been made to extend this system's scope of application to facilities outside the industrial sector. i must point out the impact of european environmental policy on long-term investments in forms of green technology. member of the commission. - (de) madam president, honourable members, mrs hedegaard wants me to pass on her greetings to you. she has been unavoidably detained this evening and she has asked me to make a few important points on her behalf and on behalf of the commission. i would like to thank parliament, all its members and the rapporteur for this significant and far-reaching report. we continue to attach great importance to the target of limiting global warming to 2c. for this reason, we have put in place short- and medium-term targets for 2020 and a long-term strategy for 2050. it is clear that we must also analyse the interim stages on the timeline between 2020 and 2050 and define additional interim targets. last year the eu established the goal of 20% covering the period of the next nine years. this was done almost a year ago in parliament and before that in the commission and the council. of course, in the light of the technical possibilities, the economic effects and the financial changes, there are arguments in favour of higher targets. however, we only put the target of 20% in place just under a year ago. i do not believe that the information which we based our decision on has changed since then. we have said that europe will reduce emissions by 30% if other important regions of the world are prepared to make binding agreements, because the climate is a global issue. we believe that there are still opportunities to introduce binding agreements or partial agreements. for this reason, the conditions are 20% for europe alone and 30% if we have partners, in other words, the us or china. i believe that this is a serious, far-reaching and fair offer. during the last year, the commission discussed and adopted a communication which highlights the options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 20% in line with the conclusions, in other words, a reduction of 30%. it also considers whether this target is technically and economically feasible and whether it will have an impact on costs, although we assume that the costs will be lower than previous estimates indicated. we believe that the principle of reliable planning should currently be given priority. this means that industry, the economy and private citizens have the security to plan ahead on the basis of the targets which were adopted last year with a democratic majority of 20% stand-alone and 30% when other relevant partners are prepared to enter into binding agreements. a sort of automatic mechanism was used to show that if energy efficiency was added to the 20% reduction in co2 emissions then 25% would automatically be possible. however, i would like to remind you that at the same time and on the basis of the same information parliament has been discussing 20, 20, 20 for some years. no mention has been made of the last 20% automatically turning the second 20% into 25% simply because it was adopted later and is now being addressed by the commission. that would not be in the spirit of the inventor. this was never referred to in speeches in 2007 or 2009. it is a new idea which is open to discussion. however, i do not agree with the automatic mechanism. if we in the commission and in the european union had taken energy efficiency more seriously at an earlier stage, the question of the automatic mechanism would probably not have arisen. then there is the question of balancing the interests of the economy and the environment. i believe that innovation, in particular in the area of the environment, offers significant opportunities for engineers and technicians, for adding value in a variety of ways and, therefore, for creating jobs. we must aim to ensure that these new jobs in the field of energy and climate are created in europe. on the other hand, we must make sure that we do not lose any essential jobs. what do i mean by that? i mean that the world should not produce more aluminium and steel than it needs. however, the quantity of steel, aluminium and copper needed in europe and in the rest of the world should, as far as possible, be manufactured here in europe, at least if it is currently produced here. it is acceptable to relocate or avoid the production of steel, aluminium and copper wherever it is possible to do so. however, the quantity of steel, aluminium and copper needed in europe and in the rest of the world should, if possible, be manufactured in europe, in competition with other locations. we believe it would be wrong to move production deliberately. therefore, when balancing these interests, we must continue in future to consider whether higher co2 emission reduction targets are feasible, whether they will help to retain jobs in 'old industries' and whether we can prevent these jobs from being moved elsewhere. one thing is clear. i would prefer jobs in the steel industry and steel production to remain in europe with a 20% reduction in co2 emissions, rather than see them move to brazil, malaysia or america, where the co2 emissions levels would be 100%. then we would have put our money on the wrong solution. it is better to have a 20% reduction in emissions and to retain the jobs, the added value and the tax revenues than to lose the jobs, to have a clear conscience in europe and to have 100% emissions in america and asia with the jobs and the tax revenues going to these areas. this is a very pragmatic approach that nevertheless takes the environment and the economy into consideration. you are calling on the commission to make more far-reaching proposals in individual areas. we will be happy to meet your demands. we are relying on the fact that progress will be made by other governments throughout the world during other global conferences and also after the elections in the us in the late autumn of this year. finally, i want to encourage parliament to continue to support us with its expert contributions and to make the appropriate demands on us. we believe that the european union remains on the right track and we want to ensure by means of controls and transparency that we achieve the target of 20% and that nothing goes wrong in europe. in the autumn we will be presenting to you our thoughts on the revision of the emissions trading system (ets). we will be submitting a report, as we promised today in the proposal on energy efficiency, about whether the increase in efficiency will lead to a significant change in the market for co2. if necessary, we will have to investigate whether there will be shortages, to ensure that emissions trading remains an effective instrument for reducing co2 emissions within the market economy. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday 23 june 2011. written statements (rule 149) i take this opportunity to express my opposition to a unilateral increase in the european target for greenhouse gas emission reductions to beyond 20% by 2020, given the lack of a global climate agreement involving all the major emitters. it should not be forgotten, in fact, that the european union is still the only area in the world to have adopted legally binding emission reduction targets. the immediate consequence of that is that european industry is exposed to strong competition from global competitors that are not bound by the same constraints. in my opinion, therefore, the union's priority should first of all be to achieve the 20-20-20 targets set by the climate and energy package, which are already very ambitious. that is the only way we can define an environmental policy for the union that enables european businesses to remain competitive at global level in order to sustain economic growth and especially job creation. in conclusion, i share the concerns expressed by italian industry representatives that industry is currently not in a position to sign up to more ambitious commitments than those already established by the european council and confirmed by the commission in the emissions trading directive. the commission roadmap for moving to a competitive low-carbon economy in 2050 suggests that achieving the 20% energy efficiency target would automatically lead to a 25% reduction in emissions, without any change to the current legislative framework. without an international agreement, unilaterally raising the emissions reduction target could threaten the competitiveness of our industry as well as growth and jobs in the european union. we should instead go down the road of energy savings and renewable energy. in this respect i support commissioner oettinger on the new energy efficiency proposal, which will certainly bring about savings for individuals and businesses by helping them manage their own consumption. moreover, in discussing the eu's future climate policies, we cannot leave out of the equation the new european and international energy scenario that has emerged following the uprisings in north africa and the nuclear crisis. these factors will have a significant impact on energy costs in the medium term, and we will need to assess their repercussions on europe's current environmental strategy. suffice it to say that abandoning nuclear power will force germany to use more fossil fuels, thus raising its greenhouse gas emission levels. we must therefore reorient our environmental policies to create much-needed convergence with our energy policies, leaving traditional sectoral approaches behind. the economies of certain eu member states, including that of my own country, poland, are already suffering the harmful effects of the arbitrarily imposed climate and energy package, used as a tool to implement the political objective of 3 x 20. however this political objective is often misrepresented as well: people talk about a 20% drop in energy consumption, yet the actual objective is a 20% increase in energy efficiency, which is not the same thing. the term 'efficiency' is often used incorrectly in eu documents, due to a misunderstanding of the term 'energy efficiency' and methods for its assessment, or in other words whether we are talking about national gross efficiency or efficiency per capita, or conversion efficiency, for example the conversion of primary energy into useful work. an emphasis on increasing efficiency, instead of on limiting consumption, will result in technological innovations being prioritised, which will be to our advantage. such innovations hold the greatest potential for limiting emissions, by even more than the target of 20%. the member states should have the right to make their own choices in respect of methods and timetables for limiting emissions, mainly through increased efficiency. in the case of poland, this relates mainly to the enormous potential represented firstly by the wholesale improvement of new and old buildings in terms of thermal efficiency, and secondly by the widespread replacement of old thermal power plants in residential buildings with modern thermal electric power plants. the climate and energy package needs to be revised in order to ensure that the member states are better adapted to reducing emissions. climate change presents the international community with a serious challenge. the results which have been presented show that europe is pursuing an effective climate policy. it would be wrong for the eu to set new unilateral targets, in view of the fact there are no regulations at global level containing binding reduction targets. poland is alarmed at the proposal by the rapporteur, mr eickhout, which covers many issues which could pose a threat to the european economy. imposing a further reduction in emissions from 20% to 30% may cause a great deal of damage as far as climate change is concerned. if production costs in europe are too high, the global quantity of emissions will rise, due to increased imports of products from countries with low efficiency in terms of emissions. european industry has shown that we can count on its commitment to searching for innovative solutions which will help in the fight against climate change. groundbreaking achievements are only possible on the basis of well-planned long-term investments. in view of the very high level of coal usage in poland's energy sector, as of 2013 polish industry will be forced to bear significantly higher costs than its european competitors, due to the ets. this may give rise to huge problems in terms of accomplishing the original reduction target at the same time as maintaining financial liquidity. raising the reduction target by a further 5% or 10% will cause many polish companies to collapse, and we cannot allow this to happen. in writing. - when my own country, scotland, passed a climate change act in 2009 it called for a 42% emissions cut by 2020. these targets are ambitious but we consider them a vital part of our efforts against climate change. my colleague mr eickhout has highlighted the numerous benefits to the eu of having more ambitious targets, and moves within this parliament to reduce our ambitions will be rejected by europe's citizens. in its original form, the report shows an enormous amount of amateurish enthusiasm and a somewhat unrealistic attempt to ignore the reality of electricity supplies today, as well as presenting a catalogue of wishful thinking. it is likely that all eu citizens will applaud the bold plans for emissions reductions of 80-95% by 2050. yet when we get down to details, the plan as it currently stands ought to be based on the fully realistic opportunities offered by current energy resources. it is impossible to eliminate the use of coal and natural gas from one day to the next, and incidentally there has been a marked increase in the use of natural gas in recent years in eu member states. in connection with the hysteria which broke out after the earthquake in japan and the problems concerning the reactor at the fukushima power plant, the citizens of certain eu member states decided to move away from nuclear energy within a relatively short space of time, although there are still no signs of any generalised problem. in concrete terms, we can see that the eu does not have any transmission lines that could transmit a sufficient quantity of electricity from north to south or east to west. it is widely known that the wind does not blow all the time, even in north germany, and solar cells, which currently have an efficiency of around 11%, can only convert the solar energy which falls on them into electrical current. the output of solar power stations thus fluctuates considerably over the course of a day and during the year. i support the conclusions of the report by the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left, but they must necessarily be followed up a detailed analysis of the plans. in writing. - (fi) the european climate and energy policy is characterised by an abundance of irrational solutions. it created emissions trading, which artificially raises the price of electricity and pushes up costs, with barely any benefit to the climate or the environment. it established wind power in places where it is not windy. feed-in tariffs have made profitable what should never really be profitable. income has been redistributed away from industry to companies that produce electricity for the stock exchange. renewable energy targets have been set within such an unrealistic timeframe that it endangers sustainable forestry. we can no longer afford such things, now that the global economy is in crisis and the euro's credibility is at stake. in the light of all this, i cannot understand parliament's eagerness to increase our unilateral targets for cutting emissions, the global environmental benefits of which will be minimal compared to the burden it will put on our industry and jobs. as germany has now said that it is abandoning nuclear power, it is obvious that the eu will not achieve its targets for cutting emissions, as a consequence of the increased use of fossil energy. instead, the cost of both emission rights and electricity will rise. employers and workers will have to pay the price, while emissions continue to increase beyond our borders. now is the time for common sense. it is clear that we cannot obtain global support for binding emission cuts, and that is why the emphasis must be on technical solutions, and the problem must be seen in different contexts: we need a different strategy to control those things that affect the climate. the short-term culprits are aerosols, soot, methane and ozone in the atmosphere: they act differently from the long-term ones, such as carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons or nitrous oxides. if we just concentrate on one, carbon dioxide, it shows our ignorance of the complexity of the problem. on the eve of the vote on the report on a possible increase in the greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2020 from 20% to 30%, i would like to express my alarm at the conclusions, which go too far. in general, we agree with the implementation of the 3 x 20 objectives which have already been set, but the scale and cost of undertakings associated with the possible adoption of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be enormous. investors, who are already bearing the costs of keeping up with competition from third countries in which environmental regulations are less rigorous than in europe, are faced with a dilemma as to whether they should remain in europe or relocate their companies. a unilateral increase in targets is not an effective way to prevent climate change. the proposed scenario of a 30% reduction will have a huge impact on sectors participating in the ets, and will force them to step up measures to a significantly greater extent than those sectors not participating in the scheme. measures aimed at setting reduction targets even higher are detrimental to european industry as a whole. the pressure put on industry by climate policy will mean relocations to countries whose policies in this area demonstrate more common sense. on a global scale, this will not reduce emissions of gases which are harmful to the climate. the phenomenon of 'carbon leakage', or the relocation of industry outside the eu's borders, is not a myth, but a real threat to economic growth and jobs in europe. according to the world bank's report, implementation of the european climate and energy package will mean a loss to the polish economy of 1.4% of gdp annually until 2020, and a loss to the eu as a whole of 0.55%. the world bank also estimates that electricity prices will rise by around 26.2% in poland, and by 12.6% in the eu as a whole. the eu's previous target of a 20% reduction in co2 emissions is already hard to swallow for polish and central european industry, due to the high proportion of coal used in their power industries. we accepted this challenge, however, and set about fulfilling our obligations. poland cannot afford to increase the target for reduction of carbon dioxide emissions to 30%. one solution would be for the member states to join a co2 emissions reduction club, on a voluntary basis. i would call for common sense to prevail during tomorrow's vote, against ambitions to reduce co2 which are economically unfounded. in writing. - (hu) the european union, including hungary, can only maintain its leading position in combating climate change by introducing new technological and economic solutions and through continuous innovation. hungary could be a real winner where green economic growth is concerned. our country still possesses co2 emission allowances worth several billion huf, which should be put on sale again by the government as soon as possible. given the abundance of resources, we could produce huge quantities of raw material for bioenergy production. this is why i find it incomprehensible that the new hungarian rural strategy excludes assistance for agricultural raw material production aimed at energy production. it is high time the hungarian government made a commitment to extend renewable energy utilisation, and supported innovative national development. the eu, which is currently responsible for only 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions, cannot stop climate change by itself. in large emerging countries such as china, brazil, india or russia, environmental consciousness is increasing, and immense markets may open up for european companies in alternative energy sectors. however, european companies will only be competitive on these markets if they are motivated by the european regulatory environment to pursue continuous innovation and development. this is why we need to adopt ambitious co2 emission targets. thanks to the positive co2 balance of the new member states, the emissions of the eu27 have already decreased by 17% compared with the 1990 level. therefore, raising this target to 30% by 2020 is very realistic.

non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament (debate) the next item is council and commission statements on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. mr president, commissioner, honourable members, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and of the means of delivering them has the potential to present what is perhaps the greatest risk to international security, and that is why the european union, in its comprehensive strategy for combating them, which dates back to 2003, stressed that, in this area, the best way of maintaining security and international order was a multilateral approach combining disarmament and non-proliferation on an equal footing. so, then, the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is, and remains, the fundamental cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. the european union endorses the provisions of the npt and advocates and endorses measures aimed at further reinforcing them. thinking forward to the first meeting of the committee preparing the conference on the review of this treaty in 2010, the european union has already started to do extensive preparatory work at home. we are firmly determined to continue, in 2007, to play an active and constructive role in the debates at the preparatory conference, and since our intention is that the european union should begin the review cycle in a constructive atmosphere, it is strongly endorsing the plans put forward by the japanese ambassador amano, who has been appointed as the chairman of the first preparatory committee. the european union takes the view that all three pillars of the non-proliferation treaty - those being nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy - must be considered and held in balance in the review debate. it is that sort of even-handedness alone that will make it possible for the forthcoming review cycle of the non-proliferation treaty to progress successfully, and it is on that, though, that the joint decisions to be taken by the review conference on the reinforcement of the treaty depend. the common position of the european union, as adopted on the occasion of the 2005 review conference, remains, unchanged, the basis of these even-handed positions by the eu. the european union has always attached great importance to the prompt entry into force of the test ban treaty, and this has acquired even greater relevance since the north koreans tested an atom bomb. the european union is already helping to shore up the atom test ban regime by adopting common actions intended, among other things, to further reinforce the treaty's verification system. the european union is also calling for a prompt start to negotiations on a treaty outlawing the production of fissile material for explosive purposes, and for such negotiations to be conducted without preconditions. conclusion of such a treaty would constitute a considerable step on the road to the control of nuclear weapons and to nuclear disarmament, and would thereby make a decisive contribution to the implementation of the positions agreed on and adopted by the community at the review conferences in 1995 and 2000. the consolidation and reinforcement of the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty are still largely conditional upon the dedicated and complete discharge of all obligations arising from it, and particular attention needs to be paid to the regional dimension in this regard. you will be aware that the eu is actively involved in the efforts to resolve the crisis occasioned by the iranian nuclear programme. we are persuaded that a solution can be reached only by diplomatic means, and so the european union had a pivotal role in shaping the very generous offer made to iran in june 2006, and i would emphasise that this was supported by the united states, russia and china. the european union will also continue to work towards a peaceful resolution to the crisis. the european union is well aware of the risks attendant on any further spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology, and therefore supports efforts towards multilateral guarantees on the supply of nuclear fuel. initiatives to this end can also help to persuade countries with an interest in the development of nuclear power that the development of their own nuclear fuel cycle is not necessary, with the effect that they will then freely and voluntarily refrain from acquiring one. the european union will be stepping up its efforts at maintaining and further reinforcing the provisions of the non-proliferation treaty in order to be able to meet the challenges i have described, and these include the debate largely initiated by the eu on the strengthening of the treaty's provisions relating to the consequences of a withdrawal from it. it is to be regretted that the 2005 treaty review conference was unable to agree on a substantial final document that would have constituted a response to the most pressing challenges to the treaty. this experience must be another reason for the european union to make every effort to make the 2010 review process a successful one. member of the commission. mr president, president-in-office of the council, honourable members, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and among them nuclear weapons, is potentially the greatest threat to european security. nuclear weapons proliferation is headline news, not least when it concerns iran and north korea. on iran, we are still at a delicate stage. we noted with concern dr elbaradei's recent report that iran has not yet suspended its enrichment-related activities and does not appear to have taken the necessary steps to ensure compliance with un security council resolution 1737. the european union's external relations council has just formally adopted a common position calling for the necessary firmness to be shown by the international community. we are serious about the double-track policy which, as mr gloser has just outlined, has been cemented also by the recent 'three and three' talks in london. this means that we may aim at maintaining dialogue and enhancing our contacts with civil society, as well as also exerting pressure. discussions in new york are now focusing on moving beyond the existing sanctions towards a new security council resolution. on north korea, we welcome the results of the six party talks held in beijing on 13 february 2007. the eu is consulting with the six, offering the best means by which we can assist in this process, while remaining committed to the implementation of security council resolution 1718. we support very strongly the current mission of dr elbaradei to north korea aiming at the return of the iaea inspectors as part of this accord and i share his assessment that this is a crucial confidence-building process. i hope that the shutdown of the yongbyon plant goes ahead by mid-april. the 1970 treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (npt) established the non-proliferation regime as we know it - with its fundamental balance between nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. from it then followed several aspects which are of great importance to the european union, namely the principle of regulated nuclear trade, nuclear safeguards and the international atomic energy agency, which monitors compliance. strengthening the effectiveness of the npt will make the world safer. states parties should be encouraged to work towards this aim with a view to the upcoming review conference. while the headlines have focused on the regime's difficulties, we should not underestimate its successes. south africa, argentina, brazil, south korea and libya, for example, have all decided to forego nuclear weapons programmes. my recent visit to india also gave me an opportunity to stress to the indian leadership our hope that india will come much closer to the npt regime and join the comprehensive test ban treaty. we are looking forward to civil nuclear cooperation with india, once the necessary preconditions are met. these developments should also increase pakistan's willingness to cooperate with the international community in the non-proliferation context. nuclear non-proliferation is an area in which the commission makes an important contribution. since 1957, the euratom treaty has provided the commission with wide-ranging responsibilities. the commission's safeguard activities are closely coordinated with the iaea, freeing up its resources to be deployed to more troublesome regions of the world. we are also playing our part in ensuring that the eu's nuclear export controls are as robust as possible, supporting the dual-use regulation 1334 from the year 2000. we also assist third states in enhancing their export controls and combating illicit trafficking in nuclear and radiological materials. the commission is also a major provider of assistance for international non-proliferation efforts. one important example is the g8 global partnership against weapons of mass destruction, where one billion euros have been pledged for assistance in the former soviet union, 400 million of which have already been spent. for more than 25 years the commission's joint research centre has been working closely with the iaea, providing it with scientific and technological support. as i said, in the future we will do more. under the new instrument for stability we will have resources to continue and strengthen work to enhance our security against nuclear proliferation threats. in closing, let me take the opportunity to thank this parliament once again for the support it has given the commission in setting up a new generation of non-proliferation assistance programmes through a series of pilot projects. (applause) on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, from 1970, when it entered into force, until the end of the cold war, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty made a decisive contribution to restricting the spread of nuclear weapons and to reducing their numbers. this treaty historically has been of fundamental importance in preventing proliferation and promoting nuclear disarmament and it is for this reason that it was extended unconditionally for an unlimited period in 1995. as the president-in-office of the council stated, the treaty is based on three principles: disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. if we start again from these three principles, adjusted for today's international situation, we can give new impetus to the treaty, remembering that the balance achieved through the application of the treaty by over 180 countries is today in danger. today the international community is faced with new threats to its security. we must strenuously reaffirm the principle whereby the treaty is the single, indispensable, multilateral instrument for maintaining and reinforcing peace, security and international stability, since it establishes the legal framework to prevent a growing proliferation of nuclear weapons. the european security strategy and the european strategy on weapons of mass destruction emphasise the importance of nuclear non-proliferation, disarmament and the treaty itself, which all the member states have signed. having summarised the situation, i believe it is vital for the european parliament to be clear about the position for the future. the european union must remain committed to the implementation of the treaty, and must present a united front at vienna, where preparations will be made for the 2010 review conference. for this reason, it will be fundamental for the european parliament to vote unanimously, sending out a strong signal to the council and the commission, so that at vienna they can have the necessary authority to play an active role in strengthening the current non-proliferation system. in order to achieve the objectives set out in the treaty, the european union must contribute to a structured and balanced review, at the review conference, of the way the treaty operates. this must include the implementation of the undertakings made by the signatory states and the identification of sectors and methods through which to achieve future progress, as well as further development of the inspection system to guarantee that nuclear energy is used for exclusively peaceful ends by states not possessing nuclear weapons and recognised as such. we must reaffirm the principle whereby all possible cooperation in terms of the development of nuclear energy for peaceful ends must take place on the basis of the treaty, and it is in this sphere that the european union can make a decisive contribution, since it is at the forefront of research and production. the international situation demands that we display a commitment to non-proliferation, to disarmament and to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. finally, i hope that europe can also have a united strategy for combating terrorist organisations that might gain access to weapons of this kind. on behalf of the pse group. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, one of the undisputed triumphs of the european union is the added security that this continent enjoys as a consequence of integration. the work of reconciliation that brought europe into the world has also made us a zone in which peace prevails and in which military action between the partner states of the european union has become virtually unthinkable. that is the foundation that must underpin the philosophy of a security policy for the european union, which is that we must take this concept of peace, which we have made a reality at home, and export it to the world as well. we in the socialist group in the european parliament base this thinking on a concept of security that relies on dialogue, diplomacy, disarmament, prevention, and on sustainable and fair development. all these elements belong together, and are held together by sustainable conflict resolution, which itself is feasible only within the framework of an overall conception. while the european union and nato have their parts to play in this, so, too, do others - russia, for example - and that is why we, when we talk about disarmament initiatives - about which i shall have more to say in a moment - have to ask ourselves whether russia is our partner or our adversary. in view of what i have just said, i would recommend approaching it as a partner, engaging in dialogue with it rather than marginalising it. disarmament is one of the central issues when peoples seek to coexist, and the trustworthiness of parties to treaties is crucial. if, as we review the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty today, we take a really close look, we will have to see that the record is a downright shameful one, for, since it was signed, no fewer nuclear weapons have been dispersed around the world, but rather significantly more of them, and that cannot be attributable to the signatory states, or some of their number, taking this treaty seriously, for the very opposite is the case. there were many who, having signed this treaty, promptly proceeded to disregard it and instead, contrary to what had been agreed, exported nuclear weapons, or the technology needed to produce them, around the world. this is where there is a need for a complete turnaround. fundamental to any review of the treaty is the intention to be faithful to it; that is why a primary condition for the renewal of the treaty is that those who sign it abide by it, and the united states of america have not been alone in failing to do that. a world free of nuclear weapons may well sound like something out of a daydream, for we do not live in one - the very opposite is the case. we are having a debate on the spread of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and on that i think congratulations are in order. we have just heard from your own lips about the efforts required to prevent the civil use of nuclear energy becoming military, and iran is a case in point here. more nuclear power stations are being built all around the world, and then we are surprised to find ourselves lumbered with not just one iran, but many. one aspect of any review of military nuclear policy must be asking critical questions about civil use. the german council presidency has the opportunity to put this issue on the agenda of the council and also of the g8, and critical questions also need to be asked about the anti-missile system that is now, at the american administration's behest, to be installed in the czech republic and in poland in line with the bush administration's philosophy, the inconsistency of which can hardly be surpassed, the delusory nature of which is demonstrated by many examples, and which is set to cost usd 58 billion. i have a recommendation to make. it is that, rather than having us europeans allow ourselves - yet again - to be divided - for we can say goodbye to any single foreign and security policy if we in the eu cannot agree on something like this, these 58 billion dollars would, rather than being spent on the installation of anti-missile systems, be better invested in sustainable development, which would make more of a contribution to peace than the setting up of a dodgy missile system. mr president, the reason why i venture to say that with reference to the non-proliferation treaty and the review thereof, is that these things are interconnected, and i hope that mrs merkel, having announced that this issue will be put on the agendas of both the g8 and the eu, will see to it that it is. (applause) on behalf of the alde group. - (nl) mr president, mr gloser, ladies and gentlemen, non-proliferation, and above all, nuclear non-proliferation, is indeed the cornerstone of any policy geared towards peace. having had a little browse in older documents related to this subject, i came across the 13 practical steps that were agreed upon during the non-proliferation treaty review conference in 2000, which is less than seven years ago. when i read those steps, i, too, cannot fail to conclude that we really have not made any progress at all, and that if anything, we have done the exact opposite. it is obvious that the brutal attacks of 11 september 2001 and everything that followed have, in fact, brought the serious efforts in the area of disarmament in general and nuclear disarmament in particular to a standstill. this is something i deeply regret. i am also - and i am also speaking personally when i say this - very worried about the lack, to date, of any group position on the initiatives with regard to the member states poland and the czech republic. i too wonder whether this might not be the start of a fresh arms race, which is surely the last thing we need. i was pleased to take note of the presidency's assurance that a great deal of hard work will go into a common position of all member states with a view to the conference this coming april. i hope, mr president, that you - or rather the presidency - will indeed succeed in this, because the poor result in 2005 was attributable to a lack of true unanimity among the eu member states. i hope that history will not repeat itself. on behalf of the uen group. - (lv) mr president, mrs ferrero-waldner, representatives of the council, representatives of the commission, ladies and gentlemen, i think that everyone is agreed that nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament is a special component of the european union's common foreign and security policy. my colleagues just now expressed the opinion in this chamber that the results of implementing this policy can almost be seen as a step backwards. when we look at the council and commission documents, however, it must be said that they are more optimistic, and in my view, if we assess what has actually been achieved then the progress made by the european union must be acknowledged. the european union's institutions permanently collaborate to coordinate their work. of course, the high representative for the cfsp works actively on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament issues, we at the european parliament regularly consider these issues, there are discussions between the institutions and exchanges of information with the european union situation centre and the counter-terrorism coordinator. this means that work is actually being done, but the cases of north korea and iran, the unsuccessful conference in 2005 to review the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and differences between the united states of america, china and russia show that much still remains to be done. i would therefore like to express my appreciation for the advance preparations for the 2010 conference on the review of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and i would also ask the council to take into consideration the european parliament's wish to play an active part in this work, as well as the initiative expressed in parliament's resolution, and in the very near future to include meps in this conference to work as members of the european union delegation. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (de) mr president, i wish to thank commissioner ferrero-waldner and mr gloser for what they have said, but first let me thank all the members from the other groups for welcoming the greens' initiative for this debate, and particularly for making it possible for us, during this part-session, to adopt a compromise motion with which we can all identify, something that i, particularly in view of the current situation, see as a good and important signal. the commissioner has already sketched out the various problem areas. let me, then, take a brief look back to twenty years ago, to 8 december 1987, when a shock went around the world, for, before the cold war's nuclear threat had passed, the inf treaty was signed, constituting real agreement on nuclear disarmament. where are we now? it has to be said, with regret, that we have in some respects gone backwards, for both kofi annan and henry kissinger have said that the campaign against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the efforts at nuclear disarmament are on the point of complete and final failure. what can we in europe do in this situation? do we have enough confidence to raise - multilaterally and in international fora - issues on which we can hope to see progress made? would it not be timely to use the forthcoming meeting of the nuclear supplies group in cape town from 16 to 20 april as an opportunity to speak out against the planned deal between india and the usa? if we do not do that, what kind of signal is being sent to the other states? are we not then saying to them, 'build nuclear programmes and nuclear weapons, even outside the npt, and the usa will even reward and support you'? what kind of signal does that send to iran? i say that quite deliberately, and as one who takes a decidedly different view of these things. where iran is concerned, we are stuck in a cul-de-sac, and we have helped ourselves get into it. everyone in it needs to put themselves into reverse gear in order to get back out again, or else the troops will end up being sent in. we want to help keep this treaty alive. on thursday, we will be adopting a resolution to the effect that a delegation will be sent to vienna to actively monitor this process, and i hope that we will, there, together, enable these important npt provisions to give signs of continued life. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (de) mr president, the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty faces dangers on many fronts, or so it appears from the latest reports. according to the 3 march edition of the sddeutsche zeitung, the americans are planning new nuclear warheads, and that is something on which we take a critical line. in the uk - an eu member state - mr blair, the prime minister, wants to spend eur 30 billion on modernising the british armed forces' nuclear weaponry. the british house of commons is due to vote on it tomorrow. that is nuclear rearmament and puts the non-proliferation treaty at risk; a critical statement from the german presidency of the council is called for. we endorse the protests against the nuclear programme whereby the usa plans a missile defence system in the czech republic, poland and in the caucasus, with nato - according to mr de hoop scheffer as reported yesterday - wanting to take part with one of its own. the german minister for the armed forces, mr jung, wants to put the whole system under nato control. it is about time the council and the commission got round to expressing forthright criticism of these anti-missile schemes, and, together with two colleagues, i have tabled a declaration expressing opposition to this system. at the same time, according to the former nato commander-in-chief wesley clark, preparations are in hand for a war against iran. it is hypocrisy to criticise iran if we ourselves possess nuclear weapons and are engaged in updating them. the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty requires that all nuclear weapons be disposed of. the fact is that there are no good nuclear weapons, and what is needed, and right now, is disarmament. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - (nl) mr president, the nuclear aspirations of pyongyang and teheran constitute a direct threat to the non-proliferation treaty, the npt, with their respective neighbouring countries in north-east asia and the middle east, perhaps feeling obliged to join the nuclear powers. in addition, in the event of the npt being eroded, a negative effect is to be expected, similar to that in respect of the biological and chemical weapons. in short, the entire multilateral arms control structure is at risk of collapsing - truly, a spectre menacing the whole world. meanwhile, the question arises as to what sort of authority the un security council is left with, when un members stock up on nuclear weapons against its express will. do the council and commission share my view that the crisis of the npt is also a crisis situation for the highest international authority? given this extremely serious situation, i expect them to make a maximum effort to convince the un security council to persuade pyongyang and teheran away from their ominous nuclear course, as time is pressing. (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty was a great achievement, but we see nuclear weapons continuing to proliferate. we also, alas, cannot fail to see that the review conference has, for the moment, proved abortive, and that is why this preparatory conference in vienna is so important. it is also of the very utmost importance that this house should be able to contribute its opinion to it, but the effectiveness of this is conditional upon the resolution being a joint effort, and one reflecting all our views. i hope that we will achieve that sort of result when we come to the vote. after the soviet union collapsed, we all believed that the days of mutually assured destruction were behind us, but, today, the risk is that, while that may have been banished from the global stage, it may be about to resume regionally. we must, together, do everything in our power to prevent this from happening. i would like to say something about one of the proposals, of which there are many, namely the international system for uranium enrichment, something that has now acquired extraordinary importance, but i also want to say something about another matter that is not directly connected with this debate, although it does have to be the subject of public discussion, and that is the issue of the anti-missile system. here in europe, we are currently discussing an american anti-missile defence system and its effects on us, but what must be of real interest to us is the security of europe. the iranian rockets against which the americans are protecting themselves, are much closer to europe than they are to america. we are told, for example, that these iranian rockets are already capable of reaching southern italy and greece, and that is why we have to have a general debate on the question of whether this sort of system is needed, for if it is, it is we, europeans, who need it just as much. that is something else that we in this house must discuss and on which we have to reach decisions. (nl) mr president, the non-proliferation treaty is, in fact, the most important pillar underlying the international consensus that the spread of nuclear arms must be stopped, with the ultimate goal, of course, as my group chairman underlined a moment ago, of bringing about general nuclear disarmament. since the spread of weapons of mass destruction forms an increasing threat to international peace and security, we must reassess the treaty, breathe new life into it and strengthen it. needless to say, the developments in iran are causing us great concern. despite repeated warnings from the international community, iran continues its efforts in the area of uranium enrichment. at the same time, we know that there is a real risk that terrorist groups have access to nuclear weapons or similar. in order to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, an effective multilateral stance is indispensable. what is more, the non-proliferation treaty stands or falls by it. by acting independently and unilaterally, though, all common efforts in this area are set to be undermined. this is why the recognised nuclear powers must make a visible investment. they are, in fact, also responsible for the credibility of the non-proliferation treaty as it currently stands. precisely in this light, we are placing question marks by the recent attempt by the us to get poland and the czech republic to agree to the stationing elements of an anti-rocket shield on their territories. according to the americans, the rocket defence system offers protection against possible attacks from north korea and iran. this does, in fact, go against the intention to prevent these countries from developing a nuclear arms arsenal. with their proposal, the americans are also ignoring the concerns of russia, which, rightly or wrongly, regards the rocket shield as a provocation, or even as a threat to its domestic security. a protective shield that subsequently leads to mistrust between the three key partners - the us, russia and the eu - that wish to stop proliferation, is not exactly the multilateral action we had in mind. moreover, we wonder how such bilateral cooperation fits into the european security strategy and the nato partnership. for this reason, we have major objections to this course of affairs, and we therefore call on the united states and the eu member states involved to reconsider the plans and to seek multilateral alternatives compatible with the security arrangements mutually agreed by us in the european union. (hu) let us not embellish things, the npt supervisory conference 2005 was a failure. unfortunately the whole story of the npt is singularly lacking in success stories. north korea has withdrawn from the system, and has launched its own military nuclear programme. iran, too, has turned against the system, and we do not know how far along things are, but its intentions are in any case not favourable. india, pakistan and israel show no inclination to join. nevertheless, there are some positive developments as well: on 16 february, the six-party talks at beijing gave rise to an agreement. we will soon find out what the value of such an agreement is. mr el baradei will visit north korea tomorrow, and his visit will no doubt ascertain whether the intentions of the north koreans are sincere. the current action is very significant. respect for the whole npt is at stake. we need to combine flexibility with consistency. we must be flexible in methods and timing, but we cannot be flexible as regards goals. the goals must be clear and unambiguous. north korea must return to the npt system and immediately put a stop to the military nuclear programme. the way we handle the problems of north korea will have a direct influence on iran as well. if we are successful in north korea, then we will also succeed in relation to iran. if we should fail to achieve success here, then it is to be feared that we will not be able to keep even iran on the right path. preparations for the review conference will be real and successful if we can thereby face these two great challenges, namely north korea and iran, and successfully solve these two problems. there is now a slight chance of this, but only if we are consistent and consistently represent our principles. commissioner, you said that proliferation is potentially the greatest threat to our security, and i agree with you. how ironic is it, then, that tomorrow the uk government is likely to take a decision to replace the trident nuclear submarine system that will precisely accelerate that proliferation and thus undermine our collective security? when it does so, it will be demonstrating the most breathtaking hypocrisy: maintaining and further developing the uk's own nuclear weapons, whilst waging illegal wars to try to stop others from obtaining them. what moral authority can the uk government possibly think it has to lecture countries like iran about not developing nuclear weapons, when we ourselves continue to do exactly that? the npt is made up of two pledges: non-nuclear states agree not to acquire nuclear weapons, provided that nuclear states begin a serious process of getting rid of theirs. if we do not keep our side of that bargain, if we do not abide by international law, we can hardly be surprised if others do not keep their side of the bargain either. the uk government's upgrading of trident fundamentally undermines the eu's collective position on non-proliferation and, therefore, both the uk and, indeed, france, should be strongly condemned by both the council and the commission. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear crises in north korea and iran have once again spread fear throughout the world and triggered suspicion between nations and peoples. the international debate on nuclear rearmament has again called the future of mankind into question. we must restart negotiations with iran and shun any military action, as this would only serve to exacerbate the current crisis. it is therefore vital to relaunch debate regarding the renewal of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 2010. the european union must apply suitable political, economic and commercial pressure on countries such as india, pakistan, iran, north korea and other countries such as china and the united states. in addition, the european union must, as a matter of the utmost urgency, promote a mediterranean free of nuclear weapons. by means of suitable economic and social policies we must transform the mediterranean into a sea of peace - an area that is completely non-nuclear. this is why we must apply the pressure we have mentioned to israel too, which certainly has the right to look after its own security but which must not be founded upon nuclear fear and the annihilation of other peoples. in addition, the recent decision by president bush to install missile launchers in the czech republic or new military nuclear surveillance installations in poland only worsens military relations with russia. this decision by president bush is one that i must condemn immediately. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we are all agreed that a renewed commitment is needed against the proliferation of thermonuclear weapons, as mr schulz said in his speech, but at the same time we need to start saying more clearly that it is not enough to prevent proliferation, but we must start fighting once again for universal disarmament. in truth, there will never be a true planetary democracy if some countries can dominate the world because they have the power to destroy it several times over. in fact, the countries in the nuclear club, and in particular, today, the united kingdom and france, will have the authority and the moral right to prevent proliferation by other countries if they themselves begin to disarm and if they place on the agenda a ban on all weapons of mass destruction. unfortunately, this is not the course which is being pursued, if we look at the unilateral policy adopted by the united states of america - a policy which also runs counter to nato. the united states has secretly negotiated with some european countries to host us anti-missile programmes, and we have tabled a specific amendment against this. we must, therefore, block these plans, saying 'no' to proliferation but 'yes' to a european initiative designed to achieve universal disarmament. mr president, as we look ahead to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in 2010 there is no doubt that the treaty is already under considerable stress, particularly with the debates about iran and north korea, so there could be no worse time for a country to send out the message that nuclear weapons are essential for any country's security, however useless they are against the real threats that we face, like climate change and terrorism. but that is exactly what the british government is proposing to do and, as we have already heard, tomorrow in westminster mps will be voting on whether to renew the trident nuclear weapons system and take the uk and the rest of the world into a new nuclear age and a new nuclear arms race. under the npt we should be discussing a timetable for disarmament of these illegal and immoral weapons, not their renewal. i would urge all the groups in this parliament to support the resolution and the amendments to encourage uk mps tomorrow to oppose trident replacement and to honour the commitment made over 35 years ago when the npt was signed. (de) mr president, commissioner, mr president-in-office of the council, the nuclear threat is for real, and, unfortunately, also getting more acute, as you, mr president-in-office, pointed out by reference to the two hot spots in iran and north korea. there is no doubt about the need for us to get started, right now, on preparing the review conference in good time, in order, there, to set out our priorities as we need to do, but it is even more important by far that we should be trying, right now, to take measures to reinforce the credibility of the international community and of the european union where the implementation and enforcement of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty are concerned, for the quality of that treaty will be measured in terms of the successes it actually achieves. at present, i see the chances of such strategies being implemented as very good, particularly in view of what i see of the situation in north korea and the contacts we have with both the south and the north of that land in my capacity as chairman of the parliament's delegation for relations with the korean peninsula. this european union of ours, and our parliament in particular, have helped bring about the resumption of the six-party talks, in which we are a welcome partner, albeit not as part of the six-party talks, but warmly welcomed as a facilitator and as an outside source of support, and we have played our part in getting the talks restarted on 13 february. i am cautiously optimistic. what is at stake is that disarmament be put into effect; we have been assured that it will be, and now is the time for north korea to take action, but, contrariwise, it is also necessary that we, as a union, should play our part in taking action that will help bring about political change in north korea, by, for example, supporting the food security, regional security and human security programmes, with the ultimate goal of a korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons, so that the present threat - not least to europe - fades away. (pt) the forthcoming conference in vienna is an opportunity for the european union to take the lead. europe's position should be based on two essential ideas: strengthening the international atomic energy agency and pressing for compliance with article 6 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. in this respect, i agree that updating trident is incompatible with article 6 of the ntp and, since it affects the united kingdom, it also affects the european union. the european union must support the multilateral approach to uranium enrichment and ensure that all countries sign the additional protocol to the safeguard agreement. that may prevent further challenges like those posed by iran. in addition, the eu must do all it can to ensure that the 13 steps to disarmament identified at prepcom 2000 are implemented as quickly as possible. unless europe takes it upon itself to uphold the essential balance on which the ntp is based, prepcom 2007 may mark the beginning of the end for the treaty. mr president, in this respect the fact that poland, the czech republic and the united kingdom are unilaterally considering taking part in the us missile defence system is a scandalous threat to european commitments. what is the point of having a european union or even nato if it is not to discuss the strategic future of europe? (cs) commissioner, mr president, at the end of the 20th century there were two schools of thought regarding security matters. according to one, the biggest threat to the world was the unfavourable impact of high oil production on the stability of the middle east, and the second referred to environmental factors and climate change. 11 september and hurricane katrina demonstrated that the source of the danger is identical: energy greed and excessive energy consumption. ensuring that 20% of the energy we use is from renewable sources will not bring a complete solution; the only solution whereby we could see off both threats, cut emissions and reduce dependence on the unstable middle east is nuclear energy. let us confront the greens with their now outdated arguments about the dangers of nuclear energy. we must not let them use the situation in iran and elsewhere to hold us to ransom on the grounds of the possible misuse of nuclear energy. we have one instrument at our disposal to counteract this: the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (npt). one positive result of the 2010 conference will be key security measures. in our view, the core issues are as follows: uranium enrichment and reprocessing pursuant to article 4, including debates on regional nuclear fuel distribution centres; and secondly the need to find solutions to unauthorised withdrawals from article 10 of the treaty. we therefore call on the council and the commission to take the lead in negotiations at the preparatory committee in vienna and make a substantial contribution towards a positive result in the 2010 conference. we also ask you for a implementation report on the 43 measures arising from the council's common position, which already applied to the unfortunate debate on the treaty in 2005. we also urge the member states to comply strictly with the tough wording of relevant united nations security council resolutions in relation to the npt, and this includes banking operations and businesses in some southern european states. commissioner, one final word, if i may. we must begin to look for a way of inviting israel to negotiate the revision of the npt. please consult and work together with us. (pl) mr president, we have lived with the threat posed by proliferation of weapons of mass destruction for many years now. we have become even more aware of it in recent times because of the danger that fissile material and chemical or biological weapons might fall into terrorist hands. this fear has resulted in strategic documents drawn up both by the european union and by other international organisations. in particular, i would like to draw attention to the comprehensive political guidance adopted by nato at the end of last year. the nuclear aspirations of certain countries, notably north korea and iran, have also given rise to concern as was mentioned earlier. we are pleased to note that some progress has been made in the multilateral negotiations with north korea and regret the lack of progress in the negotiations with iran. it appears that four conditions must be met if the very serious threat posed by proliferation is to be overcome. firstly, the current non-proliferation regime in the framework of the non-proliferation treaty must be maintained and perhaps even strengthened in 2010 on the occasion of the review conference. i endorse the call for the european union member states to speak with one voice at that conference. their determination and cohesive approach are required. secondly, it is important for the alliance between europe and the united states to continue combating terrorism consistently. thirdly, it is important for the negotiations with north korea to prove effective and to maintain the diplomatic approach to iran. fourthly, contrary to the opinions of certain members on the left, it is important to create an anti-missile shield that will defend not only the united states but also its european allies from strategic missile attacks. it is important for this shield to have an interoperative system protecting against short and medium-range missiles and for the system to be a joint one. the tbmd project that nato is to complete by 2010 is therefore of vital importance. mr president, commissioner ferrero-waldner, honourable members, i want to say how very grateful i am for your support, for it does after all turn out that we agree on many things. taking our present situation as our starting point, we must address ourselves with greater energy to achieving, at this preparatory stage, a common position on the matters in which we, in 2005, perceived setbacks. i would like to make it clear that while it is not a matter of doubt that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has come under pressure from different sides, it does - if we take it seriously and have agreed on the 2005 common position - offer us a basis on which we can and must rely in the present preparatory conference. i certainly want to underline what so many of you, including mr schulz, have said about the importance of putting an emphasis on the multilateral approach, for we do, indeed, all know from experience that unilateralism gets us nowhere, that we need the multilateral approach, and that the more we demand it, the more necessary it becomes that we, within the european union, should take up a common position in order to make progress on this front. the path that the european union has sketched out in relation to iran is the right one in both political and diplomatic terms, and the offer reiterated by the council a few weeks ago is the right one even though some are becoming impatient - not that there are many alternatives available. we have both - a resolution on security with the relevant sanctions, while, by the same token, the door to negotiations with iran is still open. let me emphasise once more what i said at the outset about non-proliferation and disarmament. this issue must, in the interests of the peaceful use of nuclear energy, remain on the agenda, even though views may differ to some degree as regards the ways in which the dangers can be minimised. it is important that we should get support from your house for the forthcoming discussions, which are sure not to be straightforward. as for the exchange of information between council and parliament, and collaboration between them, i am able, on behalf of the presidency to offer, firstly, a briefing for the relevant committee following the first session of the preparatory conference, and, secondly, a progress report detailing, by reference to the 43 points contained in a previous resolution, which of them have been achieved and which not. member of the commission. mr president, this was a very useful debate in a difficult situation. we will study your recommendations very carefully, because the preparatory conference in vienna gives us an important opportunity to better prepare for the 2010 conference and thus, hopefully, make up for a very difficult conference in 2005. we know that the seriousness and the importance of the situation as regards non-proliferation goes far beyond what is commonly known among our citizens. we conclude also from recent eurobarometer surveys that our people want positive action. i agree with mr zappal and mrs neyts-uyttebroeck when they say that the agreement on the importance of the link between weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and terrorism is necessary. this has to be stressed in the european security strategy, and it is being stressed, but we now have to implement it in the right way. it is also my conviction that the efforts of the european parliament to promote coherence and more joint action are absolutely crucial. everyone has mentioned that speaking with one voice is also crucial. therefore, the commission needs your valuable support to maximise its impact with regard to the common objective. certainly, we will contribute to the work that will be done in vienna because this will enhance our credibility, as many have said. i should also like to thank mr pirker and parliament's delegation, particularly with regard to north korea. i agree that north korea is important not only in itself but also as a possible window of opportunity for progress elsewhere. however, we are still committed to never giving up as long as that is possible. in our headlines, we see the non-proliferation issues mostly referred to with reference to individual countries. however, let us not lose sight of the importance of the issue, as mr schulz has said, of the international system as a whole on the multilateral approach and effectiveness. the most important four principles we should try to enhance again at the preparatory committee and then at the next review conference are as follows. firstly, the question of the non-parties: i think there are three states which have so far refused to adhere to the treaty. let us try to bring them in. secondly, on the withdrawals in january 2003, the dprk announced that it intended to withdraw from the npt - it was the first state to do so. several states believe that the dprk is still legally bound by the treaty and has not followed the correct legal procedures to withdraw. let us try to tackle this question on non-compliant parties. some states which acceded to the nnws have, nevertheless, sought to acquire nuclear weapons in the past and this, therefore, needs to be tackled. finally, there is the question of good faith. it has been mentioned a lot around the table that most non-nuclear weapons states believe the nuclear weapons states have not done enough to make progress towards the goal of nuclear disarmament - article 6. i think this should be the main bone of our contention at the five-yearly review conferences. we also see, therefore that a broad basis for a consensus is necessary, and all the big countries, like russia and china, should be included in such a dialogue. pursuant to rule 103(2) i have received six motions for resolutions. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on wednesday at 12.30 p.m. written statement (rule 142) i believe this is an important debate. the proliferation of nuclear weapons makes the world less, rather than more, safe. whether israel or india, pakistan or north korea, we should pressure them to join the non-proliferation treaty. yet we should recall that the npt talks not only about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, but about the world's nuclear powers reducing and removing their own capabilities. the former gets more attention than the latter. the socialist amendment condemning the us anti-missile shield is all too appropriate. as we have seen in ne asia, with japan's deployment of theatre missile defence and theatre high altitude defence, these are enabling offensive technologies for the bush administration's doctrine of pre-emptive deterrence. with their deployment, the us will be able to launch an attack on countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons and defend against any orphan missile missed in the initial attack. i will also be supporting amendment 1 by the greens. i am not in favour of unilateral abolition of britain's trident fleet, but i am entirely unconvinced of the need, at this stage, to renew it.

formal sitting - ecumenical patriarch bartholomew your holiness, patriarch bartholomew, it is a great honour to welcome you to this formal sitting of the european parliament during the european year of intercultural dialogue 2008. the first guest to address the european parliament as part of the european year of intercultural dialogue was the grand mufti of damascus in january. he is from syria and addressed us as a messenger of peaceful islam. your holiness, you represent the christian faith, and the chief rabbi jonathan sacks will address the european parliament in strasbourg in november as a representative of the jewish faith. people from these three faiths - christianity, judaism and islam - have lived side by side for centuries. unfortunately, this coexistence has not always been peaceful. even today, in the middle east and elsewhere, there are areas marked by tensions between these communities. we in the european parliament support every effort to promote the peaceful coexistence of religions and cultures in the middle east and elsewhere in the world. in the middle east, there are also examples of religious tolerance and harmonious relations between people of different faiths. when i visited syria a short time ago, i had the opportunity to meet the spiritual leaders of the various faith communities and they assured me that in their country, good relations exist, underpinning the dialogue between religions and cultures. the european union is a community based on values, and one of our most fundamental values is the dignity which is inherent in every individual. in this respect, religious freedom is central to human dignity, and goes far beyond the powers invoked by state authorities. the separation of church and state, which we esteem so highly, is a guarantee of the freedom of religious communities to manage their own internal affairs and external relations. these principles are reaffirmed in the treaty of lisbon, whose entry into force we are seeking to secure. the ecumenical patriarchate of constantinople, with its seat in phanar in istanbul, was founded in the 4th century and is an important spiritual centre for 300 million orthodox christians worldwide. phanar means 'beacon', and you, your holiness, have always been a beacon of reconciliation and peace for the faithful in the orthodox world and beyond. the latest enlargement of the european union has brought countries with orthodox majorities, such as cyprus, bulgaria and romania, into the eu, while greece has been a member since 1981. the late pope john paul ii, who addressed the european parliament in 1988, used the following metaphor to describe this: he said that after overcoming its division, europe is breathing with both its lungs again. we could use this metaphor again today to describe the richness of the enlarged eu, brought about by the different perspectives of western and eastern christianity. your holiness, we thank you for your visit. you are one of the very few figures to address the european parliament for a second time. you were here in 1994, and you are honouring us with a further address on the occasion of the european year of intercultural dialogue. we are looking forward to hearing your speech. may i now invite you to address the european parliament. thank you. (applause) your excellency mr president of the european parliament, your excellencies, honourable members of the european parliament, distinguished guests, dear friends, first and foremost we convey to you salutations from the ecumenical patriarchate of constantinople, based for many, many centuries in what is today istanbul - greetings replete with esteem and respect. in particular, we express our gratitude to an old friend of ours, his excellency hans-gert pttering, president of the european parliament. we likewise express our sincerest appreciation for the extraordinary honour to address the plenary sitting of the european parliament for the second time (as the president already mentioned), especially on this occasion that commemorates the european year of intercultural dialogue. as a purely spiritual institution, our ecumenical patriarchate embraces a truly global apostolate that strives to raise and broaden the consciousness of the human family - to bring understanding that we are all dwelling in the same house. at its most basic sense, this is the meaning of the word 'ecumenical' - for the 'oikoumene' is the inhabited world - the earth understood as a house in which all peoples, kindreds, tribes and languages dwell. as is well known, the origins of our religious institution lie at the core of the axial age, deep in the history of the christian faith - with the earliest followers of jesus christ. inasmuch as our see - our institutional centre - shared the centre and capital of the christian roman empire, it became known as 'ecumenical', with certain privileges and responsibilities that it holds to this day. one of its chief responsibilities was for bringing the redemptive message of the gospel to the world outside the roman empire. in the days before the exploratory age, most civilisations held such a bicameral view of the world as being 'within' and 'without'. the world was divided into two sectors: a hemisphere of civilisation and a hemisphere of barbarism. in this history, we behold the grievous consequences of the alienation of human persons from one another. today, when we have the technological means to transcend the horizon of our own cultural self-awareness, we nevertheless continue to witness the terrible effects of human fragmentation. tribalism, fundamentalism, and phyletism - which is extreme nationalism without regard to the rights of the other - all these contribute to the ongoing list of atrocities that give pause to our claims of being civilised in the first place. and yet, even with tides of trade, migrations and expansions of peoples, religious upheavals and revivals, and great geopolitical movements, the deconstruction of rigid and monolithic self-understandings of past centuries has yet to find a permanent harbour. the ecumenical patriarchate has sailed across the waves of these centuries, navigating the storms and the doldrums of history. for twenty centuries - through the pax romana, the pax christiana, the pax islamica, the pax ottomanica (all epochs marked by intercultural struggle, conflict and outright war) - the ecumenical patriarchate has continued as a lighthouse for the human family and the christian church. it is from the depths of our experience upon these deep waters of history that we offer to the contemporary world a timeless message of perennial human value. today, the ecumenical scope of our patriarchate extends far beyond the boundaries of its physical presence at the cusp of europe and asia, in the same city we have inhabited for the seventeen centuries since her founding. though small in quantity, the extensive quality of our experience brings us before this august assembly today, in order to share from that experience on the necessity of intercultural dialogue, a lofty and timely ideal for the contemporary world. as you yourselves have said - in this most esteemed body's own words: 'at the heart of the european project, it is important to provide the means for intercultural dialogue and dialogue between citizens to strengthen respect for cultural diversity and deal with the complex reality in our societies and the coexistence of different cultural identities and beliefs' (decision no 1983/2006/ec) and we would humbly append this noble statement, as we did last year in our address to the plenary of the parliamentary assembly of the council of europe, in strasbourg: 'dialogue is necessary first and foremost because it is inherent in the nature of the human person'. this is the principal message that we propose for your consideration today: that intercultural dialogue is at the very root of what it means to be a human being, for no one culture of the human family encompasses every human person. without such dialogue, the differences in the human family are reduced to objectifications of the 'other' and lead to abuse, conflict, persecution - a grand-scale human suicide, for we are all ultimately one humanity. but where the differences between us move us to encounter one another, and where that encounter is based in dialogue, there is reciprocal understanding and appreciation - even love. in the past 50 years, our human family has experienced leaps of technological achievement undreamed of by our forebears. many have trusted that this kind of advancement will bridge the divides that fragment the human condition. as if our achievements had given us the power to overcome the fundamental realities of our moral and - may we say - our spiritual condition. yet, despite every conceivable benefit and technological skill - skill that seems to outstrip our anthropological wit - we still behold the universal banes of hunger, thirst, war, persecution, injustice, planned misery, intolerance, fanaticism and prejudice. amidst this cycle that cannot seem to be broken, the significance of the 'european project' cannot be underestimated. it is one of the hallmarks of the european union that has succeeded in promoting mutual, peaceful and productive co-existence between nation states that less than 70 years ago were drenched in a bloody conflict that could have destroyed the legacy of europe for the ages. here, in this great hall of assembly of the european parliament, you strive to make possible the relationships between states and political realities that make reconciliation between persons possible. thus you have recognised the importance of intercultural dialogue, especially at a time in the history of europe when transformations are taking place in every country and along every societal boundary. great tidal forces of conflict, and economic security and opportunity have shifted populations around the globe. of necessity, then, persons of differing cultural, ethnic, religious and national origin find themselves in close proximity. in some cases, the same populations shun the greater whole and close themselves off from the dominant society. but in either case, as we engage in dialogue, it must not be a mere academic exercise in mutual appreciation. for dialogue to be effective, to be transformative in bringing about core change in persons, it cannot be done on the basis of 'subject' and 'object'. the value of the 'other' must be absolute - without objectification; so that each party is apprehended in the fullness of their being. for orthodox christians, the icon, or image, stands not only as an acme of human aesthetic accomplishment, but as a tangible reminder of the perennial truth. as in every painting - religious or not, and notwithstanding the talent of the artist - the object presents as two-dimensional. yet, for orthodox christians, an icon is no mere religious painting - and it is not, by definition, a religious object. indeed, it is a subject with which the viewer, the worshipper, enters into wordless dialogue through the sense of sight. for an orthodox christian, the encounter with the icon is an act of communion with the person represented in the icon. how much more should our encounters with living icons - persons made in the image and likeness of god - be acts of communion! in order for our dialogue to become more than mere cultural exchange, there must be a more profound understanding of the absolute interdependence - not merely of states and political and economic actors - but the interdependence of every single human person with every other single human person. and such a valuation must be made regardless of any commonality of race, religion, language, ethnicity, national origin, or any of the benchmarks by which we seek self-identification and self-identity. and in a world of billions of persons, how is such inter-connectedness possible? indeed, there is no possible way to link with every human person - this is a property that we would ascribe to the divine. however, there is a way of understanding the universe in which we live as being shared by all - a plane of existence that spans the reality of every human person - an ecosphere that contains us all. thus it is that the ecumenical patriarchate - in keeping with our own sense of responsibility for the house, the oikos of the world and all who dwell therein - has for decades championed the cause of the environment, calling attention to ecological crises around the globe. and we engage this ministry without regard to self-interest. as you know so well, our patriarchate is not a 'national' church, but rather the fundamental canonical expression of the ecumenical dimensions of the gospel message, and of its analogous responsibility within the life of the church. this is the deeper reason that the church fathers and the councils have given it the name 'ecumenical'. the loving care of the church of constantinople exceeds any linguistic, cultural, ethnic and even religious definition, as she seeks to serve all peoples. although firmly rooted in particular history - as any other institution is - the ecumenical patriarchate transcends historical categories in her perennial mission of service during 1 700 years. in our service to the environment, we have, to date, sponsored seven scientific symposia that bring together a host of disciplines. the genesis of our initiative grew on the island that gave humanity the apocalypse, the book of revelation: the sacred island of patmos in the aegean sea. and it was in the aegean that we commenced, in 1995, an ambitious programme of integrating current scientific knowledge about the oceans with the spiritual approach of the world's religions to water, particularly the world's oceans. since patmos, since 1995, we have traversed the danube, the adriatic sea, the baltic sea, the amazon, the arctic sea (last september), and we are now making preparations to sail the nile in egypt and the mississippi river in the united states, both next year. what we seek is not only an ongoing dialogue that is serviceable to practical necessities, but also one that raises human consciousness. while we strive to find answers to ecological concerns and crises, we also bring the participants into a more comprehensive sense of themselves as belonging to and relating to a greater whole. we seek to embrace the ecosphere of human existence not as an object to be controlled, but as a fellow-struggler on the path of increase and improvement. as the apostle paul, whose 2 000-year legacy both the orthodox and the roman catholic churches are celebrating this year, says in one of his most famous epistles, the epistle to the romans, 'for we know that until now, the whole of creation groans with us and shares our birth pangs'. every ecosystem on this planet is like a nation - by definition limited to a place. the estuary is not the tundra, nor is the savannah the desert. but like every culture, every ecosystem will have an effect that goes beyond far beyond its natural - or in the case of cultures, national - boundaries. and when we understand that every ecosystem is part of the singular ecosphere that is inhabited by every living breath that fills the world, then do we grasp the interconnectedness, the powerful communion of all life, and our true interdependency on one another. without such an understanding, we are led to ecocide, the self-destruction of the one ecosphere that sustains all human existence. thus it is that we come before you today, highlighting this year of intercultural dialogue, bringing parables from the natural world to affirm your transcendent human values. as an institution, the ecumenical patriarchate has lived as a relatively small ecosystem within a much larger culture for centuries. out of this long experience, allow us to suggest the most important practical characteristic that enables the work of intercultural dialogue to succeed. chiefly and above all, there must be respect for the rights of the minority within every majority. when and where the rights of the minority are observed, the society will for the most part be just and tolerant. in any culture, one segment will always be dominant - whether that dominance is based on race, religion or any other category. segmentation is inevitable in our diverse world. what we seek to end is fragmentation! societies that are built upon exclusion and repression cannot last. or, as the divine prince of peace jesus christ said: every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. our counsel to all is to recognise that only when we embrace the fullness of shared presence within the ecosphere of human existence, are we then able to face the 'otherness' of those around us - majority or minority - with a true sense of the consanguinity of the human family. then do we behold the stranger amongst us not as an alien, but as a brother or sister in the human family, the family of god. st paul expounds on pan-human relation and brotherhood quite eloquently and concisely when addressing the athenians in the first century. this is why europe needs to bring turkey into its project and why turkey needs to foster intercultural dialogue and tolerance in order to be accepted into the european project. europe should not see any religion that is tolerant of others and respectful to the others as alien to itself. the great religions, like the european project, can be a force that transcends nationalism and can even transcend nihilism and fundamentalism by focusing their faithful on what unites us as human beings, and by fostering a dialogue about what divides us. from our country, turkey, we perceive both a welcome to a new economic and trading partner, but we also feel the hesitation that comes from embracing, as an equal, a country that is predominantly muslim. and yet europe is filled with millions of muslims who have come here from all sorts of backgrounds and causations; just as europe would still be filled with jews, had it not been for the horrors of the second world war. indeed, it is not only non-christians that europe must encounter, but christians who do not fit into the categories of catholic or protestant. the resurgence of the orthodox church in eastern europe since the fall of the iron curtain has truly been a marvel for the world to behold. the segmentation of eastern europe has led to fragmentation in many places. not only does the centre not hold; it is hardly discernible. through this process, as nation states strive to re-establish themselves, it is the orthodox christian faith that has risen, even above economic indicators, to a new status that could not have been predicted even 20 years ago. one of the vital roles of our ecumenical patriarchate is to assist in the process of growth and expansion that is taking place in traditional orthodox countries, by holding fast as the canonical norm for the worldwide orthodox church, over a quarter of a billion people around the globe. at this moment, we wish to inform you, dear friends, that in october - next month - at our invitation, all the heads of the orthodox patriarchates and autocephalous churches will meet in istanbul, in order to discuss our common problems and to strengthen pan-orthodox unity and cooperation. simultaneously, we will also concelebrate the two thousand years since the birth of the apostle of the nations, st paul. currently in the city (istanbul) we are experiencing great joy and enthusiasm as we are all preparing for its celebration as the european capital of culture in the year 2010. the city, which has a long history, was a crossroads for gatherings of people and served as a place of cohabitation of diverse religions and cultures. this past week, we attended a luncheon hosted by the prime minister of turkey in honour of the prime minister of spain. as is public knowledge, both are co-sponsors of the alliance of civilisations under the auspices of the united nations. we heard their wonderful speeches, which were harmonious with the diachronic tolerant spirit of our city. and now dear friends, please allow us to conclude in french in order to honour the french presidency, and also because this week you celebrate the european day of languages, i think next friday. excellency, ladies and gentlemen of the european parliament, the ecumenical patriarchate reaffirms its desire to do all in its power to contribute to peace and prosperity in the european union. we are ready to join you in other constructive dialogues like that of today and we will lend an attentive ear to the problems of the day. it is in this spirit that our patriarchate has been cultivating and nurturing meaningful dialogue with islam and judaism for the past 25 years. we have held many bilateral and trilateral meetings. within this framework, we will be meeting in athens at the beginning of november to resume, for the 12th time, our academic dialogue with islam. alongside these discussions, we are continuing our theological talks with the roman catholic, anglican, lutheran and reformed churches and with the ancient oriental churches: armenian, coptic, etc. at the end of october, at the pope's invitation, we will have the opportunity, the privilege even, to speak at the 12th ordinary assembly of the world synod of bishops in the vatican. this should illustrate that the ecumenical patriarchate is extremely active in the area of ecumenical dialogue and seeks to contribute to a better understanding between peoples, reconciliation, peace, solidarity and efforts to combat fanaticism, hatred and all forms of evil. we would like to thank you for this unique opportunity to address your assembly for the second time and we call for god's infinite blessing for all your just ventures. allow me, from this distinguished platform, to present my best wishes to muslims all over the world at the approach of the great festival of ramadan and also to the jews of the world on the eve of rosh hashanah. we are all brothers and sisters, children of the same heavenly father and, on this wonderful planet, for which we are all responsible, there is room for everyone, but there is no room for war or for those who kill each other. once more, we thank you with all our heart for allowing us the great honour and privilege of addressing you today. (standing ovation) your holiness, the european parliament has accorded you a standing ovation to show its great appreciation of your speech. you spoke of pax, of peace for the human family and creation. peace is the culmination of respect for human dignity. we do not have to agree with every belief that exists, and we do not have to accept every view. what we must do, however, is respect our fellow men and women. it is this respect which is the core of human dignity, and it is the core of tolerance. in that spirit, we would like to express our warmest thanks to you once again for the contribution that you have made to the european year of intercultural dialogue. it is a valuable contribution which fosters understanding between the people of our continent and the world, and promotes reconciliation, peace and freedom. thank you very much, your holiness. (applause)

adoption of the minutes of the previous sitting the minutes of yesterday' s sitting have been distributed. are there any comments? mr president, on behalf of myself and several other meps, while i fully respect the solemn nature of today' s formal sitting, i wish to make a point of order under rule 19 out of concern for human rights given that the colombian president' s visit today is restricted to his parliamentary address until a formal dinner with heads of political groups. bearing in mind that the colombian government' s own public defender reports one massacre for every day this year and that the commission of colombian jurists attribute 78% to paramilitaries with the knowledge of the official colombian forces, will you, as president of this parliament, in your private talks ensure that you discuss issues of human rights. will you in particular ask when the law passed in june this year requiring crimes against humanity committed by the colombian military to be transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts will actually be implemented. will you ask why instances of forced disappearance, extrajudicial execution and sexual abuse have been excluded from that law. will you find an appropriate way to report back to parliament on the responses given. i ask this in the spirit of successive resolutions on human rights in colombia passed by this european parliament and in support of brave human rights defenders working under the threat of violence and of death. thank you very much, mr howitt. of course, both the bureau and the presidents will present parliament' s position in accordance with their traditional decisions in that regard. the results of these contacts will be communicated to you. (the minutes were approved) ec and ecsc budgets for 2000 the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: a5-0030/1999 by mr bourlanges, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on the draft general budget of the european union for the financial year 2000: section iii commission (c5-0300/1999); a5-0031/1999 by mr virrankoski, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on the draft general budget of the european union for the financial year 2000 (c5-0300/1999) section i, european parliament - annex: ombudsman section ii, council section iv, court of justice section v, court of auditors section vi, economic and social committee and committee of the regions; a5-0032/1999 by mr pittella, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on the ecsc draft operating budget for the financial year 2000 (sec(1999) 803 - c5-0017/1999 - 1999/2072(bud)). mr president, you will understand, ladies and gentlemen, that it is a great honour for me to be able to take the floor today. i have had a seat in this parliament for ten years now, and i have never had the opportunity to speak for fifteen minutes before, which, considering my temperament, has been a long-lasting source of frustration, and is finally coming to an end today! i would like to tell you, mr president, madam president-in-office of the council, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that preparing the budget of the european union is a strange process indeed. what sort of budget is it, then, which is based on the principle that the budgetary authority and parliament vote on the expenditure but not on the revenue? what sort of budget is it which necessitates making a distinction between two well-defined categories of expenditure, one being the compulsory expenditure determined by an authority - the council - the other being the non-compulsory expenditure determined by parliament? this distinction is patently absurd. what sort of budget is it which subordinates the budgetary authority to legislative texts to the extent that some figures and some amounts expressly stipulated in the legislation and in the programmes are so restrictive that they tend to reduce the budgetary procedure to a set of legislative adjustments which have already been carried out? the situation is thus strange, to say the least. but it is even stranger still to draw up a budget within the framework of the interinstitutional agreement and the budget perspectives which we have. effectively, we are working within the framework of the financial perspective decided in berlin. well, the least that one can say is that the programming exercise which took place there was quite strange, firstly in terms of its duration (setting a seven year programme in two days of council meetings was perhaps risky) and vague in terms of the amounts. today, we can see that however one approaches these needs there is only a very approximate matching of budget estimates and actual requirements. in category 1 on agriculture and market expenditure, we are already up to the limit of the margin. in category 4 on external action - i shall return to this point - the category is literally at bursting point. in category 5, we do not know what the administrative reform of the commission will cost, but it is with great concern that we see the problem of pensions taking shape before suitable expenditure has been envisaged; and in category 7, intended for pre-accession preparations, the movement developing in favour of faster and wider enlargement, if i may say, is not supported by suitable appropriations. countries such as cyprus and malta are in an uncertain situation already. the budget programming exercise was, therefore, vague, but also very restrictive for the european parliament because, for the first time, we are working within a framework where we have obtained less flexibility in exchange for - not more money, as previously, but less money. the situation is inherently paradoxical. the matter becomes thoroughly surreal when we tackle the subject of the financial year 2000, as the european union is experiencing an absolute contradiction here. on the one hand, the treaty of amsterdam and the implementation of the single currency are creating new burdens, whilst on the other hand, the planned enlargement effectively entails an additional financial load. finally, the increased weight of the union' s responsibilities, especially as regards kosovo, are also creating far greater tensions, far greater pressure on the budget. well, confronted with this situation, some institutions, particularly the council - i am wondering what the commission will decide in the end - tell us that we are going to finance more policies, with more partners, take on more responsibility, with less money. i must say, mr president, there is a paradox here, a contradiction which parliament does not wish to accept. this is the situation we find ourselves in. budget 2000 is characterised by the paradox that i have just mentioned, of how to finance more with less money, but will also, i hope, be characterised by parliament' s rejection of this paradox. how do the institutions seek to address this paradox? well, by two methods, both very simple and equally reprehensible. the first involves cutting expenditure, and the second sacrificing traditional priorities in favour of new priorities. i find the draft budget, which the council has submitted for our approval and whose inspiration we are objecting to, quite worrying from that point of view. when i speak of cutting expenditure, i am thinking, for example, of expenditure under category i for which a cut has been proposed. the commission already started off on the wrong track. perhaps today it is starting to experience some regrets? in fact, across-the-board reductions have been proposed to us, which are not in line with the real situation. the same applies to payments. as regards structural funds, we have considerable payment requirements, due both to the implementation of the new instrument of agenda 2000 but also to the vast weight of past commitments. this death rattle, which is the last gasp of the dying man - forgive me, interpreters, this is impossible to translate, it means the final hour has come - is the last gasp when the programmes of previous years finally expire. all that entails considerable burdens as regards payment and, in this respect, the council follows neither the commission, nor us, and proposes a perfectly unacceptable reduction in relation to the preliminary draft budget. having demonstrated some vagueness on this question in recent months, the commission seems recently to have returned to more laudable sentiments, which we are pleased to see. thus, on the one hand, we have a cut in expenditure and the appropriations allocated to existing and future requirements. the same is true for expenditure under category 5. at the same time, the priorities of yesterday and today are being sacrificed, and this is unacceptable, in favour of the priorities of tomorrow. i think this is a serious point. in category 4, the council makes the completely unacceptable proposal to implement across-the-board cuts without any justification whatsoever. we have clearly understood that there must be reductions on condition that they are at least justified, but in this case they are not, i must insist. we have been told that it is necessary to finance kosovo, morocco, timor and turkey. admittedly, timor and turkey are not in the draft budget yet, but we shall surely find them there in time. we have been told that all this must be financed and, in return, there will be cuts in all the traditional expenditure for the development appropriations for africa, asia, latin america. parliament says no. we shall not accept making africa, latin america and asia, everyone bar europe, pay for kosovo. it is not acceptable. more generally, we consider the fact that the commission is undertaking this type of approach for the future to be very serious, since we shall have to bear the cost of these new responsibilities from structural funds. and we cannot expect to pay for the balkans, for example, in a structural and lasting way by means of enlargement, etc. no, we cannot get out of it that way. you cannot get the foot of charlemagne' s mother, berthe au grand pied (berthe big-foot), into cinderella' s slipper. it is just not possible. you have to make the shoe bigger, to take into account the needs we must fund. this is the situation as we see it. we are waiting for the commission to make a statement on this point. the pdb obviously did not take some items of expenditure into account, but it was very clear. all we want to know now is whether the commission is going to defend it. i should warn you, commissioner, of a proposal which may be made to substantially reduce your own pdb, for it would be a serious matter if the commission were not even to defend its own policy. we would be in a situation even more paradoxical than i am willing to accept, setting up parliament as defender of the commission' s preliminary draft budget, replacing the commission as guardian of the major policies decided by the european union. i should warn you on this point. it would be a serious matter. what is parliament' s response? it is quite simple. it rejects this attitude. it considers, on the one hand, that it is necessary to face up to the new priorities. there are essentially two of these. firstly, administratively, it is necessary to deal with the consequences of the institutional crisis which we experienced last winter. this entails active support, and even an active demand for administrative reform addressed to the commission. all the measures relating to taos have that objective, in the same way as all the appropriations for olaf. the call for the creation of a new administrative instrument, a sort of executive agency or decentralised executive unit, fulfils a real need. we have initiated contacts with the commission which seem to be productive. we have heard the words, we are now waiting for the deeds. internationally, our second priority is effectively to finance, by some means, the main priorities: kosovo with up to eur 500 million, the agreement on morocco with up to eur 125 million, the programmes for turkey and timor with up to eur 50 and eur 30 million. in this regard, we have voted on an amendment which corresponds to a serious political commitment from this parliament, even if we vote it before category 4, which means that it does not to date have the status of an amendment, but it does constitute a commitment on the part of this house to vote in these appropriations at second reading, especially regarding the morocco agreement which is one of parliament' s political priorities. the second approach adopted by the european parliament is not to sacrifice our traditional priorities. this is why we have rejected en masse all the across-the-board cuts proposed by the council and we consider that we must face up to requirements in the areas of redevelopment, development, international development, social actions and environmental policy. we must face up to all these expenses with great energy and we must not accept their being sacrificed. just now, i left out one essential point, research, within the framework of administrative reform. we are waiting to formalise in writing and give concrete expression to the agreement which is in the pipeline between commission and parliament in order to guarantee better budgetary use of the appropriations under this sub-section. we are therefore facing up to the new priorities but we are not sacrificing our traditional priorities. thirdly, this requires us, and this is the essence of the problem, to respect fully the terms of the interinstitutional agreement, but in a dynamic fashion. we are respecting this agreement. we are respecting all the ceilings in all the categories and we are even leaving substantial margins in some of them, such as category 1b on rural development. but we want a dynamic interpretation, in accordance with what has been said and, in particular, we want an ongoing structural review of category 4, rather than an annual review. there are new expenses which must be funded. these expenses are not just for one year, they are ongoing expenses. this must be translated into a net increase in the appropriations allocated to category 4 for the entire period and not just for the budget for the year 2000. this is a demand which parliament is making and i would like to see it taken fully into account by the commission and by the council. what is the way out of this situation? the council still has time to think and a choice of means. there is the time to think as we are to meet on 25 november, saint catherine' s day. there is a french saying "a la sainte-catherine, tout arbre prend racine" (on saint catherine' s day, every tree takes root), so i hope that the budget tree will take root. as for the choice of means, madam president, you and your colleagues have to choose, for i know that you cannot do everything, and i am sorry for this, between two avenues. one alternative is to review the financial perspective of category 4 which will make it possible for us to vote in this budget by facing up to the new priorities in accordance with the commitments undertaken at the time of negotiating this agreement. if you do not want to go down this road, parliament shall then be forced to resort to the strict application of article 272 of the treaty, and to assume the powers, which it is entitled to do, regarding both commitments and payments, and to vote for appropriations which match up to the level of the commitments which are the political commitments of the european union and in strict observance of the treaty. madam president, the ball is in your court. (applause) mr president, the 'eu budget for the year 2000 - other sections' , which we are considering, follows the rigorous policy of recent years. the budget for institutions other than the commission and the council for the year 2000 will be eur 1.286 billion. the increase is eur 44 million, or 3.5%. the margin for manoeuvre calculated from category 5, as referred to in the financial perspective, is eur 135 million. this draft budget focuses mainly on rental arrangements and renovation solutions for the places of work of the institutions. the intention is for the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions to move into belliard buildings i and ii once they have been vacated by parliament and renovated. the joint organisational structure for these committees will be accommodated in the bertha von suttner building, the former montoyer building. the rented premises that have been in use until now will be given up. for these solutions to be successful, seamless cooperation is required on all sides. the budget provides for new posts to be created at both parliament and the economic and social committee to render the administration of the buildings more efficient. one condition of adequate administration, however, is that the division of labour and of responsibility of both parliament and the economic and social committee be clarified both interinstitutionally and with regard to the individuals involved. this division of responsibility must be considered a pre-condition of the project' s success. there are two reserves attached to the buildings, which are still in the budget. a reserve of eur 7.4 million has been entered in parliament' s expenditure for the rental of the belliard buildings, as the rental agreement between the owner and the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions is still under discussion. if the rental agreement is finalised before the end of the year, the amount mentioned will be deducted from parliament' s budget, as the european parliament budget is, at present, 20.11% of category 5, whereas parliament has itself declared a ceiling of 20%. there are two reasons why this ceiling has been exceeded. the first is the double budgeting relating to rents, as explained above. the other reason is the reserve related to the statute for members. in the spring a reserve of eur 60 million was included in the parliamentary budget for remuneration related to the statute for members. parliament has demanded that members' remuneration be paid from parliamentary funds, and the council has supported this initiative. because at present it is the member states that pay the salaries of meps, this will mean that the payments are transferred from the member states to the european union. it is quite natural to suppose that a new expenditure item of this kind, which at the same time would diminish member states' costs, cannot be included under the ceiling for formerly approved expenditure. if we take these two expenditure items into account, parliament' s share of category 5 would be 18.97%, which is in line with the principles of budgetary discipline. another priority of this draft budget is increasing the resources of the court of justice of the european union, especially their translation resources. according to the council' s proposal, the committee on budgets has recommended that altogether thirty new translator' s posts be established, and that a substantial appropriation be earmarked for paying freelance translators. as appropriations have been proposed for improvements to the electronic office, the court of justice can expect a clear increase in resources. after this, we expect that the court of justice will be able to cope better with its workload, reduce the number of documents left untranslated, and serve member states, citizens and businesses better in the interpretation and application of european law. parliament has both the right and the obligation to demand clear results. discussion of this year' s budget made it clearer than ever that there is a need to move towards activity based budgeting. the institutions have an abundance of staff, and it is to the benefit of all that they be used efficiently. the present administrative model, however, gives cause for criticism. the institutions seem extremely interested in inventing new requirements and job descriptions, so as to be able to justify their ever-growing need for staff. it is very difficult for parliament, as a decision-making authority, to scrutinise the chart of its own four thousand strong organisation and draw conclusions as to what new posts are needed for what jobs. every member state, however, has had to radically reorganise personnel structures. jobs have been reallocated, as have posts and staff. that is why in many cases the establishment of new posts is no longer the responsibility of the budgetary authorities. the budgetary authorities only allocate appropriations to the institutions. there are two advantages to this. firstly, the overall work of an institution is seen clearly, which means that there is less danger of getting swamped in details. the work of the institutions can be assessed more clearly, on the basis of results, and can be better managed. on the other hand, comprehensive budgeting also makes it possible to clarify and increase personal responsibility. this encourages better and more efficient work, as everyone can find a way to work more effectively and use resources sparingly where the need is greatest. it is high time the european union switched to activity based budgeting, result-oriented management, delegated power and responsibility downwards, and clarified personal responsibilities. we must require managers and heads of department to bear the responsibility for their own areas of revenue, and for their development and improvement. finally, i would like to thank all those who helped me to prepare this report. i would especially like to thank the chairman of the committee on budgets, terence wynn, who has given me his support in so many ways, both in practical negotiations and at meetings of the committee on budgets, and in personal discussions. at the same time i wish to thank the main rapporteur, jean-louis bourlanges, with whom i have enjoyed seamless and smooth cooperation. i would also like to thank all the coordinators, especially reimer bge of the european people' s party and ralf walter of the party of european socialists for their constructive and pertinent cooperation. finally, i wish to thank my own group for their unreserved support in every respect, as well as the secretaries and employees who were involved in the project. mr president, as we all know, the european coal and steel community was the first institutional body. the structure of europe was gradually built up around it, and in recent years it has provided substantial assistance, in terms of both social aid and research to coal and steel firms. the approach of the expiry of the ecsc treaty in 2002 presents parliament with some significant decisions to make. in terms of budgetary decisions, how should the concluding stages of the treaty be managed? even after 2002, will adequate attention be given to the firms and workers in the sector? what bridging measures between the ecsc budget and the union' s general budget can be devised to facilitate the transition to new procedures for access to financing for potential beneficiaries? the committee on budgets invites parliament to give a clear answer to these three questions, mindful of its prerogatives and eager to make the most of the experience gained so far under the treaty, through dialogue with the council and the commission, which we hope will be positive. the committee on budgets - and i thank all my colleagues, from the chairman to all the group representatives for their participation - unanimously proposes the following recommendations: 1. to reinstate the amounts laid down in the 1999 budget. 2. to redistribute the allocations to the coal and steel sectors according to needs, and in particular, to increase social aid in the coal sector, and research funding in the steel sector; 3. to ask for additional appropriations to be allocated to finance measures to promote health and safety in coal mines, and to ensure the development of clean technologies and of products with a high added value, in the steel sector; 4. with enlargement in mind, to ask for part of the phare programme appropriations to be earmarked for activities connected with the steel and coal sectors of the applicant countries; 5. to reiterate clearly the request for a reduction in administrative expenditure, as the sum calculated 19 years ago is clearly excessive for current requirements, and to carry out an assessment of real staffing requirements in light of the union' s current and future political priorities in this sector; 6. to insist that the research fund for coal and steel, which will receive the interest from the reserves and provisions determined by the balance sheet is managed by a specific structure - be it a foundation or an agency, according to the wishes already expressed by parliament - in order to guarantee a degree of visibility of the activities in the coal and steel sectors and to ensure that the representatives of both sides of industry will be fully involved in the use and planning of this fund; 7. to reaffirm that the transfer of the ecsc assets to the general budget will entail a budget entry against both revenue lines and expenditure lines and will therefore necessitate a technical adjustment of the current financial perspective; 8. to provide for 'bridging' pilot projects between the ecsc budget and the general budget in order to facilitate the transition between the activities financed by the ecsc and the union' s programmes, in particular as far as structural funds and research are concerned. the commission will have to give the greatest importance to the actions for which adequate instruments at community level have not yet been provided. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, on the basis of this comprehensive outline, may i ask parliament for a vote which is as extensive and united as possible. this would certainly give more weight to our decisions. mr president, members of the european parliament, the discussion of the budget for the year 2000 has progressed significantly since i presented the council' s draft budget here in parliament on 14 september. today, i have heard detailed perspectives and justifications regarding the content of budget 2000, with particular reference to the european parliament. the union appears to need diverse resources, and the most essential questions are gradually beginning to be resolved. with the new trialogue practice, we have been able to discuss many major problems in a positive spirit. the speeches that have been made here indicate clearly the main priority of budget 2000. it stresses particularly the many current challenges presented by category 4 on external action, which call for joint solutions by the budgetary authorities. first, i will speak generally about the budget, on the basis of contributions from various quarters, and i shall return, at the end of my speech, to the kosovo or category 4 issue. first, i would like to comment on the compulsory agricultural expenditure, that is to say, subsection b-1. the view of the council is that the commission' s proposal overestimates requirements for the year 2000. therefore the council in its own deliberations reduced this item by eur 375 million. overestimation by the commission has been the regular practice throughout the 1990s. that was also shown in this year' s figures. the same can be said with regard to subsection b-1 on rural development action. in matters of appropriations relating to structural operations, the difference between the council and parliament concentrate on two areas: firstly, the size of the advance payment in respect of new structural operation payments, and, secondly, the timetable for attending to old, unpaid, committed funds. i believe that both matters are purely technical. setting the advance payment at 3.5%, instead of the 4% proposed by the commission does not require amendments to the legal effect measures. neither does it in any way affect the total amount of new structural funds that member states will be receiving over the period 2000-2001. as regards old, unpaid commitments, it is necessary to take account of the new spending criteria the commission has just announced. in addition, we should note that the level of expenditure proposed by the commission - 48% -clearly exceeds the 45% held to be the basis of the european council' s own decisions at berlin. in internal policies, there are many problems that are presently being discussed in the codecision procedure. it is important that the budgetary authorities respect the ceilings for expenditure adopted in the interinstitutional agreement. this will require even more effective coordination. there is significant pressure to develop administration in the union. the new commission has promised to issue a report on administrative development in february 2000. we can all agree that only on the basis of the commission' s views can we comprehensively evaluate the need for human resources. as the olaf commences its work, we should set great store by the qualitative aspects of this work. regarding the importance of pension funds stressed by parliament, we must also expect a comprehensive report from the commission on, inter alia, reform of the acts on human resources, and other concrete proposals. regarding the so-called bat issue, or the issue of technical assistance offices, perhaps the time is not yet ripe to conduct such a laborious reform as parliament is proposing in the budget for the year 2000. funding for action in kosovo and in connection with other external relations will be a challenge for the union in terms of budgetary procedure and financing. it is noteworthy that the direct financing needs of the kosovo area are considered to be mainly covered. this was established at the first donor conference in july. the budgetary authorities should now wait for the final, reliable, assessment of needs, which, in my opinion, cannot be expected until next year. the council, for its part, is committed to attending to the financing needs occasioned by the earthquake in turkey with the help of a loan from the eib, macro-financing aid, and the funds targeted at the meda programme. this being the case, perhaps there will be no need for a separate financing programme for turkey. as for east timor, aid has been channelled there via echo. the donor conference on east timor is to be held in november, so more detailed assessments will be available only later. as i mentioned earlier, kosovo has become the main priority of the budgetary procedure for 2000. for this reason, the council has demonstrated flexibility in its own procedures, resulting in a reallocation of appropriations in the draft budget for the reconstruction of kosovo. it would seem appropriate to reallocate appropriations of humanitarian aid for kosovo, especially as a large number of refugees have now returned to kosovo, and to a certain extent humanitarian aid in kosovo would seem to be the first step on the road to reconstruction, offering people at least shelter for the winter. for other budget headings that concern external action under category 4 of the financial perspective, fixed-rate reductions for appropriations granted are a means of preventing hurried decisions to amend the excessiveness threshold of this category. the reason, as i said, is that there do not yet exist any assessments of the genuine reconstruction requirements. with regard to the concern expressed by parliament regarding the possible consequences that might result from the reallocation of appropriations under category 4 regarding union aid for the least developed countries, we should not forget that, by virtue of the lom convention, the european development fund channels eu aid to many of the countries in question. the european development fund is not included in the general budget for the european union: the member states contribute directly to it and it has its own internal financing rules. thus, the reallocation of funds for the reconstruction of kosovo did not affect the european development fund. subsection b7 of the budget is only partly aimed at the poorest countries, and the fixed-rate reduction thus harms countries other than just the poorest. in the sitting of the budget committee on 16 july, the reallocation of appropriations for kosovo was discussed, and it was stated that the commission should not burden the least developed countries and poorest groups. furthermore, we were reminded of the commission' s commitment to an international development strategy, whose purpose it is to halve world poverty by the year 2015. i have noted that the european parliament also intends to propose appropriations that exceed the excessiveness threshold under category 4 of the financial perspective, so that funds would be allocated to finance operations in east timor and turkey and to adopt the new fisheries agreement with morocco. on this matter, i would like to make the following observations. the council is also very worried about the situation in east timor, but until now no precise assessments of the amount of aid needed there have been presented. the consequences of the turkish earthquake have required our assistance already this year. this assistance was provided for in the supplementary and amending budget no. 4/1999. it is, however, too early to determine the total amount of aid appropriations required for the year 2000. appropriations to fund action in turkey and east timor should also be found within the framework of the excessiveness threshold under category 4 of the financial perspective determined at berlin. the council, furthermore, has accepted that the commission be empowered to negotiate a fisheries agreement with morocco. the outcome of these talks is not yet known. i might, however, remind everyone that, in adopting the draft budget, the council has also reallocated some category 4 appropriations in order to create a reserve for the funds required under the new agreement. finally, i will briefly comment on the overall increase in the budget and the frameworks for drafting it. on the basis of votes taken by parliament' s committee on budgets, the payment appropriations would increase by over 6%. the corresponding figure in the council' s draft budget is 2.8%. we have a responsibility to european taxpayers. it should be clear that union expenditure should comply with the call for budgetary discipline and cost-effectiveness. the union budget should observe the same degree of rigour as those of the member states. at the start, i emphasised the need for a swift response from the budgetary authorities in ever-changing circumstances. i believe that the new interinstitutional agreement also contains sufficient means to deal with unforeseen needs. the spirit of the new agreement is clear: we cannot right away rely on the new funds for aid that exceed the total sum in the financial framework. let this also serve as a basis for adopting the budget for the year 2000. i believe that, through sound cooperation among the institutions, we will successfully steer home the decision-making process with regard to the draft budget for 2000. i would like to thank the president and the members of parliament. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the budget is the political programme cast in figures; this is the short-and-sweet summary normally used to explain the budget plan. although many decisions are taken at european level which are not directly reflected in the european union budget, nevertheless budget 2000 is a crucial and defining basis for many areas of european policy in the coming year. since the drawing up of the preliminary draft budget in the spring there have been important events which could not have been anticipated at the time but which will and must be reflected in budget 2000. most importantly, this year we have had to experience a war on european soil necessitated by the most atrocious violations of human rights and by a policy of expulsion and ethnic cleansing on the part of the milosevic regime; a policy which could not be tolerated by a democratic europe and by a democratic international community committed to human rights. europe at the close of the 20th century must not accommodate any policy of expulsion, or indeed murder of minorities. the european union has assumed the responsibility for financing reconstruction in kosovo, where it is not just a matter of reconstructing bridges, schools and the technical infrastructure, but rather the total reconstruction of a democratic and peaceful civilian society in the region. i am glad, therefore, that there is absolute consensus, absolute agreement between parliament, the council and the commission, on making available in the eu budget the necessary funds for kosovo. i think it is worth stressing the point that everyone is aware of the responsibility and stands by the commitment to finance the reconstruction of kosovo. the preliminary draft budget of the commission from april of this year provides for a total of eur 92.8 billion for all expenditure commitments which may be entered into during the coming year and eur 89.6 billion for payments. however, as i have already said, this preliminary draft budget of the commission does not take into account kosovo, east timor, turkey and the fisheries agreement with morocco. the council draft reckons with eur 92.4 billion for commitments and eur 87.9 billion for payments and the amendments adopted by the european parliament committee on budgets give overall commitments of eur 93.4 billion and payments of eur 90.8 billion. then in addition there are the funds needed for kosovo, east timor, turkey and the fisheries agreement. i would like to add that there are a further eur 15 million to be financed in the budget 2000 (directly, i.e. not from the development fund) as a contribution by the european union to debt redemption initiatives for the poorest countries. i have given these aggregate figures for four reasons. firstly: for all three sets of figures in question, i.e. those of the commission in its preliminary draft, of the council and of parliament, the expenditure to be appropriated for the year 2000 in fact exceeds the totals for this year. the reason for this, which must be stressed, is as follows: the necessary payments, e.g. for structural operations in particular, are increasing next year due to the commitments from previous years and the commission fully agrees with parliament that it is not right in these instances to appropriate lower amounts than the standing commitments require. that would be a dubious policy. secondly: in all three sets of figures some of the appropriations for commitments which may be newly entered into are, conversely, far below the corresponding amounts for this year even though, for example, the appropriations for pre-accession aid, i.e. in the case of the funds which are being allocated to the applicant countries, show a large increase. in short (and i would like to say this in reply to the speech of the council also) this means that budgetary discipline is not just required of the member states, but is clearly also being exercised at european level. thirdly: the aggregate figures also show, however, that ideas on budgetary appropriations, in particular those of the council and parliament, are still far removed from one another and, consequently, intensive debates lie before us in the coming weeks. fourthly: the aggregate figures are, of course, also an indication of the work which has been carried out by the committees, in particular by the rapporteurs, and, on behalf of the commission, i would therefore like to thank mr virrankoski for his report on the individual plans of parliament, the council, the court of justice, the court of auditors, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions, mr pittella for his report on the operating budget of the european coal and steel community and particularly mr bourlanges for his report, which again shows him to be an excellent rapporteur and a master of highly sophisticated proposals. besides budgetary appropriation levels, the report deals with important issues of budgetary economy and administration. i would like to mention the issue of the tao, i.e. the issue of when external offices should be brought in to help. mr bourlanges, you quite rightly point out that this is not just a matter of better supervision and better contracts, although these are important issues, but also of the basic questions: "what should be handled by the public administration and what can be done and under what conditions by private enterprise? therefore, these questions obviously concern the entire commission staff. the new commission has been able to meet the initial staffing requirements for the newly established directorates-general through restructuring. however, the total staffing requirement now obviously depends on the institutional reforms for which the commission will submit a blueprint, a proposal, in february. i hope that in the coming weeks we will be able to bring the proposals in the report into line with the commission' s schedule for reforms. regarding the olaf staff, the commission will incorporate into its letter of amendment the proposal of the committee on budgetary control and the committee on budgets to provide 75 new jobs next year. a brief word on agriculture. the commission fully agrees with parliament that the second pillar, the measures for rural development, presents a great opportunity, in particular for agro-ecological development. it will therefore propose in its letter of amendment, an appropriation increase which, although lower than that of parliament, is nevertheless considerable. the commission will also take account of the request to provide funds in the budget for the fisheries agreement with morocco. we are agreed that budget 2000 should ensure eur 500 million in commitment appropriations to finance the reconstruction of kosovo. the council decided at the first reading to finance an across-the-board cut in the appropriations for external action. you have made it known as a parliament that you consider this course to be untenable. the commission has authorised me to inform you that the commission will propose another course which will take account of both the ideas on policy prioritisation and the ideas on budgetary discipline. the commission proposes financing the necessary funds firstly by making adjustments within the external action category, secondly by using the smaller part of the flexibility reserve and thirdly by making adjustments between policy areas, which will entail a change in the financial perspective. this is a course which was established in the joint agreement, the interinstitutional agreement between parliament, the council and the commission, in may of this year. european taxpayers would, i believe, not understand it if we simply requested additional funds to finance work in kosovo without taking the difficult course of prioritisation, which means in practice reallocating funds. on the other hand, the increasing tasks of the union in external action will also need to be reflected in the structure of the budget. the budget should be an expression of political tasks and priorities, which ultimately means an increase in the external action category. i hope that, on the basis of preliminary work carried out by all institutions and, in particular, the reports of parliament before us, we will reach agreement on budget 2000 through a positive, open debating process which befits the major political responsibility we have for european policy. mr president, i should like to extend our congratulations to the rapporteur, mr bourlanges, and to the chairman of the committee on budgets, mr wynn, on the way these proceedings have been conducted. regretfully i cannot offer congratulations to the council for their part in this process. the message the foreign affairs committee has taken from the council is that they believe we can only pay for kosovo by taking money out of the hands of those who are even worse off than those in kosovo. we want to rob the very poor in order to pay the slightly less poor. we want africa to pay for the balkans. i do not believe that is the message the eu should be sending out to the rest of the world. to find the eur 500 million for kosovo the council has proposed an across-the-board cut of 10% in category 4. some cuts are even worse. for humanitarian aid, line b7-21, they are proposing a 20% cut. they are cutting eur 70 million from nova: in other words, a 40% cut in assistance to bosnia, so bosnia has to pay for kosovo. we are cutting support for the middle east peace process just at the time where there is hope for a long-term solution to that process. what sort of political message is the european union sending out about its commitment to that process? of course there has to be financial responsibility and we have to set priorities, but a 10% cut across the board is not a proper setting of priorities. it is an exercise in indifference and irresponsibility. no wonder the eu' s reputation at the moment is not very high with the public. there are two other areas that the foreign affairs committee would like to draw your attention to. first, we would like to see proper funding for the royaumont process, particularly ensuring that it is a pillar i activity, not a pillar ii activity. hence we propose that we should set up a line on the stability pact and take some money away from the meda line in order to pay for it. finally, we would also like your support for the conflict prevention network, set up as a result of parliament' s work, particularly the work of mr rocard. now that we have a similar organisation in the council its work is even more important. i would urge your support for increased funding. i urge that financial prudence is not made an excuse to drive more people down into poverty. mr president, i would like to thank the budget committee and mr bourlanges for their work. i am grateful to the commitment that they have shown in the fight against fraud in the european union and, in particular, with the extra commitment they have made - an extra eur 9 million has been voted by the budget committee for olaf. this will allow for the creation of an extra 50 to 75 new posts in the year 2000 on top of the 30 new posts voted for in the supplementary and amending budgets. i should remind you that olaf needs 300 posts to carry out its duties. this was endorsed by the report of the committee of independent experts. let us not forget that there are raised expectations in terms of the public' s attitude towards reform of the european institutions. it is essential that olaf is given the appropriate resources. i should like to remind the commission that we will not allow olaf' s independence to be compromised by budgetary gains - a little note there for the future. i am disappointed that the council presidency has not referred to this. are you committed to the extra 75 posts or not? i would be grateful for some kind of feedback on that. you need to show the same commitment to fighting fraud as we are within the european parliament. another issue for the budgetary control committee is the use of technical assistance agencies. in its budget guidelines for the year 2000, parliament called for the phasing out of the agencies. and for the commission to provide it with an assessment of its staffing needs. that has not been done. the budget committee has entered expenditure on logistical support and technical assistance in a separate section, with 90% of those appropriations in reserve. the budgetary control committee would support this approach. it is absolutely right that those appropriations should not be released until the commission has defined those categories of tasks that need to be outsourced. we look forward to receiving that information from the commission. on another matter, in 1999 there have been large under-spends in the community initiatives, the cohesion fund and many other areas. in some cases this is the second or third consecutive year when there has been a large transfer away from particular lines. this demonstrates the need for parliament to monitor budget implementation more closely throughout the year. the subject committees must take more responsibility for monitoring the budget lines within those areas. if we do that then we can feed that into the budgetary process and make sure that we are more on track during the course of the year. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to join the two previous speakers in expressing my thanks and praise for the work done by the general rapporteur and the committee on budgets. as regards budget 2000, the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs was working towards four objectives. the first of these objectives was to align the budgetary nomenclature with the priorities defined by the treaty of amsterdam and, in particular, the fact that henceforth the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice is one of the fundamental objectives of the union. this is the reason why we proposed, with the support of the committee on budgets in this matter, to gather all the policies and budget lines relating to the creation of this area of freedom, security and justice under a single title comprising five chapters corresponding to the main policies dedicated to the establishment of the area of freedom, security and justice. as our second objective, we wished to rationalise and restructure the budgetary instruments in the sector of asylum and immigration policy. when drawing up the budget for 1999, we managed to create the european fund for refugees. unfortunately, following events in kosovo, the council was forced to mobilise virtually all these resources in order to deal with the emergency situation in kosovo and in the member states. this is the reason why the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs has proposed that, henceforth, in the area of asylum and immigration policy, there should be two budgetary instruments: firstly, a european refugee fund intended to finance by structural means the necessary measures relating to the reception, integration and voluntary repatriation of refugees in the event of a normal flow of refugees, and secondly, a second budget line with the objective of making it possible to take emergency measures in the event of a mass influx of refugees. indeed, with this, we anticipated the request of the european council at tampere, as the council considered it appropriate to envisage creating a financial reserve, in some form or another, intended to offer temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of refugees. mr president, this instrument is something we have already proposed. our third objective was to strengthen resources in the area of the fight against crime, and our fourth objective was a budget line making it possible to undertake measures within the framework of the commission action plan 2000-2004 for combating drugs trafficking. mr president, the first reading of the budget by parliament, which we have been following today will, as always, have a significant impact on the policy of the european union, of which economic and monetary union forms a part. the budget contains internal policy lines concerning the prince programme. this programme covers the public information campaign with regard to the euro which was, is and should be a priority for the european union. the committee on economic and monetary affairs (econ) believes that this endeavour should continue to be a vital policy priority and that a great deal of work is still required before the banknotes and coins can go into circulation throughout the european union. that is why we support and welcome wholeheartedly the proposals tabled by the committee on budgets for an increase in the prince budget. econ also believes that funding measures in the field of taxation should be an absolute priority as it is still an area which displays some irregularities in the internal market, and as a consequence, budget line b5-3001 for the completion and development of the internal market should be kept at the level proposed by the commission in its draft budget. econ also endorses the amounts recommended in the draft budget as regards the fiscalis programme in line b5-305. this ensures stricter coordination of the current taxation system. the committee also believes that the provision of quality statistical information should be a priority for the union, particularly now that economic and monetary union has been introduced in the euro area and we have prospects for a further enlargement of the union. therefore, line b5-600 on statistical information should continue to be funded. finally, speaking as a member of the greek delegation, i would like to express my regret at the european institutions for not yet coming up with an appropriate legal basis to enable us to provide assistance to a particular member state recently struck by natural disasters. there is no such legal basis in the budget and i believe this to be a serious oversight. as in the case of greece, and in other cases, this shows a lack of sensitivity towards our fellow human beings who are victims of such accidents and to whom we should show at least some generosity. mr president, with all due respect to the rapporteurs, the committee on budgets will not take seriously the fact that the committee on legal affairs and the internal market is applauding it for its work! the committee on budgets has let down the european court of justice, as has the council! i know that in the political process law is frequently considered irritating. however, to disregard in such a way the work of the european court of justice on european integration and legal protection of the individual is verging on scandalous! the question arises as to what role a specialised committee should continue to play when the committee on budgets, in a generous gesture, simply sweeps all the carefully considered, moderate proposals from the table? so what role should specialised committees continue to play? i fear that legal protection in this european union will continue to be limited. it is all too clear who is responsible for this. we should not expose ourselves to the danger of limiting legal protection in the european union, not least when we constantly talk of wanting to create an area of freedom, security and justice. mr president, i took over the job of committee draftsman following the heart attack of mr desama who was originally to have done the work for the committee. we hope he will soon be back with us. my thanks and congratulations to mr bourlanges for his painstaking work on behalf of the members of parliament. the committee on industry covers 120 budget lines - so you can see our task is fairly complex! we cover the energy programmes, those relating to industry, including small and medium firms, the research programmes under the framework programmes which of course amount to more or less 60% of the internal policy expenditure of the european union, and the trade and technical assistance lines. as far as the energy lines are concerned, we were sorry that the committee on budgets did not follow our line in increasing the expenditure for altener and save. those are renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes currently in conciliation. if we get, as expected, an increase as a result of conciliation more money will, of course, be asked for next year. as far as research is concerned, and after very many long discussions with mr bourlanges, i am interested to know what he intends to do. we, in the industry committee, do not want the research programmes broken down into dozens and dozens of lines, one for each key action. but we do want to monitor each key action. i think we have reached an agreement with the commission that information will be provided to us at intervals and in a form that allows us to monitor that spending in the way we want to. i am also sorry that the committee on budgets did not approve moving the training of the nuclear inspectorate in the former soviet union from the external policy to the energy line where that training could be done far more efficiently. we have made this argument very clearly and we will make it again. as far as monitoring is concerned, we intend in our committee to take one member responsible for monitoring each of the 120 lines. they will be expected to follow the spending, to look at the way the projects are organised, to visit the projects and to be in a position to let us know how things are going. mr president, i would like to thank my colleagues on the budget committee and the budget rapporteur in particular for the good cooperation we have had with them in this first reading. that is code for saying that the employment committee got pretty much what it was looking for in this first reading and i am grateful for that. others have referred to the structural funds. we are broadly happy with the fact that the budget committee agreed with our recommendations, so i would like to look instead at a number of subcategories of lines. one that is important to the employment committee is that of social dialogue. there we have ended up with eur 4.5 million more than the european commission were looking for initially. that i think is more in line with the tasks that we are facing in that important area and it includes appropriations to involve representatives from accession countries in central and eastern europe which we think is very important. we have less than we wanted on b3-4003. that is a cause of disappointment because it is an important area with the expected implementation of the european company statute and, we hope, progress on the general framework for information and consultation of expenditure. we are happy that what we were looking for in relation to ngos has been agreed in the first reading. this, we think, is a very important area - the idea of developing civil dialogue. i am particularly pleased that funding will continue for the ngo platform which i think is an important part of developing civil dialogue. employment, of course, is one of the most important issues from the point of view of the employment committee. and here, with budget lines b5-502 and b5-503, we have combined some eur 24 million more than the commission' s original proposals. we think that is an excellent outcome. we are looking to implementing the employment chapter from amsterdam and making progress in relation to the macroeconomic dialogue agreed at cologne. we are therefore grateful that we have the funding to move those important issues forward. two slight problems in conclusion, president. one is that we still have no enduring legal base for ngos. i hope the commission and the council will make progress on that, otherwise the civil dialogue will end at the end of next year. that would be catastrophic. the other difficulty relates to technical assistance and the funds that have been transferred into the reserve. i hope that the commissioner for social affairs will act quickly to provide the information necessary to release 50% at second reading. mr president, firstly i congratulate the rapporteur of the committee on budgets on the work he has done this year. i also thank mr wynn for the cheerful way in which he conducts the budget committee, a new experience for me. the rapporteur has done very well given the constraints he has been under this year. whilst the budget lines under the responsibility of the committee of the environment, public health and consumer policy are not great in monetary terms, they play a vital role in facilitating the development of the union' s policies, and particularly in bringing closer to the union and realising the needs and desires of the ordinary citizens. the budgets committee rapporteur has acknowledged a number of points we have made and has enabled us to maintain spending in most areas and develop it modestly in one or two. i cannot thank the council in the same way when i examine their pdb. they have to give greater priority to the interests and needs of citizens. utilising the amounts determined last year through the conciliation on the whitehead report, the consumer affairs budget lines will continue to build confidence amongst the public, reassuring them that we are not just a europe open for business but are also campaigning for citizens' rights as consumers. the additional monies granted for the additional posts in the veterinary health office in dublin will reassure our citizens that we are taking steps to protect the quality and safety of the food on their plates. the new health responsibilities put into the amsterdam treaty can be developed using the additional monies granted on the health budget line. i particularly welcome the possibility of developing new strategies for dealing with mental health problems and neurodegenerative diseases such as alzheimer' s and cjd. equally, as we come to the end of the fifth action plan on the environment, the monies available to begin development of the sixth action plan are most welcome. if i have a disappointment, it concerns the rapporteur' s approach to the various agencies of the union, set up by the commission. i was the only draftsman, along with mr bourlanges, to meet the representatives of the agencies and i heard good arguments for increasing monies available to those agencies for the work they are doing with the applicant states of eastern and central europe and for bringing on to the market orphan drugs that are so vital for a relatively small number of people with diseases difficult to treat. i feel that perhaps more consideration could have been given to the arguments they made. i am very disappointed the rapporteur of the budgets committee did not accept the validity of the arguments as i have done. i can only hope that in the following years we can address the problems they have identified. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, relations between the committee on agriculture and rural development and the committee on budgets were always tense during preliminary work on the budget. that is clear and, given that the greater part of the budget falls within the agricultural sector, it was only to be expected. which is why it is particularly pleasing that, on this occasion, we can state that cooperation has been a whole lot better than in the past. this is in no small measure owing to the committee chairpersons and, above all, the rapporteur, mr bourlanges, but also, it should be added, to senior members of all groups. nevertheless, not all the wishes of the committee on agriculture and rural development would manage a majority today; we know that. all the same, we place particular importance on not accepting the council proposals for across-the-board cuts and, above all, on providing for a moderate increase in veterinary and plant health expenditure and in sales promotion. veterinary and plant health expenditure is not just agricultural expenditure, but also expenditure in terms of sensible, forward-looking consumer protection. the new second pillar in the matter of rural development is, of course, a special concern of the committee. here we simply cannot understand the reservation of the council. we are pleased that, in its letter of amendment, the commission opposes parliament' s position. the multifunctional tasks of agriculture relating to food, maintaining the countryside, nature conservation and tourism as a job sector of the future which will expand rather than diminish are a major concern for the whole parliament. the council really must accept that, in future, changes will be made to agricultural sector expenditure across the individual blocks of which it is made up. but that must not lead to us pursuing the cheap option and imagining that we can simply free up money for other policy areas by making across-the-board cuts in the agricultural sector, which not only covers expenditure on farmers but also that on all rural matters. it should be noted that recent years have seen a convergence of parliament and the commission in this sector. the previous lack of vision on the part of the council must give way to a more realistic approach, not least with a view to what the future holds for us in terms of the powers of parliament, also where the budget is concerned. draftsman of the opinion of the committee asked for an opinion, the committee on fisheries. (de) mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the committee on fisheries has studied in detail the figures in the budget relating to fisheries. the debate was tense and lively. there were many differences of opinion, firstly on fifg, secondly on support for the common european fisheries policy by the council and the member states, above all in relation to international fisheries agreements such as the most recent one with morocco, and thirdly on relations between the eu and other international organisations. we appeal for the european parliament at least to try to maintain the level of appropriations allocated to the common fisheries policy in recent financial years. on my initiative, we in the committee have drafted three amendments which have all recently been adopted either directly or indirectly by the committee on budgets. in particular, the committee on fisheries is concerned about line b2-901 concerning supervision and monitoring measures by the member states, line b2-903 concerning support for the common european fisheries policy and line b7-8000 concerning international fisheries agreements. the budgetary policy variously affects the three following core issues. firstly: structural operations. at the berlin summit, eur 161 million were earmarked for regions outside objective 1 areas. that is a truly considerable amount, yet the commitment and payment appropriations increased in 1998 and 1999 and might, in all probability, increase further. secondly: the draft budget does not allocate sufficient money for the implementation of an effective supervision and monitoring policy. in 1999 alone, the member states applied for more money than was available in the eu budgets. this explains why the committee on fisheries applied for an additional sum of eur 2 million. at the same time, we are understandably reassured by the fact that there is sustainable management of resources, systematic recording of basic data and an intensification of dialogue with the industry. accordingly, the committee on fisheries then made this application a high budgetary priority. the third matter is obviously morocco. we welcome the negotiating mandate which the council has finally awarded. finally, i would like to point out that the common fisheries policy - but i do not really need to tell you that - requires major support by the community. i do not just mean financial support. we are facing major challenges. we must all make it perfectly clear that that the eu, which constitutes a superpower in the fisheries sector, is prepared to stand up for an industry which concerns numerous regions, states and citizens of the union. the number and quality of jobs is of significant added value to the eu and, as we all know, also plays a crucial role in enlargement. mr president, on behalf of the committee on regional policy and transport and tourism i would like to endorse warmly the approach adopted by the general rapporteur, mr bourlanges. in particular i would like to thank him for the attention he has paid to liaising with my committee over recent months and our predecessors in the past year. my committee has advanced five budget priorities: objective 1, 2, interreg, transport safety and sustainable mobility. i will deal with the regional policy priorities first. i agree with the general rapporteur' s comment that the cuts to structural fund appropriations are completely unacceptable. so what are the cuts proposed by the council? the council is proposing that the payment appropriations are cut by eur 433 million for objective 1, eur 95 million for objective 2 and eur 33 million for interreg. this parliament enthusiastically endorsed the agenda 2000 structural fund programme. we expect the new structural fund programmes to be launched in the coming year with a flying start. this simply will not be possible if these cuts proceed. the council is advocating a reduction in advance payments to new programmes to just 3.5%. in contrast, this parliament has previously considered that advance payments at the time of first commitment should be in excess of 10% of total funds. in our view, if these cuts proceed regional regeneration will be put at risk. existing programmes will stall before they are transformed into new programmes. momentum will be lost. inevitably the poorest communities in the poorest regions will suffer the most. the bottom line is that new jobs will not be created and existing jobs will be put at risk. my committee has proposed 100% restoration of these three budget lines to the level of the provisional draft budget. this eur 561 million increase in structural fund appropriations will allow us to honour properly historic commitments and ensure the new agenda 2000 programmes hit the ground running. we also endorse, incidentally, the proposed 20% entry into reserve pending the successful outcome of our discussions over the guidelines. i will now turn briefly if i may to transport and just say to members that i hope they are able to support the committee on budgets' moves to restore the cuts to the transport safety line and the cuts to the line on sustainable mobility. i would like to conclude by thanking all my colleagues on the committee for the support they have given me through this budget process. mr president, this is the third occasion i have been asked to be draftsman for the committee on culture, youth, education, the media and sport. it is not an easy job, there is never enough money, but it is one i would rather do than be the general budget rapporteur. i would like to add my thanks to those already expressed to mr bourlanges for the support he has shown to the culture committee. culture has not come out of the budget process as well as it wished, but we are doing rather better than the council of ministers' proposal and have figures close to the 1999 level. our main education programme, socrates, and the programmes of youth and culture have been mauled by the council of ministers. i would say that the eur 238 million proposed for socrates is simply not enough to do a sensible job. last week i met the committee of british university vice-chancellors. they told me that no-one - student or university - gets involved in socrates because of the money. they do it because they believe in europe and they want to make the single market work. but we have to ask ourselves, are the figures now so low as to make the objectives unrealistic? let us hope that the conciliation procedure taking place tomorrow will recognise the need to give a higher priority to europe' s students and increase the funding. the total for our share of the budget is approximately eur 600 million, a lot of money until you divide it by 370 million people - less than 1% of our budget, not a bottomless pit. in the year 2000, the eu will spend less than eur 2 per citizen on education, encouraging young people to participate in exchange programmes or to acquire knowledge of different languages and cultures, on informing its citizens about the future developments of the union while supporting our audio-visual industry. of this scant eur 2 support for europe' s cultural heritage will be less than 20 cents. the call for the millennium must be eur 1 per head on europe' s culture. what we are currently engaged in is tokenism and symbolic expenditure only. even there we manage to get it wrong. i do not criticise individual staff, but i receive too many complaints from prestigious organisations like the european youth orchestra, the european youth parliament, the yehudi menuhin foundation - renowned organisations doing a wonderful job for europe and our young people. not one of those organisations covered by budget lines 3021 or b3-2005 has received a single euro yet in 1999 for their budgets. can we make the millennium the year when our systems work. mr prodi, mrs reding and mrs schreyer, we are relying on you to do it better this coming year. i will finish by telling you a story. i live in a small village in hampshire with a population of 2 500 people. my wife is the chairman of the parish council. i asked her what she spends on cultural, sports and social activities for the village. they spend eur 50 000, or eur 20 per head. so if anybody comes to me for european support, i tell them they are much more likely to get realistic support from their village council than they are from the eu. mr president, the budget debate is always a key moment to express one' s political will. for the european union, it represents the opportunity to reassert its firm moral duty to extend a helping hand to the developing world; the opportunity to show how much we wish to combat poverty, injustice, discrimination of all kinds, the lack of democracy, violation of human rights and attacks on freedom. in short, it is the opportunity to show our determination to pursue our development policy, even if we must review it here and there in order to make it more efficient and more transparent. from this point of view, the draft budget for the year 2000 gives rise to serious concern. in saying that, i am of course referring to category 4, which mr bourlanges has just discussed at length. in addition to the fact that first the commission and then the council have proposed very significant reductions in all the budget lines concerned, we now have to respond to a great number of tragic situations throughout the world. we have to respond to the tragic situation of the kosovar people and commit considerable resources to the reconstruction of the country. but we must do this by freeing up new appropriations and not by amputating all the category 4 lines by approximately 10%. we cannot make the very poorest people pay for the operations of the european union. we cannot set the poor of one country against the poor of another country or distinguish between good victims and bad victims, and i am very sorry that the council to some extent presented the problem in these terms, by setting different cases of poverty against each other. we need sufficient appropriations to finance reconstruction in kosovo, of course, but also for east timor. and, believe me, echo appropriations will not be enough to fund everything, no more than transferring appropriations from one line to the next according to current priorities. we also have to finance the fisheries agreement with morocco, which is a priority for the european parliament. we must therefore invite the council to review the financial perspective for our external policies in category 4. i believe that parliament is fairly unanimous on this point. i must also thank, on behalf of the committee on development and cooperation, both the general rapporteur for the budget, mr bourlanges, and the committee on budgets, as well as its chairman, mr wynn, for the stance they have taken on this matter. nonetheless, on behalf of the committee on development and cooperation, we have decided to submit three amendments. the first involves the question of gender. throughout africa, women are taking action; they are the driving force, the hope of africa for the next millennium, and we must support this movement. the second amendment concerns the lines of health, reproduction, and the fight against aids, which we propose to merge. this merging must not, however, be grounds for a reduction in appropriations. twenty-five million people in africa are going to die of aids, twenty-five million potential patients, nine tenths of whom, due to lack of scanning and lack of sex education, are unaware of the danger lurking in their body. aids will be the next tragedy in africa. the third amendment which we wish to submit concerns line b7-6000 on the community contribution to the operations of ngos. the draft budget envisages a drastic reduction in the appropriations allocated to this line. mr bourlanges proposed instead to increase them, and i thank him for this. what we propose is to amend the wording. this is an amendment which does not have financial implications but which is going to enable the liaison committee . (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, madam president-in-office of the council, commissioner schreyer, ladies and gentlemen, according to an ancient chinese proverb 'women are half of heaven' and it is only right that in the european union women should also be involved in the budget in the same proportion. perhaps that is why the committee on women 's rights and equal opportunities is the last in the series of committees to be heard this morning. we in the committee on women 's rights and equal opportunities have few priorities: firstly, actions specific to women and, secondly, gender mainstreaming in all community policies. the fourth action programme for equal opportunities expires at the end of the year 2000 and i would like to remind commissioner diamantopoulou of the promise which she made to the committee to submit as soon as possible a proposal for continuing this programme so that the fifth action programme can follow on seamlessly. daphne, the programme for combating violence against children, youths and women, must pass through the second reading as quickly as possible in order to retain here also continuity with the promotion period which is expiring. the committee on women' s rights and equal opportunities is asking here for a broad interpretation of the term "health" which covers not just physical but also mental and social well-being. the community initiative now is expiring and therefore funds must be made available in the new community initiative equal specifically for promoting women. the labour market, education and training are key areas for the active promotion of women and accompanying measures, e.g. support for dependants, play a major role for women in particular and help to make access to the labour market easier. unfortunately it is still the case that in the european union, we need special promotional opportunities for women also. the same also applies to public relations work and the information society where we should direct our attention to women in the applicant countries in particular. the funds for the european women' s lobby, which also represents the interests of women in europe, must also be made available in budget 2000. europe is facing up to its responsibility in development policy and therefore the funds here must not be cut under any circumstances. it makes sense to group together the budget lines b7-631 and b7-6211 into a single line. but this must then be allocated the corresponding monies. family planning and health care for mothers and children are among the most important principles of population policy. here, women are a key factor which we must use to lead developing countries out of poverty. the involvement of women in social, economic and political life must be expanded. by purposefully promoting women within population and development policy, we can help to produce a stable social background, to modify existing structures and to develop new structures. the committee on women' s rights and equal opportunities is proposing only a few amendments and i would invite you to support them. mr president, firstly, on behalf of my group i would like in particular to warmly thank the two general rapporteurs for the correct points of focus and the correct strategy which they have developed. if in a public debate concerning budgetary reorganisation and savings measures we advocate a limited revision of the financial perspective, we are doing this as a parliament with a clear conscience because in the past, we have always maintained that parliament was able to responsibly set the necessary european political priorities whilst striving for greater efficiency and transparency in the budgetary procedure. of course, it is not a matter of financing new political needs simply by increasing funds. but, on the other hand, current development makes it clear that parts of the berlin agreement were not quite so prudent and forward-looking and that there is a need here for further improvement. i would like to address the following comments to the council and the council presidency: you do not need to remind us that we have a responsibility to the european taxpayer and that we too have a responsibility to exercise budgetary discipline. i would much prefer it if in the future the council did its share of the homework rather better. it really was scandalous that the council recommended to parliament granting discharge of the budgets for 1996 and 1997 to the commission. since a major part of the community budget is handled by the member states, i would recommend that, in the interests of good housekeeping, the council pay attention in this matter to efficiency, transparency and tidy implementation so that the commission is not forced in future to repeatedly resort to the funds of the charging procedure. if this part of the job is done, then the council can feel free to make new proposals to parliament on how we should conduct ourselves in matters of budgetary procedure. i am very grateful to commissioner schreyer that she opposed the figures. what was the preliminary draft? what proposals did the council lay on the table? how is this to be assessed in connection with the ceilings on financial expenditure on which we jointly agreed? we certainly do not want to use up the margins which, in terms of the 1.27% of the gross national product of the member states, now comprise eur 9-10 billion. but i would also like to say very clearly that there are international commitments which we have undertaken towards developing countries, towards third countries, which cannot simply be cut across-the-board by 10%! that is visionless and politically indefensible. that is nothing but bookkeeping! the council really should distance itself from this! in this regard, i would also like to make clear that it is not just a matter of setting in motion the necessary priorities for external action, such as the reconstruction of kosovo, but, so that it is reasonably organised and initiated, the council must also meet parliament halfway in the matter of how we should organise this aid and how the future reconstruction agency for kosovo should really operate? i believe that here also the council must compromise with parliament. the rapporteur correctly pinpointed the problems of the technical assistance offices. we are prepared to give the commission the necessary funds for administrative expenditure and the management of all these projects if in return parliament is involved in the deliberations on reform. i believe that we can have good dialogue here. i would also like to take up what my mr perry said: multiannual programmes such as socrates and life are indeed programmes which the citizens outside expect from us and here also we should provide the quality and the necessary funds as a contribution to european development, the european integration process. the commission has taken a first step towards parliament in the form of the comments of mrs schreyer that we should strive for reallocation, the use of a smaller portion of the flexibility reserve and possibly an amendment to the financial perspective. this is a first step but, where cuts are concerned, there is an onus on the commission and the council to provide evidence line-by-line, whether it is genuinely the case that funds are not being drained away, or whether the intention is to block the politically desired priorities of parliament. the onus is on you. then we can have various debates. i believe that we still have a lot to do before december, before the second reading. parliament is agreed: we need a limited revision of the financial perspective so that, unlike this year, we do not need to again crib our way through x number of different supplementary and amending budgets! mr president, commissioner, madam president-in-office of the council, firstly, mr bge, a minor correction: i would like to thank the three rapporteurs, not two. mr pittella also submitted an extremely important report to us; i would therefore like to thank the three rapporteurs for the genuinely constructive cooperation which has accompanied the budgetary procedure this year. i must also thank all those who have approached us from the individual committees with their requests and who, in the majority of cases, in the vast majority of cases, have shown a great deal of understanding for the fact that in a limited framework much is desirable but not everything is possible. we are dealing here with monies which are of course limited, and indeed limited with our approval, but which must reflect the tasks which we have carried out at european level. the european union budget for the year 2000 is a special budget, not just because it was initiated by the old parliament, but because there was also a binding interinstitutional agreement which we adopted at the same time and which has had to be continued after the re-election. it is this interinstitutional agreement which restricts us, but which has also opened up additional opportunities for us; i shall come back to this. thirdly, budget 2000 is noteworthy because this year we are entering the period of the next financial perspective, which runs to 2006, and today we must put down important markers for the coming years. fourthly, following the treaty of amsterdam, the european union is in a situation of facing many new challenges, for example in matters of internal policies, the area of freedom, security and justice, the employment chapter or increased opportunities in health protection and even consumer protection. however, additional tasks also require that we make available the necessary funds, since otherwise it is nothing more than lip service and budgets should not be mere lip service. we must, therefore, clearly define our priorities and make it very clear what they are. we have done this in the past and will do it in the future. turning to the president-in-office of the council, i must say: obviously for us this is about people, people in the form of the taxpayer who must raise what we spend here, but also the people to whom the money must be made available, for whom we are deciding policies. we are not making policies as a game between the commission, the council and parliament for our own benefit, but in order to create the best possible conditions for the development of the european union and for the people with whom we are dealing. in the past we have placed great importance on the citizens being able to verify that we ensure careful handling of our taxes. in terms of appropriations which concern commitment appropriations, budget 2000 is lower than the budget 1999. just go to the finance ministers in your member states and tell them that they must submit a budget plan which is lower than the plan for the previous year. i would like to see that. that is the first thing we must get on top of. here we are acting accordingly and anyone should be aware of this if they come to us and say that we only want increases. that is not the case. we handle the money very, very carefully. however, because we are working with and on behalf of people, one of our particular tasks is category 4, external action. here the council has actually come up and said: we want to finance an important future task and an important current task which must be spread over the coming years, i.e. aid for the people of kosovo. to finance that we are carrying out a 10% cut in all lines. mr bge said that this is visionless and this is a neat term. are you aware, for example, that in these lines we must then cut by 10% financial aid for israel and the palestinian people, i.e. the aid for establishing peace in the region? are you aware that we must cut by 10% population programmes and funds for combating the scourge of aids in developing countries? are you aware that tackling anti-personnel mines, which is also in our budget lines, will have to be cut by 10%, or that we must cut by 10% measures by non-governmental organisations in developing countries, e.g. for street children in guatemala or in other regions of the world because we do not want to have any vision, because we do not want to take a close look at where these funds ought to come from? this cannot be the policy which we want to pursue. an across-the-board cut with the lawnmower is indefensible and, therefore, we must and will fight it and we will cite category 4 as part of the interinstitutional agreement. although it is difficult, we will observe the other parts of the interinstitutional agreement. we also have problems with other categories, e.g. category 3, which contains the traditional focal points of our policy: environmental policy, youth training programmes, research and trans-european networks with their possibilities for creating jobs and improving our competitiveness in global dealings. here also things are very tight because we are outlining ever more tasks but are not getting the necessary funds. we are shifting tasks from national to european level, expressis verbis, but then we are not getting the appropriate financial resources. this cannot be a sound policy. we need to discuss this. all the same, within this category we will not endeavour to increase the funds. within the interinstitutional agreement, we have established that, in future, agricultural policy too can be definitively co-decided by us. in future, we cannot just promote the production of individual products, but the development of rural areas. this is an extremely important matter for us, and finally, allow me to say something on staffing policy. in this too we have acted extremely responsibly, as in previous years. except in two central areas, we have not provided for additional jobs. olaf must be strengthened, whilst the second area concerns veterinary protection and food controls, where we have made a very modest increase of five staff. this much we owe to the people, who demand that we ensure that they have safe food to eat. these, in brief, are the focal points. (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, i too would like to begin by thanking the three rapporteurs for leaving no stone unturned in their work. i would particularly like to thank mr bourlanges. i have often noticed that it takes him less than 15 minutes for him to win various people over with his eloquence. we adopted the financial perspective in may this year and it is a shame that we did not manage an absolute majority. we managed an ordinary majority. but at least we managed some kind of majority and so i think we should respect the perspective. my group believes that we should in fact do this as often as we possibly can. there is one category in which this it is difficult to do so and i intend to take this up again at a later stage. it is category 4. in broad terms, i would like to lend firm support to the position adopted by the rapporteur where his policy on taos, the technical assistance offices, is concerned. if we look at the events of the past year we have no choice but to make this issue as transparent as possible. we must know what concerns the public sector and what concerns the private sector. let us just go through the various categories. firstly, category 1: agriculture. for around three years now we have had a new procedure for this: the ad hoc procedure. we are due to receive a report from the commission at the end of this week containing the most recent estimates of how much agriculture will cost in the year 2000. i have no idea how the council is able to determine where cutbacks can be made as early as july. a percentage cut in agricultural expenditure in all the lines is out of the question. it simply cannot be done. we must wait to see what the estimates are and after next week we will be in a position to talk about what exactly it is that agriculture needs. i feel that the course of action taken by the council is very much against the spirit of the agreement. as far as the innovations in agricultural expenditure are concerned, category 1b, we firmly endorse those amendments that say that we must do something about the nitrate problem in europe. we also feel that something must be done in terms of a quality-control policy for european agricultural products. exactly one year ago a report on this was unanimously adopted in this parliament and it happens to be the case that i was the author of it. as far as category 2 is concerned, we believe that the payment appropriations must reflect actual needs and i think that we need to have another exchange of ideas on the subject. category 4 is something my group has discussed intensively and indeed it continues to do so. i believe that i can put the rapporteur' s mind at rest. a majority of people supports his position. the majority of people believe that it will not do to make cuts in funds for other countries that need help. we must pay this money. the same group of people feels that kosovo is part of europe and ought to be given priority. turkey must be helped and east timor must be helped. there is also another group of people, probably a minority - and the rapporteur will not be surprised to hear that i am one of them - that believes that the figures need to be scrutinised once again. can kosovo really absorb the 500 million when its gross national product is between eur 800 million and eur 1 billion? i would be pleased to have another look at exactly how this has been calculated some time. i also feel that as much attention as possible must be given in the coming months to seeing if we can still solve the problem. i would now like to say something about expenditure on administration. we consider it to be essential that the rapporteur and the rapporteur for the year 2001 get down some time to answering the question as to what exactly comes under part a of the budget and what comes under part b. turning now to category a-30 in particular: when can an aid organisation call upon eec funding? the criteria for this are far too opaque to our mind. what does have a bearing on expenditure on administration? we hear this day in day out and many of us are uncomfortable with it. the proportion of elderly people within society continues to increase. the pension problem in europe must be given serious consideration at some stage. i too believe that this will be a fine task for the commission to attend to. the phase we are about to enter between first and second reading will be particularly interesting this time round. i feel we must carefully examine all the headings once again for whichever way you look at it, a rigorous budget is what we need at this moment in time and that is what we are all going to have to strive for. three rapporteurs and many draftsmen of opinions. mr president, on behalf of the green group i would like to say how obliged i am to them for their endeavours, which have resulted in the piles of reports that i have here before me. unfortunately i am only in a position to single out a few points and i intend to start with expenditure in the field of external action, since it is this area that is at the heart of this discussion on the budget. i share the rapporteur' s disapproval of the european commission' s proposal to organise development cooperation under geographical headings from now on and to reduce thematic budget headings. it is by using the horizontal approach that we are in fact able to boost precisely those activities relating to subjects which we make our political priority: human rights, the environment and emancipation for example. four years after reproductive rights were fought for at the united nations conference in beijing, the european budget heading on this is being torpedoed. i am very pleased that the rapporteur still put this right in his report. what is a pity is that this subject is going to be added to the budget heading on aids. condoms seem to me to be a common denominator but there are also other aspects to the right of women to self-determination over their bodies. i fully support what the rapporteur has to say on financing the reconstruction of kosovo. minister siimes reminded us of our obligations to the taxpayer and that the money must be spent wisely. i think that is precisely our point. the kosovo pot is being filled at present by means of an across-the-board cut of 10% in expenditure on external action. this drip-feed method is, in every respect, a short-sighted approach of the kind used in accountancy and does not testify to a serious weighing up of priorities. the question that needs to be asked most is whether or not this amendment to an eu external policy area will also have its advantages in the long term. mr walter has already mentioned a number of examples. there will be less money for the peace process in the middle east; less money for projects aimed at reintegrating demobilised soldiers into society. the lesson kosovo has to teach us is not being taken to heart. there is less money being invested in conflict prevention. my group therefore believes that the reconstruction of kosovo should be financed by raising the ceiling on category 4. the financial assistance for east timor and turkey will, however, be more limited in scope. i agree with mr mulder that there is a case here for looking at the possibility as to whether the money can be found in the existing budget. this will certainly mean setting priorities, and that being the case, using the european budget to subsidise large enterprises' exports will not be one of my first priorities. it may also be possible to create some room for manoeuvre - and that is perhaps something for discussion with the council - by taking the eur 89 million destined for humanitarian activities in kosovo out of the humanitarian aid pot and carry it over to the total financial package for the region. these differences must not, however, be allowed to conceal - and i said earlier that i share the rapporteur' s opinion - the fact that more money must be made available for external policy because it is unacceptable to allow kosovo to suffer on account of the developing countries. another major point of discussion in the committee on budgets was the subsidising of non-governmental organisations. budget heading 3021 - mr perry has already made reference to this too - contains a list of organisations awarded a precise amount. i do not intend to call the work of these organisations into question here, but i do feel that it is appalling that parliament is going to have to be drafted in where the granting of individual subsidies is concerned. it is understandable though, from the point of view of the organisations concerned, for the commission is failing badly in its tasks if organisations have to wait a year and a half for subsidies to be awarded or if criteria are changed in the meantime. the amount of red tape involved has to be seen to be believed. that is precisely what puts a brake on initiatives from eu citizens. the reform of the commission is therefore also going to have to play its part in improving service provision by ensuring that money is spent efficiently, in a transparent manner, and also in accordance with the political choices of the budgetary authorities. that is not to say that the choices made by the budgetary authority itself are always rational. the cultivation and export of tobacco is being subsidised to the value of almost eur 1 billion for example. in addition, we spend several millions a year on informing people about the negative consequences of smoking tobacco. how can we still justify this? accordingly, my group proposes that we should reduce this tobacco subsidy by 10%. my final point, mr president, relates to the members' voluntary pension scheme. this became the talk of the town because the affiliated members were receiving extra pensions from european resources through this arrangement. this will all be gone into at length during the negotiations on the statute and i will not attempt to prejudge any decision on this at this early stage. what i do want us to achieve in the course of these negotiations is to see the pension fund become independent of parliament, both in terms of its administrative and political structure. mr president, madam president-in-office of the council, commissioner, any budget is the expression of political choices par excellence. from this point of view, i think there is a singular contradiction between piling on the tasks assigned to the european union, while subtracting the resources necessary to fulfil these tasks. the iron logic of the budgetary stability pact does not go at all well with the ambition for a europe of greater social justice and greater solidarity. let me sum up as follows for the benefit of the uninitiated, by which i mean our fellow citizens, in order to make explicit the main themes of the draft budget submitted to us by the council of ministers. agricultural expenditure: a systematic 10% cut of all the credit lines in relation to the commission' s preliminary draft budget, without even examining the specific requirements, case by case. structural funds: appreciable reduction in the regional aid appropriations. internal policies, that is, excluding research and networks, all policies supporting employment, youth, training, the environment, culture: a reduction of nearly 18% in relation to our current budget. external policies, especially in the area of cooperation with the countries of the south: the chop. examples have been given already, but let me add: food aid down by 9% in relation to the present, cooperation with africa down by 12% and aid to ngos down by 35%. this choice is completely unacceptable in the opinion of my group. the reason put forward to attempt to justify these swinging cuts is the unexpected appearance of new priorities, which are incidentally perfectly legitimate, such as aid for the reconstruction of kosovo, our contribution to the construction of east timor now that it has been liberated, our solidarity with the earthquake victims in turkey and financing of a fisheries agreement with morocco. this argument is inadmissible, in my opinion. it is not acceptable to rob peter to pay paul. while my group is by no means arguing in favour of recklessly increasing union expenditures, we still think it necessary, if the need arises, as is clearly the case, to utilise the margin for the increase in expenditure which is authorised under the agreements signed between the member states themselves. yet, as a percentage of the gross domestic product of the union, the volume of the council' s draft budget is less than that of the commission' s preliminary draft budget, which was already less than that of the berlin agreement which in turn was less than the ceiling set by the edinburgh agreements. where is it all going to end? we have to know what we really want to achieve and allocate appropriate resources, within reason. this is why my group is requesting, within the limits envisaged under the agreements signed by the member states themselves, a review of the financial perspective for all the items i have just mentioned. and, monsieur bourlanges, since he who can do more can do less, we are at all events supporting the rapporteur' s proposal for the review of the financial perspective for external policies. in addition, i would like to draw the attention of my fellow members to some amendments proposed by my group in favour of a study on the application of the tobin tax in support of the world cultural heritage classified by unesco within the countries of the union, in favour of a freeze on aid to turkey, excluding, of course, aid to the earthquake victims, until the turkish authorities change their attitude to the kurdish people, on the question of cyprus and on the subject of human rights in general. finally, we urgently demand that the appropriations allocated in the 1999 budget to the european women's lobby, which unites 1400 women' s organisations and which performs work of a high quality, are renewed in their entirety in the 2000 budget. as you can see, these are common sense proposals on which all progressive members of parliament, and even others, can and should agree. mr president, the budgetary procedure for the year 2000 is henceforth included within the strict financial framework with the regulated expenditure for the period 2000-2006, as accepted by this house in the interinstitutional agreement. if the same stringency in budgetary matters prevails as much at the level of the states as in the union, here it is chiefly a response to the demands of some member states, and we know that the first victim of this stringency will be the common agricultural policy. a gradual decrease of expenditure is being organised deliberately, to the detriment of farmers. as regards the structural funds, european regional policy has become a real handicap for france, contrary to the myth complacently propounded by some, including, alas, the current commissioner responsible for regional policy. on the subject of foreign policy, we are of course in favour of the fisheries agreement with morocco, an essential agreement in european-mediterranean relations, which are too often neglected by the union. we are also in favour of financial support for east timor and of aid for turkey in the aftermath of the earthquakes. as for aid for kosovo, let us one last time deplore the bombing of a european state by the countries of the union. yesterday we bombed the balkans and today we must help to reconstruct the region and re-establish peace, but this means re-establishing peace for everyone, including the kosovo serbs. we can indeed clearly see what this increase in the total appropriation for foreign policy actions foreshadows. the austerity that the financial perspective herald will in fact be a sort of selective austerity: foreign policy rather than agricultural policy. the significant weakening of agricultural policy and the dubious regional policy are elements that our group could not possibly accept. and if there were further need, paragraph 20 of mr bourlanges' resolution, which considers the distinction between compulsory expenditure and non-compulsory expenditure to be seriously anachronistic, would be sufficient to justify our rejection of the budget. mr president, last may this parliament endorsed the financial framework for the period 2000-2006. that implied a readiness to observe the necessary budgetary discipline. we must assess budget 2000 against this background. the rapporteur proposes that we should go way beyond the ceiling on expenditure on external action. he is playing for high stakes in so doing; seeing as this will only unsettle matters where the interinstitutional agreement is concerned. financing important priorities such as kosovo and east timor is now becoming dependent on a political game that parliament and the council are playing over the financial perspective. moreover, what credibility can a parliament have when it wants to renegotiate the financial ceiling that it itself agreed with such a short time ago? it is far too early to call upon article 19 of the interinstitutional agreement. we must first look seriously at the various possibilities for financing these new priorities within the present framework. i am thinking, for example, of those areas where there was underspending in 1999 and of the possibility of making cutbacks in programmes with low expenditure figures such as meda. next a few words about the structural funds. the current problems with the payment appropriations are evidence of the fact that the budget for the structural funds has been pegged at too high a level in the past. the rapporteur proposes to incorporate 50% of outstanding payments into budget 2000. i am very apprehensive about this enforced increase in the appropriations. can such an amount be absorbed and is the commission capable of managing this extra money effectively? i cannot support those who are in favour of incorporating the resources of the european central bank into the european union' s budget. after all, this would mean the budgetary authority gaining control over the european central bank' s capital, which would jeopardise the independence that the ecb needs to have. furthermore, the european union is not a shareholder of the european central bank. any distribution of profits would then go not to the eu but to the national central banks. we are amazed to see an amendment to the effect that the commission is attempting to draw up a statute for european political parties. only parties matching up to this blueprint would be considered for financial assistance. there is no way that we can go along with this attempt at centralism. drawing up a statute of this kind is a matter for the political parties themselves in the first instance. moreover, the party organisations reflect national cultures and diversity. any attempts to squeeze the political parties into a european straitjacket will only serve to widen the gulf between brussels and the citizens of europe. on a final note, the virrankoski report contains the umpteenth declaration of intent to revise the regulations governing travel cost reimbursement on the basis of costs actually incurred. but are we not getting to the point when it is time to convert words into deeds? our group put forward an amendment aimed at achieving this but the committee on budgets rejected it. that was a lost opportunity and it sends out the wrong signal to the citizens of europe. mr president, i would first like to congratulate the rapporteur and, with a great deal of respect for the work he has done, thank him very sincerely for this draft budget which is courageous and innovative in many aspects. the rapporteur is to be praised for having achieved it by means of a budgetary procedure which has run its course with the utmost smoothness, even if parliament is in the process of issuing a major challenge to the council - a challenge which, in my opinion, is worth accepting. i am referring, obviously, to the financial perspective and the need for europe to prove itself worthy of the role it wishes to play in the world, without making an over-complicated issue of the budget of the union. in 1999 we had a budget - i say this to the ladies and gentlemen of the council in particular, i am reminding you of this because it is a matter which affects us all - in 1999, commissioner, we had a budget of eur 96 billion. this year, a milestone year, what with the war in kosovo, the events in east timor, the earthquakes in turkey and the commitments of a union that wishes to take on more responsibility in the international arena, the council is proposing a budget of eur 92 billion, that is, eur 4 billion less than the budget for the previous year. the edinburgh perspectives set us an ever higher ceiling and the council gives us an ever more limited budget, meaning that it will be necessary to cut back on actions in the field of development, for example, or human rights and many other actions, in order to finance the priorities which have been set, and it is not our fault if europe is the great paymaster of foreign policy. we shall be responsible for the payments, while other people are responsible for the policy, and i hope that this is going to change. parliament will therefore do well, on thursday, to ask you to go beyond these financial perspective. do we wish to finance reconstruction in kosovo? fine. do we wish to assist the integration of turkey, including by subsidising its immediate dramatic needs? do we have a new nation emerging into the international arena after all these massacres which have taken place? then, let us finance these policies, for heaven' s sake. we have an interinstitutional agreement that allows us, if exceptional events require, to go beyond the financial perspective, so why not do it? that would be eur 1.5 billion more. it will still be less than the 1999 budget, but i think that the citizens of europe will clearly see that this endeavour is not only logical, but also perfectly feasible at the level of the budgets of our member states. we would therefore do well to proceed in this way and i think that parliament should follow through and, if necessary, demand that we have recourse to the former article 203 of the budget. a brief word on taos. there too i think we are demonstrating great pragmatism. i thank the rapporteur very much. we have an interim solution which, i think, will enable us, by means of dialogue with the commission, to find an agreement on a definitive solution. i am pointing out this pragmatic aspect of our report for the year 2000 and i would compare it to policies which were rather more extremist in which a clean sweep was made of mini-budgets and then one found oneself with one or two thousand taos which could not be managed because the project had been axed in the meantime without any thought as to the consequences. so, i congratulate the rapporteur. as regards political parties, may i say that, frankly, asking the commission to lay down the status of political parties - i am referring to the contribution of the last speaker - is neither fair nor worthy. mr president, like others who have already participated in this debate i should like to congratulate the rapporteurs, but in particular mr bourlanges. in his opening remarks, he clarified for us the perspective for the 2000 budget in putting forward the idea that we have to have more programmes, we have to have more countries and we have to have less money. there seems to be a contradiction here which, in the longer term when we come to enlargement, when we come to a new intergovernmental conference, we are quite clearly going to have to resolve in the context of our budget procedures. for my part, i would like to focus my remarks on three aspects which concern the running of european policies and the attitudes which we have taken in parliament in previous years to these aspects. this is in the particular context of the commission. we, as a parliament, want to make sure that accountability is seen to work for those who elected us and to make sure that we have value for money in the running of the programmes. the first item in internal policy refers to information policy. in the last parliament we wanted to make sure that we had proper functioning interinstitutional cooperation. we made progress in that respect by making sure that in terms of the general information lines, in terms of the specific campaigns, we had good cooperation on both sides. but we did not arrive at a common framework for this interinstitutional cooperation as we in parliament had wanted. there is some degree of concern at some of the initial moves the commission is now making in its information structures which we in parliament will keep a close eye on. in particular, we had asked in the last parliament, and indeed in previous parliaments, for the commission and parliament offices to work closely together in the member states. i have put down an amendment, our group has put down an amendment, to make sure that we can have a report from the commission on how far this has gone. there are still one or two countries where the commission and parliament are separate in terms of structure and we need to be particularly vigilant in instances where more than 75 or 80% of the appropriations go into paying for salaries and buildings rather than adequate information policies. secondly, in terms of external policy, particularly in terms of kosovo, the hearing we organised a few days ago with the committee on foreign affairs and the committee on budgets, was very revealing to me, in particular the fact that this is not a short-term commitment. we had evidence from mr bildt, mr kouchner, mr hombach and then from all the other agencies, that this is a long-term problem we have in front of us. we must, therefore, make sure not only that we get proper coherence between the agencies working on the ground but also madam president-of-the council, that we do not take decisions which mean that we are spending money futilely because of a council decision that we must have some people removed some 100 miles away in another place. we must make sure that when we come to mrs pack' s report later this week we take the right decisions and that the council understands parliament' s feelings on that. in the longer term, we must ensure that we have vision and - as you said commissioner - we need to have the idea of building civil society in the longer term, not just as some kind of short-term project. kosovo and stability in the balkans must be a long-term project. it is us, as europeans, who have to take that responsibility. we cannot expect others to take on that particular responsibility for us. i therefore welcome the idea of a working committee between the committee on foreign affairs and the committee on budgets. we must make sure not only that funds are properly spent but that the ideas which are coming through are properly coordinated. lastly, in terms of administration policy, there are the technical assistance offices. i would underline what mr bge said to the council. the council has been absent from this debate on discharge. with nonchalant ease, they have gone through approving the 1996, the 1997 discharge, and it has been up to us in parliament to press for change at every turn. therefore in terms of eu reform we are right, as a parliament, to say that we do not wish to see new posts until we know where the posts are going. what are the real needs of the commission? secondly, we are right to say that we should not have technical assistance offices performing tasks through temporary officials in what are meant to be permanent posts for the commission. we must find some way of having a dialogue between the institutions over the next 12 months to make sure that these reforms take place and that we have the right kind of criteria for making sure that we are getting value for money from the staff. otherwise - and i will end on this proposal: we must start cutting programmes if we do not have the proper staff resources available to run them, because ultimately we must make sure that these processes are accountable and we must make sure that we get value for money in the system. mr president, i speak on behalf of the socialist group in relation to the virrankoski report. firstly, i would like to congratulate the rapporteur on a very good approach to this issue and to say that the socialist group broadly agrees with the matters he has raised. on the issue of staffing, which affects all the institutions, we take the view that we have to find a balance between financial prudence and the ability of the institutions to do their job properly. as we have just heard, there is a danger of the institutions taking on new tasks which they are unable to resource properly. mr virrankoski has just about got the balance right. we would have liked to be a bit more generous to parliament in terms of staffing resources. on the european parliament section of the budget, we firstly welcome the fact there has been a marked change in attitude between the bureau and the budgets committee. as someone who sits on both, perhaps i can comment on this. the way in which the bureau and the budgets committee have worked together to come to a compromise on parliament' s budget has been very constructive. i want to highlight just three issues within parliament budget. one is the issue of the members' statute. there was a suggestion that we should put money on the line for a members' statute. the socialists rejected this idea, not in any way to weaken our approach to the members' statute; through our comments we indicate we strongly support the notion of a members' statute but believe it is now up to the council to respond to parliament' s proposals in this area. similarly with political parties, the socialist group strongly supports the notion of european political parties. but you simply cannot put money on the line without having an idea of who is going to qualify for this money, what purposes the money is going to be used for, and so on. parliament has produced an excellent report - the tsatsos report - in this area. it is now up to the commission to bring forward a proposal on how we might implement the proposal for a european political party. once that happens, again the socialists would be happy to negotiate the idea of putting money on the line. finally, and perhaps something that you and i, mr president, take a personal interest in, the notion of regional offices. the bureau of parliament last night decided that edinburgh, marseilles, milan, munich and barcelona should all have regional offices. we have put money in the reserve in the budget. when we come to second reading, i hope we can release that money from the reserve and get on with implementing the policy of regional offices. they are vital in terms of parliament' s strategy of bringing parliament closer to the people. the only other institution' s budget i want to talk about specifically and briefly is the court of justice' s budget. my view, and i am sure the view of many in this house, is that justice delayed is often justice denied. it is quite clear that the court of justice has not had the resources to carry out its tasks properly. the council has made a limited gesture in terms of improving staffing of the court. parliament wants to go further. i hope we will support the rapporteur' s proposal here. in particular, delays in interpretation and translation are causing major problems for the court. we should do all in our power to resolve this. the virrankoski report does that. i turn briefly to the bourlanges report which is outwith my own remit. i put on record my support for mr bourlanges' approach to the 2000 budget. he is absolutely right to reject the 10% across the board crude reduction in development lines. it is true, as the council says, that some development lines have not been used well. it is true that some suffer from underspend. but simply to say that we cut them all by 10% is a very crude mechanism. the council needs to make a more refined proposal before we come to second reading. at the moment, the rapporteur is absolutely right. money for east timor, kosovo and other emergencies like turkey, has to come from new money unless the council makes a more refined proposal. to pick up mr elles' last point on the technical assistance offices, again, the council has been silent on this. it was the root of the problem with the santer commission. what the rapporteur has said in his report is absolutely right on this issue. again, the socialist group gives him 100% backing. mr president, i should also like first of all to express my appreciation of the sterling work which mr bourlanges, mr virrankoski and mr pittella have done as rapporteurs for the budget. as a liberal, i personally have the basic attitude that we should be thrifty when it comes to public expenditure. in fact, i also think we have tried to live up to that basic principle when discussing the budget. i therefore want to emphasise that, when a majority of the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party gives its backing to the strategy which the rapporteur, mr bourlanges, has devised and which aims at rejecting the 10% general reduction in external expenditure, this does not reflect an unwillingness on our part to make savings. it is, on the other hand, a rejection of the way in which the commission and the council have proposed financing the reconstruction of kosovo. as has been mentioned many times today, it is unreasonable that poor countries in africa should in this way finance the reconstruction of kosovo. all the more so when, with the signing of the interinstitutional agreement in the spring, it was anticipated that there would be a need to find funds specifically for kosovo and that the reconstruction would be expensive. it is important that a solution to this problem is found, and it is my hope that, in the negotiations, the council will show the required flexibility so that we might find a solution within the framework of the interinstitutional agreement. we have started with the assumption that eur 500 million should be found for the reconstruction of kosovo. that is the commission' s figure. but, in the committee on budgets, we have also, through a conference among other things, received information to make us question whether that figure has not been set rather too high for the year 2000 and whether we might not be concerned here with a more long-term commitment. this also indicates that a great deal of effort will have to be made to find a solution involving all the various institutions. as a new member, i have been very pleased, during the committee on budgets' negotiations, to experience the discipline which characterises its work. we have tried to live up to an unwritten rule about avoiding dotting the "i" s and crossing the "t" s too much when it comes to noting specific budget appropriations. these tie down the administration and can lead to far too little flexibility and a lack of accountability if we go too far in that direction. noting specifically which funds are to be earmarked for which purposes is obviously an important tool for parliament when preparing a budget. but any tool can become blunt and lose its power if it is not used with care. despite our attempts at restraint, there are many examples of dotting the "i" s and crossing the "t" s in the budget, including many good examples. i think that in principle, however, it is goals and frameworks we ought to be aiming for to as great an extent as possible. it is our task as politicians to establish goals and set the general frameworks. we need to beware of specifying too much detail. in this connection, i want vigorously to back up mr virrankoski' s proposal that budgets should be prepared and controlled on the basis of activities and in relation to goals, as he has recommended they should be in his report. clearly, the circumstances of the past year - what with the commission' s departure and the reports by the committee of independent experts - provide a reminder that we need to secure for ourselves a foundation which can give us confidence that resources are being administered in a reasonable way. there have been good signals from the new commissioners, and i think we are all looking forward to fruitful cooperation with both mrs schreyer and neil kinnock, but they must live with the burden of what we have experienced. this is also the background to why so much money has been placed in reserve. the technical assistance offices, or taos, have been established by the commission as a roundabout way of getting administration into those areas which could not be administered with the given resources. and the experts' report shows that the necessary follow-up and supervision was not in place. we need the commission to provide realistic assessments of the need for administrative resources. this is the background to the situation in which payments into the technical accounts have been placed in a reserve, and there is a need for open dialogue concerning future administration. as i say, those of us in the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party attach a lot of importance to a solution being found which all three institutions can live with. the next few years will demand a lot from us. there will continue to be major external tasks to consider. enlargement of the european union will necessitate a constant re-ordering of our priorities, and we need to continue tidying things up internally. the prior condition for tackling these things is constructive cooperation between parliament, the commission and the council. mr president, madam president-in-office of the council, commissioner, i think we are heading for some difficult debates given that parliament is pretty much agreed - even my group - that we oppose the across-the-board 10% cuts in funding. we would like to thank mr bourlanges for his preliminary work, even though we certainly envisage the need to amend some points of the negotiations. it has already been mentioned by mr mulder that there must still be a critical review of expenditure on kosovo, of the assessment of expenditure on kosovo. as a group, we also consider that there must also be a critical review of the fisheries agreement. in these areas also we must ensure more efficiency, more ecological principles. there are some points where a critical review may be necessary, e.g. the export agreement with japan. nevertheless, we believe that additional tasks - and in this case many additional tasks would pass to the european budget - must also mean additional funds being allocated. we therefore need a critical review of the financial perspective. we would like to thank the commissioner for intimating this. in any case, we are prepared to cooperate constructively in this matter. we think that kosovo can certainly be financed with fresh funds, but we consider that the other points - turkey, the fisheries agreement, etc. -must be financed by the budget for the current appropriations. however, parliament has also clearly shown in today' s debate that it is increasingly aware of its responsibility, not just insofar as concerns the effective use of funds, but also the discharging of funds. it is not just a matter of introducing new budget lines and critically reviewing whether all the budget lines can be used correctly and effectively; it is also about ensuring during the course of the year that the programmes are run properly. we are also responsible for this. i hope that these were not just isolated declarations today, but that in the coming year parliament will also assume the responsibility of critically reviewing in all the committees whether the appropriated funds are also being discharged properly. i would like to briefly address another subject that has also been mentioned here and which will be important. we must, in order to increase trust in the european institutions, also increase the efficiency of parliamentary work itself. in this regard, we have already heard several key points today. firstly, it is a matter of swiftly developing a members' statute, an assistants' statute. also, and here i am opposing some of the previous speakers - it is a matter of developing a european parties' statute since i think that, in the area of party financing at european level also, we need more transparency, more efficiency. the voters must know what funds are available in these areas. this, of course, requires that we clearly define what a european party is and what sort of work is done at european level. it also, of course, requires that we critically and precisely determine what in this case the term "european area" means. how far does the european union' s coordinating task go? it cannot just be about the eu. it must also cover enlargement in the east. funds must also be made available for this. but in all these areas we need more transparency. finally, one more area in which i think that parliament must also do its homework properly is the whole question of estate management. here, in my opinion, mistakes have been made in the past. we must therefore ensure that in future the monies in this area are used much more efficiently and purposefully! mr president, the first budget of this new financial framework confirms and reinforces the grave apprehensions we had during the debates on agenda 2000 and on the interinstitutional agreement that goes with it. indeed, the most striking point about this budget is its obvious lack of appropriations with which to confront specific objectives, given that it is in category 4 on external action and cooperation that this shortfall is most evident. on this matter, i would like to express not only my strong disagreement with the indiscriminate horizontal cuts that the council is proposing in this category, but also to state my general agreement with the strategy that the rapporteur is proposing to us. i also agree with the fact that in essence, it is aiming for a revision of the financial perspective so that they will respond to new priorities without previous objectives being affected as a result. within the scope of this strategy, we are pleased to note that timor is one of this budget' s priorities, and we particularly welcome the fact that the rapporteur has accepted the insertion of a new heading in order to deal with the reconstruction of that region, which is moreover what we on the committee on development and cooperation had proposed and approved. this is, moreover, the only way in which we can respond to the new situation in timor, whilst at the same time respecting the legal basis for intervening in the right way. the proposal of eur 30 million in payment appropriations, however, seems insufficient to us. this is why we want to see this merely as the starting point for a final sum which will be established in the near future and in the context of the conference of donors, which is in progress and in which the european union is participating. by the same token, we would only accept the insertion of this new heading for timor in a multiannual perspective to be considered within an international framework. one final, very specific point, which is nevertheless of great importance: it is essential to ensure - if this has not already been done - that under heading b7-6000, concerning non-governmental organisations, there is a reference to the liaison committee in the respective commentary. indeed it would be absurd if this did not happen. mr president, first of all, i would like to thank mr bourlanges for his competence and the great balance he has shown in preparing this budget. however, i must emphasise the fact that this year' s budget cannot fulfil the objectives set at the beginning, that is, a revival of the union' s economy and, above all, growth in employment. indeed, if we start by cutting back the budgets by 10% and we hit sectors like industry, trade, transport and in some cases, even agriculture, we will not be able to revive our economy and become more competitive with regard to competitors such as the united states and nafta. we must not forget that these are our real competitors and that therefore, only budgetary policies aimed at protecting investments and economic growth will allow us to lay the foundations for a union which will certainly be stronger from a structural and economic point of view. in view of this, i therefore propose that during the next period, we no longer analyse the programmes and their related credit lines for periods of four, five or six years but for shorter periods - one or two years at most - as the rationales of the market and investment in a now global economy no longer correspond to the criterion which the budget itself was built on. in fact, everything is moving much more quickly and much more competitively on the market. this will allow us to intervene immediately in specific sectors and, at the same time, to verify whether our budgetary policy is on course, moving in the direction we set out. in short, this is a budget which must be revised by including new credit lines with regard to international interventions. i therefore agree with the line set out in mr bourlanges' report, although nothing must be taken away from the other credit lines that have already been allocated. at the same time, however, we must endeavour to alter the content and rationale of the budget to take into account the challenges that the union will have to face over the coming years, in particular the fact that the real enemy to be overcome within the individual states is unemployment. mr president, the budget line for reproductive health has been halved by the council and the commission. but, every minute, 380 women become pregnant. of these pregnancies, 190 are unwanted or unplanned. one hundred and eleven women experience pregnancy-related complications and 40 have unsafe abortions. every single minute, there is a death following a pregnancy-related complication. approximately 300 million women suffer from short- or long-term illnesses because of complications in pregnancy. that is more than a quarter of all women living in developing countries. the risk of dying in pregnancy or while giving birth is 1 in 8 in angola, while it is 1 in 8,700 in a country like switzerland. only 53% of women in developing countries give birth with a doctor, nurse or midwife present. seventeen per cent give birth completely alone. at least 60% of all pregnant women in developing countries are anaemic. we know what it means for a family if the mother is sick or dies. the mother' s income goes on food, clothes, schooling and health care. if there is no access to reproductive health facilities, there are consequences for the whole family, not least the children who, in the worst case, also die when the mother dies or else stop going to school and become malnourished. reproductive health is cheap, costing eur 2 or 3 per woman per year. it is also cost-effective when one considers the consequences for the whole family. this year, almost 600,000 women will die in pregnancy or while giving birth. by far the majority of these fatalities could be avoided. it is therefore incredibly important to maintain this particular budget line for reproductive health. a lot has been said about kosovo. of course, i completely share the view that it is outrageous to let poor countries pay for the reconstruction of kosovo. mr president, the draft budget for the year 2000, eur 92 billion, a margin of flexibility for our parliament of eur 1.5 billion taking into consideration the financial perspective, the across-the-board reductions in all appropriations, or at least in appropriations for agriculture, the lack of ambition, and the usual thin spreading of resources and budgetary gimmickry; in other words, it is a draft budget with no great innovations. it is to mr bourlanges' great credit that he attempted to make the discussion more lively by introducing technical objections. he presented a fine study with a sort of pot pourri of everything he has written since march and all that with the attitude of an official of the french supreme audit office. well, that is all very well. the only innovations are not deliberate. it is the first budget of the 21st century, one which will indeed see the dissolution of the european union following the seattle conference where the community preference will be abandoned. it is the first budget to implement the financial perspective for 2000-2006, which mr bourlanges is also asking that we review. it is the first budget which is going to verge on the eur 100 billion mark if we adopt the amendments which mr bourlanges is proposing and, speaking of mr bourlanges, who i might call the financier from "uncle jean monnet' s cabin" , this is a first for him, his first report following the general report, after that of mrs dhrkop dhrkop, mr tillich, mr lamassoure or others. apart from the change in presentation in the form of mr bourlanges, 2000 is much like 1999 as far as the budget is concerned. firstly one finds once again the european parliament' s ongoing aspiration to make its presence felt. this has been a constant ever since 1979. this is a natural tendency on the part of all parliaments throughout the world. the judgements of the court of justice of the european communities have multiplied. the 1995 budget was even cancelled, and president hnsch refused to sign, and, every single time, there is this conflict about nce and ce. well, mr bourlanges is bringing us back to this bellicose atmosphere, even quoting marshal foch, which is appropriate, i suppose. in the backwater of the european budget there is not enough room for two crocodiles, the crocodile of the european council and the crocodile of the european parliament which, after eating up the commission by toppling santer, now wants to eat the council too. so mr bourlanges proposes to be voluntarist, he wishes to increase community expenditure by 7%, he is an ultraliberal who has forgotten the budget rationing pact which he wanted to inflict on others, and he is doling out money because christmas is coming, 135 million for turkey, 500 million for kosovo. first we bomb, then we rebuild. and then there is even east timor. it is said that it is old monarchs who concern themselves with foreign policy. of course, the farmers are not entitled to the same largesse, unless they move to turkey. the only problem, obviously, is that if you keep increasing expenditure, one day you will also have to increase revenue and contemplate a community tax. but in the meantime, well, italy will pay, and france will pay another eur 600 million. i shall conclude, as mr bourlanges quoted saint matthew, by quoting jesus, asking simon peter. "what thinkest thou, simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? peter saith unto him, of strangers. jesus saith unto him, then are the children free." but with mr bourlanges' tendencies, how long will this freedom last? mr president, this budget is fundamental to the development of europe in the next few years. it is the first budget in accordance with the new financial perspective and institutional harmony will depend very much on its efficient execution, and without that harmony - and i would like to underline this - it will be very difficult to implement a genuine european policy. we must remember that the previous parliament approved, in may, the financial perspective for 2000-2006 and the interinstitutional agreement. parliament approved them by a simple but, nevertheless, clear majority. we must also remember that the berlin council approved the financial perspective by means of an extraordinarily complicated consensus, which began with some extremely divergent standpoints between the governments and, furthermore, with a european commission which had resigned and a european parliament which was at the end of its mandate. what i mean by this is that it is now of fundamental importance to defend the financial perspective. only in this way for example can we guarantee the financing of the union' s structural policies. it is clear however that the interinstitutional agreement itself provides for a review of the financial perspective if necessary. if the council has not found any other way of financing the reconstruction of kosovo other than an across-the-board cut in the external activities of the union, it is logical that the european parliament will want to defend those lines. in any case, we believe that the notion of defending the validity of the approved financial perspective and the notion of needing to finance the reconstruction of kosovo by means of a limited review of that perspective, are compatible notions. if this is the proposal which commissioner schreyer is making, i hope that this parliament will welcome it. with regard to the fisheries agreement with morocco, we should point out that the commitment presented by the rapporteur on the first reading calms the fears of a significant section of the community fishing industry. we must remember that the fisheries agreement with morocco affects almost 30,000 citizens of the union and that regions such as galicia, the canary islands and andalusia have a large proportion of their fleet fishing in moroccan waters. it is normal - and this is the view of the rapporteur and my own group - that, at the beginning of the budgetary process, we should be concerned to see that in the first reading no commitment had been specified for these eur 125 million. nevertheless, and bearing in mind that fishing policy is a community policy whose funding is separate from the treaties, a formula has been found between all of us that allows the council' s amendments not to be rejected in the first reading, including those referring to fishing, but rather defers their approval until such a time as financial agreement is reached with the council. we would have preferred to separate the fishing agreement from the rest of the community' s external activities. in our opinion, this is a confusion of two categories of expenditure and two different kinds of problem. however, it is also clear that the outgoing commission did not include any indication concerning the renewal of the agreement in its preliminary draft and, for this reason, did not include any appropriation in the reserve. if the outgoing commission had been willing to take that political step, we would not now have to wait for the second reading. we repeat however that we will have a political commitment on the part of the european parliament to prioritise the funding of the said fisheries agreement. this will serve to calm the fears of all those families and economic sectors which urgently need this agreement. finally, what we do ask the rapporteur and the representatives of the council is that an enormous effort be made in terms of negotiation. we do not want to reach the second reading with a proposal to break the interinstitutional agreement and thereby end up with no financial perspective. i repeat: we need a financial perspective and we need the interinstitutional agreement. but we also need credible, and therefore well financed, external european activities. we need both things. and we want the member states to confront these exceptional circumstances, and the reconstruction of kosovo is an exceptional circumstance, with exceptional solutions which must not be sought by means of a simple across-the-board cut imposed on parliament in their lines and programmes. the general rapporteur has said this: we are in a paradoxical position which requires a real solution. the priorities are clear. now, representatives of the council, the negotiation must begin. mr president, it is customary to congratulate and thank the rapporteurs and i will do that as chairman of the committee, and there are three of them - let us not forget that. first of all, mr virrankoski who has done a thorough job. he came to this position halfway through the year; his attitude has been exemplary and he really deserves the congratulations of parliament, not just the committee. secondly, mr pittella who, as a new member, came to the committee and has made quite a significant point about the phasing-in of the ecsc funds. it is quite an innovative approach and he should be congratulated. and while we are giving out congratulations i shall also congratulate the commissioner on her speech which was politically realistic. well done commissioner! but the main congratulations go to mr bourlanges. when mr bourlanges began he said it was the first time he had had 15 minutes to speak in parliament, and my immediate thought was "yes and that will not be long enough" . sure enough it was not long enough - he exceeded it by almost a minute and still had not said half the things he wanted to say. mr bourlanges, i congratulate you on your approach to the budget. it is fair to say there has never been a dull moment. you are pragmatic, innovative and, most importantly, serious. that is shown in your attitude towards the bats. you may well be known as "batman bourlanges" although i cannot quite see you with a cape and mask, wearing underpants outside your pants, but you have done an extremely good job on the bats! this first reading is predominantly about the asterisk amendment concerning kosovo, the morocco fisheries agreement, east timor and turkey, which was mentioned by the rapporteur. i have to stress this point quite clearly to the council and - to a lesser extent - to the commission because i think they understand. we take the interinstitutional agreement extremely seriously. there are forces within this parliament which would quite happily see it scrapped tomorrow but as far as i am concerned my job - and the job of parliament per se - is to defend the agreement which we made earlier this year. we have shown that we are prepared to do that. if we were against it the category 3 ceiling would have been exceeded, and on that point, incidentally, all three institutions have a problem with the amount deemed necessary for codecision lines such as socrates. this is not just a problem for the year 2000, it is an ongoing problem. can i say to both the presidency and the commission that this is something we need to find a solution to together and quickly. the amendment for category 4 should not be seen as parliament just flexing its muscles. i hasten to add this is not a threat - though that may sound like a contradiction of something i have to say a little later on. but i do not want the council to see it as a threat. we do not want the council thinking that we think we have them "by the balkans" so to speak; we are not trying to squeeze them too hard, though that may be the wrong phrase to use. it should be seen as an invitation for our two institutions to sit down and agree a solution. that is what we should be aiming to do, president-in-office. we look forward to the proposal from the commission which will come forward next week. in the light of what mrs schreyer has said, i look forward with anticipation. i hope the council can do the same. but i do need to stress to the council that this is not the grand old duke of york marching his troops up the hill, just to march them down again. this is not just some act by parliament to mount a show of force, but at the end of the day member states will put pressure on individual members whose parties are in government to get us to change our mind. things do not work like that because of the majorities that now exist within this parliament. if we do not get an agreement on the revision of the financial perspective especially, i am fairly certain that article 272 will be invoked. there is no doubt about that and council should be in no doubt about that whatsoever. that it is not a threat, it is a statement of intent. let me reiterate the philosophy of two of my predecessors: mr von der vring and mr samland. i want the council to take back this message. what we are fighting for is parliament' s rights, we are not fighting for money. it is about the rights of this parliament and that is the message they have to understand through and through. once they understand that message i am quite sure that the discussions we should and will have will be fruitful. i know the political constraints that member states are working within, we are all serious about - as you put it - the principles of cost efficiency and rigour. we abide by those same principles but in this instance, after what parliament has fought for over the years, this revision of the interinstitutional agreement, a revision of the financial perspective as outlined in the interinstitutional agreement, is extremely important to parliament. i hope that is understood. mr president, i would like to add my voice to those who have already expressed their satisfaction and support for the basic outline in the bourlanges report. mr bourlanges stands before a double paradox - a debate on the budget which deals with expenditure but not income, and then a budget subject to the double conflicting pressure of an increase in the tasks of the european union and an actual trend towards reduction of the european gdp rate which is reflected in the union' s budget. the way out of the paradox has been suggested to us and means not accepting tomorrow' s priorities being financed by the sacrifices and priorities of today and yesterday, and consequently, financing new, indispensable priorities of external actions by increasing the financial perspective for category 4. i hope that the european parliament will follow the rapporteur' s statement and that the executive commission and the council will accept the consequences of this. however, i do not think that everything can come down to difficult negotiations that seek a possible compromise between new resources and the sacrifice of former priorities. it would be a short-sighted attitude which is largely hypocritical and out of keeping with the irreversible prospect of an extension of the union' s competences and geographical enlargement of the union' s strategy. this prospect is dictated by the implementation of the treaty of amsterdam, but even more so by the change in global political balances following the war in kosovo. one of the few and sure guarantees of stability and prosperity in europe which cannot be ignored is europe' s active presence on the world stage and its unequivocal, open attitude towards progressive enlargement policies, even towards south-east europe and the balkans in the perspective of that parallel virtual enlargement of peace and security which mr prodi has given us a glimpse of. in these circumstances, we need to make a bold choice. we need the hypothesis which is contained in mr bourlanges' proposal to be set out for all to see. we have to say that the emperor is naked! today the european parliament, the executive commission and the council have to take on the responsibility for opening a broad, thorough debate in full view of the european taxpayers. in short, we need to ask ourselves whether or not the moment has arrived to entrust the european institutions with greater shares of financial resources. this must not lead to any increase in public spending in europe, but requires individual countries, all the european countries, to be willing to transfer the resources corresponding to the de facto transfer of competences to the union. the increase in the community budget will and can correspond to a reduction in national budgets. the task we have before us is a formidable one which can no longer be avoided, for otherwise the all the european institutions will lose credibility. i hope that parliament will take this path. mr president, firstly i would like to give my reaction to the rather nave comments made by mr martinez about kosovo. the money that we want to spend in kosovo, mr martinez, will largely be spent on rebuilding the 80,000 homes that were destroyed there. those homes, mr martinez, were destroyed not by nato but by your friends there, that is to say, by certain serbian paramilitary organisations. that is the truth of the matter and there is no other. i am indebted to the rapporteur and the committee on budgets for their support for amendment no 69, which i submitted with the support of mrs van lancker and mr beysen, as well as most of the flemish and french-speaking belgian members. it provides for an appropriation of eur 50 million to be taken up in the financial reserves for financing the activities to be undertaken by those producers or member states wishing to set up an integrated quality control system for the whole food chain. that will make it possible for us to restore the consumer' s faith in his or her food. and so i will take the opportunity at this plenary sitting to say that it is my express wish that the council should lend its support to this amendment. secondly, i would like to affirm my support for paragraphs 13, 17 and 57 of the bourlanges report. paragraph 57 relates to the allocation of additional posts to olaf and the veterinary office in dublin. i endorse what mrs morgan, mr walter and mr mulder had to say about this. paragraphs 13 and 17 concern the future of the taos, the technical assistance offices. as mr bourlanges rightly says, the measures produced by the european commission do not satisfy our demands. i regret that mrs siimes' reaction to the proposals made by rapporteur bourlanges was one of slight disenchantment. the council maintains that the european parliament is proposing very far-reaching reforms and that it will not be possible to accommodate these in budget 2000. mrs siimes, the citizens of europe expect us to exercise robust and financially-transparent administration and it is therefore absolutely essential that we see to it that the technical assistance offices are gradually disbanded. i would refer you to what mr elles has just had to say on the matter. and so it is my hope that the overtures we have made to you do not fall on deaf ears. mr president, the main proposition of the bourlanges report involves increasing the budget by eur 700 million to finance what he calls the four priorities, with, first and foremost, aid for the reconstruction of kosovo. i am in favour of aid for kosovo. but financing for the reconstruction of kosovo, and indeed serbia, where the fate of the population seems not to be of interest to the european institutions, should be taken out of the military budget of the powers responsible for the destruction. the humanitarian arguments which we have heard serve mainly to hide the fact that eur 500 million of public money, supposedly earmarked for kosovo, only serve to make profits for big business in the private sector, especially building firms and public works contractors. the members of lutte ouvrire and the ligue communiste rvolutionnaire have no intention of sanctioning the european budget either directly or indirectly. this budget reflects the fundamental orientation of the european institutions, responsible for facilitating the activities of the large capitalist groups, including in the areas which are most damaging to society, such as the redundancy plans which are responsible for the gravity of the unemployment situation and the spread of poverty. on the subject of internal policies, since the bourlanges report establishes priorities, the first priority should be to prevent all the redundancy plans announced by renault-nissan, alsthom, rhne-poulenc, hoechst-marion-roussel and many others. this is the only way to oppose the rise in unemployment effectively without it taking a single penny from the budget. mr president, there is one financial matter of importance to ireland which i would like to focus on during this wide-ranging debate on the budget. this relates to the continuation of the european peace and reconciliation fund for the period 2000 to 2006. as a member of parliament for the constituency of connaught/ulster i certainly welcome the decision of eu leaders taken in cologne this year to ensure the continuation of this programme. peace and reconciliation has been successful. i believe it was a wise and sensible decision to continue this programme. for the border county region which i represent it will be worth something in the region of iep 80 million. but my primary concern relates to the transitional period between the ending of the existing programme and the commencement of the next programme. it is important that transitional financial arrangements are put in place so as to guarantee that those organisations who oversee the fund can smoothly make the changeover from the existing programme to the new programme. in conclusion, i believe a roll-over will ensure the retention of the excellent staff on both sides of the border who have played no small part in ensuring the success of the programme. mr president, commissioner, in undertaking our first reading of budget 2000 today, we are discussing the first budget under the guidance of the new commissioner, under your guidance mrs schreyer. and it is the first budget to be treated in accordance with the berlin decisions on agenda 2000 from march of this year. i think that both these points are worth mentioning. firstly, because i had expected more involvement by the commissioner in the budgetary procedure; there was actually little to be seen and heard. secondly, because in the first year of implementation of the decisions on agenda 2000 there is already a need to discuss revision of the financial perspective. this also i consider to be fully worthy of note because the wish list of the foreign ministers, which has grown in recent years, means that today we can no longer cope financially. the buck has been passed to us to bring about a solution in this and to find a way to handle matters from a budgetary point of view. to be perfectly honest, i find this unacceptable. first of all, the foreign ministers should be at one with their own finance ministers and then we can also sensibly implement this in the budget. however, i would also like to say a few words on the so-called "small budgets" . firstly: i do not consider it credible that, as the european parliament, we should, on the one hand, require the most stringent tests from all other institutions, in particular the commission, that we should expect the staffing structure to be adapted to new challenges and that we should want to accomplish this through the european budget, when, on the other hand, we are not prepared, here in our own domain, in the parliamentary budget and in the parliamentary administration, to take the necessary action. for this reason, as the group of the european peoples' party, we have commissioned a study which, for our own administration, will bring about opportunities for staff development and task allocation within our departments. we have - and i would like to state this quite clearly - started an initiative to find a neat solution to the budget funds which we must manage ourselves as a parliament - i am referring here, in particular, to travel costs. in this regard, in the very near future i am expecting specific proposals from our parliamentary administration which can then be treated accordingly by our bureau. it must not be the case that the initiative which we as the group of the european peoples' party have started leads in the end to savings being made where it makes least sense, i.e. in the very place where real work is done, strasbourg. in the european court of justice, there has been an urgent need to increase the number of interpreters. it must not be the case that court processes are delayed for two or three years due solely to problems with interpreters. here we as a parliament have seen the need and assume our responsibility. the committee on regional policy has now found a solution for solving its staffing problems internally. it is not a matter for the budgetary authority, but something they can do, and indeed are doing, by their own efforts. i would like to thank the rapporteurs for their loyal cooperation and hope that in the second reading also we can adopt a sound budget. mr president, naturally enough the rapporteur and some of the previous speakers have already alluded obviously to what for me is one of the crucial political elements - if not the crucial element - of this draft budget. but, as rapporteur for the interinstitutional agreement and the financial perspective, i feel compelled to emphasise it. few people interpreted berlin as a success: the european council confused austerity with miserliness. i will not repeat my criticisms: i refer you to the minutes of the plenary sittings. between 25 march and 6 may, we held the last round of negotiations between parliament and the council. during that long and intense month of bargaining, parliament made an effort to persuade the council that there was more to the union than the eaggf and the structural funds, that the remaining 20% of the budget was also used to serve the union' s objectives and that, often, it affects issues which were politically very sensitive. the ministers implicitly recognised the obstinacy of their leaders, but did not want to find fault with them barely five weeks later. for this reason they only accepted the slightest and most miserly alterations to category 3 (internal policies) and category 5 (administrative expenditure). the insuperable stumbling block was category 4 (external action) and not even the war in the balkans persuaded them to accept the higher figure. one of the ministers who negotiated and who is now a commissioner came to recognise that it was possible that the financial perspective would have to be revised before it entered into force, but that we would have to wait until the commission provided an estimate of costs. once again, the council confused the multiannual budgetary framework, that is to say the financial perspective, with the budget itself: a self-interested short-sightedness which hindered suitable and appropriate political decision-making and which led to a bungled handling of the budget. what is the situation? we are beginning to see the cost of the needs of kosovo, there has been an earthquake in turkey and a political disaster in east timor, not to mention the need to pay for the fisheries agreement with morocco, which the government of the principal country involved must have forgotten in the negotiations in berlin. the council intends to resolve the matter by cutting a good proportion of the aid to russia and the mediterranean area with the rest coming from proportionate reductions in the other external programmes. very cunning. the financial perspective has also failed to take into account the question of the accession of cyprus and malta. i believe that we should bear in mind that the interinstitutional agreement includes a mechanism for revision of the financial perspective for these cases, and that it is there to be used when necessary. there are those who keep an empty bottle in the fridge in case their visitors do not wish to drink anything. if the commission now presents a proposal for revision of the financial perspective, think of that bottle, madam minister. commissioner, mr president, the current climate conference in bonn is crying out for more funds for renewable energies; to wit funds from the eu, both for research and for demonstration projects. the recent nuclear accidents in japan and south korea again show how overdue a new energy policy is. regarding the euratom credits, we in the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy are asking that parliament be consulted immediately. it is incomprehensible to us that our colleagues in the committee on budgets cannot support this as parliamentarians. the sole purpose of the budget lines in the area of trade is, professedly, to promote exports and create free market access. yet this so-called "free market" only exists for multinational concerns because, for example, the sme cannot access either the information on money allocation nor the programmes themselves. in the last two decades exports from latin america have increased by 300% whilst the gross domestic product in those countries has only increased by 3.3%. since the beginning of the worldwide policy of a liberalised world economic area, there has been a massive redistribution from the rich to the poor, both within societies and between states. i advocate the opposite political trend. the result is that the financial assistance from the eu is indirect subsidisation. it is precisely this which contradicts the declared concept of free trade. ultimately, what we are seeing here is another of the many inherent contradictions in wto policy. mr president, any budget reflects the financial implementation of the intended policy. consequently, the decision to accept or reject the budget can, of course, only be bound up with how the focal points of the policy match up to one' s own ideas and whether the available financial funds are sufficient. what then, in my opinion, are the main criteria for this budget? firstly, a drastic minimisation of the unemployment which dominates in the member states of the european union. secondly, a reduction in the economic and social divergences in the member states. thirdly, the enlargement of the european union and, fourthly, a peaceful, democratic and social development of all regions in the world. if, and this i am assuming, you share these starting points, albeit there will certainly be differences of opinions as to the ways in which we reach these goals, it must be clear that the budget, as it stands, cannot be affirmed. mrs schreyer, i am, of course, in favour of reorganising and redistributing. i would immediately switch the focus from large enterprise to small and medium-sized economic policy which safeguards jobs. i would immediately move from an offer-oriented economic policy to a demand-oriented economic policy in order to boost consumption. but it is absurd to find ever more responsibilities for the european union without providing it with the necessary financial funds. it cannot be the duty of parliament to accept that the council wants to finance important new political needs by renouncing traditional needs. similarly, it cannot be the duty of this parliament to accept that the member states want to reorganise their budgets to the detriment of the european union budget. consequently, i consider that the most urgent task, given that we have a new parliament and a new commission, is to give consideration to the fact that the financial perspective really must be amended and that the interinstitutional agreement must also be modified. mr president, budget 2000 contains some technical improvements while an attempt has been made to do away with the usual over-budgeting for structural arrangements. over-budgeting is an unsound budgeting practice, and it is important that it should disappear completely from the eu' s budget. i have noted the council' s savings in regard to both structural arrangements and the agricultural sphere. these i support, even though they only constitute a small beginning when it comes to the required changes to the eu' s financial arrangements. in a changing world, we must be in a position to make adjustments to the budget far more quickly so that, without increasing the overall budget, we might meet any new needs including, first and foremost, the development needs of the new member states in eastern europe but also the need for emergency aid and reconstruction in the balkans, which ought not to be financed through cutbacks in support to the third world. overall, the eu has no need for more money but, rather, a need to use the existing money more sensibly. i want to emphasise that a more professional and accountable administration of the eu' s financial resources will provide rich opportunities to get more out of the same amount of money. everywhere, there is a need for activity-based budgeting. more cost-conscious administration must be implemented and the wastefulness of which we have again and again seen examples and which the court of auditors' reports have revealed for a number of years must be eliminated if the eu' s citizens are at all going to be able to regard the eu' s institutions as serious partners in the development of europe. mr president, i would like to draw parliament' s attention to the fact that the draft budget for 2000 did not envisage any allocation of funds to line b1-3800 concerning the promotion of agricultural products, an amount used solely to discharge the past, and i would of course like to thank the rapporteur, jean-louis bourlanges, for his understanding, and mr bge and mr grlach for their support. as a result, all the efforts made in favour of quality beef, fruit, vegetables and dairy products would be in danger of being wiped out, even though this action is part of the community action which could be entered in the green box at the wto. the pretext of setting up an evaluation study does not justify the suspension of appropriations whose continuation is the guarantee of success. the professionals in the member states who participate widely in this action are in agreement in favour of a study. such a study could in particular result in the harmonisation of the community contribution which currently varies between 40 and 100%, according to the products. for the same period, there are plans to finance a communication action for third countries, but in the absence of an implementing regulation, it will probably not be possible to use the provision in the year 2000. finally, provision is also made for the promotion of the labelling. the commission, however, is actually proposing to defer the implementation of labelling for one year, making the promotion of this non-existent product completely useless. it is therefore possible to continue to promote quality products without requiring additional expenditure, and i therefore ask the commission not to stop promoting quality products, for these products are the external face of difficult regions, local products and the earnings of family farms in europe. mr president, supporting the economic reconstruction and the political renewal of a free, democratic and independent east timor is not only nor is it fundamentally a question of humanitarian aid. what it represents above all is the confirmation that the europe that we are building is ruled by universal values which are equally resonant across the world. it also means that military invasion is not an acceptable method of extending borders, whoever perpetrates such an act and whatever geopolitical factors and interests may be involved. it means above all, that liberty, democracy and respect for human rights are the fundamental principles according to which we would like to see our world develop. by deciding that the budget for the year 2000 is to make europe' s financial contribution to timor one of the four great european priorities, the european parliament will be giving an unmistakable political signal to europeans and to the world. i am pleased to note here the determined way in which the commission and most particularly the commissioner directly responsible for this matter, chris patten, is committed to supporting east timor. in spite of the huge budgetary constrictions within which we work, the commission managed to find the means to respond to the most pressing needs even in 1999. the assessment reports on the reconstruction costs for east timor, as well as for the attendant international financial aid plan, have still not been completed which means that it is not yet possible to have an accurate estimate of the european contribution to the costs of reconstruction. the political message that we shall be giving when we vote next thursday in favour of mr bourlanges' draft legislative resolution is nevertheless unmistakable. europe' s support for east timor is an absolute priority for parliament in terms of the budget for the year 2000. it gives an accurate reflection of the feelings of many socialist meps and of those from other benches who came here to give their evidence in the debate that we held on the situation in east timor in the september part-session. (the sitting was suspended at and resumed at 3.00 p.m.) mr president, we approach the draft budget 2000 with considerable concern, particularly regarding the lines on development and cooperation but also those concerning human rights, as other members have already said. indeed, we have the impression that this budget is restricting all those things which are dearest to us. at a time when the requirement is for women to take greater part in the decision-making process, the corresponding budget lines are being restricted. at a time when the wish is for the environment, particularly the protection of tropical forests, to be integrated into the development process, the appropriations allocated to this are being reduced. at a time when developing countries are being asked to respect the principle of good government, with respect for human rights, our own budget on this crucial issue is being drastically reduced. finally, at the very time when lusaka is reminding us of the human and economic ravages due to aids in africa, we are reducing the funds dedicated to it, contrary to the commissioner nielson' s assertions, while mixing them in with the policy on health and reproduction. furthermore, we can only regret the re-orientation which involves favouring aid to states rather than to ngos, especially the organisations of the south which are, however, known to be more effective and which make it possible to really target society. in short, we cannot be satisfied with this new distribution of appropriations which destabilises the priorities of the european union in developing countries. mr president, i would like to express my support for mr bourlanges' s position regarding the amendment of the financial perspective. at the same time, i wonder how finland, as the country to hold the presidency, has clung to the untenable position of the council, according to which world events do not influence the eu budgetary framework and the final sums fixed in the budget itself. in the same connection, i would also like to draw attention to the calls there have been to adopt financial support for european political parties. our group, the confederal group of the european united left/nordic green left, has another stand in this matter. we do not want europe' s taxpayers' money to be spent on support for political parties. we would also like to see a revision of the pay and benefits enjoyed by meps by adopting a common rule, whereby meps do not receive unjustifiable expense compensations and everyone is paid a fair salary and remuneration. mr president, in the time available i want to refer to just one particular line in the budget which is the school milk scheme where the commission has proposals to reduce the allocation from eur 96 million to eur 53 million. in 1997 ireland for example received over iep 1.4 million from the european union for the administration of the school milk programme. as a member of the committee on agriculture and rural development i fully support the scheme, both now and in the future. however, i am disappointed that reductions are being made in the overall budgetary allocation but i hope that the european council, when it comes to reviewing the second reading of the eu budget for the year 2000, will take on board the recommendation of this parliament that it should increase the funding for the programme to eur 67 million or iep 53 million in next year' s allocation. mr president, it feels good to be able to say, in my first speech in the european parliament, that the eu' s budget for the year 2000 has its sights set on a number of important processes. i am thinking of the importance of increased democratic support for the eu' s activities and of the importance of concentrating on crucial issues, for example the fight against unemployment and the enlargement of the european union to include the new applicant countries. these tasks go hand in hand. the european union must win the fight against unemployment so as to break down ordinary workers' and employees' mistrust of the european union. in order to succeed, the enlargement of the european union must quickly give rise to social and economic improvements for the citizens of the applicant countries. that is why we now want to increase the resources for developing dialogue between the two sides of industry. it is a question, among other things, of giving employees a say in the development of the employment pact and coordinated economic policy. it is equally important that the applicant countries should now be able to participate in the dialogue with a view to constructive cooperation on the labour market in these countries too. the procedure leading towards membership for eastern and central european countries, among others, is a difficult one. it is not enough to design well-balanced accession agreements. for eu membership to be a palpable and advantageous change in the eyes of ordinary citizens, the current state of affairs needs to change, and companies and employees need to be able to create a labour market which is not only dynamic but also grants rights to employees. enlargement of the european union must not mean that companies exploit a situation where there are low wages and poorer social security or that taxes and environmental demands are evaded. employees in the new member states have the same legitimate claims upon social entitlements and influence as we do. in this budget, we want, both for their and for our own sakes, to support dialogue between employers and employees and the establishment of union rights in the applicant countries too. in the same way, we would point out how important it is for the eu' s committee of the regions to have resources to develop contacts with regions and municipalities in the applicant countries. we also support the proposal for a special initiative to promote local and regional cooperation around the baltic and the barents sea. mr president, i would like to start by saying how indebted i am to the rapporteur, who has done some sterling work in this area. he has developed a strategy that everyone can support. my colleague mr wynn may have feared that we would end up with a "duke of york" -type scenario, but i feel that the whole affair is more akin to a scene from asterix and obelix, where asterix has a special part to play in this case and we then have to vie with the council, which plays the part of julius caesar. that is my first point. i must say that we can be satisfied with regard to category 3, which is of particular interest to me. the rapporteur has struck the right balance here. but i would like to temper this comment with a caution to the commissioner. i would ask that she does not start making changes to the categories when she puts her package together. we have decided most emphatically to restrict ourselves to category 4 and if she starts on category 3 then i think we might run into difficulties. i am very curious as to the contents of this package. i believe that the council and in fact the commission itself are responsible to a certain extent for the problems now facing us. the commission because it misjudged the fisheries agreement, thereby actually reducing our margin, and of course the council because it allowed africa to foot the bill for the remainder. i have one more small point to make about kosovo. it relates to a particular concern of mine besides that of the total amount to be spent on kosovo. of course we can consider the situation in terms of existing needs. i am completely in agreement with taking this approach. but we must also look at how much kosovo' s economy can bear. if we were to provide assistance amounting to approximately 50% of kosovo' s gnp - and there is a possibility of this happening if very high estimates are made - then i fear that the inflationary and other consequences for the economy would outweigh the benefits afforded by the assistance. i would ask the commissioner to look not just at existing needs but also at the macroeconomic consequences. it is very clear that this is what happened at the time of the marshall plan. that is when it all started. we should also look very closely at this matter in the case of kosovo, and we must learn from our experiences in bosnia as far as that is concerned. mr president, i would like to start by saying that it is very difficult for me to get on with my work here in strasbourg owing to the fact that for the second time now, my case of documents has failed to reach my office. i would like to thank all those involved in the budgetary procedure for their work, which had to be executed with very little room for manoeuvre and was intended to send out a message to all the citizens of europe. we are able to do this as far as category 3 is concerned, which relates to internal policies. the youth programme, the socrates programme, the cultural programme and issues relating to women and equality all provide us with the opportunity to make clear to the citizens what we want to achieve. a mistake was made in the case of category 3, that is to say, when the vote took place in the committee on budgets an amendment was adopted by a very slim majority which could cause considerable damage if it is not corrected. the committee on women' s rights and equal opportunities submitted a remark and a budget for the european women' s lobby in line a-3037, as it did the previous year, but the remark now states that this line is to be opened to all non-governmental organisations. may i remind you that we as a parliament have supported this umbrella organisation for european women' s organisations and have entrusted it with the task of implementing the plan of action agreed in peking at non-governmental organisation level, and i think it would be disastrous if just any women' s organisation could have a share in this budget. that is why i would ask you all to correct the amendment again and to vote against amendment no 443 and in favour of the amendment tabled by the committee on women' s rights and equal opportunities. we weighed the situation up very carefully and exercised great restraint as regards the amendments relating to gender mainstreaming and the question of firmly establishing equal opportunities in all european policies. i would particularly ask the rapporteur to take this into account and to support the position of the committee on women' s rights and equal opportunities. mr president, all budget work is about setting priorities. there are grounds for asking the question now and again, "what should the eu' s tasks really be?" it is in fact the answer to this question which ought to guide work on the budget, too. within a short period, we shall be facing what will probably be the biggest round of enlargement of the eu ever. it is a prerequisite of enlargement that there should be extensive changes to the budget and that we should begin to make these changes right now. this ought to involve making cuts right now in category 1. we can begin this work by reducing the tobacco subsidy, among other things, and in such a way that it can be abolished completely within a ten-year period. a number of so-called unforeseen expenses have arisen in the course of the year' s work on the budget, and this means large demands for increased expenditure in category 4. humanitarian efforts to help refugees or victims of war in kosovo, people injured in the earthquake in turkey or innocent people hit by events in east timor have obviously led to demands being made upon the european union. as i see it, it must be an obvious objective successfully to deal with these matters too within the frameworks which we ourselves have been involved in setting up. that is where the important issue of prioritising comes into the picture. we have budget frameworks in the form of an interinstitutional agreement, signed less than six months ago. in my view, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate if this should need to be cancelled. i am in fact proceeding on the assumption that it will be possible for this issue to be solved jointly by the european parliament and the council of ministers before the second round of discussions. mr president, this is my first budget. i should like to begin by thanking mr wynn and mr bourlanges and the other two rapporteurs for simplifying a very complex process for me. i believe that the european union is changing. the institutions are having to become more representative. in that spirit, we should be trying to bring the european budget closer to the electorate. it is crucial for the citizens of the eu to know what their stake in the eu' s policies and operations really is, what they are paying and what they are paying for. increased transparency will be the key to the future success of all eu institutions. that means assessing every budget line to see how it benefits the citizens of europe. given the commitment in the treaty of amsterdam to incorporating the interests of consumers into all other policy areas of the eu and the derisory level of the consumer budget, which stands at a quarter of one percent of total eu spending, there is a need to begin by making sure that valuable programmes such as the school milk scheme are safeguarded. this is not the case in the draft budget as my colleague, mr hyland, said earlier. the draft budget for the school milk programme throughout europe has been reduced by 50%. this cut is a drastic measure for a programme that has benefits for both consumer and producer alike. the reason i feel strongly about this budget line is that it has an impact on the long- and short-term health of people, it addresses social deprivation issues and it impacts on the economy and jobs in my region. i do not have any difficulty with the reform of the cap if it means cheaper and safer products for the consumer. i know that people are concerned about paying for subsidies that increase prices for them as consumers. the response i had from the commission in the budgets committee was initially quite disappointing. they said that social issues are not within the original remit of the programme. but it now emerges from the trialogue meeting last week that the commission will be proposing an increase of eur 31 million. i welcome this. i must say that i am disappointed that the council is not here because i would like to know if they will support this. people out there are not concerned about the finer points or headings of the subsidy. what matters to them is the impact and the positive benefit of policies, such as this one. i accept totally the need to streamline and introduce efficiencies in the management of this scheme and others and to improve value for money, but a more effective way in terms of amending the budget would be to outline improvements and provide an implementation plan for the future. the commission, in estimating spending, should look at funding in its totality. i call on members to support this endorsement and amendment in thursday' s vote. mr president, in this debate, the european parliament has the opportunity consistently to underline its resolve concerning the future of the european union. in this context, i must emphasise the fact that the council' s draft budget represents less than 1.10% of the community' s gdp, an amount which is already quite low in itself and what is more, is considerably lower than the ceiling of 1.27% set in edinburgh and confirmed in berlin. this should be cause for serious reflection for those who want europe to do more and to do it better. having said this, i agree completely with the rapporteur jean-louis bourlanges, whom i congratulate for the quality of his work, concerning the obligation to meet, in the budget for the year 2000, major needs which have recently arisen in the area of category 4 on external action without calling into question other needs which have been previously defined, as the council is trying to do. taking away from some in order to meet others is not acceptable! across-the-board cuts are an aberration! i am also against any reduction in the level of category 1 on agriculture and category 2 on structural operations. amongst the new priorities, i would single out that of the reconstruction of east timor, a region which has been a permanent target of the attention of the european parliament which in september, once more adopted a firm resolution. in terms of the political commitment it represents, i think that the proposal to dedicate a specific budgetary heading to east timor is of great significance. it is a shame that the commission' s estimates - eur 30 million - are not in line with reality. once we have consistent forecasts, we will have to make the necessary adjustments. two final observations: the first is the difficulty in understanding and then in explaining why there is a legal basis, and rightly so, for assisting victims of natural disasters anywhere in the world, as we are very rightly going to do for turkey, but there is no such basis for doing the same at home. today let me remind you, it is greece. tomorrow, god knows. secondly, there is the expectation, that i insist be noted, of the specific measures and the resulting funds which the commission is obliged to propose for the outermost regions of the community which have been recognised, identified and defined since amsterdam in the treaty on european union. mr president, adopting the budget for the cultural sector is more difficult than usual this time. the socrates ii programme is presently the object of conciliation, and the recommendations for a second reading on the youth for europe action programme and the culture 2000 programme will be discussed in the plenary sitting on wednesday, which is tomorrow. thus the final effort to have these multiannual programmes approved still remains to be made. the greatest differences of opinion between parliament and the council relate to the financing of the programmes, which is still open. at the same time, the committee on budgets has had to present the allocations for the implementation of the programmes next year. it has to be clearly pointed out that the figures presented by the committee on budgets do not constitute a stand on the result of conciliations. a schematic mathematical method is not suited to multiannual programmes. the financing of the programmes has caused worry to the members of the committee on culture, youth, education, the media and sport, and it might not be just a one-off problem. we have to alter parliamentary procedures with regard to the budgetary procedure for multiannual programmes that are the object of the codecision procedure. the opinion of the committee on budgets relates to the report on the first reading, but there is no official collaboration between the special committee and the committee on budgets in connection with the second reading and conciliation. that can easily lead to breaks in the flow of information and misunderstandings between the special committee and the committee on budgets. the worst that can happen, however, is that parliament' s position on financing for the programmes remains unclear; that can be used against parliament. as multiannual programmes must in any case adapt to the general financial perspective of the relevant budget heading as well as the budget as a whole, it is necessary, in my opinion, for parliament to enhance the effectiveness of its internal coordination when discussing multiannual programmes and the budget. communication between the special committee and the committee on budgets should not be broken at parliament' s first reading, after which some time might pass until the matter is finally resolved. the treaty of amsterdam emphasises parliament' s position as a responsible and effective decision-maker. that is why we need parliament to have a common and sustainable view of the matter under discussion in budgetary negotiations and conciliations. mr president, we are dealing with a consolidated budget, which is showing the effects of choices perpetuated over the years and which has not yet been dynamic enough. the major items have undergone some changes, but they are not yet at the level of a structure free of conditioning, which may vary in nature: there is national conditioning which, however, is acceptable in part, conditioning by sector, not to mention by corporation, which is less acceptable, and by lobbies, categories, individuals and structures. budgetary language is not dry because it is made up of numbers but because it pays little heed to changes in society and its needs, expectations and hopes. the union performs its major function not only through political and legislative acts, but also through investments, management and expenditure, which are becoming a means not so much to satisfy as to stifle high expectations. the wait for funding is becoming the strongest bond for many communities, not just local ones - funding which binds people together more than any other types of ideals or principles. while we do not agree at all with some of the programming choices, we will, however, accept them on one condition - that expenditure is subjectively and overall, individually and collectively useful. but because of inveterate habit, it does not always appear to be like this. just because there is unjustified management does not necessarily mean there is unlawful management. taxpayers' money can be badly spent in a perfectly orthodox manner. the community' s expenditure is huge and there could be many benefits and beneficiaries. if this is not the case, it is often because brussels seems distant from europe and does not always know what is happening there, while those in charge of controls sometimes seem distant and uncoordinated or disorganised. let us give them more means, as is repeatedly requested, and the results will certainly be significant. there is a great deal of confidence, but the choice of what is to happen is just as important. finally, i would like to recommend a reduction in the community' s bureaucratic impetus, reducing the number of officials who are inspectors in name only, committees, commissions, temporary transfers, obligations and regulations. we need more passion and transparency. as a new member - and this is just one example - i approached the european investment bank, and i felt as if i were approaching a sanctuary for privileged, all-powerful fat cats who had been released from the rules of democracy and therefore from their obligation to citizens. mr president, this year, once again, we rapporteurs and speakers are using the word rigour in relation to the budget. and if it is clear that rigour is required in the implementation of the budget, i would also claim that we require rigour in the drawing up of the budget. and it is difficult to be rigorous in the drawing up of the budget if one does not have rigorous information. and here today, how many of us have had to insist on the question of the fishing agreement, a clear case of a lack of rigorous information. the previous commission should have foreseen that the said agreement was going to be discussed again, that it was going to be renewed and that therefore it would have to be reflected in the budget. with regard to the other institutions, when we speak, for example, of interinstitutional cooperation, how much rigour was there in the information on the day when our colleagues previously agreed that a common organisational structure had to be set up and what is the reality today when we decide that we have to dissolve that common structure? i believe that we lack rigorous information. when we speak of building policy, who has the genuine information about the continuous changes between the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions who say "now i am going to that building" , "now i am not interested" , "now i am going to the other" ? when we speak of the rigour necessary for interinstitutional cooperation with regard to the buildings in luxembourg, has parliament decided what the effective minimums and maximums are which parliament requires in luxembourg? when we talk about expecting enlargements as from 2002, are we taking account, in our building policy, of the enlargements to come, in 2002, 2003 and 2004? rigour also has to be demanded of the members of other committees: the committee on budgets must not always be seen as the baddy, the one who always makes all the cuts. the other committees must take responsibility in the knowledge that new policies mean new expenditure, that for every increase there must be a cut. and with regard to meps allowances, i believe that the current regulation is less unjust than any situation which the absence of a regulation would cause. in any event, it can only be reformed by means of the members' statute. mr president, commissioner schreyer, we have just had a very interesting discussion. the members have endeavoured to get to the heart of the issues. at the same time, we should not forget the goals of the european union, the most important of which is to make our budget lines as effective as possible in terms of creating employment. which budget lines can we use to create fresh employment opportunities in europe? another interesting question of course is which budget lines we can use to secure fresh taxation revenue. revenue is a very important area and we should examine these issues in detail. on the other hand, we must take a look at which of the products currently on offer in the eu superstore we could take off the shelves. which products could be returned to the national level? it would be interesting to set up a research programme into which activities are currently being performed at european level that could in fact be dealt with much more easily, more efficiently and better at national level. this would free up our time and give us the opportunity to concern ourselves with the new projects, new goals and all the aspirations that we have expressed here today. there are two budget lines that are particularly dear to my heart. one is b5-512, financial support for small and medium-sized enterprises, support for family businesses. the smes account for 66% of jobs. in excess of 55% of turnover in the european community is generated by these enterprises. we must concentrate our energies on specific programmes, start-up support, transfer of business know-how, and on the euro-infocentres, for it is these that will give rise to fresh employment opportunities and fresh sources of taxation revenue. the second budget line b5-234 concerns financial support for the european digital capacity for global networks. commissioner liikanen advised this house that there will be approximately 1.2 million additional jobs by the year 2002, but we will not be in a position to guarantee the necessary quality of staff. we must train people and ensure that this labour market of 1.2 million jobs can be exploited in future, and that we develop programmes that will enable us to get people into work. this will put us on the right footing in terms of the internet, e-commerce and the many sectors which will bring brand new opportunities to europe, and there is no question but that we should work on this. in addition, programmes such as best are of crucial importance to us. when it comes to enterprises of this kind - there are 18 million smes in europe, 50% of which have no employees - we must make the legal requirements pertaining to them a great deal simpler so that they can concentrate on their main tasks of satisfying customer requirements and offering the right products and services. that is what creates jobs and new opportunities. that is why we should also look to encourage innovation in schools and to reinforce initiative and innovation in schools - from primary school to university level - so as to give this sector completely new impetus and also enable new opportunities to develop there. we must reach agreement with the supply sector. how can we foster links between small and large companies so that the former can learn from the latter, so that we can help them with the introduction of the euro, so that we can promote transfer of business know-how, and so that we can tackle any year 2000-related problems? to close, i would like to mention the enormous challenge we have before us, that of enlargement. i believe that enlargement also represents a huge opportunity for small companies. but we should not shrink from providing them with the support they need. there are only a few more years to go. many are already involved over there, many are interested, and i believe that the work being done at grass roots level is interesting and affords new opportunities. we in the european parliament recognise the challenge to give our commitment and invest our energies here, and i would like to take the opportunity today to thank you for your support in this, commissioner. many thanks, mr rbig. also many thanks for coming to work on what is a national holiday in your country. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, many thanks for your interesting and highly varied contributions to the debate, and above all, thank you very much for making the atmosphere in which this debate has taken place an extremely constructive one. i would like to limit myself to a few points in my speech, points which i would like to come back to since, in my view, parliament and commission proposals must be reconciled. i wish to refer, firstly, to market measures in the agricultural sector. the commission agrees that it is of course, necessary for the budget appropriations for the year 2000 to correspond to actual requirements as far as possible, and that no artificial reductions should be made here. that was our position in the preliminary draft budget and it will be maintained in the letter of amendment. turning now to the measures in the rural development sector, i had pointed out that i also considered this second pillar of agricultural policy to be an absolutely essential addition. accordingly, the commission will propose a limited increase for agricultural development measures so that the member states are also given the incentive to step up their efforts as far as environmental protection in the agricultural sector is concerned and as regards establishing structures to ensure safety in the food chain. i would like to mention the issue of research. it is being proposed here to divide up those budget lines in the budget plan which relate to the research sector. i believe that there is a pre-condition to consensual solutions. the commission will always inform the european parliament before there is a need to amend the appropriations for key actions and before these amendments are actually carried out, and it will of course substantiate these in full. i hope that on this basis we will be able to reach a consensual solution as to how matters are to be represented in the budget plan. i will now turn to the question of the taos, which mr bourlanges, mr wynn and mr elles went into very deeply again. the new commission will undertake and examine the award of contracts to the technical assistance offices according to the various criteria, which, again, you have discussed, in order to reach a clear decision here as to what has to be undertaken by public administration and what can be undertaken by the assistance offices. this issue will also be a main theme of the blueprint paper on administrative reform and institutional reforms. it will then also be possible, against the background of this blueprint - as is desired by the european parliament - to estimate the overall staffing requirement. finally, i would just like to address the question of financing the important measures associated with reconstruction in kosovo. mr bourlanges rightly pointed out that it is not a task which lasts only one year. on the other hand though, we are in a situation where we do not yet have a definite basis to be able to estimate the overall requirement. that is why the commission is proposing that we should first review the financial perspective for the year 2000 and only then, once definite figures are available, should we talk about how the necessary funds for the ensuing years are to be made available. there have also been a few critical comments made on the question of what our approach will need to be in the year 2000. the question of how the sum of eur 500 million stands in relation to kosovo' s estimated gdp is indeed worthy of mention. on the other hand, though, i think that we should continue to stand by the figure that the eu has in fact quoted in the political sphere - it has said that it will make eur 500 million available for the year 2000 - so as to avoid giving the impression that the eu is backing out of its political responsibilities. i have gained the impression from this debate that the commission' s proposal, which i myself put forward, could form a sound basis for compromise. i would like to come back again to mr bge' s and mrs buitenweg' s contributions to the debate. the commission proposes a limited revision, as you yourselves mentioned, and it also very important that we should make a point of providing for and taking account of echo measures for kosovo. the commission will therefore propose that all three instruments should be used i.e. reallocation of funds, use of the flexibility instrument and review of the financial perspective. in the institutional agreement we all have an excellent legacy on which to base our handling of budget 2000 and fruitful cooperation, and as far as that goes, i am very confident, having had this debate, that it will be possible to reach a consensual solution and make the budget for the year 2000 one in which we can have faith. , rapporteur. (fr) mr president, i would like to thank mrs schreyer for the remarks she has just made. we will appreciate her proposal, once she has drawn it up, which will help us to understand. for the moment, i shall limit myself to one small comment, which mrs schreyer will understand perfectly, on the subject of research appropriations. i appreciated the terms of the commitments which were publicly undertaken by the commissioner regarding the management of the lines for research. like everyone, i believe, on the committee on budgets, i attach particular importance to seeing these commitments being made in writing further to the highly interesting letter which mrs schreyer sent us and to which our chairman, mr wynn, responded requesting, i believe, further details. i shall therefore ask you, commissioner, together with your colleagues, please, to formalise the commitments that you have just undertaken in the terms you deem appropriate, so that we can be familiar with the facts and we can proceed to the vote on thursday on the basis of clear commitments which do not allow for any misunderstanding between us. i see that the commissioner is nodding in agreement, which means that there is no need to continue the debate. the debate is closed. the vote on the budget will take place on thursday at 10.00 a.m. (the sitting was suspended at 3.45 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.) ladies and gentlemen, the best laid plans in life are wont to go wrong. mr duisenberg should in fact be here by now but he is stuck in a traffic jam. i shall, therefore, open the sitting and suspend it again straightaway for another fifteen minutes in the hope that he will have arrived by then. if not, then i am afraid that we will have to repeat the same formal procedure once again. i am not the one to blame; presumably it is the motorways. thank you for bearing with me. (the sitting was suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 5.20 p.m.) ladies and gentlemen, please take your places, as mr duisenberg has just joined us. mr duisenberg, we have been waiting for you, if i may say, with some impatience, and we are delighted that you have at last been able to join us. ecb annual report the next item is the report (a5-0035/1999) by mr huhne, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, on the 1998 annual report of the european central bank (c4-0211/1999). i shall give the floor immediately to mr duisenberg. . i have great pleasure in presenting the first annual report of the european central bank to the european parliament at today' s plenary sitting. almost ten months have passed since the euro was successfully introduced and the european central bank took over full operational responsibility for the single monetary policy. many of us feel that, with the launch of the single currency, the process of european integration has gained a new quality. indeed, the transfer of a core competency of the modern state, namely monetary policy, to a truly european and independent organisation such as the ecb must be regarded as a historic event which marks an unprecedented degree of economic and political integration within the european union. the smooth transition to this new era of european integration and the successful operational start of the ecb was the outcome of several years of intense and thorough preparation. the annual report of the ecb gives a detailed account both of the final preparatory work conducted by the eurosystem in the run-up to the introduction of the single currency and of the main economic and monetary developments within the european union in 1998 and in the first few weeks of 1999. since the information contained in the annual report is of a self-explanatory nature, it might be more useful if i concentrate my remarks here and now on some of the issues addressed by the draft resolution prepared by your committee on economic and monetary affairs. after that i shall be happy to answer any questions you might have. i should like to start by commenting on the discharge of the ecb' s accountability vis--vis the european parliament. the treaty establishing the european community contains various provisions to ensure the democratic accountability of the ecb, one of the cornerstones of which is certainly the presentation of the annual report to the european parliament and the council of the european union. however, apart from this annual exercise, the ecb and the european parliament have established several other contacts. first and possibly most importantly, i should like to mention the regular hearings held by the european parliament' s committee on economic and monetary affairs. within the scope of these hearings, which - in line with the european parliament' s rules of procedure - take place on a quarterly basis, i provide detailed explanations regarding both our assessment of current economic and monetary developments and the decisions taken by the ecb. transcripts of these hearings are published on the websites of both the european parliament and the ecb. moreover, the european parliament has invited members of the executive board of the ecb and of the staff to participate in additional hearings on a number of specific issues, including the external representation of the eurosystem, the preparation of euro banknotes and statistical matters. furthermore, the ecb also had the opportunity to welcome delegations of members of the european parliament' s committee on economic and monetary affairs to its premises in frankfurt. we attach great importance to these visits and will be pleased to continue to host such events. however, since these visits to the ecb are of a more informal nature, it goes without saying that they have to be considered as an additional tool for communication between the two institutions and cannot be seen as a substitute for regular public hearings at the european parliament. in setting up its communication policy, the central bank decided to go beyond the transparency requirements of the treaty. thus, while the treaty requires the ecb to publish a quarterly report on its activities, the ecb has decided to publish such a report on a monthly basis, the monthly bulletin, which gives a detailed presentation of economic and monetary developments. in addition, there are a number of other communication tools that the ecb regularly uses. first, let me mention the extended press conferences that the vice-president and i hold immediately after the first meeting of the governing council every month, transcripts of which - including transcripts of the questions and answer session are also accessible via the ecb' s website. you, of course, are aware of the broad range of publications that the ecb has issued on specific subjects related to its fields of responsibility. our communication policy gives clear priority to maintaining and enhancing the credibility of the eurosystem and confidence in the euro, both of which - credibility and confidence - are crucial elements in the successful conduct of monetary policy. in this context, one should always bear in mind the fact that the governing council acts as a collegial body, and that all decisions have to be communicated to the public in a clear and consistent way. speaking a common language is particularly important for a central bank operating in a monetary union comprising several countries. contradictory indications about the decisions taken by the ecb and the underlying reasons might trigger unwarranted market expectations and increase uncertainty, thereby running counter to the very objective of being transparent with regard to the conduct of monetary policy. i should like to stress that the information provided at the press conferences held after the meetings of the governing council, together with the analysis contained both in the ecb monthly bulletin and in the other channels of communication comes very close, in substance, to the publication of "summary minutes" . in view of the broad variety of publicly available information issued by the ecb, it is my firm belief and conviction that the ecb can stand comparison with other central banks in the field of transparency. in this context, i should also like to comment briefly on the request to publish the ecb' s internal forecasts. first, it would, at this moment, clearly be premature to consider such a step since the eurosystem - that is, the ecb and the eleven national central banks - has yet to gain experience with its forecasts. more time will be needed before we can assume that all the technical issues have been addressed properly, and the publication of forecasts can be considered without endangering the ecb' s credibility. i am confident, however, that we can achieve this in the course of next year. let me also emphasise that the role of the ecb' s internal forecasts in the decision-making process should not be overestimated. such forecasts constitute one piece of information made available to the governing council, but certainly not the only one. the role of our internal forecasts within the monetary policy strategy of the eurosystem therefore differs from the role of inflation forecasts in a strategy of direct inflation targeting. finally, i should like to recall that the monthly bulletin - especially in its extended quarterly version - provides a forward-looking analysis, including reviews of the outlook for price developments. the ecb has also been asked to publish reports featuring national data relating to countries participating in the euro area. the publication of such data, however, would, in our view, be misleading since the single monetary policy cannot be directed at country-specific situations. on the contrary, the eurosystem must take a euro area-wide perspective in its assessment of the economic situation in general and the outlook for price stability in particular. publication by the ecb of detailed reports for each country participating in the euro area would run counter to the necessary creation of an area-wide perspective in the conduct, discussion and thinking of monetary policy. however, it should be recognised that the national central banks of the eurosystem continue to produce their own regular reports that address national economic and financial developments in some detail. i should now like briefly to expand upon another issue which i know is of fundamental concern to the european parliament, namely the contribution of monetary policy to the general economic policies in the community. the treaty provides for a fundamentally sound allocation of objectives and policy instruments between the monetary and governmental authorities in europe. the eurosystem is responsible for maintaining price stability. to this end, the eurosystem has adopted a monetary policy strategy that is forward-looking and acts promptly to address threats to price stability. the treaty also states that, without prejudice to its primary objective of price stability, the eurosystem shall support the general economic policies in the community. by maintaining price stability, it is our firm belief monetary policy makes the best contribution it can to achieving a high level of output and employment in the medium-term. price stability has beneficial effects on general economic performance - including growth and employment prospects - through many channels, of which i should like to mention the following. first, in an environment of price stability, the market mechanism will allocate resources more efficiently to their most productive uses. markets function most effectively when relative price signals are not distorted by fluctuations in the general price level. second, a climate of price stability reduces the inflation risk premia in interest rates, particularly in longer-term rates, and thereby improves the conditions for financing investment. third, lasting price stability serves the interests of social justice and helps to protect the weakest members of our society, such as pensioners and the unemployed, who depend on fixed incomes and who cannot protect themselves against the costs of inflation with other assets, such as property or shares. broad agreement exists that there is no long-term trade-off between price stability and economic growth. attempting to use monetary policy to raise real economic activity above its sustainable level will, in the long run, simply lead to ever higher inflation, but not to faster economic growth. such an attempt would simply forfeit the benefits of stable prices, which i have just outlined, and would therefore prejudice growth and employment prospects over the medium term. while the contribution it makes through maintaining price stability must not be overlooked, monetary policy clearly cannot solve the serious structural unemployment problem in the euro area. other policy areas have the instruments needed and are thus responsible for solving the structural problems. decisive action in this field is certainly required to improve growth and employment prospects. safeguarding sound government finances is a means of strengthening the conditions for price stability and achieving strong sustainable growth which is conducive to employment creation. in this context, the stability and growth pact sets the right incentives for the conduct of sound and disciplined fiscal policies across all participating member states. in addition, structural reforms in labour and goods markets, as well as a moderate development of wage costs, can best address the root causes of currently high unemployment in europe. the clear division of policy responsibilities i have just described enhances the credibility of monetary and economic policies in europe, increases transparency and facilitates accountability. it provides the proper incentives for the policy-makers in individual policy areas. if all parties concerned respect the fundamental allocation of these responsibilities and act accordingly, the achievement of the objectives of all policy areas will be the natural outcome of their individual policy choices. in this regard the eurosystem supports the idea of a dialogue between monetary policy and other policy areas in the form of an open exchange of information. however, such a dialogue should be clearly distinguished from any attempts to coordinate policies ex ante, so as to achieve a certain "policy mix" , which would blur the fundamental responsibilities i described. such coordination would tend to decrease accountability, reduce the transparency of the policy framework for the public and increase uncertainty about policy actions, potentially threatening to destabilise the economy. finally, the debate on a "balanced and appropriate policy mix" should not be used to deflect attention from the structural reforms that are so urgently needed to address the euro area' s serious structural unemployment problem. one other matter, which is addressed by your committee is the ecb' s contribution to financial stability, and in particular the question of the provision of emergency liquidity to financial institutions in distress. allow me to explain some of our main considerations in this regard. the main guiding principle within the eurosystem with reference to the provision of emergency liquidity to individual financial institutions is that the competent national central bank would be responsible for providing such assistance to those institutions operating within its jurisdiction. the ecb does, however, have to be informed of this in a timely manner. in addition, in operations of relevance to the single monetary policy, the decision-making bodies of the eurosystem will be involved in assessing the compatibility of the envisaged operations with the pursuit of monetary stability. in the case of a general liquidity crisis resulting from a gridlock in the payment system, for instance, the direct involvement of the eurosystem could be expected. for the markets it would be sufficient to know that there is a clearly articulated capability and willingness to act if really necessary. it is not common practice amongst central banks to disclose the conditions and practicalities of emergency liquidity assistance arrangements. in particular, there are typically no official documents describing the conditions under which emergency liquidity would be extended or what procedures would be followed. indeed, ex ante commitments would be counter-productive in this field, since they would restrict the ability of the central bank to act to contain systemic disturbances with unforeseen features. moreover, this policy of "constructive ambiguity" can limit the associated problem of moral hazard. finally, i should like to turn to a different issue which has also been raised by the european parliament on several occasions, namely the question of cross-border retail payment services in the euro area. the ecb is aware of the criticism that has been expressed with reference to the low level of efficiency and high costs involved in the processing of such payments and it fully shares the concerns expressed by the european parliament in this regard. the current situation is particularly unsatisfactory in the area of cross-border credit transfers, whereas the situation in the area of cross-border card-based payments raises fewer concerns. as you will be aware, one of the basic tasks conferred upon the eurosystem by the treaty is the promotion of the smooth functioning of payment systems. however, the involvement of central banks in retail payment systems is, in general, less pronounced than in large-value payment systems, mainly because retail payment systems entail significantly lower systemic risks. nevertheless, the eurosystem is concerned with efficiency issues related to cross-border retail payments. at present, the performance of cross-border retail payment systems is clearly lagging behind the policy objectives of economic and monetary union and, indeed, behind the expectations of many european citizens and small enterprises. after the introduction of the euro banknotes and coins on 1 january 2002, these differences in service levels for national and cross-border payments within the single currency area will become even more apparent. against this background, the ecb strongly advocates the creation of a single payment area in order fully to reap the benefits of the single currency. in order to give a clear signal to the banking industry and the public, the ecb published a number of objectives in september which it expects the industry to fulfil and which should contribute towards substantial improvements. the current inadequacies are linked, in part, to the still predominant recourse to correspondent banking and the lack of adequate interbank infrastructures. more efficient funds transfer arrangements have been set up in recent years, but they are too fragmented and economies of scale are very limited. one pre-condition, therefore, for achieving a substantial enhancement in the processing of cross-border retail payments is undoubtedly the fact that the banking industry must implement common technical features in the processing of funds between banks. however, this is unlikely to be sufficient. the banking industry must also improve substantially its internal procedures for processing cross-border payments, as well as its communication with the customer. this, in turn, requires a more extensive use of automation and standardisation. in this respect, i should like to draw attention to the standards agreed within the framework of the european committee for banking standards, which i consider to be of particular importance. the ecb is organising meetings with all parties involved in order to bring the implementation of the standards forward. once the conditions related to interbank processing and internal procedures have been met, it should be possible for the banking industry to decrease substantially the price of cross-border credit transfers and to reduce the execution time to that needed for domestic payments plus one day. the ecb expects the banks in the euro area to achieve substantial improvements by 1 january 2002 at the latest. the ecb will act as a catalyst for change and will, together with the national central banks of the eurosystem, discuss these issues with the euro area banking industry in order to play a supportive and coordinating role in this regard. at present, an operational involvement of the ecb does not appear to be justified since there are already some indications that the general appreciation of the problem by the private sector is now increasing. the ecb will, however, closely monitor further developments in this area and will inform the european parliament and the general public about the progress achieved. it is an honour to be chosen as the rapporteur for this important report. this is the first occasion on which the european parliament has given its views on the progress of the european central bank and in this context it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the ecb and mr duisenberg, as president, on its success so far. the launch of the euro itself is a truly historic moment in the life of an extraordinary undertaking. it represents a substantial technical achievement and the many officials involved deserve our thanks and our appreciation. clearly it is still early days in terms of judgement on the results of the ecb' s mandate but here, too, we can already point to many positive signs, not least that investors are prepared to lend euro area governments their money at very low rates of interest. this is a real vote of confidence that the ecb will continue to deliver price stability and will not allow an inflationary erosion of people' s savings. it is very much in this context of overwhelming support for the objectives of the ecb and of praise for its achievements so far that my remaining remarks should be seen. only if the ecb is open about the way it reaches its decisions will it be able to retain support in bad times as well as in good. it may achieve its objective of price stability but without openness it will not be clear whether that objective has been attained by design and can therefore be repeated in future or by lucky accident which may therefore require some improvement in its methods of working. the committee was also struck by the fact that other central banks have moved more rapidly in recent years towards greater openness. the us federal reserve, the bank of japan, sweden' s riksbank, the bank of england all publish the individual votes of the committee that decides interest rates. they all publish forecasts, they all give information about the nature of the debate within their governing councils. in all of these respects - objective measures of transparency - the ecb lags behind normal international practice. the committee therefore proposes, firstly that the ecb should publish a summary minute giving both sides of the argument, for and against monetary actions. secondly, the ecb should publish a six-monthly forecast of economic developments in the euro area. mr duisenberg' s remarks to us today are particularly welcome in that respect because he has promised that he that will do just that within the next year. thirdly, the ecb should discuss on a regular basis developments in each of the member states of the euro area in order to have a positive influence on price and wage developments which must, as mr duisenberg rightly pointed out, differ from member state to member state. finally, the committee may request that the president appears following each significant monetary action. these measures would do much to foster a culture of transparency. the committee was unable to support a call now for the publication of votes as is in the liberal group amendment today. it was felt that a young institution should have time to find its feet. most members felt that publication might intensify the public pressures on governing council members to vote in line with their national interest. similarly, the committee did not support the liberal position that it would be useful to publish the ecb' s econometric models of the euro area, partly for fear that they may be abused. the committee also rejected the greens' view as expressed in their amendment today, that the price stability mandate should be altered to take account of the difficulties faced by manufacturers alone if their prices fall. the amendment from the epp, however, clarifies the paragraph and should, in our view, be supported. mr president, i would like to highlight briefly some other points that we make. the first is to thank mr duisenberg again for his assurance to this house that the process of cooperation between the ecb and the national central banks is now adequate, even in the case of a serious crisis in which a euro area financial institution may need to be supported. i would also like to stress the committee' s view that the ecb should bring pressure to bear on those member states which rely excessively on short-term debt, as this can present dangers, particularly during a financial crisis. thirdly, we encourage the ecb to fulfil its role on the international stage as one of the three main pillars of the international monetary system. finally, i very much welcome, too, mr duisenberg' s taking up of a point in the report about the need to reduce the costs of cross-border payments, particularly for smaller payments which affect individual members. mr president, if the euro is as great a success as i hope and expect, it will play its part in revolutionising the european economy. by completing the single european market it will give europe' s consumers more choice of goods and services, of higher quality and at lower prices and will, therefore, spur greater increases in living standards. it will provide jobs in expanding industries which is the only sure guarantee of future prosperity. although i have no doubt that the ecb will face many difficult challenges in the years ahead, i am pleased to report that so far it has risen to the challenges it has faced with considerable lan. we can look forward to a future which builds on its recent success. mr president, president duisenberg, rapporteur, i would like to outline five thoughts briefly. firstly, we have heard that this is the first report of the ecb and first position that we have been called upon to express on it. it can be discerned immediately that the report describes the status quo of a year that has now passed and does not definitively clarify the work of the ecb and our relationship to the ecb. cooperation between the european parliament and the ecb, as well as the operating methods of the european central bank, are in a process of evolution. much of our criticism or our requirements today will seem self-evident in a while. i would, however, like to say on behalf of our group that we consider the fundamental conditions to be sacrosanct. the group of the european people' s party/european democrats sees itself as the political group which says yes to the independence of the ecb, to reinforcement of the stability policy, regarding both price stability and currency stability, and which also says yes to further reduction of the public debt, to new growth and employment and to the credibility of monetary policy. these fundamental positions of ours, in addition to the tension between autonomy, confidence, a transparent public record and the essential intensification of monetary dialogue with the european parliament, are crucial for us to be able to assess the work of the ecb, but also for the preparation of our own report and the operating methods of parliament. we have already heard briefly today that the main theme of the report is the year 1998, a year in which it was announced which countries had met the convergence criteria - eleven of them, the location of the ecb was decided, the emi was taken on, the third phase of economic and monetary union was introduced and the ecb governing council decided on the stability strategy, based on the two recognised pillars. it has to be said, a lot happened in the course of this year. in spite of some currency turbulence on other continents, the euro has already demonstrated that it can earn confidence, and the conversion of existing currencies to the new currency on 1 january 1999 was achieved smoothly. at this point, therefore, i would like above all to offer congratulations and thanks. congratulations and thanks to the european monetary institute, the national banks, the european central bank, represented here today by president duisenberg, but also to all the member states who, by means of many politically necessary reforms, drove forward further structural and institutional reforms and fulfilled the convergence criteria, and not forgetting the citizens who support this necessary step towards european integration with increasing approval. permit me to say in conclusion that fulfilment of the convergence criteria has led to price stability, exchange rate stability and to improved public finances. these three successes are the prerequisite for economic growth, on the one hand, essential investment in the future, on the other hand, and creating jobs and making them secure. considering that the report contains all our fundamental conditions, my hope is that it will meet with wide approval. mr president, our primary objective is to establish the euro, after a successful start at the beginning of this year, as a stable currency in the long term, to make it an international reserve currency and to ensure that it is accepted by the citizens. i am particularly pleased that the president stressed again today that the european central bank also regards consumer protection as an important task within monetary union. the independence of the european central bank is important for the objectives i mentioned, but its credibility and the degree to which the public can have confidence in it are important too. in a democratic legal system, the institutional and political independence of an institution is only possible if democratic legitimisation is guaranteed at the same time, and that includes transparency of decisions and indeed the possibility of understanding these decisions. in this respect, a central role falls to the european parliament, and i think that the dialogue on monetary policy, in the form established between this parliament and the european central bank, is a good start for future years in the euro area. i know how difficult it was, and this is shown in the annual report, to set up the european central bank, and indeed the whole system, and to get monetary union underway without problems. i also consider it very positive that the european central bank has improved its information policy. i do think, on the other hand, that it is not sufficient to allocate only an ancillary role in this communication policy to the european parliament, as the open forum for european policy. it is important to see the special role of the european parliament here too and i also think therefore that ecb information services and transparency could be significantly improved with regard to the european parliament. by that i do not mean that we necessarily need to have verbatim reports of meetings published now, but it would be useful to have outline minutes of meetings giving the arguments for and against, making it possible to understand the way in which the european central bank actually makes its evaluation in the assessment of the risk of inflation or of deflation. it has not been clear to us to date how an assessment can be made or is made in this area regarding the development of prices over and above goods and services, with reference, for example, also to property markets or share markets. there is therefore some uncertainty in this area as to the basis for decision making and the intelligibility of decisions, just as there still is with reference to the forecasts and models. the european central bank must be allowed some time. it is only 10 months since the child came of age and became responsible in the monetary arena, but it must continue in this direction. i am convinced of the fact that trusting collaboration between the ecb and parliament will also contribute towards achieving greater certainty and confidence among the public. at the moment there is great speculation on the subject of the ecb' s decisions in matters of interest rate policy. in this context within the euro area, i expressly welcome the ecb decision last thursday to leave interest rates unchanged. this shows that the ecb is taking its responsibility in supporting other national economic objectives, particularly employment, seriously, and we know that the economic "spring" in the european union, in spite of the varied developments within the euro area of the 11, certainly needs even further support. i think that the drop in oil prices, together with the fall in consumer prices which has already been experienced and which is expected to continue in the telecommunications, electricity and financial service sectors as a result of competition and the liberalisation of the market also certainly played a part in the decisions of last thursday. this should continue to be the case. i am filled with consternation regarding the ecb' s attack upon the employment pact. i would ask the ecb to make a constructive contribution towards achieving the growth and employment pact and to say very clearly what part it intends to play in the macroeconomic dialogue in order to contribute to a balanced policy mix. it is no longer possible for monetary policy just to be responsible for price stability. it is no longer possible for budgetary policy just to be responsible for state finance, and social partners for moderate wage policy. there must be real liaison here in the interests of the further development of european economic and monetary union, and also a shared position in this area in the interests of increasing employment. mr president, on behalf of the liberal group, i am pleased to express our support and favourable position with regard to the report presented by mr huhne, concerning the 1998 annual report of the european central bank. first of all, we must congratulate ourselves on the process of introducing the euro. it is now a complete reality which is operating with total normality on all the economic levels envisaged - in the member states, in the european union, on an international level. the good leadership and management of the european central bank has undoubtedly contributed to this normality and we should congratulate it and its president since, during the early months of the establishment of the euro, when the initial approaches were adopted, they had to overcome - and they did it skilfully - certain adverse circumstances at moments which were clearly delicate at an internal as well as an international level. at that time - and i must insist on this - the european central bank displayed skill, good leadership and management and the ability to maintain the principles of independence. this very solidity, which has been demonstrated in so few months, should allow us to be braver, more decisive in some areas which have already been mentioned, which are in mr huhne' s report and which i would like to insist on. one of them is clearly the issue of transparency in some areas that the president of the central bank himself has already mentioned. the publication of the forecasts, the possibility of having access to the minutes of meetings and a global report on the economic progress of the member states are elements which will contribute - as the committee on economic and monetary affairs, by means of the intervention of its president, mrs randzio-plath, has demonstrated, and as mentioned in mr huhne' s report - to the consolidation of the level of internal and international acceptance and, of course, transparency, not only with regard to public opinion but also with regard to the experts in monetary affairs. let me end by insisting on the specific position of the liberal group which calls for, after the transitional period of two years, the publication of votes, the various positions taken in the meetings of the executive board and the macroeconomic models, which i believe would allow more convincing and accurate forecasts to be made by those whose operations relate to the european central bank. mr president, this is the first time that the new parliament is fulfilling its mission of supervising the european central bank. the group of the greens/european free alliance heartily supports the huhne report, not only for its professional quality but also for its general attitude of mind. it is effectively a response to the fundamental problem which faces us today, that of accountability in managing monetary policy. what is the nature of this problem? the central bank is not a fourth estate. it is not, for example, in a position to challenge the social rights gained by europeans. these rights are enshrined either in the universal declaration of human rights, in national bodies of legislation and in conventions between management and unions. the central bank, on the other hand, has been assigned a specific function by europeans, that of ensuring price stability. the maastricht treaty is not very specific on the manner in which it must actually be accountable for the fulfilment of its mission with regard to national representatives. all central or international banks of major countries are bound, in one form or another, by this democratic accountability with regard to the socio-economic community - in the anglo-saxon countries through parliament and in germany through the federate banks of the lnder. today we have to invent the forms of democratic responsibility of the european central bank. the huhne report already provides many possible routes. we support the two amendments tabled by the rapporteur himself, for publication of votes in the council of the european central bank and the econometric models on which these votes are based. only the most complete transparency of the relationship between the objectives set by the treaty and the actions of the members of the council will make it possible for europeans to actually measure whether the members of the council are fulfilling their mission properly, not that we doubt it. from this point of view, the huhne report is justifiably very pleased with the reduction in interest rates which occurred in april. apart from the positive effect of this decision on employment, it is in line with the objective of ecological sustainability, which is to say the rejection of a policy of excessively favouring immediate prospects at the expense of long- term future prospects. this is why our group is concerned about the rumours of a forthcoming increase in interest rates. such a decision would compromise both the upturn in employment in europe and ecological investment, especially that related to saving energy and combating the greenhouse effect. such a decision could only be taken in the event that price stability was threatened. well, price stability applies in both directions. for many months, the consumer price index has been increasing at a rate of 1%, while the industrial price index on the other hand has been decreasing, at a rate of 1%. this deflation in industrial prices prompts giving preference to short-term prospects. it would become dangerous if real interest rates were to increase. in order to prevent such situations arising, our group is proposing an amendment drawing the attention of the european central bank to its mandate to ensure price stability in both directions. president duisenberg, i would like to mention three matters critical to this first annual report of the european central bank: accountability, transparency and employment. firstly, in my view, the content and the drafting of the report do not make it sufficiently clear that the european central bank is willing to subject itself to democratic control by the european parliament. this is demonstrated by the fact that dialogue on monetary matters between parliament and the ecb is assessed on page 95/96 on just the same terms as cooperation with other institutions. in my opinion, this is in contradiction to article 113 of the treaty on european union, which makes it mandatory for the ecb to present an annual report of its activities and its monetary policy to parliament. this is precisely what you get as a result of the fact that the european central bank' s accountability towards parliament is described in such vague terms in this article. i therefore support the request made in the report of the committee on economic and monetary affairs, to wit, that the ecb should take immediate action in order in future to at least take into account fully the special relationship with the european parliament established by the treaty on european union. this brings me to my second comment. it is not acceptable that the european central bank should give no details of the background and reasons for its decisions on monetary policy. indeed, this parliament is the forum where the ecb must present its monetary decisions, justify them and, if necessary, let them be criticised. if this does not take place, then parliament cannot fulfil its own task of supervising the activity of the bank. monetary policy is, as is known, a highly political matter, and it is precisely for that reason that the bank must demand a high degree of transparency with regard to decision-making. thirdly, what for me is a central question, there is clear dissent in this house, president duisenberg, as to the views you have just expressed. i am of the opinion that the european central bank must make a contribution to economic growth and employment by means of its monetary policy. it is not right for full employment to be de facto abandoned as a political objective and for everything, literally everything, to be subordinated to monetary stability. i still consider this to be the crucial foundation for establishing. (the president cut the speaker off.) mr president, today our parliament has the president of the european central bank as its guest, that is to say the president of the first institution to which the nations of europe, by who knows what perturbation, have decided, eleven of them at least, to confer to give sovereign power. thus, mr duisenberg, even though today' s poor attendance does not seem to back up my statement, you are nonetheless the successor to the emperors and popes who, since the time of charlemagne, have dreamt of unifying our continent by faith or by force. no doubt you will even have more power or influence, in the final analysis, than they ever did, even if it is to be a less flamboyant form of power, since at the end of this millennium which seems to set money up as the ultimate universal value, you are poised to hold both temporal power and spiritual power within the european union. confronted with this - i do not know how to describe it exactly - this "bank state" or this "holy bank" , the vice-president of which, mr noyer, recently explained to us ingratiatingly, but in english, how responsible it felt for the long term whilst governments, on the other hand, gave in to short term whims because they were subject to the vagaries of universal suffrage. confronted, then, with the omnipotence of this bank, the excellent report by our fellow member, mr huhne, calls for greater transparency, without however daring to go as far as demanding of you what might pass for exhibitionism, that is to say, ceasing to maintain anonymity regarding decisions. we can only approve these excellent resolutions, while being aware that there is even more talk of transparency when democracy is being relinquished or sidelined. let us recall, for that matter, that transparency comes from the russian glasnost. that is why, mr duisenberg, i believe that today' s meeting, and particularly the ridiculous opposition force which parliament is attempting to exert in relation to the considerable power which has been entrusted to you, can only worry anyone who attaches importance to national sovereignty, which is just one way for nations to keep control of their own fate. i only hope that, aware of the power which has been granted you, you will be able to exercise this power with all the wisdom one could hope for. mr president, the ecb' s first annual report looks back over 1998, a year dominated by the build-up to the launch of the single currency on 1 january 1999. the transition to the third stage of emu proceeded fairly uneventfully. we can justifiably be pleased about that. but it has since become apparent that bringing about the monetary union of eleven member states also has its drawbacks. these negative effects could, in the main, have been foreseen, but this parliament never gave them serious attention during the run-up to emu. one issue that is now receiving people' s undivided attention is that of the divergent rate of inflation in the euro countries. currency depreciation is significantly higher in ireland, spain and the netherlands in particular. there will be no change here in the foreseeable future. according to the estimates published by the imf yesterday, the netherlands can expect inflation to be at 2.3% next year. the constant rise in consumer spending is prompting the dutch government to make concerned and admonishing comments, but it is doing the wrong things in policy terms: tax reductions instead of debt reduction. following an inquiry into the situation, the ecb concluded that the differing rates of inflation ought not to be a major cause for concern. regional differences in the rate of inflation are in fact greater still in the united states. however, federal states in the us benefit from automatic stabilisers coming into play via the federal budget. the mobility of labour is also much greater in the united states. i tend to feel that the ecb wants to play fast and loose and i would like its president to clarify his position. i also want to ask him if the banking supervision system needs to be adapted. as things stand it is decentralised and that is fine, but is the supervisory process not rendered more difficult by transnational mergers with banks outside the euro area? i would be pleased to hear what you intend to do about this. mr president of the central bank, i am speaking on behalf of the italian radical members. certainly, this first report by the european central bank is compensating for the launch of the euro and you and the governing council of the bank are taking on a great responsibility. the huhne report certainly contains positive elements, especially as regards the request to the european central bank for more information regarding the grounds for the decisions it adopted through the publication of concise minutes including dissenting opinions as well. however, there is a point in the report which, mr president, in my opinion is completely unacceptable. i am referring to point 11, which states that parliament regards 'the reduction of 50 basis points in interest rates on 8 april 1999 as appropriate, and welcomes in particular the reasons given for it' , which tells us that the cut in rates supported the general economic policies in the community. regarding the method, i wonder why on earth parliament, in discussing the 1998 report of the european central bank, feels the need to include its approbation of a specific measure which the european central bank will give an account of in its next report - the 1999 report. moreover, how can we consider judging the effects of the manoeuvre on taxes after only a few weeks? and what sense is there in parliament giving an opinion of one single act of the central bank? considering this matter further, i find this approbation totally out of place. yesterday, both the head economist of the central bank, mr issing, and vice-president noyer implied that a fresh increase in taxation is imminent. does this not maybe prove that the decision taken in april was wrong, given that in the meantime there has been no unexpected shock? and was the long-term tax increase not due to the loss of credibility owing to that very cut? we have the suspicion, actually more than a suspicion, that that decision was made following political pressure - for example, oscar lafontaine - and that parliament, with today' s approval, wishes to confirm the move towards a central bank which is subordinate to political requirements or even electoral interests. i believe that the central bank' s strategy must focus exclusively on currency and prices. it would be suicide, as today others have repeatedly advocated, to think that european leaders can put pressure on the central bank so that it will make up for their inability to relaunch the economy through structural reforms, liberalisation of the markets - the job market first and foremost - and tight budgetary policy which must be coupled with a reduction of the tax burden on people and firms. mr president, president duisenberg, i too would like to express my delight at being able to welcome president duisenberg here today. why is the debate we are having today so important? the european central bank is autonomous, and my group is surely the one which always stressed this most. but, at the same time, the european central bank must make decisions which concern every individual citizen of europe. it is therefore particularly important that the bank should not exist in an ivory tower but that it should continue to justify itself to the public. there are a variety of ways in which it can achieve this. i would also like to point out that the european parliament has a particularly privileged role here. the european parliament is explicitly mentioned in the treaties as the partner of the european central bank in dialogue, and this is not the case in the same way with other institutions. the european parliament is a forum where all of europe can in fact take part in the debate; though i would have liked to see a rather larger participation in this debate today, for i am of the opinion that this debate is of great significance. the european central bank is autonomous. it is committed in the first instance to ensuring price stability. at this point, i would like to remind mrs randzio-plath that the treaty plainly stipulates that the prime objective of the european central bank is to ensure price stability and that any other objectives may be pursued only if they can be achieved without any risk to price stability, and that price stability itself, as the president has already stated, can have positive social and economic effects. on behalf of my group, i should like to say that the european central bank has achieved some outstanding work in the course of this last year, since it was founded. it has taken some very important decisions, for example, its decision on the definition of price stability. that is of very great significance for the long-term development of our debate on this question. even in its decision regarding the minimum reserves, which were rather controversial, the european central bank, i.e. the governing council of the european central bank, has demonstrated great perceptiveness. it has, at least, passed its period of probation as far as that goes. i would however like to specify that throughout this probationary period the bank experienced fair weather, economically speaking. perhaps occasionally things were rather hazy, but, on the whole, we are going through a period of positive economic development. it will be much more difficult for the european central bank to take uncomfortable decisions, such as, for example, raising interest rates rather than lowering them, if the economic situation becomes more difficult and if actual risks to price stability arise. in the first months of its existence, the european central bank has earned our confidence, but if it is to be able in the future to withstand such situations, then this confidence must be systematically consolidated in the years to come and, mr president, in that endeavour you may count on the support of my group. we are called upon to vote on a draft amendment which demands that the votes of the individual members of the governing council of the european central bank should be made public. i would like to make it perfectly clear that my own group will never agree to such an amendment. why not? individuals sit on the governing council of the bank, who are personally responsible for monetary stability and who make decisions as individuals within this governing council. there is not, therefore, any weighting of votes, such as there is in the council of ministers, since it has been determined that these are people who have to vote here as individuals. publishing the votes could lead to a situation where there would then be national debates on the behaviour of individual members. that would be extraordinarily negative both for the european central bank and also for all of us. the european central bank has achieved some excellent work, it has earned the confidence of the citizens by dint of its work in the last few months, and this is what we are going to reflect in this resolution. mr president, this first annual report of the central bank gives me the opportunity to make an on the whole positive assessment of the work accomplished to date by the european central bank and the operation of the euro area. the central bank has managed to fulfil its primary mission of maintaining price stability. the general economic policies of the union have been accompanied by an opportune reduction in key interest rates. the countries participating in the euro area have been in a position to continue their structural improvement. growth has returned in the majority of european countries. following the doubling of petroleum prices, a slight upsurge has been observed in inflation. the ecb has a duty to remain vigilant, but as the mean rate of inflation of the euro-11 is still well under the 2% mark, i dare to hope that the governing council will give growth and, consequently, further reduction in unemployment, a chance. according to ecb estimates, some four fifths of unemployment is structural in nature. more recent studies show that in fact less than one fifth of unemployment is structural. this type of unemployment linked to the current economic climate could be absorbed only by more vigorous growth. while emphasising the need to continue the policy of stability, i would like to ask president duisenberg the following question: can europe' s only ambition be to pursue a macroeconomic policy focused on stability alone? in my view, the fight against inflation must go hand in hand with the improved coordination of budgetary policies and the establishment of a macroeconomic framework favourable to growth and to employment. when assessing the work of the ecb and the positive effect of the euro area, one must consider the internationalisation of financial markets. one is bound to observe that europe has come to terms with the crises in asia, russia and brazil rather well. without the euro, some more vulnerable member states would probably have experienced monetary difficulties along with, who knows, some cases of competitive devaluation. the euro is also a victory of community regulation over the disordered interaction of individual financial markets. people will bring up the objection that, since its successful launch, the value of the euro has depreciated in comparison with the dollar. this is to forget that, within a floating exchange rate system, the main currencies are always going to evolve in relation to each other. in the last twenty years, the yearly slide in the volatile mark/dollar exchange rate has, on several occasions, exceeded 10%. the only criticism i have of the ecb is that it should be a bit less reticent about international exposure in all the various for a. the ecb is one of the most important central banks in the world. it is its duty to take a particularly close interest in the vulnerability of the international banking system and the fragility of the financial sector throughout the world. the crisis in asia was not triggered by traditional macroeconomic imbalances, but by the financial excesses of the private sector. the irrational exuberance which characterises some stock exchanges, the excessive indebtedness of american households and of some economic sectors in important countries cause a definite threat to hang over worldwide economic stability. the ecb should make a firm commitment in all the appropriate fora to create a new regulatory framework for the structure of international finance. the essential complement . (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, mr duisenberg, we in sweden are relatively new to the eu, and i am new to this house. it is my understanding that we swedes still have a lot to learn within the field of european cooperation. at the same time, it is my conviction that there is also a great deal for the eu to learn from how we handle some things in sweden, for example the issues of openness and public access to official records. when it comes to the report on the european central bank, there is every reason to wonder whether we should not be able to do more to increase openness within the european central bank and public control of its affairs, to strengthen the bank' s legitimacy and to increase democratic support for it. we liberals believe that this is needed, and without, moreover, encroaching upon the bank' s independence or reducing its efficiency. the bank of sweden now reports, with two weeks' delay, upon the minutes of the meetings of the board of directors. monetary considerations, together with the positions adopted by the various board members, are reported on at this time. last week, swedes learned that the deputy chief executive of the bank of sweden, together with a further member of the board, did not back the bank' s latest report on inflation. they advocated a rise in interest rates but were voted down. similar openness would be to the advantage of the european central bank too. why? well, openness leads to clarity, which reduces uneasiness in the market and makes for stability. however, mr duisenberg and i are clearly not properly in agreement about this argument. openness would increase our citizens' support for the bank and make it easier for everyone to understand the goal of monetary policy: that price stability, just as mr duisenberg said, should lead to growth and employment. in my opinion, being open about strategies and prognoses, internal discussions and methods of voting will also actually increase board members' accountability, not reduce it. it is actually a good thing to be open to public scrutiny. i want to say too that we have today been able to see that support for emu in sweden has increased, which i am glad about. i should like to tell mr duisenberg that support for emu and the likelihood of taking sweden into emu will increase if he and the european central bank display greater openness. mr president, mr duisenberg, it is probably not necessary to say it, but please allow me to emphasise, as a humble mep from a small country - the basque country - that you have a lot of power but it is a democratic power. and contrary to what somebody said a little while ago, we do know who granted that power. in the current phase of european construction we are seeing significant economic and monetary integration processes, which have been speeded up since the adoption of the single currency. in the real economy we are witnessing great mergers and concentrations which must be carried out in accordance with good practice and respect for consumer rights. at an institutional level the central bank plays a key role and we would also like this role to be counterbalanced with the transparency demanded of those institutions which result from the votes of the citizens. somebody said that one should not grow fond of banks because they will never grow fond of you. we do not intend to present you with a rosy picture or a wonderful idyll, but we do not believe that it is too much to ask that at least they are transparent with the citizens of europe who are affected by their policies and measures. in general terms we agree with the huhne report, which emphasises the quality of the annual report of the ecb and the progress made in the communication of the bank' s policy. we also agree with the measures proposed with regard to the increase in transparency and the need to clarify what the european central bank understands monetary policy to be, beyond price stability - which is evidently its main function - because this will undoubtedly contribute to an appropriate and balanced policy mix which is aimed at promoting sustainable development and lasting employment. i must insist once again on transparency: do not apply a bandage until you are injured. mr solbes said in an appearance before this parliament that he would try to cooperate with the members without prejudice to the quality of his work. transparency does not have to be incompatible with the protection of aims of monetary policy. we are not asking for miracles nor that a great song and dance be made about what is going to be done, but simply that its management model be more transparent. if you take note of what other central banks have done and if you trust in this parliament, have no doubt that we will make progress with transparency without endangering the objectives of the european central bank. mr president, the european central bank is still very much an institution which makes crucial decisions for the millions of citizens of the european union without being subject to any democratic or political control. from this point of view, when parliament considers that progress is being made because regular press conferences are held following any governing council meetings and because, in addition to annual reports, the ecb also publishes monthly reports, this invokes a false sense of true democracy among the peoples of europe. this 'progress' has, in fact, been run-of-the-mill practice at the central banks since the 1930s! mr president, european citizens are, first and foremost, interested in and, at the same time, concerned by the content of the policies of the european central bank, the european union and the member states - policies which give absolute priority to so-called monetary stability and the interests of major credit capital, at the cost of dramatic job losses and the total disintegration of the so-called european social model. workers are concerned by the fact that the european central bank considers a growth rate of over 2.5% to be dangerous for the notorious monetary stability, thereby deferring indefinitely efforts to address the issue of unemployment. the average inflation rate of the 11 countries within the euro area is below 1%. some countries have already entered an anti-inflationary phase, but there are growing signs of a rise in interest rates in order to maintain monetary stability. mr president, with growth rates below 2%, with a new rise in interest rates, with deflation and the rigorous implementation of the stability pact, growing pressure is being brought to bear on the security and social rights of workers, and this will indirectly bring about a dramatic deterioration in their living standards and working conditions. mr president, first of all, we must analyse the first period of the ecb' s activities which, as we know, began a year ago in the hope of becoming, in time, the main institution for intervention in the economies of the member states of the union. on the one hand, we have all noticed the greater role played recently by this institution - and indirectly, at the same time, the whole union - in terms of economic policy and, especially, employment policy. on the other hand, this was not sufficient to ensure that the euro was not affected by speculation or weakened in the face of our competitors - which, of course, we must definitely not ignore - which are the united states and nafta. in fact the euro, which started with a strong position in the money markets, after a few months was exposed to attacks which were, to say the least, speculative. we must take note of this signal and always ensure that the focus behind major political, budgetary and monetary strategies is not the new single currency but a long-term view taking into account the need to give the euro and the member states stability, and above all, to relaunch the union' s economy and the employment situation which concerns each of us in this parliament so greatly. therefore, we must continue along the path which president duisenberg is establishing within his role and the institution itself. however, at the same time, we must monitor price stability so that we can control the greater evil with which we are all familiar - inflation - and at the same time keep interest rates low to stimulate investments and relaunch the european industrial sector, making it more competitive with regard to the other states. in doing this, we would bring prestige to a new institution like the ecb and we would gain political credibility internationally. in a debate like this about this important institution known as the european central bank, two starting points might be taken. one can talk about what is apparent, that is to say the surface details; or one can talk about what is real. the european central bank' s mode of functioning is to stay on the surface. it is a question of regulations and rules of procedure. we are conducting a rather shadowy debate here, and it is also interesting what the rapporteur has written in the explanatory statement, namely that the european parliament "is responsible both for receiving and debating the annual report of the ecb and for monitoring the ecb" . there is no basis for this. neither article 113 of the treaty nor article 15 of the statute give parliament any powers other than the power to talk. so we can talk, then, and come up with comments about openness, as my excellent swedish colleague has done, and i concur fully with the criticism of the culture of secrecy. but the reality is the european central bank as a political tool, and this house believes that the question of the euro and its establishment as an important institution is a matter which is over and done with. it is not! it is a success, writes the rapporteur at the start of the report. success according to what criteria? is it a criterion of success that the exchange rate has fallen since the euro was established? and, if one considers social criteria such as unemployment, it hits you right in the eye that the three north european countries which are outside the single currency (namely denmark, sweden and great britain) have significantly lower unemployment than certain areas in the eu, where it is catastrophically high. is this success? the next step consists of referenda in the scandinavian countries, and these will perhaps introduce a different agenda. mr president, nine months after the euro' s launch and with enthusiasm for its future role as the major international reserve currency dimmed as the result of exchange rate weakness, it cannot be heralded as an unqualified success. it remains to be seen if the "one-size-fits-all" model of interest rates will work in countries like ireland, without causing large tax rises and damaging the popularity of the euro-project. nevertheless i applaud the aims and coherence of the huhne report as a basis for defining accountability of the central bank, on which i should like to say a few words, particularly on the issue of transparency and accountability. some may question why i, as a british member, should like to speak on this issue. i would like to point out that britain and the british conservative party - to which i belong - have never been hostile to the euro as a currency for those member states which genuinely wish to join, as we are all bound together through our membership of the single market so that a collapse in confidence for the euro would affect us all, whether we are in or outside the emu. for this reason it is vital that the central bank enjoys the confidence of the financial markets. we live in an era of massive capital flows and foreign exchange markets. some 300 billion is traded every day in the city of london. a collapse in the credibility of or belief that the bank would not be prepared to pursue an anti-inflationary policy at all costs could have severe repercussions economically throughout the whole union. i believe that only the central bank, for instance, should pronounce when necessary on foreign exchange target zones for the euro, to avoid conflicting messages being given to the financial markets. it is also vital, in my opinion, that the bank be encouraged to follow the example of other leading central banks, such as the federal reserve in america, and make transparency a central feature of all its activities. i regret, therefore, that attempts to require the bank to publish the names of those present, the voting on monetary actions, after a grace period of some two years and the publication of the ecb' s econometric models were defeated at committee stage and have not been put before this house today. it was also confusing yesterday to hear that mr issing, the ecb' s chief economist, reportedly stated in london that the bank would not publish economic forecasts for euro-land, perpetuating a culture of secrecy. i welcome mr duisenberg' s clarification on this issue today. i believe that any confident central bank would welcome the opportunity for its members to be challenged on the fundamental assumptions underlying their decisions. but particularly in the ecb' s case, as it does not have the track record of the mighty bundesbank and could quickly lose the confidence of the financial markets if it is reluctant to protect itself through greater transparency. openness to criticism is not a weakness but a strength. as a doctor i know that advances in medicine are often achieved only after rigorous scrutiny and challenge in peer review journals. the bank has to learn to operate within the same spirit. i also believe that the financial markets and the people of europe will expect no less of this new central bank and that this parliament should be relentless in the pursuit of an open and accountable european central bank for the near future. mr president, mr president of the central bank, commissioner, i believe that our sitting, today, is a founding act. this is the first time that you have presented your annual report to this house as president of the central bank. indeed, if i am interpreting the treaty on european union correctly, this is an essential element in the balance designed by the people who set up economic and monetary union, with the success we have seen, taking into account the conditions of the transition to the euro on 1 january this year. this balance, in fact, involves both the independence of your institution and the annual report which you must present to our own institution. this is the meeting we are witnessing today. unlike some of my fellow citizens, i believe that today we are here reaching the very core of your democratic responsibility. as you know, this institution has clearly shown its will to exercise fully the competences accorded under the treaty. parliament set the condition of having a hearing with each of the members of your executive board; it meets you on a regular basis, and considers today' s meeting to be the high point of this approach. it is only to be expected that our debate today should be more concerned with the methods rather than the basis of the monetary policy. you are still just about in your initial running-in period, as are we. we must take advantage of this period to strengthen the resources that we, the european parliament, have. but for your part, you too, mr president, must perhaps take advantage of it to review again your idea of the relationship between your institution and ours. so, as regards transparency - many people before me have said it, but let me repeat it once again - if we want to be able to really act as an intermediary in monetary policy, which you implement and which we discuss, then we need you to present the decisions you are taking, and give your reasons and justifications for them. as regards monetary policy itself, you said, mr president, that it cannot solve the structural problems of the labour market. very well. but it can make a contribution, and this is what the treaty invites you to do, and what we invite you to do. sustained growth in europe is essential if we wish to solve the problem of employment. there will be no structural reform without growth. certainly, positive signs are appearing. we know that more gradual growth today is already enabling the creation of jobs in some of our countries. but if we want sustainable growth for a high level of employment, we need monetary policy to accompany this movement. this is what the treaty invites you to do, and this is the matter on which we expect positive signs from you. in this sense, the policy which you are pursuing in the area of interest rate policy is clearly essential, and we are awaiting very clear commitments from you in this respect. mr president, this is an important debate for it is the first time we have come to discuss the european central bank' s report. the fact that president duisenberg is present serves to underline the special relationship that the ecb has with our parliament. the liberals are satisfied with the ecb' s report and with the four proposals put forward by the committee on economic and monetary affairs for there to be more transparency in the bank' s dealings. but we are disappointed that the committee on economic and monetary affairs has shown itself unwilling to take one step more towards achieving still greater openness, hence my group has submitted a number of amendments to this end. i refer in particular to the publication of votes and the voting behaviour of each individual member of the governing council. we believe that this could only strengthen, not weaken the independence of the members. after all, the ex officio attendance of the council of ministers and the european commission means that the national governments too are now in a position to know how the members vote and are able to bring pressure to bear at will, but then this is done completely unverifiably and behind closed doors. we do not doubt the integrity of the members of the governing council and openness is, we think, the best way in which to guarantee greater integrity. we have no time for the argument that members could not then change their minds. of course they can if, for example, circumstances changed or new arguments were put forward. it may well be that their voting behaviour would initiate debate, but we are sufficiently reassured that the members of the council have the fortitude to deal with this. greater openness is a sign of strength and inspires confidence. we consider this to weigh more heavily than any possible risks. what is more, publication would bring the bank more into line with the federal reserve bank in the united states and the bank of japan. why should we europeans act as if we have something to hide? surely that is only going to weaken confidence in the euro? mr president, as liberals we are very much in favour of the ecb' s being independent and we value the part the president has to play in upholding this. but we believe that greater openness would reinforce the independence and authority of the ecb and request that parliament supports moves to this end. mr president, i want to thank mr huhne for an interesting report containing a number of important clarifications. among other things, he points out that the european central bank is altogether too secretive, that the meetings are held in camera and also that the current president, mr duisenberg is against the minutes from the bank' s discussions being published. there are a lot of people who have taken up this point, so that parliament is expressing a strong opinion on the matter. mr huhne complains in his report that the european central bank does not display the same openness as the central banks in the usa, japan and england. olle schmidt talks about the bank of sweden' s publishing the minutes as soon as two weeks after the meetings concerned. why should not the european central bank be able to do the same? there are various arguments in favour of this culture of secrecy. one of these which has been put forward is quite startling, i think. this is an argument to the effect that the bank' s leading personnel will be better able to withstand pressure from lobbyists and individual governments if they have a duty of confidentiality imposed upon them. i think that, in this way, an amazing lack of confidence in these people' s strength of character, integrity and independence is being expressed. they are mistrusted, which shows that it is not only ourselves, who are among those critical of the eu, who are mistrustful. instead, i would maintain that distrust of the bank' s leading personnel is written into the bank' s own statute. finally, i also want to associate myself with mr huhne' s understanding of the goal and significance of monetary policy. i want to go a step further and say that the ideology concerning stability is just that: an ideology. if we look at what has happened in europe in recent years, it appears, rather, that the policy of stabilisation merely stabilises unemployment. ortega y gasset said that wasted effort leads to melancholy, and i, in order not to become a victim of melancholy, am not going to repeat any of the ideas which have been expressed here. i will simply highlight some of the points with which i agree or disagree. the vice-chairman of my committee said, referring to the history of the euro, that we would have to go back as far as charlemagne and probably diocletian, who is the grandfather of the euro. and as a spaniard i must mention charles i, who wanted to unify the european currencies on the basis of the cologne mark. and this leads me to the speech made by an english conservative member, who explained what the single currency required in order for the financial markets to have faith in it. what they probably need most is for the united kingdom to join the single currency. having said this and to get to the point, the treaty of maastricht enshrined the principle of price stability and put in place a fully independent european central bank to uphold this principle. but the treaty of maastricht did not deal with the institutional consequences of this decision, and for this reason we are talking today about the independence of the central bank, the relationship between the central bank and other institutions and the unresolved problems. in amsterdam, the decision was taken not to amend the treaty of maastricht in any way, and therefore the problems which were pending are still pending. we are now on the eve of an intergovernmental conference which has to deal with the consequences of the decisions which we have taken before. much has been said here about independence and it is true that, with the treaty of maastricht, those of us who believed that price stability was an essential condition for sustained development and that a central bank was necessary to control inflation have been vindicated, while those who believed that it was possible to implement any economic or monetary policy provided it produced short-term artificial growth, have been proved wrong. the spokesman of my group has expressed this very well and i will not repeat it. but because we believe in this model, we also believe that we should adopt decisions so that this model does not fall apart. firstly, we have the problem of transparency, a topic the rapporteur handled with humour and skill. we believe in the independence of the central bank, but this central bank is much more independent than the bundesbank or the united states federal reserve, because it was not created by an act of parliament and cannot be modified by one, because it does not exist side by side with a government that has its own economic policy. and this has led some people to talk of a type of platonic aristocracy composed of a series of independent experts to whom decisions regarding monetary policy are entrusted in the belief - probably correct - that money is too serious an issue for politicians to deal with. for this reason, if we do not want this model to fall apart, it is necessary to prioritise transparency measures, and i whole-heartedly subscribe to each and every one of the measures which the rapporteur has mentioned. secondly, we have the problem of the relationship of the central bank with the other european institutions. it has been said here that the priority objective is dealing with inflation, but it is not the only one: we have to think in terms of, amongst other things, an economic focus, responsibility, the international representation of the euro and the monitoring of the banking institutions at a time of significant mergers amongst the financial institutions. mr president, mr president of the european central bank, this debate is taking place with the euro having been in place for nine months, in conditions which enables us to affirm that its introduction has been successful, even if only in the limited sense that the transition to the third phase of the economic and monetary union has taken place with no great upsets. given that much of this success is undoubtedly due to the central bank, we must communicate our congratulations to its president, and we hereby do so. having said this, we must stress two or three points: firstly - and this has been mentioned this afternoon and mr duisenberg knows perfectly well that it is a concern of this parliament - we have the question of transparency. given that this has been discussed here this afternoon, i will not pursue this argument, particularly as i know that mr duisenberg is perfectly aware of the socialist group' s position in this regard. the second issue i want to address, which for me is more important, is that of growth and employment, specifically the relationship between monetary policy and growth and employment. we agree with you, mr president of the ecb, when you say that price stability is necessary for growth, and that growth and the creation of employment cannot happen without guaranteed price stability. likewise we agree with you when you say that monetary policy alone cannot resolve the problem of unemployment. but we must also warn - and you understand this perfectly - that bad decisions regarding monetary policy may harm growth and prevent the economic recuperation which has started. there is no lack of historical examples in this respect and the warning is worthwhile at a time when economic recuperation in europe is far from being confirmed and when, at the same time, there is speculation about the imminence of a stricter monetary policy. lastly, i would like to take this opportunity, given that the commission is present in this debate, to remind you of something which has also been repeated many times by this parliament and which, in any case, is very important to our group: economic policy does not end with currency and does not end with monetary policy. the third phase of economic and monetary union raises the issue, even more than in the past, of the need for a more robust and articulate coordination of economic policies. in this case, it is the responsibility - i would say the main responsibility in this area - of the commission. you know this, mr solbes, and we call on you to face this responsibility, and in this you will surely be able to rely on the support of this parliament. mr president, obviously i do not share with the rapporteur in offering congratulations to the ecb. as for presenting the purely formal actions of the managers of the european central bank to involve the european parliament as if it were the expression of democratic control, that is just a feeble joke. having said that, i feel bound to object in particular to the virtual declaration of war against the workers and the unemployed of the european union in the form of the objective declared by mr noyer, the vice-president of the ecb, when he speaks, and i quote, of the need to "reduce rigidities in labour markets" or even for "a break with often deeply rooted habits and allegedly acquired rights" . well, we know that the rights he is talking about are simply the rights to a job and to a wage which affords a person a decent living. these gentlemen of the central bank act like the spokesmen for the employers who are effectively in the process of reducing "rigidities in labour markets" by axing thousands of jobs, such as michelin, renault-nissan, alsthom, rhne-poulenc, and hoest marion roussel and many others even now, or by propagating the precariousness of jobs by means of wages which cast an increasing proportion of the population into ever greater poverty while the fortunes of major shareholders continue to grow. gentlemen, beware, their attitude will ultimately trigger the reactions they deserve among workers and the unemployed. i hope that in all the countries of the european union these reactions will unite the victims of the policy of employers. mr president, mr duisenberg, we meps, as we have stated a number of times this evening, have a unique role to play in relation to the single currency because this chamber here is the only place in which the people of europe can have any democratic input into how their new currency is run. we must not shy away from addressing the difficult issues which surround europe' s single currency, because if we do so we will be letting down those people who elected us to this chamber so recently. mr duisenberg, in my view, you have a more or less impossible task because you have to set a rate that is suitable not only for the booming economies of ireland and spain but will also suit the faltering economy of germany. still less would it be possible to fix a rate which would also suit the persistently divergent economy of the uk. but none of us here doubt the importance of your role because a domestic euroland government faced with reviving a faltering economy has very few weapons at its disposal. it has no power to set interest rates, no power over exchange rates, little power over government spending restricted by the stability pact and, if many people in this parliament had their way, it would have no power over its own tax rates. the governments have very few cards left to play with and not for nothing has it been said that the euro could lead to a recipe for stagnation. but we should not be surprised at the limitations on the powers that are left to the domestic governments in euroland because it has never been a secret of those founding fathers of the single currency that what they had in mind was the creation of political union and a united states of europe. i welcome your frankness, mr duisenberg, in making clear the very big political leap which has been made by those countries which have already entered euroland. but anyone who denies the existence of this political agenda - which subsumes the single currency - in my view is either deluded or dishonest, because it is a very real agenda. we saw that very recently, articulately presented to us by president prodi when he said that we now face the best opportunity to unite europe since the fall of the roman empire. clearly, mr prodi had in mind the replacement of an ancient hegemony with a new economic one. but political union may not just be the idle dream of a few federalists. when you share a joint bank account with your neighbour you are affected by the actions and the spending decisions of your neighbour. you legitimately need some control over their actions. there is a very strong argument for saying that the single currency cannot function properly unless there is increased political integration and political union. that is one of the many reasons why the british conservatives are campaigning vigorously to persuade the uk to keep its own currency and to keep the pound and to stay out of the single currency. mr president, i shall start in english because i must address my congratulations to my british conservative colleagues for their steadfastness in fighting the euro to the last penny of japanese investment in their economy or any other investment in their economy. i shall continue in greek. our meeting today is certainly a landmark. we have had so little to rejoice about as regards the building of europe, so the fact that we are coming to the end of a successful year as regards the euro is something we should applaud. i believe that both mr duisenberg and mr lamfalussy and their colleagues deserve all our gratitude for everything they have achieved in this matter. of course, in all democratically-held debates such as this, we are bound to hear at least some critical remarks - but that does not, in any way, suggest that we do not acknowledge the tremendous contribution the european central bank has made to european affairs. mr president, since we are discussing the annual report, it would be a good idea to focus our attention on a number of long-term issues. the first is the ecb' s insistence on the two-pillar strategy for ensuring monetary stability. while using a "broad-based assessment of the outlook for price developments" , as the bank calls it, which is basically an "inflation forecast" , seems perfectly logical, using the m3 money supply has neither practical nor theoretical support. from what i have seen, i believe mr titmeier has also criticised this. it is an important issue since there may be some disparity between the two criteria and it would be tragic to curb the development of europe for the sake of an indicator of somewhat dubious quality. even if monetary policy is as advantageous as you say it is, mr duisenberg, and we have no proof of this yet, monetary 'over-stability' could prove to be extremely detrimental. the second point concerns the independence of the central bank, which the political leaders of europe have given their assurances of - and rightly so. however, independence from the political leadership is not enough; the european central bank must convince us that it can guarantee its independence from the capital markets. the central banks are often tempted to keep up with the markets; to wit, they are often tempted to adhere to the interest rates which the markets fix indirectly when they set the prices of securities. but the markets have short-term horizons, the markets have a mass mentality and are exceptionally prone to speculative bubbles which can be particularly disastrous at times. the european central bank has not yet said anything to us about that. we only hear a deafening silence from your report. and so, you will have to make a concerted effort to convince us that, in additional to political independence, you have also gained independence from the capital markets so that we can support you in absolute confidence. mr president, mr duisenberg, the annual report from the european central bank shows that the bank has got off to a brisk start, and the steps taken so far have been on the right track. the transition to the third stage of emu has taken place without problems. during its first months of operation, the bank has been able to adapt its working methods to the demands of the present day. nevertheless, much has still to be done to raise the european central bank to the position to which it is entitled, though not automatically so. in the future we wish to see a strong and independent european central bank and not just one alongside our global competitors, federal reserve and the bank of japan, but, preferably, edging ahead of them. building up its status and obtaining the confidence of markets will, however, take time, and we here in the european parliament cannot presume that everything will happen in an instant. in discussing the annual report in the committee on economic and monetary affairs, we had lively discussions on inter alia the issue of transparency and how it can be gradually increased. although transparency has undeniably increased and, for example, press conferences with the president, held after board meetings, have meant a clear improvement in the bank' s approach, the aim must be to increase transparency further, once the work of the bank becomes established and the teething problems disappear. the european parliament must, as the representative of the european people, have the right to demand that in future, the ecb, like other central banks, should also publicise the arguments both in favour of, and against, its monetary policy decisions. furthermore, the publication of abstracts of board meetings is justifiable, and the justifications for decisions taken must be clearly evident from these abstracts, so that market players can make their own decisions. for my own part, i seriously considered my position regarding whether the individual opinions of the members of the board and possible decisions taken by a vote should be made public in the future. however, i ended by adopting the majority position of our group, justifying my decision by reflecting how this sort of approach might reduce rather than increase market confidence in the work of the bank in the early stages. it could also be just too big a step to take so early on. in the long term, however, i hope that transparency is fully realised at every stage, in this regard also. information is power, and the dissemination of information in an open market economy is democracy. market viability can be enhanced through the spread of information. the more evenly information is disseminated in a society, the more effectively individual choices steer the economy' s development and guide the invisible hand of the market. finally, i would like to say that i thoroughly support the publication of the reports on the economic situation of the countries in the euro area and the various indicators that go with it. the ecb may also comment on this information, but their analysis must, however, be left to national decision-makers. we have to remember that, although the euro area has just one monetary policy, we still have eleven different economic policies, for whose coordination the member states are responsible, within the frameworks determined in the growth and stability pact. mr president, it is a shame that this debate is soon to finish. i would very much like to hear mr duisenberg answer a number of questions that have been raised. i hope there will still be enough time for this. i wanted to remind him of his role in the dutch consultation system in a former life. in particular i also want to raise the question that other speakers have raised too, as to what he would think to developing a consultation system of this kind on the european scene. i hope that he will take a little time to address this issue before we close. as far as his former life in the netherlands is concerned; the central bank of the netherlands, of which he was president for many years, was at the centre of the field of influence in society in which socio-economic policy was developed, and i believe that we should take our example from this and involve the european central bank in a european macroeconomic dialogue. as you know, there are plans afoot for dialogue of this kind to take place and there is also due to be a meeting on 8 november. it is also established practice in the netherlands for there to be structured ways in which the dutch central bank participates in the consultation system, for example there is a banking council in which advice is given to the bank and in which both sides of industry also take part. this participation in the consultation system economy is also afforded by the dutch central bank having a seat on the socio-economic council, which is the most important advisory body in the socio-economic field. i hope that the macroeconomic consultation between both sides of industry that is soon to take place will be given a far more prominent role. the comments that mr duisenberg made in his introduction, to the effect that this dialogue ought only to confine itself to the exchange of information, fell rather short of the mark in this respect to my mind. i think that in view of his experiences in the netherlands he ought not to be so wary of taking such responsibilities, and also feel that coordinating and harmonising policy could be of great benefit to further developments. i would like to close with a quote that he himself used when he recently attended the opening of new banking premises in the netherlands. the quote was as follows: " i believe that the future is also the past, only it comes in through a different door" . he might like to relate this quote to his own circumstances. mr president, i never thought of comparing mr duisenberg with the pope but if we are going to do so here in this parliament then might i request that mr duisenberg' s role is a more independent one, if at all possible. the annual report goes into great detail about the seamless way in which the crucial transition to 1999 was effected, a very important moment. another such crucial point in time is on its way, that is to say the day on which europe' s general public will literally have the new coin in hand. i have had several discussions with you, mr duisenberg, on how the member states want to handle the introduction of the euro. the closer the first of january gets, the more everyone becomes aware of the difficulties that consumers, particularly the elderly, and the retail trade are to face. an ever increasing number of studies state that there are going to be very considerable problems and these are being shouldered by the weakest parties: the consumer and the retail trade. it recently became apparent that the central bank will not oppose frontloading the general public with coins. it is true that the member states are in agreement about the distribution of coins. however, the central bank has always maintained to date that regulations and/or laws preclude the frontloading of the general public with banknotes. mr noyer came to parliament recently and when i asked him what the main objection was to frontloading coins or banknotes he actually gave the vaguest answer i have ever heard. if he ever finds himself penniless then he will have no trouble at all getting into politics. but i want a clear answer today. i know just how clear you can make yourself. what is the main objection? and do not tell me that it would be difficult to explain to people that they could not spend their euros for the first fortnight. any citizen assumed to have an understanding of the treaties of maastricht and amsterdam could not possibly have difficulty comprehending that. it is downright insulting to suggest otherwise. the economic institute of small and medium-sized enterprises in the netherlands, which i am sure you are familiar with, carried out a study and concluded that the retail trade needs to have 100% of its daily turnover available in change, as opposed to the 7% available to it now. the situation is so bad because the cash machines, the banknote dispensers will not dispense any of the small five and ten euro notes. i hardly need to tell you what kind of an impact that will have on cash flows, the security of check-out operators and shops, bank charges, etc. every evening proprietors are going to have to convert their whole day' s takings into change again, doing the same for every shop they own. the banks will have to face up to their responsibility. mr duisenberg, the central bank needs to come down from its ivory tower and really get to grips with the difficulties facing those ordinary people who are soon going to have to work with the euro. have trial runs carried out if you do not believe me or the studies. but consider that the success of the euro will depend on its introduction running smoothly precisely where ordinary people are concerned. the discussion continues to focus on how much it will cost the banks. but the discussion ought in fact to focus on whether there is going to be chaos or whether things will run smoothly. the banks are equipped to deal with large flows of money and security but the corner shop and the local baker are not. you too will be assessed not in terms of greater or lesser increases or reductions in the rate of interest but in terms of how the euro will be brought into circulation. . (es) mr president, my intervention will be very brief, and i simply wish to highlight the importance of the presence of governor duisenberg in parliament for the analysis of the first report of the central bank. it also seems essential to comment on the success of the euro and to congratulate the bank on its excellent performance during the last year. given that today' s debate is basically between parliament and the central bank and it is not for us to play any other role, i would simply like to point out, in response to the concern of some members, that we will have the opportunity to debate here the problem of coordinating economic policies, which is within the competence of the commission. and with regard to the specific problem of the external representation of the euro, we are satisfied with the role that the european central bank is playing. we are not so satisfied with the role of the commission. as i pointed out in my hearings, we will have time to return to a discussion of this issue. once again, my congratulations to the central bank. mr president, in my introductory statement i already approached many of the issues which have been again brought forward in parliament this afternoon. so if you allow me, i will try to formulate my answer by grouping together many of the issues that have been raised in parliament and produce a comprehensive answer, or at least some remarks. first of all the issue of transparency. although i realise and i am grateful that the desire to have the votes or minutes published by the governing council does not appear in the motion for a resolution which will be voted on tomorrow by your parliament, in this discussion a lot of attention, much more than i expected, was paid to the phenomenon of transparency, culminating in publishing the vote. i would like to emphasise that when you talk about and require transparency you have to indicate precisely what that means. what does transparency mean? i would warn against what i might call mixing up transparency with publishing the vote. as far as transparency is concerned, which i define as giving to the public or parliament as much information as possible about developments in the economy, about monetary developments, about the outcome of the deliberations of the governing council, i believe - and i said so in my introductory statement - that the european central bank can look squarely in the eyes of any central bank in the world. for example, there is our publication immediately after the meetings of the governing council of the considerations which have played a role in the governing council' s ultimate decision whether or not to change interest rates. that is done about one hour after the decision has been taken. we give the arguments for and against certain decisions there. i believe that you will find no central bank in the world which is more transparent than we are. the only thing we do not do is we do not publish votes. apart from the fact - and this may be somewhat embarrassing - that we virtually never vote in the governing council, so there is nothing to be published, i will not repeat all the arguments against this which i have brought before this parliament on earlier occasions, but one has to remember that the decisions of the governing council of the eurosystem are made in a collegial way and there is one decision only which emerges. the arguments for and against it are published in the press conferences and in the monthly bulletin after the meetings have taken place but there is one decision. one always has to bear in mind that every word that is spoken by me or any other member of the governing council about economic developments and about the decisions which are taken and in what direction sets in motion immediately billions of euros across the world. it is always a signal to the market and it takes effect almost simultaneously with the utterance of the opinion. on forecasts, mr president, i do not need to say more than i have already said in my introductory statement. there will come a time when we will publish forecasts, either bi-annually or tri-annually. i do not yet know the precise form. we are actively investigating this question but we simply are not ready yet and we do not have enough data or know the models which ultimately we will use. we have not yet reached a degree of stability which would make it responsible for them to be published now but, as i said in my introduction, i am confident that in the course of next year we will publish forecasts. to avoid one misunderstanding, it has been asked repeatedly here "why do you not take an example from the federal reserve system which publishes forecasts" and i believe it is also a consideration behind the motion for a resolution. that must be a misunderstanding because what the federal reserve system publishes twice a year in its humphrey-hawkins testimony for the senate is a range of figures for a few indicators, the range being the range of the individual forecasts of members of the federal open market committee coming from the regional federal reserve banks. that range, the forecast with which they come once every six weeks to washington, is published. forecasts are also prepared for the fomc meeting and in particular for the board of governors of the federal reserve system, forecasts prepared by the staff of the board of governors. they are the forecasts which are used to underpin the decisions that the fomc takes at any particular moment in time. those forecasts are not published. and i already made some remarks in my introduction on the relativity of forecasts, even if they are published, for the decision-making process. various members of this parliament have questioned whether the ecb places too much emphasis on prices and too little on growth and employment. at least that is how i have understood the question; that was the signal that was given to me. firstly, the treaty of the ecb makes it literally mandatory for the ecb to give primary attention to their primary objective, which is to maintain price stability. the treaty says "without prejudice to price stability" , that is only when price stability, i should say, is guaranteed, should the ecb in its policies support the general economic policies of the community. there is another small remark i would like to make, mr president, but it is important in the context of the motion for a resolution. i believe the treaty language is a little misrepresented. in the resolution it says "providing that this price stability is attained" . the treaty says, and not without reason, "without prejudice to the objective of price stability" - and that is of great importance in economic terms. the wording of the resolution may be interpreted as suggesting that when the current rate of inflation is below 2% then the eurosystem would be under an obligation to support the general economic policies of the communities. in contrast the wording "without prejudice" clarifies, and it is intended to do so, that the eurosystem is under no obligation to act in this mechanical fashion if it believes that doing so might jeopardise price stability in the future. i ask parliament to take that into account. regarding the suggestion that there is too much emphasis on price stability, the formal answer is that it is our mandate. also, i would like to repeat that we do not overestimate the impact that monetary policy can have - what it can and cannot do. it is my firm belief that monetary policy can and will influence the movement of prices over the medium-term but not in the short-term. that is why we have a forward-looking strategy. the direct impact of monetary policy measures on employment and growth is very limited indeed. that is borne out by research which we did at the institution where, as mrs van den berg indicated, i previously worked. turning to the current situation, i should like to repeat that the monetary policy strategy of the eurosystem, which has been made very clear to parliament, is based on two pillars, both designed to be forward-looking over the medium-term. the two pillars are: the reference value for monetary growth, m3, and a broadly-based assessment of a wide range of indicators and their impact on the primary aim of price stability. that broadly-based assessment is one that encompasses a wide range of indicators, of course including developments in the real economy, movements in employment and unemployment, an assessment of movement of the exchange rate in so far as it has an impact on price levels in the euro area. that is our strategy. it is forward-looking. of course we look at the current developments in inflation also as one of the indicators of what we think is going to happen in the future, but it is certainly not true that we only look at the current inflation rate, as implied in the draft resolution. you will understand that i will not join parliament in the debate on what decisions might be taken in the short-term on interest rates, although that decision has been alluded to by various members of parliament. in parliament it has been said by various members that if interest rates were to be raised that would choke economic growth and the growth of employment. but please remember that when you are driving a car very fast and you want it to go forward, but maybe a little slower, you can either step on the brakes or you can lift your foot a little bit from the accelerator. there is a difference. raising interest rates in a certain situation might be more akin or related to lifting your foot from the peddle as opposed to braking the momentum of the economy and in that way going slower. we all want to go forward. mrs peijs wanted a very clear answer on frontloading. i hope to be as clear as i can on banknotes. the eurosystem, early on, made it clear to the public at large that frontloading over a short period would not be a problem provided it could be ensured that the money frontloaded to banks, for instance, or other organisations is not brought into circulation before 1 january 2000 - into general circulation that is. we formulated that by saying that banknotes may be frontloaded provided there are legal or contractual guarantees at the receiving end which ensure they will not be brought into circulation before 1 january. there would have to be contracts or legal provisions or contracts with retail organisations or banks. then it would be possible. on coins - you will be aware i do not have responsibility for coins, this is a matter for the finance ministers - the big difference is that it is virtually impossible to get that same guarantee as far as coins are concerned because coins are generally put into circulation by the retail sector rather than by the banks. to have such a guarantee would be impossible. another large difference is that it is very easy to try to make a counterfeit banknote with modern photocopying techniques which is the reason why the precise features of the banknotes to come will be widely published but only very briefly in advance of their introduction, so as to reduce the danger of counterfeiting and confusing a public which is not yet familiar with the notes. it is much more difficult to counterfeit coins. i have touched upon all the major issues that have been raised today on banking supervision. it is well known that the treaty gives very little responsibility to the european central bank in the area of banking supervision. our task is to promote financial stability and the stability of the financial markets. we monitor banking supervision, but this is not one of the tasks of the central bank. we are fully involved in the further development of rules. mr goebbels said that the ecb should be: "a bit less reticent about international exposure in all the various fora" . the ecb is now fully involved in all discussions in all international fora on the future of what is now called the "financial architecture" in the world. the ecb is fully involved in all discussions of the g-7, of the g-10, of the oecd. we have a permanent representative who is very actively engaged in discussions at the imf. in december there will be the first meeting of this new group of 20 at the initiative of the g-7 countries, consisting of the g-7 countries and a few emerging market representatives. the ecb will be there. we will also participate in that dialogue. as mrs van den berg has asked, we do participate in the macroeconomic dialogue but just as in the netherlands, the central bank participates in the dialogue but does not agree to a compromise on its policy in order to get a concession in another policy area. there will be no ex ante policy coordination but there will be an extensive and, i hope, critical exchange of information of all the partners involved, including the ecb. thank you very much, mr duisenberg. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 p.m. assessing the community' s humanitarian actions and looking to the future the next item is the statement by the commission on assessing the community' s humanitarian actions and looking to the future. mr president, the commission has today accepted a report to parliament and the council, assessing echo. the commission' s assessment is based upon a report by consultants. this report has been prepared by professional people. i think that this is the correct way to go about things. when, in the future, the commission assesses activities in my own area, this ought to be done on the basis of such modern, professional and open methods. the consultants' overall conclusion was positive, and the commission shares this positive view of echo. however, we are alert to the fact that there are a number of things which can be improved. first of all, cooperation needs to be improved. we need to improve our cooperation with the multinational organisations, the un bodies and the red cross organisations. the intention is to help the international community respond more effectively and in a better coordinated way in different crises. the fact that echo is such a big aid organisation means that we also share a more general responsibility for its effectiveness. at the same time, it means that we should also make larger demands in cooperation with, among others, the various un organisations. we need to establish a broader and more activity-based approach to individual humanitarian crises. this should be done within the framework of the existing regulations. secondly, there is the question of our management strategy. improvements internal to echo should also be made. we should invest more highly in a concerted handling of the whole project cycle, which includes ensuring effective feedback. on this basis, we should to a greater degree be measuring results instead of input. there are also points on which we have disagreed with the consultants' proposals. we do not, for example, wish to abolish echo' s logo. european taxpayers are entitled to know where the aid is going to, and there is no reason, either, to conceal from the recipients where the same aid is coming from. but echo' s visibility and its logo must not be permitted to hamper cooperation with our partners. thirdly, there are the policy considerations. in the longer term, the commission wants to develop a cohesive strategy for the grey area here, that is to say the area between real humanitarian aid and longer-term, more future-oriented development work. at present, a lively international debate, in which the commission is also to be an active participant, is taking place about this so-called transition gap. what is more, the commission' s internal resources are to be mobilised so that they can release the required humanitarian aid in individual situations when the time is ripe. the objective is to give echo the opportunity to define a meaningful exit strategy in connection with different crises. combining the two portfolios of development and humanitarian aid provides a better opportunity for this, not least on the basis of the fact that both echo' s sphere of work and the commissioner' s responsibility for development policy are global in character. the plan is to present a report on this subject in june 2000. the commission will also launch a debate about other important policy areas: conflict prevention, preparedness in advance of crises and catastrophes, and humanitarian aid which is based upon upholding human rights, that is to say which focuses to a greater degree upon the victims' rights as human beings. special groups include women (especially victims of rape), child soldiers, refugees and internally displaced persons. in all these areas, a connection with the commission' s development policy should naturally be guaranteed. the plan is to report on these areas in july 2001. and, finally, the conclusions. echo is to continue to retain its non-partisan character in all conflicts. this is important for the purpose of securing access to the victims of crises. echo' s presence in a wide range of countries, each with its own workers who have been sent out, is an important link in an effective policy of humanitarian aid. echo is an organisation with its own power to act and with motivated staff who are ready to implement the proposed improvements. in the midst of all discussion about changes, it is important to state that echo' s committed and loyal staff are the most important asset we have to build upon. i am looking forward to seeing the results of the changes. it is my intention to visit east timor in the very near future. this will be a good opportunity to see some concrete results of echo' s work and for me to do what i can to establish fruitful cooperation with all our partners. mr president, i have a question for mr nielson regarding bridging the gap which he mentioned. he said there would be further discussion of this. were there any proposals in the expert report as to the form this involvement of development aid would take or even of other development instruments such as phare or tacis, for example, and has it been ascertained whether the problems are in the area of ecological aid and the programme there or in the area of other forms of aid? could you clarify this? mr president, there were actually a number of proposals made by the evaluation. one of them had to do with echo moving more into the area of development cooperation, in a sense staying longer in a post-conflict situation. i do not think this is how to do it - we will end up over-stretching the resources very rapidly because new conflicts keep coming up. so we need to have a balanced approach, drawing on the resources in our development cooperation in general but making sure that they go in when echo goes out. it sounds easy but it is not that easy. in general it is necessary to combine these things and many are not able to do it. a very big problem is that individual countries although good donors do not have the resources to stay a long time in many conflicts. this is where the european union has a special capacity and also special responsibility. it is extremely important that we, at a certain point, become very good at managing this transition gap. mr president, i am going to ask three questions on behalf of my socialist colleagues in the committee on development and cooperation, who are here in spirit but physically are in the committee itself, voting on the amendments relating to the world trade organisation. firstly: can it be deduced from the commission' s arguments here today that the funding of echo for humanitarian aid will mainly continue to be channelled through the programmes of different ngos, or is any change envisaged in this regard? secondly: does the commission intend to support the reform of the regulations which govern humanitarian aid? and, if that is the case, in what respect? would such a reform be carried out in accordance with the codecision principle which is introduced by the treaty of amsterdam? thirdly: can it be deduced from today' s discussion that echo will retain its full role of channelling european union humanitarian aid in crisis situations, or, rather, that the activity of echo and humanitarian aid itself will be progressively diluted within the union' s general policy of cooperation for development? . first, we are not planning or expecting any change concerning distribution, as between ngos and un organisations and other organisations, driven by our management or policy we respond to appeals and crises and use whichever organisation is able to do a good job in the specific circumstances. we do not have a fixed, preconceived idea of who gets what. concerning the ngos, we have found very few changes to be necessary. we know that in practice, in daily operations, we will have to streamline procedures as much as possible but, in general, this has not been seen as a major issue in the whole evaluation process. moving on to the next question, on reforming or changing the regulation, i already made it clear in my opening remarks that we think it is possible to make many important and necessary changes within the existing regulation. we will come back to that. we are not closing the option of changing the regulation but this will be taken up in a much broader, long-term process - the one i mentioned concerning the policy part of our response. for the time being we will work on the basis of the existing regulation. we think this gives enough scope for the changes that are needed. regarding the codecision aspect of this, in responding to the evaluation, i have deliberately avoided saying anything concerning that issue. how codecision will eventually be hammered out in terms of relations between parliament, the council and member states in decision-making on humanitarian activities is something that needs to be discussed further and perhaps negotiated. but i did not want to open up a discussion on that because following up the evaluation is not a problem i have to deal with. concerning the identity of the operation, i distinctly mentioned the logo and the discussion. the consultants recommended that we should give up the specific echo logo. this is one point on which i feel we should not follow their recommendation. but we have to strike some kind of balance. to put it in a nutshell: visibility is fine, feasibility is better. there is, in some cases, a risk that pushing the logo too much creates friction and reduces the willingness to cooperate smoothly on the ground. somewhere we have to find a balance. but i did not want to back down as far as visibility is concerned. we owe it to our tax-payers, the european public. certainly there is no reason why we should hide from the beneficiaries who it is that is actually helping them. mr president, i want first of all to say that i am here as a representative of the group of the party of european socialists, which is meeting now. i want to say to commissioner nielson that his presentation was music to my ears. three things, in particular, caught my attention. first of all, he promises openness and modernity; openness is incredibly important, since echo is among the highest-profile organisations of the european union. secondly, he also promises increased cooperation with the united nations and the red cross; this is also important and has been needed for a long time. thirdly, he anticipates too a more integrated view of humanitarian aid in foreign policy generally, designed to prevent conflict, which i believe is necessary. my question is this: is the commissioner prepared, in anticipation of the report also promised for june 2000, continually to consult in one form or another with parliament and with any non-governmental organisations concerned? my answer to the question will be "yes" . i should very much like to see open debate and open procedure. we can use any good ideas, and what we are trying to do with echo is precisely to mobilise europe' s population, too. the fact that we are involved as active partners in these different conflicts and crisis situations is also a demonstration to our own citizens in europe that europe has a role to play in these places. that is why it is also necessary to involve citizens, and that is to say parliament, and i am therefore very prepared for cooperation with parliament and with parliament' s committees when it comes to the next steps we are to take. mr president, involving the ngos is something which the machinery both of the united nations and of europe is intensely concerned with, and this is doubtless something which is necessary. but when it is a question of constructing democracies in a number of countries, i also think we ought to be looking at how we can involve the members of the parliaments in these countries. we have no tradition at all for doing this through, for example, the un machinery. we still scarcely have any such tradition through the european machinery. it is, for example, a fact that the ngos have direct representation in the united nations whereas members of the parliaments are only appendages of their governments, and it is only as such that they can offer any input. i am very much of the view that we could re-think this machinery and that we ought to be asking ourselves how we can guarantee better parliamentary cooperation with a number of developing countries and also with the central and east european countries we are supposed to be helping. i am saying this not because the ngos should not continue to be involved there but because i think it is a rather false picture we are giving of the construction of democracy if we say that it is only ngos which can be actively involved. in fact, parliamentarians can also be involved and, in reality, were in fact originally involved in our own wealthy part of the world before the ngos came on the scene. i very much share mrs dybkjr' s point of view. the impression has been given that the abbreviation ngos might almost be read as standing for neogovernmental organisations. but when we consider echo' s work, we are talking here about situations following wars and crises in which the societies concerned have fallen apart and in which, in general, it is a question of establishing structures in the societies concerned. i very much agree that members of the various parliaments are naturally important elements but, if we take countries like somalia, sudan and other such places, we are forced to take what there is by way of structures in the so-called civil society and try to help these structures become parts of a civilised society. in connection with our efforts as a whole in this area - and not just those involving echo and humanitarian aid - a lot of people have asked whether we have not got things the wrong way around in insisting that elections be held quickly. cambodia was one example, angola another. some people think that, in these cases, we insisted too quickly that elections should be held and the formal structures of democracy created. on the other hand, insisting on these things has worked well in many cases, so i agree that we should be pressing for the outward and formal structures of democracy to be established. this is the way in which - as soon as structures of this kind have been established - parliamentarians become the decisive players, in civil society too. with regard to the part of the question concerned with the role to be played in what we are doing by members of the parliaments concerned - and that is another way of looking at the question - i want to say that the debate itself, the very dialogue between the commission and parliament about the policy we are to pursue, is for me the decisive factor, and it is from there that we get the decisive inspiration. mr president, could i ask the commissioner whether he considers that this evaluation risks putting structures in place which actually endanger the possibility of us of being able to react in a crisis as quickly and as effectively as he suggests we should? secondly, commissioner, let us take for instance a case study such as sierra leone: you talked about the clear distinction between humanitarian aid and long-term assistance. could you give me your analysis of what stage one part of your work will take over from the other in the case of sierra leone? no, to the first part of the question. i do not see that anything we are suggesting here would actually endanger our capacity for quick action. we are not moving towards creating a rigid system and the special character, the ability to act and the identity of echo as such, are all something i find important in order to avoid echo, as a humanitarian relief organisation, becoming involved in the very cumbersome decision-making machinery of the commission in general. we are not heading toward the kind of problems that you ask about here. regarding sierra leone, it is very difficult to say. the main thing is to what extent it is possible to mobilise enough donors; it is not just what we do ourselves. there must be a critical mass of donors who are willing and able to make a more long-term effort in a given country, so coordination is extremely important here. we have to be able to deliver our share of it and phase out crisis-based echo presence, replacing it with the post-conflict presence of a more long-term character of our development resources. if others do not participate, it will not work, so part of the answer to what we have to do now is to be more active in the discussion from case to case - within groups of friends of sierra leone, to take one example - trying to organise a more coordinated response to moving away from the immediate crisis demands. one case that illustrates where we should be careful not to end up is that the unhcr is still today funding and managing primary education in rwanda. nobody else is ready to pay for it and that is why they are there. they are doing a respectable job but it shows that the international system and who does what becomes distorted if the normal donors do not demonstrate a readiness to play their traditional role. this is where we hope to be able to push the international discussion in a better direction than hitherto. thank you very much, commissioner nielson. the debate is closed. (the sitting was suspended at 8.15 p.m.) annex - formal sitting ladies and gentlemen, it is my very great pleasure today to welcome mr andrs pastrana, president of the republic of colombia here today. (loud applause) mr president, your visit to the european parliament comes at a time when the whole population of columbia has demonstrated loud and clear its desire for an end to civil unrest, and for democracy and respect for human rights. we were very touched by this appeal by eleven million colombians, including your own wife, who last sunday marched through the streets of many towns in your country. please be aware that the desire for peace expressed by your fellow countrymen addresses us and it is our duty to encourage any initiative which may contribute to peace. this massive demonstration coincided with the opening of peace negotiations between your government and the guerrilla movement in uribe. i would like, especially, to pay tribute to your perseverance and to your courage which made it possible to initiate this peace process which, i sincerely hope, will progress and be successful. yes, the european parliament can stand alongside the colombians who last sunday chanted nunca mas (no more). mr president, your continent and your country in particular have paid a high toll to violence and political instability. this is why i would like to pay tribute, in your presence, to all those who were the victims of their own commitment to democracy. there were too many of these female and male politicians, journalists, defenders of human rights and citizens who paid with their lives for their fight for a more just and more humane society. please be aware, mr president, that we shall support every effort intended to suppressing terrorist campaigns, to controlling paramilitary forces, and to affirming the supremacy of civil authority over military might. the european union will assist you in your peacemaking enterprise, and shall promote the strengthening of relations between the european union and colombia. the cooperation agreement, of the third generation type, has already made it possible to establish solid links between us. i am convinced that these links would be stronger yet if they were to come within the framework of intensified regional cooperation between the andean pact countries, a reinforcement which we devoutly wish for because regional stability is achieved primarily, of course, by being on good neighbourly terms. mr president, the european parliament today hopes to encourage you to continue in your move to establish once and for all the rule of law. we thank you for your attendance here, for your visit, and it is now my very great pleasure to give you the floor. (loud applause) address by mr pastrana, president of the republic of colombia madam president, ladies and gentlemen, it is an honour for me to appear before you, the representatives of a europe which promotes optimism, which is the most successful example of a genuine political integration this century and which demonstrates that it is indeed possible to return from death to life, from disrespect for human beings to the veneration of their rights, from pessimism to hope: which also demonstrates that peace is possible wherever development, social justice, the defence of the weakest, solidarity and coexistence are established. these are the things that determine culture, give meaning to liberty and open up the path leading to the achievement of shared goals. at this moment, and from this hemicycle within the new european parliament complex, my country has the great privilege of addressing europe, through the elected representatives of the people of the fifteen countries which currently make up the european union. colombia, the country which i govern by democratic consent, is struggling with a difficult quest for peace, employment, development and, above all, social justice. the sovereign population of colombia, in the highest vote in history, expressed itself clearly and delivered to me an emphatic mandate. a mandate to search for peace in our country. it is not my custom to block out the sun with my hands nor to cover my eyes with bandages. the international community is discerning and is watching us attentively. we, who are also discerning, also see what is happening in the countries of the world and we know that it is necessary to act now, that there is no time to lose. we know that this is the time for cooperation, not for confrontation nor for intervention. many of our neighbours in latin america, over the course of time, have found solutions to their conflicts. in these processes the european union has always been present to a significant degree, as a mediator and as a bridge between the various political and social sectors. in the negotiation processes in guatemala and el salvador, the role of the european union was fundamental. the traditional concern of europe for peace and human rights, and its marked tradition with regard to negotiation processes provide my country with absolutely essential support: this support is vital. and it is also vital that europe understands the background to the colombian conflict. we cannot allow the discussion of colombia to be based on words but no action, on the idealisation of conflicts belonging to past decades and even less on press reports which are more concerned with the spectacular nature of the news rather than the reality behind it. i can tell this from your questions concerning our conflict and the peace process: "why are there still guerrillas in colombia when they have disappeared from the rest of the continent?" "is there a civil war in colombia?" "what does the "zone of peace mean?" "who violates human rights in colombia and what is the commitment of the government to human rights?" "is the colombian plan a military plan?" i have come here today to explain our real situation to you, without denying the brutality of the violence we suffer. nobody could be unaware of the reality of my country. violence has plagued our country for years. many colombians have died for their cause and many, through kidnap, have lost their liberty. the colombian conflict, under its own steam, has undergone serious changes and, without doubt, the force with which drug-trafficking exploded in colombia in the eighties has been the element which has led to the greatest increase in violence. this has not only permeated the guerrilla movement, whose finance increasingly comes from charges imposed on coca leaf, but it has also extended the circle of violence to other armed groups and organised criminal groups. faced with this escalation of violence, the colombian population has said no more. mass demonstrations have taken to the streets, reminding us of the response of the spanish people to terrorism, to demand no more violence. today the people of my country, like never before in their history, are united in the demand for a cessation of the violation of human rights, especially kidnap which should cease to be used as a source of finance by the guerrilla movement and other violent groups. in colombia, there is no civil war. less than 4% of colombians support the guerrillas. during the last two decades, the conflict has changed substantially. while the military capability of the violent groups is increasing, largely thanks to drug money, the civil population is asking to be freed from the conflict, since they have realised that it is they who suffer as a result and it is their fundamental rights which are violated day after day. ladies and gentlemen, ours is a unique type of conflict which requires a unique type of solution, and my government is determined and committed to finding this solution. the guerrilla conflict has concerned our people for 40 years. during this time, several insurgent groups have participated in the conflict. but there are also several who have now understood that the best alternative for our country is to abandon violence through a process of political dialogue. six armed groups comprising around 8,000 rebels, have, during the last ten years, laid down their arms in favour of the power of argument. today we are treading the path of negotiating the armed conflict with the farc, the oldest of the guerrilla groups. in little more than a year, through dialogue, we have already agreed an agenda for negotiation which consists of twelve points and last sunday, in a historic moment for our country, we embarked upon a negotiation process which must lead our country along the path to the construction of a lasting and genuine peace. there has also been a lot of speculation about the so-called "zone of peace" . the truth is that this is an instrument created by colombian law to generate security conditions to assist the dialogue. this zone covers only 3% of the national territory and a quarter of 1% of the colombian population lives there. we have not given up our national integrity there and the state is represented by democratically elected mayors and councillors. we are also moving forward in the search for a solution with the national liberation army, the eln. last week preliminary contacts were started, aimed at reactivating the discussions and i am optimistic that we will soon see significant advances which will allow us to initiate negotiations with this rebel group as well. the whole of colombia and the international community believes in the progress that is possible through a political solution. i know that it will not be an easy path to follow and we will certainly continue to encounter difficulties, but we will always remain steadfast in the effort to overcome them. peace processes take time and require patience, a lot of patience. let us remember the cases of el salvador or guatemala. let us observe the peace processes in the middle east and ireland. neither of them happened overnight, but a negotiated political solution will be seen to have obvious benefits. i would like to repeat that i will do everything possible to achieve this peace which is essential to all of us. but, as i said a few days ago before the united nations general assembly, i do not want peace at any price, but rather a peace which genuinely strengthens democracy, which preserves the territory and allows all of the citizens to enjoy full rights and liberties. i believe that a decent and democratic future is not possible without a culture of respect for fundamental rights. i know that in the course of the protracted internal conflict in colombia these rights have suffered serious violations, and this must not continue. i am totally committed to the defence of human rights. my convictions, my background and the mandate of my people testify to this. to this end, i have implemented a broad state policy to combat, within the framework of the law, those armed groups which operate outside that law, to guarantee security, protection, support and freedom of action for the defenders of human rights; to assist people who have been displaced by violence; to adopt legal instruments which protect human rights and strengthen our judicial apparatus. to sum up, a group of specific measures aimed at guaranteeing compliance with international humanitarian law. the results of the application of this policy are reflected in the notable decrease in the complaints of human rights violations emanating from the public, as recognised in the reports from the intergovernmental bodies and ngos which operate in this field. we have worked hard to bring our legislation up to date. congress is currently debating a law to define and punish enforced abduction, genocide and massacres. furthermore, my government supported the approval of a new military penal code which includes significant advances with regard to the competence of the civil courts to judge the military with regard to crimes such as genocide, enforced abduction and torture and we have signed up to the statute of the international criminal court. in addition, a presidential decree has been issued to promote respect for non-governmental organisations which operate in the field of human rights. i also hope that those organisations can carry out their noble activities for strictly humanitarian purposes, without any political interference. ladies and gentlemen, my government is taking decisive action with regard to the protection of human rights, and in this task we need the support of the international community. if the guerrillas or the autodefensas (vigilantes) violate human rights, this fact must be reported and they must be punished. if any agent of the state does the same, this is also a crime and must not go unpunished. that is to say, any human rights violation must be rejected and the perpetrators punished in accordance with the law. over the "state motive" or the justifications bandied about by the perpetrators of violence, the "human motive" must always prevail. it is also important for colombia that both europe and the united states understand the correlation between drug trafficking and violence in colombia. there is no nation in the world which has offered up as many martyrs as colombia in the fight against drug trafficking. this disastrous trade has been and continues to be the principal cause of the worst tragedies of our recent history. the economic power of these organisations led to corruption in many areas of our lives. drug trafficking has been the great creator of violence and has led to assassinations of the highest possible human cost to our country. currently, it contributes to the maintenance of the wave of violence which we are suffering by financing the various perpetrators of violence. i have said, and i would like to repeat to you today, that drug-trafficking is the foremost and the worst enemy of peace, and peace will not be achieved totally without the eradication of the organisations which carry out this accursed drug trade or without finding alternatives and solutions which are economically and socially sustainable. my country, like no other, has carried on its shoulders the burden of the fight against drug trafficking. therefore, i would like to take this exceptional opportunity to invite all the countries of the world community to fully implement the principle of what has been called "shared responsibility" , in order to combat the global problem of drugs. this principle requires us to confront together the serious global problem of drugs, at every link in the chain; that is to say, production, distribution, consumption, money laundering, the diversion of chemical ingredients and arms sales. it also requires us to contribute to lasting solutions in accordance with our own individual capacities. we have significant agreements with the european union which recognise the shared responsibility in this area. we have made advances in the promotion of cooperation mechanisms between europe and the andean countries, as in the case of the tariff concessions of the andean gsp, the expansion of which is vital to my country. whilst on this subject, i must also express my satisfaction with the recent conclusion of the presidency of the european council at tampere with regard to the laundering of capital, which mentions the council decision to "ensure that specific steps are taken to trace, freeze, seize and confiscate the proceeds of crime" . we must confiscate the money and property of the drug-traffickers, and their associates, which results from this murderous trade and deny them any possibility of buying chemical ingredients and arms and we must pursue the underworld which launders the money which they obtain. together we must continue to make advances towards complete solutions which cover all the links in the chain. and together we will have to give priority to those education and prevention programmes which will bring about a reduction in demand. in this struggle, ladies and gentlemen, we need you as partners and allies. my country is not asking for much: simply that each member of the world community plays its part in the task, in accordance with the principle of shared responsibility, and that we can all meet the costs of lasting solutions within the bounds of the available possibilities and resources. it should also be of great concern to all of us that drug trafficking is causing more and more ecological damage. in our country, which is one of the eight richest nations in terms of biodiversity, the illegal cultivation of coca and poppies have destroyed more than a million hectares of jungle, rain forests and mountain areas. the pillage of nature is so out of hand that five hectares of forest are destroyed in order to cultivate one hectare of coca or poppy and every year 200,000 gallons of herbicide, 16,000 tonnes of chemical fertiliser and 100,000 gallons of poisons used on these crops contaminate colombian waters and soil. i want to repeat today that there is no doubt that the activities associated with illegal cultivation are spoiling the earth' s natural heritage. it is therefore the duty of all of our countries to stop this destruction in order to defend at all costs the human right of future generations to a habitable planet. we share europe' s concerns about global warming, deforestation and the essential conservation of tropical forests. we also understand that we must tackle the problem of polluting emissions. for this reason we want to propose to europe an environmental alliance between the countries of europe and colombia so that we may move forward together in this noble purpose. faced with colombia' s real situation it is clear that in order to advance in the arduous task of building peace it is necessary to go beyond dialogue and negotiations with rebels. it is necessary to find fundamental solutions to our problems. we need to construct a new nation where respect for human rights, the application of justice and the reconstruction of our social fabric are the solid foundations which will allow us to build a society in which the factors which create violence are eradicated for good. it is for this reason that i am here before those of you who share these ideals, to propose that you deepen your commitments with us and that we strengthen this alliance which is useful to all of us. appropriate cooperation is one of the most effective ways of protecting human rights; cooperation means preventing the preventable; cooperation means opening up the roads to hope. to this end i have drawn up the colombia plan for peace, prosperity and the strengthening of the state. it is not a military plan. it is a comprehensive and unified plan aimed at strengthening such basic issues for our country as the search for peace, the reactivation of our economy and the generation of employment, the protection of human rights, the strengthening of justice and the increase in social participation. the final result will be the strengthening of our state, as the essential requirement for the achievement of peace and progress. we need your participation on all these fronts but principally we need you, your nations and the whole of europe to invest in peace for the sake of peace, and to open up your markets so that we can create employment for the sake of peace. for this reason, colombia is presenting the international community with an alternative policy for the eradication of illegal crops based on an alternative development which offers the rural population, which is currently involved in illegal cultivation, a permanent escape from their economic and social problems, replacing illegal crops with commercial, mining, agricultural, agro-industrial and service companies, and with the necessary infrastructure so that they may compete adequately in the world' s globalised economy. colombia hopes to finance, jointly with those countries which are in some way involved in the drug chain, the infrastructure of the project and also hopes to involve private capital, both national and foreign, in the economically productive companies so that they may incorporate advances in technology and new capital. madam president, honourable members of the european parliament: i wish you, on behalf of the colombian people, the greatest success in the enlargement and deepening of european democracy. you represent people who have opted for life, peace and the defence of human rights, you constitute the means of expression of those who believe in democracy, freedom and a healthy environment for future generations. you are largely responsible for leading the rapprochement with those countries which are building hope for themselves and which are eager for the third millennium to bring genuine successes. i am here before the representatives of european democracy, to tell you unequivocally that i have opted for peace, i have offered the guerrilla movement peace with dignity and security. in order to live in peace we need a national agreement supported by the international community. as a democrat and before democrats i ask you here today: support peace in colombia. to do this would be to invest in humanity and in a vision of a future which brings about development, well-being and social justice. thank you very much. (sustained applause) mr president, thank you for the statement you have just made which will remain imprinted in our minds as europeans, and in our minds as female and male politicians. you have presented the difficult situation of your country with great candour and great clarity. you emphasised, i noted, the disasters of all sorts caused by drugs trafficking and you appealed to what i shall call our joint responsibility in eradicating this scourge. we have clearly heard your message. as you know, a few days ago in tampere, an extraordinary council of the heads of state and government of the european union met and decided upon a number of extremely strong measures in this area. and then you explained how you intended to progress along the road to peace. you very powerfully expressed your wish to lay down, and i quote, "arms in favour of the power of argument" . i must say that i greatly admired what you had to say on this subject and i also appreciated the wish you expressed to establish a form of peace which strengthens democracy. in this connection, you mentioned a number of very courageous measures which, as you may have observed from the applause of my fellow members, were greatly appreciated. we have heard, mr president, your wish, your appeal, i would say, for close cooperation between us and your appeal for our assistance in your very courageous undertaking. thank you for choosing the european parliament as the place to launch this appeal, and may i assure you that this appeal has been heard and understood. (loud applause) (the formal sitting was closed at 1.05 p.m.)

resumption of the session i declare resumed the session of the european parliament adjourned on thursday, 11 april 2002 the next item is the order of business mr president, with regard to my report which has just been mentioned, i would ask, since it has been adopted unanimously, both by the committee on economic and monetary affairs and by the committee on legal affairs and the internal market and since it deals purely with a change of legal base which parliament - in the form of a unanimouse decision by the two committees - has not agreed to, i would ask that it be voted on tomorrow without the need for a debate this evening, a debate in which i will probably be the only speaker. i would therefore ask that it be removed from the agenda and that we proceed directly to the vote tomorrow in order to save time, both for the president and for all the other members. the next item is the council and commission statements on the meeting of euro-mediterranean foreign ministers in valencia of 22/23 april 2002 and the situation in the middle east. thank you very much, mr president. it is a great pleasure for me to appear in this house to inform you of two issues which are related for obvious reasons. on the one hand, the fifth euro-mediterranean ministerial conference which took place in valencia yesterday and the day before yesterday, and on the other, the current situation in the middle east, the latest events and the efforts being made to put the peace process back on track. if you will allow me, i will begin by describing the contribution i believe this ministerial meeting has made and then end with some comments on the situation in the middle east. i would firstly like to say that we all had doubts about whether or not this euro-mediterranean ministerial meeting would be able to take place, for obvious reasons: the situation in the middle east presented enormous uncertainties and serious risks and, at certain moments, many people doubted whether this meeting could even take place. i therefore believe that the fact that we have been able to hold it is a success in itself. as well as holding the meeting, the fact that we have been able to achieve conclusions which enjoyed the consensus of all the parties present was also a success. you know that the delegations from syria and lebanon finally decided not to attend in order not to come into contact with the israeli delegation, but the other countries of the mediterranean did attend and the twenty-five of us reached a consensus on approving an action plan, a programme in such sensitive areas as justice and internal affairs as well as a programme to guide dialogue between cultures and civilisations. i believe that this - which has been the subject of much work both prior to and during the conference - is also a notable success in itself. i would also like to stress that practically all the member states of the barcelona process attended at ministerial level and there was therefore an extremely high level of attendance and decision-making capacity, for which i am grateful to the countries of the south and the east of the mediterranean as well as all my colleagues in the european union. as i have said, there has been solid previous work. if this had not been the case, given the enormous difficulties and tensions in the middle east, we would not have been able to hold this conference and nor would it have borne fruit. i am referring to documents such as the establishment of priorities by the presidency, the commission's communication, the action lines, the guidelines of the recent general affairs council and all the documents and contributions of the countries of the south and the east of the mediterranean. i would, however, also like, in particular, to refer to the report by the european parliament, which furthermore was produced by a spanish member, mr esteve. it is a wonderful report which i value very highly. we have accepted many of its proposals; we are going to try our best to incorporate more of them, since we believe they are all worthy of consideration. i would therefore like to say that everything we have achieved and approved in valencia - i insist, by consensus - is not only the result of this desire for agreement, but also of everybody's contributions. it is the first time - i will talk about this later - that, following the barcelona declaration of 1995, documents of this nature have been approved by everybody, and not only as mere presidency declarations of conclusions following a series of debates. in this context, i would also like to stress - and i will return to this later - that we have approved the creation of a euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly. i believe that this is a great step forward: it is an idea of the european parliament which we have accepted and which we believe to be enormously important. in any event, in the international situation resulting from 11 september and for a european union on the point of the greatest enlargement in its history, which will practically double its current number of members, i believe there is no doubt that the mediterranean is becoming our strategic border, a region where we have to build an area of shared peace, stability, development and prosperity, an area in which the dialogue and cooperation between cultures and civilisations which the barcelona declaration calls for is possible. like all processes, the barcelona process is being built step by step. if we look back, we have travelled a long way since barcelona, and proof of this lies in the fact that we have signed eleven of the twelve association agreements we intended to reach with the countries of the south. in valencia we signed the agreement with algeria. the agreement with lebanon has been reached and it only remains for it to be signed. all the rest have been signed and many are in force. despite all of this, however, this progress, though important, is not sufficient. the barcelona process, the very approach and existence of which is of irreplaceable value, requires new political impetus, a kind of navigation chart which is able to take the barcelona objectives from paper to reality. the valencia action plan, the joint justice and internal affairs programme and the programme on dialogue between cultures and civilisations respond to this challenge, to this ambition to give the barcelona process new political impetus, which we all thought was languishing. i must insist that we have approved all of this by consensus at the fifth euro-mediterranean ministerial conference. this means not only maintaining the process's potential for transformation, but also providing innovations both in terms of form and basis. i have already spoken of the form: it is the first political document adopted jointly by the partners in the process at a ministerial conference. this endows the action plan and the other documents i have mentioned with the status of euro-mediterranean contracts, of shared projects and commitments. i would like to reiterate this message: the barcelona process, the euro-mediterranean dialogue is not something that is addressed by the fifteen to the twelve, but rather it belongs to the twenty-seven, and we want it to increasingly become something experienced and accepted by the twenty-seven. the basis of the documents has also had the potential for transformation, because they conform to a series of principles which we believe must inspire the transformation of the process and propose a series of important initiatives which, as a whole, have the potential to produce a qualitative improvement in the construction of the euro-mediterranean partnership. what are these principles? i just referred to one of them: the principle of co-ownership. also the principle of visibility: that the process is perceived as such by the governments but also by the respective civil societies. the principle of capillarity: that it be communicated to all the players present. and also other principles, such as that of structuring, that of credibility, that of efficiency or that of the realisation of the process. the realisation of the process requires initiatives. obviously, to explain it completely would require a reading of the action plan, which is very exhaustive, but, while each and every one of these initiatives is very important, i would like to summarise by highlighting those which seem to me at the moment to be of the greatest political significance in the three chapters of the process: in the political and institutional chapter, in the economic and financial chapter and in the social, cultural and human chapter. in the political and institutional chapter, i would like to highlight the greater democratisation of the process, by means of the proposal to create a euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly, which we must try to implement as soon as possible. also by means of the implementation of new mechanisms for political dialogue and cooperation between the twenty-seven, including issues such as security and defence policy, which i believe is very important, or terrorism - which i will refer to in a moment - or the promotion of human rights. measures are also adopted for the creation of trust and partnership. as i have said, terrorism is included for the first time on the barcelona agenda, which i feel is absolutely essential at the moment for obvious reasons. and it is also envisaged that the plan will for the first time be subject - being a specific action plan approved by everybody - to monitoring and an assessment of compliance at the next sixth ministerial conference in barcelona, which i believe will make it more credible. turning to the economic and financial chapter, the valencia action plan confirms the objective of creating a euro-mediterranean free trade area by 2010. to this end, we must conclude every one of the association agreements that i have already mentioned and also complete the south-south integration. it is extremely important that progress be made towards free trade areas in the south and we have therefore welcomed and given all our support - not only political but also technical, thanks to the commission - to the agadir process initiated by morocco, tunisia, egypt and jordan. we all know that, in order for the euro-mediterranean process to be a success, it is necessary to guarantee the economic and, therefore, social and political development of the countries of the south. this requires, amongst other things, but very importantly all the same, the appropriate channelling of investment flows, and therefore the plan takes up one of the main priorities of the presidency, that is, to promote the creation of a new financial instrument, which begins to function as a strengthened facility within the european investment bank, in order to support infrastructure works and in order to fundamentally support the private sector. then we have laid down that, within one year, if possible, the decision will be taken to convert this improved facility into a bank, a subsidiary of the european investment bank, with capital potentially open to other countries or even institutions and which, in any event, will allow greater financial resources to be directed towards the region. the plan also takes up the conclusions and decisions adopted at the euro-mediterranean trade and industry ministerial meetings in toledo and malaga respectively. in the commercial field it includes a series of measures to facilitate investments and implement the liberalisation of services. in the industrial field it includes provisions to promote legislative harmonisation in order to facilitate the integration of our partners, promote innovation and access to new technologies and increase the role of the private sector in the construction of the euro-mediterranean association. i would also like to make a particular reference in this chapter to the measures intended to stimulate investment in infrastructures and the interconnection of the transport, telecommunications and energy networks of our mediterranean partners with the trans-european networks, and, in this regard, i would like to thank the commission once again for the enormous and very positive work it has done. in this field i would also like to stress the european union's will to facilitate the incorporation of the mediterranean partners into the galileo satellite navigation network. finally, with regard to the social, cultural and human chapter, the presidency has tried to respond to the challenges posed by such important issues as immigration, dialogue between cultures and civilisations or the participation by the different players from civil society in euro-mediterranean construction, incorporating a series of measures into the action plan of which i would like to highlight the following: firstly, the adoption of a framework document, which i mentioned earlier, on justice and internal affairs, which deals, for example, with such important issues as the fight against drugs, the fight against organised crime, the fight against terrorism, treatment of migratory flows and the movement of persons, etc. this has also led us to adopt the decision in valencia to convene a euro-mediterranean ministerial conference on migration. the decision has also been taken to create a foundation for dialogue between cultures and civilisations and to promote cultural, intellectual and social exchanges. it is a project shared by everybody and it must therefore be a response to the challenges in this field, a concrete response, also the adoption of an action plan, which can be channelled by means of the foundation or by some other method, so that the dialogue between cultures and civilisations focuses on three areas which we believe to be fundamental: youth, education and the media. we have also decided to extend the tempus programme to the mediterranean partners, which would allow for the development of cooperation between universities on the two sides of the mediterranean and, very importantly, the incorporation into the university world of the two sides of the mediterranean as players in the creation of the euro-mediterranean partnership. there is also a call to develop decentralised cooperation between mediterranean cities and regions and the adoption of conclusions which stem from those of the civil forum which took place in valencia prior to the ministerial summit. in summary, we are facing a new stage; if you like, a new phase in the barcelona process. we are facing a relaunch of the barcelona process despite the difficulties resulting from the middle east conflict, which i believe demonstrates something essential: the barcelona process's enormous capacity for resistance. the barcelona process has demonstrated that it is able to resist the middle east conflict, and this brings me to a new conclusion: barcelona was a wonderful idea in 1995, the euro-mediterranean dialogue was and still is a wonderful idea and, if we had not adopted it at that time, we would have had to adopt it now. naturally, mr president, over these two days, with the presence of arab countries, amongst them all those directly involved in the middle east conflict, and israel and the european union, it was absolutely essential that we dedicated a good proportion of the sittings to the debate on the situation in the middle east. valencia has helped us to evaluate and debate this situation, and it has taken place - despite the enormous current tensions and emotions - within the framework of a debate which at times was genuinely constructive, which has demonstrated the parties' desire for peace and i believe it can be of use to the whole process. we are all aware of the situation on the ground. we are witnessing an unprecedented level of violence, with a horrendous number of victims. despite the calm of recent hours and days, the events of recent weeks have been truly horrific. there have been terrible terrorist attacks, which we would like to condemn once again, without reservation or hesitation. there has been - and there still is - the israeli occupation of cities controlled by the palestinian authority, and in this regard i would like to repeat our demand for an immediate withdrawal of israeli troops. we all know that there can be no military solution to the conflict and that the only route is negotiation within the framework of a political perspective and that therefore a ceasefire is also urgently required. given the events of recent days, i believe that we are all very aware that there is a serious risk of the destruction and dismantling of the palestinian national authority, of its short- and medium-term capacity to be the seed for a future palestinian state, and i would therefore call once again for an immediate end to the confinement of president arafat. i would also like to say on behalf of the international community that we welcome the condemnation by the palestinian leadership and by president arafat himself of the terrorist acts. i would also like to express my serious concern about the humanitarian crisis. it is absolutely essential that medical and assistance organisations can carry out their tasks. a very important meeting is taking place today in oslo which must specify what we must do to deal with the most urgent and immediate needs from a humanitarian point of view, and also what we can do for the reconstruction - not just physical, but also institutional - of the territories and of the palestinian authority. over the coming days, when it appears that the withdrawal has begun - with all the issues this involves - we will clearly see the consequences of the military attacks. jenin is undoubtedly a dramatic example. it is essential to know what has happened and its true extent, that the united nations has the necessary support - of course i believe they can count on the full support of the european union - to carry out an impartial international investigation. i would also like to mention that, given the events, there is a very serious risk of regional destabilisation. there is serious concern about the violence on the southern border of lebanon. we have made direct representations - the presidency-in-office of the council, the troika - to the lebanese authorities and the other countries so that they may make every possible effort to prevent attacks on israel from their territory. i must point out that they share that concern and i am aware that they are taking measures. i would also like to mention another very important point: it is very regrettable that the consular representations of our countries cannot carry out their duties owing to the constant obstacles presented by the israeli army in the occupied territories. certain new possibilities are beginning to emerge, certain controls are being relaxed, but the situation is still unsustainable and completely unacceptable. our consular representatives must have complete freedom to access the territories, to attend to their respective nationals and to observe the humanitarian situation in those territories. we have made representations both in tel aviv, as the troika, and, as presidency, to the israeli ambassador in spain. furthermore, the consuls in jerusalem have held many contacts with the israeli army authorities and, for the moment, some progress is being made, although i believe that it is clearly insufficient. we must send a very strong and clear message in this regard. i would now like to refer very briefly to the efforts we have made over recent weeks. the european union is always firmly committed to helping to resolve the problem in the region. at the barcelona european council we insisted on dealing with both the security and the political and economic aspects, as inseparable and interdependent elements of the same process. we cannot attach more importance to some than to others. they must run in parallel. and the foundations for a solution to the conflict were repeated in barcelona: the resolutions of the security council, essentially resolutions nos 242, 338 and 1397; the principles of the madrid conference, and in particular the principle of land for peace; the principles of the oslo agreements and all subsequent agreements, which would allow the two states, israel and palestine, to live in peace and security. we have therefore firmly supported the peace initiatives such as the saudi plan, which was supported by the summit of the arab league in beirut and which presented the possibility of normalising relations between israel and its arab neighbours in exchange for an israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders and a fair solution to the problem of refugees on the basis of the relevant united nations resolutions. i believe that that support was demonstrated by the presence of the spanish prime minister, in his capacity as president-in-office of the council, and the high representative at the inauguration of the beirut summit. we also held an extraordinary general affairs council as a result of the seriousness of the crisis. we wanted to send a clear message of concern, but also of involvement by the european union given the events. we decided to send the presidency and the high representative to the region to talk to the parties at the highest level in order to demand an immediate ceasefire, the application of united nations resolutions nos 1397 and 1402 and a return to negotiations on a political agreement. i believe that we had to do so and we did, highlighting through action the essential need for an involvement on the ground by the international community. as is well known, that mission met with many difficulties, and it was impossible for us to visit president arafat given the opposition of the israeli prime minister, mr sharon. i must say that that attitude has changed. at this moment - and this is why mr solana is not here today - both mr solana and mr moratinos are visiting the region - and i did not go precisely so that i could be here - and they intend to visit president arafat and if possible the other leaders in the region. with regard to this will on the part of the international community to be involved, i would like to mention another event to which i attach great importance: the meeting in madrid of the so-called quartet, that is, the united states, the russian federation, the united nations and the european union at the highest diplomatic level: secretary of state powell, the foreign minister, mr ivanov, the secretary-general of the united nations, mr annan, and mr solana and myself, on behalf of the european union. i believe this reflects something that we in the european union have always advocated: the international community's involvement must be based on the greatest possible degree of unity in its actions and positions, because we are all aware that there can be no solution without the united states, but that neither can there be a solution with the united states alone. and to maintain the unity of the whole international community on the basis of common positions seems to me extremely important. as you know, we issued a public declaration establishing a common position on the conflict and supporting secretary of state powell's mission to the region. it also stated the desire for the quartet to continue to monitor the situation in the middle east by means of regular consultations at the highest level and for the special envoys to continue with their efforts on the ground. they are doing so and they are doing it very well. in this regard i would like to mention the representative of the russian federation, mr vdovin, the representative of the european union, mr moratinos, the current representative of the united states, mr zinni, and - i would like to say this very clearly here today - the special representative of the united nations, mr larsen, who are doing fantastic work. with regard to the continuation of meetings of the quartet at the highest level, i believe we will be able to convene one in the coming days to review the situation once again and to continue with the progress on political initiatives. in that madrid declaration we expressly asked for immediate compliance with resolution no 1402, as demanded by resolution 1403, and therefore an immediate ceasefire, an immediate withdrawal from palestinian cities, including bethlehem and ramallah and in particular the general headquarters of president arafat. in this declaration, israel was urged to cease the military operations, to comply with international humanitarian principles, to allow full and unhindered access for humanitarian organisations and services, to refrain from the excessive use of force and to make every possible effort to guarantee the protection of civilians. this declaration also urges president arafat, however, as the recognised and elected leader of the palestinians, to immediately make the greatest possible effort to stop the terrorist attacks against innocent israelis, to use all the weight of his political authority to convince the palestinian people that attacks against israelis must end completely and immediately, to authorise his representatives to renew, immediately, the security coordination with israel and he is also urged to act decisively and to take every measure he can to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, including its funding, and to stop the incitement to violence or the justification of certain types of attack. this declaration does not say this, but i want to say it: the suicide bombers are terrorists, they are not martyrs, and this must be repeated constantly. returning to the declaration, terrorism is immoral and illegal, it has seriously damaged the legitimate aspirations of the palestinians and it must be condemned, as security council resolution 1373 clearly states. finally, we express our joint will to help the parties to apply their agreements, such as the tenet security plan and the mitchell recommendations, including the mediation of an impartial mechanism, as agreed by the parties. within the union, various scenarios have been discussed in view of the current situation. we have lent all our political weight to diplomatic efforts, which range from presidency declarations and contacts with all the parties involved, to supporting general zinni's mission a few weeks ago and of course supporting the mission to the region by the american secretary of state, mr powell, and also our visits on the ground, such as the one that is taking place today. the possibility has also been raised of implementing measures to put pressure on israel, such as suspending the association agreement, and i am perfectly aware of the position expressed by this parliament. last week, at the last general affairs council, it was considered appropriate to await the results of the mission by secretary of state powell, which i will mention in a moment, and at the moment what i can say is that all options remain open. the tour by secretary of state powell has yielded more positive and useful results than would appear at first sight, and i believe this will become evident over the coming days. a new perspective has been opened up by establishing a timetable for withdrawal, but it is clear that there are unacceptable exceptions. one is the church of the nativity in bethlehem and another is the general headquarters of president arafat. on the first issue, a solution is still being sought. there is close contact between all the parties involved and, in particular, with the vatican, which i hope will bear fruit. and on the second issue, we are continuing with all our efforts, and the visit by mr solana and mr moratinos today to a large extent has the objective of finding a solution which will lead to an end to the siege, which would allow for a ceasefire. we are all also awaiting the coming visit of the director of the cia, mr tenet, accompanied by general zinni, which may also be extremely useful on the ground. if we manage to resolve these problems - and we are applying all our efforts to this - and achieve the withdrawal of troops, an effective ceasefire and, therefore, an end to terrorist activities, we can begin to create the conditions for progressing towards a peace conference. a peace conference cannot start from nothing. it must be a closing peace conference which takes account of everything that has been achieved until now, which does not once again reopen everything that was agreed in madrid or in oslo or what has been agreed over recent years. it cannot reopen the issue of international legality which is clearly defined by the security council resolutions. it must be something which really leads to a definitive peace and which must therefore be as effective as possible. i believe that this effectiveness is only possible if it has the full support and participation of all the important players in the international community and, without doubt, the european union. i hope that a meeting of the quartet will take place very soon, in which we can analyse all these elements and continue to contribute new ideas and new efforts so that, in the end, palestinians, israelis, the arab world in general, can offer themselves and future generations the prospect of peace, co-existence, stability and prosperity which for very many years has been denied them. (applause) mr president, some may find it unrealistic to speak about the barcelona process when the middle east is in flames - and that view is not entirely unfounded. yet as minister piqu said, it confirms, at once the need for the barcelona enterprise, and its resilience. the fact that we were able to hold the meeting in valencia in the present circumstances has been a tribute not only to the vision that took shape in barcelona in 1995, but also to the remarkable work of the spanish presidency. let us focus just for a moment on the achievements of valencia: firstly, agreement on an excellent action plan to show the way forward for the coming months; secondly, the signing of the association agreement with algeria bringing us very close to the completion of the grid of agreements - we have now negotiated 11 out of 12. i hope syria will be ready to return to real negotiations soon, and that the eu member states will speed up the ratification of the agreements that have been signed so far. frankly it is slightly embarrassing when we express to our colleagues in the south of the mediterranean, our enthusiasm for completing negotiation on these agreements and then it takes months or years to ratify them. i hope that we can have a little more parliamentary dynamism on behalf of the member states. much remains to be done. the prosperity gap between the north and south of the mediterranean is not diminishing. 40 million new jobs need to be created in the coming decade just to keep employment levels where they are now. economic reforms will help achieve the growth and investment needed for this purpose, and the gradual creation of a true euromed internal market will create many new opportunities. this is what the economic pillar of the barcelona process is all about. there is also a broader point. failure to close the gap in living standards, failure to increase growth and to alleviate poverty to the south of the mediterranean is bound to nurture extremism there. it will also nurture extremism in europe: the sort of extremism of which we have only recently witnessed such a grubby and shameful manifestation. to achieve these goals, we need to deepen the south-south relationship. there was good news at valencia from the four countries involved in the agadir process that an agreement between them should be signed very soon. we also need to overcome non-tariff obstacles to trade and integration. the valencia meeting endorsed decisions taken by trade ministers at toledo on extending the pan-european origin system to the mediterranean partners, on setting up a working group on regional integration, and on liberalising trade in services. we also agreed to step up our financial cooperation. some progress has already been made but i am anxious to make a good deal more. the ratio of payments to commitments in the meda programme improved from 26% for the 1995-1999 period, to 37.6 % in 2000 and to 53.1% in 2001. so, we have reached about twice the figure we had in the second half of the 1990's but we have to do better still. last december we adopted new country and regional strategy programmes for the years 2002 to 2004 which provide a more focused and stable framework for our financial cooperation. in this context i also welcome the agreement to create a reinforced eib lending facility for the region and congratulate the council presidency on the great leadership they have shown in that area, which should enable us to get more help to the private sector in the countries to the south of the mediterranean. on the third chapter of barcelona, we reached agreement on a programme of cooperation on justice, on the fight against drugs, on organised crime and terrorism, and on co-operation on issues relating to migration. that was a significant success because these are all difficult and sensitive issues. finally, in valencia, we discussed the dialogue of cultures and civilisations. as you know the commission has taken a number of initiatives in this area, including a proposal to create a euro-med foundation. unfortunately we met some reluctance among the member states to make the eur 1 million contributions we requested from each of them. i have heard huge enthusiasm from all quarters for deepening the dialogue between cultures, but apparently, for some people, eur 1 million is too high a price to pay at the moment. there is agreement in principle on this issue, which i welcome, but the member states must make this modest financial commitment if the foundation is to get off the ground. (applause) i should like to turn now to the situation in the middle east, which overshadowed our meeting in valencia. european public opinion has been profoundly shocked by the unfolding tragedy. i have utterly condemned suicide bombings and terrorist acts, and i do it here again without any qualification whatsoever. encouraging children or young people to strap dynamite to themselves and to set out to kill others while killing themselves is deeply wicked. and failure to discourage this is quite simply inexcusable. (applause) i have also been deeply disturbed, however, by the reports coming out of the west bank of the behaviour of the israeli defence forces. there are reports, which must be thoroughly investigated, that they have sometimes shown - i am picking my words extremely diplomatically - a disregard for civilian life, and they have certainly disregarded un and international committee of the red cross appeals to be allowed to carry out their humanitarian duties. israel, as a democratic country, as a pluralist society which believes in the rule of law, should meet international standards of behaviour without equivocation and without 'ifs' or 'buts'. that is what it means to be a democratic society; that is what the rule of law means. (applause) i want to make four points: first of all, full withdrawal: we regret that the powell mission did not yield immediate results in terms either of a ceasefire or of an immediate withdrawal. i recognise, however, the huge commitment that secretary powell put into the mission and that the mission was perhaps rather more successful than some critics have suggested. i continue to be concerned about reactions in the arab world in the face of this stalled situation. i repeat my strong support for the un-led fact-finding mission to jenin. it would not be in israel's interest to leave unanswered the allegations which have been made. we want to see the mission make effective and rapid progress and we call for active cooperation from all the parties involved. (applause) everybody who knows mr ahtisari and the other members of the mission, will know of their total integrity and i hope that there will not be any doubts cast on that, as doubts have been cast on the role performed by mr larsen who is a great international public servant. (applause) secondly, full access: with regard to the humanitarian situation there must be full and unhindered access to the affected areas, particularly refugee camps, to provide urgently-needed relief . sorry, commissioner, but would the colleague who is responsible for that phone please remove it, and would colleagues please switch off mobile telephones. . i must say that i am totally opposed to capital punishment but i think the only thing which raises questions about it. could i advise you, commissioner, not to lose your head on this one. the only thing which raises questions about it are bleepers like that, even when they play 'ode to joy'. i wanted to talk about full access: with regard to the humanitarian situation, there must be full and unhindered access to the affected areas, particularly refugee camps. i know some honourable members have visited them recently, to provide urgently needed relief and humanitarian assistance, and to be able to undertake an assessment of the damage done and the repairs which are needed. thirdly i would like to mention full international coordination: the international community stands ready to help. for the moment the focus must be on humanitarian aid. we are nevertheless still committed to making a full and substantial economic contribution to peace-building, with the aims of improving the living conditions of the palestinian people, consolidating the palestinian authority, strengthening the economic basis of the future state of palestine and promoting development and regional economic integration. but i want to make this additional point and i am choosing my words extremely carefully: . could i ask the security staff to ensure that the doors are closed so that we can hear our debate. i suspect that one of the less agreeable aspects of european civilisation is being debated outside! (laughter and loud applause) when in europe we occasionally give other people lectures about human rights and civil liberties, we should sometimes bear that in mind. i want to repeat that i am choosing these words with considerable care. our commitment to consolidate the palestinian authority and to reconstruction, will need to be integrated within a wider political process including sufficient guarantees from both parties in the conflict that our efforts will not be wasted or destroyed. you cannot rebuild the palestinian authority in a political vacuum. (applause) mr peres told us yesterday that he supported a flourishing and modern palestinian authority. some may think that israel has found a strange way to express that support in recent weeks. but i hope that mr peres speaks for the israeli government, and that we will see his expressed view reflected in israel's attitude towards the aspiration to create a palestinian state, and israel's actions in the palestinian territories. even if it is still too early to assess the full extent of damage that has been inflicted, it is clear that there is also going to be a need for major reconstruction and rehabilitation work. the assessment of the need, which has only just begun, is urgent. it is already clear, however, that even short term needs will run into hundreds of millions of dollars. i expect that tomorrow's meeting of the international donor community in oslo, the so-called ad hoc liaison committee, will help us to quantify the damages and begin to prepare a co-ordinated response by donors. i would just like to repeat what i have said already. to those who talk about marshall aid for the middle east, marshall aid for the palestinian territories, i say 'fine'. the important point about marshall aid, however, was that it began when the bombing had stopped. in my last point i would like to refer to full rehabilitation of palestinian structures: there is also the need to fill the administrative and security vacuum in the wake of the israeli withdrawal. the alternative is chaos and anarchy, which is not in anyone's interest. i must repeat my grave concern about the destruction of the basic structures of the palestinian authority and military operations against arafat. this weakens the powers of palestinian authority to enforce the rule of law, to rein in terrorists and to avert suicide bombings. it plays into the hands of, and increases support among the palestinian population for extremist groups such as hamas. the fight against terrorism cannot be used as a justification for the destruction of basic infrastructure of the palestinian authority. (applause) i am also very concerned at the breakdown of general law and order. we have seen horrible events such as lynchings in the last few days. this must stop. it is only likely to stop, however, when palestinians regain control in their areas. israeli military actions have not just targeted the security apparatus of the palestinian authority, they have systematically inflicted damage on civil infrastructure which has no security role whatsoever. what is the security objective of destroying the ministries of education, finance, agriculture, the land registry? (applause) why destroy the central statistics bureau, or the palestinian legislative council? this must be of great concern to the members of this house . palestinians will have to rebuild large parts of their administration without which daily life cannot function in an orderly fashion. the commission is committed to supporting and rebuilding these structures. but our resources are already stretched to the limits. once the needs assessment is done, we will come back to parliament to inform you of the financial implications and to ask for your help in providing an appropriate response from the european union. but, i repeat, you will have to ask us at that moment what the political context is in which we are seeking to rebuild what has been torn down. i have lost count of the number of debates that i have taken part in on the middle east over the last two and a half years. it is fair to say that in each debate the news has been grimmer then in the preceding debate. i just pray that one day i take part in a debate when things are getting better. (sustained applause) mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the applause just then for commissioner patten has made clear that we must never let a situation stop us talking to each other, even when it is highly dramatic and seems almost an expression of desperation. for if we stop talking to each other, it is only the weapons that will be left to speak. that this debate on the mediterranean dialogue should be held here today, is important, and i would like to express from the heart my gratitude to the spanish presidency of the council for the commitment they have shown. despite the shocking events in the middle east, the mediterranean dialogue has probably never been as necessary as it is today, for we face today the great danger of a real clash of civilisations breaking out. it will do that once our own heads become the places where we wall the cultures off from one another. that is why our task, in these days and in the future, must be to carry on this dialogue between cultures. that must be right at the top of our agenda. what now shocks me is to hear, on the one hand, that it is proposed to establish a foundation for dialogue between cultures, which we welcome, but on the other that the million euro - obviously not a very substantial amount - may well not be made available. if we sign documents that then lose their value, then when we leave the conference, the conferences will have no value either! so i ask the spanish presidency and the commission to ensure that the money required will also be made available, so that we can bring this dialogue about. in these weeks and months, looking forward to the enlargement of the european union, our gaze is directed principally towards the east, but it is important that we turn our eyes southwards, as the perils there are probably far greater than our problems in eastern europe. if it is the case that the distance from algeria's capital algiers to paris is shorter than that from paris to warsaw, then this must make it clear to us in geographical terms that the mediterranean, north africa, and the middle east are of great significance to europeans like us. we advocate a real partnership for us with the mediterranean, with the countries of north africa, and with the middle east - both political and strategic, economic and financial, social and cultural. of course it is important to combat terrorism, and that is a struggle we all support. we must not, though, reduce our dialogue with the arab and islamic world to simply fighting terrorism; it must, rather, be a dialogue that includes all the political, economic, financial and cultural issues. that is why we have so much more to do in those areas than we have done in the past. (applause) of course it is important that we should have a euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly. that is what we have called for. we would, though, be failing in our responsibility as europeans and as a parliament if we believed that the creation of such an institution would mean that all our tasks had been completed. on the contrary, what matters is that we make a reality of our solemn declarations. after visiting israel a number of times, i visited many states in the arab world, and i have the impression that these countries will be able to live in security, freedom and democracy only if we really do manage to create jobs there. as the commissioner said, 40 million jobs are needed around the mediterranean. if they are not created, then the young people will carry on getting into boats, and - as is estimated - 7 000 people from morocco alone will lose their lives in the attempt to reach spain or portugal across the mediterranean. that is why development in these countries must be a success. above all, we must help with the privatisation of their economy and help give private enterprises a chance to use that to create jobs. as education is one of the most important prerequisites for human development, and above all for the actualisation of human rights, illiteracy in the states of north africa must be done away with. turning to the middle east, the seriousness and complexity of this area of concern has meant that these issues have been the subject of in-depth discussions in our group as well, but we start by saying that the policy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth must come to an end. if things carry on like that, there will never be peace in the middle east. that is why it is so important that the israeli troops should withdraw now. at the same time, though, we declare it to be criminal to talk young people into strapping self-detonating devices to themselves in order to kill both themselves and others as well. that is why we must make demands equally of both sides, of the israelis as much as of the palestinians. we must also not lose sight of the fact that our american friends cannot be peacemakers on their own. the americans will of course have to make a major contribution, but, for various reasons, the palestinians trust us europeans more than they do our american friends. this, then, is another reason - israel is of course one, but this is another - why we have to take on important responsibilities in the region. israel does, thank god, also have some very credible representatives. yesterday in the conference of presidents, we had talks with avraham burg, the speaker of the knesset, and i have to tell you that this conversation gave me renewed hope, because israel also has political figures who put reconciliation first rather than conflict and military action. we urge the parties involved - the palestinians, the israelis, the world community - onward to redouble their efforts so that peace may at last reign in the middle east, so that we europeans may also have a good future with the countries around the mediterranean, and so that israel and palestine may be able to live within secure borders. that alone will serve the cause of human rights in the middle east. (applause) mr president, at a time like this we europeans who are working together here must remind ourselves of the fundamental elements that unite us, and we must remember that we are working for a united, democratic europe which combats racism and xenophobia. let us remember what president mitterrand said in his last speech in this house: 'le nacionalisme c'est la guerre'. this is an essential principle of our co-existence which we must state loud and clear today. furthermore, mr president, i believe - and i address this to my respected friend, shimon peres, who said yesterday in madrid that he was worried about the growth in anti-semitism in europe - that we also all have to be concerned about the demonstrations of intolerance we are seeing on our continent. all we european democrats, all we european citizens must combat this blight, this cancer which has caused so much misery throughout our history. (applause) having said this, mr president, i would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak with mr burg, president of the knesset, today. we have held a frank and tough debate in our group with our labour colleague, mr burg, and we hope that president abu al can come here to speak to us very soon. here we have to build bridges towards peace in the middle east. turning to the report by the president-in-office of the council, i would like to say that, with regard to the euromed conference, you know that we share your objectives. you have said that it was a wonderful idea, but you failed to mention that the idea was not an orphan, but that the last spanish presidency started it. perhaps you could convey a compliment to mr solana, who is not here, and thus treat him as you would like him to treat his successor. in any event, what the president-in-office of the council has said today contains one essential idea: a network of association agreements is being created little by little, the agreement with algeria has just been signed, and that is very positive. the problem is - and i also address this to the president-in-office of the council - that no notice has been taken of what parliament said in its last resolution, because we are everybody's friend and we want to be partners and associates of all the countries of the mediterranean. that is the fundamental principle and when we have two associates who are in conflict with each other, the least we can say to one associate is: 'do not keep them in such a stranglehold and let them breathe a bit'. it is an absolutely fundamental principle. that is why we are asking for the association council to be convened. the secretary of state, mr de miguel, stated very enthusiastically in this house that the spanish presidency maintained this principle. i would like to know if he still maintains this principle. we also said other things: we are in favour of an intervention force, we are in favour of blocking arms exports. these are ideas which i believe the council should develop, because it makes no sense to come to parliament to complain that our diplomats are being treated badly and then say that all options are open. we must be a bit more decisive. i agree with the pertinent observations of the vice-president of the commission, mr patten, when he states clearly that in jenin there is a human and historic responsibility to shed light on what has happened, and that mr ahtisaari is a completely honourable person like the other members and we cannot allow vetoes, not because they are european, but because we are all subject to the principles and under the aegis of the united nations. we are also willing to work on the reconstruction of the palestinian infrastructure, but we do not understand why it has been destroyed. furthermore, there is no guarantee that it will not be destroyed again. our partners must give us guarantees. we believe that it is absolutely essential to obey and respect the authority of the united nations. i will conclude, mr president, by saying that we are clearly in favour of the quartet plus the arab league - and europe must play an important role here, mr president-in-office of the council - carrying out their work on achieving a madrid ii, which is essential. and then, if we create a foundation that works, this could be very useful, but now the objectives should focus not on creating new foundations but on achieving a peace conference with european participation, with everybody's participation, which may work. (applause) mr president, civilisation is no longer present in the middle east. i wish to echo mr patten's words: israel is going far beyond the boundaries of what is legitimate in combating terrorism, and the palestinians are not doing anything like enough to prevent the terrible suicide bombers. we must bring civilisation back to the area. we must have the rule of law and not the rule of power, with the former replacing the latter. that is the principle upon which eu cooperation is based, and something could be learned from this in the middle east. the first step must be to give the un group the opportunity to investigate the atrocities that have taken place there. it is shocking that israel's leaders have denied the three high-ranking people access to the area. we are talking here about a former finnish president, the former president of the international red cross and the former high commissioner for refugees. israel must not be given special treatment. it must accept that everyone should be treated equally and that there should be equality under the law. according to the speaker of the knesset, with whom i had the opportunity to speak yesterday, 65% of israel's population support sharon but, at the same time, 80% support the saudi arabian peace proposal. that is paradoxical, in my view. we see peace agreements between egypt and israel and between jordan and israel. there is, then, the possibility of peace in the area and, here in europe, we must therefore preserve optimism and hope. what can we do? i believe that, as we called for in our resolution, we must have human rights representatives present to see to it that human rights are respected by both parties. again, it is a question of ensuring that the rule of law replaces the rule of power. human rights organisations must be there to monitor the situation. at the same time, we must have an international peace-keeping force put in place in the palestinian region. it is immaterial whether it be the un, nato, the eu or the united states, but it must be there to create peace. a guarantee must be given to the international community and, at the same time, israel must not see this as a hostile act. there is a need for a new peace conference, but there is also a need for new people to take part in this. as a very highly regarded jew in denmark said to me: 'there are two idiots in the region at the moment. one is sharon, and the other is arafat'. the rule of law must return to the area. that is the message from the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party. it must be possible for those of us in europe who are friends of israel to criticise the israeli government, and it must be possible for citizens of denmark, which is a true and genuine friend of israel, to criticise without being attacked for being anti-semitic. finally, i wish to assure commissioner patten that the eldr group will come up with the money when it is asked to do so. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i do have the vague impression that, on the one hand, we are all right and that, on the other hand, we are all hypocrites. we say either that israel is not doing enough or that it is doing too much, which is true. we say the palestinians are not doing enough, which is also true. what about us though? are we doing enough? i am asking a very simple question. at barcelona, we decided to grant development aid, not 0.7% of gdp, as is needed, nor 1%, which is closer to what is required? instead we decided to grant 0.39%! and now we are discussing the need to create 40 million jobs in north africa, and more than 150 million throughout the world. are we not hypocrites? are we not people who make speeches, but, when it comes to adjusting our budgets, we think of ourselves first and only of others later? is that not the truth? i would therefore like to ask this question: are we doing enough? let us now turn to the problem of israel. the international community clearly agreed to the state of israel in the wake of the barbaric events of the holocaust. this was both fair and unfair. the international community spoke out for justice and injustice at the same time. the time has come to ensure justice is done and to make up for the injustice. in order to make up for the injustice, the un must now declare the palestinian state by formal vote, in the same way as it declared the state of israel by formal vote. this would make up for the injustice and ensure justice is done. we can do this immediately. secondly, when considering peace, we must ask who can achieve peace? we say that the state of israel is a democratic country. this is true. i think that the palestinian authority is a social structure in which the democratic process is underway, but there is still much for it to do. however, we are aware that, in democratic elections, it is not almost the most democratic candidates that receive the greatest number of votes. the elections in europe have shown us this. (applause) on this basis, therefore, how can we reassure the israeli people so that they can finally free themselves of ariel sharon? there is only one solution that will bring about peace and that is for israel to finally have a government which, once again, desires peace, which is not the case of the current government, which, whilst claiming to provide greater security for israel, is bringing more death and insecurity upon the israeli people. to achieve peace, we must do more. avraham burg asked why we do not guarantee the integrity of israeli territory by allowing israel to join nato, for example? and why not? this is one option. another option is for nato to guarantee the integrity of the palestinian state declared by the un as soon as possible. given the situation, these two states currently are unable to guarantee the security of the other, to guarantee the hope of the other. it is up to us, the international community, to think how to guarantee the security of both. two states, both have peace, both have security. are we doing enough? have we really finished with all our contradictions? let us stop saying, on the one hand, that we are all israelis, or, on the other hand, that we are all palestinians. we are neither israelis nor palestinians. we are europeans who wish to fight for the right to live in a state that belongs to the israelis and to the palestinians. we are all israeli-palestinians or palestinian-israelis. we must grasp this once and for all. and if we manage to think like that, well, in fact, we can think that if mr sharon has committed crimes against humanity, or war crimes - i cannot say and it is not up to me to decide - we now have an international tribunal in the hague. from the events in sabra and chatila to what has just happened in jenin, those responsible for the massacres must now be brought before the court of international justice. (applause) those who welcome this must also welcome the fact that those in palestine who are responsible for sending young people to massacre israelis will also be brought before the international tribunal in the hague. this applies to both sides. (applause) if we continue to debate the issue in this way, we will be credible. i shall conclude by saying that i support a un-led international fact-finding mission to investigate events in jenin, and i ask all those who, today, are in favour of this, bearing in mind that the state of israel is a democratic country, why then did they refuse an international fact-finding mission being sent to algeria, when algeria is not nearly as democratic as israel is today. we have one set of rules but two ways of applying them. this is what i am saying. we are hypocrites, we are in favour of something when it suits us, and against it when it does not. when we have put our own house in order, this is when the world will believe that we are credible. (applause) mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, commissioner, yesterday, with 18 other members of the european parliament from six different parliamentary groups, i was in the refugee camp in jenin. last night, as we were leaving jerusalem, when we found out that ariel sharon was opposed to a fact-finding mission to the jenin camp, despite the fact that this mission would be un-led and made up of such figures as the former president of the international committee of the red cross, and the former high commissioner for refugees, we immediately understood the reason behind the new challenge that the israeli prime minister had placed before the international community. a third of the town of jenin, which last month still had a population of 15 000 inhabitants, is in ruins. buildings have been blown apart, families gather together in the parts of blocks of flats which are still standing, seeing what remains of their houses collapse around them. in one part of the camp, a huge area stretched before us, where, just last month, dozens of three- or four-storey blocks of flats stood. all that is left of these are the ends of the metal scaffolding sticking out of the ground. it is difficult to know exactly how many bodies are buried in the rubble beneath your feet. a total of 47 bodies have been recovered from the debris so far. this figure will, unfortunately, have to be revised when a proper search can be conducted. the accounts given by inhabitants, backed up by shreds of evidence, are horrifying. many of the soldiers, who surrounded the camp on 2 april, showed no pity for the civilian population, regardless of whether they were children, the elderly, the disabled or the injured. we heard of some shocking examples of this totally unacceptable attitude when we met the medical staff of the camp hospital who gave detailed accounts of the awful events. they told us that at 3 p.m. on 4 april, the army surrounded the hospital with 22 tanks. they said that they were told to stay where they were. the israeli army general, himself a doctor, said that if an ambulance moved, they would fire. they opened fire on the red cross, which was trying to gain entry to the camp. the doctors told us that they were not allowed to save the injured survivors. a doctor, who asked for news of his mother, was told that she was injured and could not be seen. she was later found riddled with bullets. on the same day, the tanks attacked the hospital and destroyed an oxygen reserve. a doctor told us that to stop an injured man bleeding, whose throat had been pierced by a bullet, the only thing they had to hand was wire. they begged the soldiers to allow them to treat him. the doctor shouted that he would lose his arm and the soldier replied that he might as well lose his life. they took away the injured man and two other people, having waited for six hours in the sun. we do not know what happened to them. a young man came to the hospital to collect medicine for his mother. when he entered the hospital, a tank fired, injuring him. a nurse tried to pull him inside and was told that if she touched him, she would be killed. then a soldier killed the injured man before calling the nurse forward to come and recover his body. there is a name for this sort of violence. it bears all the hallmarks of war crimes. this has nothing to do with the legitimate defence of the security of israel. this is the reason why ariel sharon is now trying to do everything possible to prevent a un-led committee from finding out the truth. on the front page of this morning's jerusalem post, an israeli official is reported to have said that 'we are a sovereign country, we do not have to accept this type of command. it is better for us to suffer a few days of poor publicity than to live with the consequences of a biased report.' the conclusion that we should reach, in my view, is that the international community must, first and foremost, remind these people of the difference between a sovereign country and an occupied territory. then, we must make them understand beyond a shadow of a doubt that the age of impunity is over. there will no longer be just a few difficult days to get through. sooner or later, mr sharon will have to explain his actions. yes, it is time to react much more firmly. we must react, because if we fail to do so, we risk collusion with the unacceptable. we must react, it is all the more important to do so because jenin is not an isolated case. we must ascertain what happened in all the towns which were re-occupied, particularly nablus where further atrocities cannot be ignored. we must react, because impunity encourages arrogance. many of our counterparts - palestinian but also israeli - including a deputy speaker of the knesset, mrs chazan - have told us that they fear a possible attack on mr arafat's headquarters. furthermore, what consequences will result from the arrest of marwan barghouti, the palestinian commander and mp? the situation in bethlehem is still unresolved, although discussions are underway. ariel sharon has also announced the stepping-up of military operations in gaza. he also stated that he did not contemplate the evacuation of any settlements. yes, we must react, without waiting for a response - which is, unfortunately, hardly likely - from the united states, whose president is insulting the palestinians and is making himself look stupid by depicting mr sharon as a man of peace. to respond and shoulder our responsibilities, must, i think, for us meps mean, apart from sending urgently needed relief, making an unwavering commitment to send the peacekeeping force, not to wage war but to contribute to peace. and this also means bringing to bear as much pressure as possible in the spirit of the resolution that we adopted two weeks ago on the members of the council who are blocking the necessary revision of eu-israel relations. and lastly, we must respond and shoulder our responsibilities, mr president, as europe's parliament, something which directly depends on us. in this respect, i wish to repeat an appeal made to us by abu ala, the speaker of the palestinian legislative council. he said that it is in times of crisis that you find out who your friends are and that he will gladly receive an official delegation from parliament as well as our president. in my view, the time has come to respond to this invitation and, at the same time, return the visit of avraham burg, the speaker of the knesset. we shall therefore clearly show that we are not criticising israel but that we condemn mr sharon. what we want is a lasting peace with justice and dignity, because, for the first time since 1948, this prospect is being held out by all the arab countries. it is an historic opportunity which we must not allow to pass by. it would be to europe's credit if it made every effort to save this unique hope. mr president, in many ways we have become so desensitised to the violence that takes place around the world that what happened in jenin, what has happened with the suicide bombers in israel, has seemed to pass us by completely. the reality is, of course, that we must try and find solutions and work towards them. but let us remember, first and foremost, that we are dealing with human beings. let us put into context the sanctity and the blessedness of each single, individual human life. when you look at the situation from that reality, finding a solution or a compromise is not difficult, because despite what some speakers have said, it is not love of one's country or nationalism that causes war violence; it is lack of respect, lack of tolerance of differing viewpoints and of diversity within our society. this is what causes violence and conflict. the only real solution to the problems in israel, palestine and the whole middle east region, is to bring the combatants together. you must make peace with your enemy, not with your friend. there is no point in us saying that we support israel or palestine. there is no point in the americans saying "we support the israelis in what they are doing" or "we are calling on them to be more moderate in their response." unless the israelis and the palestinians sit down together and work out their problems, nothing we do or say can be more effective than what they can achieve themselves. the difficulty, however lies in bringing them together. each side must give up something. each side must reduce its own bargaining position or its own ultimate goal, by some degree, because, in a peace process, there can be no outright winners, nor outright losers either. as rightly as we condemn all forms of violence, as rightly as we condemn the episodes that have taken place in jenin, in the church of the nativity around bethlehem, and the suicide bombers in the cafes and restaurants in israel, we must also be willing and aware in order to assist in bringing the people together. the only way that can be done is by taking them out of the area of conflict and bringing them into dialogue, giving them the support and the strength and the backbone that they need, not only to convince themselves that peace is achievable and that harmony can be achieved between the peoples of israel and palestine, but also that they will be given full support from the european union and each of its member states to achieve that. let us put our hands on our hearts and commit ourselves to peace, to justice, but, most importantly of all, to humanity. mr president, in this parliament and the other european institutions, it is constantly emphasised that the european union is, and should be, a community of values. i can fully endorse this view. consequently, anti-semitic statements simply do not belong in our european community. the escalation of the conflict in the middle east, however, has resulted in statements of precisely this kind and has led to an upsurge in completely reprehensible expressions of anti-semitism. this is unworthy of europe, which is, after all, the continent of the holocaust. where in the eu member states does political decency begin and end? this is not really a theoretical question in this day and age. in a recently published spanish magazine, the name of the israeli prime minister was adorned with a swastika and the face of this government leader was distorted into a pig's head with yarmulke. i really imagined myself to be back in the days of the notorious nazi poisoner, julius streicher. during the euromed conference in valencia, the israeli foreign affairs minister, shimon peres, rightly condemned anti-semitic excesses in europe. prior to the euromed summit, the association agreement between algeria and the european union was signed. at this ceremony, the algerian president, mr bouteflika, called the palestinian suicide bombers 'martyrs' and justified their terrorist acts as 'legitimate resistance'. with this, he immediately undermined the objective of 'fighting terrorism', a prominent section of the association agreement. if the european union wants to be an acceptable interlocutor for the state of israel too, then it should resolutely turn its back on all expressions of anti-semitism and terrorism, now and in future. i thank both mr pique i camps and mr patten for their clear condemnation of terrorism in the middle east. i would ask those colleagues who wish to protest to do so in silence and allow the speaker to continue. mr president, anyone who has a heart, especially someone who is french, cannot fail to be saddened and deeply moved by what is happening in the middle east, in these holy places, which were protected by france for many centuries. it is not just the veritable challenge to god represented by the eruption of violence at the birthplace of jesus that appears to be pre-apocalyptic. france and europe have been absent since they bowed down to the orders of the united states, represented by mr solana, the former nato secretary-general. this can only be condemned. domine dona nobis pacem. [grant us peace, lord]. thank you, mr president, in this parliament one can always choose when one speaks and this is surely not the best time, but in any event, mr president, i would ask that we return to the debate, since the important thing is valencia and the situation in the middle east. (interruption by the president) thank you, mr president, i should begin by thanking the presidency for its support, which ensured that parliament was represented in valencia by an unusually large delegation in which there was room for representatives of parliament's five largest groups. i believe that the presence of parliament's delegation was justified insofar as it was able to witness in situ the efforts made by the spanish presidency to hold and manage, often against the odds but always with skill, a meeting which was very complicated given the very tense situation in the region in question. i also believe i can safely say that the presence of parliament has been useful, that it will have contributed in some way to the success, within the valencia action plan, of certain proposals which stem from resolutions and parliamentary debates in this house. within the political context, the commitment to respect human rights and to cooperate in the fight against terrorism seem to me to be a very important advance, and these are issues which for the first time are clearly laid out in the conclusions of a meeting of this nature. equally important are the decisions which imply an insistence on progress with liberalisation in the mediterranean region and we hope that the association agreement with lebanon will be signed during the current presidency. in fact, mr president, i believe that we should explicitly welcome the presence of the delegation from libya, a country which clearly plays an important role in the region and throughout the whole continent. this process of opening up markets must be accompanied by clear community support through an increase in investments in the region, as commissioner patten pointed out, contributing in particular to the development of infrastructures. furthermore, we should welcome the statement that there is a need to hold an open and in-depth debate on the organisation of migratory flows and their management on both sides of the mediterranean. we in the european parliament must continue to insist on the creation of a euro-mediterranean development bank and meanwhile, we must monitor and demand the support of the institutions involved - and in this regard i am sure we can count on the cooperation of the european commission - in order to comply with the commitment to double the funds of the eib in the region until 2006. the support of the conference for the creation of a euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly seems to me very significant and i am sure that we will be able to dedicate our work in the next parliamentary forum in bari in june to debating its launch, which must be a crucial element in the institutionalisation of the barcelona process. and in this same respect, we must applaud the creation of a foundation which promotes dialogue between cultures and civilisations, which my group has repeatedly called for. in summary, and in spite of the circumstances, i insist that in valencia we have been able to confirm that the revitalisation of the barcelona process, six years after its launch, represents a strategic option for the future for the european union and for each of its member states and all of its democratic expressions, because i believe that the attempts at party politics, such as that made by the president of the socialist group, have no place here. it goes without saying that at the moment, the achievement of a stable and secure mediterranean area is threatened by the situation in the middle east. without saying any more, i would like, mr president, to end with a double appeal to this house. firstly that, despite all the tragedy, we continue with our efforts towards peace, and secondly, increase the internal dialogue in this house in order to ensure that the positions of the european parliament are the result of a broad consensus, because that is the only way, through unity, that parliament's voice can be heard and that it can contribute to the peace process we all want to see. mr president, i agree that valencia was a success - and i agree with mr piqu that the very fact the meeting took place was an achievement. i had the honour of being the leader of the european parliament delegation, and i have to say that the debate at the conference was fierce and there were some very difficult moments, but the agreement on the action plan and - called for, of course, by the european parliament - the endorsement of the idea of the euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly and the foundation for intercultural dialogue are certainly achievements: on the basis of all this, we can say that, despite the tragic situation in the middle east, it may well be possible for things to go a little better after valencia. in any case, the foundations have been laid for reinvigoration of the cooperation process in the mediterranean region. as i see it, israel has many enemies to defeat before it can live in security and peace. as has already been said, the greatest of these enemies is certainly anti-semitism, and we, the european union and the european parliament, are at the forefront of the battle against this terrible scourge that has been striking even just recently, here, in our member states, with shameful attacks. another enemy is terrorism, and here too we are right behind israel in combating all forms of terrorism, including the - appalling - series of suicide attacks. there is a certain amount of ambiguity regarding this point in certain arab parties and countries, with people saying that the fight against nazi fascism in europe was a rebellion too. it is true that it was a rebellion but i would point out - apart from the fact that the comparison is inappropriate - that resistance to nazi fascism never involved attacks on civilians: killing civilians is not a form of martyrdom - as has been said - it is terrorism. israel's third enemy is certainly the refusal hitherto of many countries to recognise its existence or to maintain appropriate relations with the country. the saudi peace plan represents a considerable opportunity from this point of view. israel's fourth enemy - i would like to point out - is its - great - mistrust of the european union. if ever there may have been some explanation for this mistrust in the past, it is now totally unacceptable; there is absolutely no reason for it. it is precisely in the european union and its principles and policies that israel has a friend and ally: in refusing to accept this friendship and support, the israeli government is making a huge mistake. lastly, another enemy of israel - and this is my personal opinion - is the sharon government and its policies: both its symbolic and its practical actions. the israeli people have a clear responsibility to assess the damage done by mr sharon's transformation of the justified fight against terrorism into the disproportionate, excessive use of force, by his dissemination of the idea that it is possible to defeat terrorism and break out of the crisis using military force, by the way he has treated the representative of the palestinian national authority as if he were the leader of the terrorists, imprisoning him and then accusing him of doing nothing to stop the terrorism, by his failure to acknowledge the objective of two states and two peoples, by his failure to specify a clear date for withdrawal from all the occupied territories. these are all positions of the sharon government which have placed israel in difficulties, and they certainly do nothing to further the advent of peace or - consequently - a secure future for israel. finally, israel's security does not depend on the number of tanks occupying the territory but on the undertaking of the international community, and madrid - the quartet, as mr piqu said - is the most important development. this new opportunity now exists and must be used to initiate - as javier solana said - fresh, brief talks that will lead to a peace that is stable and lasting for both the palestinian and the israeli people and for the entire mediterranean region as well. we must do something to give the young people of the region the hope, at last, of a future of peace and security. mr president, it seems natural to me on beginning an assessment of the valencia conference and the situation in the middle east to point out a particularly significant coincidence; firstly, i would stress the extent to which the barcelona process is justified at this point in time, and at the same time acknowledge that the situation in the middle east is worse than it has been for many years. as you know, i have often advocated that the barcelona process can and must aid the peace process as far as possible and that it is desirable for the middle east conflict to slow down the barcelona process as little as possible. but it is clear today that the state of affairs is extremely difficult and painful. the mere fact that the action plan has been adopted in this extremely difficult situation demonstrates the extent to which the justification for the relaunch of the barcelona process has become well-founded. i believe that the approval of the plan covers the objectives we had set. firstly because it sets a priority which is repeatedly justified and secondly because it is based on the model action plan, in a concrete form. the operative approaches taken, as has been said previously, promote the defence of human rights, development, work, dialogue, peace and democracy. furthermore, we have done so by means of important instruments such as the foundation, the decision not to give up on the bank, an open bank, a bank which allows for co-ownership, the creation of a parliamentary assembly which as well as being useful combines two characteristics: firstly, that it is a proposal by parliament and secondly, that it is a genuinely parliamentary proposal, and it is therefore of particular interest to us. as has already been said, i am very pleased that parliament's delegation was present: eight representatives, and i believe that this presence and the consideration that has been given to parliament's report in valencia are positive but, mr president, i will return to the beginning: the conflict and tragedy in the middle east affect everybody and everything. the fact that at this point the structures of the palestinian national authority have been destroyed, arafat is confined, there is an occupation, there are serious humanitarian problems, which, at the same time, the israeli government is doing absolutely nothing about, and is ignoring every law and every agreement, and that the european union cannot impose any solution, is an extremely serious situation. i am naturally very pleased that mr solana is in palestine today and that yesterday and the day before in valencia both delegations sat down at least for a time at the same table and i believe that the action plan is a crucial contribution to peace but, i insist, the security council resolutions have not been complied with, and this parliament cannot see how the council of the european union can implement the measures that have been adopted. i am referring to the embargo, to the association agreement with israel, but also to the importance of the united states in relation to this issue, and the extent to which parliament, and the european union, is pursuing its efforts. mr president, all of this simply prevents us from expressing satisfaction, which for various reasons could be justified. mr president, i travelled with mr watts and others to jenin yesterday. i have been in palestine dozens of times since 1968 and have seen countless bombed palestinian houses. i thought i was immune, but jenin was worse than i had imagined. mr larsson is entirely right. jenin can be called palestine's ground zero. jenin can also be called a new deir yassin. it was of course there that sharon's political forefathers within irgun murdered as many as 250 palestinian civilians in april 1948, an act that was the signal for the mass flight of palestinians that lies behind the whole problem. it was the intention on that occasion too to cause the palestinians to flee, and there is a lot to be said for the view that that is also the intention on this occasion. the aim is to try to frighten the palestinians into moving and to force them to flee. those who still remain are to be put in prison. last sunday, the new york times reported that a berlin wall is to be built around the whole of the west bank. this is not to be a wall between israel and palestine, but a wall around the whole of the west bank so that the whole area becomes one large concentration camp. when we were there the other night, 12 palestinians were evicted from 12 flats in the middle of the city. according to the newspaper ha'aretz, this is a phase in the strategy of surrounding the old town with jewish outposts. the jerusalem post says of knesset member ben elon that 'he promises jewish continuity in jerusalem'. if we were to exchange the word 'jewish' for 'white', 'swedish', 'christian' or any other ethnic or national designation, everyone would shout 'racism!'. why are mr patten and mr pique i camps so incredibly cautious? certainly, they said a lot of good things, but why not look the truth in the eye and realise that the israeli policy of occupation is the same kind of policy which eventually led to the boycotting of south africa. it is the same kind of policy that finally led to the intervention in kosovo to rescue the kosovan albanians. israel must therefore be treated in the same way as we treated milosevic's serbia and apartheid in south africa. the sharon regime must be isolated. happily, there are many who realise this. one hundred and twenty researchers have published a letter in the guardian, demanding that israel be barred from cooperating on research with the eu. the swedish and british medical associations have proposed that the israeli medical association be excluded from the world medical association, and the football organisation fifa is to adopt a position on israel's exclusion at the beginning of may. in south africa, the jewish minister mr kasrils is demanding a boycott of israel. it really is high time that we in the eu took a fairly tough line and at least fulfilled the pretty mild demand made by the european parliament, namely that we suspend the association agreement with israel. the least that can be asked is that the council and the commission ensure that the demand is carried out in practice. mr president, although the israeli-palestinian question was central to the debate at valencia - it could not be otherwise, given the tragic situation - there is no doubt that progress was made in adopting an agenda developing dialogue and partnership. moreover, i feel that the decision to establish a euro-mediterranean parliamentary assembly is not insignificant, and we must work towards this objective with great energy. i have expressed my opinion regarding the resolution of the conflict many times in the past and i am tired of saying the same things over and over again; moreover, i agree with much of what has been said here. i would therefore like to use my time today to read you some of the things said by palestinian and israeli women who came to parliament together to call for a european peace-keeping intervention. they are women from the jerusalem link, israeli and palestinian women. they are voices preserving a glimmer of hope for the future, the voices of people who really are counting on us to act upon our resolutions. i do thank both mr piqu and mr solana - who is not here - and commissioner patten for both their words and gestures, but i feel that we must implement what we stated in our parliamentary resolution. this is what the women said: 'the deliberate killing of innocent civilians, whether palestinian or israeli, cannot be condoned. prolonging the suffering of the palestinian people, destroying infrastructures and civilian houses and keeping president arafat segregated will serve only to exacerbate the suffering and insecurity of both peoples and will destroy any possibility of peace. the two peoples cannot enjoy peace and security unless the root cause of this conflict, the true enemy of peace - military occupation - is eliminated. the two peoples are currently trapped in a climate of fear and of obsession with retaliation. we women refuse to be paralysed or divided by these fears. we cannot turn a blind eye to the policies and practices conceived with the aim of humiliating and oppressing the palestinians and forcing them to submit to the strategic programme of expropriation, settlements and colonisation that israel has been pursuing throughout 34 years of occupation. we cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that non-violent attempts by palestinian movements to oppose the denial of their fundamental human rights have, in the past, always been met with violence and repressive measures from israel and with silence on the part of the international community. if peace and security are to be achieved, we must put an end to the continued denial of the right of the palestinian people to self-determination and do so in the context of fair, global negotiations. to this end, we call upon the international powers to provide an international presence in the middle east to protect the civilian people. to this end, we call for the un resolutions to be implemented. the rule of law, reciprocal recognition and reciprocal respect for individual and collective rights will pave the way to achieving peace.' this is what those women said, and i feel that we cannot block our ears to these voices which are the voices of israeli and palestinian women but also of palestinian and israeli men uniting to say 'that is enough! stop the military occupation!' now we must turn words into tangible actions. the presence today of the european union, which i hope will have been able to meet with president arafat, is important, but we must make absolutely sure that israel understands that we cannot allow it, in its unmitigated defence of its existence, its unmitigated defence against any potential threat to the jewish people, to continue along its current path. we must use the instruments available to us too. we cannot be racist and suspend the agreement with zimbabwe while treating israel indulgently all the time. we must lose no time in taking action, for peace will benefit everybody. mr president, one of the conclusions of the valencia summit is represented by the eu-algeria and eu-lebanon association agreements. i feel that parliament must realise that the clauses making all the economic and institutional agreements concluded between the union and third countries subject to respect for human, civil and political rights are destined to remain a dead letter. the lebanon and algeria will not abide by these commitments, although for different reasons, of course. this is a hypocritical action which undermines the union's internal and international credibility, for while, on paper, it is reassuring the european public of its commitment to freedom and to providing guarantees for the citizens of the contracting countries, in practice, it never dares to make a stand against the governments - of tunisia and laos - which take the money and then blatantly make no effort to honour their commitments. we need to reflect on this and to choose a more honourable way of abandoning the clauses rather than continuing to display our hypocrisy and impotence. parliament must reflect on this matter: it has called and continues to call for sanctions against israel, the only country in the middle east which is, in spite of everything, committed to respecting democracy and human and civil rights, and yet it is not, in practice, making - and nor has it made in the past - any such forceful demands of the other countries. mr president, europe has concentrated and is continuing to concentrate on the north-eastern border - with enlargement - but it is guilty of neglecting the southern, mediterranean border. many of europe's afflictions, in areas such as immigration and security, for instance, originate from europe's southern border, from its relations with the islamic world. i welcome the words and proposals regarding the reinvigoration of the barcelona process. some speakers have hailed the valencia summit as a success. i would point out that the barcelona summit was also hailed as a success and now we are labelling it a failure. i fear that valencia will suffer the same fate if we do not take practical action. one example will suffice: for how long will we continue to discuss europe's protectionist trade policies which are restricting the manufactured goods markets and the agricultural products market too? are we going to continue to defend the cap against what are, or ought to be, our own interests, namely that agricultural products should be imported from the maghreb with the consequent generation of employment and maybe even a fall in immigration? lastly, on the subject of the israeli-palestinian question, i understand the satisfaction expressed at the visit of our delegation to palestine. we know what we are asking israel. yesterday, the council urged israel once again to end the siege on yasser arafat in ramallah. that is all well and good, but what are we asking of president arafat? will we be content with his 'no' or will we call for an end to the constant suicide bomb attacks? lastly, mr president, i would like to underline firmly how necessary and appropriate it would be for the european union to display its willingness to bring about full integration of the israeli democracy into the european union. yesterday, the speaker of the knesset, avraham burg, voiced disapproval of the stick approach of sanctions, advocating the carrot of full integration instead. this is an opportunity to be seized by a europe for whom the peace and future of that region are very important, an opportunity for a europe with a vision. and what a vision this is! mr president, i thought that you had omitted to give me the floor and, had you done so, you would unfortunately be in breach of the rules, respect for which is something you criticise mps in france for failing to show. i regret that president cox is no longer in the chair, if i may say so, as i would have liked to say to him directly - although i am sure that you will pass on my comments - that, in france, many sectors of public - and especially sovereignist - opinion believe that the positions we adopted on monday on the outcome of the presidential elections in france are not only null and void and have no effect, but above all, they mark a very serious dereliction of the duty of impartiality that must be respected by any parliament's president, on the one hand, and even more so by an international rather than supranational parliament, which has no place interfering in the political affairs of a member state. i hope that he will come to his senses and that he will withdraw the utterly useless and scandalous remarks that he made on monday. with regard to the middle east, we are struck by one thing - from a european perspective at least - which is that europe and its member states, bound together as they are by a false sense of european solidarity, are once again absent from the middle east stage where the tragic events we are witnessing have been going on not just for weeks and months but for years. we do not want to hear once again, mr president, that europe must have a foreign policy. we heard this in 1991 during the gulf war; we heard this mentioned again two or three years later in the affair in the great lakes region of africa; we heard this once again in relation to bosnia, and again in relation to kosovo. each time, it was a pious hope and, each time a new international crisis rears its head, europe is mute, mute because european countries are incapable of agreeing on a common approach. europe can only speak with a single voice when it has nothing to say, and it says nothing because it is held prisoner by an extreme and dangerous concept of its unity, it prevents the nations from expressing their views. this is a serious matter, particularly for france, which would have had, were it not bound by its european handcuffs, a voice of justice, a voice of peace and a voice heard by a large number of the world's countries. it is time for france - and i myself have been convinced of this for some years - to throw off this yoke and i do not doubt that it will do this, which is what the great majority of french people desire, in the years to come. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, commissioner, i do actually believe that the foreign ministers' meeting in valencia was a success, and, step by step, it is also becoming clear what significance the mediterranean region has for all of us - not only for those countries of the european union for whom the mediterranean forms a border, but also for those countries further away from it. the mediterranean region is important, enlargement is important, and all these things are in our common interest. we can see that if there is no genuine and peaceful development in the mediterranean region, it is to all our streets that the fire spreads. the attack carried out on djerba, which was aimed at tourists, shows us how close the flames have already got to our front doors. it is important, for this reason, that this dialogue should be engaged in on the basis of equality of rights. the dialogue is also cultural and not capable of being brought about by politics alone. we attach great significance to the creation of economic, social and political prospects for people in north africa, as these can bring the region stable development which will in future be democratic. that, indeed, is another reason why it is so important that the region should get speedy and effective help unhindered by bureaucracy. i am aware of commissioner patten's great exertions in recent years towards achieving improvements in this field, but now as much as then we are in a position in which money is spent and formal resolutions adopted, the effectiveness of which, however, leaves something to be desired. that implementation is inadequate is due both to difficulties on our side and to bureaucracy in the countries in question, and that must change. no success will be achieved across the mediterranean region as a whole for as long as there is still no resolution to the middle east conflict, which keeps bringing emotions to the boil and making the whole mediterranean problem difficult to resolve. the shuttle diplomacy currently going on there sometimes strikes me as ridiculous. mr powell and mr solana keep travelling there - on alternate weeks. mr president-in-office of the council, how about a council resolution to the effect that the next delegation would be sent, not to jerusalem, but to washington, in order to enforce the sending of a joint delegation to jerusalem and ramallah, with the russians and the united nations joining in? i believe this would make a real difference. on this issue, what commissioner patten has said in this house about joint efforts is precisely what needs to be said loud and clear. i know that there are major diplomatic reservations on one side or the other, but i do think that we have to get the idea accepted that only a joint effort with those arab states that are willing to try something can bring an end to the violence, giving the message that the end of the road has been reached. this is the only way to credibly guarantee security in the region, and it could also create the conditions for a measure such as a sort of marshall plan, for which we are prepared, to be effective. it is a vital prerequisite for further development that we get both states - israeli and palestinian - recognised by all their neighbours. in particular, we also need a solution to the refugee problem, so that people there can have new prospects and so that the refugee camps cease to be the epicentres of incessant new terrorism. that must be stopped. it is not acceptable to send them to israel and by this means to bring about change within israel; rather, the arabs must be prepared to offer the palestinian refugees a future in their countries. i believe that it is not just le pen's people, but also ourselves when we express differing viewpoints, who need to be reminded of the quotation from voltaire: 'your opinion is quite the opposite of my own, but i will defend to the death your right to say it.' mr president, a positive assessment of the valencia ministerial conference must be considered within the context of the tragic situation in the middle east. it was not obvious whether the conference could take place, whether the arab members of the barcelona process would agree to sit down with representatives of israel, whether the representative of the palestinian authority could attend, etc. we should not simply express our satisfaction with the results, but we should also try to explain the reasons for them, which to me are clear. firstly, the process has acquired its own logic, and there is an awareness of shared interests and a common destiny. some years after barcelona this seems absolutely clear. but i would like to stress the second reason, because the european union's external policy is so often criticised that we should sometimes stop and consider to what extent the success of the ministerial conference in valencia is due mainly to the perception our mediterranean partners have of that policy: their perception that our horror at the tragedy in the middle east is sincere, their perception that we have not backed away in the face of this problem, their perception that our position is not unilateral but coordinated, and finally their perception that we are not indulging in empty posturing in the face of the current problems. as commissioner patten said in a comment to the conference, which is not entirely original, but which is brilliant, the european union wants to be tough on terrorism but also on the causes of terrorism. we have earned interest on this policy and i am perfectly happy to congratulate mr solana, mr patten and many others on these good results, although i am not in favour - naturally - of personality cults. however, this satisfaction should not blind us to the great fragility of the barcelona process. poor people - and there are many in the mediterranean - always have enormous patience as long as two conditions are in place: the first is that they feel that next year is going to be a little better than this one or the last one, that the situation of their children is going to be better than that of their parents and that their grandchildren are going to go to university; the second condition is that they do not feel humiliated. these are the two basic challenges of the european union's mediterranean policy. barcelona, as mr piqu, president-in-office of the council, has said, has survived in valencia, but it will not survive unless we meet this twin challenge. i too have just returned from the jenin refugee camp, and it is impossible to capture in words the horror of what we have seen and heard over the past couple of days. a man had been attempting for four days to locate his brother under the rubble with his bare hands, while israel obstructed the bulldozers that were needed for this. a doctor was not allowed to attend to a bleeding man on the street until this man had bled to death. a palestinian family had been living in east jerusalem for fifty years and was evicted from their home on monday night in order to make room for israeli settlers. computers of the palestinian ministry of education were piled up by israeli soldiers and subsequently blown up with grenades. can someone tell me what these acts have to do with the fight against terrorism? the israeli government is not only fighting terrorism. sharon is maliciously destroying the palestinian infrastructure and, with it, palestine's hope, and people without any hope are driven to acts of despair. loathsome suicide attacks are then the end result. and this is how sharon himself contributes to israel's lack of security, which he claims he wants to promote. israel's security can only be guaranteed if we remove the causes of this despair: the colonisation and occupation. however, sharon has indicated he would like to build new settlements. how is this supposed to guarantee israel's security? finally, we are all shocked by the growth in anti-semitism in europe. we condemn this emphatically and call on governments to take vigorous action. however, it is unacceptable to do as mr perez does and instantly label everyone who levels criticism at israel as anti-semitic, and it is a very easy way out of addressing well-founded international criticism. mr president, like the last speaker, i was also in the jenin refugee camps yesterday. the horror we witnessed has been described by previous speakers. it is not just a question of jenin. the palestinians we spoke to told us that the situation was the same in nablus, in ramallah and in all the cities of the west bank. the horror is also political. the palestinian authority is completely destroyed. they destroyed the ministries, the schools, the infrastructures, the archives; everything. meanwhile, on the road from jerusalem to jenin - on which police vehicles, tanks and jeeps stopped us frequently - we saw colonies of foreigners who arrive on palestinian land, which looked like residential areas of paris, london or madrid, or any european capital. wealth next to misery. we saw that it is possible for a sovereign state to confine the president of the authority of a territory which has absolutely nothing to do with it, or a leader such as barghuti, or how helicopters and tanks carry out terrorism. in fact, there are terrorists who commit suicide out of desperation, but there are also terrorist helicopters. we witnessed this the day before yesterday. with this in mind, i can only express pessimism if there is no clear intervention by the international community and the un, the european union and the united states in particular. nothing can be done if the un resolutions are not truly applied. i am aware - like everybody - of the initial arab opposition to israel, but this is not the fundamental problem today. the problem is that sharon, and practically all the others, believe in their historical, moral, cultural and technological superiority. a religious minister who recently entered the government said that all the palestinians should be thrown into the sea and that those who stayed there would be like the turks in germany or the algerians in france. the progressives themselves do not really want a palestinian state. in the face of this situation, what can the bantustans do when they are divided by settlements of colonists, by roads which are only used by colonists and the army, and divided by the army itself, in an area which furthermore is small and would lack, for example, the gorgeous jordan valley? i believe that the palestinians are right - the president of the palestinian parliament, or the successor in jerusalem to the late hussein - when they express their desperation to us. for us the only solution is the intervention of the un and the european union in particular. they cannot sort things out amongst themselves because israel does not want a palestinian state, it does not conform to their ideology, that is the reality. i believe that we must be aware of this problem in order to resolve it. i do not believe that europe can feel guilty in this situation. many sources in the united states say that europe must not get involved given their previous experience. we are european citizens of the present, we cannot feel guilty and we cannot fall prey to the blackmail of anti-semitism: since we are in favour of a palestinian state, we are anti-semites. it is not a religious problem but a political problem: a state which is humiliating and destroying a population. the problem is the occupation and how to convince, how to impose a solution on israel and how to help palestine. that is the issue for the european union. mr president, i was also in jenin yesterday and i was amazed, as a doctor and a teacher in the faculty of medicine, as a professor, at the words of the director of the jenin hospital, when he expressed his regret that he could not attend to the wounded who were dying in the area around the hospital because tanks, machine guns and helicopters were preventing him from doing so. this is a tragedy, it has nothing to do with security. to terrorise a population is pure state terrorism. and i would therefore like to thank mr piqu who, when he rightly condemns the terrorism of the palestinian suicide bombers, also condemns just as roundly the terrorism of israel, because if we do not have yardsticks, our credibility could be called into question. i would like to point out that the cause of the failure of the peace process stems from the fact that it is not acceptable for one state to occupy another and establish colonies within it, as is happening at the moment. this reminds me of what happened when germany invaded france and it is completely unacceptable; this situation leads to a logical reaction against the occupying army, against the occupiers. anybody, any soul, would rebel on seeing the wealth of the colonies and the misery of the refugee camps. we must therefore immediately recognise the palestinian state and the fact that palestine, as a state, can put its claims to the international community. mr president, i too have just come back from jenin and, when commissioner patten says that 'israeli soldiers have sometimes shown a disregard' for human life, i have to say that i am very surprised to hear him use that terminology. there is no doubt that what we saw in jenin was a complete lack of respect for human life. bulldozers were sent in to raze houses to the ground and, to make certain that under no circumstances could anything living be found or a single body dug out, tanks were subsequently sent in so that there was little more than a broad road where the houses had been. if that is not a lack of respect for human life, i do not know what is. it is completely unknown how many dead there are under the rubble in jenin. the fact that there are dead bodies there can be smelt, however. there is a disgusting smell when one walks around the area, and a start can therefore be made on digging where the smell is worst. if it is not known how many bodies there are down there, it is because men and women were separated from each other. the men have still not been handed back to jenin, so it is not known how many are still prisoners of the israelis and how many are lying dead beneath the rubble. if we are to condemn the suicide bombers, as of course we must, we must condemn what has happened in jenin just as vigorously. we must not just demand that israel withdraw its troops. we must condemn its action and we must demand that the guilty be held responsible, with israel itself holding the soldiers who have committed these inhuman acts to account. there is no doubt at all as to how many civilians have been killed. we have the exact figures from human rights organisations. more than 2 000 civilians have been killed. we know how they have been killed: whether they have been killed in bombardments or whether they have been shot and, if so, where they have been shot. we know how many of them are children. we know how many of them are men and how many are women. we also know that a systematic destruction of the whole infrastructure is taking place in the palestinian areas. we know that there is now no registration of births or deaths. marriages are not being registered. there is no registration of criminals, yet at the same time it is said that president arafat should imprison the criminals. however, there are no longer any registers, for everything has been systematically destroyed. i would ask commissioner patten to withdraw his statement about guarantees that this must not happen again. following such completely systematic and very deliberate destruction, how in the world are we to expect to receive guarantees from israel to the effect that nothing like this will happen again? if we do not receive guarantees from israel, are we really to delay putting the whole of this structure in place, or not to put it in place at all? there is no doubt as to what is desired by israel or, rather, ariel sharon. i decline now to distinguish between the two, for it is of course ariel sharon that we are talking about. last week, he imprisoned a leader, marwan barghouti, who has been one of the main people behind the demand for peace. he is now being held in detention. in eight days, he has only spent one hour with his lawyer. he is being interrogated 21 hours at a time and is only allowed to sleep for three hours. he is my colleague. he is under the same immunity as myself. at the moment, however, he is being tortured in an israeli jail. it is a phase in the complete destruction of palestinian society, its infrastructure and leaders. let us tell it like it is. let us not make any assumptions. there is evidence enough. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, first of all, i would like to underline the fact that the general affairs council has behaved in a responsible manner by refusing to support parliament's recommendation for an outright suspension of the association agreement with israel. and furthermore, you, quite rightly, did not agree, mr president, to sending observers or a peacekeeping force without a negotiated political agreement. what sort of role could they perform in a situation which, quite clearly, does not involve two regular armies? any lack of coordination in the european union's behaviour can only undermine the supply of confidence that we must have when dealing with each party, if we wish to provide an effective contribution, when the time comes, to finding a lasting peace. the ideological gesticulation and passionate blindness leave open the diplomatic terrain, in other words, that of the genuine search for peace which will benefit the united states alone. mr president-in-office of the council, what you said this afternoon goes more or less in the right direction, there having been many detours, such as the ambiguous positions adopted by europe at the durban conference, our shambolic performance at the meeting of the united nations human rights commission, and parliament's biased resolution which sent out the wrong signal at the wrong time. your statement, mr president, was balanced. the council is asking for a withdrawal of israeli troops from the territories as well as an end to the attacks in israel. you have strongly condemned the suicide attacks, describing them as inexcusable and indicating that those who carried them out were not martyrs, but terrorists. the european union must be totally unambiguous, unequivocal and show no complacency on this point. in the coming weeks, the european union must also help to make the united nations investigation into the events in jenin impartial rather than a pretext for manipulations or excesses which will not help the cause of peace. with the prospect of establishing a palestinian state on the horizon, we must also help to convince the palestinian authority to abandon its twin-track approach and to start behaving in a fully responsible way. mr president, mr president-in-office of the council, commissioner, you have remained here to follow this marathon debate, and my thanks go to the council and the commission for their statements on the euro-mediterranean meeting and the situation in the middle east. we in parliament naturally wish to keep abreast of developments, and my own group supports all balanced attempts to achieve a state of peace in the middle east. simply to discuss this issue from one month or one week to the next, however, seems almost grotesque. we in parliament cannot influence the situation in any concrete way. we come here to speak to whoever happens to be listening, but do we then go away feeling pleased with ourselves, having done so? i hope we do not. it would appear that, just as the rescue and clearance work at the world trade centre finally reached 'ground zero' level, relations between the israelis and the palestinians are also at ground zero. an optimist would say, and i am one, that from here on things can and must get better. commissioner patten also suggested he hoped this was the case. it seems clear that only through the joint efforts of what has been called the 'quartet' - the united nations, the european union, the united states of america and russia - can progress be made. solo endeavours, whether those of colin powell or the high representative for the cfsp, javier solana, who are both held in high regard, do not produce results. one of the parties in the dispute always suspects the other of being biased. when a mission that seems as clear as the one secretary-general kofi annan sent president martti ahtisaari on to investigate the devastation at jenin and the number of human casualties there meets with suspicion on the part of the other party, we really are at ground zero point. president ahtisaari, who i know well, could hardly be accused of prejudice. the international community must unite to achieve the only possible solution: the palestinians must have their own unified state, whose entire area they have complete sovereignty over, and not just the whole of the land area but also the waters that surround it and the airspace above it. the israelis must be given an unconditional assurance that their children, their old people, and mothers and fathers can travel in absolute safety within the territory of their own state without the threat of continued, devious, terrorist bomb attacks. only this can be the basis of a constructive common existence built on mutual respect. mr president, i do not believe in sanctions - pressure should suffice - but unless constructive, genuine and goal-conscious talks get under way soon and furthermore lead to a result there will definitely be a feeling of dj vu. how long and how pointless were the talks in the former yugoslavia before sanctions were imposed? mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to begin by congratulating the spanish presidency and, in particular, mr piqu on all their efforts to bring the valencia conference, whose results i do not underestimate, to a successful conclusion. i also congratulate commissioner chris patten on the intelligence, impartiality and astuteness of his intervention. my question is a simple one and is addressed to mr piqu: do you believe - having heard commissioner patten state that the middle east is in flames, which is indeed the case - that the barcelona process can withstand the conflict in the middle east? in implementing his reprehensible policy, mr sharon has demonstrated that he does not respect the resolutions of the european union, those of the united nations or even the recommendations of president bush. he does not take them seriously! i wish to ask: are we going to continue to churn out the fine words, the stirring speeches and the impressive-sounding votes, which we know are not really having any effect, when we have within our grasp the means to force mr sharon to change policy? why is the resolution, which was approved by a large majority by the european parliament, to suspend the association agreement between the european union and israel not being implemented? why is no serious initiative being adopted under the auspices of the un, to impose a peacekeeping force on israel? as a long-standing friend of israel, it pains me to have to say that mr sharon is irredeemably tainting israel's honour and is putting his country in a morally indefensible position and in a greater situation of international isolation than ever before. mr president, i am also just back from the jenin visit and i share the distress of breaches of human rights law by both sides. we must ceaselessly remind mr arafat that suicide bombings are not only morally repugnant but also that they stop us helping him to get a palestinian state. they play into ariel sharon's hands. the majority in this parliament called two weeks ago for a suspension of the eu-israel association agreement. i support an arms embargo but not sanctions, and i am even more convinced on my return that, while it may satisfy our desire to be seen to be doing something, this is a potential dead end. presumably, they are meant to work through the israeli public, feeling the painful bite of loss of exports and jobs, pressurising the sharon government to stop its crazy policies. but in commissioner patten's interview in herat on monday, it was indicated that brussels was frustrated that the israelis did not seem to appreciate the eu link. they regard us with distrust, rightly or wrongly. while palestinians see themselves in a struggle for national liberation from oppressive israeli occupation, 75 percent of israelis see themselves as the principal victims, struggling for national survival. i am not commenting on the justification for these two narratives, but how can it help to cut off, as two british professors have urged, academic and intellectual exchanges? these are channels through which we europeans could convey our experience of using mutual respect to overcome hatreds, helping israelis and palestinians strengthen their dialogue. how would it help to stop funding human rights ngos in israel? if we suspend the association agreement, we will merely reinforce the israeli perception of a perfidious europe. what will our exit strategy from trade sanctions be? what conditions would need to be satisfied to restore the association agreement? i have not heard anyone explain how that will work. it is much better, in my view, to focus on a different paragraph in our resolution: the need for an international force in palestine. if our objective is to be effective in achieving a palestinian state as soon as possible, and establishing peace and justice in the region, we should exert all our diplomatic efforts in that direction and not in suspending the chance for dialogue that we have. mr president, i would first like to thank the members who have visited the region recently and brought their first-hand experiences back to us here today. like many other members of the house, in the last few weeks i have met representatives from the middle east who have come here to appeal for our help. like mrs morgantini last week, i had the privilege of meeting very brave and very inspirational israeli and palestinian women who are working together for peace - peace between equals as they see it. they explained to us very vividly way just how desperate the situation is. the work that the palestinians have done in building up the very basics of a state over the past 10 years is systematically being destroyed. most of the women worked for ngos and their files, computers and property had been destroyed so they could no longer continue their work. there have been many resolutions and conferences. they are all essential and there will be many more, but these women did not see the intervention needed to stop further bloodshed. they were calling for a peacekeeping force to protect the people and i believe that we should support that call. a policy of force can never get rid of the levels of desperation and despair that lead to further acts of violence. there must be a just and peaceful solution for the long term, as well as a swift response to stop any further killing now. we must ensure that we keep up the pressure at all levels, in every way we can, to get that lasting peace. mr president, numerous speakers have protested about mr le pen's presence here during the debate on the middle east. unfortunately, it is not just our economic and social policies; it is also our policy in the middle east that feeds this sort of extremism. we all know what ideas movements such as the national front harbour. they harbour ideas of national splendour. which is only natural when our people see europe as the lackey of the united states, blind, deaf and dumb to the genocide of the palestinians, and turn their back on established political forces, charmed by the magic flute of past national splendours. they harbour anti-semitic ideas. which is only natural when europe allows jenin to become a latter-day warsaw ghetto, when - in a europe with the blood of the jews on its hands - voices can again be heard saying 'the jews are to blame' and forces have started fishing in the murky waters of anti-semitism. they harbour xenophobic ideas. which is only natural when, instead of letting these islamic and arab countries move towards secure regimes and enjoy social cohesion and birth control, we throw them into the conflagration of the middle east. and what will the upshot be? will it be less immigration, fewer maghreb nationals and fewer opportunities for certain parties to talk of xenophobia? i should like to close, mr president, by saying that we have a duty to intervene at once in the middle east in order to protect the palestinians, in order to protect israel from anti-semitism and in order to protect the very future of democracy in europe. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner patten has once again, and impressively, set out a convincing position by the european union on the conflict in the middle east, and i want to make some comments on it. i want to preface them by saying that i feel a sense of obligation to israel, both to its people and to the state itself. that being understood, i want to ask my israeli friends this: what will you have achieved if, as you are expected to do shortly, you withdraw your tanks from the palestinian territories after killing many palestinians, suspected assassins, murderers and potential murderers, after having destroyed many homes and schools, and wrecked the structure of the palestinian authority? has that brought you even one millimetre closer to peace and security? or is it not rather to be feared that your actions have begotten new hatred a thousand times over, a hatred that will explode at the next opportunity, be it in the middle east or perhaps even here in europe? i also want that question addressed to us ourselves, however. have we really done enough to give us the right to make all the self-righteous demands of israel that we hear in this house? did those who went to jenin also go to jaffa, to meet the people who, at the feast of passover, lost members of their families in the cruellest of ways when a bomb reduced everything to blood and broken bits? is it not the case that israel had already, and for many years, been a victim of palestinian terrorism, long before ariel sharon had his crazy idea of marching onto temple mount as a provocation? was what we did on such occasions enough? is what we always do on such occasions enough? adopting an urgent motion condemning terrorism whilst well aware that not one palestinian would, even for a second, consider himself bound by it? have we, then, done enough in this situation? is it not the case that arafat was never willing - and was probably not even in a position - to put a stop to terrorism? how do we justify the way we make substantial amounts of money available to the palestinian authority on a monthly basis? do you know what happens to this money, commissioner schreyer? have you ever checked up on it? can you give parliament evidence of it? how has the commission responded to the documents that provide evidence to justify the suspicion that arafat himself is involved in the financing of terrorism? last week, a major german newspaper carried a report on a bloody terrorist attack in jerusalem four years ago - long before the second intifada - which cost many innocent people their lives or their health. it describes how the pictures of the terrorists of that time are venerated in palestinian schools as the images of heroes. have we really done enough to contain the terrorism that is striking israel now, as it has done for years? that is why i do not believe that it is enough to demand that the israelis withdraw. there is no doubt that they have to do that, but that alone will not secure peace. it is not enough to condemn palestinian terrorism while doing nothing more than deliver declarations on paper. there are many indications that the parties will not be in a position to free themselves from their mutual hatred, and that an international force will have to be deployed there. the european union, too, must be an advocate for that. mr president, first a word about the distasteful scenes that have unfolded this week. i am referring to the utterly despicable attacks on jewish synagogues and citizens in europe under the pretext of the middle east conflict. the authorities should warn public opinion most emphatically and must take a tough stance against the perpetrators. however, this also applies to verbal, xenophobic attacks by the extreme right in europe on migrant fellow citizens. the exploitation of fear and turning others into scapegoats is, as we have seen in the previous century, a cancerous growth in our society. only by building a future step-by-step and by joining forces, with due respect for everyone, irrespective of creed or race, can viable prospects emerge. this applies to europe and the middle east alike. the announcement that mr solana and mr moretinos are on their way to meet mr sharon and mr arafat is hopefully a minor breakthrough. it is high time that europe acted in a more united manner and more effectively than it has done so far. the european parliament has asked for maximum pressure to be exerted, for a suspension of the association agreement and for a willingness, in the event of a ceasefire, to contribute immediately to the monitoring and intervention force which would help develop the palestinian authority and help separate the warring factions. the pressing question is: at the level of the european council, have the necessary preparations been made, as stipulated in the association agreement, to convene the council to discuss the violations of that agreement with israel? has the council started the internal preparations for a contribution to the un's monitoring and intervention force, or have the words still not been backed up by action? at the risk of labouring the obvious, this is not about europe versus the us. we need each other, as well as russia and the arab countries, in order to reach a genuine prospect of peace. as yossi beilin, the architect of the oslo agreements which now seem to have been destroyed by sharon, told me this week: 'a ceasefire and an international peace force only make sense if the parties are forced to actually work on a political solution and to negotiate.' we are both of the opinion that all the necessary ingredients are there. it may be true that in the darkest hour, when things are at their worst, mutual bloodshed seems to go on forever and extreme strategies appear to be never-ending, only serious negotiations can offer a true way out. the pressure exerted by a self-aware, strong and united europe would serve this purpose. this is the best and most credible way of getting the united states on our side and making a contribution to an effective second madrid summit. mr president, minister, we all feel a great deal of sorrow and frustration at what is happening in the middle east. the violence and the killing must stop. together with the united states, the eu can play an important role in the process of achieving a ceasefire, together with peace and reconciliation. europe's decision-makers must be able to create a broadly based confidence in the eu as a partner in the middle east. that is not the situation at present, my friends. up until now, a balanced approach has been demanded, able to resolve conflicts and create a climate for coexistence, not a climate of isolation or exclusion for any party. today, more and more people, especially in this house, are talking about trade sanctions. are trade sanctions against israel, and thus indirectly against palestine too, really the best way of preparing the way for peace? is isolating israel a fruitful path to go down if the eu is to be able to acquire a more significant role in the region? i do not think so. i also want to say that the comparison which mr gahrton has just made between israel and the policy of apartheid in south africa is appalling. experience of previous international sanctions should give pause for reflection. look at cuba. look at iraq. have castro and saddam hussein been weakened? hardly. who is it who have to suffer? it is not ariel sharon. instead, it is the farm workers and orchard labourers who cultivate fruit and wine. i have a few direct questions for you, minister. i have heard that, at the last council meeting in luxembourg, the swedish foreign minister talked in terms of the eu's needing to prepare itself for introducing trade sanctions against israel. is this information correct? which countries can conceive of trade sanctions as a method? i have also received information to suggest that the swedish government is preparing to introduce trade sanctions. is the same thing happening in other countries? finally, minister, i want to ask what you personally think about trade sanctions and threats to isolate israel. is that a path which you personally believe the eu should go down? you said that all alternatives are open? what do you mean by that? do you mean that you too are prepared to isolate israel? mr president, i agree with most of the statements that have been made today and, therefore, if you do not mind, i shall not repeat them. instead, i shall focus on other aspects of euro-mediterranean cooperation, which is of such great importance. the adoption of the action plan between the european union and the twelve states bordering the mediterranean is a step forwards in the much-needed creation of a mediterranean free trade area, which i would call a genuine form of discreet enlargement towards the south. in formalising this project, we must ensure that criteria of sustainability and ecological, economic and social benefit for both sides of the mediterranean are taken into account in sectors such as agriculture. in this process it is a matter of priority to foster mutual knowledge and cultural ties between peoples. we saw that the first action to be taken when the tanks entered the refugee camps was to ban the media. for this reason, we must promote joint projects such as a euro-mediterranean television service that would maintain stations in all the states bordering the mediterranean, and which would broadcast in all of the region's languages and provide live transparency for this action plan and others. ladies and gentlemen, let us learn the lesson of what happened in jenin. we must prevent any repetition of these episodes and be prepared to address and resolve issues as explosive as this one - or as in the case of the western sahara, to which no one in this chamber has referred - and which are extremely important to the creation of an arab maghreb union. mr president, here we are, taking part in the umpteenth debate on the situation in the middle east; in actual fact, we are witnessing the european union's impotence. at valencia, we attempted, at last, to give a sign that the union is present, to make it clear that it is now time for action, that the time has passed for argument and declarations. europe should be making increasing efforts to bring peace to the middle east, but so far it has failed in its task. the middle east crisis is in danger of sparking off localised crises throughout the mediterranean area and of breeding further terrorism, not least by providing conditions conducive to the recruitment of terrorists. therefore, europe must certainly adopt a position which gives it a strong, an increasingly strong, presence but which is also a position of neutrality between the two parties in conflict. i did not support the outcome of parliament's vote on the resolution in strasbourg, for it was weighted against israel rather than adopting a position of neutrality between the parties. the palestinians have the right to an independent state but israel's right to security must be recognised too. mr arafat must stop the suicide bombers, who are all too often children, and mr sharon must withdraw his troops from the occupied territories with due regard for human rights. what path, then, can we follow to give europe a major role? first of all, we must set up a negotiating table involving the european union, of course, the united states, russia, the arab league, the palestinian authority and israel. italy has declared its willingness to host a peace conference. then, we must immediately set in motion a humanitarian aid programme and food aid for the palestinian people and, clearly, even if israel is against the idea, start to think seriously about sending an intervention force to separate the two parties in conflict until the situation has calmed down. lastly, we must set in motion a marshall plan for the reconstruction of infrastructures in the tragically war-torn palestinian territory. we must prevent the middle east crisis from sparking off a fresh wave of anti-semitism in europe. our - quite legitimate - criticism of israel must not - must never - cause us to overlook the attacks perpetrated in our union on jewish synagogues and cemeteries. in this context, we must remember what happened at the cemetery in strasbourg. woe betide us if we jeopardise the freedom of religious expression of our fellow citizens of the jewish religion! that is why it is important not to leave room in politics for the extremist movements which raise their heads every now and again, as has happened in france and in germany. that is why we must all genuinely strive to build a new europe with a single foreign and security policy, an influential europe which is the europe of inclusiveness and subsidiarity. this europe will win through, for the european citizens are on our side, on the side of peace and tolerance. mr president, i want to welcome commissioner patten's statement today. it was a model statement which was at once calm and rational and strong and balanced, outlining the situation as it exists and the steps that are necessary on all sides to create a sustainable peace in the region. i am puzzled by the council's excessive caution. i say 'excessive' caution. i am not arguing against caution, but the council expressed views today which were not balanced. i have also been to jenin and seen the destruction there, the destruction of homes and of people's lives, the burying of people in the rubble of their own homes. i would like to suggest one practical thing here today. what we were asked for was heavy equipment to enable the people in jenin to dig out the bodies that are still there. there was no heavy equipment when we were there yesterday. i appeal for urgent aid in that regard. we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to avoid extreme language and extreme solutions. we need to demonstrate that the sharon extremism will not bring security to the israeli state, nor will palestinian suicide bombers bring a palestinian state into existence. only through slow and painful negotiations with compromises can that occur, only then can the israelis and palestinians be secure in their own states. i met with ambassadors in tel aviv, moved on to jerusalem to meet israeli peace groups and then on to jenin to talk to the residents there. the objective of the sharon government at this point in time is the destruction of any possibility of a palestinian state. i have no doubt about that at all. europe, therefore, must bring pressure to bear on sharon and his government to see that this is not a viable option for israel. in conclusion, the most important and effective weapon we have is the association agreement. what we are calling for is the suspension of that agreement, not a suspension of all contact with israel, but a suspension of the preferential arrangements that europe has with israel so that at least it will begin to recognise that we are prepared to take action. it is a moderate approach which can be stepped up or cancelled when progress is made by israel in withdrawing her troops from the palestinian area, giving free access to humanitarian aid and free access to the united nations mission in jenin and elsewhere. there are many other conditions we could perhaps apply. there is no problem about an exit strategy. we simply state what our conditions are and what is necessary in order to begin talks under the quartet based on oslo. mr president, as a spanish member of this parliament, as a valencian and as a member of the european people's party, i shall not take too long to say that i consider the valencia summit to have been a success. i do wish to reiterate what other members of this house have said, however. i consider it to be a success that the summit took place in such difficult circumstances; it is a success that it was attended by twenty-five of the twenty-seven members who were invited; it was a success that a joint action plan was agreed on by consensus and i consider it to have been a success that a conclusion was reached - explained better than i can by commissioner patten: in order to speed up the barcelona process, the peace process in the middle east must be speeded up but there will be no stable peace in the middle east unless it is achieved within a framework of stability, development and cooperation such as the framework put forward in barcelona. having said this, i am not going to repeat any of the solutions that have been put forward for the middle east. there clearly needs to be an end to the killings that we have condemned here so rigorously and with such sadness, and political dialogue must be re-established on the basis of international law. the president-in-office of the council has referred to all the statements detailing how this needs to be undertaken, from the madrid conference or the oslo process to the united nations resolutions. what is hard to explain to our voters, to the media or to our visitors is how the european union, which is israel's largest trading partner and the main donor to the palestinian authority, is unable to do any more than it is currently doing. i agree that it was very positive that our positions were reaffirmed in valencia. i also agree that our mission to the middle east is a success, particularly because it is repairing the damage suffered by the previous mission but, i repeat, we will have to explain to our voters what we are going to do, how we are going to do it and when we are going to do it, as long as it is soon. with regard to the barcelona process, the action plan starts by acknowledging that what is needed is literally 'momentum', which simply means accepting that the 1995 barcelona process has made slower progress than originally expected and, of course, much slower progress than the needs we have been discussing here require, when we talk about the mediterranean as a strategic border, when we talk about the 45 million new jobs that must be created on the southern shore of the mediterranean in order to maintain current levels of unemployment. i repeat that in valencia it was acknowledged that there is a gap - actually an enormous distance - between what we want to achieve, that is, what is needed, and what we are going to do. i welcome the fact that the fight against terrorism and the fight against drugs were discussed. i welcome the fact that the idea of establishing a free trade area by 2010 was reaffirmed, but i wish to emphasise that in order for there to be a free trade area, there must be goods to trade. we therefore need to be more effective and more flexible in our approach to the meda plan, in economic cooperation, and to be less hesitant about setting up the euro-mediterranean bank. does this parliament want such a bank? do our partners in the southern mediterranean want this? do certain members of the council? the spanish presidency wants it, of course; let us also convince everyone else that it is much needed. to conclude, mr president, i wish to emphasise that a foundation working for multicultural dialogue is absolutely crucial. it is impossible, however, to create a foundation without financial support. without financial support there can be neither a foundation nor spiritual exercises, however modest they may be. mr president, i took part in the work at valencia and would like to draw your attention and the attention of this house to a couple of - strong - impressions i received there: firstly, confirmation that there cannot be a future of peace and stability, prosperity and economic growth in europe if the mediterranean area continues to experience the present conflict; secondly, i do not want to go against the general feeling but, for the first time, i had the impression, which was subsequently confirmed during the bilateral meetings, that the arab world and the southern shore of the mediterranean see europe and the european union as the only interlocutor that can possibly help them with their problems, the only interlocutor that can live alongside their problems and resolve them. in this, i must congratulate mr piqu, who directed all the meetings and troikas with truly rare neutrality and balance, given the difficulties of the political situation. what are we, as the european union, going to propose? we must propose a path which we all unequivocally support; we must propose reinvigoration of the barcelona process, striving to bring about lasting change; we must propose a parliamentary assembly to monitor the initiatives undertaken; we must propose a new dialogue between the two shores of the mediterranean and further consolidate it with regard to humanitarian issues, justice and combating terrorism. moreover, there is a need for our proposals to be implemented practically without delay. the creation of the bank, relations of closer cooperation and association relations are all tangible projects which show the european union to be the ideal partner for the other shore of the mediterranean. the peace process and the current conflict between israel and the palestinian world are threats to these projects. however, if, as the european union, we do not have the courage to dare to go further, using all the means available to us and taking advantage of the hopes that are placed in us, then we will in all probability waste an opportunity that is historic, not least in terms of the european project which is in the minds and hearts of many of us and which is taking shape in the convention. as regards practical action, i am taking up the call made again this morning by the supreme pontiff. i and mr mario mauro are following the developments of the conflict in the holy places of jesus' birth through direct contact with fr. giacomo bini, the minister general of the order of friars minor. well then, the situation will soon be beyond humanitarian aid. the monks and sisters who live in the religious community of bethlehem cannot be considered hostages. it is a symbolic fact of extreme importance: the attention of the whole world is focused on what is happening in the place where jesus christ, the bearer of peace to all men, was born. millions of men and women are awaiting an intervention that will defeat the designs and actions of death. we call upon parliament, upon you, mr president, upon the commission, upon the president-in-office of the council and upon mr piqu, the minister for foreign affairs, to take practical action to bring this affair nearer to a conclusion. i feel that it would be a genuine sign of hope and a promise of stability for the future of this tragically war-torn holy land. mr president, i welcome both commissioner patten's contribution to this debate and kofi annan's decision to send a fact-finding team to ascertain exactly what happened during the israeli bombardment of jenin refugee camp. i am, however, somewhat concerned at the motivation underlying attempts by israel to delay the investigation. israel claims that its invasion of jenin and other areas was an attempt to destroy the palestinian terrorist infrastructure. however, serious allegations have been made that the israeli defence forces were involved in extra-judicial executions and the use of human shields. if these prove to be true, then israel itself and its army are as guilty of acts of terrorism as those who plan, support and carry out suicide bombings. when he was defence minister, ariel sharon masterminded the 'operation peace for galilee? invasion in 1982. his objective then he claimed was: 'to eradicate the palestinian terrorist threat in lebanon?. this resulted in the massacre of 800 palestinians in the sabra and shatila refugee camps. a subsequent israeli commission of enquiry concluded that he bore responsibility, as they put it ' having disregarded the danger of acts of vengeance? are we seeing history repeat itself? mr sharon must take personal responsibility for what has happened in jenin and elsewhere on the west bank. it is a consequence of his policies, his prejudices and his hatred of yasser arafat. if the un team concludes that war crimes have indeed occurred, then the international community must take action including referring the matter to the international war crimes tribunal. mr sharon does a grave disservice to the people of israel. single-handedly he has caused his country's political isolation. furthermore, he has fed the hatreds that have resulted in the escalation of anti-semitic activity which i deplore. he humiliated the us government during colin powell's recent visit to the middle east. perhaps, however, this will have a positive effect and lead to a reassessment of us policy in this area and encourage them to abandon their one sided approach of unequivocal support for israel and instead to work with the eu and others for a balanced, peaceful resolution to this terrible conflict which has already cost too many lives. mr president, almost all ordinary citizens of israel wish to live in peace in their own country. they wish to have a country with secure borders and normal diplomatic relations with all its arab neighbours. how can we help extinguish the fire that has devastated palestine and reduced the people to a life of humiliation, fear and deprivation of the basic amenities of life? jewish people, muslims and christian palestinians worked and lived together for centuries before israel was established. the jewish people dreamt about their own country and they got it, and rightly so. the palestinians, both muslims and christians, dream and wish to have their country as well and they will not rest until they have a secure and viable state based on a just and fair settlement. how can the eu help? let us stop being polite and politically correct. to my delight today is the first time in my two and a half years as an mep that i have heard members of this house address this topic with such confidence. we have been gagged for all this time. let us spell out what is needed for such a fair and just settlement; things that we all believe in but are too afraid to say. firstly, israel must have the right to exist with a secure border and it must be fully recognised as a state by all its neighbours. secondly, israel must respect international law and its own national laws, as well un security council resolutions. thirdly, israel must accept neutral international observers under un sponsorship to facilitate a ceasefire. ordinary people, jews, muslims and christians, are fed up with their politicians. they want peace now. let us help them with courage and confidence and say clearly what most of us privately believe, that for palestine to be a viable state, to allow that state to take back the millions of refugees, there is only one border and that is the border as it was before 1967. that is what israel has to pull back to. until that happens there will be no peace in the middle east and that brings the terror, fear and difficulties that we now see in the european union. it is time that we spelt out the way it should be. mr president and the council, two weeks ago, the joint resolution on the situation in the middle east tabled by the group of the party of european socialists, the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party, the group of the greens/european free alliance and the confederal group of the european united left/nordic green left was voted through by a narrow margin here in the european parliament. we in the christian democratic group of the european people's party and european democrats voted against. the truth is the only way to genuine peace, reconciliation and coexistence. those who tabled the resolution chose to criticise the state of israel on twelve occasions, but the palestinians and the palestinian authority on only three occasions. neither hamas nor islamic jihad, labelled as terrorist organisations by the united states and the eu, were mentioned or criticised in the european parliament's resolution. nor was there any mention of the groups designated as terrorists by the united states, namely hezbollah and the al-aqsa brigades. the last-named group constitutes the military wing of yasser arafat's fatah movement and is responsible for the suicide bombing in jerusalem on 12 april in which six israeli civilians were killed. only three speakers made any specific mention at all of these terrorist groups during the two-hour plenary debate in strasbourg on 10 april. nonetheless, everyone knows that these men associated with violence and suicide bombings - these people who are happy to see sons or daughters sent to kill other people and who receive money from iraq for the purpose - are not at all prepared to recognise the state of israel's right to exist in the area. i say to the president and to the spanish presidency that these terrorist groups are a part of everyday life in the middle east. how are we to deal with their existence? the ppe-de group chose to vote against last time because we feel that the eu and the european parliament are becoming less and less relevant to the parties. the debate in this house reveals a type of one-sidedness which means that we are not taken seriously by either party to this deeply tragic and bloody conflict. the time should be past when the european parliament adopts politically lightweight resolutions simply in order to achieve what, from an objective point of view, is an impossible consensus across the whole political spectrum, from left-wing socialists and communists by way of social democrats to green liberals and christian democrats, eurosceptics and members of the radical right. the time has come for the eu to become relevant to both parties in the middle east. mr president, i should like to say firstly that i feel very proud to be working in this parliament and to see how, at the valencia ministerial conference everything that we have been told corresponds to a position of agreement on cooperation, to which other countries are signing up. i believe that it is a strong europe, a europe of the future, that is achieving this, and i believe that institutional cooperation and cooperation between other countries are aspects that should be highlighted. with regard to the euro-mediterranean conference, i should like to furthermore offer my congratulations on the excellent idea of introducing - or of trying to introduce - solutions on a mediterranean scale. one of the failings of the meda plan, one of the causes of the delay in incorporating the countries of the mediterranean into european policy, or into the offer that we are making, is the need for these to be accepted according to their own logic, to their own scale and with a new sensitivity and a new way of addressing problems. along the same lines, i should like to also express my satisfaction that culture, tourism, education, integration between peoples and dialogue were addressed as issues of the utmost priority. in my view, to culture, education, tourism and cultural dialogue we can add sustainable development and globalisation, the benefits of which also have an effect in the country that provides these and i think that this is an example of successful coexistence between a world that is in the process of modernising itself and a world that still needs to become part of the change, but which has a great history of its own. as vice-chairman of the delegation for relations with israel, i should also like to say something about the conflict in the middle east: our position - my position - is quite clear and we have stated it in other forums. we have now reached a time when institutional positions must be adopted. it is true that we can all express our regret - and i do so now - at palestinian terrorism, at the disproportionate response of israel, and at the intolerable situation that currently exists. furthermore we, with a european sensitivity and with our history of peace and democracy and our rules of the game, cannot accept that humanitarian assistance is not being provided and we must call for this loud and clear. this is not the time, however, for the members of this house or even the delegations or the groups, to make statements in isolation. this is the time to strengthen european cohesion, to help europe to develop a single vision, an institutional position of the presidency, the council, the commission and parliament, because we are deciding on the future of an entire region and the problem does not just concern the present, but also the future. therefore, i now clearly state my support for peace, but for a peace that must be accompanied with very clear and solid positions, on which we are all united, not at a personal or emotional level, but for the sake of reaching an objective, consistent and lasting solution, and in which we bear in mind that our obligation is to ensure that there is peace, but also to look after the future and to look after this mediterranean area. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i have to say that there are certain specific weapons available for preventing the situation in the middle east from continuing to deteriorate and even, on the contrary, improving it: the weapon of diplomacy, which has been tried, which has been tested, but which is no longer accorded sufficient respect because diplomacy often gives way before the clash of military weapons. the other major weapon which is, on the other hand, effective and non-violent - the weapon of the law of the economy, of aid to developing countries, of aid to the poorest communities - has certainly not been used enough, and this is because it has even, on some occasions, been rejected in the dialogue between the countries who were to receive assistance and the assisting countries. the response from this house must clearly, once again, be 'no' to weapons and 'no' to suicide bomb attacks, but also 'no' to tanks and 'no' to retaliation. well then, what is the formula on which peace in the region should be based? once again, it is a formula as old as the hills. governments acting cooperatively within the framework of shared institutions and governments acting individually. the italian government has developed a plan, a proposal for economic aid - a sort of marshall plan as it has been called, with good reason in my opinion, although there has been criticism of this - to the poorest country, palestine. this is an important weapon which has not been used at all in recent years, although many states set aside considerable sums to help the peoples of the middle east who were in most need of such assistance. what do i find most disturbing? i think it is the conditions of degradation in which countless young people live in the refugee camps in palestine from the moment they are born to the age at which they can start work. these camps are extremely dangerous breeding grounds. in my opinion, certain arab governments have failed to give their brothers sufficient help: on the contrary, they have done nothing but incite them and tolerated movements within these countries which have led to the consequences we have witnessed recently. mention must be made of the united nations, which has certainly played a role which has been exhausting, not least, and important but inadequate and, in any case, ineffective; an intervention force was needed and it has been called for on many occasions. in my opinion, reasoning, experience and history teach us how an intervention force can be employed effectively in this modern age, and yet no such force has been deployed. what initiative can europe, the european union, pursue? it can reinforce the thrust of the un initiatives, particularly the initiative to establish what could be an intervention force separating the two opposing nations. mr president, i share your deep concern at the upsurge in violence which has taken place in the middle east in recent weeks, because both sides appear to have locked themselves into a downward spiral which leaves little room for dialogue and progress towards a final settlement. the only possible solution is one based on un resolutions 242, 338, 1397 and 1402, involving the acceptance of a two-state solution which will give security to the state of israel and dignity to the palestinians. this will involve an eventual total withdrawal from the occupied territories and a dismantling of all the illegal settlements. we should not, however, lose sight of the fact that there is a huge convergence of international opinion as violence increases, which we need to build on. it must also be made clear that the right of return for palestinians can only apply to the new state of palestine, as otherwise the jewish state of israel's, security would be compromised. compensation, however, will need to be considered for those whose properties were expropriated as a necessary prelude to a resumption of meaningful negotiations over a final political settlement. on the one hand, tragically, we have suicide bombers engaged in indiscriminate attacks upon israeli civilians and, on the other hand, there is a tragic civilian loss of life on the palestinian side, when israel sends in its troops to root out those responsible. i did not support the call for an immediate suspension of the eu-israel association agreement as i felt this move to be too punitive and selective at this juncture. i did, however, agree to call for an emergency eu-israel association council meeting to discuss the crisis. in particular, i felt, along with many of my colleagues, that the palestinian authority, which receives eur 120 million a year from the eu, should have done more to restrain the suicide bombers and islamic terrorists. i call upon chairman arafat to condemn, regularly and in arabic, the terrorist attacks, and recognise israel's right to exist in peace behind its 1967 borders. at the same time, i call upon the likud party to remove all references in its manifesto to its claims that the west bank is an integral and perpetual part of the state of israel. nevertheless, i am concerned at the excessive use of force by the army, the disregard of the fourth geneva convention on the application of collective punishments to civilians and the ban on ambulance passage into israel proper which affected wounded civilians, as well as fighters and terrorists, and which, i was glad to see, was lifted the following day. i believe that with the two-state solution the international community has now established the basis for a lasting and durable peace. we must all now seize upon this opportunity from the international community to implement this before we have a major middle-eastern war on our hands. mr president, i am a friend of israel and i am proud to be so. i am also a candid friend of israel. those are two words: 'candid' and 'friend'; so let me be a candid friend to israel first of all. yes, israel must accept that there has to be a palestinian state in secure borders. yes, israel must withdraw from the territories which it has occupied these past few weeks. yes, israel must allow the investigation of what happened in jenin to take place, provided that investigation is fair and balanced and takes a view which is objective to all sides. yes, i say to the state of israel that i am not entirely convinced that the action which it has taken these past few weeks will succeed in the object which it sets itself, because i fear it may have created more people who want to engage in suicide missions. so there i am, the candid friend to the state of israel. but as a friend of israel, i am also entitled in this parliament to speak up for it. i say to this house that it has to understand that what israel has suffered these past months, the murder of 418 innocent men, women and children, is almost too much for any democratic state to have to bear. what is israel expected to do about that almost daily assault on its innocent citizens? what is israel expected to do when it is surrounded by countries who do not even, to this day, accept its right to exist? i support the saudi peace plan, but it is a shocking comment that it has taken nearly 53 years for some arab states to come forward with a plan which actually recognises the state of israel. israel, too, must face a situation with yasser arafat, where he not only does nothing to prevent the terrorist actions taking place, but there is the strongest possible evidence that he is actually complicit in what has happened. that is unacceptable in a partner with whom any state, any government is expected to negotiate. i say to this parliament that after the events of september 11, we took a view in the civilised world that terrorism was indivisible. yes, people had rights, but terrorism was unacceptable, there was no such thing as a good terrorist. we must keep that proposal solid, because if we fail, if we say terrorism is ok if it is in the middle east, but not if it is in the united states or europe, then we are making a mistake for which we will suffer. the way towards peace and the way for europe to contribute towards peace is to use its influence in the area, particularly on the palestinians, and to say to them, yes, there should be a palestinian state, yes, there should be a state of israel, but both must have security throughout the years to come. mr president, i should like to thank all those who have spoken for their opinions and their contributions which mean that i do not now have to speak for too long myself, since all possible arguments from all points of view have been put forward, and i must say that many of them, furthermore, were made in a similar vein and in almost identical words. i repeat, then, that i wish to thank all the speakers and i should now like to focus my answer on two aspects: the first is the potential relationship between the barcelona process and the situation in the middle east. despite the gravity of the current situation, peace will one day be achieved in the middle east, and since this is the case - and we all hope that peace will be achieved sooner rather than later - the barcelona process will prove its full potential and effectiveness and at that moment, furthermore, it will prove that it is more necessary than ever. a stable peace can only be achieved on the basis of prosperity, cooperation, economic integration, mobility between the peoples concerned, the exchange of ideas, exchanges between educational systems, the exchange of peoples, and all that the barcelona process entails, in its political, economic, cultural and social aspects, is, therefore, of extreme importance in this regard. consequently, i deduce from today's debate that we all agree on the need to persevere with the will that we demonstrated in valencia to revitalise the barcelona process. with regard to the second issue i wish to address, which is specific to the situation in the middle east, many of the honourable members have mentioned the policy of mr sharon, the current prime minister of israel. i should like to remind you that mr sharon has been prime minister for just over a year, not even two years, and that he was elected prime minister because he reflects the will of israeli society. i should also like to remind you that the government of mr sharon is a government of national unity in which the labour party and various other parties are represented, and therefore, when we talk about the policy of mr sharon - these things should not be forgotten - we are actually talking about the policy of many others besides him. this is a policy accepted by all the members of his government, because, otherwise, they would have resigned or they would have been removed if they voiced different opinions. we very often fall into the trap of excessively attributing the causes of the conflict to individuals. the conflict in the middle east, in its most modern incarnation, started over fifty years ago, and mr sharon was not around at that time. i should like to remind you that the second intifada started before mr sharon became prime minister. therefore, we must bear all of this in mind and get to the roots of the conflict. it is true, however, that there are specific policies that are especially worthy of criticism and that should be rejected, and as such have been roundly condemned by both commissioner patten and myself, not only today but also on many other occasions. the problem has not been caused solely by specific individuals, however, but by something much more profound, and when a conflict lasts for such a long time, with its various shifts of balance, it is because there is no majority will for peace on either side; because there is no sincerity or honesty in the desire for peace expressed by either side; because, when some express their desire for peace, but in their hearts are hoping for the destruction of the state of israel, they do not want peace, and because when others say that they want peace, but in their hearts what they really want is to make the myth of a greater israel a reality and, therefore, the consolidation of a state of israel on the current occupied territories, they do not really want peace. since these two attitudes stem from the historical aspirations of both sides, and since these historical aspirations are not compatible with one another, until there is an explicit renunciation, which is sincere and honest, of these historical aspirations, there will be no peace however much we attempt to impose sanctions, and however much the international community does all that it can. it is, furthermore, in this context that we must place the actions of the international community, because our role is especially clear now, and consists of convincing both sides that israel must issue a sincere and honest renunciation of increasing its territories on the basis of the occupation and the palestinians and the entire arab world must issue a sincere and honest renunciation of the destruction of israel. if this were achieved, we would then have a completely solid foundation on which to build effectively. our task is one of persuasion. i am far from sure that this task should be carried out on the basis of sanctions. it must be a task of genuine persuasion, which reaches the political leaders and the general public of both sides. because the israeli public, which has now voted - just over a year ago - for mr sharon, previously voted for mr barak in order for him to achieve peace, and before that, for mr netanyahu, and before him, five or six years ago, for mr rabin. there are, therefore, prospects for peace, and this is why we must pursue the approach of cooperation; this is why it is so important that we work together with the united states, with russia and with the united nations, and when the opportunity arises to act with a degree of dilettantism, for europe to have an independent voice, which sets us apart from the united states, i think that we have to be extremely prudent. i am not implying that we should support every position adopted by the united states. what i am saying is that we should act together, because this is extremely important and, if you read the madrid declaration carefully, it states what the european union has been saying for a long time, and it is other countries, including, to a large extent, the united states, that have come around to the positions of the european union. i take great satisfaction from this, and we shall also pursue this policy because i believe it is absolutely crucial. it is in this context of the international community, all working together, that it makes sense to talk about observers, that it makes sense to talk about peacekeeping forces, because, otherwise, these things would not be feasible; and that is when it makes sense for us to talk about marshall plans and economic contributions - which will have to be considerable, of course - and that we also talk about the full import of the rapprochement of the two peoples on the basis, amongst other things, of their educational systems. the presence of the historical aspirations which i referred to earlier is clearly reflected in the educational content provided by both sides; the young people on each side have been trained not in conciliation or in peaceful coexistence, but in hate. we have, therefore, a great deal of work ahead of us but the way forward has been mapped out. we know what the final outcome must be and what we need to do is continue working in this direction. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. mr alyssandrakis has the floor on a point of order. mr president, honourable members, the high representative of the european union, mr javier solana, stated in an interview with the greek tribune that, unless the cyprus problem can be resolved, only the greek cypriot part of the island will accede to the european union. mr solana's successive replies to the repeated questions put by the newspaper journalist, who stressed that this contradicted everything we know about the helsinki resolution, leave no room for error or misunderstanding. the position taken by mr solana confirms the reading of the communist party of greece, especially after the helsinki summit, that the process for cyprus to accede to the european union will split the island, legitimise the turkish occupation and justify the 1974 invasion. and furthermore, mr solana demonstrated total contempt of the united nations resolutions on cyprus and international law in general in his statement. i should like to ask you to speak to the high representative, mr president, given that the position which he has expressed completely contradicts the decisions and resolutions passed by the european parliament. thank you very much, mr alyssandrakis. the presidency takes note of the point of order you have made. mr korakas has the floor on a point of order. mr president, i too have a point of order to make concerning mr solana's visit to greece. last week, the spanish minister of foreign affairs, mr de miguel told the house that mr solana would be visiting greece in order to put pressure on the greek government to accept the constantinople text, or rather the ankara text, drafted by great britain, turkey and the united states, a text which contests the territorial integrity of greece so that the european army can use nato infrastructures in order to promote the so-called common european defence and security policy. that turkey's demands are dictated by the united states goes without saying; unfortunately, the european union is going along with them. i should like, mr president, to denounce this pressure being exerted on the greek government and warn the house that, if the greek government, which is digging in its heels and refusing to accept the text under pressure from the greek people; if the greek government makes the concessions being asked of it by the fourteen and mr solana, there will be serious problems in greece where, as i have said, the greek people are unwavering and united in their opposition. i should like to ask you to take note of our objection, mr president, and to do whatever you can to put a stop to this unacceptable pressure. the next item is the joint debate on two reports by the committee on foreign affairs, human rights, common security and defence policy by mr van hecke (a5-0106/2002), on human rights in the world in 2001 and european union human rights policy, and by mrs dez gonzlez (a5-00084/2002), on the commission communication to the council and to the european parliament on the european union's role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries. mr president, the main themes of the 2001 human rights report are, in fact, mainstreaming and the eu's human rights policy. this means in the first place that we should put an end to the harmful tradition whereby the european union and the member states set great store by the concept of human rights in their resolutions and reports, but whereby in practice, and in day-to-day foreign policy, they often allow other interests to take precedence. i have just returned from geneva where, along with the parliament delegation, i attended the 58th meeting of the un human rights committee. during a talk with the 15 eu ambassadors, it transpired that the world's most important human rights forum is not only struggling with a huge problem of credibility, but that the union also fails to succeed in pursuing a consistent and coherent human rights policy and in speaking with one voice. during a motion on humanitarian situations in the middle east last week, the european representatives in the un committee were divided in their vote. this, of course, affects our moral authority. moreover, the impression is created that the european union sponsors without any hesitation resolutions on human rights violations in countries such as congo, sudan and colombia, while its attitude is far more restrained when it comes to strategically or economically important partners, including china. the new eu guidelines on human rights dialogues will undoubtedly strengthen the coherence and consistency of the eu's human rights policy, provided they are applied. in fact, these guidelines also form the basis for a programme document in which priority is given to the european initiative for democracy and human rights. commissioner patten has played a pioneering role in this respect. however, we are anxious about the implementation of the document. despite the high priority which parliament accords this budget chapter, the appropriations were already reduced in 2002. in my report, i confined myself to two topical themes: the modern forms of slavery and the delicate balance between the war on terrorism and respect for human rights. although slavery was officially abolished fifty years ago, it continues to exist in all kinds of forms: people are trafficked and sold like commodities, are employed in forced labour, receive very little pay and are restrained in their freedom of movement. the little statistical data that is available is alarming. especially in the current european climate, where the extreme right is in the ascendant, the european union has every reason for tackling this growing problem. this report calls for national and international changes in the law in order to prosecute human traffickers, protect victims and prevent people from ending up in modern forms of slavery. the second theme concerns the complex relationship between terrorism and human rights after the attacks of 11 september. it is patently obvious that terrorist attacks are serious crimes that should be treated accordingly. however, human rights violations can also be a breeding ground for terrorism and, at the same time, the fight against terrorism can lead to new human rights violations, can serve as justification for human rights violations or can make countries turn a blind eye to violations committed by allied forces in the fight against terrorism. prominent politicians, including lord russell johnson, have warned against repeating the mistakes of the cold war when dictatorships in developing countries were supported in the name of the fight against communism. it is important, as part of the fight against international terrorism, to remove the underlying causes which feed extremist feelings or which are used by terrorists to recruit followers. above all, the attacks of 11 september and the fight against terrorism have painfully exposed the shortcomings of international law. the geneva conventions are still based on the assumption that wars between states form the biggest threat to peace, while most current conflicts are civil wars or terrorist action. the geneva convention on prisoners of war is based on the protection of soldiers of regulated armies, while the majority of the fighters today are guerrilla and militia fighters and the majority of victims are civilians. the report therefore calls for new rules, new conventions and new instruments which accommodate these new types of conflict. the union will need to fulfil a pioneering role in the review of international law and will need to ensure that the international criminal court becomes operational at the earliest opportunity. we as the european parliament, with a worldwide reputation in the field of human rights, must ensure at all costs that a number of universal and fundamental human rights are observed at all times. i would therefore like to thank those of my fellow meps who, with their contributions, have helped create a well-balanced report which already met with a broad consensus in the committee on foreign affairs. i hope that parliament will be able to give its unanimous backing to this human rights report tomorrow. mr president, we have drafted this report that i am presenting today mindful of the fact that the commission communication notes the importance that the union attaches to human rights in the development of its external policy and this, in our opinion, should be warmly welcomed. i should like to emphasise, however, that although this communication puts forward important proposals and suggestions, it does not provide, in our view, practical instruments that will enable us to successfully confront the new challenges resulting from the new vision that we share and in which human rights and their promotion are fully integrated into the union's external policy. in theory, there are no substantial differences in the approach adopted by the union institutions on defining how to address the development of human rights and the consolidation of democracy in the world, but it is when it comes to translating words into deeds, however, that differences between the institutions emerge. all too often, the democratic demands made on our partners take second place to the economic and commercial interests of the union as a whole and of its individual member states. let us add to this another observation, which is in my view even more paradoxical: despite the fact that we share a single doctrine, a number of different policies are in force. just take the paradigmatic case of cuba, and i only mention this as one example. the council is blocking relations, whilst the member states maintain bilateral relations, in trade and in all types of other fields with the island. under these circumstances, the aim of this report is not to reiterate the union's by now well-known position on this matter, but rather to seek to put forward proposals for firm action, both in the negotiation of agreements of all kinds between the european union and third states and in the application of these agreements, as well as their possible suspension. the proposals contained in this report are intended to provide the work of the various community institutions with greater coherence, putting an end to the de facto contradictions and to the particular predominance of the political will of the council in this field, because in our opinion, the fact that the union does not have a position of its own, expressed with a single voice, causes us to act on the international stage according to necessity or under the changing leadership of others who do not always share our interests in this field. in drafting this report we have been both ambitious and responsible; we have shown the ambition that committing ourselves to the defence of human rights in the world requires and the responsibility that comes from realising that the challenge of integrating human rights into the union's external policy is a genuinely complex matter. we have also borne in mind, however, that the contradictions between institutions and the lack of unanimity, coordination and unity in action are the worst enemy of human rights and of democratisation in the world. the proposals put forward in this report must, therefore, be seen as a means of overcoming this situation and of overcoming our own contradictions. as mr patten stated this afternoon in his intervention, we are fond of lecturing others on human rights but we would sometimes do well to look at ourselves. my first proposal is, therefore, to ask the commission to draw up an interinstitutional code of conduct, designed to ensure a more coherent and more equitable approach in the union's external action in this field. this code must govern relations between the union and the more than 120 states to which the democratic clause currently applies. a code, ladies and gentlemen, that will be an instrument for defining the terms, both internal and external, under which dialogue takes place; a code to provide cohesion for the speech and the actions of the union, but never to undermine dialogue; a code which serves as a political instrument, not a legal or ethical one, which systematically collates the union's values and political thought and its rules of implementation. i should like to emphasise that such a code must not be based on the punitive and suspensive nature of the human rights clause, but on mutual respect between the parties concerned, incorporating as many positive incentives as possible and including generous cooperation programmes, that will enable respect for human rights to be strengthened at all levels. our objectives must be not only to evaluate the progress made by the various partner countries in the field of human rights but also to achieve a coherent balance between countries and regions, above all preventing unfair results, comparative injustices and the treatment of these countries and regions with double standards, all of which we saw in geneva. the code must, ultimately, be the handbook for parliamentary democracy. the second proposal that this report makes, and which i should like to go into, recommends that the parliament produced by the 2004 elections should establish a commission on human rights responsible for problems relating to human rights, democratisation in third countries and relations with international organisations active in the sphere of human rights thirdly and lastly, i should like to mention the proposal for the commission to establish a european union agency for human rights and democracy, a suggestion that was made by the cologne european council. this agency, ladies and gentlemen, would be a body whose objective would be to establish common criteria and parameters for analysing the human rights situation in the world, drawing up an annual assessment that will facilitate interinstitutional action in accordance with the elements that constitute the code. it is, of course, the commission that will have to establish the areas in which the agency will act but it would be very useful, in order to produce more effective and coordinated work, if it could, for example, include the evaluation of the impact of structural measures, given their enormous importance in the processes of reconciliation following armed conflict. lastly, it will be a useful instrument, that does not take competences away from anyone, but which adds both its own and external efforts and resources. finally, with regard to the five amendments tabled by mrs malmstrm, i must say that i am not going to accept them and that i am going to ask plenary to vote for the report, which was adopted by a broad majority in committee, with three abstentions and not a single vote against. nevertheless, i thank both mrs malmstrm and the other honourable members of all political groups who tabled amendments and who discussed matters with us during the drafting of this report, because their work has helped to enrich it. i should furthermore like to ask parliament's services to bear in mind that the original text is in spanish and to revise the other versions, because there are some differences in the finer points of meaning. mr president, while we are yet deliberating in this house, live pictures of parliament are coursing through the world of the media, and they are of the collective 'no' that the overwhelming majority has just delivered to a man who is doing precisely the opposite of the things that this report stands for and which constitute europe's core values. together and quite decisively, we have said 'no' to those who would seduce us with their radicalism, and to those who treat humanity with contempt, and, in this report, we are saying 'yes' to human rights with no ifs or buts. this is far from being only something we call for in politics; it is also a challenge to the committee on industry, external trade, research and energy, and, although it might be wondered what it has to do with this issue, it is actually a great deal, because, in an age of globalisation, it is increasingly the multinational enterprises that are called on to take steps in this direction. whilst we in politics have to hear the accusations of hypocrisy levelled at the former foreign policy of the usa and at the eu's foreign policy, which does not yet really exist, that accusation applies yet more to businesses. only if they too manage to come round to defending human rights with no ifs or buts, will we be spared much of what we all feared was coming to us when the terrible events of 11 september struck us. what is astonishing about this report is not so much that it pays lip-service to many familiar things, but that there was, in our industry committee, which is a rather conservative set-up and not very familiar with these topics, unanimous support for establishing social standards, and for a green paper that would trenchantly call for social responsibility on the part of enterprises, even though the person to whom today's 'no' was directed is also a member of this committee. our decision was unanimous. why? because the despiser of democracy, who plays this down, was not even there and did no work on it! i hope that all of europe's voters will see this, and, at the same time, also see when we are saying 'no' and to what we are saying 'yes', that is, to this report and to human rights without ifs and buts. commissioner, on behalf of the committee on development and cooperation i would firstly like to thank the commission for their communication on the promotion of human rights and also congratulate the rapporteur, mrs dez gonzlez, on her excellent report, which complements and strengthens the already positive proposals put forward by the commission in their communication. the european union's commitment to the defence of human rights and democratic principles needs effective, and above all coherent, action; if there is no coherence, there is no credibility, and without credibility there is no authority to promote and demand respect for human rights. for this reason i support the strategic and comprehensive approach proposed by the commission with regard to integrating human rights into eu foreign policy and ensuring that all policies, all community programmes and projects, take this issue into account. finally, i support the approach geared towards humanitarian aid based on human rights, because of the importance it can have in terms of conflict prevention, and i believe that country strategy papers should propose specific measures for the promotion of human rights, which should be treated as a priority. the struggle for human rights cannot be disassociated from the fight against poverty and development cooperation policy, inasmuch as both promote the establishment of the economic and social conditions necessary to guarantee peace and to ensure that everyone can live in dignity; conditions without which the respect for fundamental rights is no more than a pipe dream. for this reason i would make a particular request to the commission that, in the context of political dialogue and the discussion of the country strategy papers, universal access to education should be considered as a priority issue, because education is indispensable for the development of populations, and without development it will be very difficult for us to talk about full respect for human rights. mr president, on behalf of the committee on women's rights and equal opportunities, i should like to thank the commission for its communication. above all, however, i should like to thank the rapporteurs for their sound reports. parliament has always given high priority to human rights and defended them in all circumstances, and we have not defended them any the less since 11 september 2001. in relation to the candidate countries - which are also of course, in a way, third countries - we have had great success in attaching importance to human rights and democratisation through the copenhagen criteria and the whole set of eu regulations. in that connection, we have also focused upon women's rights and rights in general. that applies not merely to the candidate countries but also to the developing countries. i do not think that the commission's communication is completely clear regarding how, in purely practical terms, we are to secure human rights specifically for women. there is of course no doubt at all that, in a long list of the countries we cooperate with, women are oppressed in a range of different areas. they are very often victims of religious or cultural traditions, and i believe we need to take stock of the concept of religious and cultural traditions used to oppress a quite specific group, namely girls and women in general. in this connection, i believe that we must try to involve women themselves more actively, and perhaps we should start by developing a number of programmes with the help of those women who have come to europe, for we do not always have precise policies for tackling their status in our own countries. if we were to adopt this approach, we could perhaps also obtain some experience of use in connection with the developing countries. i should like especially to refer to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the opinion of the committee on women's rights and equal opportunities in which we propose that the commission do some very practical work on a number of aspects of this area. mr president, it is right and proper that the european union should focus strongly on human rights issues. i have been in the forefront of those campaigning for human rights, democracy and the rule of law in countries such as burma and zimbabwe, where the re-election of president mugabe last month and the political violence and intimidation that continued to accompany it, were a matter of great concern and make a mockery of international actions. if we are to be more effective in our efforts, then it seems to me that we need to focus more specifically on such areas of genuine human-rights abuse. we should not define the concept of human rights so widely that every human desire and affliction is embraced. we must take care that we do not allow extremists and terrorists to exploit our concern for human rights. while we must be ever watchful of the civil liberties of our citizens, we must ensure that human rights legislation does not intrude excessively into operational areas which affect our ability to protect our law-abiding citizens and our democracies, particularly at a time of heightened threat. human rights must not become a device that helps give comfort, even financial compensation, to those such as terrorists, themselves the worst abusers of human rights. the reports before us today are commendable for their coverage, but they sometimes stray into areas best avoided. to some extent they lose sight of the original concept of human rights. they make no mention of the need for good governance and the fact that corrupt governments in failed states are often the prime source of human rights abuse. these are general points, but there are some specific points that we cannot support. for example, while we strongly support a ban on the horrendous exploitation and abuse of children as child soldiers in countries such as uganda and sierra leone, we cannot support a ban on the recruitment of soldiers under 18 in our own countries. the british army is probably the best in the world. some 5 000 personnel, 4.5% of its strength, are under eighteen. more than a third of its personnel proudly and voluntarily sign up before they reach adulthood. they are not deployed to areas of conflict until they turn 18. it would be a gross mistake and an intrusion into an area of uniquely national competence to try and ban such recruitment. we cannot accept the incorrect interpretation of the geneva convention, or the excessive criticism of us actions in its handling of prisoners at guantanamo, when the united states administration has made it clear that it will ensure that the basic human rights of all those held in custody will be respected. we do not share the enthusiasm for an international criminal court, as currently proposed, which might easily become a political instrument and whose jurisdiction over real human rights abusers, such as terrorists, is unclear. we do not support the communitarisation of foreign policy in the european union. there is much we can support, but i have outlined those areas which we cannot support. instead of constant self flagellation, hand-ringing and searching for flaws in our own democracies we really must be more effective in correcting the constant and massive abuse of human rights which is the daily lot of people is so many far-flung countries. mr president, let me disagree with the previous speaker. we absolutely have to acknowledge the flaws of our own democracy. that was absolutely germane to the debate about the middle east unless we recognise our own flaws and inadequacies, how can we ever bring about changes in other democracies? that is what these two reports do brilliantly. mrs dez gonzlez' report reminds us that we have agreements with human rights and democracy clauses yet we do nothing. we stand by because the economic factors prevent us from acting. we look at the economic provisions rather than the demands of citizens who look to us to improve their lives through the agreements that the eu and its member states have signed and ratified. mr van hecke's report reminds us that there is much that is wrong with the world and brilliantly focuses us on the need for the european union to speak with one voice. as a delegate last week in geneva, i witnessed that the commission is arguably one of the most ineffective commissions known to those long attenders. why? because the middle east is being used as a ball that is being batted between one group of nation states and another. at the same time, what happens? we stand here in this chamber, enjoying this luxury to contradict one another, to belong to different parties, to have different ideas, to have different sexual orientation, a different colour, a different way of life. that is the reality of human rights abuses. we cannot be narrow in the interpretation of human rights. we need to be global. we need to be expansive. finally, a quotation after september 11: 'an attack upon one is an attack upon us all.' that is the reality. that is the immutable principle in the defence of human rights and universal freedoms. mr president, it is perhaps more important than ever today to stand up for tolerance and human rights at a time when racism and intolerance are raising their ugly heads and when the winds of xenophobia and anti-semitism are being felt in ever more european countries. i am proud that, in general, the european parliament holds its head high when it comes to defending human dignity in the world. tolerance, respect, democracy and human rights are building blocks of european cooperation, and these values must always be defended. the eu has a good policy in this area but, as many have said, it is far too fuzzy and incoherent. we need a coordinated, credible and consistent strategy that is integrated naturally into the eu's other activities. that is something we have repeated many times. it is also unfortunate that we have abandoned the tradition of holding a major human rights debate at the part-session in strasbourg and have instead spread the debate out so that, for example, mrs swiebel's report on human rights in the eu is to be debated much later. that is symptomatic of the fact that, in this area too, our work is incoherent. for quite a few years, parliament and the commission have proposed different measures for coordinating policy between the institutions and improving follow-up. few of these proposals become a reality. they are nonetheless quite pressing, and i cannot understand why it should be so difficult to put them into effect. mr van hecke's report focuses on terrorism and modern slavery. slavery and trafficking in human beings, especially children, are terrible problems and they occur, to some extent, in secret. it is truly excellent that these matters are being brought out into the open. terrorism and human rights are topical subjects too. especially here in the european parliament, we have highlighted the fact that the fight against terrorism, which is obviously incredibly important, also raises a number of issues about integrity and legal certainty. the open society must never be weakened by undemocratic methods. we should like to have seen more of these issues addressed in what is otherwise a very good report supported by the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party. we agree entirely with the philosophy and the intentions behind mrs dez gonzlez' report. we have doubts, however, about some of the proposals made in it, for example that concerning the new interinstitutional code. certainly, this is extremely praiseworthy, but we wonder how it relates to the demands we are already making. shall we ever be able to cooperate with anyone if all these demands have to be fulfilled? we believe in dialogue and, now already, we are making demands, for example in article two of the association agreement, which are not being fulfilled. should we in that case be adding more hoops that have to be passed through? we also have our doubts about setting up a new human rights agency. what is such a bureau meant to do? what mandate is it to have? a single committee for citizens' and human rights is, however, an excellent idea that we support. human dignity is still violated in the most odious ways throughout the world. the eu can play an important role when it comes to defending human rights. we need increased coordination, improved assessment and follow-up and better documentation for analysis purposes, however. we must speak with one voice. only then can the eu obtain real influence. mr president, recent events both in the middle east and in the heart of europe, in the french elections, have once again made us realise how thin, fragile and under threat of danger the shell that protects democracy, human rights and the structures of the rule of law can be. as mr van hecke and mrs malmstrm stated, in the fight against terrorism we have also come up against totally new dangerous pressures that make human rights work more difficult than before. in these circumstances we are also in danger of being guilty of the same thing we accuse the governments of many countries of, which is to say a rhetorical commitment to human rights that fails, however, to lead to any purposeful and coherent action being taken. it is just empty talk. we do not need the new agency that mrs dez gonzlez is proposing in her report; what we need instead is political will. we must find this political will in our own institutions, in parliament, the commission and, first and foremost, in the council of ministers, which has shown little but uncertainty and only now and again given a credible performance in the human rights forum, which mr van hecke once again reminded us of, to his credit. instead of merely praising and filing away mr van hecke's excellent report - and that also goes for most of mrs dez gonzlez's report, which i think is very worthy of our support - we should for once take our own words seriously. when we adopted the report on human rights last year we decided that we would assess the working methods of the eu's competent bodies responsible for human rights issues and democracy. we have not done that. we are expected to hold the other eu institutions accountable regarding the implementation of the eu's human rights policy, but we have not done that. instead we have settled for rhetorical commitments and fine words, which have also been heard here today almost ad nauseam. for that reason i hope we shall for once take mr van hecke's report, and much of mrs dez gonzlez's report also, seriously and undertake the relevant work accordingly. mr president, the eu is the civil and economic power that can make a contribution to democracy and human rights, a contribution beyond the scope of weaponry, namely work on crisis prevention. the real fight for democracy and against oppression and terrorism begins, of course, here. through its association and trade agreements, the eu can conduct an active policy in favour of human rights and democracy. we know that human rights violations have terrible consequences, and when these happen and when terrorism occurs we all too often come out with the question, 'who is behind this?' and all too rarely with the question 'why?'. it is not enough to know 'who'. we must also know 'why'. we know that behind terrorism lie frustrations, oppression, an absence of democratic opportunities and a lack of human rights, as we see, for example, in the middle east today and as we see when individual acts of terrorism strike civilians at random in israel. we have problems with our policy in the eu. not with producing fine phrases, but with taking action initiated by ourselves. we accept clear breaches of the human rights clauses attached, for example, to the association agreement with israel - clear breaches which have no consequences. we need to put an end to this hypocrisy. our long debates will lead nowhere if we are unwilling either to put an end to the high-flown speeches or to allow the splendid words to be followed by action. the eu is not powerless. we can in actual fact make a difference. we could have made a difference in such a way that what some of us experienced in jenin yesterday might not have actually happened. we are not powerless. let us use the influence and power we have. mr president, many of you this week will have noticed the exhibition about the work of herman hesse in the spinelli building. anyone who has taken the time to look at the exhibition must have been impressed by one of his statements and i quote, "for me the world is not made up of nations, but of people." would not the world be a different place if, in our shaping of policy and legislation, in our negotiations and decision-making, we as politicians could keep these words in mind. there is a need for a new approach to foreign policy and indeed not only to foreign and development policy, but in all aspects of our dealings with third countries. if we could move away from thinking in terms of facts and figures, sums and statistics, markets and merchandise; if we could remember at all times that our policies impact on the real lives of real people, then we would demonstrate a genuine commitment to the fundamental values we claim to cherish. the promotion of democracy, respect for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms are all values which form an integral part of the union which we have built together over the past number of years. these are the values which have brought peace, prosperity and freedom to our continent, and it is only right and fitting that we should seek to promote these benefits further afield. i share the view of the rapporteur that what is needed are concrete proposals for firm action. lofty ideals and expressions of goodwill are not enough. we must fully integrate our human rights policies with all policies which involve countries outside the union, be that trade, agriculture, fisheries, etc. i support the requirement for a democracy clause in international agreements as well as strict monitoring for compliance with these clauses. the irish government currently allocates almost eur 2 million to democracy and human rights projects. the grants are aimed at promoting respect for human rights and democracy worldwide. the emphasis is on helping people to assert their rights and to understand to participate fully in the democratic process. building a stronger democratic structure must be a key aspect of development efforts. there are a broad range of projects which we can support, involving the promotion and protection of human rights and support for democracy and good governance in developing countries. it is perfectly legitimate to link financial incentives to human rights and democracy questions through our funding of key projects. practical steps are being taken to make an ethical foreign policy a reality. i firmly believe that continued action in this direction would ensure that the support of projects would have a real and positive impact on the lives of poor people living in developing countries. mr president, everywhere in the world, people are persecuted, tortured or humiliated. i applaud the fact that the european union wants to stand up for these people. after all, the european union wants to be a community of values. this also means that it employs the instruments it has at its disposal in order to protect the oppressed elsewhere. mr van hecke rightly calls for a more structured approach to this problem. however, i should like to make two observations regarding this human rights debate. firstly, we must be cautious. in our member states, racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism still constitute a considerable danger. as such, it is not appropriate for us to set ourselves up as a benchmark for the rest of the world. this is why i feel that some statements, particularly in the report by mrs dez gonzlez, go too far. without disputing the fact that every state must adhere to international law, i call for more respect for other choices and for other cultures. a second observation concerns the question whether the protection of human rights is best served by an approach which is as centralised as possible. unlike mrs dez gonzlez, i do not think so. the interests and contacts of the member states are too diverse. gathering all these too tightly would only lead to an internal competitive battle. in the final analysis, this would be at the expense of the protection of human rights. if every member state and every european institution employs its own instruments wisely, a great deal could be improved today in the fight for recognition of human rights. mr president, as the committee on citizens' freedoms and rights, justice and home affairs has stated, the human rights clause is not producing real effects because of the failure of the commission and the council to act. today, the democratic clause serves only to compel parliament and the public to accept trade and economic agreements concluded with military, religious or political totalitarian regimes. some months ago now, when mr dupuis went to laos to call for democracy and the release of five democratic activists of the movement for democracy of 26 october 1999, he and another four radical activists were imprisoned in breach of all the international agreements, including, in particular, the agreements between the european union and laos. some months on, with regard to the non-violent action of mr dupuis, we can warn the human, civil and political rights activists who are placing their hope in the european union not to be under any illusion. we feel it is our duty and our responsibility to declare that the inertia of the commission and the council is encouraging political crime while, in terms of law and jurisdiction, they are guilty of omission. some weeks ago now, commissioner patten, responding to a question from mr cappato regarding these laotian militants who have been in prison for over three years, stated that the commission was not planning to convene an emergency meeting of the joint committee but that it was going to pursue the channels already open. i am sure the democratic activists who have been in prison for three years will be delighted to wait for the european union to wade through all its diplomatic red tape before it does anything to help. i have just one thing to say to mrs dez gonzlez. she said that the commission and the council are turning a blind eye to the violations that have been observed. that is not true: they are turning two blind eyes; they do not want to see anything, they do not want to hear anything and they do not want to say anything, and above all, they do not want to do anything. mr president, i would like first of all to thank mrs dez gonzlez and mr van hecke for the enormous amount of work that they have put into their respective reports. i am going to concentrate on the work of mrs dez gonzlez because it reflects work i myself began in the early 1990's, after the fall of the berlin wall. there are very few people in the chamber who were here at that time, but i can still see one or two officials from those days. at the time, parliament decided to work closely with the commission in establishing a programme to promote democracy and human rights, primarily in central and eastern europe, but also in those countries close to us and in the wider world, and to put the whole process onto a more systematic basis. that led to the creation of budgetary chapter b7-700, now known as the european initiative for democracy and human rights. the first thing i would like to say is that the success of this scheme is not widely recognised. over a period of years, many millions of euros have been spent on projects large and small, near and far, by and large with tremendous success and a very high profile in the countries in which they have been active. this initiative has been a success. there are criticisms, as with any programme, but by and large we should congratulate the commission on the way in which it handled this matter. however, in 1999, the whole process was reversed. the process under which the parliament and the commission, alongside the g-24, the council of europe and one or two other entities, was involved in the monitoring and selection of programmes. the commission then took on the whole process in-house. i now come to the heart of the recommendations of mrs. dez gonzlez' report. should there be an agency for human rights and democratisation? my answer, and the answer of the ppe-de group is: not yet. we think that the commission should still be given the responsibility for maintaining these programmes. obviously, we need to watch it closely, but to create yet another bureaucracy does not seem appropriate to us at this time. i personally have no objection to the restoration by parliament of the committee on human rights and democratisation. this discussion, however, needs to take place nearer the time of the next election. in the meantime, we could surely restore the working party on human rights and democratisation within the foreign affairs committee to maintain the oversight that this parliament should now have on the eur 100 million being spent annually under the budget. my proposition is fundamentally this: parliament, and i am grateful to those colleagues who are still in the chamber, should re-focus on human rights and democratisation. these are political projects, they need political oversight. we should not leave it all to the commission, still less to the council. so, colleagues, let us take an interest again. i am grateful to mrs dez gonzlez for focusing attention on this matter. many of her propositions are well worth pursuing, but not the ones i have singled out as being rather bureaucratic. i am very grateful for the work she has done. mr president, today's debate and report on human rights would appear to be timely. consider the pictures of jenin which have been recalled in this house today, the war which is degenerating into hatred, the hatred which is taking root and generating intolerance, but consider too the need for respect for diversities and minorities, which is an extremely sensitive area of the uphill struggle to secure human rights. that is precisely why our debate is timely, for it is taking place at a time when we are calling upon parliament to renew its efforts to protect diversities; furthermore, all this is happening on the very day that mr le pen would have us assert a political doctrine, a design, a resolve to deny any respect for diversities and any form of tolerance in politics. this would seem to be a helpful coincidence giving our endeavours positive and proactive meaning. one more word on the subject of terrorism: i was pleased to hear the point made that terrorism is not a threat to the west or to democracy: it is a threat to and a denial of human rights. the response to terrorism cannot fail to disregard human rights, whoever the people are we are dealing with. it is wrong to punish barbarism with barbarism - and i am quoting cesar baccarat here, not our group - and so we demand that there be no hasty convictions, no short cut taken around the proper procedure in the trials of the guantanamo prisoners, and we call for provision to be made for an appeal procedure as in all trials for any crime. we call upon the united states to act quickly, diligently and rigorously in ratifying the convention which will allow the international criminal court to start work. a few words on the subject of underage working, mr president: we believe that all forms of underage working, of child labour, are a violation of the right to childhood, which is a stage of life during which people are not supposed to use machine guns, for example. this also applies to child soldiers and suggests, once again, that human rights are only taken into account when it is convenient. although it might not be convenient for the british army, we would prefer it if there were no more underage soldiers. mr president, wherever else the world may make progress, it fails to do so in the area of human rights. the number of violations increases, and with it the feeling of powerlessness to do anything about it. europe, the mother of moral values, should not resign itself to this. the european union must adopt a more consistent and less hypocritical policy. however, i do believe that every country where violations occur should be assessed individually. the implications of punitive measures are ultimately more important than the way in which they are targeted. a rigid code of conduct is not effective. it is preferable to apply clear guidelines strictly, taking into account the specific circumstances. if sanctions are imposed, the population should always be spared as much as possible. in the european union's policy, human rights should not only be given priority in words, but mainly in deeds. without civilisation, there is no progress, and without human rights, there is no civilisation. mr president, the european union's commitment to human rights and vigilance in their defence must shape all our community policies. as the world's leading economic entity, the union can exert a powerful diplomatic influence on human progress, especially in the poorest countries that most frequently breach these rights, but which are most often victims as well. in fact, these countries, which have suffered unbalanced and desperate economic and commercial foundations for far too long, are fertile breeding grounds for human rights violations when a cultural or religious wall of silence which single-handedly seeks to justify tradition or customs condemns more than half the population, namely women, to innate and eternal inferiority. we speak of 'the rights of man'. we should in fact say 'right of the human person', since we must be aware that when men are persecuted, women are always treated even worse. we only have to cast our minds back to the barbaric events not so long ago, when two nigerian women, in a parody of justice, were condemned to death by stoning for adultery. these cases, which received extensive media coverage and had fortunate outcomes, must not hide the extreme distress of other women, a whole population of which, in the islamic republic of iran, for example, are held prisoner by laws and customs that are based on the inequality of the sexes. segregation and genuine state terrorism govern and shape the lives of women, if they do not decree their death through savage practices such as stoning. human rights also grant this recognition of individuals, sexes and peoples. parliament would do credit to these rights and its democratic ambition by recognising aboriginal peoples, as has been possible since a united nations permanent body on aboriginal issues was set up, and by establishing a delegation to deal with these issues, which is what we voted for in 1992. we need more than declarations and resolutions, we need practical action which must promote human rights. mr president, to my mind, the european union's self-appointed position as the guardian of human rights is sheer hypocrisy. as far as i can see, we have as many violations in the european union itself, such as violations of the right to work, to housing and to free education, health and welfare, as in other countries which the european union supports, such as turkey, israel and others. the european union is also responsible, as a result of its policy, for the starvation and misery in the rest of the world. i too have just returned from palestine; how, if not as a blatant violation of human rights, are we to describe the ultra-modern israeli weapons turned on the unarmed people of palestine who, in the final analysis, are fighting for the whole of mankind? faced with this situation, the european union has kept to its policy of sitting squarely on the fence between oppressor and oppressed and has confined itself to making statements and calling on beleaguered president arafat to stop the intifada, which it calls terrorism, in order to stop the israeli attacks. in addition, those here in the house calling for the same thing, mr president, do not even have the courtesy to explain to us with what right israel is holding the elected president of a nation prisoner, with what right it is going about arresting people, including members of the palestinian assembly such as fatah leader marwan barghouti, who has distinguished himself in his untiring efforts to bring about peace, with what right it is killing and laying waste. one thing you can be sure of is that israel does not want peace. its objective is to wipe out an entire nation and implement the chauvinist expansionist plans of its most extreme elements. (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, the annual report on human rights in 2001 shows comprehensively that the human rights position across the world has deteriorated dramatically. there have been 250 conflicts since the second world war, and 86 million people have been killed in them. mr van hecke, our rapporteur, deserves our thanks for not having shied away from also addressing the present-day consequences of 11 september. we are faced with the incomprehensible phenomenon of the crimes of 11 september being taken as an excuse to abrogate human rights that had been won over centuries of struggle, such as the geneva convention and the rule of law over nations. crimes are thus being used to abrogate international law, which is part of civilisation's cultural riches. to such an extent has this become the case that we can observe something like a reversion to 'might is right' on an international scale. to combine, as one sees fit, martial law with something alleged to be criminal law is utterly intolerable. it is to be feared that the next step will be for the law of the strongest to even acquire some sort of legitimacy. the european union must counter these developments by demonstrating the courage of its own convictions to a high degree. it cannot be acceptable for states to consciously place themselves outside the international judicial order, with the effect that they are thereby actively stimulating the spiral of violence and accelerating it still further. mr president, i shall concentrate mainly on the report by mr van hecke who, i think, has, to his credit, focused on a small number of issues. the report concerns modern slavery and threats and violence on the part of terrorist groups. slavery is on the increase throughout the world, including in europe. slavery is not a thing of the past. it is based upon a view of human beings that is as out of keeping with our civilisation and christian culture as it can possibly be. it is based on the very opposite of the idea of people's equal, unique and inviolable worth. the un's children's fund, unicef has raised the alarm about the fact that 200 000 children in west africa are victims of trafficking, with the cocoa industry responsible for a significant proportion of this. there is also evidence that child labour and trafficking in human beings are on the increase. it is mostly boys who work on the cocoa plantations of west africa and often have to do the heavy work of harvesting the cocoa beans. the working day for these children is up to fifteen hours long. it is not only a question of child labour, but children are also sold as slaves by one cocoa producer to another. the council, the commission and the eu member states must take action, and vigorous action at that. mention should also be made of the trafficking in women and children that is taking place more and more in europe. the countries most affected are romania, moldavia and the czech republic. such trafficking is a great tragedy for those affected, who are exploited in a horrible way, above all within prostitution. the un protocol on trafficking in human beings, added to the un convention against organised transnational crime, is an important tool in this area. the member states and the candidate countries must now translate their words into genuine action in order to put an end to this loathsome trade. national governments, police and judicial systems appear passive, powerless and resigned faced with the task of tackling these fundamental issues of human dignity in depth and combating the sex trade and trafficking in human beings in similar detail. such resignation is dangerous for democracy itself. people demand vigorous and determined efforts when it comes to solving these problems. allow me also to emphasise paragraphs 52, 53, 54 and 55 of mr van hecke's report, which are about religious freedom. i find it completely incomprehensible that converting from islam to christianity, buddhism or other religions is punishable by the death penalty in most arabic and muslim countries. that is not consonant with human dignity. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, both these reports have addressed many important issues, not all of which can be considered here, but tolerance, respect and mutual esteem always reach their limits when universal human rights are violated. the way politics works, it always involves a tightrope walk with hope on one side and despair on the other. events in zimbabwe at present tempt us to despair, while we can perhaps derive hope from developments in sierra leone. things can, though, seem quite different the day after tomorrow. we pointed the way with our collaboration with the acp states on the cotonou agreement, with its clauses on human rights and democracy, and its commitment to good governance and the rule of law. we have an instrument, even if it is not as solid as we - whose political dialogue in parliament supports this work - might well have wished. this political dialogue, i believe, is of outstanding importance, as agreement can be reached, in the final analysis, only through discussions with each other. that is why there is also the entitlement to consultation before suspension is resorted to. even that is not a straightforward matter, for we have to ask ourselves how we are to punish the dictatorial regime, without at the same time affecting the people. in this connection, then, i tend to go along with a proverb that is often used in germany: 'the impossible gets done at once, but miracles take a bit longer.' we will have to have staying power, and i do not know whether human rights really are violated more frequently today than in the past. what is certain, though, is that crime, too, has become public. more things become known to us today, and we are of course forced to take action. the fact, though, that crime is now public and that there are almost always cameras there to record it, gives a chance of fighting things that used to remain hidden away. mr president, i would like to express my appreciation of both reports, which i feel complement each other well, although i am not fully satisfied for i feel that the grand declarations they contain are extremely hypocritical: while progress in the world is advancing at an exponential rate, we have to admit that violence, oppression and barbarism are increasing and human rights are being violated at the same exponential rate. however, i do welcome the fact that human rights are among the priorities of our foreign policy, that new forms of slavery are being highlighted such as terrorism, in particular, and the slavery of forced child labour and the slavery of forced prostitution; moreover, there are common positions relating to a capacity for cooperation within the world trade organisation and the international labour organisation to combat these forms of slavery: this is therefore a fight against the exploitation of man by man in all fields and all areas, especially where minors and child abuse are concerned. it is important that these two reports have stressed positive actions promoting human rights, for this is the first time that has been done. this is not just a question of condemnation, therefore, it is not just a matter of identifying these violations: it is the promotion of human rights. this is achieved through two innovations: firstly, an ambassador for human rights, the expression of parliament, and secondly, a european agency for the promotion of human rights. to achieve these two innovations we need a responsible foreign policy made up of practical proposals: that is what we will be calling for and we will make sure we are involved in their development. mr president, human rights are an issue we spanish socialists are particularly sensitive to, since, at a time when for the majority of men and women in the countries of the european union human rights formed the main foundation for their system of coexistence, spain still had to go through decades of hard work and suffering before achieving acceptable and dignified human rights conditions in our society. mrs dez gonzlez, the rapporteur, is well aware of this. she understands the situation better than most, perhaps, given that, being a basque and a democrat, she belongs to a category of spanish and european people who, even now, have to fight against ultra-nationalist terrorism to consolidate the fundamental rights which are the european union's distinguishing marks. the purpose of my speech is mainly to express my support for mrs dez's and mr van hecke's proposals and suggestions, adding just one or two observations. the first is that there should not be a restrictive interpretation of the many excellent initiatives they have suggested. for example, it should not be the case that very high standards in human rights should be a prerequisite and unavoidable condition for the european union to be able to cooperate with third countries, but rather that to raise the level of respect for human rights in each country with which we cooperate should be the objective and result of such cooperation. my second observation comes as a response to criticisms we have heard with regard to the fact that, whilst we make many demands in the area of human rights in relation to third countries, particularly countries in the developing world, we are far more tolerant, on the other hand, when faced with frankly unsatisfactory situations in this area within eu countries themselves. this is not true. these reports refer specifically to third countries, but i take it for granted that the moral and political authority of our debate on cooperation in the world surrounding the european union, with which we hope to be able to have a coherent relationship, will be much more credible and effective if we practice what we preach, and when what we require of others is endorsed by our own conduct, and by our self-imposed requirement to continue making progress, day after day, to improve the protection of human rights within the eu itself. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the commission and especially of my colleague mr patten, who is unable to take part in today's discussion, i wish to thank mrs dez gonzlez and mr van hecke for their reports, which complement each other well. mrs dez gonzlez, in your report on the commission communication on human rights, you call on the institutions to work out a common code of conduct to serve as a basis for the eu's relations with third states. the commission reaffirms the significance, for the european union's relations with other states, of a constructive and dynamic concept founded on critical partnership and collaboration. the council, too, reaffirmed this approach with its guidelines for dialogues on human rights. such dialogue shows particular promise when respect for human rights and for democratic principles forms an essential component of agreements concluded with third states and when such agreements include a clause on human rights. as has already been mentioned, the cotonou agreement was a forward step of this kind. the commission is prepared to discuss the form this clause should take in future and how it is to be applied efficiently, and, in doing so, will attach great importance to parliament's conceptions. in her report, mrs daz gonzlez goes on to advocate the establishment of a european agency for human rights and democracy, which would perform a reporting and advisory role. as stated in its communication, though, the commission takes the view that the european union has no lack of either facilities for consultation or sources of information. the european union can rely on reports by the united nations, the council of europe and, not least, a large number of international non-governmental organisations. the actual challenge for every institution is to make prompt and comprehensive use of the information available and then summon the political will to take difficult decisions. an additional advisory forum would make it impossible to cope with this challenge, and it would, furthermore, be extremely difficult for the commission to transfer powers to such a body in the sensitive area of human rights. mr van hecke's report is devoted to two main subjects, one being counter-terrorism and the other the fight against modern forms of slavery. the european union emphatically condemns slavery in all its forms, including, as the concept does today, alongside traditional slavery and the slave trade, such things as serious violations of the rights of children and of women, the exploitation of certain dependency situations, and apartheid. these continue to afflict millions of people in many parts of the world. the european union has only recently made a statement to the human rights committee in which it welcomed the various international instruments, notably those of the ilo, for combating these forms of slavery, and also called for more positive action against trafficking in human beings. as regards basic working norms, the commission included in last year's communication a comprehensive strategy with the title of 'promoting core labour standards and improving social governance in the context of globalisation' under which countries are to receive incentives and be put in a position to implement core labour standards and adhere to them. one definite step was the council's acceptance of a revised generalised scheme of preferences - the social incentive system - which provides for additional preferences for countries which adhere to core labour norms. from now on, in addition, serious contraventions of one of the ilo's fundamental conventions will be among the grounds for temporary withdrawal of generalised preferences. it was above all on these grounds that the eu suspended the generalised system of preferences for burma. the commission is now giving increased financial support to projects in many countries against trafficking in human beings, against trafficking in women, against child labour or slavery, for example, projects combating the exploitation of juveniles in gabon, benin, togo, and nigeria, or projects within the frameworks provided by the stop or daphne programmes, which are aimed at combating trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation. mr van hecke is quite right to emphasise in his report that the events of 11 september manifest new forms of terrorism. it is to that part of the report that i now turn. it is only right that the whole political debate has been permeated by the fight against terrorism. considerations of human rights have an effect at different levels. the european union holds fast to the important legal distinction that it is states that can violate human rights, whilst terrorist acts are to be categorised in legal terms as criminality. despite the urgent need for action, it is most important to counter-terrorism in all its aspects that we ourselves and our allies strictly maintain the values of international human rights and of humanitarian law. mr van hecke's report furthermore refers to the european initiative for democracy and human rights. the commission is actively endeavouring to implement its new strategy, which comprises a longer-term concept providing for the selection of a limited number of subject areas, which it treats as of core importance and in which the community's contribution can bring about real change. as before, the commission will continue to involve parliament in the discussion on how the european initiative for democracy and human rights is to be implemented. let me again congratulate mrs dez gonzlez and mr van hecke on their reports. the commission welcomes the collaboration with parliament in further advancing our common cause of democracy and human rights. the european union is founded on respect for human rights, and this is true both of internal affairs policy within europe and of europe's policy in foreign affairs. thank you very much, commissioner schreyer. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. (the sitting was suspended at 8.03 p.m. and resumed at 9 p.m.) the next item is the debate on the report (a5-0109/2002) by mr wynn, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on the draft amending budget 2/2002 of the european union for the financial year 2002 (7033/2002 - c5-0131/2002 - 2002/2043(bud)). mr president, looking around we could have met in the bar. it would have been a lot more cosy than this. it is nice to see those of you who are here. whilst this appears on the agenda as the wynn report, it has only just become the wynn report. it was the costa neves report. carlos costa neves, who was the budget rapporteur for 2002, has now moved on to the portuguese government, and i for one was sorry to see him leave. he has done a sterling job and i want to put on record my thanks for the work that he has done on the 2002 budget. i understand that the ppe-de group have now nominated mr podest as the new rapporteur. so i am the in-between bit. hence you have the wynn report on supplementary and amending budget no 2. the council and one or two members are concerned about the amendments that we have tabled. the member states, quite rightly, want the money back that was not spent last year. this amounts to around eur 10 billion, a significant amount of money. it is not the total amount, however, because one amount went back last year, and there is probably still another one or two billion which will come forward in supplementary and amending budget no 3. we have a choice of whether to give the money back to the member states or whether we try to put it to use in other areas. one thing that has been made clear to us is that in next year's budget there could be shortfalls, especially in the structural funds, where the category 2 expenditure on payments may well have to be exceeded. therefore, one of the reasons for our amendments is to alleviate that problem next year by making the monies available this year. consequently, the member states will not receive ten billion back, but something in the region of eur 5.5 billion. the council and certain member states have queried the legality of the amendment and our right to do this. the simple answer is yes, we do have this right. we have done similar things since 1994, which have never been challenged by the council, because it recognises that, at the end of the day, it is the treaty that counts, and the treaty gives parliament the final say on the budget when the president signs the budget. consequently, what we consider a routine operation in amending this sab has given one or two of our friends in the council some ideas about challenging it from a legal point of view. i think they would be unwise to do that. the second problem seems to be that we will delay the new system of own resources by not voting the sab through in its entirety tomorrow. well, yes, we will, but that is not our fault. the commission, out of the goodness of its heart, was trying to do the council a favour by putting these changes into this sab. we want to see them too, but quite frankly, the sooner we get the sab voted at our second reading, on the assumption that the council does not agree with our first reading, then the changes will come about. a third criticism from the council is that there is no chance whatsoever of spending the money this year. if that is the case, we could do something about it later on. as i said sab 3 is coming. we have asked the commission for information on how the money can be spent, whether it can be spent in time or whether all of it can be spent. if the commission comments support the council's position, then of course we will have to re-consider. if we do not do it under sab 2, then we could certainly do it under sab 3. for those trying to read between the lines, i hope that message is pretty clear, because this is not just about this particular sab. there are other consequences. if i use the words 'financial regulation' then the penny may drop with some people and they may begin to understand what i am talking about when i keep mentioning sab 3. another aspect here is that some member states, including my own, will say that there will be a hole in their own budgets. they are right. the easiest way to fill that hole is to get this business sorted out as quickly as possible. this is linked, however, not only to sab 2 or sab 3, but also to the financial regulation. i would hope that with the good cooperation of all three institutions this issue can be put to rest in the not too distant future, to make the council happy, to make ourselves happy and to make sure that the commission can get on with doing the job that it wants to do. mr president, i do not believe i can improvise a five-minute speech on budgetary affairs. in any event, mr president, commissioner, colleagues from the committee on budgets and everybody else interested in budgetary affairs, the wynn report - which was previously the costa neves report and which will very shortly be the podest report, which means that it will be one of the most well-agreed and negotiated reports of this whole legislative period - contains some very interesting points for parliament to discuss. firstly, and this is an issue which affects the commission, as our chairman terry wynn has pointed out, we should ask ourselves why so many amending and supplementary budgets are needed, since they very often entail administrative costs because a new procedure has to be undertaken and, above all, because these distort and devalue the annual budgetary procedure, as we all know, because we have discussed this many times. it would be preferable for us to restrict in some way this possibility of making so many amending budgets. this does not mean that parliament does not agree with the policy of amending budgets. what is more, this parliament, as you are well aware, is totally prepared to defend its rights so that amending budgets continue to exist in the current procedure, in their current form and with parliament's current rights. therefore, we agree upon the basis, that is to say, that we agree that amending budgets should continue to exist, and that this parliament should have something to say with regard to all of them. we are talking in this case about a budget of balances, an enormous budget and surplus. we are talking about eur 10 billion plus another estimated eur 1.2 billion. we are talking, more or less, about eur 12 billion. this is money which was already budgeted for and which will be given back to the member states because of an underspend. a budgetary surplus in national budgetary policy is a good thing, it is a saving. it will often be the result of efforts not to spend and is money that will revert to national coffers or to taxpayers. however, in this case we are talking about a different kind of surplus. we are talking about an underspend in budget appropriations that were approved at the time by the european parliament. we are talking about poor execution and poor management. we do not know whether this is the responsibility of the commission, of the member states, of the regional authorities or whoever, but, in any case, we find ourselves having to cope with the reality of eur 12 billion that has been poorly managed and that will have to be returned to the member states. this is not good news for anyone concerned. it is not good news for the commission nor for parliament. neither, essentially, is this good news for finance ministers, although it would appear to be so, for these are european funds, community funds that have a multiplier effect in national economies. if they are not used, evidently this multiplier effect will not take place. therefore, essentially, to have to give back this money as it is is a lost opportunity. however, on the positive side, this budget will allow us to analyse how to reduce the balance of outstanding payments and needs for 2003 payments. obviously, in order to enter into the payments for 2003, it is a good idea to start with payments for 2002, and for this reason amendments to payment appropriations of eur 4.5 billion have been put forward, with which i believe this house will totally agree, because these affect all categories of expenditure. from the structural funds or the leonardo programmes to the external action programmes, they cover the whole range of budgetary needs for payments. we know this does not have to be a definitive position. political life is a life of negotiation. we will have to negotiate with the commission and the council. perhaps so many payment appropriations are not necessary. the effort needed for 2003 will perhaps be greater. maybe the council will want to reflect on the correct way to carry out interinstitutional relations, particularly with parliament. i am sure that, in any event, the task of the three institutions this remaining month before the second part-session in may, in which we will make a definitive decision, will be a month of much negotiation and we are of course all very optimistic in this regard. mr president, commissioner, it is a fact that the beginning of every year, or a day relatively soon after it, finds us facing the same procedure as today's. one could get the impression that, for the finance ministers, easter means great big easter eggs from europe, which take the form of returned funds, which of course take some pressure off the national budgets, and on which we in this house have to take decisions at the beginning of each year. as has already been said far more than once, with this supplementary and amending budget we will be talking about eur 10 billion, and the eur 2 billion that have as good as been announced are yet to be put in front of us. we must, though, remember that at the end of last year we repaid eur 1.2 billion, whether on a one-off basis or in anticipation, which means that for this one year we are talking about over eur 13 billion in unused resources. in the same way, at the end of every year, when christmas is approaching, we do not necessarily have christmas presents for parliament, and each time we have to fight to raise small amounts that are not allocated to important political tasks. over the last three years we had kosovo, where we really had to fight hard to end up with any money at all. this had to do with serbia, it had to do with aid for fisheries in the southern parts of this eu of ours - in spain and portugal - and we even had to dig into our emergency reserves in order to guarantee the continuing reconstruction of the balkans last year. yet today's backflow is not really cause for rejoicing, as it only means that there are resources that have not been utilised. this can mean that the programmes for which they were intended were not there, or that serious work was not done in the member states, or that the options for giving help to the public have not been sufficiently exhausted. what it does mean in any case is that all of what has been announced must at some point or other be implemented, and every one of today's payment reimbursements is a burden for the future, because, if it is not paid out today, it will be paid out at some point in the future, and so only limited rejoicing is called for. i think that we have to make it clear that this is not really helping. as long as two years ago, i suggested on one occasion that, instead of letting all the money be returned, we should put some - 10% of the returnable resources, for example - into, as it were, a reserve or emergency fund. that would, for a start, be another way of going about things. funds would not be constantly moved back and forth, so we would, instead, be able to make rather more reliable plans, and it would also help us to move forward in other areas. supplementary and amending budgets can be talked about and looked at from many different angles, this one being one of them. we in parliament intend to amend the supplementary and amending budget in such a way that a substantial amount does not go straight back to the member states. we have just heard that there are payments that have to be made in many areas, with past commitments having to be met. in the coming days and weeks, we will be intensively seeking discussions with the council. we will pay precise attention to how amenable to discussions the council is, and to how openly it deals with us. i do think we can find good solutions to this. we must all be aware that cooperation means that all are ready to talk to each other. that is as much the case as regards the supplementary and amending budget as it is in the budget procedure. we are ready, but we are also prepared for very intensive discussions with each other and, if need be, for an in-depth exchange of arguments. mr president, i would like to thank mr wynn for an excellent report and say that i fully support his ideas on amending the financial regulation. the supplementary and amending budget before us includes two important matters: the new basis for collecting the own resources, and carrying over last year's surplus to cover this year's budget. the collection cost for traditional own resources is increasing from 10% to 25% and the value added charge is falling from 1% to around half a per cent. the change is based on the new council decision, which has only just been ratified. it will particularly benefit the eu's net contributors. germany's annual contribution will fall by around eur 847 million, that of the netherlands by eur 505 million, and that of sweden and austria by around eur 140 million. italy's contribution will increase by approximately eur 757 million and that of france by eur 458 million. the decision shows how sensitive an issue eu contributions are in terms of internal policy, because they only represent around 1% of gdp. a politically harder question is last year's unused appropriations, which, according to the explanatory statement, amount to the enormous sum of eur 18 billion, or 20% of the entire budget. unused appropriations for structural funds alone amounted to eur 10.5 billion, or 32% of the total. last year eur 6.5 billion of these funds remained unused. the reason for this underutilization is first and foremost commission bureaucracy. it is difficult to put decisions into effect. the procedure whereby decisions are taken is confused and vague. the entire process lacks any clear approach or personal accountability. documents lie around buried under the official machinery and nobody cares about, or takes the responsibility for, delays with regard to decisions. if the budget were so poorly implemented in any member state the government would fall straightaway. the commission must therefore really make more of an effort. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, i would like to start by congratulating mr costa neves, for he has certainly made a major contribution to the work of our committee in recent years and his input has always been positive. as the rapporteur has rightly pointed out in the explanatory statement, the supplementary and amending budget which we are to vote on tomorrow has two distinguishing features. firstly, it budgets for 2002 a preliminary amount of eur 10 billion of the surplus carried over from 2001. this surplus, which is mainly the result of underspends in the areas of structural funds and agriculture, is equivalent to a 'reimbursement' to member states as it will decrease their payments for the 2002 budget. secondly, it recalculates the financing of the 2002 budget on the basis of the new council decision on own resources and, as a result, the share of traditional own resources in collection costs that member states are allowed to keep has increased from 10% to 25%. however, what interests me most at the moment is the first feature of this budget. if we do not allow our attention to be diverted by the populist view that it is good to save money, the full gravity of the situation becomes apparent: in other words, the european commission, the symbol - rightly or wrongly - for millions of european citizens, of europe, of integration, of the future, has proved incapable of implementing the budget as adopted by parliament and the council, and is now left with a surplus of 12 per cent. however, there is another side to the matter: the member states, which are constantly asking for more money for structural actions and which, on the eve of enlargement, are fighting tough political battles in order not to lose community structural support for their citizens, have been unable to implement the commitments undertaken and have not asked for payments which have already been appropriated. clearly, ladies and gentlemen, the problem is fairly universal and it is one that needs urgent resolution, for it is an offence to our fellow citizens and genuinely exposes us to the ridicule of a public which is becoming increasingly less disposed to understand and increasingly more liable, on the other hand, to let itself be influenced by summary criticism. mr president, commissioner, i think that, this evening, we have achieved unanimous support for the position of our rapporteur, the chairman of the committee on budgets, and i think that the council must listen, let us say through an intermediary, to how the house votes tomorrow because we cannot always trust unanimity. unanimity is sometimes the expression of the desire of an institution to set out its stall, to make its voice heard over that of an arm of the budgetary authority which sometimes forgets the balance between parliament and the council and attempts to encroach upon our powers, our prerogatives and the role that we have in relation to public opinion. yet, this problem, because of the fact that such a considerable amount was not spent, is a serious problem, it is not possible to simply ask us for a full discharge, perhaps a blank cheque, without even giving it some thought, without even asking the questions that we are asking this evening. however this situation unfolds, therefore, i think that we have behaved properly towards the electorate, towards the citizens of europe, towards ourselves, in investigating the dab and in doing so, telling the council to be aware that both our institutions have to decide, as that is what the treaties stipulate and that is what logic dictates as well. we have a dab balance; we also have responsibilities as a budgetary authority. we are fulfilling them, we are awaiting the council's response, we are also waiting for the commission's next steps and we shall issue an opinion at second reading, because this is a problem. it is right to raise it and we have done well to raise it in this way. mr president, commissioner, the amending budget we are debating today, practically in private, reveals, as has been stated, a disease endemic throughout the execution of payment appropriations, because, given the amount in question, we are not talking about an exception, but the rule. the 2000 settlement presented a surplus in the payment forecasts of some eur 11 billion; that for 2001 could end up at around eur 14 billion, a surplus that will, logically, lighten member states' contributions in years to come. under these conditions, doubts are cast upon these procedures and their legitimate use is undermined. these imbalances are largely concentrated in category 2. we already know that the first few years of the implementation of regional and cohesion policy, the programming phase, takes up a great deal of time, resources and energy. suffice it to say that the approval of the community support framework for objective 1 regions took place in october 2000, with regard to spain, and this decision is the prerequisite for cofinancing. the results of the 2001 consumption of payments, under this heading, produces some worrying information. the rate of implementation dropped 10 points in relation to the previous year and, with regard to the total intended for objective 1 regions, it dropped 6 points. the final result is therefore a considerable increase in the ral. the current regulations of the structural funds should, therefore, be analysed in the light of this. faced with enlargement, it should be improved to allow better financial management of the programmes for obvious reasons: because regional policy is at the heart of the european project and is fundamental for the progress of the integration process, and because it is a key instrument that enjoys the widest consensus. similar problems, but involving lower figures, arise in headings 3 and 4: consumption of payments in external actions in 2001 also dropped 5 points in relation to the previous year - to be specific, initiatives promoting democracy and human rights only reached 56% of the anticipated payments. i believe, madam commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, that parliament's amendments have no other purpose than to temporarily slow down a saving that, to a large extent, is of a transitory nature for the member states and does not aim to hinder the management of financial flows in member states, but to remedy a situation that is neither politically nor financially reasonable. firstly, the commission should improve its working systems both in the preparatory phase and in the execution phase. in this regard, the difficulties in payments anticipated for 2003 should be resolved satisfactorily. secondly, the council should understand that parliament exercises its competencies as budgetary authority with all that this implies and that this modified amending budget means that, even when, with regard to own resources, parliament is not on an equal footing with the council, in this and in other areas that are currently being discussed, what citizens are asking for is a stable institutional balance and a dialogue which obtains practical results, because there are no other alternatives that would produce improved benefits for all. mr president, can i say that everyone in the chamber this evening knows that the reason why this money is being held back in the system. it is because there is a great need for structural funding to be spent in our various countries and regions. we are now some two and a half years through the seven-year programme 2000-2006. we are thus over 30% of the way through, and we have grossly underspent. what we are doing now is giving the member states the chance to get their act together and to spend this money, to help improve the environment, working conditions and employment prospects throughout our european union. this is for the betterment of the economy as a whole and of conditions in our areas. we are taking a responsible attitude and i am delighted that we have unanimity round the chamber this evening. i hope this will be reflected in the voting tomorrow. it is very important indeed for us to make sure that the countries spend this money, to allow the private sector to get its act together because, at the end of 2006, with enlargement, we, the existing fifteen countries, will lose the ability to have structural funding. the other five or ten countries coming into the european union will demand structural funding for their countries. we will have a very rapid cut-off. it may well be that we do not even allow any overlapping into the year 2007-2008 on the spend if it gets further behind. i therefore urge every single government throughout the european union to use this money, use it effectively and use it quickly. i thoroughly endorse the chairman's guidance to us, as team captains so to speak, to make sure that we vote conclusively together tomorrow to withhold the necessary money and urge those countries to spend it properly. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, this evening is a special one for me, as, by way of exception, i am not at all in agreement with the committee on budget's resolution, and take a different view of these matters. the member states do not just want their money back, they are actually owed it under the treaty, and the commission has accordingly submitted the supplementary and amending budget. the money from the member states' contributions to the european budget that we have not used over the past year should, in accordance with the legislation, be given back by us to the member states as quickly as possible on economic grounds alone, as anything else would result in economic losses. we had a very large surplus last year, and i will be coming back in this speech to its various elements. the supplementary and amending budget also comprises several elements, namely, firstly, the surplus from last year and secondly the implementation of the new own resources decision, which has various constituent parts. the new own resources decision, as agreed in berlin, was meant to enter into force with effect from 1 january 2002, but, as several member states were late in ratifying it, the 2000 budget still had to be based on the old own resources decision. what this means in real terms is that some of the present member states had to pay higher contributions than they would have to under the new own resources decision. the new own resources decision has various elements to it: 25% of customs receipts can remain with the member states, and the share from vat receipts is reduced, while that in terms of gnp is increased, thus resulting in the financial burden being shifted. there is also the third element: four member states get, so to speak, a rebate on the rebate paid to the united kingdom, that is, one rebate on another. that is what has been decided, and is now to be put into practice, the commission having for that reason linked it with the surplus. member states will be enabled to keep 25% of customs receipts with effect from 1 january 2001. the money that would have been required for this has of course been set off against the surplus, as it would otherwise have had to be returned and then collected back again. (interruption: very good!) it gives me great pleasure to hear that, mr walter! i would now, though, like to briefly say something about how a surplus of these dimensions came about. it is the case, as has been said here already, that the surplus or under-utilisation in the area of the structural funds is around the order of eur 10 billion. i must again point out that, at this stage of the new programme, it is no longer a case of the commission being too slow in authorising projects; rather, we now have the stipulation that the commission makes repayments to the member states when these submit an invoice for a programme that has been implemented. if there are no invoices, then nothing can be paid out. in 2000, we still had the option of making advance payments, as provided for by the relevant regulation. in 2001, that was no longer possible, and the question does indeed arise as to why the member states' estimates last year of the resources they required to implement the programmes were far in excess of the sums subsequently called for. still in connection with the surplus, there are two other things i would like to mention. firstly, in the agricultural policy area, there were actually savings of the order of eur 2 billion, mainly because the weakness that affected the market for cattle following the bse crisis turned out not to last for as long as had at first been surmised, and the market recovered more quickly. other market areas were in a better position than prior estimates had suggested. we are talking here about real savings in which we can take pleasure. secondly, in foreign policy, that is, in category 4, almost 90% of the resources available were drawn on. in the second year, we achieved an improvement on the former position, and i believe that it has to be clearly underlined that the administrative reforms introduced by my fellow-commissioners chris patten and poul nielson in the field of foreign policy are now bearing real fruit. the charge that the eu makes great promises but never really gets anything done will not stick any more. the member states are of course waiting for last year's high surplus to be returned to their budgets. it is of such dimensions that it is now of real economic relevance to the budgets of the member states. when you consider that the economic slowdown that we have had since 11 september has of course had its effects on the member states' budgets, it is absolutely clear that they are awaiting the repayment from the european budget precisely in order to avoid greater deficits. the commission takes the view that it would be sensible in terms of overall economic responsibility to avoid delays. let me now summarise mr walter's and mr wynn's contributions: we have not given back any easter eggs, and a glance at the timetable indicates that there will not be any bouquets for whitsun either, but i will gladly accede to the request of the chairman of the committee on budgets not to let them turn into christmas presents! the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. the next item is the joint debate on two reports: (a5-0066/2002) by mrs martens, on behalf of the committee on women's rights and equal opportunities, on the communication from the commission to the council and the european parliament on the programme of action for the mainstreaming of gender equality in community development cooperation, and (a5-0067/2002), by mrs avils perea, on the report from the commission to the council, the european parliament, the economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: annual report on equal opportunities for women and men in the european union 2000. mr president, article 3 of the treaty stipulates that the european community wishes to eliminate all inequality and promote equality between men and women. in 1995 in a resolution, the council specified gender equality as the foundation for development cooperation. also in 1995, a ten-point action programme was adopted at the international women's conference in peking to promote gender equality. this action programme was signed by all the countries attending the conference. however, the situation still leaves a great deal to be desired, certainly in the area of development cooperation. there is a lack not only of projects for women but also, and above all, of projects that are implemented in consultation with women. during the previous part-session, we adopted the very controversial izquierdo rojo report on women and fundamentalism. this report was approved unanimously in the committee on women's rights and equal opportunities. the problem in this field is obvious to everyone. we are also largely agreed on the directions which the solutions should take. development cooperation is still too much a matter that involves men only. seventy percent of the approximately one and a half billion people who live below the poverty line are women. this means that they are greatly lacking in financial resources, but there is more to the matter in practice. in many cases, there is also a lack of fundamental human rights and social rights, such as the right to proper food, drinking water, education health care and work. people who live below the poverty line often have too little control over, and access to, services, sources of aid and goods and are barely involved in the decision-making process. interestingly, there are increasing indications that there is a link between poverty and gender inequality. countries which struggle with a high level of gender inequality, such as sierra leone, niger, burkina faso or mali, also suffer the highest levels of poverty. in countries where there is less gender inequality, there is also less poverty. moreover, it appears that development projects, for example in the area of health care, literacy or agriculture, are more successful if women are also involved. investing in girls seems to result in lower levels of child mortality and mortality among women, creates better food safety and means an improvement in the fight against poverty. not for nothing, therefore, is development policy based on the principle of sustainable, fair, human and social development based on participation. human rights, democracy and the rule of law are inextricably linked to this, and this is why women should also be involved. since the council defined gender mainstreaming as a point of departure for development cooperation policy six years ago, disappointingly little has actually happened. this is why i am pleased with this commission communication. the action programme can provide an additional boost to the implementation of gender equality in the eu's development cooperation policy. i can identify with the three main points which the commission outlines, namely the analysis and integration of the gender aspect within the priority fields of community development cooperation, the horizontal integration of the gender aspect in projects and programmes, and the development of an internal gender capacity in the european community itself. these three points, and particularly the last one, are extremely important. for a change in mentality is also required in the bodies of the european union itself. if the staff who are to assess, implement and evaluate the programmes do not take this sufficiently into account, how can the situation ever improve? it is necessary to train our own people, as it is to provide adequate financial support for the policy. it is unfortunate and disappointing in my view that the commission is once again opting for an economic approach and describing women mainly as a means of achieving economic growth. the fact that women are people who are entitled to quality of life in their own right and, as such, can, and should, be able to lay claim to civil rights, political rights and human rights, is still too much overlooked in my view. the five-year action plan is there to implement the good intentions which the commission formulates. indeed, the intentions should not remain merely good intentions. this is why the plan also requires the further development of a work programme with clearly defined working methods, deadlines, financial resources and indicators. i welcome the intention of deciding in favour of an interim evaluation, and i hope that the commission will involve the european parliament in this in good time. i should also like to note the importance of cooperation with non-governmental organisations and other related organisations at international level. these can often be of major significance. finally, the regulation in question lapses in 2003. it forms the legal basis for the budget line which promotes the integration of the gender issue in the development cooperation policy. in my report, i therefore call for a renewal of this regulation, thus allowing the work that needs to be done in the field to be continued. mr president, commissioner, we have here the annual report, presented by the commission, to analyse the progress made with regard to equal opportunities for men and women in the european union in the year 2000. we are pleased to see that the employment rate for women has risen, albeit only slightly, but we still notice that women's jobs are, on the whole, part-time, unstable and offer less opportunity for promotion. we have not been able to achieve equal pay for the same jobs. the differences are still very significant, and although we have made some progress in reconciling professional and family life, we have not been able to achieve greater task sharing within the family, which would allow women to dedicate themselves more professionally to their work. when we consider that women need help, our thoughts turn to mothers, young women with small children, and we believe that we can resolve these problems by setting up crches. another very common phenomenon is that older people are now increasingly living with the rest of their family, people these same women have to care for, disabled people, perhaps, which means that housewives, these same women, have an increased workload. we do not on the whole take into account the fact that social assistance is also needed, such as day centres, that would make it easier for women to go to work. we notice that women have not made great progress with regard to the society of the future, that is to say, new technologies or the information society. only 20% of women participate in this sector and this is something that we should promote, making sure that they can have access to lifelong training in this area, since the jobs of the future will rely heavily on the society built around these new technologies. there is a very noticeable absence of women in managerial positions, in companies, associations, political parties and in public institutions. we repeatedly call for increased participation of women in these jobs, a better balance between men and women, but we still notice a difficulty in achieving the presence of women in decision-making posts. therefore, we call for innovative measures and specific actions aimed at better representation for women in all areas of employment, in the professional field, with better task-sharing between men and women, and improved reconciliation between professional and family life. we must monitor compliance with the community objective of equality between men and women in programmes financed by european funds, pursuant to the treaty, and to promote a greater participation of women in decision-making posts. these objectives will also be taken into account in the eu enlargement process, monitoring the incorporation of the community acquis into the national legislations of candidate countries. domestic violence and poor treatment and exploitation of women is still a very serious problem and an area in which we need to continue working in order to help victims and eradicate, where possible, the causes of these phenomena, such as poverty and insecurity. as we can see, there is still much work to be done. there are still very few women working in managerial positions, little representation of women in the labour market and, most importantly, we are not yet at the stage where women get equal pay for the same work. i believe, therefore, that we need to call on the commission and the institutions to closely monitor this situation in order to ensure that the objective of equality is realised as soon as possible. mr president, there are two important reports on this evening's agenda. the first is the report on the european commission's final report on equal opportunities for women and men in the european union in 2000, a subject of prime importance to the quality of democracy in the european union and of prime importance if we are to achieve the development objectives set in lisbon. the second is the report on the action programme to include equal opportunities in cooperation with third countries. this is crucial to harmonious development throughout the world, even though we have been so slow to realise it; it is six years now since the council first included the equality dimension in the community's development policy and the action programme was published. to be perfectly honest, it was the situation of women in afghanistan, which unfortunately came to light after the terrorist attack on september 11, which woke us up to the plight of women's rights in various parts of the globe. as far as the first report is concerned, which deals with matters closer to home, mrs avils perea points out - and i agree with her - that the report has improved this year in comparison with previous years and contains a more in-depth evaluation of the policies applied on equal opportunities. i too should like to point out that the committee on women's rights and equal opportunities has expressed its dissatisfaction at the fact that the european commission is unable to monitor the material application of community policy on equal treatment for men and women. we need to find and apply ways of monitoring these policies. this is also immensely important to the new countries which will be joining us. as far as the lisbon objective is concerned, there may have been an increase in the employment rate, but the member states still need to continue and step up their efforts to set more specific objectives in their national action programmes if they are to have both more efficient policies and monitoring policies. i agree with the rapporteur that we need to voice our concern about the lack of job security, the lack of quality jobs, the poor career prospects open to women in europe and the lack of infrastructures. we are not just talking about nurseries, we are talking about care for the elderly and the sick. the conference on people with disabilities organised by the spanish presidency has already stressed the immense importance of infrastructures for people with disabilities, both to allow them to retain their dignity and to relieve women of some of their responsibilities. i agree with the rapporteur that we need to step up efforts to compile gender-based statistics which reflect the real situation of women on the job market and in other sectors and to apply more efficient policies. mr president, commissioner, my heartfelt thanks are due today to mrs martens and mrs avils perea for their reports on the programme of action for mainstreaming gender equality in development cooperation and on the annual report for 2000. i think there are a number of parallels between them, and social democrat members can note with satisfaction that yet another building block has been added to implement the platform of the beijing conference on women. the framework strategy of gender mainstreaming is being implemented consistently. we are facing a thorough analysis of the problem and see here clear instructions as to how it is to be implemented on a regional and national basis. gender awareness is in the meantime becoming accepted among some decision-makers, and we know that sustainable development must first begin with women. we also know that sustainable development cannot be had for free, and so it is appalling that the budget allocation for gender-specific development cooperation, which was eur 5 million as recently as 1998, was cut by 60% in 2001. how is a change in thinking to be brought about? incidentally, i recall that the member states had undertaken to utilise 0.7% of their gross national product for development aid. we are nowhere near approaching that. if we do not act without delay, the credibility of the so-called developed countries will be at stake. i also ask the commission what became of the 'gender desk' in development cooperation. how are we to improve reproductive health and family planning, improving access to contraception - which includes ensuring the prevention of hiv/aids - and, moreover, get these things into rural areas, if we do not replenish budget resources to a marked degree? political discussion may well have enabled us to rescue from the realm of taboo practices which demonstrate contempt for the personal value of women, such as genital mutilation, public floggings, stonings, violence and sexual abuse, to blow the whistle on them on the international stage and also combat them politically, but there is also a need for practical implementation. we need consistent annual reviews such as that in mrs avils perea's report, in order to be able to examine the facts. that is why my group supports both reports. we can do no other than back them up entirely and call on the commission to make these noble objectives a reality. mr president, these are two very different reports we are debating here today but, where both reports are concerned, the fact is that, if no really major changes are made - in relation both to the developing countries and to the position of women in the countries of the western world, including the eu - then we can forget all about equality. the methods required are, of course, completely different, however, and i should like to thank the two rapporteurs, precisely because it is clear from the reports that it is different initiatives that are required. in connection with the developing countries, i would highlight paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 14 of the report which indicate, for example, the need to look more closely at religious, cultural and socio-economic traditions and the role they play in relation to women in the developing countries. it is all very well talking about 'mainstreaming', but this must not cause us to forget practical action programmes. when it comes to the eu, i think that an article in today's 'guardian' has a headline that is very much to the point: 'women can have it all - with a little bit of help'. the background to the article is research in the united states showing that 42% of high-salaried women are childless. they simply start too late and are under the illusion that women can have it all. they cannot. that is something we cause them to believe. they cannot have both careers and family lives with children. the next headline therefore says: 'a female-friendly state can make a significant investment in the future'. i believe it has to be said that, in a number of western countries, we are labouring under an illusion concerning equality. illusion it is, however, and illusion it remains, and we must not therefore imagine that we have obtained equality until men too begin to make demands about wanting to have it all. it is the subject of men's demands that it is necessary to bring up now. mr president, i wish to begin by thanking the two rapporteurs for their very sound reports, on which i would also congratulate them. there is every reason to welcome the commission's programme of action for the mainstreaming of gender equality in community development cooperation. at the same time, i have to state that it is remarkable and quite frustrating that it took six years from the council's making its decision to the commission's presenting its programme of action. it is now important for the prioritised areas in the programme of action also to be coordinated with the objectives of the community framework strategy on gender equality, in which development is of course a recurring theme. economic equality, equality on issues of employment and political representation, equal social benefits and the promotion of human rights relating specifically to women are important aspects of these objectives. in reality, the objectives concern the dignity of both women and men and, in actual fact, the very value of human life. if these objectives are to be achieved in the developing countries too, there must be an undertaking to include issues of equality in all future programmes and documents concerning the country strategies, as well as in strategies for reducing poverty. it is also important that compliance with the equality aspects be required for funding from all budget headings within the field of development policy and not only from the hiv and aids budget heading, commendable though it is in itself, of course, that equality is required in the latter area. as soon as possible, the commission must also table a proposal on the work programme and specify the funding for, and rules governing, its implementation so that it can be implemented quickly. we know, as a result of countless studies, that democracy and development can only take place if women in the developing countries are fully involved. i therefore also support the proposal in paragraph 26 to the effect that, in a meeting with the joint parliamentary acp-eu assembly, the important issue be addressed of ensuring that the cotonou agreement is also complied with in this area. my group will support the report. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, first of all, i would like to thank mrs martens and mrs avils perea, whose reports, i believe, have produced unanimity, which is very pleasing. i would also like to agree with the other speakers who have highlighted a few specific points in these reports. first of all, i think that they share common ground, and particularly when they demonstrate that the question of poverty, just like the question of violence, are gender-related questions wherever they arise in the world. we are all too used to this, and i have recently heard so much debate on violence in my country, but no one has pointed out that violence is not meted out in the same way by men and by women and on men and on women. i believe therefore that the gender aspect of poverty and violence are important points. i would also like to say that given this difficulty - and there are many other difficulties - but if i think about this particular one, i think that what is in the pipeline in the future directive, commissioner, which will be based on article 13 and which will deal with all the questions other than that of employment, the question of the individualisation of rights will be key. what do i mean by the individualisation of rights? these are rights that we give, independently of marital status, to a person. i think that this is our future. and it is important to emphasise that these reports allude to this and that we must, in my view, defend this particular point. we must also defend ourselves at a time when, in my country, a candidate standing in the presidential elections is contemplating making women stay at home - he has said this and he has written this. i think that the question of what we often refer to as conciliation - which i myself do not like to call conciliation - in other words, the organisation, the relationship between what we do at home and what we do with our children, as a family, and what happens in public, whether it be political or professional life, we have a genuine need to organise this. i think that it is also important to highlight this point, whichever country we might discuss. perhaps all we need to do is to think about the future with the individualisation of rights and the interaction between professional and public life, and then think about this directive as well. of course, i expect the commission to put forward its proposals in the very near future, and then we can consider enlargement. we hope that the acquis communautaire will be transposed into national law. we want the transposition of the acquis. we know that it is very difficult. the baltic countries will soon start the transposition of some community legislation into their national law and we know that this will be difficult. mr president, we are debating two very important reports on women's rights today. a few days ago, someone asked me if i really believed that women's rights are violated in europe. naturally i did not need to think long or hard before replying that, compared with other parts of the world, europe is a paradise for women's rights. without doubt it has made a great deal of progress over recent years, as we can see from the european commission's annual reports. however, serious problems persist even in democratic europe, such as violence against women in its various manifestations, domestic violence, sexual violence, violence in the workplace. and it is to the spanish presidency's credit, i say it again, that it has put these issues at the top of its agenda. the fact that some 500 000 women are bought and sold in the european union every year is a blatant violation of fundamental rights; the european union has still not woken up to this and, more to the point, it has still not taken specific measures to combat this phenomenon. the fact that 3 000 women in the united kingdom alone are sexually mutilated every year, in the name of cultural traditions which immigrants from fundamentalist and anti-democratic regimes bring with them together with their baggage is also a violation of basic rights, as was the recent crime of honour in sweden. the fact is, the european job market is still fragmented along gender lines, women's salaries are much lower than men's, only 25% of businesses belong to women and women are kept below the glass ceiling and out of responsible managerial and decision-making positions; all examples of violations and discrimination against women. furthermore, the standard which is the idea at the core of the guidelines for the european strategy on employment should also be the objective for women's employment, as should stepping up measures to reconcile working and family life and individualising rights, as mrs fraisse quite rightly points out. mr president, it is appalling how women in many developing countries are still being treated. they often have to do the hard work, give birth to and bring up many children, and are scarcely remunerated for this. they have no, or poor, access to education. women suffer heavily from domestic violence. reproductive health care often leaves a great deal to be desired. also politically speaking, women do not have a voice. cultural, religious and socio-economic customs which are at odds with the humane and equal treatment of women must be broken down. to fight for this is not a form of neo-colonialism, it is a sine qua non of effective development. this is why the fight against structural injustice has to play a prominent role in european development policy across the board. it is very unfortunate that i am the only man to take the floor on this matter this evening. we men should not leave women to fight this battle alone. the situation is too appallingly unfair for this. mr president, i am struck by the similarities between these reports. mr van den bos has just pointed out that conditions for women in the developing countries are appalling for a variety of reasons. at the same time, i remembered that mrs martens' report states that women in developing countries are often discriminated against in terms of access to food, health care, education, training, decision-making, participation in regional programmes and economic activities, as well as property rights. it is of course precisely the same as in the eu member states. perhaps the degree of discrimination is not as great in the eu but, as we say in sweden, 'there are differences of degree in hell'. the report also makes it clear that remedying a lack of equality and strengthening the role and rights of women are crucial to social justice and development. that is something which applies to both developing and industrialised countries and within both the eu and its member states. mr president, i too would like to thank the two rapporteurs for the contribution they have made with this report. i would, however, like to focus in particular on mrs avils perea's report, for i feel that, as has already been said, the annual report is a genuinely important instrument which allows us all to follow up, assess and monitor the initiatives undertaken by the union and the member states and the coherence of these initiatives with the global legislation and strategy defined at union level. as the rapporteurs have already said, although the 2000 report does record some progress, it reveals a europe which is still a hostile environment for women and which is, in many respects, a long way from achieving the goal of equal opportunities: the female unemployment rate is higher than the male unemployment rate, the employment rate is still a long way off the goal set at lisbon, the labour market is still segregated, women continue to be heavily under-represented in positions of responsibility and, above all, there is a pay gap which is frankly scandalous considering that this is europe in the third millennium. with the community framework strategy on equal opportunities, the mainstreaming of the gender dimension and the community equal opportunities policy as a whole, we are heading in the right direction. in particular, i feel that the 2002 employment guidelines and the amending of the directive on access to employment and training, which were successfully completed in conciliation last week, the directive on gender equality based on article 13, in the context of which i, like mrs fraisse, feel that we should call more strongly for the individualisation of rights - a directive which the commission is to present shortly - and the programmes combating violence against women and trafficking are new, important elements which fill gaps in the overall strategy. however, we need to do more. with regard to the pay gap between men and women, the under-representation of women in positions of responsibility and the balanced participation of women and men in decision-making processes, we need to be more forceful in making everyone - the social partners, the political organisations, the institutions and the member states - shoulder their responsibilities, and we should maybe introduce more effective instruments that provide better incentives than those used hitherto. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i do not want to use this speech to dwell on depictions of the disadvantages under which women labour in developing countries or elsewhere, which have often been described. i believe we are familiar enough with the problem. the commission is pursuing the implementation of the principle of gender mainstreaming - and, indeed, so is parliament, as the two rapporteurs have reiterated. looking, though, at the resources that are made available for this purpose, i ask myself how it is to be achieved. gender mainstreaming is a top-down process, one that presupposes that the necessary raising of awareness and opportunities for training take place or are present within the organisations or authorities in question - in this case, the commission. we are well aware, though, of the substantial personnel shortage that exists in this field of work. unless there has been significant change in the meantime, we only have one national expert from sweden who is at all involved in the area of women and development cooperation. this is a lamentable state of affairs, one that we have been complaining of for years, and we have, unfortunately, seen no changes in it to date. we do not weary of emphasising that the key to development is in the hands of women, but we have not the remotest possibility of being able even to start to put that into practice. commissioner schreyer, please take note of how those very people who are responsible here for development cooperation are profoundly disappointed that what we have described in many papers - and on which there is, as is well known, a programme - stands not the remotest chance of being implemented in a truly satisfactory way. there really have to be some changes here. it is also, let it be added, in europe's interest, for if we support the empowerment of women in the developing countries, that forms part of the emancipation of the european area and will also in part alleviate the problems we still have to deal with today. if women are not empowered, if they are not given the tools for development, then development simply will not happen! mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mrs diamantopoulou is on her way to the g8 summit, so i am standing in for her in today's discussions. that i do very gladly, as a policy on gender equality is indeed one of the pillars of european politics. i would like to start by referring to mrs avils perea's report. the annual report on equal opportunities for women and men in the eu has, ever since it first appeared in 1996, been to some extent our flagship publication in the area of gender equality. the report informs the public about progress made in the field of equal opportunities, and is of course at the same time a means of monitoring the commission's strategy of involving gender issues in all the eu's policies and in all its programmes. i am glad to be able to note that the present resolution by parliament sees our report this year as marking qualitative progress and confirms it as a systematic and critical evaluation of the initiatives at community and national level. parliament's resolution contains, in addition, new and highly constructive commentaries and proposals, which will prove very useful in the drafting of future equal opportunities reports. i wish to thank the rapporteur, mrs avils perea, most warmly for her report. the commission gives a ready reception to her call for improved and more up-to-date statistics on equal opportunities, including the development of an index on equal opportunities for both genders. i am able to inform you today that the 2001 annual report will incorporate a statistical annex on this subject. equal opportunities experts are already working on developing an equal opportunities index, which then, i hope, can find its way into the next annual report. another topic of core significance is the balanced representation of men and women in decision-making processes. we need no further confirmation of the fact that women continue to be under-represented in essential fora. looking at the convention, we again cannot but note that adequate representation can still not be taken for granted. i would like, though, to point out that the commission took the step of setting up its equal opportunities group in order to make equal opportunities a primary issue in our institution as well. the commission agrees that equal opportunities for both genders is a prerequisite for a functioning democracy. three further issues arose from parliament's resolution: equal opportunities policy in the structural funds, the position in the candidate countries and all the forms taken by violence against women. let me take the first point. the commission intends this year to adopt a communication on gender mainstreaming in the structural funds, which will incorporate the contributions to and conclusions from the third conference on gender mainstreaming in the context of the structural funds. the conference, which is to be held in spain on 14 and 15 june this year, is being organised by the spanish presidency in close cooperation with the commission and with financial support from it. let me turn to the second point. over the past year, positive developments in the area of equal opportunities have been noted in the candidate countries, although not all the necessary conditions have as yet been met. transposition of this integral part of the acquis communautaire will not only continue to be closely observed by the commission, but we have also made it abundantly clear that transitional periods in respect of equal opportunities and rights or for the relevant directives and legal framework cannot be permitted and there will therefore not be any. the president of the commission and my fellow-commissioner verheugen have made this clear on their respective travels in the candidate countries, in discussions with which this point is one that i always raise myself. finally, i turn to the third topic, the extremely difficult one of violence against women, which includes domestic violence and the problem of the trafficking in women for the purposes of sexual exploitation. here, even more than in other areas, the issue has to do with raising public awareness and exchanging information on innovative measures. the annual report may well also contribute towards this, and the programme of action also makes available resources for measures to raise awareness. gender mainstreaming is not just of the greatest topical interest for the community's internal policies, but also of course for development cooperation - something which your contributions have highlighted. the programme of action presented by the commission for the mainstreaming of gender equal opportunities in the community's development cooperation work is intended to promote the putting into practice of this approach to politics. mrs martens' report is helping parliament to adopt today a position on this communication, and i would like first to congratulate her and also the draftsman of the committee on development and cooperation's opinion on this thoroughly constructive and trenchant report. here in this house, you are calling on the commission to give the plan of action more tangible form and to submit a formal proposal with a detailed work programme, containing qualitative and quantitative indicators. i am able to assure you that we will use the resources available to us to work purposefully on incorporating this ambitious agenda in our programme of action. we will be giving appropriate training to our staff and to those with whom we deal in our chosen partner countries, and will be clarifying roles and competences within the commission. we will be improving the analyses within the frameworks of the programming cycles of the various programmes, revising the sectoral and political guidelines and devising indicators. we have agreed to produce reports on the progress made and submit mid-term and final evaluations of the community measures in the area of gender equal opportunities for the 1995 - 2001 period, the results of which will be available at the end of this year, and on which basis the proposal for a new regulation will be worked out. it will enter into force when the current regulation expires. gender equal opportunities, being a mainstream issue in our action programme, covers all six priority fields of development cooperation by the european community. this means that every development cooperation agency has to take the issue of equal opportunities into account in its day to day work. the nine months since the commission's adoption of the action programme have seen the introduction of various measures for the programme's effective implementation, most of which deal with points addressed in your report. for example, you have proposed that part of the administrative budget should be earmarked for compulsory staff training on equal opportunities issues. i am able to inform you that these training schemes are already up and running in, among others, the directorates-general for development and employment and also in the meda teams in the field of external affairs policy. in item 13, you call for gender analysis of the country strategy papers and of future poverty reduction strategies. i am able to inform you that a large number of country strategy papers have already been examined from this angle, and that the results of this will find their way into the programming cycle and into improved manuals and training documents for staff. in item 16, you call for gender auditing of the budget, that is, the assessment of public budgets in terms of their effects and influences on one or other gender. this is an important point for me personally, among other considerations. let me point out that various measures have been set in motion in this area as well. i hope to be able to give you further information and reports on the international women's day next year. turning to your item 8, i am glad to be able to inform you that, in march, the commission adopted a communication on the fight against disease and poverty in developing countries, one of the core points of which is improved access by women to basic health care, which also includes improved provision in the area of reproductive health. indeed, the commission is making a great contribution to the global health fund, and that is something else that i would like to mention in this connection. there is no doubt that gender equality, the realisation of equal opportunities for women and men, will still be one of the great challenges at the various political levels over the coming years. it is, though, particularly important, and should be seen in a very positive light, that parliament, the member states and the commission are pulling together on this and, let me add, being supported by many organisations in civil society. i would like at this point also to put on record my gratitude for the contribution the women's movement has made towards the idea of equal opportunity being firmly established in our societies. i have exceeded my speaking time somewhat, but i believe that this issue, even when it is discussed so late in the evening, does in fact demand much attention, time and energy if we are to make progress in this area. thank you, commissioner. the joint debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. the next item is the debate on the report (a5-0111/2002) by mrs jensen, on the joint text approved by the conciliation committee for a european parliament and council decision on community incentive measures in the field of employment (pe-cons 3609/2002 - c5-0097/2002 - 2000/0195(cod)) commissioner, i know you to be a clever and hard-working budget commissioner. today, we must talk about something else, namely employment policy. as late as yesterday, i received an enquiry from a danish municipality that included a message: 'can you not work for a situation in which the member states learn from the eu? can you not work for a situation in which they learn to realise that it is through local efforts in partnership with public authorities and private enterprises that unemployment is best combated, especially in its least tractable form - as experienced by the vulnerable and those who are out of work long-term?'. when i received that appeal, i in fact felt genuinely happy. i was happy that we in parliament have done some good work on this directive on the eu's employment policy. we have done the right thing. we wanted greater transparency surrounding employment policy and the more active involvement of local authorities and both sides of industry. we wanted better opportunities for the individual citizen to become familiar with and to understand this policy, for it is of course at the end of the day the citizens, or electorate, who have to assess whether their national governments are up to scratch on employment policy. we wanted to promote employment policy at local and regional levels through more information about local employment plans, through exchanges of experience concerning good practice and through demands that, in their national action plans, countries report on how local authorities can be involved in employment policy. moreover, a conciliation has now successfully been brought about which fulfils parliament's demands on these important points. in that connection, i would thank my fellow meps here in parliament for the unity and perseverance we demonstrated during that procedure. for example, we submitted proposals tabled by parliament in another context, so there was good preparatory work. i would also thank the council and the commission for their efforts and helpfulness, which have now ensured that we have ended up with a good result. we in parliament have attached a lot of importance to there being a link between employment policy and the eu's efforts via the social fund programmes. we are therefore also very satisfied with the declaration attached by the commission to the agreement on incentive measures. in the declaration, the commission promises to secure this link and fully to inform parliament and the council both of the priorities chosen within the framework of article 6 under the european social fund and, especially, of the local activities to which quite large amounts will be allocated over the next couple of years. we shall remember that pledge. i also want briefly to say something about the budget for employment policy. parliament had proposed a higher amount than the commission's proposal of eur 55 million, and we of course wanted the commission to make an additional contribution, so it was natural to ask for more money. however, we have now received assurances from the commission that the additional input of information can be achieved within the eur 55 million, and that is therefore something we are relying on. nor has the budget framework been fully utilised so far, so it appears realistic. a portion of the budget is to be used for assessing european employment policy. we also wanted this assessment to extend to include the methodology used. the 'open' coordination method has triumphed in many areas in recent years, and it would be odd if there were not both good and bad experiences arising from employment policy which can provide inspiration in the work using 'open' coordination in other areas. employment policy has now been up and running for approximately five years and, in that period, a great deal of experience has been accumulated. all in all, i think it is a good result we have ended up with, and it is therefore up to the commission and the member states to fill out the new framework. what, however, is no doubt most important is that citizens, the two sides of industry and the local and regional authorities have, by means of this legislation, obtained a tool for developing mutual inspiration and engaging in the race to secure many more footholds in the labour market. they have obtained a tool for participating in the work on the other important objectives of eu employment policy: reducing exclusion from the labour market, ensuring that we are flexible and competitive and ensuring that it becomes possible better to combine working life and family life. i wish and hope that this challenge will be taken up seriously by all the parties. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i would firstly like to thank the rapporteur, mrs jensen, for her good work and for the efforts she has made so that we may be in this position today. in the minutes of the turin european council we notice that, if europe were to advance only in the economic and monetary fields, its success would not be guaranteed - i am quoting from memory here - because we would be forgetting the most important thing europe has: its citizens. to involve european citizens in the process of european integration, the european union has to take a greater interest in their concerns. an example of this appears in the introduction to title viii of the treaty, with regard to employment, following amsterdam, with an important reference made in luxembourg, as well as the 2000 lisbon european council, where the conversion to a competitive and dynamic knowledge-based society that can grow in an economically-sustainable fashion with more and better jobs and better social cohesion was set as a new strategic objective for the european union, and therefore to achieve the conditions for full employment. this objective was highlighted once again at the barcelona summit. for these reasons, i believe that this parliament and council decision on community measures to stimulate employment seeks to noticeably improve cooperation with member states in analysis and research in the field of employment and the implementation of these results in the labour market. it also seeks to coordinate employment policies within the general lisbon and barcelona objectives and to apply an information and transparency policy as a response to the aspirations of european citizens to be well informed on european employment strategy, in which they place great hopes. it also intends to support the member states' efforts to evaluate their action plans, exchange experiences and good practices, carry out a follow-up to the employment strategy, particularly through the european employment survey, involving the various players to a greater extent, from the authorities to those seeking work, and to rationalise and guarantee coherence in order to avoid duplicating actions and of course expenditure. i think therefore that we are dealing with an important decision full of good content and good intentions which hopes to rationalise and optimise european employment strategy and which will constitute a step forward in the process of european integration for all european citizens. mr president, may i thank the rapporteur very much for a really good piece of work. on behalf of the group of the party of european socialists, i should like to say that we are very satisfied with the conciliation achieved. cooperation with a view to increasing employment in europe is a matter to which both our group and parliament as a whole attach crucial importance. unemployment is unfortunately too high in europe, but we do in fact have documentary evidence that a coordinated employment policy produces far more jobs than is the case when an individual country pursues its own policy without taking account of what is happening in neighbouring countries. the incentive measures on which conciliation has now been achieved are specifically designed to support and strengthen cooperation on employment in the eu. this is to take place through, for example, analyses, statistics, reports, information activities and evaluations. i think that the outcome of the conciliation is commendable in many ways. it is important that employment policy not only be something that is conducted in offices and in more or less secret meetings of the council of ministers. people must know which method we are using, even when its designation is something as difficult as the 'open coordination method'. moreover, information must be provided about what is happening in terms of employment policy. what is still more important is that local authorities, which must play a part in getting things moving, should also be involved. that is why it is also so incredibly encouraging that the local dimension of employment policy has successfully been given a still more prominent place. i am delighted that the commission and the council have come to the conclusion that it is precisely local and regional authorities that are important in efforts to promote employment. the same is true of the two sides of industry and of voluntary organisations. partnerships are the way forward in this area. the practical work involved in getting people into jobs is done locally, and that is why local players must be involved in employment policy. it requires targeted support for local efforts. one of the routes to a more effective employment policy involves disseminating good experiences of employment policy to everyone who does practical work on getting people into jobs. there must therefore be adequate means of being able to learn effectively from each other's methods and experiences, and that is also of course something to which we must make a positive contribution. it is also important, therefore, that we should obtain thorough evaluations of the results and methods of employment policy. only by having access to such evaluations can we become still more effective, and i am therefore very satisfied that agreement has been achieved on increasing the budget - by a modest amount, admittedly, but nonetheless to eur 55 million in place of the original amount of eur 50 million. that is something encouraging, i think, precisely because we have reached a phase in which we are to point out and demonstrate to people that employment policy does in fact work and that the open coordination method has something specific to offer. i should like to conclude by thanking all the rapporteurs, especially for their fruitful cooperation, and wishing the commission luck on getting these measures put into effect. mr president, i wish to thank mrs jensen and mrs thorning-schmidt for their work on the reports. where mrs thorning-schmidt's report was concerned, there was a hard fight at the conciliation stage. on one point, our political group is not satisfied with the outcome, and that is when it comes to the limit value for whole-body vibrations, which we believe was set too high. it is even higher than the international industry standard and significantly higher than the level set by the commission from the beginning. i know that mrs thorning-schmidt shares my group's view on this point. with regard to mrs jensen's report, i want to point out that it is incredibly important that the commission and the european employment strategy should now begin to pay attention to the local levels. the employment strategy we have had so far has often got no further than government offices and not been channelled into working life in the member states. now, there is greater interest in such a strategy's being applied, and it is incredibly valuable for money to be earmarked for information activities at local level. i have followed mrs jensen's work and seen how hard she has fought along the same lines as myself. later in the year, i shall return with a report that will take the work further in the same direction. it is particularly important to set aside money for the provision of information because local information activities are unheard of and there are no trends at all towards, or guarantees of, the central authorities' distributing information from brussels. i should like to have seen still larger appropriations, but i hope to be able to return to this subject later. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome as positive the final agreement between parliament and the council on incentive measures in the field of employment, which we believe will be instrumental in achieving the development objectives set in lisbon. today, it saddens us all to see how slowly we are moving in this direction. employment strategies in numerous countries are inefficient, resulting in long-term unemployment and the social problems that go with it. it is vital, therefore, that we boost cooperation between national policies, coordinate our efforts, exchange best practices, carry out research and monitor and analyse the market and its needs. the approved proposal provides an excellent framework for making use of efficient employment policies; all we need is good cooperation between the member states, the european commission, the social partners and all the social agencies involved. we particularly welcome the fact that the approved proposal gives us an opportunity to inform public opinion and agencies at local and regional level. this is particularly important, which is why the european parliament insisted on it. we need to make the most of the opportunity being given to local and regional agencies. these agencies must play their part in designing and implementing these policies and disseminating their experience. mr president, i too would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the result achieved in conciliation and i would like to thank the commission for its contribution to the achievement of this agreement and for its support. the measures included in the decision we are discussing today are important funding instruments for achieving the strategic objective set at the lisbon summit, and the decision will, indeed, serve to increase cooperation between the member states on labour market policies. the gamble of implementing the european employment strategy through open coordination in recent years has started to pay off. it is important to note, however - and we too see evidence of this every day - that there is a huge information gap between citizens regarding the existence of this strategy, its objectives and the procedures for implementing it. that is why the european parliament persisted in calling for all the information measures aimed at raising public awareness, particularly the awareness of those who can benefit from this strategy, to be implemented and therefore to be set forth in this decision. a further point on which the european parliament has insisted - and rightly so - is the involvement, association and participation of the local and regional levels in implementing the employment strategy. we know how important the role of the local and regional authorities is in promoting employment and high-quality employment, particularly for those people for whom it is most difficult to penetrate or re-enter the world of work - women, young people, people with disabilities, older workers - for they can involve all the social operators present on the territory and create favourable conditions for employment. to this end, i feel it is absolutely essential to introduce activities relating to awareness-building, best practice, cooperation and exchange of experiences. the partnership, which has already been used to implement other initiatives and has proved to be an extraordinary, effective involvement tool, must become a traditional, standard method of working in the field of employment too. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the commission welcomes the accord that has now been reached on this important resolution, and would like to thank both parliament and the council for their willingness to compromise. the text adopted will lead to an action programme not only reflecting the aspirations of both co-legislators, but also putting on a firm foundation the measures that the commission intends to implement in order to accompany the european employment strategy. the commission especially welcomes the agreement on a proactive and transparent information policy enabling europe's citizens to be made more aware of the employment strategy's successes. the commission particularly welcomes the extension of the employment strategy's scope from national to local level. the commission wishes to congratulate the rapporteur, mrs jensen, on her proposals, and thanks are also due to the spanish presidency of the council for the openness with which it conducted the concluding negotiations. had all the parties involved not taken such a positive attitude, it is certain that no agreement could have been reached concerning this programme. the commission undertakes to implement this programme strictly as parliament intended. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. the next item is the debate on the report (a5-0110/2002) by mrs thorning-schmidt, on the joint text approved by the conciliation committee for a european parliament and council directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (vibration) (16th individual directive within the meaning of article 16(1) of directive 89/391/eec) (pe-cons 3616/2002 - c5-0137/2002 - 1992/0449(cod)) mr president, this is a splendid evening. i think that everyone who is concerned to secure a better working environment for european workers has reason to be satisfied. the council and parliament have succeeded in reaching agreement on a ground-breaking new directive. as far as i know, this is the very first time that genuinely binding rules have been laid down governing the shocks or vibrations to which workers are exposed in the course of their employment. that is why, of course, there have also been strong exchanges of opinion along the way. we have had a lively discussion as to whether the scientific basis was in order. we have heard from many, in fact a great many, lobbyists, and not all of them took a positive view of the preparation of these binding rules. by means of this directive, we have, however, achieved recognition that vibrations - both hand and arm vibrations and whole body vibrations - constitute a health risk. that is gratifying, for damage to health may be associated with exposure to such vibrations in the course of one's work. it is also gratifying that everyone - the commission, the council and parliament - have agreed upon a method of limiting vibrations and other physical agents. the method involves introducing both action values and limit values that should never be exceeded. in the light of the fact that we are concerned here with a completely new area within legislation governing the working environment, i believe that the conciliation achieved is really good, and i should like to say that directly to mr herman schmid and the confederal group of the european united left/nordic green left because the conciliation strikes a reasonable balance between commercial considerations and worker protection. it is a very big gain in itself that we are now in actual fact acquiring a directive. it is not something we knew all along that we would obtain, but all european countries are now obliged to take the problem of shocks and vibrations completely seriously. on behalf of the group of the party of european socialists, i have therefore accepted that the limit value for whole-body vibrations should be set at that level proposed by the council in the common position. when the directive has been in force for a certain amount of time, we must see whether, on the occasion of a future revision, we can reduce the limit value further. there has been a lot of focus upon whole-body vibrations, but i should like to emphasise that parliament has in actual fact reduced the action value from 0.6 m/sec2 to 0.5 m/sec2. that, i think, is a very important victory, since the action value is a very crucial figure. why is that the case? well, it is because it in actual fact entails a duty on the part of employers to take the problem of vibrations seriously and to actively prevent workers from being exposed to powerful vibrations. when the action values are exceeded, employers must come up with practical action - that is why they are called action values - by, for example, changing the way in which the work is organised or investing in better equipment. it is precisely this method which, on the one hand, provides flexibility and, on the other hand, attaches a very great deal of importance to prevention in preference to actual orders and bans. it is this preventive effort which, in my view, is the most important thing for employers now to begin to engage in. i also think that the conciliation creates a good framework for a sensible implementation of the provisions of the directive. the reports, which are to be implemented at the same time as the directive is implemented, must also contain examples of good practice. in that way, good experiences in one member state can contribute to other countries' learning something from these. it is the same principle which we have just been talking about with regard to employment policy and which can perhaps also be used within the working environment. transition periods will of course be required to ensure that industry is given time to adjust to these new provisions, but the council's common position contained a number of transition periods which were a little too long, and this matter too has also been successfully straightened out. in the cases of agriculture and forestry, to which special conditions apply, there is still, however, a transition period of as long as twelve years. that is a long time, but it means that we shall be quite certain that these businesses too are able to adjust to the new provisions. i must also put forward a couple of critical observations. it is difficult for ordinary people who are not involved with the eu on a daily basis to understand that it takes such a long time to prepare a directive. when people hear that the first proposal concerning physical agents goes right back to 1992, the reactions are very critical. can it be right that it should take us more than ten years to complete the negotiations for putting a directive in place? it does not increase people's faith in the decision-making process. i would therefore once again urge the commission to table proposals for directives on the two physical agents for which there are still no directives, namely electromagnetic fields and optical radiation. turning now to something more positive, i would thank the council and the commission for their really fruitful cooperation, on a completely informal level too, and i would also thank the rapporteurs from the other political groups. the cooperation has been very constructive, and we have in actual fact ended up with a result that we can all be proud of. mr president, commissioner, as well as thanking mrs thorning-schmidt for her work on this report, i would like to make one observation. when we see, for example, someone working with a pneumatic drill on the street, or a tractor driver sitting behind the steering wheel on a farm, these people - and i am not speaking as an expert in these matters - are probably not aware that they are facing a risk that could have serious consequences to their health. for this reason i believe that today is a day to celebrate because, despite the fact that nine years have passed - as mrs thorning-schmidt said - this first directive of the four planned in the proposal presented by the commission in 1992 has come to fruition. from this day forth, therefore, we shall be able to count on a series of protective measures to try to prevent these risks i was referring to from turning into a disaster. throughout this time, the group of the europe people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats has maintained an attitude that has, more than anything, sought to encourage constructive work and a spirit of dialogue with all of the interested parties, with the aim of achieving better applicability of the provisions of the directive and, as a consequence of this, increased effectiveness of workers' protection methods. for this reason we are particularly delighted that the joint text approved by the conciliation committee on 8 april has taken into account the difficulties in applying this directive encountered by a large number of, mainly small, companies, and also by many economic sectors in the search for a compromise on limit values and on the implementation deadline for the requirements imposed by the new directive on companies. technically, the great reduction in the limit value for daily exposure to vibrations, as well as the setting of the daily exposure values, has allowed us to reach this agreement. i feel we have to welcome the fact that the member states can have a longer period of time, until 2010, to apply the precautionary measures, as well as special consideration for the agricultural and forestry sectors, which in many member states include a collection of small and very small companies, which have longer still to implement the measures, until 2014. to sum up, i think that the desire to make improvements, an observation of reality and common sense are good examples and good formulae to work on in the hope that these new directives on the aforementioned risks and others that are still being studied can soon be approved. i would like to finish, therefore, by congratulating the rapporteur, the commission, parliament, the council, and above all, all the workers affected, because from today they will have an instrument in defence of their health. mr president, i would prefer that we would have had no directive whatsoever on whole-body vibration, because even the iso standard report says there is no quantitative link between whole-body vibration and lower back pain. however, having said that, i am very pleased that we have reached an agreement. it is not ideal, but it is better than it might have been. i would have liked it if we had kept the derogation for agriculture and forestry. that was extremely important, but i am pleased, however, that we have agreed that agricultural machinery will not have to be changed until 2014, that is, if the machinery has already been bought by 2007. i am also pleased that we have moved back to the common position limit value of 1.15 m/s2. it is far better than what the pse group rapporteur suggested in the first place, which was 0.7 m/s2. the ppe-de group suggested 0.8 m/s2. we have moved back to something that is reasonably sensible. if we had not, tractor and dumper-truck drivers would have had to drive their tractor or their dumper-truck for between two to four hours. there is still going to be a problem with harvest time, but most of industry can cope with this apart from the agriculture sector. those of us who insisted that the levels suggested in the first edition of the report were unworkable won the day. i would like to congratulate everybody on the hard work they put in. we have achieved a worthwhile compromise. it is not ideal, but i will reluctantly be asking my group, eldr, to vote for the directive. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, it is to the expertise of the delegations to the conciliation committee, and to their willingness to make progress on the issue of the protection of workers' health and safety that we owe the reaching of an agreement without the need for a formal conciliation procedure. for this i would like especially to thank the rapporteur, mrs thorning-schmidt, and the spanish presidency of the council. this instrument introducing measures to protect workers from risks in the workplace arising from vibration represents an important step in the improvement of workers' health and safety. all workers in the community are now ensured a minimum level of protection, which the individual member states are able to go beyond. as you know, it was decided in 1999 to divide the original commission proposal, which had applied to all of the four areas of vibration, noise, electromagnetic fields and optical radiation, into four individual proposals. the first step has now been taken and brought to its conclusion. as the second reading in plenary at parliament's march part-session showed, we can also point to good progress in the problem area of noise. i am relying on parliament and the council to start work shortly on the regulations on the other two physical agents - optical and electromagnetic radiation - so that we can at length complete the legal framework for these important aspects of health and safety at work. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 11 a.m. (the sitting was closed at 11 p.m.)

revision of the treaties - transitional measures concerning the composition of the european parliament - decision not to convene a convention for the revision of the treaties with regard to transitional measures concerning the composition of the european parliament (debate) the next item is the joint debate on the following: the report by mr mndez de vigo on behalf of the committee on constitutional affairs on the draft protocol amending protocol no 36 on transitional provisions concerning the composition of the european parliament for the rest of the 2009-2014 parliamentary term: the european parliament's opinion (article 48(3) of the eu treaty) [17196/2009 - c7-0001/2010 - 2009/0813(nle)], and the report by mr mndez de vigo on behalf of the committee on constitutional affairs on the recommendation on the european council's proposal not to convene a convention for the revision of the treaties with regard to transitional measures concerning the composition of the european parliament [17196/2009 - c7-0002/2010 - 2009/0814(nle)]. mr president, please allow me to begin my speech with a line from rilke: 'herr, es ist zeit. der sommer war sehr gro.'. rilke was the favourite poet of our recently deceased fellow member, dimitris tsatsos. some time ago now, on 19 november 1997, dimitris tsatsos and i had the honour of submitting the report on the treaty of amsterdam to this house. it was in that very report on the treaty of amsterdam that we proposed that any amendment to treaties be prepared beforehand by a convention. we called that the community method. indeed, it is that convention method that was used in preparing the charter of fundamental rights and, above all, the constitutional treaty. i wish to remember dimitris tsatsos today in particular, as we are on the threshold of carrying out the first reform of the treaty of lisbon, which, in the last analysis, mr president, is the constitutional treaty for which we fought so hard. that first reform, which is going to consist of the amendment of protocol (no 36) of the treaty of lisbon, is caused by an anomaly because, at the time the elections to this parliament were held in june last year, the treaty of lisbon had not come into force owing to the vicissitudes with which we are all familiar. consequently, the last parliamentary elections were held under the treaty of nice, which was in force at that time, and said treaty of nice provides for the existence of 736 meps, as opposed to the 751 provided for in the treaty of lisbon. to complicate matters even further, mr president, the 1976 act lays down that an mep's mandate lasts for five years. this means that we cannot now simply apply the number laid down in the treaty of lisbon, namely the 751 meps, given that under lisbon a certain country loses three members who have been elected and, therefore, cannot leave parliament during this parliamentary term. that, mr president, is why protocol (no 36) has to be amended in order to enable the lisbon agreements to come into force, and why during this parliamentary term, 2009-2014, when the amendment of protocol (no 36) comes into force, this parliament will, exceptionally, have 754 members. that is why, mr president, the european council addressed a letter to you asking that, in accordance with article 48(2) of the treaty, this parliament give its opinion on two questions. the first question is whether or not a convention is necessary in order to prepare the amendment to protocol (no 36). the second is whether or not the heads of state or government can call an intergovernmental conference to amend protocol (no 36). both questions are linked, although they are dealt with in two different reports. i will begin with the calling of an intergovernmental conference. as i have said, we are dealing with the political result of applying the treaty of lisbon and we are also dealing with a transitional and exceptional solution that will only last for the duration of this parliamentary term. therefore, that intergovernmental conference will confine itself to something that has already been agreed: how to distribute those 18 meps among 12 countries. consequently, mr president, there is no debate. i believe that the intergovernmental conference can be very quickly called and can even resolve the issue in a single morning, given that the political decision has already been taken. for that reason, i am going to ask for a 'yes' vote for an intergovernmental conference and say that i do not believe that a convention is required for an issue that has already been resolved. we are in favour of holding the intergovernmental conference; we are against calling a convention. mr president, i wish to express my satisfaction at the fact that the european parliament, through the auspices of my dear colleague and friend, igo mndez de vigo, shares the opinion of the european council in the sense that in order to bring about the proposed change to protocol (no 36) of the treaty of lisbon there is no need to call a convention, given that we are dealing with a minor change, albeit one that is essential to enable the presence in this chamber, before the next elections are held, of the number of meps that should have been here if the treaty of lisbon had been in force. this particular case is quite paradoxical, because both mr mndez de vigo and i formed part of the convention that drew up a constitution for europe. in this case, the aim is to try and avoid this procedure, given that we are dealing with a very minor change - just one of form, in fact - to the treaty of lisbon. i am delighted that in this way, if parliament passes the motion put forward by mr mndez de vigo, and after an intergovernmental conference has been held and the corresponding ratification procedures have been completed in the 27 parliaments of the european union member states, a further 18 meps from 12 countries - the united kingdom, slovenia, poland, the netherlands, malta, latvia, italy, bulgaria, sweden, france, austria and spain - can come as soon as possible. therefore, the citizens of these countries will be even better represented in the european parliament. that is why i am pleased that this report has been drawn up by mr mndez de vigo and that it has been adopted by the committee on constitutional affairs in the form that he proposed. i also hope that there will be widespread approval here at this plenary session and that we will be able to see these 18 missing meps here in parliament as soon as possible, and that this will be provided for by the treaty of lisbon. member of the commission. - mr president, i would like to thank mr mndez de vigo for an excellent report. i am also happy to be able to inform the european parliament that the commission adopted a positive opinion on the opening of the igc that will examine the necessary treaty changes that would endorse an additional 18 meps. the european council had requested the opinion of the commission acting on the proposal from the spanish government and, since the spanish government's proposal reflects the long-standing political agreement to bring the additional 18 meps into office without delay, the commission has recommended opening an intergovernmental conference as soon as possible. in line with the spanish proposal, the commission has also stressed in its opinion that the igc should be limited to dealing with the issue of the additional meps. i was very glad to see that that report by mr mndez de vigo was supported by a strong majority in the committee on constitutional affairs, and we hope that it will be the case in parliament's sitting tomorrow. i would also like to express the hope of the commission that the limited treaty changes to be discussed at this igc will be agreed quickly and the ratification by member states will allow the additional 18 meps to take up their mandate as soon as possible. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i will be very brief since the committee i chair reached a very comprehensive agreement, in line with what has already been said, and so there is no need to make the debate too long-winded. the problem which arose and was discussed in committee mainly concerned the following: both the electoral act of 1976 and the treaty of lisbon require members of this parliament to be directly elected by the peoples of the various nations. this is a problem for cases in which the electoral system used to elect meps for this parliamentary term does not allow entry into parliament of candidates who did not obtain enough votes to secure a seat, but did obtain enough votes to allow their entry at a later date. some electoral systems do allow this, but it appears that others do not. therefore, if we do not wish to considerably delay the integration of the members into parliament, we should have recourse to exceptional, transitional appointment systems, as envisaged by the council. following lengthy discussions, my committee concluded that this is a fair position. we therefore support what has already been said. indeed, i must say that i personally tabled an amendment proposing the appointment of observers for an interim period prior to the election of the new members to this parliament. although this amendment is still under discussion, we shall have to vote against it - even if it is my amendment - since the compromise amendment provides for the swift, immediate integration of the meps into parliament. mr president, i would like to begin by saying that the decision we are taking on this occasion is not a light one. firstly, we are revising the treaty. soon after it came into force, we are, for the first time, proposing a revision of the treaty. this is no light matter. secondly, however, what we are doing is restoring, confirming and creating the chance for 18 meps, who would have had the right to take their seats if the treaty had been approved before the elections, to exercise that right. moreover, we are enabling 12 countries that have the right to rearrange their situation in this parliament, because they have an agreement with the entire european union that they should have greater representation than at present, to exercise that right. that is all this is about, but it is an important question. nevertheless, the treaty itself requires that a convention be held to revise the treaty. the council quite reasonably asks us if it is necessary to hold a convention in order to ratify an agreement reached with all of the eu member states. parliament responds that there is no need. there is no need on this occasion. it therefore mandates the council to convene an intergovernmental conference and to revise the treaty, thus giving rise to the possibility that the 27 countries ratify the revision, thereby enabling the 18 meps to come here and the 12 countries involved to attain their full level of parliamentary representation. this is what we are dealing with, but there is a problem. to begin with, i would like to acknowledge the fact that we had some difficulty when it came to determining if those who are coming necessarily have to be directly elected for these seats, or if they can be elected in some other way. i think that this problem that has come up, which must be examined and presented realistically, has been satisfactorily resolved. i wish to thank not only the rapporteur for the report, mr mndez de vigo, but mr duff also, for the fact that we have managed to come to what is, in my view, a very important agreement among the three groups. what we say is, yes, let the treaty be revised, but without a convention, so that a start can be made to the right to that confirmation. at the same time, however, this house would remind the national parliaments that they must send members who have been directly elected to the european parliament, and that here in parliament we intend to carry out a revision of the european electoral system in order to endow the european electoral model with a unified, supranational system for electing its members. i am delighted that these two considerations have enabled a balance to be struck, so that this matter can be reopened. on behalf of the alde group. - mr president, the proposal before us of course precedes the treaty being brought into force. if the treaty had been brought into being before such a proposal had come forward we would not have accepted it. parliament could not accept the fact that france would be seeking to appoint two deputies from the assemble nationale to parliament. and if we had agreed this after the treaty had come onto force - if this proposal had not come forward before it had been brought into force - we would also have been in breach of the treaty because this proposal does not respect the principle of digressive proportionality. we are accepting a transitional solution, but the controversy has been quite successful in exposing the problems concerning parliament's composition and electoral procedure. i am pleased that all our groups now agree that a substantial reform of the electoral procedure is now required, and parliament will soon be bringing forward proposals which are going to require an igc, which will be fully and properly prepared by a convention that will include national parliaments, will be broadly consultative and include national political parties to conclude a substantial settlement of this issue in time for 2014. i am extremely grateful to my colleagues and coordinators of the other groups for the constructive negotiations which have been concluded by a firm intent to reform the electoral procedure of parliament. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we have a broad consensus on this matter. we look forward to the enlargement of parliament and we look forward to 18 new members. we want to create the conditions for this now so that they can come and work together with us. there is only one small difference of opinion, which in truth is actually very large, because it concerns the basis of our work, including our understanding of the principle of democracy and our appreciation of this house itself. it concerns the question of who decides who these new members will be. for us, that is not a secondary issue, it is a key question. according to the treaty, members of the european parliament 'shall be elected for a term of five years by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot'. it is the citizens who do the electing. in 11 out of 12 countries that is what has happened. one country is now saying that that is not possible and that they will send us meps who were elected by their citizens for a totally different job. we do not consider that to be a satisfactory way to treat parliament or the right of the citizens to vote and the principle of democracy. we could dispense with a convention if this were merely a technical issue, in other words if we had agreed on the principle of compliance with the treaties. however, at this point the treaty is at risk of collapsing. let us insist on the convening of a convention, which is a wonderful method of achieving consensus outside of the level of governments in europe on precisely these types of questions. on behalf of the ecr group. - mr president, i welcome this report and its conclusion that there is no need for a constitutional convention. such a convention would merely serve to waste time and taxpayers' money. indeed, there is no appetite amongst my constituents for a convention which would no doubt discuss further political integration. indeed, the balance of opinion in britain is that political union has already progressed too far. whilst i welcome the measures that enable the 18 additional meps to take their seats, i do not believe that they should enjoy observer status until the transitional provisions come into force. such a move would entitle them to claim their salaries and expenses before they are entitled to vote, and i believe, as a matter of principle, that that is wrong. at a time when large cuts in public expenditure are anticipated in almost every member state, this parliament should set an example. we should be prudent with public money at all times. my group will vote against this report because it disregards that important principle. mr president, we disagree on many things where the eu is concerned. we doubtless also disagree on many things where the european parliament is concerned. however, i believe that there is broad consensus that what gives the european parliament legitimacy is that it is democratically and directly elected by the citizens. so, here we are today with a proposal that forces us to face the fact that this can change. a proposal is on the table that could put us in a situation in which, in the next four years, things can be adopted in this parliament by people who have not been democratically elected, but rather appointed. i think this is a very bad development. i also think it is a very unfortunate development. it is, of course, contrary to the treaty. we would therefore have to revise the treaty. however, it is also contrary to what we actually do in practice. when romania and bulgaria joined the european union in 2007, did we tell them that they did not need to hold elections? did we say that the members from these countries could sit for two-and-a-half years without elections being held? no, we instructed them to hold elections, and that is what should be done in the case of new members. this should be the case even if elections are to be held in only one country, for example in france. mr president, there is something bizarre about the situation that we find ourselves in right now. for years we have heard how the treaty of lisbon would be the instrument to ensure democracy, transparency and citizens' influence on legislation in the eu. then one of the first things the european parliament chooses to do after telling citizens this for years is to say no to direct elections, no to convening a convention and no to all of the instruments that we have used in the past to convince citizens why this treaty was necessary. there is something rather strange about this. the natural thing to do, of course, would be for us to take seriously the promises we made to the electorate, to take seriously the fact that this house should be made up of people with a direct popular mandate, and to take seriously the fact that it is not governments but elected representatives who change the treaties. both of these fundamental elements - and, incidentally, fundamental promises - will be destroyed if the two reports are adopted. the whole idea, indeed the whole argument for having the treaty of lisbon - everything that was intended to convince citizens why they should give even more power to the eu - is precisely what we are turning our back on today now that we have got what we wanted. like the previous speaker, i therefore have to say that my group cannot support these reports. (fr) mr president, i shall come straight to the point. paragraph 2 of mr mndez de vigo's report rightly emphasises the fact that one of the council's proposals goes completely against the spirit of the 1976 act. it concerns the appointment, by the national parliaments, of meps who, under the 1976 act, must be elected by direct universal suffrage. with all due respect to the rapporteur, i regret that he has not taken greater account of this and addressed it in a stricter, clearer and more uncompromising way in paragraph 5. it is not at all impossible to stick to the election. if the member states do not wish to hold by-elections, they should simply consider the outcome of the election that took place in 2009 and apply, on a proportionate basis, the outcome of that vote to the new number of meps who have just been assigned to them. any other solution is undemocratic, especially in my country, france, where the national parliament is appointed on a non-proportional basis, without proportional rule. this would be, in fact, a form of governmental appointment that goes against the spirit of the treaties. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, it is still a mystery how the council could have treated an issue such as this so lightly. i hope that this unfortunate hitch will not leave problems in its wake and that the credibility of our institutions and our project will not be undermined. i shall give you a specific example: italy is required to elect one mep in a possible additional election, but should we be more concerned that we would have an election with a likely turnout of no more than 5% of the electorate, or that we would refer to the results of the last elections of 2009 in order to confirm the election of an mep elected, in any case, by direct universal suffrage? at all events, we must not make the situation worse: never before has it been more important for europe to avoid institutional obstacles and delays in the process of integration. i, too, would highlight how important it is for all 18 meps to take up their seats in the european parliament at the same time, in order to avoid upsetting the delicate balance between the nationalities represented in the house. this is a question - i repeat - that must be resolved immediately: i find it unthinkable that the new members may not be elected to parliament for the remainder of the 2009-2014 term. therefore, we must urgently adopt the recommendation and report in question so that amendment of protocol no 36 to the treaty of lisbon will be given the go-ahead, without convening a convention, but by directly convening an intergovernmental conference, as proposed by the rapporteur. indeed, we must take the quickest path, because at this stage there is little to discuss. instead, we need to turn the page and make a fresh, constructive start following what has been, unfortunately, a very negative episode. (de) madam president, first of all i should like to thank the rapporteur, mr mndez de vigo. i see no need to convene a convention. it is a matter of detail that needs to be clarified. since 1979, the european parliament has been elected in a direct and secret ballot and that is the way it should continue to be done in future, too. we and the council would be well advised to deal with this problem as quickly as possible at an intergovernmental conference, because out of the 18 members, 16 are in a state of suspense, which is rather intolerable. the ball is therefore back in the council's court. i would ask the council not to give in on this point because one member state has failed to find clear rules on account of it expecting the treaty of lisbon to enter into force sooner. i am pleased that we now have this treaty in place, but we now have our homework to do. the mndez de vigo report is a good basis for strengthening this process. however, the council would be well advised not to succumb to the temptation to accept members being sent here from a national parliament. that would set a precedent and i am not happy to accept that. therefore, the rapporteur has my full support, with the proviso that no members be sent here from national parliaments. (fr) madam president, france is the only member state that did not anticipate the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon and that is refusing to abide by the outcome of the european elections of june 2009. by accepting the third option - the french exception - of appointing two new meps, we are being asked to endorse a serious violation of the union's primary legislation: the election of members of the european parliament by direct universal suffrage, from which we have derived our legitimacy for 31 years. are we going to abide by the council's decision, under pressure from one member state, which shows a certain lack of regard for the union and the european citizens? our parliament must not sanction this serious breach of the principle of european democracy. we must refuse to undermine our legitimacy and our credibility as elected representatives of the european public. it is the european citizens who choose who they want to represent them in the european parliament, not the governments of the member states. this french exception justifies our demand for parliament to be involved, in the case of a convention on the revision of the treaties, and to reject any intergovernmental conference. madam president, delaying ratifying the lisbon treaty meant that 736 meps were appointed rather than the 751 now proposed. this higher number is to be achieved by 18 seats being distributed amongst 12 member states and germany losing three seats, but this cannot take place as it is unlawful to prematurely curtail the mandate of the three german meps. a further complication is that the treaty stipulates the total number of meps shall not exceed 751. to include the 18 additional meps without losing the three german seats will require a revision of protocol 36 of the lisbon treaty. this should be achieved by a convention producing proposals for agreement by member states for incorporation into the treaty by way of amendment. failure to do this would render unlawful any act this parliament takes on the basis of a 754-strong chamber - three over the limit of 751. the proposal before this house is that this problem be dealt with by way of an intergovernmental conference, but this is a significant revision and amendment to the lisbon treaty requiring ratification by all member states and providing the opportunity for individual national referenda. i urge this house to oppose this proposal. madam president, i strongly disagree with the previous speaker. this house had to answer a question on whether or not we should convene a convention to decide that issue, and we have taken a decision not to do so, but we have done so out of respect for this instrument - for this new instrument, which actually increases the legitimacy of all the decisions which we make. obviously that does not set a precedent for the future, because all the really important issues concerning the changes to the treaty, such as for example the electoral procedure, would require the convening of a convention. let me thank igo and the coordinators for taking the decision. it was not easy. we had a problem with designating an additional 18 members of this house because certain member states did not actually plan for a procedure, but we decided that representativeness is the most important issue, that this is the principle which we should be guided by and that this house should have a balanced representation as quickly as possible. that is why we took a pragmatic solution, prompting member states to complete their election procedures as quickly as possible, provided, obviously, that all the parliamentarians who are going to join us are going to be directly elected. (fr) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the issue of appointing additional meps is not new; let us remember that our fellow members mr severin and mr lamassoure already worked on this matter during the previous parliamentary term. how, then, can one fail to be surprised at the total lack of preparation of a country - mine, as it happens, france - with regard to the appointment of its two new meps? could it not have reasonably assumed that the treaty of lisbon would one day enter into force and that the issue of the new meps would be raised? what explains, then, such a lack of foresight, such a casual attitude? the fact is, by offering france the possibility, under the draft protocol no 36, to go ahead and appoint meps within the national parliament - thereby allowing it to save face at little cost - we actually risk infringing the fundamental rule that stipulates that members of the european parliament must be elected by direct universal suffrage. this goes against the spirit of the 1976 act on the election of the members of the european parliament by direct universal suffrage, and would undermine the very legitimacy and credibility of the european parliament. on the other hand, for their part, the elected representatives of the 11 other member states who have been duly elected must not pay the price for such amateurishness. this situation has simply gone on for too long, for them and for their countries, and it is only right that these elected representatives be able to join us as quickly as possible and set to work. that is why we believe that this issue should be resolved via an intergovernmental conference that could quickly approve the appointment of these members. however, we must insist that france fulfils its obligations just as its european partners have. arrangements of this kind are unacceptable in the heart of the chamber that brings together the representatives of the european people. in spite of everything, this debate will have had the virtue of implicitly demonstrating the need to make provision, in the future, for a uniform means of electing meps by direct universal suffrage. this reform will, for its part, have to be achieved by means of a convention. once again, it is the voice of the peoples that must carry weight here, in this chamber, not that of the governments. madam president, i would like to thank igo for doing a great job and all those colleagues who took part for their cooperation. after many years of work and quite serious ratification problems, the treaty of lisbon is finally in force. it gives much-needed reinforcement to the role of the european parliament. we must take this opportunity seriously and base our actions on these acquired institutional reforms. we need to concentrate on progressive decision-making for the benefit of all european citizens. we should not take so much time on administrative matters. i am the type of person who is a quick, efficient but good decision-maker. european citizens rightfully expect us to do our job efficiently and transparently. i fully respect the balance and good cooperation among the european institutions, even though i am convinced that the proposed compromise reflects a viable solution. this way we can do our job more efficiently. we will therefore be strengthening the european parliament and doing a great service for european citizens. last, but not least, i personally know some of the already-elected future colleagues, and the sooner they can start working the better. i strongly believe that their expertise will give an added value to our institutions. (fr) madam president, i too wanted to follow other speakers in thanking our colleague, mr mndez de vigo. he has done an outstanding job in circumstances that were at times fiery, and always exciting. the debates within the committee on constitutional affairs have lasted a long time; they have been equal to the challenge and equal to the intense and important character that meps associate, of course - and rightly so - with a major issue that has immediate implications for them, namely the composition of our parliament and the methods of appointing its members. once again, the rapporteur has been able to compile what were at times differing opinions and contributions and to summarise them - i would say - in an extremely balanced text. i would like to thank him for this. i believe that the recommendations made in these two reports, both in the one on convening an intergovernmental conference and in the one on the transitional measures concerning the composition of our parliament, are characterised by realism, pragmatism and effectiveness. i believe that, on this and other issues too, this is by and large what our fellow citizens expect of europe. (de) madam president, i too should like to offer my sincere thanks to the rapporteur, and also to all of the shadow rapporteurs. as parliament, we should send out a clear signal today that we are very much looking forward to having the new members here in parliament and that the council is indeed remiss. it should once again be highlighted here that we have the very clear task of finding a solution as quickly as possible so that freely elected members - 18 of them in fact - can start their work as soon as possible. as parliament, we have not only the very general task of representing the people in the best way possible but also the job of working as efficiently and effectively as possible in the committees, and to do this we also expect to draw on the expertise and knowledge of those fellow members who have largely already been freely and properly elected. as an austrian, i very much look forward to seeing joe weidenholzer here and i hope that we shall be able to welcome him here as a member of parliament as soon as possible. (de) madam president, the ink is barely dry on the abortive treaty of lisbon and already the next amendments have been tabled, and the chaos surrounding our new members - people are talking about phantom members - is truly perfect. this has of course been caused, among other things, by our different election systems, which give rise to democracy-related problems. in france, for example, where candidates stand at a regional level and no lists are available, it is not very difficult to allow members to move up. we should speak out clearly in favour of an election and not selection by a parliament. secondly, it would also make perfect sense - and this is what the citizens expect - for us to provide specific information on the activities and earnings of members during the observation period. this 'phantom' situation will certainly not do much for citizens' confidence in the eu. we also need to provide clarification as quickly as possible as to when the new members should come and what status they should have. moreover, it is still not clear whether the treaty of lisbon will be re-examined - which would be desirable - and what the situation is with regard to croatia's accession. citizens expect a quick resolution of this matter by the council. (pl) under the provisions of the treaty of lisbon, the composition of the european parliament has changed. despite the fact that it entered into force six months ago now, an intergovernmental conference to implement these changes still has not been convened. the member states have to ratify a special protocol concerning the additional number of members of the european parliament. this is a big operation, but it does not alter the fact that the treaty must be implemented in full and without delay. i share the position presented on this matter by the rapporteur. it should be remembered that it is in the interest of those member states which have an increased national delegation under the provisions of the treaty for their new members to be able to represent their electorate as soon as possible. this is in accord with the fundamental democratic principles upon which the union is based. it is important that all the additional members enter parliament at the same time, in order for our institution to avoid accusations of functioning improperly. (sl) i, too, would like to join those of you who wish to emphasise the need for the european parliament to be fully representative and to work with a full complement of members as soon as possible. i believe that we are still not fully represented given the amendment to the treaty of lisbon, which is our constitution. i also think that the intergovernmental conference would be the right path to follow, and the quickest way, to enable us to consolidate our legal basis and to permit the european parliament to achieve full representation. i would like to congratulate the rapporteur, mr mndez de vigo, who has been exploring legal bases, and i think that today's resolution does indeed express them well. in addition, i join those of you who are looking forward to welcoming new members to the european parliament as i think that we need them. to those of you who did not foresee in your own elections, the last european elections, that it would be necessary to appoint, or rather, elect, additional members, to you i say that this house will not lose any legitimacy just because two members will come from national parliaments. madam president, like other colleagues, i think that if people are elected to the european parliament they are entitled to take their seats just the same as the 736 members have taken their seats in the last 12 months. this is a short-term problem which needs a short-term solution, because in four years' time everything will have settled down and will work normally. i also think it is wrong to blame member states for not taking anticipated action 12 months ago because 12 months ago there was a strong possibility that the lisbon treaty would not be ratified, and certainly that was a position which many people felt in my own country and in other countries. but, now that everything has been ratified, it is important that the people who have been elected be allowed to take their seats so that they can contribute to parliament and we can get on until the next election in four years' time, when everything will be, as they say, 'hunky-dory'. madam president, i would merely like to add that i agree with those speeches made by honourable members who have expressed the importance of resolving this outstanding issue as regards the treaty of lisbon, namely, the case of the 18 meps who have still to take their seats in parliament because the last elections were held a little before the treaty of lisbon came into force. therefore, this revision of protocol (no 36) is worthwhile. i also wholly agree with those who feel that it should be done at the earliest opportunity and that the absence in this parliament of 18 meps who represent the citizens of 12 member states be remedied as quickly as possible. that is why, in the last analysis, i agree with mr mndez de vigo, who proposes that there is no need for a convention, that an intergovernmental conference be called as soon as possible, that the 27 member states' parliaments ratify the decision at the earliest opportunity, and that, as a result, the 18 meps in question can be seen in this parliament, as they should have been here from the outset of this parliamentary term. vice-president of the commission. - madam president, i think that this debate has clearly demonstrated that we are trying to resolve an exceptional situation, that we are looking for a practical solution and that this is the solution for the transition. therefore i very much welcome the pragmatic approach of mr mndez de vigo and the report which he prepared, and, as i can gather from the debate, it is also getting very strong support here in the plenary. i think it is very clear that our common goal is to have 18 new meps as soon as possible. coming back to the commission's position, i think we have been asked very straightforward questions about how this change should be administered and through which instrument. the commission has agreed very clearly to the igc because of the scope and nature of the change which will be discussed. as regards the modalities of how the additional meps are chosen, this would be, i am sure, raised within the framework of an intergovernmental conference, but let me add: when the european council was considering this matter, i think that it was quite clear that the council was looking to seek a balance, a balance between the natural desirability that the additional meps are chosen in a way as close as possible to the european parliament elections themselves and the need to respect national constitutional arrangements; that is the origin of the three options to cover the realities of today's situation which of course will be regularised at the next elections. to conclude let me also welcome the internal reflections within the european parliament about possible future changes to the european elections, but i think that we have to underline that these are, and should remain, different issues. today we are discussing how to get 18 additional meps into the european parliament. next time we will be discussing possible changes to the electoral vote. madam president, when people coming from positions as different and far-removed as those of mr mauro, mr gollnisch and mr colman come to the conclusion that there are problems with the electoral procedure and systems for the election of meps to the european parliament, it means that we need a uniform electoral procedure. that was a mandate that already existed in the treaties of rome. therefore, we coordinators - and i would like to take this opportunity to thank all of them, most especially mr juregui and mr duff - have agreed on amendment 2, which will be voted on tomorrow. i hope that this amendment will be supported by this house, particularly so that we can soon resolve this issue of a uniform electoral procedure for elections to the european parliament. by means of this, we would, it seems to me, remove this type of question mark. in his speech, mr trzaskowski spoke about the necessary representativeness of this parliament, something that the majority of the speakers and vice-president efovi, among others, have also highlighted. i agree. indeed, we say as much in paragraph 1 of the report, to the extent that the 18 meps should enter en bloc, otherwise we would lose representativeness. in order for them to enter en bloc, in order to comply with this act of political justice that is the treaty of lisbon, we have to be practical, because a transitional and exceptional situation, ladies and gentlemen, also requires transitional and exceptional situations and solutions. this is why, and i am quite open about it, i do not like the possibility of meps joining this parliament who were not elected in 2009, something which, by the way, i clearly state in paragraph 2 of the report. nevertheless, if i have to choose between that and the 18 members not taking their seats, or coming up with a practical solution and the 18 joining, meaning therefore that we comply with the treaty of lisbon, i ask this house, as i have already done in the report, to choose that solution; a transitional and pragmatic one but, above all, madam president, a just one. i would like to thank everyone for their collaboration and for the interesting contributions that were made to this report. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday 6 may 2010 at 11.00. written statements (rule 149) in writing. - i feel that it is not equitable that those countries which have been allocated additional seats in the ep are not yet represented. i am not talking only on behalf of malta which has been allocated the 6th seat but also with regards to all the other countries which found themselves in the same position. it is a fact that there are legal and constitutional constraints to be overcome in order for the new european parliamentarians to take their rightful seats. on the other hand the time which has elapsed from the ep elections of june 2009 illustrates that the eu has become a cumbersome institution which takes months, if not years, to activate parts of the lisbon treaty which was finally approved less than 6 months ago. apart from the deficiency in representation regarding the countries involved, there is another element which i feel requires immediate attention. i am referring to the human element. eighteen prospective parliamentarians must be going through a very difficult period in their life especially from the psychological point of view. i am sure that there isn't one present european parliamentarian who does not understand the plight of these eighteen politicians. in my opinion, the european parliament is under an obligation to decide as quickly as possible about this, to enable our future fellow members, who have been democratically elected, to take their seats. this is extremely important, not only for their sakes, but principally out of respect for the decisions made by their voters. we must not force them to wait any longer. all of our new fellow members should be chosen in democratic elections. i am aware of the fact that at the present moment significant differences exist between the electoral rules in different member states. therefore, i would like to express the hope that the current situation will motivate us to begin a dialogue about harmonising electoral procedures in eu member states. in writing. - we would like to thank the rapporteur for an excellent job. however, we are disappointed with the french decision to alter the original will of the european electorate by appointing new members of the european parliament from the national assembly. ceterum censeo - france has decided to sell a mistral-class warship to russia; we believe that it will sincerely regret its action.

1. electronic communications networks, personal data and the protection of privacy ( before the vote: madam president, i have one thing to say regarding the vote that we are about to hold. it seems, from the voting list, that we are voting on the compromise text from the committee, instead of the amendments, first. normally i would have thought that we would vote on the most far-reaching amendments first, so i would ask you to use the power that you have according to rule 19 in the rules of procedure and change the order of the vote so that we vote on the amendments. this concerns the citizens' rights amendments. this is very important for both the harbour and the trautmann reports. mrs dahl, as far as i am aware there is no problem. i see no problem with the voting order on the harbour report. we will proceed as it is on the order paper.

cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences the next item is the recommendation for second reading from the committee on transport and tourism on the council position at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the european parliament and of the council facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road safety related traffic offences (17506/1/2010 - c7-0074/2011 - (rapporteur: ins ayala sender). mr president, i would like to suggest dividing my time into two parts: the first four minutes to make my speech, and the last two to answer questions from my fellow members, if that is all right with you. mr vice-president, president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this first evening debate on the subject of transport. i would like to mention that between 2000 and 2010 we achieved the target we set ourselves to reduce the number of road fatalities, which stood at 50 000 in the year 2000. we did not succeed in reducing it by half, to 25 000, as planned. instead, the figure now stands at 31 000, and therefore the new target that we have just set ourselves for the 2010-2020 period, to reduce these 31 000 road fatalities by half, requires new and important measures. the measure that i am proposing today is the result of an agreement that has a long history, which began in 2008, based on a proposal from the commission that parliament warmly welcomed, because it provided us with another instrument; indeed, it provides us with an instrument to continue and improve on that goal to reduce the number of road fatalities. it was calculated that we could prevent at least a further 400 road fatalities each year, not counting injuries. however, in 2008, after our first reading, the report stalled. i therefore invite you to calculate the number of lives we have failed to save in those three years during which the report and the implementation of this instrument were delayed. the truth is that i have criticised myself for that every day, specifically for not having been more diligent. it was not parliament's responsibility. it was the responsibility of the council, which, with a blocking minority, did not accept the joint proposal from parliament and the commission. precisely with the aim of putting an end to this continuous flow of blood from the victims of road safety, we tried - with the belgian and hungarian presidencies, whom i have to thank for having done everything possible and impossible to break the deadlock on this issue - and managed to unblock the issue, although the legal basis was changed. it required unanimous cooperation from the police, and there was the opt-out problem, since three member states - the united kingdom, ireland and denmark - had the option of remaining outside this new system definitively. there was also a series of problems concerning limitations or conditions for a procedure which, at first reading and in the commission's proposal, created a comprehensive system from the moment the offence is committed right up to the moment when the necessary sanction is enforced; all of this was done for the four offences which, at the time, were causing 75% of road fatalities: jumping a red light, breaking the speed limit, driving with a blood alcohol level higher than the legal limit, and not wearing a seat belt. in any case, with this new proposal and its new legal basis, we managed to enter a new, important climate of negotiation where we succeeded in breaking the deadlock on the issue. it is a first step, a vital step towards achieving this, as has been confirmed by associations of victims and the families of road victims, as well as expert groups. right now we are waiting to find out if a procedural matter, such as correlation tables, which came up at the last minute, could bring us to a standstill once again. i only want to draw everyone's attention to the importance of not blocking this directive. mr president, i am very pleased to be able to take part in the debate concluding the long process of negotiations on the cross-border exchange of information on road safety violations. this is an important directive. it will make it easier for the member states to exchange information on individuals who have committed road traffic offences in a member state other than the member state where the vehicle is registered. it will make it possible to identify the owner of the vehicle's logbook, and will make it possible for the authorities of the member states to prosecute individuals who have violated road traffic regulations, regardless of their nationality. i believe that adopting the directive will help to make the european union's roads safer. ensuring that drivers no longer go unpunished will have a preventive effect. it will deter 'road pirates', who too frequently and too willingly disregard the rules. the aim of this directive is essentially to save lives on europe's roads. in spite of the obvious benefits arising from the proposed directive, it has been the subject of negotiations for a long time. a proposal for a directive was first presented by the european commission in march 2008. the debate on the proposal was held during the french presidency in the second half of 2008. in spite of the member states' support for the proposal and its main objectives, doubts emerged as to the choice of legal basis. as a result, the council was not able to reach an agreement at this stage. it was agreed, however, that work should be continued in order to find a solution. the council reviewed the dossier in july 2010, on the basis of a new proposal put forward by the belgian presidency. this proposal contained a new legal basis, in the shape of article 87 of the treaty, which relates to police cooperation. on 2 december 2010, the council unanimously adopted an agreement on this proposal. the council position was submitted to the european parliament for first reading on 24 march 2011. at this point, i should like to thank mrs sender and the hungarian presidency for their efforts aimed at overcoming the various obstacles that have stood in the way of this difficult compromise. the final point of contention as regards this dossier was the correlation tables. an agreement was finally achieved thanks to the joint statement by the european parliament and the council and the separate statement by the european commission. i greatly regret that certain members of parliament are disputing this part of our agreement. it took us a great deal of time to reach this agreement, and it would be inordinately difficult to explain to eu citizens why a legislative act of such great importance has been blocked in its final stages because of a difference of opinion on a purely technical matter. correlation tables are one of the points of contention between the council and the european parliament. the polish presidency will endeavour to reach an agreement on such a politically sensitive issue. however, this will be significantly more difficult if individual legislative acts, such as the one the european parliament is debating today, are blocked even though an agreement has been reached on their substance. i would therefore ask the honourable members of this house to respect the outcome of the negotiations between the council and parliament and to vote in favour of adopting a directive which will help us improve safety on europe's roads. vice-president of the commission. - mr president, the commission welcomes the efforts and commitment by all parties on this important issue, eu road safety policy. against this background, i would like to thank all actors for their spirit of compromise and i would like to thank ins ayala sender for her contribution, which has enabled us to try to achieve a second reading agreement on this long-awaited piece of road safety legislation. i would like to single out the following key points on which the text has been significantly improved as a result of intensive negotiations between the council and parliament: the data protection regime, information letters to offenders, the revision of this directive - with a clear perspective on future initiatives concerning the road safety guidelines - and reinforced enforcement mechanisms. i would like to reiterate that the commission still considers that the legal basis for transport was more appropriate for this directive, but we can accept the substance of it. the commission, as an honest broker, supported both the council and parliament in order to find a balanced and satisfactory agreement. the text of the directive, as it stands now, offers a good mix of flexibility and ambition, as requested by parliament. the commission regrets the absence of correlation tables in this text but, in a spirit of compromise and in order to ensure the immediate adoption of the proposal, can accept the substitution of the obligatory provision on correlation tables, including in the text with the relevant recital encouraging member states to follow this practice. i would urge you to accept the text in a second reading agreement and not risk reopening all points in conciliation for the sake of a horizontal issue such as a correlation table. i would like to make a few remarks concerning the history of this document, or this decision. when we started to push this decision it was considered to be heresy. it was considered by the member states as an insult and an attack on the sacred principles of subsidiarity. the member states finally reached a compromise and made a decision. it was very close to failing to do so, but now the council has reached a compromise. i have to ask you to wait: we have not yet reached an agreement on two issues - correlation tables on one hand and 250 million vehicles on the other - in this long-awaited decision to deal, finally, with cross-border traffic violations. numbers show, for instance, that a foreign driver is three times more likely to commit an offence than a resident driver. eu figures suggest that foreign drivers account for 5% of traffic, but around 50% of speeding offences. so we must wait for a solution on these two things. it is a long-awaited piece of legislation. it was not easy to reach a compromise in the council. if you think that the council is a homogenous body which now opposes parliament on the sole issue of correlation tables, this is not the case. mr president, mr kallas, mr grabarczyk, i would like to join with previous speakers in thanking the rapporteur, mrs ayala sender. as has already been mentioned, the council has been blocking progress on this dossier since 2008 and we only succeeded in reaching a compromise under the belgian presidency. the improved sharing of data between the member states should, as has been said, make it possible in future to prosecute various traffic offences across national borders. our main priority must be to improve road safety and to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads. together with the own-initiative report by mr koch on road safety, which contains a series of very specific proposals, the repressive nature of this directive will help to ensure that the rules are followed. i do not need to go into these rules in detail because they have already been described here in positive terms. changing the legal basis of european traffic policy to ensure police cooperation has finally enabled the council to adopt a common position. however, the result of this has been that some countries, such as the united kingdom, ireland and denmark, have been excluded. this means that once again we do not have equality for all european citizens. citizens must understand what rights they have with regard to data protection. we have attempted to make the rules in this area more stringent, so that access to the data that is collected and transmission and storage of the data are all regulated as strictly as possible. we were also very concerned about the information. although the current text does not fully live up to parliament's expectations, i am still optimistic, because i believe that this is the first step in the right direction. i hope that we will be able to continue building on this foundation over the next few years in order to move towards further harmonisation of european traffic regulations. the revision clause inserted by parliament should make this possible. i very much regret the fact that this report has ended up in the midst of the institutional conflict between the council and parliament about the correlation tables. during the trialogues we agreed that the joint statement on this subject would help us to find an overall compromise. i would very briefly like to remind everyone that tomorrow the european association . (the president cut off the speaker) mr president, commissioner, first of all, i would like to thank mrs ayala sender for all her work for the last three long years, along with all the shadow rapporteurs who played their part in achieving this result. commissioner, i read your twitter update today, and the news it contained was good. it revealed, specifically, that in 2010 deaths on our roads fell by 11% and that we are well on the way to halving the numbers of deaths by 2020. the directive that is currently on the table can play its small part in contributing to this and we must thus give it our emphatic backing. for a long time the council disputed the legal basis for this directive. we lost a lot of time as a result. i want to avoid us now losing a lot more time in parliament discussing the correlation tables. that is an important debate in itself, but i do not think that we should link it in to this dossier. as a result, my group will be supporting the compromise package without reservation and rejecting the amendment relating to the tables, as we must deal with what is really important, and that is reducing the number of road deaths, removing the sense of impunity that some drivers have when they drive in other countries . (the president interrupted the speaker) mr el khadraoui, i am so sorry but apparently there is no polish interpreter at present. no doubt they have been struck by food poisoning as a result of the disgusting food in parliament tonight. can we just pause while we sort this problem out. mr president, i was just saying that the feeling of impunity must be done away with and that with this directive we will help to bring that about. is the result perfect? no, of course it is not. it is a first step, namely organising the exchange between member states of data concerning the identity of drivers who violate a law in another country. in future, offenders will have their fines sent to their homes, along with any reminders, and in that way they will be encouraged to follow the rules. of course, we would have liked to have seen the member states commit to also chase up their citizens who commit offences elsewhere, but we will perhaps be putting new measures in place in that regard in just a few years. that, sure enough, is the revision clause. to sum up, we need to support this - we have worked hard on it. it is a small step, but it is an important one. i too wish to thank the rapporteur, mrs sender, and the shadow rapporteurs for their excellent cooperation. this directive is above all necessary to increase protection for our citizens on the roads and to reduce fatalities due to traffic offences. this is a first important step in this direction. having myself participated in numerous trialogues and negotiations, i am pleased that we have now reached a principled agreement. speaking of agreements, i must unfortunately say that, compared with the report at parliament's first reading, this draft directive has lost a considerable amount both in terms of content and in terms of impact. the part on enacting penalties has been deleted, under pressure from the council. we must, however, give the council recognition for the fact that the increase in the number of offences from four to eight came just after the council's first reading. this left the impression that the council had a sincere wish and desire to deal seriously with this issue. unfortunately, at the council's request, the legal basis was also changed, which left out the aforementioned part on enacting penalties and changed the directive such that it merely contained cross-border exchange of information. because the directive focuses exclusively on exchange of information, i made several proposals in this area, most of which found support, and thanks to these, data protection and privacy were treated more clearly and strictly. i would now like to say more on the proposals that i submitted to this house regarding correlation tables. at parliament's first reading and in the committee on transport and tourism's in may this year, the idea of adding correlation tables to this directive was supported. unfortunately, despite the opposition of the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe in the last trialogue, this was removed. today, the conference of presidents has unanimously supported correlation tables, which were the result of two decisions at last year's conference of presidents and also the recent decision at the session of 30 june. on behalf of the alde group, i can clearly state that we support the adoption of this directive. of course, i am also striving to get the amendments i tabled adopted, but in any case the most important thing is the progress made on the compromise that has been achieved, and the adoption of that compromise. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, firstly, i would like to thank the rapporteur who has made a serious effort to bring about a compromise in this area. if we look at the various traffic figures, it becomes clear that in particular in areas where there is a lot of traffic from other countries, there are major differences in the frequency of accidents involving citizens of the country or the region in question and people travelling to this country for the first time. why is this? it is certainly in part because they are driving in an area which is unfamiliar to them, but also because there is unfortunately no common sense on the roads and people ultimately only follow the rules if they know that they are likely to be punished for transgressing. that is a very sad fact. the result is this regulation because we need to take action if we really want to bring the accident figures down. however, the council has very rapidly put a stop to the plans made by parliament and the commission. all that now remains is an improvement in the sharing of data in the case of serious offences, no more and no less. the previous speakers have referred to this in very restrained and refined terms. i would like to be more outspoken and make it clear that the council is responsible for putting the brakes on. braking on the roads is a relatively sensible manoeuvre, but in the case of legal regulations it presents a problem. i would like to congratulate the new presidency on its ambitious approach and i hope that it will be able to carry it through. nevertheless it was very difficult to ensure that the data was protected, because the member states want the data, but they do not want to provide genuine official assistance when it comes to prosecuting offenders. unfortunately, this is a very poor regulation. it is a first step, but nothing more. finally, i would like to mention the drama over the correlation tables. i believe it is essential for us to have them, because ultimately i am also the rapporteur for the report on the implementation of eu law and the commission needs these tables urgently for this report. mr president, first of all, i would like to welcome the minister, mr grabarczyk. i wish him a successful period of collaboration with parliament. of course, i also thank the rapporteur for this report. i hope that parliament will tomorrow endorse this agreement on the cross-border enforcement of traffic offences. that would be a happy achievement after such long and difficult negotiations, as this legislation really will improve european road safety. i therefore hope that there will not be anyone in the house in the morning applying the brakes, like those in the council to whom mrs lichtenberger referred. this agreement has our backing, as the commission has produced a written statement that recognises that the member states may themselves choose to apply a system of licence plate or driver liability when carrying out enforcement. that was something that i personally found very important. german attempts to prevent licence plate liability were unacceptable after all, that would have meant that the germans, for example, would have been able to race from the dutch border to the sea along our motorways, and that is certainly not the idea. this new piece of legislation ensures that speed demons abroad can no longer go on their merry way undisturbed and unpunished. a real step forward for european road safety can be taken tomorrow. i sincerely hope that the report will be adopted by this house and that it is not hindered by all sorts of institutional trivialities. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am utterly underwhelmed. if we really want our citizens to be safe, then when it comes to road safety, all citizens and all businesses in every member state must be equal before the law. otherwise, instead of speaking of european unity, we should refer to european disunity and the principle of every man for himself. the basic idea is wholly legitimate: more safety for our citizens, working to reduce the number of deaths on european roads by penalising anyone who drink-drives, and anyone who speeds, no matter where they are in europe, particularly when abroad, and those who think that the law will not notice them smoking a joint, and so on. however, essentially we have come up with a system whereby member states - although not all of them - will exchange information data that will not be much use, since the penalties themselves are optional. you call this progress. you will have to explain to drivers in the french nord-pas-de-calais region that when they are caught on a static speed camera they will have to pay a fine, as is only right, but that british and other foreign drivers will be left free to continue using our motorways as race tracks. the uk, irish and danish opt-outs are unacceptable. scandalously, the country of origin principle, which is so dear to the ultra-liberals who are unfortunately governing the union, will allow offenders to escape scot-free. looking ahead, we may find that low-cost road transport companies choose to register their vehicle in these countries where they will be at liberty to impose worse working conditions on their staff. they might require their employees to take risks, which could prove fatal both for them and for other road users. we will invite the commission and the council to explain this approach in person to the victims and their families: let them explain why they are in no way responsible. in view of what i have said, you will understand that the information to be exchanged and used will be purely anecdotal. if we are to save lives, we need to get back on track as soon as possible. we can rely on the support of the new polish presidency. it is laudable to want our citizens to be safe, but it would be much better if we were to make it a reality. on behalf of the efd group. - (sk) mr president, the establishment of an area of free movement throughout the whole of the european union brings with it the need for an adequate mechanism to supervise compliance with traffic regulations by drivers who, as a result of unresolved issues over the correct handling of the necessary information, have escaped the consequences of an infringement of traffic regulations. efforts towards the necessary legislation have long been frustrated by the divergent views of member states on how to solve the problem, but i believe we will be able to make substantial progress towards solving this issue. it is a pity that an agreement will come first between the states in the area of unified regulations on prosecuting and penalising drivers, while the coordination and unification of traffic regulations on eu roads, making it easier for drivers to comply with universal european road traffic regulations, remains a distant prospect. a driver can travel at an unrestricted speed on the motorway in one country with no penalty, but will have to stick to a much lower speed limit on the same kind of motorway in another country. it is therefore right to ask who lays down such stringent speed restrictions or such markedly different traffic rules in individual countries, and why. we should also seek an answer to this. (fr) mr president, during the first reading, i thought that parliament's proposals could lead to the potentially futile persecution of motorists at european level, with greater emphasis on the financial returns from speed cameras rather than on saving lives. i am afraid that, at heart, nothing has really changed. of course, in a country like mine, where persecuting motorists has become a presidential pastime, finally calling drivers of foreign vehicles to account might appear to bring greater justice and fairness. it is true that the penalty for torching someone else's car is less than the potential fines when driving one's own car. it is also significant that the information will be exchanged using eucaris, a system designed for combating organised crime and terrorism under the prm convention, which is itself symbolic. in my country, 25% of offences registered by static speed cameras are committed by foreign vehicles. that figure rises to 50% in the summer. the number of offences has rocketed since 2003, although no one has allowed for the direct correlation between this explosion and the increase in the number of fixed speed cameras. are foreign drivers less aware of the warning signs and of capricious changes to the speed limit, often for no real reason? they probably get flashed more often. does that make them more dangerous? are they more prone to accidents? that is a different question. this directive is being presented as a way of providing equal treatment for european motorists, but the united kingdom, for example, which accounted for 90 000 motoring offences recorded last year in france, will be opting out. as will two other member states. french motorists are required to deposit the total fine in order to appeal. this illegal measure is quite rightly being contested in the european court of human rights. will it be applied to foreign drivers? what is fair about that? finally, i am sorry to see that the compromise negotiated with the council no longer contains many of the guarantees suggested by mrs ayala sender to protect privacy. (the speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under rule 149(8)) mr president, mr gollnisch mentioned that collecting speeding fines in his country had become a kind of presidential hobby. he mentions the number of british drivers who are caught and fined for speeding: would he accept that the system that is run in france of on-the-spot fines, with the number of speed cameras that there are on the motorways as you enter france, is wide open to corruption, and that levying on-the-spot fines without any real receipt is another form of corruption in france? (fr) mr president, i would like to thank my colleague, but i am not sure that there is a danger of corruption. however, there is a clear risk that the rules will be applied unfairly and arbitrarily because individuals who pay on-the-spot fines so as to retain the use of their car might well have been dealt with less severely in a police court. to that extent, i do understand your country's reticence, but it seems to me that your position is undermining the value of the text under discussion. (de) mr president, i would like to thank the rapporteur for her contributions and for all her work. i would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs, the council, the belgian and hungarian presidencies and the current presidency, despite the fact that overall the council did not play the most glorious role in the case of this dossier and that the result does not meet our expectations. this is a very sensitive subject. more than 30 000 people die and more than 340 000 are seriously injured every year and by means of cross-border prosecutions we want to make it clear to the citizens of europe that this is not just about being prosecuted in your own country for serious offences, but that europe is also a single transport area. we took it for granted that the existing technical obstacles would be removed. for example, as we have seen recently, radar devices used in one country are not recognised in another. however, we need to remove the obstacles to prosecution in particular, because we want to see improvements across national borders. we were mistaken about this. it is true that we have taken a step forward, a small step, and we will support this move, but we had hoped that we would be able to remove the larger obstacles. we were wrong, because at the moment the only thing we have achieved is sharing information. i think that the subject that has just been mentioned would be better discussed in committee than here in plenary. i would like to say one more thing on this subject. i hope that there will be a majority tomorrow and that we will send the council a clear signal about correlation tables. if we do not have a majority tomorrow in favour of correlation tables in this area, this does not mean that the subject is closed for parliament. the council must take these subjects more seriously. if there is no correlation table, we will have grounds for assuming that the council does not take the subject seriously. i would like to ask the members of the council to tell their colleagues that the methods they have used for blocking a good dossier by means of correlation tables will not be acceptable in future. i hope that we will have a majority tomorrow. i will continue to appeal to the members from the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) not to support the amendment tabled by the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe, but i hope that this will not send the wrong signal to the council and will not be misunderstood. (de) mr president, commissioner, president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, over 31 000 people a year are still dying on european roads. that being so, i find it negligent, to say the least, that the member states' transport ministers have blocked such an important instrument in the council for over two years. as representatives of the people, you should be keen, for the safety of your citizens, to ensure that drivers from non-member states cannot disregard traffic rules with impunity. the fact that we shall be voting on this proposal tomorrow is due, above all, to our rapporteur's persistence. like her, i too am disappointed that the council has changed the legal basis for this directive, thereby provoking an opt-out by three member states. this will create a law for eu-wide prosecution of traffic offences that will not be applied throughout the eu and i consider this less than perfect, to put it mildly. this disappointment notwithstanding, it is another important step towards closer cooperation in the road traffic sector and i should like to ask you all to vote in favour of this compromise tomorrow. i should like to point out once again that the rapporteur campaigned extremely hard for a strong review clause and to thank her for that; i hope that, when the review comes around within the next five years, the transport ministers will be not only older, but also wiser. (es) mr president, improving road safety in europe and preventing fatalities requires more training for drivers, but also putting a stop to the impunity enjoyed by those who commit the most dangerous offences. there should be no borders when it comes to punishing those who threaten european citizens by jumping traffic lights, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, not using seat belts or speeding when driving in member states where they do not reside. that is what this initiative ensures through data exchange. however, i also hope that correlation tables will be included in this directive, and i would join my fellow members in asking the council to make a special effort in that area. i regret the fact that the united kingdom, ireland and denmark have opted out, and i hope that in future we will all be aware that changing member state while driving does not mean forgetting our training or our responsibilities at the wheel, particularly the responsibility to prevent fatalities. (lv) mr president, i should also like to begin by thanking mrs sender and also the various presidencies for coming to this compromise. negotiations, of course, were difficult due to the change in legal basis, which called for a unanimous vote by the council, and on the other hand, resulted in the fact that three states are not participating in this legislation. it is positive to note that the new directive will finally end the anti-social practice that drivers who commit serious traffic offences in other european union states are actually not penalised, or are penalised in very rare cases. i should also, perhaps, point out two important issues for the future. first of all, it is now in the hands of the member states to ensure that this directive has meaning and produces results, and we expect that member states' competent authorities will take action, utilising data-exchange systems not only to identify and locate offenders, but also actually to enforce penalties to which they are subject. regarding the issue of personal data privacy, parliament had serious concerns whether this data exchange would be confidential and used only for the purpose of locating and penalising the offenders, and not used for other purposes. i should like to express my hope that member states' competent authorities will not do so. finally, as the commissioner has already stated, i should be very disappointed if for some reason, now we are at this final stage, there should not be enough votes for this resolution tomorrow. i hope that will not happen. thank you. (nl) mr president, the dutch party for freedom (pvv) supports improving road safety, but we see no point to the plan to pass on personal data at european level in order to collect speeding fines. the collection of fines is a national matter and, where so required, countries can already cooperate on a bilateral basis to tackle notorious speed demons. we are thus certainly not going to give carte blanche to any country that so wishes to demand the sensitive personal data of dutch citizens at will. we, the dutch party for freedom, oppose this proposal for that reason. when, in practice, it is evident that a disproportionate number of motorists from another member state are committing motoring offences in a given member state, the member states in question can reach bilateral agreements, as already happens. (pl) mr president, commissioner, mr grabarczyk, in the european parliament we agree that it is necessary to promote road safety in europe. the directive on cross-border enforcement represents significant progress in terms of improving this latter. i believe that the directive should impose greater obligations on the member states to provide information, and include a reference to the need for appropriate and correct information for drivers on the regulations which are in force. we should at long last carry out a review of enforcement procedures and harmonise road traffic regulations and the procedures for checks. to this end, cross-border enforcement should be guaranteed on the basis of an efficient exchange of information between member states. one of the ways to achieve this is by creating an electronic network for the exchange of data, by means of which it will be possible to establish the identity of vehicle owners, and thus of those guilty of road traffic offences. i would like to note that, in my opinion, the legal instruments outlined in the report relating to the security of data which has been obtained are sufficient. the directive is extremely important as it covers very serious road traffic offences, such as those which have already been mentioned several times today. tomorrow's vote may open the way to an agreement at second reading, on the basis of which amendments to the legal basis for the directive will be agreed. the provisions of the directive may thus be in force in the member states 24 months after its publication. (fr) mr president, i too would like to thank the rapporteur. however, there is no point in reminding you that we have not achieved the target for reducing annual fatalities and that much remains to be done - not least on reducing driving offences committed abroad, if we are to achieve the 2020 target. at present, in my country, which is located in the centre of europe at the intersection of roads to and from germany, luxembourg and belgium, a large number of non-residents are involved in road accidents, many of them linked to speeding or drink-driving. this is a daily reality. by way of conclusion, let me point out two things. firstly, we need to do our utmost to standardise penalties throughout europe so as to prevent the perception of impunity and unfairness from growing. it is incredible that a citizen who drink-drives or runs a red light can avoid punishment purely because he was driving outside his country of residence. secondly, we must do all we can to harmonise blood alcohol limits and speed limits within the union, together with measures to tackle those who drive under the influence of drugs. essentially, we do not need liberalism, ultra-liberalism, neo-liberalism or any other ideology: rather we need more europe, not less. (pl) mr president, mr grabarczyk, commissioner, tomorrow at midday we will vote on the sender report. after years spent negotiating positions, we have an opportunity to create a single eu electronic network for the exchange of data. we have an opportunity to make significant improvements to safety on europe's roads. i know that many of you are wondering whether to support amendment 36 on correlation tables tomorrow. ladies and gentlemen, we have no time for further delays in adopting this report. every day costs the lives of at least several people using europe's roads. i am opposed to prioritising procedural issues over matters of substance, and in this instance we are dealing with an attempt to prove the superiority of one position over another at all costs. i only have a few seconds left, and so i shall be brief. on behalf of the millions of individuals who travel on europe's roads on a daily basis, i am asking for support in tomorrow's vote for this difficult compromise between parliament and the council. - (cs) mr president, i would like, first of all, to congratulate the rapporteur for her truly tenacious work on this report. the compromise that has been reached should be seen as a first step, which should be followed up as quickly as possible. in the current situation, european drivers abroad appear to be immune, and they usually are. according to eurobarometer research from june last year, the cross-border enforcement of laws is the third highest priority for european citizens as far as road safety is concerned, coming after improvements to transport infrastructure and the enforcement of traffic laws at national level. i therefore very much support the rapporteur's view that the commission should propose harmonising the enforcement of road traffic rules as soon as possible. only by establishing penalties at european level will we achieve the application of road traffic rules to all drivers without exception. the compromise we have now reached must be welcomed. the sharing of information between member states can significantly help to reduce the number of serious traffic accidents. the estimate of 5 000 victims spared says it all, and i am therefore calling for us to support this compromise tomorrow. mr president, while saving lives must be of paramount concern to any legislature including this one, and to national governments, i believe in this case that citing that reason is disingenuous. on amendment 2, it is clear that there would need to be harmonisation of fixed penalties - another small step towards a european superstate. i have driven in most european countries, including eastern european countries, and driving conditions are highly inconsistent, as are signage and driving rules. how can you have a consistent policy here? i am glad the uk will be opting out, because one of the things we have, which some eu states do not have, is the right to appeal to a court: the right to appearance in court for all traffic offences. the position on this is inconsistent across the eu. is the aim, in fact, to have a single complete legal system? (de) mr president, to date, the highly disparate rules in the individual member states have resulted in injustice and irresponsibility in road transport. for example, drink-driving or driving under the influence of drugs are not prosecuted and punished to the same degree for all road users in a member state. this directive should change that. without doubt, the opt-out facility permitted by the new legal basis remains a fly in the ointment and i hope that, if possible, no member state will in fact make use of this opt-out for any extended period of time. i also hope that there will be a large majority in the vote tomorrow, so that safety and justice on the roads prevail and that, under the new presidency, the council will ultimately be able to push ahead and ensure that the correlation tables are introduced, so that we can verify if what is decided jointly in the european parliament and the council is in fact implemented. - (sk) mr president, the main task of every state is to protect the lives of its citizens. i therefore consider it extremely important for us to be able to punish, effectively and rapidly, those who threaten the lives of others through their actions. it can be seen from the statistics that the number of non-resident drivers exceeding the permitted speed limit in a given member state is relatively higher than the number of resident drivers. for this reason, cross-border cooperation in this area is very important. poor coordination in imposing penalties for traffic offences between countries helps drivers who come from a member state other than the one in which the offence is committed. at the same time, it discriminates against drivers who commit an offence in their home country and who cannot avoid the punishment. the possibility of cross-border enforcement of penalties in relation to serious crimes such as murder or robbery has not run into the same sort of complications as in the case of traffic offences. these offences also threaten people's lives, and therefore there should be no exemption. vice-president of the commission. - mr president, just some factual remarks. first of all, opt-outs. no country has signalled that they will opt out. on the contrary, informal signs are that countries support this legislative act, so it is not being said that these three countries will opt out. this is a legal basis question. on conciliation: if people think that conciliation will be a solution and offer a better compromise than we achieved today, i am not so sure. as i said at the beginning, this is why i consider this compromise decision so important. yes, of course, there are a lot of details which can be improved and will be improved, but this is one of the first types of legislation involving cross-border law enforcement and this is a matter of sovereignty, sensitivity, or intelligence, whatever. it is a subsidiarity issue. this is why this was blocked but now we have a compromise and we have a clear understanding that we have at least some tools to enforce the rules and to fight traffic violations. this is why this is so important. one factual remark about the penalties. there is already a council framework decision on the mutual recognition of financial penalties, which also covers road traffic offences. so if you receive a penalty, especially after this new law, you will pay. mr president, honourable members, this debate was exceptionally interesting, and it confirmed that there is a difference in positions, but a concern about the safety of road traffic was common to all speakers. this is the most important goal we are setting ourselves by taking up work on the directive, which reflects our concern for the safety of our citizens and the safety of road users. it is very important for there to be a happy ending to the compromise which was so difficult to achieve in the trialogue. i would like to stress once more that correlation tables are one of the points of contention between the council and the european parliament, but the polish presidency will strive to reach an agreement on this politically important issue. i would like to assure you that we will endeavour to resolve this issue horizontally. turning to the doubts expressed by several speakers, for example with regard to personal data protection, i do not wish to go into technical details, but i would like to stress that this very issue is covered by article 7 of the cross-border enforcement directive. this directive provides for the best possible data protection system with reference to the prm decision and the council framework decision 2008/977/jha of 27 november 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation. i would also like to express my belief that the three member states which in principle will not be taking part in the implementation of this directive, as commission kallas has already mentioned - denmark, ireland and the united kingdom - will be able to decide to participate at a later date, by means of an opt-in for ireland and the united kingdom, in accordance with article 4 of protocol no 21 to the treaty on the functioning of the european union, and by means of the international agreement provided for in paragraph 13 of the directive for denmark. finally, i would like to say that the issue of equality, which was mentioned during today's plenary debate, is an important one, and it merits a vote in favour of maintaining the compromise tomorrow. if the president will allow me, i have one more thing to say: poland took over the presidency of the european union on 1 july, and is now working for the good of all the member states, but something else that happened in poland on 1 july was the entry into force of an act which makes road traffic safer by means of automatic speed detectors. this too is progress towards safety. mr president, firstly, i would like to thank all my fellow members for their words and, above all, their cooperation, particularly that of the shadow rapporteurs, as well as the group coordinators, parliament's services, the committee on transport and tourism and especially the commission. i should also like to thank the council for its cooperation, since it has provided a great deal of support to the belgian and hungarian presidencies. i agree that we were most ambitious at first reading, in other words, parliament and the commission were moving forward together. however, we were stopped in our tracks by a blocking minority in council, with which parliament and the committee on transport and tourism are already familiar, because the council has been blocking some important measures for years now, in some cases permanently. in this case, we made an effort. we broke the deadlock. to that end - for practical reasons, and because of the optimism that motivates us to make use of every available opportunity in the area of road safety - we accepted the belgian presidency's proposal to try to find a different way forward, for which i was grateful. we tried to move past the council's block, and we succeeded. the belgian presidency worked very well with us, as did the hungarian presidency, and we were successful. it is true that this is only the first step, but we were in complete deadlock. it is the first step. we managed to improve data protection, to require the member state of registration to provide the necessary information, to introduce consultation with victims' associations and experts, and to include a strong revision clause that the commission accepted, for which i am particularly grateful to the vice-president. now, with utmost respect, i would just remind mrs savisaar-toomast, who, i am sorry to see, has not stayed, even after expressing her reservations to us, that the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe was able to adopt another transport report without the correlation tables and that, in this case, i believe that they could make an effort, and i appeal to them to do so, to give this report a chance, otherwise they are not going to help the disagreement with the council, since the council will still be able to use its blocking minority in the future. things are not going to get any better in the conciliation procedure. i think this is a fantasy, and perhaps mrs savisaar-toomast's youth makes her think that we can manage it, but i do not believe that is going to be the case this time. therefore, i would ask mrs savisaar-toomast and the alde group that tomorrow they do not force us into voting against the amendment regarding the correlation tables. that will not improve anything, and the victims, the victims' families and our citizens out there are not going to understand why, because of an interinstitutional quarrel, we are blocking such an important instrument, which is a first but vital step in the right direction. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on wednesday, 6 july 2011. written statements (rule 149) in writing. - this important report aims at improving road safety and abolishing the impunity of non-resident drivers in the eu. incredibly, some 100 people a day die on europe's roads. we simply must act decisively to improve road safety. eu studies show that respecting the rules of the road would result in 33% fewer road deaths. at present, 75% of road deaths are caused by four offences: speeding, breaking red lights, failure to use seatbelts and drink-driving. indeed, eu statistics suggest that non-resident drivers account for 5% of traffic but for some 15% of speeding offences. however, most go unpunished because member state authorities are unable to pursue drivers once they return home. this report approves a system for exchanging information between member states to enable follow-up on road-safety-related traffic offences committed by non-resident drivers. unfortunately, the previous fianna fil government chose not to participate in the drafting of this directive. however, i'm pleased to say that the new government is now carefully considering opting in to the new system. in writing. - (cs) there are three aspects to road traffic safety. the first aspect is safe infrastructure, which involves road construction, road visibility, installation of signs and so on. the second aspect is the safety and safety features of vehicles, and the third is the driver. since the target of drastically reducing the number of fatalities in road traffic accidents was included in a white paper some years ago (the target was a 50% reduction), various studies have shown that the weakest link in the three aspects affecting the accident rate is the driver. it is therefore important gradually to adopt all possible measures to 'improve' this weakest link in the three aspects of road traffic. one of these measures is to improve the enforceability of traffic regulations. according to various studies, improving the enforceability of road traffic law, that is, tackling the non-enforceability of fines for offences committed in another state, is an important aspect for improving the current situation. in some states the enforcement bodies easily cope, particularly in the case of parking offences. in other cases the matter is more complex, and enforceability between states is negligible, particularly where automatic equipment is used and the information is not transferred. the theme of the report is therefore very topical, and it concerns me personally that the amendments by the european commission and the council remove many parts of the original text. nevertheless, i believe that we can adopt a usable document, once the rapporteur's proposal has been approved. the high death rate on europe's roads is a problem which affects all eu residents. one of the white paper's ambitious goals to be achieved by 2010 was a 50% reduction in the number of fatal accidents. according to the eu database on road accidents (care), there has been a 36% reduction, which is undoubtedly a significant step forward. research into the frequency of offences committed in the country of residence or in other countries shows a clear increase in hazardous behaviour such as speeding, driving without a seatbelt and drink driving outside the country of permanent residence. we should therefore make every effort to minimise such practices, by introducing harsher penalties and by ensuring that there is less chance of non-residents going unpunished, which can be achieved by introducing standardised regulations for all european citizens, regardless of their country of residence and the country in which they committed the offence. i believe that the same rules should apply to all countries, and i am therefore deeply concerned by the separate treatment given to the united kingdom, ireland and denmark. communication between citizens and decision-making bodies is a key aspect in this regard. we should make eu citizens more aware of the road safety regulations which are in force in the different member states and of the implementation of new directives, in particular using appropriate methods which ensure that sufficient information is provided regarding the consequences of non-compliance with road safety regulations when driving in other member states.

statements by the president i would like to give you some brief information. this morning, i returned from a two-day official visit to russia. it was the first visit to this country by a president of the european parliament for 12 years. in moscow, i met president medvedev, the speaker of the duma, boris gryzlov, the speaker of the federation council, sergei mirnov, the minister for foreign affairs and the energy minister. we spoke about eu-russia relations in the context of the partnership for modernisation, and also about the negotiations relating to a new agreement between the eu and the russian federation. a range of other issues were addressed, including human rights. i also met representatives of civil society organisations, including memorial, which was awarded the 2009 sakharov prize. as you are aware, during my visit to moscow, the gas dispute between belarus and russia escalated. i expressed my concern to the russian authorities about the situation and called on the two sides to honour their contractual obligations concerning gas supplies to the european union. i also pointed out that the relevant agreements between belarus and russia should contain appropriate clauses guaranteeing the delivery of gas to the european union. it is vitally important to us that supplies are guaranteed. in addition, the council and the commission are currently analysing the situation, and representatives of those two institutions may possibly be able to give us an up-to-date assessment of the situation during this sitting. in any case, the dispute is ongoing and we are receiving new information every few hours.

human rights in the world 2009 and eu policy on the matter (debate) the next item is the report by mrs andrikien, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, on the annual report on human rights in the world 2009 and the european union's policy on the matter. rapporteur. - (lt) madam president, madam high representative, i am very pleased to see you here today participating in this particularly important discussion. in particular because these are the first political debates that baroness ashton has participated in since the launch of the new european external action service. the annual report on human rights in the world adopted by the council of the european union and eu policy in this field are the basis of this discussion and the european parliament resolution, on which we will vote tomorrow. we cannot hold baroness ashton responsible for those actions that are discussed in the above report, that is 2008-2009, because at that point she had not yet assumed the post of high representative for foreign affairs and security policy. we understand the great responsibility that lies with you, both now and in the future, and i would like to assure you that we in the european parliament will do all we can to ensure that the european union's objectives in the area of foreign policy are realised. baroness ashton, the treaty of lisbon has been in force for a year and the european external action service became operational barely a fortnight ago. in its report today the european parliament sends a clear signal to all eu institutions. the european parliament has clearly expressed its position that in the new european external action service the primary focus should be democracy-building and human rights protection across the globe and that this should be reflected both in the structure of the service and its funding. there could be a human rights and democracy directorate, an international law directorate or a structure with another name but the same content. what we should avoid is the marginalisation of human rights issues or their exclusion from the main eu agenda and the structure of the eeas. with the same aim in mind, the european parliament proposes to create special representatives for human rights within the context of the service, who would work in specific countries or regions, especially those where the eu does not have diplomatic representations. these special representatives would have a clear mandate to defend human rights in the countries where they work. i would also like to stress once more the need for a brussels-based working group on human rights (cohom), all the more so because an absolute majority of eu member states support this idea. the report on which we will vote tomorrow, here in the european parliament, discusses and assesses eu policy, the work of the entire european union and its institutions, covering a whole range of topics and issues, including the abolition of the death penalty, the fight against terrorism and human rights, children's rights, combating violence against women, the situation of human rights defenders in various countries across the globe and freedom of religion or belief. we are discussing and assessing the functioning of the european union in international fora, such as the united nations, the united nations human rights council and the cooperation of the european union with the international criminal court. my colleagues in the european parliament played an active part in the preparation of the report we are debating and it was adopted in the committee on foreign affairs by a huge majority: 50 'for', none 'against' and two abstentions. it is appended with a list of specific human rights violations in various countries, to which the european parliament has drawn attention. these are actual names, countries, human destinies and lost lives. i would therefore like to end my speech by mentioning a few specific severe cases of human rights violations. of course, having taken part in the ceremony, you are aware that today the european parliament was supposed to award the sakharov prize for freedom of thought to the cuban dissident mr guillermo farinas. we were unable to do this because representatives of the cuban government refused to allow mr farinas to come to the european parliament. we trust that in exercising your responsibilities, you will take this fact into account and will find a means of expressing our position, our disappointment and our regret and opposition in this matter to the cuban government. i would also like to draw your attention to another painful case that we discuss in our report. russia's khamovinicheskii court was supposed to pass sentence on one of them today, but for reasons that are unclear it postponed the announcement until the end of the month. this is the trial of mikhail khodorkovskii and platon lebedev, which in my opinion mirrors the rotten state of the judicial system and the absence of the rule of law in russia. baroness ashton, i would like to urge you not to forget these cases and to make efforts to ensure that justice in russia becomes the rule rather than the exception. i believe that the current opening up of russia and president medvedev's aims to modernise russia are a very good opportunity to achieve the implementation of this objective. vice-president of the commission/high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy. - madam president, honourable members, on friday we celebrated international human rights day. this year's theme highlighted the work of individuals and organisations worldwide who fight human rights violations, specifically discrimination. over this past year i have met nobel prize winner shirin ebadi on iran and frontline award winner, afghanistan's human rights commissioner for women dr soria sabhrang, and other human rights defenders across the world and i will continue to do so. as i have expressed previously, i fully expect my colleagues in brussels and the heads of our eu delegations to do the same. six months ago i stood before you to present a first vision of how the european union should conduct its policy on human rights. today i want to set out how work has been proceeding since then and how i see the way ahead now with the support of the european external action service. but first of all i am very grateful to dr andrikienfor her report which responds to the eu's annual report on human rights and sets out the european parliament's vision for how we can make our approach to human rights in the european union more effective. this is an ambition which i strongly share. the range of eu action and challenges we face are well reflected in the report before the house today: attacks on human rights defenders, sexual violence, use of new technologies to curb freedom of expression, to name but a few. i want to pay tribute to dr andrikienfor bringing together more than 400 amendments in this impressive, informative and extremely useful report. the report covers a lot of ground and i want to pick up three important developments of recent months. first and foremost, the eu has been working hard to advance the cause of human rights on the multilateral stage. in a successful session of the un human rights council, the european union held a common position on potentially divisive resolutions concerning the gaza flotilla and the goldstone report. at the general assembly third committee, the eu also achieved its chief objectives: resolutions on burma, dprk and the death penalty were all passed with increased majorities - as was the canadian resolution on iran - and the eu resolution on eliminating religious intolerance again met with consensus. secondly, as announced in june, work has begun on a review of eu human rights policy. it has been an inclusive process for which i sought input from member states' parliamentarians, notably ms hautala and the subcommittee on human rights, as well as civil society ngos and academics. i will be asking the service and my senior team in the months ahead to consider the key themes arising from these consultations and how best we can put them into practice. i will count on parliament's continued support in this endeavour. third, work has begun on streamlining the patchwork of policies which have grown up over the past ten years and which make up the eu's human rights policy guidelines: toolkits, other instruments, the guidelines we have got for promoting and protecting human rights. there are good reasons why policy has grown in such an organic way, but it seems like a good time to take stock and to move on and, for that ongoing work on the review, i see three lines of action. first of all, the need for europe to continue to speak up for human rights on the global stage. we are working to strengthen our action at the united nations and to resist attempts to dilute universal standards, the basis of our action. we need to find innovative ways of working with third-country partners to promote our shared values, as we have done successfully in the un general assembly vote on the death penalty resolution. we are also investing to ensure that our own record stands up to scrutiny. second, we need to tailor our approach to individual situations. that means establishing local human rights strategies for each country, reviewing our priorities and the most effective use of our assorted tools, for example by sharing experiences on child protection on the internet or how best to tackle child labour. third and finally, human rights should be visibly at the centre of eu external action. that means working human rights into the activities of all parts of the external action service, as well as the whole range of eu external action: trade, development, csdp and so on, and at all levels. that will be built into the structure at headquarters as well as throughout our delegations in order to be able to monitor the human rights situation and promote an effective realisation of eu human rights policy goals. human rights are the core of our eu identity and they go to the heart of what we do around the world. we have developed strong sets of mechanisms for promoting these values in different contexts with different partners; in the multilateral context and through support for civil society; funding specific human rights projects in over one hundred countries. nearly ten years on from the very first eu communication on human rights, and with the establishment of the new service, i want to ensure our human rights policy is effective, innovative and targeted: the silver thread that runs through all of our external action and a gold standard for our foreign policy. that is why i particularly welcome today the contribution in this report and i would also end by congratulating guillermo farias on the award of the sakharov prize for freedom of thought. on behalf of the ppe group. - (lv) madam president, mrs ashton, i should first of all like to thank mrs andrikienfor her successful report, which was adopted practically unanimously in the committee on foreign affairs. thank you also to mrs ashton for her measured speech. the report on human rights in the world testifies to the critical situation in even those countries with which the european union has for many years been conducting dialogue and consultations on human rights. for example, the report emphasises that russia has still implemented only the first point of the six-point agreement on georgia. half a million people are still unable to return to their homes in south ossetia and abkhazia. the european union must seriously resolve such situations, which is why i call on the high representative to pay special attention to the resolution of the issues to which i have referred. it would be intolerable for the european union to spend vast resources in terms of time and funds on human rights dialogue and yet fail to obtain good results. it is therefore clear that significant improvements need to be made in the european union's policy on human rights. first, by implementing a precise human rights strategy that defines not only tasks, but also structure, which ensures regular evaluation of outcomes and a review of operational tactics. second, the european union's evaluation of the human rights situation must be based solely on experience and defined criteria. we must not alter our opinion under pressure from some third country or under the influence of economic interests. third, we must establish regular consultation at european union level with non-governmental organisations. securing human rights and democracy must be the priority of the external action service and an unequivocal criterion in bilateral agreements with third countries. thank you. madam president, this report is really huge, a massive undertaking. it in fact almost exhausts the subject of human rights and, at the same time, it has flaws because of its qualities; that is to say it is dense and it can sometimes take a long time to read. the rapporteur is certainly not to blame for this but rather the 423 amendments, which she had to digest. it is therefore a feat on which we must congratulate mrs andrikien. the report, however, also highlights the fact that human rights, at the centre of european policies, is complex and multi-faceted. consequently, when the european parliament asks you, baroness ashton, for a special rapporteur on human rights, a directorate-general for human rights, special training for the staff of eu delegations abroad, and, among these staff members, a person very specifically responsible for monitoring human rights in the country in question - if parliament wants these arrangements, it is certainly not to bureaucratise this field but rather that there is a lot of work to be carried out. although this report does not overlook the serious problems and violations that continue to shake the world, it is not a litany of horrors either. on a positive note, it rightly emphasises the efforts made, and does not hesitate to recommend courses of action and topics of discussion to embark on. in conclusion, it really reflects the importance and substance of the work carried out by the european union. the european union has developed a set of tools that can really contribute to promoting democracy in the world. it has yet to convince its interlocutors that respecting human rights does not impede growth and international trade, and that it is not a millstone around one's neck in external relations but rather that it brings added value in terms of stability and prosperity. baroness ashton, you have taken up the cause of human rights very well and made your mark at the end of this first year after the treaty of lisbon. on behalf on the alde group. - (lt) madam president, i would like to congratulate the rapporteur and all those meps, who provided amendments and participated in discussions, for their interest and efforts to create and improve this report on human rights in the world and eu policy on the matter. i believe that the rapporteur and colleagues from the subcommittee on human rights and the committee on foreign affairs took this challenge and met it superbly. the ideas and assistance that we received from the representatives of non-governmental organisations also helped to improve the report. i would therefore urge all meps to vote in favour of this report, which following lengthy debates, amendments and discussions represents an accurate reflection of the position of the european parliament as regards human rights. on the subject of the amendments tabled, i would urge my colleagues not to expand on issues which have already been discussed at length in committee. it is true that human rights problems abound and there are also a lot of countries that could be mentioned and called upon to act. however, the value of the report lies in its brevity. by endlessly developing the report it would lose its effectiveness and so to me some of the amendments being debated seem unnecessary. at the same time i would like to draw colleagues' attention to some important amendments which did not feature in the previous version of the report. these include the amendment tabled by my group on sodium pentothal calling for assurances that the production and sale of this substance, which can be used to carry out death sentences, is only permitted for medical purposes. the adoption of this amendment would be an important step in the fight against the death penalty throughout the world. i would also urge colleagues to support another amendment tabled by our group calling on the european commission to take further action to implement the 2007 human rights report's commitments to strengthen efforts to combat violence. this document is not just a set of guidelines for the european commission, the council and member states, but also a very strong, clear message for the european union's neighbours, partners and other countries, where human rights are not sufficiently respected and defended. i hope that all interested countries and institutions will pay appropriate attention to this report and will adopt its valuable recommendations. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - madam president, i would like to welcome the high representative to the european parliament today. i would also like to warmly congratulate mrs andrikienfor her work. it was excellent team work, which is why it could be adopted nearly unanimously in the committee on foreign affairs. i was very fortunate to have been invited this autumn to participate in the discussions between the member states on how the eu human rights policy could be made more effective and more coherent. i believe that we have now a historic opportunity to review our human rights policy, as you have indicated, baroness ashton. my suggestion is that this process should be as inclusive and as open as possible. i would very much recommend that you send a communication in due time - not too late, of course - to parliament and the council, so that we can have real high-level discussion and engagement. today it is very important to be reminded that the treaty of lisbon places respect for human rights at the core of the union's external policy. for this reason, we need to have the proper structures in place. we know that you, the high representative, are committed to human rights and democratic structures at headquarters. could we please be told what that might mean in practice? are you able to give us the commitment that you gave parliament in the summer? i would also strongly urge you to go for the decision to establish the brussels-based cohom, which is the eu council working party on human rights. if we need to have more coherence - which we do - we definitely need to have this permanent structure in place. lastly, i would like to thank you for your efforts in bringing the member states together last friday in oslo for the nobel peace prize ceremony. i have reason to believe that, without your efforts, it would not have happened. it is a very good basis for our human rights work so that the union will have a clearer, louder and more effective voice in the world. madam president, i, too, would like to add my voice to the expressions of thanks for the rapporteur. we enjoyed very good cooperation, which has resulted in what i think is a very good report. i think one thing which should be stressed is that christians still constitute the most persecuted religious group in the world, and they are suffering discrimination, being attacked and often even being killed in almost every part of the world. at the same time, the world is remaining silent. we, too - the european union- are still doing too little. i am very grateful to mrs ashton for her reaction in many individual cases recently, but this matter should continue to be reiterated. countries in our neighbourhood, such as egypt and algeria, should feel that we cannot extend our political dialogue without including the subject of religious minorities in these countries. countries such as sudan and iraq should be made very clearly aware that we will not agree to develop aid programmes or free trade agreements until the fundamental right to religious liberty is respected there. much has changed for the better on this matter in recent years, but we need to be permanently engaged in the defence of religious liberty around the world, because no one will do this for us. in the last few days in the european parliament we have been able to meet bishops who have come here from iraq, from mosul and baghdad, to share their experiences. i think we should give them not only a feeling of solidarity, but a guarantee of security for the future, so that they have the feeling they have someone to whom they can appeal for help. otherwise, we risk our own credibility, because if we are not able to look after our friends, we lose credibility in the eyes of the world. madam president, our sitting seems to be particularly devoted to human rights. this morning we adopted the gl report. we also adopted a report on the trafficking of human beings and another on the european protection order; the rights of victims in other words. i will put on the same footing the rejection of the single permit, by which the european parliament rejected a proposal that was far too discriminatory towards foreigners. i shall not go back over the sakharov prize. i have already expressed my opinion. for me, however, this report falls within the same two-speed vision, the same narrow prism through which some fellow members regrettably view human rights. here are a few examples: i am committed to freedom of religion as well as to the freedom to believe or not to believe. many non-believers are also persecuted throughout the world. our rapporteur rejected amendments to introduce the concept of freedom of thought, freedom of faith and freedom of religion, even though it exists in international law. why are there 15 paragraphs on freedom of religion, primarily focusing on christians, and only six paragraphs on freedom of expression? there is no mention of trade unionists. why is there this double standard, which always consists in mentioning the same countries: iraq, iran, russia, belarus or cuba, when the situation in many african countries is hardly ever mentioned, and especially not in the maghreb, where those supporting human rights and democracy are terribly targeted, particularly in libya and tunisia, amid almost universal indifference? there is no mention of colombia either. i hope that this debate will enable us to make progress. i believe that by balancing our positions and adapting what we say and do we will progress towards a truly universal conception of human rights. there is still a lot of work to be done and i have listened to you carefully, baroness ashton. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, first of all i should like to thank the rapporteur, mrs andrikien, for accepting some of my amendments on religious freedom and i congratulate her for the successful drafting of this report. more and more tragic events are happening that concern the freedom of believers throughout the world: the number of obstacles to freedom of worship, assaults and murders is growing year by year. these criminal acts concern believers of all religions, particularly christians. paradoxically, religious freedom is becoming an increasingly sensitive subject instead of being one of the most natural and unquestionable freedoms. for all these reasons, i reiterate the proposal already put forward earlier to establish a specific, accurate and annual report by the european parliament to monitor the status of religious freedom in the world. this report would provide the information needed to plan appropriate and preventive political interventions. madam president, generations of soviet school children grew up learning that comrade stalin had invented the internal combustion engine. it appears that european school children will grow up learning that the eu is a defender of human rights - but what have you actually done, beyond rhetoric? the rapporteur highlights the weakness of the eu's policy towards the burmese junta, a weakness that is tantamount to appeasement. the rapporteur tells us that the eu is very concerned indeed about human rights abuses outside the eu - but what about the forced deportations of roma from belgium in 1999 during the premiership of guy verhofstadt, who now sits here as an mep? what about the forced deportations of roma from france this year? but maybe words are all we can expected from the external action service. in brussels last week, amnesty international raised concerns over the lack of a human rights unit within the external action service. words are very fine, but action might be more helpful to the oppressed and suffering peoples of the world. last week in committee i accused the belgian presidency of being a ghost presidency. to my astonishment the presidency agreed with me, saying that was exactly what they want it to be. so can i ask baroness ashton to attend the next meeting of the subcommittee on human rights - and not just in spirit - on 10 january, where she can take part in an exchange of views on the human rights and democracy network and explain to us exactly what the word 'action' means to her. (pl) madam president, i would like to thank mrs andrikien, rapporteur for the report on human rights in 2009. it was not an easy job, because the state of respect for human rights continues, unfortunately, to require our attention and engagement. in our report, we repeatedly call on various countries and institutions to take specific steps intended to increase the degree of respect for human rights. it seems to me that we ought to check more often whether these institutions do in fact carry out what the european parliament has requested. otherwise, in a year's time we are going to have to repeat many of today's remarks. we are right to demand respect for fundamental rights, but this is still not enough. we must also be effective - we must be able to persuade executive authorities to be effective in implementing our instructions. i support the rapporteur's proposal for the european external action service to have a directorate for human rights and democracy and to create the position of high representative for human rights. the main principle of a consistent european union foreign policy should be the promotion of democratic values and human rights. this is probably the most important political message of the report. if it should prove possible to achieve this, successive annual reports on respect for human rights in the world would get shorter each year - and may this be the case. (pl) madam president, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak. we are analysing material, today, which is clearly composed of two parts or two areas. the first area is an attempt to evaluate respect for human rights in 2009, and the second is the european union's policy in this matter. for we have to say whether progress was made in the world last year in terms of respect for human rights. unfortunately, the answer to that question is not in the affirmative. in 2009, there definitely was no progress in terms of respect for fundamental rights. i am thinking, here, of the fact that capital punishment is still in use, and that torture continues to be used in many countries. i am thinking of the use of violence against women, and also of the fact that there are still hundreds of millions of children in the world who are being forced to work as slaves. the second matter is about the union. there is no dispute over values or objectives. the basic dispute, and what we are worried about, concerns the fact that we want the work of the union in the area of protecting human rights to be more effective. i would like to agree with all the suggestions about this which are found in the report. if these recommendations of ours were put into effect, the work of the union in the area of protecting human rights in the world would certainly be a great deal more effective. (fr) madam president, mrs andrikien's report is a remarkable reference document for all those who speak out on human rights. it is good to share lessons with our partners in the rest of the world on the subject of human rights. although some countries are still living in the middle ages as regards compliance with human rights standards, europe would be well advised to give up on adopting too arrogant a stance. the european union's criticism of the authorities of countries that continue to violate human rights would be even more credible if our 27 member states were to agree, without exception, to enforce all the judgments of the court of human rights in strasbourg. where do we stand on this? is it not time to make a solemn commitment so as to avoid leaving the slightest doubt over our desire to respect the authority of the bodies that we ourselves created? (de) madam president, baroness ashton, the eu has an extensive range of measures which can be used to improve human rights policy in a number of countries. the eu is a regional power which should be calling in multilateral forums for human rights policies to be implemented and ensuring that there is a greater focus on making progress in this area. following the launch of the european external action service, will we take this opportunity to consider whether eu human rights policy is having the desired effect? i hope so and i welcome the review of existing human rights policy announced by baroness ashton. however, i am very concerned that it will not be possible to make appropriate use of the structures which are planned for human rights activities within the external action service. there is a real risk that there will be even fewer resources available than there have been in the past and that we will have no visible, audible or effective european human rights policy. the human rights department which is being established threatens to become a mere front if human rights policy is not represented in any way at the highest level. the mainstreaming of human rights will not on its own produce the required results. we need a substantial team of experts with links at the highest level and the requirement for everyone involved to take the issue seriously. only then will mainstreaming be possible in all areas of policy and at a central decision-making level. it would be completely incomprehensible, unprofessional and retrogressive to focus only on mainstreaming. those people who are suffering from violations of their most fundamental rights expect a new and effective human rights policy from the eu and not simply the application of administrative procedures in this area. madam president, i congratulate the rapporteur, laima andrikien, for her balanced and sensible approach to this report. my group, the ecr, is fully committed to promoting fundamental human rights throughout the world. however, we also recognise that human rights often need to be balanced with realpolitik. why else would the eu be developing a strategic partnership with china, whose government shows scant regard for freedoms we consider to be essential? equally, the eu has a moral duty to provide development and humanitarian aid to developing countries, even those with a lamentable human rights record, such as pakistan where women and religious minorities in particular suffer from institutionalised discrimination. i am nevertheless pleased that this report highlights countries that have been of particular concern to me during my career - vietnam, cuba, venezuela, iran, zimbabwe and north korea. the issue of impunity in russia for human rights offenders is rightly also raised. the central theme running through this report is that democracy, human rights and economic freedom go hand in hand. however, i do have doubts when this parliament invokes international law in condemning certain distasteful practices, when the legal basis for this is far from clear. i notice, for instance that, in a parliament resolution to be debated tomorrow, caning in malaysia has been declared as clearly against international law, when such a statement is legally questionable. we must stick to the facts to remain credible as an institution. (nl) madam president, our commitment to the observance of fundamental rights means little without personal involvement and that is what mrs andrikien's interesting report clearly encourages. my specific concern in this regard is 'religious freedom'. i would like to mention three current breaches of the fundamental right of religious freedom as a way of urging the council and the commission, who are here combined in one person, you, madam high representative, to give a voice and, thus, a face to these and all other persecuted citizens caught up on the diplomatic agenda. for me, there are three urgent cases: 1. dr fan yafeng, a prominent christian human rights lawyer and pastor of the beijing house church, who has been under house arrest since 1 november 2010 and who has for weeks been weighed down by the chicanery and machinations of the chinese intelligence service. action point for europe: lift the house arrest on dr fan. 2. aisha bibi, a pakistani christian, sentenced to death under pakistan's blasphemy laws on highly dubious charges. in a recent personal conversation with me in san francisco, the pakistani minister for foreign affairs did not want to agree to more than a thorough police investigation into the charges based on blasphemy laws. action point for europe: bring about the release of aisha bibi and the abolition of blasphemy laws in pakistan. 3. yusuf al-qaradawi, leader of a house church in iran, sentenced to death on 'apostasy' charges. action point for europe: bring about the release of this minister and end permanent state surveillance of house churches in the islamic republic. ladies and gentlemen, council and commission, madam high representative, unfortunately there is no lack of homework for you. (de) madam president, when china calls for a boycott of the nobel peace prize ceremony and the governments in iraq and afghanistan, which came to power with western military aid, both heed its call, this is for me an obvious example of the problems which regimes of an islamic nature have with human rights. in this context, the increasing persecution of christian minorities in the middle east and the cases of discrimination and intolerance of christians in europe are highly disturbing. we can no longer ignore the growing problems in muslim communities in the eu relating to forced marriages, honour killings, violence against women and the call for sharia law. in my opinion, we should also strongly oppose the sort of cultural relativism which, under the pretext of respect for foreign cultures and traditions, tolerates the fact that the right to freedom, equality and codetermination of people in some parts of muslim cultural areas is being restricted. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, overall the report by mrs andrikienreport is an excellent report, which the group of the progressive alliance of socialists & democrats in the european parliament have worked hard on to provide ideas of the utmost value. human rights have constituted one of the fundamental pillars of the european union since its creation and respect for them is an essential point that the european parliament must encourage every day. wider acceptance of human and fundamental rights, globalisation and changes in our society require a new and different outlook that does not fit any of our existing canons. it therefore becomes essential to guarantee equal access to natural resources, as one of the fundamental rights of each individual. in the coming years, climate change will lead to an enormous number of refugees fleeing the poorest areas of the earth and it is our duty to begin to take note of these potential migratory flows so that we can establish appropriate policies that will enable respect for the dignity of these people to be guaranteed. the expression 'climate refugee' has not yet entered the vocabulary of current international law. naturally, we remain committed to the fight against desertification, just as we do to adjusting to climate change. these are the topics i have attempted to add to the text of the report, so that a serious debate can be opened on the issues. madam president, we are celebrating a significant day with the award of the sakharov prize today, but we have a lot more work to do than that. i would like to highlight a few elements from this comprehensive and well-drafted report. there is the necessity to fight for justice over impunity, whether through the icc or otherwise. it is not only important to bring perpetrators to justice, because this is often a long-term process, but in the meantime, for those who fear that violations of human rights are unnoticed or in fact tolerated by liberal democracies, starting to hold individual human rights violators accountable is an acknowledgement of the suffering and of our credibility in the eu. in this report we ask for sanctions on russian officials responsible for the death of mr magnitsky and for iranian officials involved in the systematic censorship, rape, crackdown and executions of citizens who have done nothing other than act according to their inalienable and indeed universal human rights. (nl) madam president, we have seen over the past few decades that the human rights situation has improved in a number of places in the world. i am thinking of south america and eastern europe, where this has been linked to democratisation and increased prosperity. unfortunately, we have seen no progress in countries where islam is dominant - on the contrary. in egypt, iraq, iran, pakistan, somalia and other such countries, more and more christians and other religious minorities are becoming the subjects of oppression. in those countries, the extremists are leaving no stone unturned. charges of blasphemy, prohibition of conversion to christianity, harassment on a daily basis, murder, all that is happening. often, these actions are directed against communities who have lived in these countries much longer than the muslims. madam president, four out of every five people who are persecuted for their faith are christians and the situation in muslim countries is the most serious. i call on the european union and its member states to do more to combat this religious persecution and, madam ashton, i am asking you specifically, how is your policy going to address this? (el) madam president, i must congratulate mrs andrikienon the integrated report which she tabled. i would remind everyone that the ancient greeks said 'man is the measure of all things' 2 500 years ago. two centuries later the romans said 'man is a wolf to his fellow man'. i want to see if the ancient greek saying is philosophical rhetoric or if we have progressed. we have certainly progressed, except that we have not reached the desired result in terms of safeguarding human rights and, unfortunately, the economic and financial crisis which broke in europe and worldwide has caused a huge problem and has mainly hit the poorer sections of society, thereby depriving them of the human right of fundamental self-respect. madam president, baroness ashton, we need to go beyond words; we need to take action, we need to take the measures needed for social protection, to combat social exclusion and, most of all, to find employment for young people. i would remind you once again: employment is not a livelihood; it is a means to self-respect and dignity and conditions of peace in europe. (de) madam president, a civilisation is measured not only by its technical progress and prosperity, but increasingly by its respect for human rights. this is a quotation from a programme on the subject of human rights in the 21st century and should serve as a warning to us. the credibility of the eu in this area should not be taken for granted and our policies are not immune to being measured on the basis of double standards. the european external action service offers us the opportunity to follow up with actions the words which we approve every thursday afternoon at the latest. human rights must be reflected in every area of eu foreign policy. i welcome the comprehensive review of the effectiveness of all eu instruments in this area, because we are obviously not lacking the political will to make strict demands, but simply the will to implement them. - (sk) madam president, the european union is based on values such as freedom, democracy, equality, the principles of the legal state and adherence to human rights. if the union also wants to play a significant role in the promotion of human rights worldwide, however, it is essential that it develops a coherent foreign policy, to which all member states should make a determined contribution. the coming into effect of the treaty of lisbon is a unique opportunity for significant progress in human rights and democracy, which from now on should become a central element in various areas of foreign policy in particular. the decision to incorporate human rights into the structures of the european external action service is therefore of clear and decisive significance. i firmly believe, however, that creating the role of special representative for human rights would contribute towards greater cohesion, and above all to the necessary visibility of the external actions of the eu in this area. i would like to end by congratulating the rapporteur, mrs andrikien, for her excellent work on the annual eu report on human rights 2008-2009, which provides a detailed summary of the diverse activities of the european union in the area of human rights and democracy in the world. madam president, thank you to the rapporteur for producing an excellent report. baroness ashton, i am extremely glad that you are now in office, because your record has shown that you have absolutely no hesitation in standing up for people who have no voice and whose rights are taken away. human rights, of course, know no national boundaries. they know no national borders. they are universal. yet the universality of that respect is failing across the world. we have agreements with countries such as the african, caribbean and pacific countries where the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are criminalised. they are not respected and, indeed, even within the cotonou agreement there is a question as to whether there should be respect for the rights of lgbt people. this is why we need a strong human rights directorate within the external action service, to ensure this policy coherence across development, trade and foreign affairs - as you said in your statement. we have free trade agreements where article 2, the human rights clause, has never actually been enforced. parliament makes recommendations and, i am afraid, the council backs away. so we look to you to give a very strong lead in defending human rights with all those countries that we have relations with. i should also like to express congratulations on the adoption by the council in 2009 of the lgbt toolkit. the toolkit enables the eu's external action service to work for the fundamental rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. i wish you well, i trust you and this house has every confidence in you. madam president, i speak as the european parliament's vice-president for democracy and human rights and thank ms andrikienfor her excellent report. in her speech lady ashton talked about the new structures within the eeas - or at least she did not talk about them. when i founded the european instrument for democracy and human rights many years ago, i believed it was necessary to have a structure to deliver democracy and human rights. that still exists. incidentally, the commission wanted to abolish it and mainstream human rights and democracy through all external programmes. lady ashton does not talk about mainstreaming in her speech, but i fear that, when she talks about a silver thread so thin that it risks breaking at the first pressure, she is talking about a sort of filigree foreign policy. i think we need more than that. we would like to see - as others have said, right around the house - a directorate for human rights and democracy within the eeas and, possibly, a special representative. like mrs hautala, i was in oslo last week and i would like to just reflect on one single point. there were about a thousand people - i sat just behind mrs pelosi - united across the atlantic: politicians, diplomats, civil servants and ngos, happily united around the european union. when there was a standing ovation, it was unanimous - no wave, no fragmented approach. everybody stood up, because we stood as western civil society behind a set of principles. so in the future, when the eu projects its soft power, it must also project principles. we look to you, baroness ashton, to bring those forward. (pl) madam president, mrs andrikien's report is, indeed, lengthy, but it is my profound conviction that the report does not exhaust all the issues concerning respect for human rights in the world in 2009. it devotes a particularly small amount of space to the growing phenomenon of the persecution of christians, which is now happening not only in third countries, but also in europe. the european union has enough political and diplomatic instruments both to prevent these phenomena and to express categorical and resolute condemnation of them. a second matter about which the union should not remain silent is the question of respect for human rights in russia. it seems to me that the cooperation agreement currently being negotiated with russia is the perfect moment to raise in a firm and specific way the question of respect for human rights in that country. for we must not forget the people who are being persecuted in russia - the politicians, representatives of non-governmental organisations and businessmen who are being persecuted just because they have the courage and strength to demand the truth about the operation of their country. madam president, whilst we all unite in condemning flagrant human rights abuses in countries such as iran and china, we must start distinguishing these from the grossly over-the-top eu-inspired human rights industry. the public are now bamboozled by this human rights fest. there is the eu fundamental charter of human rights in the treaty of lisbon; there is a european court of human rights over there, which seeks to give british prisoners the vote - even murderers and paedophiles. there are excessive eu employment rights and american-style rights too for damages, and national legislation such as the uk's disastrous human rights act, which allows foreign terrorists and criminals to stay in britain because their rights are now seen to be more important than those of the decent citizens they threaten. the truth is the noble cause of human rights has too often descended into a deep trough, with millionaire lawyers growing rich defending the spurious rights of terrorists, criminals and the greedy. this has to stop. (de) madam president, the fact that the eu is increasing its activities in the field of human rights and that the issue of persecution and discrimination against christian minorities is specifically addressed in these reports represents a step in the right direction. christians suffer acute persecution in many countries, some of which have close contacts with the eu. examples include egypt, iran, iraq and, of course, turkey, where christians are in some cases fighting for their very survival, both in economic and in physical terms. we do not need a new post, such as the planned special representative for human rights, to force these countries to show more tolerance and to protect their minorities. this will give rise to unnecessary costs and is not guaranteed to be effective, because we already have enough means of applying pressure. we must take specific measures. we must ensure that no treaties are signed with the eu and no financial aid is provided without a commitment to respect human rights and to protect minorities, in particular christians. ladies and gentlemen, financial arguments are very powerful, especially when humanitarian arguments do not work. most importantly, they are well understood throughout the world. (hu) madam president, baroness ashton, first of all, let me congratulate my colleague, mrs laima andrikien, on her excellent work. the number of letters of amendment, which had reached record proportions, imposed a considerable task on her, which she handled excellently and in a very elegant way, and the result is an exceptionally good report. i am delighted to say that the report places emphasis on the most vulnerable groups that require the greatest degree of protection, such as children, indigenous people and national minorities. i very much hope that our messages formulated in the report will be met with openness as regards the structure of the external action service and the future high representative for human rights. we expect high representative ashton to ensure that human rights have a special place in the new structure, and that in addition to providing the necessary organisational conditions, the entire work of the external action service should be inspired by human rights mainstreaming. the spirit of the treaty of lisbon has created a new moment, one that will require us to take more consistent action in this area as well, and the failure to observe this spirit should not be permitted to undermine the credibility of the eu. as the rapporteur for the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the european union i am particularly pleased that this debate has been brought before the plenary of parliament at the same time, and that the report on the situation of fundamental rights in the european union that was adopted today, as well as the report on human rights that is currently under debate, convey the message that we consider the protection and consistent application of fundamental and human rights and the avoidance of a double standard to be equally important in and outside the eu. (pl) madam president, i am pleased by two things. firstly, because human rights have become an integral part of the work of the european external action service, and this is a very good thing. the apparatus of the european external action service should be used for this very purpose - to promote human rights and to protect human rights defenders throughout the world. the second thing which pleases me is this: as a member of the delegation of the european union to russia, i am very pleased to see that in this report there are sections devoted to respect for human rights in russia and that particular human rights defenders have been mentioned. this support from brussels and strasbourg for people who are fighting for human rights in russia is extremely important, and i think this report deserves support if only because it treats these people with such respect. i think we should move in this direction, and i appeal to mrs ashton to do this. (pl) madam president, the debate on the report on human rights in the world has coincided with sad events which confirm that human rights are constantly being violated. winners of the nobel peace prize - liu xiaobo - and the sakharov prize - guillermo farias - were not able to receive their awards, because they did not receive permission from the regimes where they live to leave their country. yesterday's visit to the european parliament by bishops from iraq is proof that we still have a huge problem with the persecution of religious groups. the persecution of christians in the middle east, including the recent terrorist attack on the cathedral in baghdad, shows that new methods of violating fundamental rights are appearing, and the union should react appropriately and effectively. i would like to add my voice to the appeal of the president of the european parliament, jerzy buzek, to make the problem of the safety of christians in iraq a priority. we cannot agree to christians being treated as second-class citizens. how, too, can we continue accession negotiations with turkey, if the only christian seminary in the country remains closed? following the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, the eu's diplomatic service offers the chance to improve the work of the union in the field of human rights. this work should concentrate on strengthening international cooperation and raising the level of security. promoting democratic values and human rights should be the main principle of a consistent european union foreign policy. (it) madam president, baroness ashton, ladies and gentlemen, as vice-chair of the committee on development, i am engaged with the problems of many countries, especially in africa, where human rights are routinely violated and trampled underfoot, if not altogether forgotten at times. i returned just last sunday from an official mission to the democratic republic of congo where, in addition to my usual institutional meetings, i wanted to meet representatives of non-governmental organisations operating in the country and visit some of the centres where they work. i must say they really do some great work. i met victims in a country where rape is seen as an instrument of war, where armed groups continue to practice mass rapes and other systematic crimes against civil society, especially against women, old people and children. i wanted to mention the example of the democratic republic of congo because this was a very recent experience for me. in general, however, i would like to call for the need for strong and ongoing condemnation of brutal violations of women's rights. the international community must significantly increase funding for campaigns to protect women from rape and other forms of violence, such as genital mutilation, which is also a serious violation of human rights and the physical integrity of women. (it) madam president, baroness ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the creation of the european external action service is a historic opportunity to address issues of human rights and democracy. it must ensure, in particular, that respect for and promotion of human rights are central to the various parts of the european union's external policy. greater synergy between the european union delegations and embassies of member states is desirable, with the aim of adopting one human rights strategy per country, given that the specific details vary greatly from country to country. the death penalty, which is practised in many parts of the world, is one of the most inhuman forms of law enforcement. the use of capital punishment is of concern in belarus, the only country in europe that still applies the death penalty. it is important to put an end to the types of human right violations suffered by women, including female genital mutilation. all political means should also be brought to bear to support the united nations general assembly resolution calling for an international moratorium on female genital mutilation. i conclude by calling for greater efforts to be made by the commission and the council to circulate the european union annual report on human rights. (hu) madam president, baroness ashton, i would like to emphasise that although the european union has achieved unprecedented integration between its member states in several areas, in the codification of human rights it is significantly lagging behind other international organisations. i fully support the statement calling on member states to sign and ratify all fundamental human rights conventions of the un and the council of europe, as well as the attached optional protocols. of these, i would like to highlight the council of europe's framework convention for the protection of national minorities and the european charter for regional or minority languages, for which the future signing of the convention on human rights by the eu could serve as an example. i believe that a better coordination of the work of the international organisations having jurisdiction in the field of human rights is of similar importance, and could be the sole guarantee for the assertion of the formulated rights and obligations. (el) madam president, the european union defends human rights in the world, in keeping with its principles and values. however, a great deal needs to be done and the treaty of lisbon has improved our efficacy in this sector. all of us here in the european parliament are convinced that action for human rights defenders must be continued. proper application of the instruments that already exist may provide a framework for protecting them. top priority must be given to ratifying all international conventions against torture and any other form of inhumane treatment. including the human rights clause in all trade agreements with third countries and monitoring its application are basic measures for exerting pressure and we must insist on them. i think special reference should be made to essential protection of the rights of women and girls, including protection of their sexual and reproductive health. madam president, as part of our debate today on human rights in eu internal and external policies, i would like to make a special point on the situation of women in conflict zones and in particular in congo, gaza and iran, where this question should no longer be overlooked. women, as well as children, are the ones suffering most from the devastating consequences of conflict situations. we should not allow breaches of human rights affecting women to be a side issue: the eu should prioritise the defence of women's rights in its foreign affairs and humanitarian policies. human rights considerations - and in particular the status of women - in a large number of third countries are too often sacrificed for the sake of the economic interests of some eu member states. we need, and we demand today, appropriate and concrete steps to make the eu's principles in its action within and outside the union a real tool of human rights promotion, with a specific focus on women's rights. (pt) mrs ashton, how do you feel when governments like the french and portuguese turn back demonstrations when there are visits by chinese dignitaries to their capitals so that they are not seen by the dignitaries when they visit these countries? wasn't the idea of having a high representative so that europe could speak with one voice on human rights abroad, for example in china? do you not think that this is speaking with more than one voice? out of curiosity, why do you always sit next to the council? what is the philosophy or constitutional theory behind this choice? a third question: i would like our european diplomats to see human rights as a daily priority, not a second, third or fourth priority, but the first priority. what will you do to ensure that some of our diplomats think about human rights as a full-time job, every day? would it not be good to have, as several colleagues here have already suggested, a directorate permanently dedicated to this? madam president, when we heard the recording from mr farias from cuba this morning, i was impressed by the fact that he identified himself and his colleagues as a 'non-violent' opposition to the cuban regime. i think it is particularly important to respect the rights of people who neither commit violence, nor encourage violence in others. however, before we become too pious about this, we must face up to the fact that in some eu countries people such as mr geert wilders in the netherlands are prosecuted for having dissenting political opinions or heretical opinions of academic subjects without a hint of encouragement of violence. moreover, a political party without any violent connections has been banned in belgium. an attempt to ban a party in germany failed in the constitutional court, only because it was revealed that the evidence had been fabricated by state agents. in the uk, a state body has been pursuing a civil action against our own party, with the express purpose of closing us down. (it) madam president, lady ashton, ladies and gentlemen, human rights and european union policy are at a crossroads. mrs andrikien's report should certainly be encouraged and supported as it specifically states what concrete actions still need to be taken. the eu european external action service can carry out its activities effectively, relying moreover on the acknowledged sensitivity of member states, but we need a comprehensive and decisive policy that has the necessary bite when required. we must truly protect human rights: young people, women, old people, the disabled, people with particular religious and political orientations, and those with different sexual orientations must be protected, just as people's rights to freely express their own thoughts must be protected. today, however, parliament has enacted some important measures and we therefore believe that any programme that is genuinely aimed at protecting human rights can only be developed truly and effectively through strong, concrete dialogue with third countries. (el) madam president, baroness ashton, it is a pleasure to listen to the high representative for foreign affairs of the european union state in no uncertain terms that we are in favour of the application of fundamental freedoms and human rights and that, as the european union, we have to do everything we can to safeguard the application of principles and freedoms that are common to the entire world, so that we can perform this positive role. you know our position: that we desperately want a special service for human freedoms and, more to the point, supervision and representatives. however, i would say, baroness ashton, that we need to look inside as well as outside. coming as i do from cyprus, i would point out that we have two hundred thousand greek cypriot refugees deprived of their fundamental human rights (access to their homes) and that we have a turkish cypriot community oppressed by the turkish occupation. set up your service. a word of advice and a request: send your first representative to the republic of cyprus. (sv) madam president, one of the candidates for the sakharov prize, dawit isaak, is still being held in prison without trial in eritrea. he has now been imprisoned for 3 370 days. accession to the european convention on human rights will provide a greater opportunity for the eu also to demonstrate in earnest its commitment to, and defence of, human rights outside the eu's borders. i appeal to you, baroness aston, to use this opportunity to increase the pressure on eritrea to release the european prisoner of conscience, dawit isaak. we must now show that we mean business and we need to have a clear message for the president of eritrea. it has to be an essential requirement that all of the negotiations conducted with eritrea lead to the release of dawit isaak. i have confidence in you. just as mr cashman said: i believe, i trust in you, lady ashton. (pl) madam president, i would, firstly, like to thank mrs andrikienfor her report. i would also like to say that human rights are in a new situation after the treaty of lisbon. the question is how we will use this instrument. we should do this not only by talking directly about human rights, but by including them in other contexts, such as where we talk about trade policy with numerous countries. are these human rights important to our partners? i think that reactions to what the european parliament says, or, for example, to today's award of the sakharov prize, show that parliament's views are important, because they are being heard. i would also like to talk about the rights of christians in the world. it seems to me that there are now so many examples of the persecution of christians, that we must react decisively. i think, too, that it is important to cooperate with, amongst others, the council of europe, the un, the organisation for security and cooperation in europe and the ombudsmen and human rights representatives both of the council of europe and of numerous member states, because there are many, very good examples of the effect of their work on changes in attitudes to human rights. madam president, although the report encompasses many significant issues, i would just like to touch upon the case of sergei magnitsky. his tragedy represents a great number of similar cases that have not come to our attention yet. it is essential to make it very clear to the russian authorities that such incidents must be investigated in compliance with the principle of the rule of law. instead, the investigators and prosecutors involved in the death of sergei magnitsky have been promoted and rewarded. such a course of action is simply an incredible perversion of justice, and the european union and its member states must not close their eyes to this. we should bear in mind the international commitments of the russian federation. therefore, colleagues, i encourage you to support amendment 25, which proposes to impose sanctions on 60 russian officials involved in the case until a proper investigation of the death of sergei magnitsky is conducted. (pl) madam president, as a member of the subcommittee on human rights, i would like to extend hearty congratulations to mrs andrikienfor writing a really good draft report. furthermore, as chairman of the european parliament delegation for relations with belarus, i would also like to express my great satisfaction that the report contains references to the situation in that country. i am thinking, in particular, of the references to how freedom of association is permanently restricted in belarus, and this includes the freedom of association of national and ethnic minorities, and also how the work of religious organisations is restricted. i am pleased, too, that the report also reflects the restricted freedom of access to the internet, and the fact that belarus is a kind of shameful leader in this field in europe. i am hoping, too, that mrs ashton, who is present, today, at this debate, will make every effort to ensure that the dialogue on the subject of human rights, which was begun with belarus last year, brings tangible results, particularly where we are talking about ending the repression of human rights defenders and independent belarusian journalists. madam president, i would like to address an issue that has been raised by many colleagues, and that is the suppression of the rights of christians. i very much wish, in the name of consistency, that colleagues would be equally interested in repression of the rights of representatives of other religions, because we are very often told by other countries that we are one-sided and biased, so i think this is a question of real coherence and credibility. i would like the guiding line of the eu human rights foreign policy to be the avoidance of any double standards, and i hope that the european parliament will stick to that. lastly, can i ask baroness ashton if she is going to respond to the many questions that we have about the new human rights structures in the eas, since these will be assembled in the very near future. vice-president of the commission/high representative of the union for foreign affairs and security policy. - madam president, i should like to thank everyone for all the contributions to this debate, which i found extremely useful. can i just say that i am on the council side now but i was on the commission side earlier today? i move between the two, and we do keep a record to make sure that i move between the two, so you must just catch me when i am here. again, i would like to thank ms andrikienvery very much for the work that she has done, and congratulate her on the report, which has been extremely helpful. i am going to respond on three particular areas. i will begin with the issue which ms hautala raised right at the end and which a number of colleagues have mentioned. let me start by being absolutely clear: i talk about mainstreaming because i have seen, too often in my life, human rights relegated to the corner of an organisation and done as an afterthought in a way that is not going to make any kind of difference. i am not suggesting that is what the eu has done before. i am suggesting that i am determined to make sure it cannot happen again. as you will see in the structure when we finalise it, and we have not yet done so - human rights will be fully recognised in the structure and we are going to make sure we have the expertise that colleagues here have asked for within the structure. but i do not want it to sit in a corner. i want it to be part of everything that we do: a silver thread, not a filigree thread, a silver thread that is strong but that shines and is there for everyone to witness. that is what i want to achieve in my time in office and i feel 100% committed to trying to achieve that. it will take time and there will be things we cannot do as well as i would wish, but we will absolutely do our best. it matters to me, however, that this parliament understands what i am trying to do and that i am trying to make sure that it is everybody's responsibility. yes, it should be monitored; yes, we need expertise; but it is not down to just a few people within the eas. it is the responsibility of everybody. that is the first thing to say. the second thing is that you will see the structures very soon, and it is in there. it is there for you all to witness as part of what we will be doing. on the working group chairs, we are going to put forward our proposals for appointments. i will be appointing the working group chair who will be responsible for human rights, and that will enable them to pick up the point that was made about whether capitals should have people gathered from the capitals or whether it should be based in brussels. we will pick that point up in that conversation. finally on structures: we have already done the training programme for new heads of delegations, and one session was about human rights. they are very clear about their responsibilities and about my and your expectations in that regard. so please accept that it is part - and a fundamental core - of the structure, but i will be determined to make it everybody's responsibility. the second point was about the breadth of the issues. i recognise what a number of people have said about religious faith and i accept that this is an important issue. it was, in fact, part of our discussions at the foreign affairs council this week as well. colleagues have also mentioned the need to address the rights of women, of children and of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual people. i read into all that was said, about the different people and the different countries, the fundamental point about human rights, which is this: for them to apply to you, you simply need to be human and here. those are the criteria for human rights and that is, again, how we will approach this within the external action service. they belong to everybody. the third thing i wanted to say was just a bit about some of the things we are beginning to see happen and in which we are playing a part. this is particularly true on some of the work that we are doing internationally. the international criminal court this year saw four countries recognise and ratify the statute. that is very important because we played a part: i personally wrote to the ministers in every country that had not yet ratified, asking them to do so. these were countries which responded directly to us and which have ratified. equally, i would mention the importance, in the un general assembly committee, of trying to extend support for the moratorium on the death penalty. i think this is a core and fundamental part of the work that we should do. it is universal, it is something we all believe in, and it is the way forward that we should be practical in what we do. so three areas: firstly, making sure the structures are right and the people know and understand the core work they need to do; secondly, ensuring that we cover everyone in the work we do on human rights; and thirdly, ways in which we can make a difference. the final point i want to make is how i think that, more than anything, we have to look, within the review, for practical and innovative ways of getting our messages across. i want us to be really creative in working with people on the ground in different countries where we meet human rights defenders - and i do wherever i go. i want us to be innovative and creative in finding new ways of raising these issues of human rights, new ways beyond what is so important in any event: the statements that i make, the statements that we make as 27 member states and the statements that we make as the institutions of the european union. it is about finding ways in which we can do as much as possible to address the concerns. it is about individuals, organisations and the collective will to be able to make a real difference. rapporteur. - madam president, first of all i have been told that the english interpretation of my speech was not accurate, and i am very sorry about this. immediately after this discussion i will translate my speech into english myself and will send it to all the colleagues concerned and also to the high representative. secondly, i would like to thank all the colleagues who participated in today's debate for their positive assessment and for their critical remarks. with regard to my colleagues mr obermayr and mr porba, who spoke about christian minorities in different countries, saying that this issue is not addressed in the report, i would like to draw their attention to paragraph 126 among others. we have a chapter that deals with freedom of religion, and christian minorities are also mentioned in some specific paragraphs. on a final note, i would like to assure baroness ashton that parliament will continue to scrutinise closely the work of the european external action service and will criticise inaction or the ineffectiveness of action taken in the area of human rights. in this year's report, we clearly state that we are not satisfied by the fact that the eu still does not have clear benchmarks for assessing whether actions on human rights have produced results. we have also expressed our disappointment at the lack of progress achieved by the human rights dialogues and consultations. baroness ashton, parliament has come a long way to find common ground on human rights issues, especially the most sensitive ones. this shows that parliament stands united in the promotion of democracy and the protection of human rights in the world. it also shows that the days when parliament would merely applaud the commission or the council are over. parliament is now a serious player in the area of human rights. all actors operating in this field will have to take note of that. i would like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00. written statements (rule 149) in writing. - (de) the fact that the eu wants to increase its activities in the field of human rights and that the issue of persecution and discrimination against christian minorities is specifically addressed in this report represents a fundamental step in the right direction. christians are still suffering acute persecution today in many countries, some of which have close contacts with the eu. to give just a few examples: in egypt, iran, iraq and turkey, christians are fighting for their very survival, both in economic and in physical terms. we do not need to establish a new post, such as the planned special representative for human rights, to encourage or even to force these countries to show more tolerance and to protect their minorities. this will give rise to unnecessary costs and is not guaranteed to be effective. we have enough means of applying pressure in the case of business interests and international trade relations. we must take specific measures. we must ensure that no treaties are signed with the eu and no financial aid is provided without a commitment to respect human rights and to protect minorities, in particular christians. financial arguments are among the most powerful and they are understood throughout the world. respect for human rights is one of the foundations of democracy and is the main value on which the idea of the european union is based. this is why human rights occupy a special place in the work of the union and of our parliament. in its annual report on human rights, the european parliament stresses its commitment to protecting these rights throughout the world. since 1988, parliament has awarded the sakharov prize to people and organisations with a record of particular distinction in the fight for human rights. we will be introduced to the winner of this year's prize this week. in the context of the report for 2009, i appeal to the member states to sign and ratify all the main un and council of europe conventions on respect for human rights. in order to be effective in the fight against violations of human rights around the world, we have to act together and in accordance with the principles of law and order which are accepted internationally on this matter. therefore, it is important for the union, as a leader in the field of the defence of human rights, that the member states comply with international obligations in this area. the lack of respect for the rights of defenceless children is particularly repugnant. this is why i stand for a definitive ban on child labour and for additional funds to be allocated to the fight against using children for work. it is horrifying that in the 21st century there are 215 million children in the world who are being forced to work, including around 115 million who have to perform hard slave labour. we cannot allow the economic crisis to make the situation of these children worse. i am pleased that the european parliament has today adopted the necessary sanctions against the russian officers involved in the trial and the death of magnitsky. russia, a state that is not a state with a rule of law and where human rights are flouted on a daily basis, does not deserve the attention that france pays to it. therefore, i strongly condemn the sale by france of a mistral class warship to russia and regret this action. in writing. - mrs andrikien's report is a step in the right direction. the eu-russia relationship is indeed special and should stay special, but not unusually special. russia is bound by its own commitments to protect human rights and to defend its citizens against state abuse. the magnitsky case, referred to in the report, follows the murders of politkovsaya, estemirova and barburova. this is a pattern, not a succession of tragic accidents beyond the abilities of russia's judiciary. and yet, murder after murder, the russian authorities tell the outside world that this time the guilty will definitely be found and punished. what is the result? zero, nil, nothing! the russian state duma even accused the european parliament of interference in russia's internal affairs and used a bunch of lies to smear the andrikienreport. if europe is to maintain its credibility as a defender of democracy and human rights, the andrikienreport should be adopted as it is, with no special provisions for russia's constant abuses. a resolution in the canadian parliament already backed a travelling ban and the freezing of the accounts of those linked to the magnitsky case. we should follow suit and send russia a clear and resolute message. enough is enough! in writing. - the european union's continued protection of human rights has paid great dividends worldwide and we must further our efforts in this age of globalisation. admittedly, this is a slow and sometimes tedious process, but it is important that we expand our goals and look at real world scenarios in order to develop efficient strategies. furthermore, i wish to voice my support for the protection of human rights defenders and policies that will provide for the continued spread of democracy to those countries that have yet to make this change. as we have seen with the recent nobel prize and sakharov prize winners, protection of these human rights defenders is of the utmost importance and these measures are a step toward that end. parliament's efforts to spread democracy and protect human rights continue to make progress, and in today's globalised world we know about injustices at a faster rate. this access to information makes it easier for us to monitor and react to situations around the world. we must therefore take advantage of this and continue our efforts to ensure that all people are given the fundamental rights that we have worked so hard to preserve.

it took a few moments before we could open the sitting, because i was afraid that the lights were going out all over europe, but thankfully they have now come on again. today we have the very last sitting of this parliamentary term and probably also the last sitting to be held in this chamber. i think that many people will be glad if we can then move into a new chamber, but for quite a few this is also their last day's sitting and it is no doubt an occasion tinged with sadness. i also see that a good many colleagues have already embarked on the election campaign and the house is no longer full to capacity. i should like to thank all those who are staying on here today, the so-called friday club, which is indeed a very alert and active club which will see things through here to the end. i should like to thank everyone, and above all to wish you well and hope that you will be back! and to those who are not returning, i also send my best wishes for the future. madam president, i thought you showed great respect today by having the lights dimmed to say a dignified goodbye to all those colleagues who are with us this friday and for whom today will be their last day in parliament. i would like to add that as vice-president you have always made friday mornings enjoyable occasions for us. thank you very much. applause thank you, mrs oomen-ruijten. before we move on to the approval of the minutes, there are two points of order. madam president, on a point of order. can you confirm that the bureau agreed yesterday to send a delegation to meet mr rugova and, if that is the case, can you draw the attention of political groups to rule 91 of the code of conduct, annex 1, articles 1 and 2, which says that before a member may be validly nominated as an office-holder, or participate in an official delegation, he must have duly completed the declaration provided for in article 2. can you confirm that rule will be applied? the rules of procedure are just the same for the conference of presidents, mr ford! laughter the nominations have taken place, and i assume that all those who have been nominated will have been informed of this individually. in any event, that is the instruction that was given. madam president, on a point of order. as you know, during my time here, i have made a great play of raising these points of order. today is a very important day for this house and it is a very important day for my country, scotland. we have just had the first democratic election for our parliament. applause we in the european parliament appointed an officer to liaise with it, mr dermot scott. he took up his position in february. for those politicians who are interested, the latest state of play is as follows: labour 56, the nationalists 25, the conservatives 9, the liberal democrats 3 and others 3. it looks as though it will be a very interesting situation and could i therefore suggest that we write to mr dewar, who is the secretary of state for scotland, wishing him well in his new venture. madam president, in january i submitted an urgent written question to the council about five angolan mps who were imprisoned last december without charge and without trial. the legal period of nine days allowed in angola had expired by then. the least that we as meps can do is to look out for fellow mps who are suffering oppression. although i am coming to the end of my term in office, i would urge you, madam president, to ensure that i receive a written answer to my question about the five angolan mps. thank you, mrs van bladel. unfortunately, there are no fixed time limits for the answering of questions by the council, but we will once again press for you to be given this answer as soon as possible. madam president, on 15 march i submitted a written question to the president about his statement concerning the working place in luxembourg and the seat of the european parliament's secretariat there. the president had said that parliament's secretariat would be leaving luxembourg once luxembourg became the seat of another international institution that was to employ 1 200 officials or other people. shout of 'what a good idea!' i do not know whether it is a good idea or not, but i have asked parliament's president and bureau to comment on the statement. he has not done so. i think i am entitled, having waited since 15 march, to a written response from the president about what he said, and if he claims not to have made this statement he should say so. i would ask you, madam vice-president, to make sure that i receive a written answer to my question of 15 march. thank you, mrs lulling. your comments will be recorded in the minutes, and i will once again take steps to ensure that you receive your answer. votes we shall now move on to the votes. proposal for a council regulation (ecsc, ec, euratom) incorporating daily subsistence allowance rates for officials on mission within the european territory of the member states of the european union for austria, finland and sweden into article 13 of annex vii to the staff regulations of officials of the european communities (com(99)0133 - c4-0226/99-99/0076(cns)) parliament approved the commission proposal the next item is in principle the report by mr jarzembowski. however, i have to tell the house that we have not yet received the opinion of the committee of the regions. with your agreement, i should like to defer this item. we are waiting for the information, and if it arrives in good time, it can still be taken into account. madam president, i wholeheartedly endorse what mrs oomen-ruijten said about your conduct of our business, but with all due respect i would urge that we should vote on the jarzembowski report. we discussed the possibility with the legal service of voting today and forwarding the results later, subject to receiving the approval of the committee of the regions. there are still quite a lot of members here for a friday, which is why i would seriously urge you to hold the vote. we had intended to wait for this, mr swoboda, but i have just been informed that the answer from the committee of the regions is no longer expected to arrive today. i shall therefore put this to the vote now. recommendation for second reading (a4-0245/99), on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism, on the common position adopted by the council (13651/3/98 - c4-0037/99-96/0182(cod) - former 96/0182(syn)) with a view to adopting a council directive on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (rapporteur: mr jarzembowski) the president declared the common position approved i would point out that this approval will only take effect once the opinion of the committee of the regions has been received, pursuant to article 71 of the amsterdam treaty. madam president, i just wanted to point out that we should adopt this provisional opinion. i would also like to compliment you on your new hair style. laughter in fact it is not new, but one always looks a little fresher after a visit to the hairdresser! laughter i should like to begin by congratulating the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights and the rapporteur for all her hard work during the procedure involved in drawing up this proposal for a directive on the recognition of qualifications, a subject which is a highly sensitive one in the member states. the negotiations with the council have not exactly been easy, but they have produced a fairly satisfactory compromise, even though as we all know a compromise is always just the least worst solution. i must admit that some progress has been made in this field since the 1960s. we have gradually moved from sectoral directives regulating various activities to a horizontal approach based on the principle of mutual recognition and two key directives from 1989 and 1992. clearly, i support the proposals to repeal the sectoral directives. these were supposed to be directives on liberalisation, but in fact they involved various measures that were intended to be transitional but which went on for much longer than necessary, inevitably producing restrictions on freedom of movement and freedom of establishment. i am also in favour of improving and consolidating the general systems for the recognition of qualifications. although there is fairly satisfactory provision in law for the recognition of qualifications, it is not adequately translated into practice, and europe's citizens still face too many problems when they try to use their professional qualifications and experience in other member states. i know what i am talking about, because i have heard stories from many young french students wanting to work in belgium, particularly in the medical field, about the rejections they have faced. another even more flagrant example of discrimination is the situation of foreign language assistants at universities in italy, which everyone has heard about. i think these kinds of situations are extremely serious. they are worrying not just because of their effect on the free movement of people and freedom of establishment, but above and beyond that because they are a threat to european citizenship. how can we expect community nationals to feel any sort of sense of belonging to the european union if, in their everyday lives or in doing something as natural as looking for work, they are rejected just because they come from one member state or another? the problem is a very complex one, i know. this is why we need to deal with it, so that it is easier for workers to move around within the european union. the recognition of qualifications is one way of going about this, and the proposal we are considering today is a step in the right direction. malangr report (a4-0234/99) madam president, i voted in favour of the report by mr malangr because i believe that it is of great importance and that its content is extremely sound. the last committee report for this parliamentary term confirms the old adage of 'last but not least'. it responds to a pressing need, and the lack of attention it has received until now is at odds with the intensive harmonisation achieved in so many aspects of commercial law, from company law to some specific points on insolvency, such as deposit-guarantee schemes for trouble-stricken credit institutions. the lack of minimum rules for insolvency proceedings has enormous repercussions for the union's territory as it means that the single market is being built without a roof. mr malangr's proposal is based on article 65 of the ec treaty, as amended by the amsterdam treaty, and i support it. however, i understand that this is not only a procedural issue and that with article 65, we would find ourselves in a situation whereby unanimity is required in the council. for this reason, i should like to point out to future legislators that the basis provided by article 95 - ex article 100a - is valuable in terms of approximating all the provisions that relate to the workings of the internal market by means of a directive. madam president, on a point of order. i wonder if, on my last day in parliament, you could just solve a little mystery for me. how is it that somebody who is not present and has not taken part in the vote can submit an explanation of vote? i am fascinated by this! you are right, mr hallam. one can only give an explanation of vote if one has actually taken part in the vote. but that is checked carefully every time. potato starch the next item is the proposal for a council regulation amending regulation (ec) no 1868/94 establishing a quota system for the production of potato starch (com(99)0173 - c4-0214/99-99/0088(cns)). madam president, alongside its decision on compensation for the reduction in the price of cereals, the agriculture council also adapted the compensation paid for the production of starch potatoes. it was agreed to fix the compensation for potato growers, given solely in the form of hectare premiums, at a higher level than the commission had proposed, provided that the number of hectares was reduced accordingly, so that the overall decision would be budget-neutral in relation to the original commission proposal. this could only be achieved by reducing the national potato starch quotas by an agreed percentage, albeit in an adapted form, with the larger producers giving up more than the smaller. the council and the commission rightly called for the european parliament to take a decision on the compensation and the potato starch quotas simultaneously, simply as a matter of good management. if we approve this commission proposal on reducing the quotas, we shall be making the growers' incomes a little more secure; otherwise they would have been hit particularly hard by the new policy. in certain areas, the production of starch potatoes is a vital concern. the quota proposal, in conjunction with the decision on compensation for starch potato growers, has no effect whatsoever on the competitive position of the processing industry - in actual fact the production of potato starch is being slightly reduced, so the producers of other starches can hardly object to that. madam president, i have always been proud that we have consistently succeeded in the cap in finding sensible ways of linking the interests of primary producers and processors, while at the same time giving equal weight to the interests of consumers and taxpayers. the potato starch sector shows the successful operation of the cap in a nutshell. it is a good example of an extremely dynamic and inventive sector which offers prospects for the non-food use of agricultural crops. i would like to thank my colleagues for their cooperation in continuing the development of what is an extremely well-constructed policy. madam president, potato growing is a significant and promising area of agriculture, with its strong potential for new openings. sweden has a fairly sizeable potato sector. our negotiations for membership of the union coincided with the dying days of alcohol production using potato starch. now that this activity has ceased, potato growing - for the purposes of industrial starch production - has had to be cut back considerably. this in turn has led to problems for farmers in areas where the land is suited to such crops. a new regulation is now being proposed, under which quotas will be reduced. the reductions will, however, be somewhat lower for countries with low-volume quotas. i find this a satisfactory solution. it is certainly better than it might have been. i have no objections; in fact, i applaud the proposal. what i would like to stress is the special value of potato starch as a raw material for industry. it is very good for paper manufacturing and there is scope for using it in many new sectors. this is the type of product that should be at the heart of our future investment and development strategies for agriculture. madam president, the commission proposal to reduce the production quotas for potato starch forms an integral part of the agenda 2000 package approved in berlin. it is therefore a good idea for us to deal with it as a matter of urgency today. the regulation of the market in potato starch is closely linked to the regulation of the market in cereals, and rightly so, since potato starch producers are largely operating in the same market as the cereal starch industry. it is therefore extremely important that the subsidies for potato starch should be kept closely in line with the level of aid for cereals. the commission's original proposals seriously affected the balance between potato starch and cereal starch and would have had disastrous consequences for the incomes of potato starch producers. the commission wanted to pay compensation of only 44 % of the price reduction, but the council rightly corrected this by increasing the income premiums to 75 % of the price reduction. to keep this budget-neutral, the council linked this decision to the regulation reducing the quotas, a solution that the sector can live with. a reduction in the quotas is also very much in line with the current supply and demand situation on the potato starch market. a few years ago, the european quota was increased for political reasons. the new germany was allocated a reserve of 110 000 tonnes, while the most recent member states got a quota of almost 170 000 tonnes. all of this led to overproduction on the european market. in short, the proposal to reduce the quotas deserves our full support. it enables potato starch producers to be offered reasonable compensation for the price reduction, and it is a decision which the current market situation also justifies. madam president, i had the opportunity earlier in the week to tell the house how important it was to deal with this proposal this week. it is entirely logical that we should vote on the potato starch sector in the same week that we have voted on agenda 2000. my group believes that potato starch production is of enormous economic importance in certain areas of europe, which is why it is absolutely vital that the balancing premium should be maintained. we think that potato starch and cereal starch should in principle always receive the same payments. the commission proposal to reduce the production quotas and increase the compensation payments for potato starch seems like a good idea, mainly because future developments on the world market could yet take us by surprise. i also think it is important that the commission should ensure that the compensation payments are made directly to the farmers, if at all possible. if there are fewer middle-men, there is less chance that money will be used for other purposes, so we must ensure that wherever possible the payments go directly to the farmers. finally, i would like to say something this morning in support of the development of new technologies. there are a number of technological developments that would make potato starch an ideal sector to promote. i think the commission needs to pursue an active policy here and should say that it is compulsory to use certain agricultural products in the interests of the environment. this would create a new market for such products and would also be good for the environment. firstly i would like to express my appreciation for your acceptance of the urgency procedure for this proposal. parliament is aware that the proposed reduction of the potato starch quota is very much linked to agenda 2000. only yesterday parliament expressed a positive opinion on the agenda 2000 package. this includes price reductions and compensation for both cereals and starch potatoes. the compensation for starch potatoes was set at a higher level - 75 % - as compared to cereals - 48 %. the potato starch sector fears that a lower compensation would endanger its raw material position. the sector accepts a quota reduction in return. the proposal for quota reduction before us fully neutralises the budget impact of the higher compensation rate. thank you, mrs gradin. the debate is closed. we shall now proceed to the vote. parliament approved the commission proposal hannover 2000 the next item is the report (a4-0195/99) by mr hoppenstedt, on behalf of the committee on culture, youth, education and the media, on the communication from the commission to the council and the european parliament entitled 'expo 2000 hannover' (com(99)0131 - c4-0153/99). madam president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, when the house discussed expo 2000 in 1990, venice was still being mooted as a possibility. it was made clear that it would be tantamount to a natural disaster if venice was chosen to host the exhibition. at the time, and without realising, of course, that i would be speaking as the rapporteur on the last day of this five-year parliamentary term, i said that if venice was not going to be considered, hanover should be europe's representative to compete against toronto. we know the outcome. today, some ten years later, we are voting on how europe is to participate. there is quite a background to this, of course, because for the last 18 months we, and i myself in particular, have been working to move this whole project forward so as to ensure that there is adequate funding for the european union to be represented at hanover, and that is by no means an easy task, as you know. this was why we made such a push last year for the 1999 budget, and thanks to all those colleagues who recognised how important it was for the european union to take part in hanover, particularly in the year 2000, it was voted through. i would like to thank all those responsible. i was entrusted with the report in march 1998, not march 1999 as it says here, and since then quite a lot has happened. however, the report itself has appeared rather late in the day. this was because the lisbon world exhibition was also important for the european union and the commission was very much taken up with it. but it was not too late, because the european union will be in one of the expo general commissariat's pavilions and will have an excellent position at the head of the european boulevard near the plaza. i think the european union has a good chance of attracting a large number of visitors. as i have said in my report, we do not want the entrance to the european union to be through the back door to some building or other. no, the european union must be open to all spectators, and this is what we have achieved through our work together. if we can look forward to a total budget of some eur 15 million, including the 2000 budget, then it is all thanks to the efforts of our colleagues. and we need the money, because this pavilion looks both back to the past and forward to the future. the theme in hanover is 'humankind - nature - technology', depicted in various imaginative ways, and what institution could be in a better position than the european union to bring together all the various ideas from around the world and in the member states, and to disseminate these ideas to give new impetus for the future? i think that we have also been quite successful in having a square near the european pavilion or the european exhibition named after robert schuman as an indication of how important robert schuman was for the development of europe, and to have a square that will remain in use in the future. the exhibition centre and buildings will not be disappearing, but are to remain as a living centre in hanover and the european union. there is another european element in the european union's exhibition on the theme of 'humankind - nature - technology': the euro. the euro will be featured as one of the most recent developments that is of enormous importance for the future in particular, and we have arranged with the relevant bodies, including through requests made by our committees here in the house, to be able to use the euro as an electronic currency. i think that it is important for the many millions of visitors to be able to use the euro and to explain to other people how it will work in future. i think that everyone will pull together on this, including in the future, and since i will no longer be here in parliament, i would ask doris pack, paul rbig and others to ensure that it is a success. as i have said, i will not be returning to parliament, and i should like to thank all those colleagues who have worked so closely with me in the committee on economic affairs and the committee on culture, especially on these topics that are so important for the future. i should also like to thank the interpreters sitting in their booths, who have communicated our activities here to others. my thanks go to everyone, and i hope to see you again in some other arena in the future! applause madam president, i should like to begin by thanking mr hoppenstedt for all his hard work on this issue, and we all hope that hanover will be a huge success. it is extremely important for the european union to be involved in an event like expo 2000, which will attract enormous attention from the media and the public. it is important to present an image of europe for inward consumption, for the union's own citizens, but also outwardly, for visitors from around the globe. the eu must get closer to the people in its activities, raising its profile among passing trade, as it were, and the expo is an ideal forum for this. in the committee on culture too we have repeatedly stressed that the exhibition should not just show europe's economic successes, but should also illustrate the european union's cultural diversity and in particular its successful programmes. i would also urge - and this is addressed to the organisers of the exhibition - that parliament should be able to demonstrate its independent role in initiating these programmes, and it should be kept entirely separate from the commission both in the pavilion and in the budget for the event. finally, i should also like to take the opportunity to urge the council once again not just to be proud of our cultural achievements here, but to ensure that there is sufficient funding for the programmes, because there is absolutely no point in getting the public interested in all these wonderful programmes that the european union organises if the level of funding is just a joke. madam president, i should like to thank mr hoppenstedt most sincerely for his excellent report, which i have followed with great interest - not so much the exhibition in hanover as the problems that it has generated. i am also glad that mr elchlepp spoke on the subject, for the simple reason that he too produced a wonderful report on an earlier occasion which i still remember with pleasure. i would like to thank him once again for that report. like any exhibition, the expo in hanover will be very important if it is used for the right purpose, as mr hoppenstedt underlined. but i would also like to look a little further forward, because there will be other exhibitions in future, and we should be starting to think now about things that will be vital for these future events. time and again the vital cultural dimension is missing, as mr hoppenstedt rightly said, yet this is one of europe's great strengths, and we should focus more attention on the cultural side of things instead of selling it short. secondly, we should remember that we have not always done ourselves justice here, particularly at exhibitions. as the 2005 expo is, i am delighted to say, to be held in nagoya in japan, i would point out that the exhibition in osaka led to a number of scandalous bureaucratic blunders, when they built the europe pavilion but refused to put up the coudenhove-kalergi statue. after a wave of protests the european community, as it was then, explained that it could not afford it. then came the most shameful thing of all - the japanese themselves bought a very fine coudenhove-kalergi statue for the pavilion. this also reminds me of something that happened here in this very building with a statue that was removed by the bureaucrats and has now been returned. we should think of our own roots, and when we go to japan in particular - and 2005 is not so far away - we should focus on the links we have with these countries. the fact is that we cannot afford to operate just within the european union: we must also take europe out into a world that is, whether we like it or not, becoming increasingly globalised and in which partnerships in the far east are also of vital importance to us. this is why i feel that even today we should all be thinking about what to do in nagoya. the asians are, after all, our logical partners. they are a great deal more culturally aware than certain bureaucrats here, and they would be very impressed if we gave our culture pride of place. i remember a croatian exhibition that we had once that was croatia's first appearance in this building. i was wrong at the time to insist that we should stop pandering to tourists. thank goodness no one listened to me and they brought culture into the building, which was the best thing they could have done in the long run. we should think about all this very carefully, and because we are now preparing to organise an event in germany and the preparations are going so well, we should be starting to think a little further forward. i must apologise for having pre-empted the next two stages, because we need to make long-term plans for our european culture and taking europe out into the world, and we need to ensure that this impression of europe is spread much further. as this is the last time i shall be speaking in the european parliament, i would urge my successors not to forget culture, because it is vitally important. we are a cultural continent and we should remember that this is the most permanent feature that europe has! applause thank you, mr von habsburg. not only is that your last speech in the house, but i would also like to point out the following once again: since 1979 - for 20 years now - you have been one of the members who are virtually always present on friday, and you were among the founders of the so-called friday club. on behalf of the house, i should like to thank you once more for setting such an example. i also hope that other members who join us will follow your example and behave likewise. applause madam president, mr von habsburg looked ahead in his speech and said that we must look forward to future universal exhibitions. a glance backwards would not be out of place, however. let us consider how past expos have turned out, and what sort of impression they have left on us. several members of the green group were in lisbon and felt very disappointed about the whole event. lessons should be learnt from this. the green group in the european parliament therefore maintains a 'constructively critical' attitude towards the hanover expo. it is important that the exhibition should be held. as mr von habsburg said, what is at stake here is culture. i am also glad that we are resisting 'eu nationalism' by not restricting ourselves to european culture alone. countries outside europe will be included, so that we can draw on cultural knowledge from around the world. as far as this particular expo is concerned, there are some purely budgetary issues to bear in mind, as the committee on budgets has pointed out. one aspect is the fact that a huge amount of money is being spent on this exhibition. appropriations for the european campaign to combat violence against women come under the same budget item. i trust that resources for the latter will not be eaten up by the expo. my personal opinion is that the campaign on violence against women is actually more important from a future perspective than this exhibition. the theme of the expo is highly relevant: 'humankind - nature - technology'. i myself find the range a little narrow, nonetheless, and am not one hundred per cent sure that the eu should be getting involved in such an event. yet i believe in the end that the green group should support the idea of taking the project forward. in parallel, however, we need a thorough evaluation of exhibitions of this kind. lessons can then be learnt for future occasions. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to begin by congratulating mr hoppenstedt on his last speech, which was very much to the point and summed up what all this is about, namely linking modern technology with nature and mankind. he has been very successful in fighting for this in his time in the european parliament, for which i congratulate him. the world exhibition in hanover is to run from 1 june to the end of october 2000, in other words about a year before euro notes and coins come into circulation. the whole world will be there, as millions of visitors converge on hanover not just from the 15 member states, but also from the rest of the globe. one hundred and seventy countries and 14 international organisations are to exhibit, so it is important for parliament, the commission and the council to start thinking now about the meetings they could organise, because a visit to the world exhibition should also primarily involve meeting up with other people, holding conferences and reaching agreements. it is an ideal platform for us in europe, and it is one that we should exploit to the maximum. as far as the european parliament is concerned, i would also urge that we should hold our interparliamentary meetings there, for example. hanover has an extremely modern conference centre which is right there on the exhibition site, and it has excellent infrastructure with full interpreting facilities. it would be a good opportunity to show the rest of the world outside europe the possibilities that europe has for the future. i would like attention to be focused in particular on the 'edu-tainment centre', placing the 'learning adventure' - lifelong learning - at the centre of our efforts. we should show what the european union has already achieved, and we should ensure that all the information is made available on vdus, on the internet, on multimedia, for young people, the elderly, in fact anyone interested, in the form of 'infotainment'. i think the 'learning adventure' is a special challenge, and this modern way of learning is very important and a tremendous opportunity for schoolchildren, students and everyone else. finally, we must take advantage of the infrastructure around hanover, which has been developed to a very high standard. i am already looking forward to the opening of this major exhibition. i should like to congratulate the committee on culture, and in particular its rapporteur, mr hoppenstedt, for this comprehensive report on expo 2000 hannover. in the year 2000, expo 2000 hannover will be a major communication event on a world scale. the theme for the exhibition is mankind, nature and technology. the organisers, under the leadership of the expo commissioner general, are committed to presenting current and future options on how to achieve a balanced and harmonious coexistence of the theme's three elements. it is the commission's intention to ensure the participation of the european union and its institutions at this important event. this was also outlined in our communication of 18 march. we are pleased to see that all eu member states will participate in this event. the vast majority will have their pavilions located on the so-called european boulevard. the eu pavilion would be at the heart of this, just opposite the host country's pavilion. the aim of union participation at expo 2000 is to present the crucial role the european union is playing, through its institutions, as a forward-looking, dynamic actor on the world stage at the dawn of the 21st century. the commission is pleased to note that mr hoppenstedt's report gives positive backing to the commission's intention to organise union participation at expo 2000. the report specifically underlines the importance of a coherent and balanced presentation within the union pavilion. the commission agrees with mr hoppenstedt that the union pavilion must present the best possible image of the european union in the 21st century: a european union which is democratic, transparent, law-abiding, socially just, tolerant and culturally diverse. what we strive for is to make its citizens aware of the reality of european integration and of the union's role in international relations. it is our aim that such a presentation will be based on the use of the latest interactive multimedia and electronic technology available. this will ensure that visitors, and in particular the younger generation, will have an eye-catching and thought-provoking experience. i am pleased to inform you that an architect's competition for the design of the union's pavilion has now been judged. its results are due to be announced formally in the ec official journal. the companies involved in the competition have also been informed directly. the commission is responsible for the official coordination of all eu institutions to ensure they participate in a coherent manner in expo. i can report to you that such coordination has already begun. the commission's inter-service task force, and an interinstitutional working party have been created. the detailed programme of activities and communication strategies is being developed within these two bodies along the lines of the commission's communication and the culture committee's report. regular reports on the progress of this work will be made to the culture committee. with regard to the budget, an estimated amount of eur 14 m is proposed for the year 1999-2000 on budget line b3-309, special annual events. this budget, which will cover the needs of all eu institutions, is deemed the minimum necessary to finance the proper participation of the union at the expo. it will be recalled that a total of eur 10 m was earmarked on budget line b3-309/99 in order to finance two activities: expo 2000 and a european campaign to combat violence against women. in addition to this it is strongly recommended that a further eur 6.5 m is voted for in the budget for the next year, the year 2000, to complete the expo 2000 action. the commission is confident that the interinstitutional cooperation already set in place will produce the necessary positive results to allow the budgetary authority to determine favourably the budget for 2000. the commission also welcomes the proposal to second parliament staff to work at expo 2000. this will be in addition to the commission staff that will be devoted to this action. the estimated administrative expenditure for this participation is eur 1.44 m on part (a) of the budget. the commission looks forward to continuing cooperation with the european parliament and its services to ensure that the union's participation at expo 2000 will be an important event in bringing the european union and its institutions closer to its citizens. thank you, mrs gradin. the debate is closed. we shall now proceed to the vote. parliament adopted the resolution i voted against the report. it seems to me that more relevant tasks are being postponed because eur 15 million are being expended on expo 2000 in hanover. european textiles market the next item is the joint debate on the following oral questions to the commission: b4-0338/99 by mrs ferrer, mrs peijs and mr chanterie, on behalf of the group of the european people's party, on mass imports of low-priced textiles; -b4-0339/99 by mr moniz, on behalf of the group of the party of european socialists, on the mass of cheap imports on the european textile market. madam president, commissioner, the european textile and clothing sector is currently being battered by massive and abnormally cheap imports from economic areas that are either in the grip of a serious recession or whose own traditional markets have been closed to them. this is what is happening with the countries of south-east asia, central asia, the former soviet republics and the baltic republics. in addition to this, there is the unprecedented increase of imports from turkey due to the closure of the russian market and turkey's industrial capacity, which has expanded dramatically over the past five years. as a result of such massive imports, which scarcely cover the cost of the raw material, many european textile companies are currently recording losses and their survival is threatened. this is seriously jeopardising a number of jobs. the unfair competition faced by this sector - a sector that includes the production of fibres, threads and cloth and also the finished products - is getting worse. and it is getting worse because of the tariff and non-tariff barriers, as all the rules established within the world trade organisation prevent the sector from having access to the markets of countries such as india, the united states or even turkey. it is as if these rules only applied to the community's markets, which these countries and their products can access freely. this imbalance is heightened by the vast array of preferential agreements that the union has already signed, or is about to sign, with third countries, at a time when the announcement of a new round of multilateral negotiations is casting a doubt over the advisability of these bilateral agreements. the result of the combination of these negative elements is that european businessmen in the textile sector feel that there was little use in investing significantly, as they did, in high technology and ambitious restructuring to modernise their business and in specialising in quality, fashion, design and the european trade mark. despite having taken steps to be able to successfully meet the challenge of international competitiveness, the textile sector does not have the weapons it needs to defend itself when faced with unfair competition. for this reason, i would urge the commission to adopt whatever measures are necessary to put an end to the unfair competition to which this sector is subjected. in this way, we could guarantee full compliance with the commitments made by all the parties in the framework of the world trade organisation. i am thinking specifically of the trade defence instruments available to the european union to eliminate trade barriers affecting community products. i am also thinking of the safeguard measures provided for in the uruguay round agreements, which the commission should perhaps adopt. however, in the resolution on the commission's communication on the textile and clothing sector, and in the actual plan of action that the commission then drew up, there is already a series of proposals along these lines. what is happening is that these proposals are not materialising, and if they are not urgently promoted, an large part of a sector which is firmly established in european industry and which, above all, provides many jobs, could disappear. therefore, commissioner, i would ask you to tell commissioner brittan how urgent it is to adopt measures to protect our textiles sector in a fair and faithful manner. on the one hand, this protection should be justified and should comply with some of the provisions and requirements set out in the rules of the world trade organisation. on the other hand, it should come under the legislation that the european union itself has drawn up to govern its trade with third countries and with developing countries. i hope that the commission will bear this in mind and will address this problem which affects so many jobs. thank you very much, mrs ferrer. i wish you all the very best for the future, in spite of the fact that you and i will be competing in the same area in the elections. mr president, during the parliamentary term now drawing to a close, we have frequently discussed textiles and clothing. there has certainly been proportionately more talk than action. nevertheless, some positive things have been achieved, above all as regards the commission's approach to this sector. previously, the textiles and clothing sector were viewed with suspicion, being regarded as uncompetitive and the province of third world countries. that is to say, it was regarded as a marginal sector doomed to fade away because of an attitude of conformism and fatalist determinism which would inevitably lead to millions of workers losing their jobs, just when the european union had chosen to give priority to the fight against unemployment. as discussion and analysis of the situation has progressed, there has been a significant change in the attitude towards textiles. fortunately, this sector has come to be viewed as one of the most competitive and innovative, and it has been recognised that it is one of the most labour-intensive sectors and is therefore potentially an effective tool in the fight against unemployment. i personally am satisfied that i have to some extent been able to contribute to this new perception of the textiles and clothing sector. but many things still need to be put on a firm footing. the plan of action announced should not just remain on paper as a list of good intentions. the specific support measures needed for smes should be progressed without delay. the european union should be firm in calling for strict compliance with the rules of the world trade organisation and the textile agreement, in particular the timetable for liberalisation, controls on dumping and fraudulent practices, access to third country markets and restrictions on bilateral agreements. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, five years ago i started my membership of the european parliament by raising the problems of the textiles and clothing sector. i am concluding my participation in this final part-session of the european parliament on the same subject, more convinced than ever of the need to defend this sector and more confident about its future. in my own country, where this sector accounts for 25 % of jobs in processing industries and 30 % of exports, where there are regions that are almost entirely dependent on it, with a consequent impact on the life of most families, thousands of workers and employers are viewing the future with hope and anticipation, but also with many doubts and fears. we must show ourselves worthy of their confidence, dedication and hard work, and their willingness to continue demonstrating their faith by investing in a sector which involves risk but undeniably has a future as an integral part of the europe of social responsibility and solidarity that we wish to see. i should like to reply to the questions by mrs ferrer and mrs peijs, and by mr chanterie and mr moniz. on the question regarding recent imports of textiles from third countries into europe, the commission is in contact with the european textiles and clothing industry on this issue. the european industry believes that recent imports from a number of third countries, especially from asia, were made at very low prices. on 3 may, representatives of the european industry met with my colleague sir leon brittan to explain the situation. at present the commission is in the process of establishing, together with the industry, the facts regarding import flows and prices. once the facts have been established the best course of action can be determined. if it shows that there have been unfair trade practices such as dumping or subsidisation causing injury to the european industry, the european anti-dumping and anti-subsidies legislation provides for means to deal with this situation. at the meeting of 3 may sir leon brittan assured the european industry that if there was evidence of such unfair trade practices the commission would examine very seriously any complaint made by the industry. it would then take appropriate action. as regards the situation under the relevant international agreements, we have to keep in mind the following. firstly, for wto members, the agreement on textiles and clothing (the atc) already provides for quantitative restrictions on imports from a number of third countries, including countries in south-east asia. the commission ensures that these limits are respected, and there is no evidence that the recent imports have exceeded the quantitative ceilings. in addition, the atc provides for a transitional safeguard instrument. according to this agreement new quantitative restrictions can be introduced when it can be demonstrated that increased imports seriously damage the domestic industry or threaten to do so. these actions are subsequently scrutinised in the wto. secondly, for a number of non-wto members, bilateral textiles agreements fix quantitative limits. in addition, for imports that are not under quota, reference ceilings are set. these are percentage limits of the previous year's imports as a share of total union imports. once these reference ceilings are reached the imposition of a new quantitative limit may be requested. finally, in response to the question regarding the positions expressed by third countries in preparation for the forthcoming round of the wto negotiations, i would like to say the following. some developing countries which are wto members would indeed be interested in amending the agreement on textiles and clothing in order to speed-up the liberalisation of all quantitative restrictions, presently due to be completed on 1 january 2005. nevertheless the commission does not advocate this idea. such an acceleration of the liberalisation timetable would also cause immense difficulties for the second major textiles importer, the united states. thank you, mrs gradin. i have received two motions for resolutions to wind up this debate, tabled pursuant to rule 40(5). madam president, ladies and gentlemen, as you mentioned, the group of the european liberal democrat and reform party had in fact tabled a motion for a resolution but, in the light of those tabled by both the group of the european people's party and the group of the party of european socialists, there is no reason why we should not support these resolutions. that is why we have withdrawn our motion. in truth, we are returning to an issue that we have dealt with on previous occasions. we are calling for positive action from the commission to ensure that international trade practices relating to products of the textile industry are dealt with appropriately. we are trying to ensure that trade is conducted in accordance with the rules agreed on in the respective international agreements applied by the world trade organisation. we have adapted our position not only on the textiles industry but also on the european system of production in general in order to respond to the need for the sector to accept the conditions of a global economy and to work to increase its productivity and competitiveness. it must be restructured so that our products and services are sufficiently accepted in a global economy to enable them participate fully in the international markets. as a result of this increased competitiveness, european industry and services will be able to grow and will therefore also be able to create more jobs. this is the general approach we are also applying to the textile industry. therefore, our position is not a protectionist one. it is a position that will allow us to comply fully with the agreed international trade practices. the events of recent months, particularly in asia - which commissioner gradin mentioned - are of great concern since the very positive effort made by the textile industry to become more modern and competitive and to have the best possible position and share of the international market may be ruined in a very short space of time. massive imports under inadequate conditions from various areas, including asia, could ruin the industry's opportunities. these imports worry us and i welcome mrs gradin's specific comment on this matter. i must stress that this industry has made considerable efforts to adapt. what is more, it would be unfair to put at risk one of the industries that creates most jobs in the european union. mr president, i am very pleased that my last speech in this parliamentary term relates to an important sector, the european clothing and textile industry, which has a predominantly female workforce, a large number of smes, often in rural areas, and a future which is largely dependent on the application of fair trading rules. in the absence of any positive measures by the commission, whose action plan to make the sector more competitive we examined in 1998 but has not been followed up in practice, some member states such as france, spain and portugal have taken steps to curb the exodus of jobs to third countries. in france, a textile sector plan which reduced the social charges that were a burden on wages has enabled 35 000 jobs to be saved, not to mention indirect employment. the commission then decided to get tough, not against those countries which refused to introduce social and environmental clauses in world trade rules, but against the member states. it considered that reductions in social charges could distort competition between european producers, and it declared france's textile sector plan to be illegal, demanded impossible repayments from firms and blocked the extension of this job-saving measure to other sectors. this approach needs to be changed. we should only allow into the union products from third countries where operators comply with the ilo social rules relating to working conditions, working hours and child labour, until such time as the union applies these rules as part of the package of international agreements it is negotiating and, in particular, the wto negotiating rounds. it is unfair competition against european businesses that the commission should be attacking, not the union's own firms. in conclusion, i would refer to the concern generated by mr prodi's first statements on this subject, which suggested that he has a very ideological notion of competition and regards any regulating or corrective measures taken by a member state as tantamount to distorting competition. would he regard sir leon brittan as dangerously 'dirigiste'? this is not the way to help european industries and the families they support to meet international competition on a level playing field. mr president, it is good to see you, the faithful friday president, taking charge of affairs at the close of the session. i support this cri de coeur from the europe textile industry. europe is a big market but it is not a dumping ground and mrs ferrer has made a very good case. mr moniz also talked about fraudulent practices. let me tell you one. a country which had the right to import shirts but not piece-good textiles got round the rules by importing shirts with tails 15 metres long - and they got away with it. europe may lead in the textile fashion industry but we must have a basic manufacturing industry in order to support it. europe may well lead also in the design and techniques of textile machinery but there again we need to have a home market for such products. i mention friction-spinning, which was as a fairly recent invention in europe. instead of using it to make textiles more profitable for europe we actually sold the technique abroad. we made the profit of our invention once. we need to support developing nations by having bilateral treaties with them in order that they can have a market for their goods. i have no quarrel with that at all, but if we are going to have these bilaterals the commission should be called upon to draw the lines very clearly and make sure they are properly controlled. mr president, i should like to begin by thanking mrs ferrer, because i think that this is an extremely important initiative. when sectors are in crisis, we must always ensure that we take the right measures in good time. it is crucial that we should prepare for the wto negotiating round in seattle, and in the committee on economic and monetary affairs i have always insisted that we should clearly identify the salient points here and that our main concern is access to third markets. we must specifically ensure that these markets are opened up to us and that fair conditions are applied. we also need to consider incentives in export marketing. we must see to it that firms are able to offer their goods internationally so that europe can be presented as a powerful force. another very important point is that we must ensure that a lighter burden is placed on smes in particular. this is an issue to which i personally am very committed. we have more than 16 million smes in the european union, and they need to be given greater help and consideration here in the house in future. since i am the last speaker, i should also like to thank the president and his team, who have always worked so very hard here on fridays. i should also like to thank the president of the european parliament, mr gil-robles, for taking my initiatives to eliminate crime in and around the european institutions very seriously; our group chairman mr martens for promising not to forget this issue in future in belgium and to continue to support us; the president-in-office for promising to devote his efforts to this; and finally the quaestors and the conference of presidents, for whom this issue has now become genuinely topical. i am looking forward to seeing a safer europe in the next parliamentary term. applause thank you, mr rbig. the debate is closed. given that the group of the european liberal, democrat and reform party has withdrawn its motion, we shall proceed to the vote on motion for a resolution b4-0455/99. parliament adopted the resolution i voted against the resolution on the european textile market. the proposal is over-protectionist in its thrust and takes inadequate account of the importance of exports of textiles and ready-to-wear clothing for poor countries that are anxious to develop their economies. ladies and gentlemen, when i am in the chair i usually do not vote. today, somewhat exceptionally, i myself requested this roll-call vote and participated in the vote. i abstained in order to remain true to my supposedly institutional attitude. however, i wished to make a record of all your names, with mine among them, as a symbol of what we could call the 'friday club'. and, ladies and gentlemen, if you will let me make the most of this list, i will contact you all every autumn from the year 2000 onwards so that, wherever we may be, we can try to meet on a friday here in strasbourg. applause mr habsburg-lothringen wishes to speak on a point of order. mr president, chairman of our 'friday club', i should like to make the most of this opportunity to thank you in catalan, your mother tongue and a language steeped in the traditions of our european culture. it is a language that we do not hear enough in this parliament. as a loyal member of this club, it is very important to me that i thank you for your wise leadership and your hard work to make fridays a fully valid day of parliament's part-sessions. i hope that your and our example will be carried through to the next term to include friday as a day when we can count on the presence of 620 members. thank you very much indeed and goodbye. applause thank you - moltes grcies . mr medina has the floor on a point of order. mr president, you know that i am usually present for the friday sittings but that i rarely ask for the floor because we are almost always working so quickly as we have planes to catch and so on. today, as an exception, because it is the last day of the current parliamentary term and taking into account how early it is, i should like to speak on behalf of the socialist group and acknowledge the work you have done as president of the sitting. furthermore, i should like to point out that for 40 years, spanish parliamentarians were starved of democracy, and for us the parliamentary institution is extremely important. it is important to you and to me because of our own life experience. i believe that one only values what one does not have. the fact that the european institutions include a parliament, with all its defects and all its problems, is something that the people of europe should begin to value. the fact that this parliament has become a fundamental element of the community mechanism during this term must be valued. i believe that our task now in the coming weeks must be to convince the people of europe of how important their participation in the elections is to this parliament. and i believe that at least those members who are here today have done everything possible to ensure that our work is not trivial, but that it is important and definitive work in the process of european integration. applause mr president, ladies and gentlemen, in the last sitting of this parliamentary term, i should of course like to add to the thanks expressed by my colleagues mr medina ortega and mr habsburg-lothringen. and, of course, i should also like to thank mr habsburg-lothringen for speaking in our language, which is something i hope will become more commonplace in the next term. i should like to say how pleased i am to have been part of this closing sitting. i should also like to thank you, mr president, for your work as vice-president of this house. thank you very much. applause mr president, on behalf of the ppe group, i should like to thank you most sincerely and congratulate you, not just on being such a stalwart president on fridays, but for presiding in such a very democratic, open and disciplined manner. it has been a pleasure to come to know you as a member of this parliament and also as a president of the sitting, often in difficult circumstances on fridays. i therefore endorse what mr medina and the acting chairman of the liberal group have said. thank you very much and goodbye. mr president, i would not wish the italian language to remain unheard at this moment of farewells. i cannot, much as i would like to, speak catalan, but nonetheless i would like to thank you and also all the vice-presidents who are not here and have done such sterling work, as well as president gil-robles. we shall be leaving this chamber, and i believe even those colleagues who are re-elected will not be returning to it, because a new one has been provided. we are rather sorry to leave it, because this is the historic residence of the european parliament. i would also like to thank our chairman mr martens, whom i can see leaving just now, for staying here right up to the end. nonetheless, the vice-chairman, mrs oomen-ruijten, remains and is a worthy replacement for him. i bid farewell to you all, and would particularly thank you, mr president, for the great skills and common sense you have shown in chairing our debates. mr gutirrez daz, i would first like to say that i believe your profession as a paediatrician has been a great help to you in understanding many of the issues discussed here in parliament. lenin himself referred to leftism as a child illness, and so in this chamber we find childishness, maturity and longevity. all human life is here. those of us here on fridays, this loyal group of survivors of the often hard and tedious work during the week, amongst whom there is a spirit of complicity, have managed to maintain a sense of humour. humour is a basic requirement here. it has brought cheer to young and old alike - i will not say to children, as there are none here. i would like to thank you on behalf of the union for europe group, and in portuguese, for the patience, humour and wisdom that has marked everything you have done here. thank you very much and i wish you every success in your profession. i shall be returning to mine also: five years is a long time in a man's life and i do not have many five years to spare for parliament, so i shall be devoting myself to other causes. mr president, a number of people have already thanked you, and i would like to join them in doing so. there is one person i would like to mention, whom i refer to in our group as the friday godfather, the one who always has something to say, and that is mr von habsburg. the fact that there are so many of our group here is partly thanks to him. he too is now leaving us. i should like to thank him for the excellent leadership he has shown us all. applause mr president, as this is the last sitting in the first parliamentary term in which finland has been a fully-fledged member of the european union, i, as a faithful son of the friday club, would like the finnish language to be recorded in the verbatim report of the proceedings of this last sitting. we would especially like to thank you, mr president, for the fact that you were always happy to welcome us finns in the finnish language, which you pronounce so elegantly, and for the fact too that you were always ready to guide and encourage us, as we were new to the procedure of this house. many thanks, and many thanks also go to all of you sitting there on the tribune. the work you have done has been invaluable. thank you. mr president, greetings to you from nordic parts and from sweden! on behalf of the green group, i should like to join in the chorus of praise heaped upon you today. you have always conducted friday's proceedings in such a friendly way, with great humanity and humour. you have been a fantastic president. because of you, fridays have been a high point of the strasbourg week. along with everyone else, i wish you all the very best for the future. mr president, i would like to add my thanks to those of mr paasio, as, of all those who chair our sittings, you are one of the few who have actually used the finnish language in carrying out your duties. mr president, it would be terrible if the group that has loyally supported this vice-president to the end did not thank him for his work and dedication. what is more, from a personal point of view, he knows we think fondly of him. i hope, however, that he will not use these great complimentary speeches by the whole house to his benefit in the election campaign, as we are in different camps. laughter i should like to say how fondly i think of you. our group has supported you faithfully until the end and you know that, wherever we may be, you will always be remembered. thank you very much, my good friend laura. allow me, in this case, to correct what laura said slightly: we are not in different camps, we are in the same camp but on different lists. mr president, i would just like to draw your attention to a small point which i think is rather important. friday is not a normal day either for you or for me. friday is usually the day when i receive groups of visitors, and i can assure you that as far as the people from my country who have visited the european parliament are concerned, you are the most popular president of the sitting. i am grateful that you are a candidate in your own country, because in mine you would have been unbeatable. thank you and good luck for the future. thank you very much, mr goerens. i hope that i will pick up your way of thinking to help me in the difficult journey ahead. mr president, you have always been a very friendly person. whenever we met in the corridor, you would always ask 'how is maastricht getting on?' other people thought you were talking about the maastricht treaty, but in fact you meant my football club, which was always doing very badly - and still is. but we knew what we meant. barcelona, on the other hand, is doing very well, but that is because it has eight dutch players. thank you very much. thank you, mr bertens. of course, you speak as if you were from barcelona, because you know that at the moment barcelona is almost a dutch team. mr president, you seem to be being presented today with a bouquet made up of all the different cultures and languages of our various nations. as someone born a frenchwoman, i should like to add germany's flower to this bouquet for you to take home in your heart, and i should like to wish you every success in your work for democracy, which is so important. applause mr president, i was possibly the last member to join the 'friday club'. you are well aware that i came to this house scarcely six months ago. that is a very short time but it is enough for me to have appreciated your work as president and your work in chairing this sitting. in these six months i have missed two friday sittings and you made sure to remind me of them. i should like to thank you personally and on behalf of the group i represent. mr president, as well as thanking and congratulating you, i should like to add to what has been said by mrs gonzlez lvarez and by you yourself. i should like to say that there is one thing we agree on in terms of parties and lists: we are all on the list of pro-europeans. in the past in spain, being on the list of pro-europeans meant being on the black list. therefore, whether or not you are on the list, whether or not you are in the party, or whether or not you are in this house, i know that both of you, like many of us here today, are in favour of freedom, justice and solidarity. mr president, as someone who has been in parliament for 20 years, i should also like to congratulate you, together with my colleague ursula schleicher, who has also often been a member of the friday club. it was always a great pleasure to round off a long and difficult sitting - and i was often there at the end, though not always - with a joke, and i hope that the spirit which you have stood for and which several people have reflected in their speeches will continue in the next parliament. it will be in a different building which will not be as homely; the light will be colder, i think, but i hope that the pleasure, the vision, the cooperation and the humour will remain. mr president, luxembourgish is sadly not one of the community's official languages, otherwise i would have added it to the bouquet that mrs gebhardt talked about. but if i say 'villmools merci ', i am sure you will understand, and it would surely not be against the rules of procedure just this once to use two words of luxembourgish, one of which is french anyway. mr president, i should like to thank you for being in the chair for almost all the friday sittings. i regard friday as a normal working day just like all the rest, and i am extremely sorry that so many of our colleagues are notoriously absent. i have attended every friday sitting for the past ten years, and if i return - i do not know whether i will, because in my country the people decide, not the parties - i shall maintain the same discipline. i would also like to thank you for being so generous with speaking time. we have sometimes been allowed to have the floor for half or even a whole minute more than the minute officially allocated, so i would thank you most sincerely and hope to see you here again - because you are sure to be re-elected - not just on fridays, but on all sitting days. mr president, i should like to thank you not just for being such an excellent leader of our friday club, as many people have already mentioned, but for something else as well. this morning mrs schleicher, who is also a member of the friday club, said in the chair at the beginning of the sitting 'the rules of procedure also apply to the conference of presidents'. this has inspired me to thank you for being a vice-president who has always stood up for the rights of individual members. the friday club itself consists of people who stand up for the rights of members, and i very much hope that we will be able to continue to work together on this in the next parliamentary term. mr president, as a member of the 'friday club', i too would like to say a few words. we must remember that this is not the only club we have. let us not forget our 'questions club', over which you have often presided. several of us are keen users of question time. although attendance tends to be lower on those occasions, you always behave in friday fashion, in your usual open and friendly way. thank you so much for the fine times we have shared, mr president. mr president, i too would like to thank you. i cannot for the moment find the rule that i need in the rules of procedure, but i would like to say, finally, that this was a parliamentary term which took europe a little further forward, but took the european parliament a great deal further forward. we have three new member states, and i hope that the amsterdam treaty and the excellent spirit that you have generated with your sense of humour will enable us to make considerable progress towards a democratic europe. i wish all those colleagues who are not coming back every success and good health in the future, and i wish those who are coming back the strength to stand up for a democratic europe. thank you, mrs grner. i should like to thank you and all the members of this house who have spoken. as regards what mrs lenz said, if it is not going too far, i believe that her words can be extended to all the vice-presidents. i have received a request for the waiver of mr carlos coelho's parliamentary immunity from the relevant portuguese authorities. pursuant to rule 6 of the rules of procedure, this request will be passed on to the committee on the rules of procedure, the verification of credentials and immunities. i have received requests from the group of the european people's party to appoint members to the following committees: mr wieland as a member of the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights; and mr gahler to replace mr wieland as a member of the committee on the rules of procedure, the verification of credentials and immunities. are there any comments? if not, these appointments are approved. mr posselt has the floor. mr president, i should like to offer my warmest congratulations to everyone on their appointments. thank you very much, mr posselt. that will be noted in the minutes. parliament has come to the end of its agenda. as this is the last sitting in this parliamentary term, i would propose to the house that we derogate from rule 133(2) and approve the minutes of the current sitting now. they have been drafted as the debates have taken place. if there are no comments, that is how we shall proceed. the minutes were approved ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the end of our work. as you are all aware, i usually thank parliament's services for their help during the sittings on behalf of all of you and i am sure i reflect your feelings in doing so. today, such thanks must be of a special nature. it is not the last time they will be thanked but it is the end of an era. you all know that in order to weave a basket to hold our political activity, we need many willow branches and these branches are the officials who help us. therefore, allow me, albeit briefly, to express my thanks to the various groups involved, beginning with the ushers. the ushers, ladies and gentlemen, achieve a marvellous mix of discretion and service without any degree of servility. they respond to any of our requests for help. i believe that we should show our appreciation for their silent and subtle company with great enthusiasm. applause we must also thank two groups of survivors. the first of these is the translators, who survive the reams of pages we throw at them everyday without being exhausted or overcome by such a vast quantity of pages. an average of four thousand pages are produced by the translation service every day. i believe it is only fair to express our gratitude for the rapidity and quality of their work. and, as i cannot mention them all by name, allow me to express our thanks via the director-general of translation and general services, mr wilson. applause and there are more survivors to be thanked: the interpreters. the interpreters manage not to choke on the rapid speeches we cobble together in the few seconds the president may give us if we are lucky. they also work hard to turn our rambling speeches, which are sometimes difficult to understand, into something coherent. therefore, because they have survived, and because they have helped us so much, we thank them. applause we should also like to thank those whom we do not see every day but whom we see traces of every day, that is, those who produce the session news, the document that briefly tells us about the sitting. in the inscrutable jungle created by the number of issues we deal with in the house, they are able to choose the appropriate species and tree on every occasion. i should also like to pass on our thanks to them for their work on selecting the right aspects. ladies and gentlemen, we must also thank those who produce the rainbow every day. i would say that they are like good photographers, who photograph a sunset and improve upon it but make us believe that it is exactly the same. with great subtlety, they often improve upon our speeches. we should also like to thank them. and, lastly, allow me to express my thanks to my friends - indulge me and let me call you my friends - who are here with me today and who have been with me on so many occasions. i am also going to say a few words of special thanks to the secretary-general. i personally owe a great deal to the secretary-general for his skill and his rigour when it comes to putting forward proposals. this has made my work a great deal easier and i should like to thank him from the bottom of my heart. and i would also like to thank my friends who have helped me. ladies and gentlemen, our political activity does not move at a frenzied pace, but we could compare it to a train, not a high-speed train but a goods train. yet trains do not move forward if there are no rails and these rails are what stop us from coming off the tracks. on many occasions, i have felt that these rails were guiding me along the right track and making my work easier. finally, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank you all from an emotional and a rational standpoint. from an emotional standpoint, there is a spanish folk song that could express the way i feel at the moment. i am not going to sing it but i will recite the lyrics. of course, this is a challenge for the interpreters because it obviously rhymes in spanish. let us see if they are capable of making it rhyme in every language: 'they say goodbyes are not sorrowful, they say goodbyes are not sorrowful, say that to him who has said farewell, say that to him who has said farewell'. ladies and gentlemen, there is a hint of sadness today; we are not going to try to hide it. we are saying goodbye to one another and we know that we will go down diverging paths and that there will be separate adventures for those we have met day after day in this house. but i must say that the hint of sadness can be compensated for, firstly, by reflecting on what we have done. we can consider two things and the first of these is the satisfaction of a job well done. ladies and gentlemen, we can be satisfied with a job well done every day, and even on fridays, and we can say this without being smug and with the peace of mind and conviction we have when stating something we are absolute sure of. the second thing that makes up for the hint of sadness, ladies and gentlemen, is the fact that we know that this is not the end: this great celebration of democracy celebration will help it continue. as mr medina ortega said, many of you have been lucky enough to have democracy handed to you as if it were completely natural and you value it just as naturally. some of us have had to fight for this democracy. therefore, every time there is an election, irrespective of the outcome for us as individuals, it is a celebration. it is a reason to be happy because we are safe in the knowledge that nothing is above the will of the people when it comes to choosing their representatives. therefore, ladies and gentlemen, we can take solace in the satisfaction of knowing that we will be well represented in the future. ladies and gentlemen, my friends, i wish you good health and good luck in your future work. adjournment of the session i declare the session of the european parliament adjourned. the sitting was closed at 11.02 a.m.

approval of the minutes the minutes of yesterday's sitting have been distributed. are there any comments? madam president, on the approval of yesterday's minutes; in paragraph 3, mr macartney referred to the flying of the european flag. i would just like to inform the house that in the part of scotland i represent the local authorities of north ayrshire, renfrewshire, east renfrewshire, clydebank and dunbarton and east dunbarton are proudly celebrating today, europe day. very well, we will take note of your comments. (parliament approved the minutes) postal services the next item is the report (a4-0105/96) by mr simpson, on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism, on the proposal for a european parliament and council directive on common rules for the development of community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (com(95)0227) - c4-0540/95-95/0221(cod)). madam president, at last i stand before parliament to present my report on the future of postal services in the union, having been rapporteur for what seems like an eternity due to the inability of the commission to come up with a directive in the first place. the words of cicero: ' how long will you abuse our patience' , were often on my mind during those long days of waiting. the report i bring to parliament today on behalf of the committee on transport and tourism is of great interest to the people of the european union. postal services are without doubt at the sharp end of contact with the people in their towns and villages. it is a european issue that they can not only understand but can see in their day-to-day lives. there are very few issues in this parliament's day-to-day work that can boast such recognition. so this report is about not only the provision of postal services but also the provision of social services. in many parts of the european union, it is impossible to separate the two. for that reason in my report i have taken a different view to the commission regarding liberalization. i have quite openly and without apology taken the view that the protection of national postal administrations is essential if that social element is not to be lost to the ravages of liberalization or even privatization. my report, supported overwhelmingly not only by the committee on transport and tourism but by the vast majority of postal administrations and trade unions, strikes a balance between improving present service levels - and i accept that in certain areas improvement is needed - and ensuring that a universal service can be offered to all the citizens of the european union, irrespective of whether they live in a busy city centre or a sparsely-populated peripheral area. it is my belief that citizens living in the shetland islands or the west of ireland or in the pyrenees or the greek islands are entitled to the same universal service at an affordable price as the citizens living in london, paris or athens. in its proposal the commission accepts that there is a need for a reserved national monopoly sector that would enable national postal organizations to provide that universal service. as far as i am aware, only mr wijsenbeek and the liberal, democratic and reformist group cannot agree with this particular principle. where there is a difference between myself and the commission is the issue of which services should remain in the reserved sector. i, supported by my colleagues on the committee on transport and tourism, believe that both direct mail and cross-border mail should be maintained in the reserved area. my reasons for this are clear. if you take away both of these areas from the reserved sector, you immediately put some 20 % of the income generated by national postal administrations at the mercy of private operators, the majority of whom are american and, at a stroke, the ability to finance a universal service is put seriously at risk. if the proposals put forward by the commission are put into practice, the effect on our citizens, particularly those in rural and peripheral areas will be catastrophic. these areas are not profitable when shown on a balance sheet and so will be the first to suffer under liberalization. up will go the charges, down will go the quality of service, closed will be the small post offices, redundant will be postal workers, finished will be such services to the community as post buses and travelling post offices. that is why i have always argued that the reserved sector must be large enough to sustain a universal service and must, of necessity, contain direct mail and cross-border mail. as rapporteur i am grateful for the work done by colleagues in the secretariat in preparing this report and by my colleagues in the committee. also, the help of those working in the postal sector has been invaluable. this report is about people and those old, but nevertheless important, values like public service and people's need. it is a report which protects postal services. it is a report which ensures a service to the public, irrespective of where they live. it is a report that recognizes the work done by thousands of postmen and postwomen for their communities. last, but not least, it is a report that puts public service before private profit. in commending the report to parliament, i would say to the commission that if it doubts what i say is true it should ask the people of europe. for once in its collegiate life it should listen to what the citizens have to say. they do not want their post liberalized and i am sure this parliament will take exactly the same view. madam president, while thanking brian simpson for his report, i should like to extend my thanks to the commission for the sensible draft directive on which it is based. clearly the objective of creating a set of common rules for the development of community postal services and the improvement of quality of service is a stern one, especially seen against the background of rapid innovation, of new technology, which already affects the ways in which we communicate with each other, and the prodigious advances in mechanized sorting which fundamentally change working practices within the industry. added to this is the fact that we have fifteen member states, each with its own postal service to which it has both allegiance and pride. the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy produced an opinion which sought to strengthen and modify where necessary the commission's draft directive. our measures included the gradual and controlled opening-up of the market. it floated the possibility of a eurostamp for the future. it strove to maintain parliament's input into all future decisions taken on postal services and it expressed scepticism at the timetable proposed by the commission, which was too fast with not enough detailed research available. we also sought to give consumers better protection from inadequate service. we also made proposals which fell in line with fair competition. finally we proposed a community initiative, possibly framed within objective 4, for the specific purpose of addressing the social and economic effects of the technological developments in the form of a programme which we named hermes aimed at preventing unemployment by upgrading and improving skills and qualification, which we call investing in people, and in order to facilitate the development of new jobs and new activities. that initiative certainly was not a programme for retraining those unemployed or made redundant within the industry. these six measures were aimed at enabling the postal service industry to sustain worthwhile and rewarding jobs by providing a service that people want in the form they want it and at a price they can afford. finally, i hope the proposals made by emac, some of which were incorporated, will help to make this a thoughtful and clear-headed programme for the future in order to provide the postal services demanded and expected by all citizens of europe which is a vital plank in the internal market for all of us. madam president, parliament's committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights has carefully examined the draft directive on the development of community postal services and the improvement of quality of service. like mr simpson, and in the same spirit, we approve of the main thrust of this text, subject to a number of points which i will now set out. madam president, i come from a country which is proud of its tradition of public services in general, and of the postal service in particular. we believe that the right of our fellow citizens to public services is a fundamental constitutional right which we must defend and promote. we have seen in france over the last decade exactly what a remarkable capacity to adapt our major public services are able to display during times of rapid technological change. this implies an open and dynamic view of the public service and of its global economic balance, and not a static and residual view of a public service reduced to the bare vestiges. i congratulate in this respect the recent decisions of the luxembourg court in the corbeau and almelo commune cases which take account of this dynamic and global dimension. the injection of a dose of competition can serve as a useful incentive for modernization and competitiveness. but this is not an aim in itself. it must not have the result of upsetting balances within the public service, of weakening its dynamism and its prospects for the future. in this connection, the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights would like to make the following points. first, we believe the legal basis proposed by the commission to be correct. at one time the committee on transport and tourism had proposed to add article 77 of the treaty as a basis. we believe that this is a subsidiary provision which could not provide an autonomous legal basis and which would threaten to weaken parliament's prerogatives. we are therefore against this proposal. secondly, the liberalization of direct mail poses a difficult legal problem, linked to the confidentiality of correspondence. we believe that it is almost impossible to isolate this sector of the market, even if it were desirable in terms of maintaining the service's necessary general economic balance. i believe this matter needs to be looked at again very closely. thirdly, it is impossible to liberalize incoming cross-border mail as long as there are no guarantees in terms of terminal dues in order to put an end to the piracy of some operators who adopt the policy of inadequate tariffs. mr wijsenbeek knows who i am referring to! fourthly, we find the review procedure unsuitable, in terms of the inadequate deadlines and the power of unilateral action conferred upon the commission, which we suggest should fall to the author of the project, namely parliament and the council, in a co-decision procedure. fifthly and finally, a draft communication, the notice, is also submitted for our consideration. this, which we will be looking at in a few months time in connection with the report by mr de brmond d'ars, is intended to inform operators of the commission's intentions in applying competition rules. it is in the form of an instrument for security, stability and transparency. this notice must be brought into line with the directive, as otherwise it will prove to be an instrument for insecurity, dissonance and obscurity. it would therefore be desirable, commissioner, for you to clearly state that the commission does indeed intend to bring the notice into line with the directive and that, as we were told in committee, the notice has no standardizing and constraining force. finally, it goes without saying that parliament must give its opinion on the directive before examining the communication in order to ensure coherency between the two instruments, and should therefore reject any motion for referral back if one should happen to be tabled. madam president, i welcome mr simpson's report. this house owes him a debt for the tremendous amount of work he has put into it despite much opposition. however, focusing on what the committee on social affairs and employment agreed on in this area, it relates to a desire and, indeed, an urgent request that before any liberalization takes place in the whole postal services sector, the issue of the social and economic impact of any deregulation or liberalization be assessed by a survey based on all fifteen member states. if this study were to prove that liberalization will have a harmful impact on the social and economic development of, in particular, peripheral and outlying areas, then it should not go ahead. of course we all agree with the notion of competition. however, of all the public utilities that could be privatized and that could be opened to competition, the postal sector is the one that has the most immediate and direct impact in a local economy, simply because the local postman or postmistress lives, works, and raises their children in the area and also in many parts of europe is the only direct contact that people have with what is going on in the outside world. it seems totally illogical to me that on the one hand we are spending hundreds of billions of ecu every year trying to regenerate rural and outlying areas yet, on the other hand, we are taking away the very basic and essential services which allow communities to survive and prosper. that is something we must focus on: to get a greater synergy and a greater logic to the way we tackle these european-wide problems. finally, the implication for jobs which this liberalization could have. president santer and the commission have signed up to his pact for employment. this commission proposal, as presently constituted and if mr simpson's amendments are not accepted, could lead to a loss of between 500, 000 to 750, 000 jobs across europe. madam president, before my election as an mep i was a postal worker and an elected lay local official of the postal workers union, the communication workers union, with which i am still strongly connected. there are over 1, 300, 000 postal workers in the public postal services in the european union and they deserve to be treated with the fairness and dignity due to people who carry out such a vital public service. postal services are performed by a necessary network of such people. brian simpson's excellent report recognizes that postal services are, and must be, a vital, regulated part of the european single market and that national post offices should provide high quality postal services to promote easy postal communication for consumers and for businesses. each member state should have a comprehensive universal postal service at an affordable uniform tariff. in order for this universal service to be provided, it is necessary to reserve enough of the profitable postal services of the post office so that the post offices can also finance their unprofitable services. that is why it is so important to keep in the reserved sector the integrated collection, sorting, distribution and final delivery of the mail as well as cross-border mail and direct mail. the public post offices can make a profit and this is advantageous to the taxpayer but their prime aim is to perform this vital public service of postal communication universally for everyone, wherever they live, at an affordable price. the prime aim of the private sector companies, which are trying to get the eu to allow them to cream off the profitable parts of the postal service, is to make a good profit for their shareholders. my constituents, who are all consumers, and the rest of the british people have rejected the conservative government's plans to privatize the post office. they do not want to see bit-by-bit privatization, as profitable postal services are hived off to the private sector under the guise of eu competition policy. they want to see good, regulated, affordable, universal postal services which can be guaranteed with good quality-of-service regulations. in conclusion, do not worship the new market gods of competition at all costs, liberalization and deregulation. public service is more important than private profit. defend our european public postal services. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, it has taken a long time from the green paper on the development of the postal services to today's date when we can finally discuss the commission's proposal for a directive at first reading. and it is high time we do so, given that the commission is still threatening to set up competition rules for the postal services pursuant to article 90(3), which would totally destroy our work here in the european parliament. let me begin by raising four points which we in the group of the european people's party regarded as central to our work on this proposal for a directive. first, the efforts which some member states have already made to liberalize their postal services must not be cancelled out by the european union. the postal services are fully or almost fully liberalized in scandinavia while there are some other european countries that have not yet made any efforts as regards their postal services. that is why we must make sure that the margin for play set by this directive is broad enough to ensure that liberalized markets are not monopolized again and that those countries that have not so far made any efforts in this direction finally take action to improve their postal service. the margin for play must, however, lie with the member states, we cannot prescribe what to do from europe. secondly, we want as much competition as possible, as much monopoly as necessary. i place great value on that too. on the one hand we need competition to improve quality - you can speak later, florus, will you please let me speak in peace now! - and also in order to control prices. on the other hand we need a long-term secure provision for the rural and peripheral areas of the european union. and that is why we also need a monopoly. thirdly, we note that the quality of cross-border postal traffic is pathetic. i say that quite plainly: it is pathetic. let me give you an example. for the past 500 years it has taken five days to send a letter from augsburg where i live to brussels; in spite of trains, in spite of planes, the speed remains the same as in the days of the mail coach. you are all familiar with the rule that holiday postcards to friends and relatives always arrive a week after your return from holiday. we could never establish the situation as it unfortunately actually is through a directive. we want uniform and good quality standards throughout europe. fourthly, we want a fair distribution of charges for cross-border post, a very important point that has already been made. unfortunately the commission did not grasp this nettle. i think we will take a good decision on this question in parliament today, which i hope the council will also accept. these principles i have sketched out are reflected in the amendments which the group of the european people's party has tabled again. amendments nos 70 and 79 ensure that the universal service is restricted to what is absolutely necessary, so that we can have a good basic provision in europe, for we consider that important too, but can also allow as much competition as possible in europe. amendment no 71 to article 13 is intended to ensure that in areas where competition already exists within the universal service, it is not cancelled out again by a uniform tariff, however rational that may be in other areas. naturally we do not want that. amendment no 81 to article 14 determines how the question of remailing and the payment of terminal dues for incoming mail from abroad should be regulated for the long term. i call on the commission here and now to submit the appropriate proposals, based on our amendments, which i know the socialists intend to support, as soon as possible so that we can tackle this problem. i would also like to point out that we should take the german version of this amendment as our basis, because the different language versions interpret it differently; i consider that very important. finally, in amendment no 72 to article 15 we propose that the question of crosssubsidies between the reserved sector and the competition sector should be examined not by the national regulative body but by an independent auditor. the advantage of that is that the universal service does not then have to make all its calculations available to the public. we do not want to allow crosssubsidies but nor do we want measures that distort competition to be prescribed here. the group of the european people's party will support the compromises we reached in the committee on transport and tourism on the reserved sector - although we see that as a maximum definition - and on the question of open access to the network. i regard that as a good road to pursue. let me thank all members, and particularly mr simpson, for their cooperative attitude and for enabling us to discuss the various points in a spirit of friendly cooperation. madam president, what we see today is a very good example of new labour. this is not clause 4 economics, it is santa claus economics. i should like to put one or two questions to the commission. how does the consumer come off, including those in the outermost areas, if we introduce the new electronic means, fax, electronic mail; mr newman's fellow trade unionists will then be out of a job. fortunately mr newman himself has made sure of a job in parliament at the union's expense. madam president, i should like to ask the commission why there must still be a national level of post in an internal and open market. i should like to ask the commission what is the status of mr van miert's communication if today's simpson report goes through; what will the commission do now that so little remains of its original ideas? madam president, i should like to ask the commission how it can be that when there has been talk on the left of job losses that the integrators, the privately-run services show the most rapid growth in job opportunities in europe. madam president, i should like to ask the commission how it can be that a taxpayer has to keep on paying for abominable service. let us take italy. 29 % of the post arrives according to the standards laid down. that can only improve if we have open and free provision of services. if we do not improve the post and we as a parliament no longer champion the consumer, what have we been elected for? why cannot we champion the consumer? we, as the liberal group, are the only ones willing to do so today. the proposals of the union of european consumers have not even been taken into account by the rapporteur. it is too depressing for words. i have got two minutes here. i have raised one or two questions, but i shall just leave it at that, because only keeping quiet and crying serve any purpose here. madam president, first i should like to convey my sincere thanks and gratitude to mr simpson for a wonderful report based on common sense and pragmatism. i hope those aspects of the report will be taken on board by the commission. there appears to be a total lack of understanding there of what postal services are all about. the simpson report strikes the balance between improving the present service levels and ensuring that a universal service can be offered to all the citizens of the european union, irrespective of where they live. i come from a country where we are very proud of our public services. indeed, our postal service is one of the best in europe. it is highly efficient, a daily service to all sectors of the community in all parts of the country at a reasonable price. we have good postal services accompanied by a quality social service which is of immense value. these two services go hand in hand and cannot be separated. therefore it is imperative that we protect our postal system. i readily admit that there is always room for improvement. public customer demand will ensure that this is never forgotten and there is always constant pressure on our postal administrations to meet these public pressures. i genuinely believe that the commission proposals in this area would be disastrous if implemented. we might benefit in the heavily populated urban areas, the normally profitable areas, but at a very great cost to the non-urban areas. quite obviously the profitable areas are needed to support the non-profitable areas, otherwise the postal system, as we know it, collapses. if the commission were allowed to go ahead - and i am quite sure it will not -it would do more damage to non-urban areas in the european union than anybody here could imagine. madam president, after having launched deregulation in telecommunications, energy and transport, the european commission now wants to subject the postal services to the rules of competition. the aim is to cream off the most profitable sectors for the benefit of large private companies, reducing the public service to a minimum level, as expressed by the notion of a 'universal service' . once again the commission has made no assessment of the social consequences of the directive. and yet the direction taken is extremely serious. if the directive were adopted in its present form, its application would destroy uniform tariffs, that is, equal treatment and access for users. it would result in the dismantling of the public monopoly, with the hiving off or privatization of the most profitable activities. users, and individuals and small businesses in particular, would then receive a poorer quality service. the status of employees would be called into question and job losses would follow, as they did in the case of liberalization in spain, finland and sweden. also, the commission itself recognizes in its explanatory memorandum that 'the process of adaptation will lead to job cuts for the postal operators' . these operators employ one and a half million people. no reformer or humanist can view communication as a simple commodity to be subjected exclusively to the laws of the marketplace. it is a right which must be recognized by everybody. it plays an essential role in social and economic cohesion. in france, postal workers and trade unions were actively involved in the social movement at the end of 1995 in order to defend the public service. reflecting their action, our group brought a number of amendments within the committee on transport and tourism which contribute to the recognition of the public service, the strengthening of the reserved sector with the inclusion of direct mail and incoming cross-border mail, and the respect of uniform tariffs. acting on our proposal, the committee on transport and tourism is calling for the development of postal services to be coupled with an improvement in the living and working conditions of postal workers. our group is therefore firmly opposed to the commission's proposal for a directive and supports most of the amendments of the committee on transport and tourism, while expressing the view that the national post offices should be able to continue to set weight and price limits above those indicated in the directive. we refuse to subject postal services to the rule of money. we are in favour of upward harmonization by developing cooperation between national operators. we demand the maintenance and development of a quality public service, free of strictly financial dictates and respecting the status of employees and the equal treatment of all users. madam president, mr simpson's report is right in trying to water down a little the commission's proposal for a directive on the postal services. as far as i am concerned liberalization and throwing open the market for postal services must have a clear objective and liberalization must not be an end in itself, not an ideology or an article of faith. i therefore recommend setting to work carefully and choosing a pragmatic approach and in such a way that any negative aspects of liberalization can be countered or that the liberalization process itself can even be reversed if the performance of services seems to be suffering, because it is no accident that the postal service has so far been provided by state monopolies. if you look at the pre-conditions for liberalization, scarcely anything has been done at european level. so it is no longer a question of letters not dropping into letter boxes but more of sub-post-offices disappearing more and more in recent years in many member states and particularly in the peripheral areas. mr wijsenbeek perhaps lives round the corner from the netherlands government and the queen. there the post may well come every day and the sub-post-office there will not disappear, but mr wijsenbeek does not take account at all of the people who live in the peripheral areas and do not have all services round the corner. naturally the reorganization of postal services and operation of the market is motivated by increased efficiency and that naturally occurs also under the pressure of normal market forces. users are losing an important part of the service and employees are losing their jobs. to be honest, is it not better and more sensible, if we have to make a delors plan to create work requiring a tremendous amount of money, to choose just this type of service which is labourintensive but which costs considerably less money than the senseless plans to lay trans-european networks all over europe? the commission recognizes the universal nature of the postal service but it is trying to push its liberalization ideology through. usually the two things by definition do not always go together. that seems obvious to me. i think the rapporteur's approach is reasonable. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the adoption today by the house of the proposal for a directive for the development of community postal services is a significant stage in defining a clear regulatory framework which is essential to the balanced functioning of the postal services, whose role as a public or universal service has never been in dispute. experience in the various member states also shows that the postal services are important if not vital links in a policy of social and economic cohesion. after some years of resistance, the commission has finally submitted to us a text which is 'almost' balanced and which the amendments adopted by the committee on transport and tourism have helped to greatly improve in order to arrive at a coherent text able to satisfy most of the member states and, above all, able to guarantee users - because they are the central concern in all of this - a quality service at uniform prices in the same country, whether you are on the mainland or an island, such as corsica or the canaries for example. to do so, the directive's regulatory framework had to establish both the conditions of the universal service, that is the obligations of the service providers, and the services likely to be reserved for the providers of the universal service, in order to allow them to fulfill these conditions. for this purpose, the commissioners chose a directive from article 100a, which was most certainly the right choice. competition, already at work in certain areas of this sector, will thus also have a framework within which it must operate but which will make it possible to avoid a certain number of abuses which could be damaging to operators and which are shamelessly committed in the name of liberalism and in the absence of regulation. but this report further gains in importance due to the fact that, by regulating the activities, the commission's text guarantees the safeguard of the greatest number of jobs in this sector. these employees must now ensure - if they are to maintain their legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens, without which no combat or demand can ever be won - the greatest possible continuity of public services and of postal services in particular as the postal worker is very often, at the end of the chain, the only human contact which many of our elderly, isolated or sick citizens have with the outside world. that is one of the essential missions of the public service. i must also of course extend my warmest congratulations to our colleague brian simpson who has prepared this report with brilliance, assurance and conviction. but i could not end without speaking of one of those texts which only the commission is able to produce, referring of course to its communication on the application of rules of competition to the postal sector. this text stands in total contradiction to that of the directive and, should parliament decide to adopt it, it would jeopardize all the work we are doing today and sacrifice the universal service at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs. in reading this document i had the impression, and i hope you will forgive me for perhaps exaggerating a little, that i was consulting a poor remake of what could be entitled 'the chain saw massacre of the public service' . madam president, the quality of the postal services in the european union exhibits unacceptably wide variations. a survey by price waterhouse confirmed that again not long ago. that is against the consumer's interest but above all, because of distortion of competition, it is harmful for businesses which are very dependent on the postal services. the commission's green paper concludes in that respect that it is not desirable to maintain the status quo . meanwhile we are dealing here with a sector which often has a long-term and established position, not least from the point of view of employment. changes must therefore take place little by little. that is the approach taken in the commission proposal. a course is carefully steered between on the one hand retaining a reserved sector with universal provision of services, with the official postal services able to retain their monopoly position and on the other hand in time a restricted liberalization of direct mail and incoming crossborder mail. another crucial point is how big the monopoly sector must be to be able to maintain a universal service which everyone can afford. in this respect the commission proposal with upper limits of 2 kg for letters and 10 kg for parcels does not go far enough. the ferber amendment with limits of 1 kg and 10 kg which links up with agreements of the member states in the framework of the world postal union therefore deserves support. unfortunately the report of the committee on transport has taken a step backwards compared with the commission's balanced compromise and will not even consider restricted liberalization, in spite of the favourable experience in the netherlands and sweden in this field. employment is undoubtedly an important point. but let us not forget that traditional post is falling off and the postal services are increasingly facing competition from new technologies. controlled competition with incentives for innovation and modernization offers better protection for employment in these circumstances than maintaining the status quo . madam president, i fully approve of the report by my colleague brian simpson, whom i congratulate on the excellent job he has done. the many amendments he has introduced render the announced liberalization more acceptable and amount to a significant change of policy. madam president, i come from a country where the post office, while not being beyond all criticism, provides an affordable, fast and efficient service for all, whether rich or poor, business managers or ordinary citizens. as an integrated public company the post office also creates many stable jobs. it is an institution which structures the national territory, contributes to social cohesion and provides services which are essential to a nation's economic life. and you want me to joyfully assist in dismantling this company? certainly not! if there are european union countries where the situation may be different, and thus where a certain dose of competition could improve the public service, there are no advance guarantees that this is the case and this medicine could well have the very opposite effect. in its description of the situation of the public service in europe, the commission should also take into account the example of efficient public services, rather than seeking to indiscriminately break up public companies. i thus approve of the rapporteur's fundamental positions in defending the public service and proposing a transition to liberalization which shows more respect for the benefits offered by this public service, while also respecting the positions adopted by the european parliament in its resolution on the green paper. the public service must be wide in scope if it is to be a financially viable proposition and thus continue to develop harmoniously throughout the national territory. it is also crucially important to postpone the directive's review date for reserved services until after the year 2000, thus five years after the directive enters into force, rather than reviewing it in 1998 when it only enters into force in 1997. the question also remains as to whether the rapporteur has done right in calling for this review by means of a new directive, thus permitting the public and political debate to continue, rather than leaving the technocrats to decide alone. i hope, madam president, that through its debates and amendments parliament will help bring european legislation closer into line with the concerns of our citizens and workers, thus making europe more humane and more social, while not forgetting the need for quality services. madam president, mr fayot, i think we are living in two different worlds. when i speak to users of the postal service in my country they all agree that the post office workers work hard, but i do not think anyone could pretend that the post is quick, prompt, efficient or good value and i think users of the postal services feel the same in many countries. that this is the case is also shown by the marked economic success of the private courier services. they are not successful because the postal service is so successful; they are successful because the post is too slow, and that has to be said quite plainly! so it is high time to promote the liberalization of the postal services in the european single market, for we need more competition in order to improve the efficiency of the postal services and also to make them more economical for the people and the economy. mr bangemann, we can actually understand that the commission was naturally reluctant to liberalize the postal services at the same time as telecommunications, for we too believe that we should approach the liberalization of the postal services slowly and carefully, and for two reasons. first, overhasty liberalization of the postal services could lead in the short term to chaotic conditions, which would be too much to ask of the economy and the people, and secondly, let me say this quite openly, overhasty postal liberalization could lead to large-scale dismissals in the public postal administrations, which we cannot want either given the current high level of unemployment. but at the same time we must send out a very clear message today: if the public postal administrations are given special protection through the reserved services to enable them to provide and maintain for the long term a service that is efficient and good for the people and the economy, then this is their last chance to do so. i think we should state quite plainly that if the public postal services do not make use of the protection they are now offered in order to become efficient, speedy and economical, then the eu will have to consider the genuine liberalization of the postal services at a later date. even the protection the postal services enjoy now should not mislead them into leaving everything as it stands. mr ferber has already spoken of the five days it takes for post from augsburg to reach brussels. it takes four days for it to reach me in hamburg, but all i can say is that the postal services still have a real effort to make in the cross-border area if they are to justify the confidence we are putting in them again today with the simpson report. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a directive on the development of community postal services, which we are debating today, has been very eagerly awaited as it must allow us to provide our citizens with an improved service by correcting the wide disparities between the national postal services. but the postal sector has particular requirements due to its role in ensuring economic and social cohesion. the postman is sometimes the only person whom elderly people or those living in isolated rural areas encounter on a regular basis. this is why we must show pragmatism rather than an ultra-liberal doctrinaire approach. the method chosen by the commission of presenting a communication on the application of the rules of competition in the postal sector is in this respect a dangerous departure which should be firmly condemned. i should like to thank the rapporteur, mr simpson, for his excellent work. my group is in overall agreement with his proposals which seek to maintain a universal service of quality. but i should like to make three points. the universal service has a price. it can therefore only be correctly assured if we maintain a reserved service. we must look very carefully at the questions of direct mail and cross-border mail. a new system of terminal dues is essential in this respect. the directive's review procedures are also unsatisfactory. it is not possible to make a decision regarding the possible liberalization of direct mail and incoming cross-border mail from june 1998 when the directive does not enter into force until 1997. this does not give sufficient time for the measures to produce their effects. we must therefore provide for a review after a sufficient period. thirdly, we cannot liberalize without concerning ourselves with the social consequences. we need an in-depth study into this aspect as quickly as possible in order to avoid brutal adjustments. the group union for europe is committed to preserving a universal postal service which guarantees equal access, adaptability and neutrality. we therefore support this report and will continue to closely monitor developments. madam president, on behalf of our group's french delegation i should like to say that we support the report's general approach which corrects the directive's excesses and makes it possible to reconcile the lasting guarantee of the provision of a universal postal service and the gradual and controlled opening up of the market. in so doing, the report conforms to the position adopted by the council on 7 february 1994, especially in taking measures to avoid the liberalization of direct mail and incoming cross-border mail. we therefore support this report, also if there are amendments to improve it, such as those just set out by my colleague jacques donnay, which we will support. i should also like to firmly contest the commission's approach as presented in its communication. this communication can be contested legally and also in terms of its content which is contrary to the directive. it is nothing short of antidemocratic to use a communication, with an uncertain legal content but with a legislative force, when it will not be submitted to either the european parliament or the council, and will be contrary to the directive. by voting for the simpson report, with certain amendments, we will sending a very clear message to the commission not to tinker with the universal public service of the postal sector. madam president, many political decisions are a long time in coming and that is certainly true for the post dossier which we have been asking for under the rapporteur's lead for years, but at the other end there was much activity but little perceptible movement. the long-awaited commission proposal has not led to rejoicing. the balance is such that no-one was really satisfied: a compromise which for some went much too far and for others not nearly far enough. what is now before us is a compromise upon a compromise and the question is whether we can really achieve anything with it. good and efficient post and telecommunication services are of primary importance for the european union. it should have been trans-european networks avant la lettre but it was not. as things have gone liberalization of public services is meeting with more and more resistance. the question is whether the backlash on the postal dossier will not in the long run have rather a negative effect on the provision of services and also on everyone working in the sector. the european union ought to be able to rely on outstandingly good postal services. in many countries they leave much to be desired. but in those countries an attempt should be made to move forward. since that is not happening or is happening only incompletely the question is who will pay the bill for that, on the social side too, in the long run. i am not happy about it. all that does not diminish my great appreciation of the way the rapporteur has done his work. the speed with which he has worked might serve as an example to many postal services in the member states. madam president, today we can coin a new slogan: new labour, new unemployment. i enjoyed mr simpson's speech enormously. i regret however, that at no time did he give any consideration to the consumer or the user of the service. perhaps he could put my mind at rest that socialists are not frightened of competition or the introduction of new technologies. i welcome the commission proposal and am against the socialist position as it is perceived today, namely blatant protectionism. i have some difficulty with the position in holland and sweden as they have gone furthest down the road to liberalization. the uk position is that we welcome the commission proposal with a limited introduction of competition and would like to consider new technologies. i invite the rapporteur and members of the socialist group to be bold and to welcome a limited degree of competition. i would like to see maintenance of the universal service which is especially important to the delivery of post in remote rural areas. also, there will continue to be a limited area in reserve. this should be reviewed in 1998 as envisaged in the directive but we should not have any preconceived ideas at this stage about the nature and extent of further liberalization. i invite the rapporteur to put the interests of the consumer and the user of the service first. i commend the proposal to the house and i beg its support for my amendments nos 73 and 74. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, when discussing the future of the postal services today we are bound to find that the commission's proposals look very odd. on the one hand it has presented a proposal for a directive, on the other hand we have the notice on competition rules in the postal sector. the somewhat divergent provisions and intentions of the two documents have created disturbance and uncertainty among all the postal operators, employees and consumer representatives concerned. that is why i am very pleased that mr brian simpson, our rapporteur, has sorted this out with his clear and very realistic proposals. today the european parliament must state very clearly that in such an important economic branch, the directive in the framework of co-decision has to be the sole yardstick. the report brings out the main points: a universal service that really can ensure the basic provision of post for all consumers, even in outlying areas. the reserved service, which really can support a universal service without the need for public aid to be granted. realistic time-tables for implementing the directive and procedures for amending the reserved services to make it clear what implications further moves towards liberalization will have for the employment situation. we all know the stereotype answer of the liberalizers already. private postal services are efficient and public postal services can only operate with subsidies. the approach the commission should encourage in future is as follows: regulate competition and public provision in such a way that profits are not always privatized and losses socialized! mr president, when we discuss the market in postal services, i think the starting point must be to regard this market as a market no different to any other, as a market which in all essential respects is, and must function, like all other markets and under the same conditions. hence deregulation becomes self-evident, otherwise the conditions are not equal. the burden of proof in showing that the alternative is better should rest with those who claim that it should not be subject to equal conditions. experience where such deregulation has been implemented is good. in sweden, for example, a country with some very sparsely populated areas, deregulation works well. the detractors often claim that many people lost their jobs when deregulation came into effect. that is not the case. on the contrary, new postal operators have taken on a large number of people. the biggest private postal operator in sweden will have a thousand employees by the end of the year. it is true that post offices have been closed. however, that has more to do with technical development and increases in efficiency than with the process of deregulation. this technical development has presumably created many, many more jobs than it has taken away. mr president, i began by saying that different countries have different experience of the deregulation of postal services. this leads on to my second point and my second conclusion, namely that those countries which have deregulated their postal services must not be forced to re-regulate them. in the same way, those countries that want to deregulate must be allowed to do so. it is also important to remember that we shall never have an efficient postal service in europe, unless we recognize the postal sector as part of industry as a whole. mr president, as rapporteur, brian simpson's task was not an easy one. the aim of achieving a single market for postal services, with the ultimate objective of improving service to the consumer, had to be managed by bridging the differences between those who were advocating a complete opening of the market and those who believed in liberalizing it gradually and under appropriate conditions. the rapporteur managed to bridge those differences and improve the original proposal for a directive, taking into account not only the economic consequences brought by liberalizing the postal market, but its social consequences as well. more specifically, this report ensures the uninterrupted provision of a universal service, with the result that even the union's most far-flung regions will be adequately served. this is achieved by the retention of postal advertising and by cross-border correspondence - incoming and outgoing - in the reserved sector. the purpose of the reserved service is to ensure the economic viability of those providing the universal service, and it is obvious how difficult and unprofitable it is to provide a universal service in countries like greece, with its many distant islands. a postal service must therefore be economically viable if it is to continue serving all such regions. if we bear in mind that outgoing cross-border mail accounts for 30 % of the incomes of the national postal services, it becomes absolutely understandable why the fact that the simpson report retained outgoing cross-border correspondence as part of the reserved service, not just to ensure the provision of postal services to all parts of the union but also to ensure the economic viability of the national postal services, will avert the loss of many thousands of jobs all over europe. for all these reasons i will vote for this report. mr president, i know that monopolies, and especially public monopolies, have the annoying habit of becoming comfortably institutionalized and that liberalization and healthy competition can do them a lot of good in improving their service. but when applying the rules of competition to the postal service, you must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. the universal service provided by our postal administrations must remain economically viable, by which i mean that we must not confine it to such an extent that the result would be an impoverishment of the minimum basic postal service to which all our citizens are entitled. i will not vote for any amendment which would result in any diminishing of the universal service currently provided in my own country where the post office is an efficient public company which is working well. but a well-defined universal service must also ensure continuity of good quality service. in order to protect users of the postal service from suffering due to social conflicts in particular, i had proposed including in the directive a provision obliging member states to set up procedures for conciliation and mediation between employers and employees in the postal sector in order to prevent social conflicts of a nature to affect the continuity of service. this amendment did not find favour with fellow members but i hope it will attract the attention of mr bangemann and the council. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the house has finally come to decide on the delicate matter of the liberalization of the postal sector. i say finally, as this is a long-standing debate. it was launched in 1989 and it has taken nearly seven years to obtain some kind of legal framework, which proves just what a difficult task this is. because we want to avoid any plan which would produce economic doubts and social failings. this is why i should like to personally congratulate mr simpson who in this report has succeeded in striking the difficult balance between harmonizing measures and the gradual opening up of the market. i believe it is essential for the public service tasks of the postal administrations to be preserved, and for this they must be left the means to accomplish their mission. our proposal regarding the content of the reserved sector covering direct mail and international mail meets this requirement. however, i regret the commission's opposition but hope, commissioner, that we will later arrive at a wiser point of view. mr president, i should just like to say before mr bangemann speaks that it was remiss of me in my speech when i thanked people for their assistance to omit to mention the commission. while we have great differences of opinion, that does not detract from the hard work the commission has done on this report. i want to put the record straight and record my thanks to them. mr president, it is not just for his last comment that i want to thank the rapporteur but also for the work he has done and the speed with which he has done it. it is true, it took a long time for us to make our proposal. the rapporteur quoted cicero, which is appropriate for a member of parliament. but we did not follow caesar who, as you know, obeyed the motto veni, vidi, vici , but tried first of all to initiate a broad public discussion with our green paper, and within the commission we faced the same problems and difficulties you have been considering during this discussion. i am also grateful for the fact that the discussion looked at the main problems and that the time we have spent on this discussion has done quite a lot to clear up some misunderstandings. let me, however, deal right at the outset with some remarks that still echo these misunderstandings. the fact that we presented a proposal for a directive based on article 100a makes two things quite clear. we do not want to circumvent parliament on this question, which is indeed why we chose 100a, just as i promised at the beginning of this commission's term of office, and through this directive we want to lay down certain general principles, together with details about the implementation of these principles, in a binding manner. it is important to consider the alternatives. to have a directive describing the direction the postal services can follow in the next few years will certainly give us more security than not having it. if we do not have it, the services will develop very differently from member state to member state. situations of competition will arise that are not regulated. remailing has been mentioned. it was described as piracy. two days ago, i think, a german court decided in the case of a complaint by the german federal post office that remailing cannot be forbidden. so that means that a german user of the postal service can travel to the netherlands, luxembourg or wherever with the mail he wants sent to germany and post it there, which shows quite clearly that if we want to live together we need to regulate such matters. i think the fact that we are proposing this directive is an advantage in itself. of course it is no guarantee that all the results of the directive will prove acceptable, which is why we have to continue talking. but i think for the time being we are following the right direction. my second comment is about the notice. i have tried to explain this before. a notice, and here i am addressing my good friend mr cot, is not a legal instrument in itself nor can it be. it has no formal character except for the fact that it is designed to notify parliament, as its title suggests, of the principles and considerations on the basis of which the commission will where appropriate apply article 90, and on this question i already said during the first debate that of course the directive will be amended and we will then have to adjust this notice to the practical procedure we want to follow. i am sure the commission sometimes does things that are incomprehensible, but we really are not so illogical as to propose a directive on the one hand but then, if it is accepted, to disregard it and in practice do something quite different under article 90. of course that will not happen. but i would ask you not to underrate this notice. it is also a step towards cooperation with parliament for, as you know, the necessary powers exist in the treaty under article 90. the commission could make us of them but it does not want to proceed in this area without a discussion about using these powers, and that is the point of this notice. what are the main objectives? i do not believe we are in disagreement about our aims after this discussion. we want the guarantee of a compulsory universal service that is offered to all citizens throughout the community at acceptable prices and of good quality. there is no contradiction! this definition is established in the directive. we base our political activities on it, which does not mean - and let me add this immediately because some speakers, mr stenmarck among others, have brought this up - that with this directive we now want to force member states who have advanced further than others along the road of liberalization or deregulation to retreat again. the definition of the universal service does not mean that we have also laid down the ways by which this universal service can be achieved. if these aims can be achieved by way of competition, of a deregulated market, then why not? i have said on several occasions and will repeat again, in response also to what my friend florus wijsenbeek said: let us not enter into ideological disputes here! after all, we have the practical experience. the commission and i personally have nothing at all against service publique . and i quite certainly do not want to underestimate the role of postmen and post offices in rural areas. i myself live in a small village with some 25 inhabitants, 10 cats and 5 dogs and we are all glad to see the postman. that is not the problem. the problem is how to ensure that this service continues to be provided for all citizens. that is the big question. there are two options here. either the service publique in the classic sense of the term as a public service, organized according to public law principles and with a reserved sector, that is to say a monopoly sector, or deregulation followed by competition, possibly also between public operators and private operators. i saw a placard held aloft outside the doors of this house by a member of this house whom i hold in very high regard. it says in effect: up with the public service, down with profits - as has been said during the debate too. that is not the problem at all. we can have public law postal services if they manage to stand up to competition, which they actually do in some cases, and that is of course well and good. after all we are not just talking theory here in a vacuum. i think the netherlands may be a bad example because it is an open country with a relatively balanced distribution of population and few remote islands and so forth. but there is also the example of sweden. now sweden really is a country with a relatively unequal population spread. the population is concentrated in stockholm and malm and the regions round them while there are very empty areas in the north of sweden. yet the universal service works. everyone everywhere receives the same high-quality service at the same price. i think it is a good idea to take a look at practical examples of this kind. the commission has tried to do so. we said that if we want to achieve this quality of service, then according to all the experience we have gained competition is still the best instrument. let me say quite plainly to those who want to ideologize this instrument of competition, for us it is not an end in itself. we are not for competition in order to ensure that there is competition in any particular area, but we are for competition as an instrument for achieving this kind of service. and that is why we proposed that this should be achieved gradually and very carefully. we can discuss the dates of the review, that is fair enough. given that the directive is entering into force rather belatedly, one cannot start reviewing it a year later. this needs discussion, but many of the amendments almost totally preclude this competition. in doing so you would risk endangering the very existence of the universal service. a few members have indeed pointed that out during this debate. mr van der waal, i believe this is the first time i have to tell you that i entirely agree with you, which may be a compliment to you or to me, i will not go into that now. but surely no-one can overlook the fact that at any rate we have a technical development which could even undermine a monopoly service! surly that is the real danger facing the delivery of mail, regardless of where you set the upper limit, regardless of how you define the reserved sector! if the costs become too high or if the service is not of high quality, and this relates to the length of time it takes for letters and postcards to reach their destination, then you will have to reckon on people procuring themselves a fax or working with e-mail. those are options that already exist and they will become much cheaper. that means we must now start trying to direct the postal service along the lines of making it more modern and incorporating other services in it. let me say quite openly and frankly that i do not consider it a good idea for some national member governments to try to separate bank services, for instance, from the classical postal services, because a post office, even in a rural area, must have multi-functions if it really is to survive, which means it must offer services, bank services, perhaps also insurance services, or whatever. that means that if such a post office really wants to perform a social function and also survive, it must be a multi-function centre and not just a place for posting or picking up mail. that is one of the consequences. but if we want to achieve that, we must not tackle these things too slowly. that is why we are not satisfied with the amendments tabled by the rapporteur regarding the pace of liberalization and its nature and scale. by defining harmonized criteria we also want to establish for the first time a guarantee of the financial efficiency of the providers of the reserved services too. that has not been mentioned at all. for the first time you have a legal basis for ensuring that a provider of universal services is also adequately remunerated for this, for the first time! if you do not have that, two things will happen if the use of the services declines: either you will have to set the tariffs so high that it will decline further, and i find that even today the postage rate for letters has reached a level that is simply too high; or you have to publicly subsidize the services from the national budget and everyone realises today that this will no longer be possible in future. that means, this way of financing is the only guarantee, mr simpson, for maintaining these services. that is why we must open this market up by means of gradual and controlled liberalization and, as mr van der waal rightly said, in careful stages. this really is not an overhasty deregulation that would have particularly adverse effects on the labour market situation. let me say it again quite clearly, we have not brought up the question of privatization. the juxtaposition made here between being for the public service and opposed to the profits of private undertakings is quite wrong because we did not speak out against the public service and for private undertakings but for competition, that is all! i think that would really be rather illogical. if you want an effective public service too, a service publique , but do not consider it competitive in relation to private operators, then surely there must be something fishy! you cannot be against competition if you have the interests of the consumer at heart. that has been said here on several occasions. in the end, after all, it is the consumer for whom this public service is created. it was also underlined here that there is a long tradition of public service; that is true, but what makes up that tradition? is it having a small group of employees who have particular, secure working conditions, or is it to organize the service better for the consumer? i think the tradition of public service is the latter and not the former. the french revolution did not abolish the privileges of the nobility in order to create new privileges for post office workers, at least not in my view. (laughter) i cannot give my position on all the amendments in detail. in any case this is the first reading. let me present the commission's conclusions. we want to create a balance between harmonization and liberalization. the universal service is defined in such a way as to give central priority to consumer interests and the quality of the services, which is to be achieved by opening up the market more. liberalization has already become a reality in some large areas. it has been pointed out that parcel services, courier services and direct publicity in some member states and the total liberalization in sweden and finland have not led to the disappearance of the public service but simply made it more efficient! (applause) i would ask you please to take note of that, for that is the reality, it is not a liberal or market programme or competition-mania or whatever you might call it. we need enough time, we proposed that, and the safety nets we proposed will always flank the measures. moreover, as i said, the financing is assured. for the first time an unequal financial burden can be balanced, either by tying the licences to conditions or, as you know, by contributions to a compensation fund. at each stage of the review procedure the liberalization measures can be evaluated. we can certainly talk about the global review in the year 2000 or slightly later, when we will be able to record the effects properly, and here i am speaking for myself and not giving you the commission's position; i have nothing at all against our doing that together, i.e., through a new directive based on article 100a. but i would ask you not to keep the commission out of that review now, as some institutions intend, for although we are always called technocrats, and that is the common opinion, like most common opinions it is wrong. we do not rise up in arms like cato - let me translate this into dog latin - and say: servitium postalis est delendum . that is not our principle. we want to help the postal service to become effective and efficient and thereby create a new image of public service. that is the commission's intention and that is why we would ask to participate in that review in the same way as parliament; and if we do this in cooperation we are sure to achieve good results! (applause) mr president, on a point of information for members who may not be aware of this: commissioner bangemann was wrong in what he has proposed, especially when he held up the examples of the scandinavian countries in the deregulation of postal services. as most members will know, when sweden privatized and introduced competition before their entry into the european union, it allowed the previous state monopoly to undercut the new competitors and then buy them out. so that information to this house was wrong. the debate is closed. the vote will take place at 11.30 am. european year against racism the next item is the report (a4-0135/96) by mr oostlander, on behalf of the committee on civil liberties and internal affairs, on: i.the communication from the commission on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism (com(95)0653 - c4-0132/96)ii.the proposal for a council decision designating 1997 as european year against racism (com(95)0653 - c4-0132/96-95/0355(cns)). mr president, racism and xenophobia are unfortunately deeply embedded in european culture. it is not just a modern phenomenon but something that has been alive for centuries and came to a tragic nadir in the second world war. it is a phenomenon which has marred or terminated millions of human lives in europe. the european union, european integration is intended precisely as an answer to that racism and that xenophobia, since cross-border ethnic harmony was seen as a sign of civilization and as a promise of the possibility of the reconstruction of europe. we entered upon that venture and we made progress. but we are far from being at the end of the road, since we see that in the european union's politics, particularly in the council, a policy is being pursued which permits ethnic hatred at the frontiers of the european union and has been tolerated for years with too little action against it, a wretched business as we see in the ethnic cleansings in former yugoslavia. so we must combat racism and xenophobia on a very broad front, not only from this special angle - we all know that the extreme right is indicated as the crystallization point - but we must inspect the whole wide political spectrum. even in respectable parties there are sometimes political leaders who play on feelings of xenophobia. those are things against which we must caution one another with extreme seriousness. so we must not be nave and name any names, thus providing them with extra publicity and notoriety. we shall have to avoid that in this report. so i call upon all my fellow-members to take discerning view. do not name names. the broad approach need in the european union must lead to discussion, with regard to the revision of the treaties in the igc, an anti-discrimination article and giving the european union in the shape of the commission, that is, the community bodies, certain authority for combating racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism, because we are talking here of cross-frontier phenomena. naturally the centre of gravity of the fight against these phenomena must be as decentralized as possible, preferably in society itself through churches, the trade union movement, non-government organizations of all kinds, through what we might call a truly responsibly organized society properly inspired; in addition much remains for communal, provincial and national policy. but there is always something left over for european policy and we shall have to pursue that because we can see the phenomena of international thought pollution most clearly in this sphere. on the positive side we must work also expressly at integration, acclimatization - something which can never be translated in documents by assimilation, let us check that in the translations, - of the relevant minorities which are possibly exposed to discrimination and xenophobia. we must also be realistic with regard to the problems of the illegal immigrants in the european union, because these problems too, which often go hand in hand with discrimination, will have to be pinpointed by the authorities. we shall have to work to ensure that people who are legally moving in our union countries can more easily acquire the nationality of the member states and thus may be able to benefit from the union. that is an important point for the integration of minorities and the prevention of discrimination against them; they must become full citizens. naturally there must also be in the media and with the advertisers, as is often the case, a clear awareness that their activity must not give any occasion for fomenting feelings of xenophobia in our society. to be brief, as decentralized as possible, so that people can assume their responsibilities. the european union can make some contribution, for example by establishing an observatory which may serve as a centre for a network of scientific institutions where excellent work is done in studying the phenomena of racism and xenophobia. these institutions are not there to be brow-beaten by government institutions but they are intended as a facility for coordinating their activity which keeps the network together. so the commission must publish a regular report on the observatory's activities and research, including research into policy which might be pursued, also at a decentralized level. i should like to express an old wish, namely that minorities in europe in particular should be respected as regards their religion, their religious views, because religion, we all know, is important for people. that means that the european union too can contribute to facilities being provided for the training of spiritual leaders for new minorities, as for example with islam here in europe, so that the training of imams may take place in europe. for that we have leonardo and socrates, in which facilities may be found. i think that is an important signal, to the islamic world amongst others, that we are in earnest about them. mr president, we are celebrating the european union today. with it we are celebrating also the incontrovertible answer to racism and xenophobia. i hope that will also be expressed today in the voting. mr president, many thanks to the rapporteur for this excellent report. i would like to point out that parliament has not just waiting until the conclusions of the cannes european council to take an initiative on these terrible questions. as early as the 1980s the european parliament was convinced that this problem of racism must be combated. during the last legislative term mr nordmann was the chairman of the committee of inquiry. to turn now to the financial aspects. ecu 5.4 m has been earmarked for this project in 1966. fortunately this is now to be increased for 1997. i hope the commission is aware that ecu 4.7 m are earmarked for 1997, which is still a modest amount. i believe that the nine-month preparation period is not just too long but also swallows up too much money. confusion reigns as to the number of officials to be involved: first the commission refers to one grade a and one grade c official, then to 3 a grade officials. as for item a-2510 (comitology), the commission will have to clarify the impact of the committees. moreover, it is enough to have one representative per member state on the committees. it would be desirable to link up with item b3-300 in the field of information. that would reduce the strain on this specific item, namely measures to combat racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism and allow it to be used more effectively. a link-up with other institutions such as the council of europe would produce considerably more efficiency in future. finally, a brief correction: the phrase programme de diffusion d'images was mistranslated in the german text, namely by bildmaterial . i would like to adhere to the french version, even though austria lost the football match against france yesterday! mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mr oostlander's report is most welcome. i regard it as a really good report and i also think the debate we have had on this report has helped us here in this parliament. in my view it has helped bring about a broad consensus - as the vote will show - and wide agreement on how we evaluate the phenomenon of racism and xenophobia. mr oostlander rightly pointed this out in his report. if the report is not just to remain a piece of paper, but if its spirit is to guide us, lead us on and help us really to open a campaign against racism and xenophobia, then i think this report also makes one thing plain, namely that this phenomenon is indeed to be found not just on the margins but also at the centre of society. and if it is to be found at the centre of society then it is up to this parliament, to every member of this house, but also to every citizen of the european union not to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the phenomenon of ethnic hatred and xenophobia, anti-semitism and rabble-rousing but to oppose it actively, to have the courage to stand up for their beliefs and to protect people. one means of combating racism and xenophobia is to show personal courage and not to shrink back! above all not to shrink back in the face of those who have made racism and xenophobia their programme. that is why i cannot agree with you on one point, mr oostlander, in spite of our general agreement: i cannot criticize those who are covert and subliminal racists unless i can also call by name those who openly preach ethnic hatred and xenophobia - in this house too - at every plenary! you say that racism and xenophobia reached their peak during the second world war. true! then one has to say that a man who described auschwitz as a detail in world history is a xenophobe, a demagogue, a rabble-rouser, he is called le pen and sits in this house as a well-established member! one has to be allowed to say that if one is to combat racism and xenophobia! (applause, heckling) the information this report provides about many phenomena and their causes, that information must lead us to do more than simply adopting this report today! the loud yes vote we are now voicing against racism and xenophobia should help us to send out a signal from this house and through this report, namely that racism and xenophobia are fought by showing the civic courage to stand up for one's beliefs! mr president, we hope that on this subject of the fight against racism the unanimity achieved in the committee on civil liberties may be affirmed in the assembly too. first of all the subject requires it, the report by mr oostlander deserves it: he has presented to us as responsible politicians -mr schultz reminded us of it a little earlier - the insidious nature of this phenomenon which manages to pervade and corrupt the various ideologies, religions and institutions. we are not shielded - not one of us: and we cannot shield ourselves simply by accusing others and palming the responsibility off on to others. we ourselves, with the foreign policy of our governments - mr oostlander denounces it in his report - have in a certain sense allowed processes of ethnic cleansing to continue: we have found justifications for ethnic segregation, we tend to slide into ethnic prejudices. it is really a question of realpolitik , which reflects but does not solve the problem. and then the promise - ' never again auschwitz' - of which mr oostlander reminds us is not yet as widespread a common political heritage as it should be. i have recalled these painful passages in the report because they are the very ones to make the proposal credible. without that logic the whole proposal risks becoming a great excuse, a palliative for a bad conscience; if instead we start out with our own ideas, with our ideologies, religions, policies, then we shall succeed in finding the right and tolerant way to speak to others. this in fact is the problem: it is right to denounce the exploitation of social embarrassment, of racism for electoral purposes, even if we know that that is a strategy which never pays; but it is still more important to find the language, the words, the right examples to reach the conscience and the reason of european citizens. they are the words of a european culture which has been created from diversity and hence knows well the difficulties but also the richness of the comparison; it is the examples of churches, of associations, of civil societies which must mobilize consciences round these subjects and the language of tolerance and dialogue and it is cultural, political and social conditions which must make such tolerance possible. that is what concerns us. then, in that sense, the observatory and the european year will have a meaning and that is why we agree with the rapporteur's approach, more direct to distinguish the inner causes and instruments than to seek out the guilty. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mr oostlander's report is a good one in which he makes an in-depth effort to sound an alarm, a real alarm which comes from our assembly. it tries to make suggestions for possible actions to put the brake on this phenomenon. that is why it is a good report. certainly the attitudes of racism and xenophobia are for the most part today linked to situations of social marginalization, to run-down urban areas, to joblessness, to feelings of danger, of instability for the future, to ignorance, lack of knowledge, of information on both sides, to the spread of the values of the me -society, often excessively materialistic. but essential questions remain unanswered. on the other hand there is a great risk that we shall merely mouth the usual ritual condemnations: for example references to the shortcomings of today's political parties, to the collapse of communism, to the dangers which come only from the extreme right; they seem to me absolutely obsolete, worn-out stereotypes. perhaps some have not realized that in a group with the long democratic tradition of integration such as the european liberal party there is active a party like the northern league which expressly says that it wishes to take the foot-prints of non-members of the community. that says a lot about the fact that the schemes of the right and of the left are entirely left out. we say 'yes' to the european year against racism, ' yes' to actions designed above all to help the integration of the various cultures in their diversity, with respect for the individuality of each. we have less belief, we must say, in observatories which have frequently become in europe only a means of squandering a little public money and of giving some friend a salary. i think that one very important basic fact has been undervalued: the cultural fact. certainly economic problems, the importance of currents of immigration to our continent are relevant, but we must be decidedly active in the sphere of culture, of the ethics of information, of tolerance, of the culture of knowledge, the culture of curiosity, of freedom with respect for the rules of others, so that at the time of need and difficulty the individual may be in a position to react and act without unloading on to someone else the guilt and the responsibilities. mr president, the group of the european liberal, democratic and reformist party clearly supports mr oostlander's report and i should like to congratulate the rapporteur on having so dispassionately followed up on the essential aspects of the studies and proposals which we have already submitted to parliament, especially during the previous legislature. in particular, i should like to support the proposal for a council decision designating 1997 as european year against racism. this is not a gimmick, mr president, or a ritual, but coinciding as it does with the intergovernmental conference this year should clearly express the idea that membership of the european union is inextricably linked to certain values. at a time when we are about to embark on enlargement negotiations, this would serve as a pertinent reminder. i would add that the formula of the european year will make it possible to lay a legal foundation, and in any event to reinforce the legal bases of many actions, and that in this respect it is an undeniably useful tool. this is why the liberal group supports it, confident in the hope that all the democratic groups in the house will adopt the same approach. mr president, racism develops against a background of unemployment and social and cultural exclusion. it is fuelled by the discourse of hatred. racism is an offence and has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech, and there are words which can be as lethal as any weapons. to speak solely of france, mohamed azza was killed by a bullet in the forehead on 26 february 1995. that same week, ibrahim ali, a 17-year-old schoolboy from the comoro islands, was killed by a bullet in the back. on 1 may 1995, brahim bouaram was thrown into the seine and drowned during a demonstration by the national front. on 4 may 1996, in sens, mohamed qouas was gunned down. the list would already be too long if i mentioned only the racist crimes to which militants of the national front have been linked - and this difference remains pertinent, mr cascalle. because to this tragic list we must also add all those who have died at the hands of anonymous attackers, encouraged by the racist propaganda of the far right, and also others. does a government which applies the pasqua laws, which are not only founded on the tarnishing of the immigrant but also seek to reinforce such prejudices, ever stop to think of the responsibility it bears? are we not arming these criminals in designating scapegoats for a social crisis which goes beyond any rational analysis? these crimes must not make us forget the day-to-day humiliations, the symbolic violence and the silent suffering. to combat racism we must first strike at the root economic and social causes which nourish it. we must also strengthen the legal instruments with which it can be repressed and conduct a global prevention campaign, in particular in the media and our schools. the commission's proposal for a european year against racism responds to these objectives. at last we have a proposal of the european parliament which is being acted upon. the commission's proposal has been enriched, in particular with the adoption of our group's amendments which are designed to promote equal opportunities for the most vulnerable and help improve our knowledge of other civilizations and of what they can bring to the culture of european countries. by better understanding others do we not better understand ourselves? in 1997, we must ensure that initiatives are implemented in close cooperation with organizations active in combating racism so that the rejection of racism becomes a matter of concern to us all. to fight against racism is to fight for democracy and to assume a fundamental mission. i quote mr salman rushdie who said: ' i prefer secularism to chapels, the half-caste to the technically pure, the cosmopolitan to the culturally correct and democracy to everything which threatens it' . mr president, ladies and gentlemen, first of all i want to congratulate arie oostlander on his really very sensitive report. i also want to convey to the commission my great respect for its communication and thank it for the commitment it has shown in this matter. the only thing is, the european parliament has been adopting good reports for years, it has put forward numerous proposals and called on many occasions on the council and the member states not just to make solemn declarations of intent but to take real measures to combat the growing racism and anti-semitism in the eu. nothing has happened! arie oostlander identifies central issues, for instance when he discusses the role of parties whose populist, xenophobic campaigns have incited racist attitudes towards refugees, immigrants, minorities such as the sinti and the romanies. the forthcoming european elections in austria already give cause to fear that one party leader, haider, will stir up xenophobic feelings of resentment in order to catch more votes. so racism does have a name and a face. names must be named, i agree with martin schulz, because behind them we find the spiritual fathers of the bomb and arson attacks. the commission rightly spoke of the need to integrate the nationals of third countries, the need for integration instead of forced assimilation, an integration that must be based on the principle of every democracy to grant equal rights to all, equal social and economic rights but equal political and cultural rights too. i particularly thank arie oostlander for breaking a taboo and finally also stating the right to freely practice other religious faiths in a european union that is increasingly projecting itself as a stronghold of the christian west. we must stop creating hierarchies, as will happen with union citizenship if its excludes 10 to 14 million people from exercising their rights. we need real protection against discrimination to be enshrined in the treaty and we need to put an end to every form of institutional racism and institutional discrimination. but then of course the right hand must do what the left hand wants in the commission too. then we will have to fight together and then the commission will have to make sure that the freedom of movement of individuals applies to everybody and that we avoid the tendency to restrict it to union citizens, because that would build up entirely new walls within the european union, not only but also in people's minds! mr president, in agreeing with what the rapporteur has said, i should like to make it clear that the tragedies arising from racism are a feature of the history of humanity and make its journey precarious and difficult. there is an ethnic racism which condemns whole areas, even in europe to continuous wars and guerrilla warfare; that is the case, for example, with balkan racism, one of the worst and most cruel; there is racism based on religion which condemns people to a kind of permanent middle ages; there is economic racism which sees the arrogant prevailing with their fertile land over weaker areas, as happens even within the european community; and there is the racism of the stupid, that is, of those who have reasons neither of colour nor of creed nor of economics for their hostility or preference but merely follow some ridiculous public-house politician's megalomania which then leads to an anti-historical aspiration for so-called independence of non-existent countries from their common homeland. and that is the case with mr bossi's northern league: his is racism which falls between the infantile and the seditious, inasmuch as it aims at unravelling the unity of italy on the basis of absurd and capricious pretensions. that is why the political groups present here, in a natural rejection of the comic opera racism - that is what i call it - of mr bossi's northern league, must refuse any form of organizational collaboration with the group of his members of parliament. it is better to kiss a leper than to shake hands with an idiot! mr president, first i should like to congratulate mr oostlander on his balanced report which i hope the overwhelming majority of this house can vote for. second, i agree with my colleague martin schulz when he says that we know that racism and xenophobia have to be on the agenda of this parliament. we have colleagues sitting on the far right who not only believe that the holocaust was a point of detail of history, but actually believe, like mr le pen, that the americans built the gas chambers in the buchenwald concentration camp after the war. a year against racism has been a long time coming. in 1984 the committee of inquiry of the european parliament, of which i was the chairman and the late dimitrios evrigenis from the group of the european people's party was the rapporteur, proposed in its recommendations that there should be a year against racism. almost a decade later it has now arrived. i thank commissioner flynn for actually bringing forward this proposal which we have been waiting for, as i said, for over ten years. i am slightly disappointed with the level of resources available but that is something we may deal with when we come to the budget round. it also means that the commission has now clearly recognized that it has partial competence for dealing with racism and xenophobia. we need to push that further in the intergovernmental conference by making sure that the necessary treaty changes are made to give the community competence to deal with racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism. i also want to say that i am in favour of the establishment of the observatory. mr caccavale was rather dismissive and i would say to him that in a meeting of the consultative commission on racism and xenophobia set up by helmut kohl and franois mitterrand the vote in favour of the principle was 14 to 0 with 1 abstention. the abstention was from the united kingdom not from the representative of the government of italy of which his party was a member. i hope he will reconsider. the observatory has to deal primarily with the problems of racism and xenophobia in the eu. it should not be an academic body but one that makes policy recommendations and it needs to be an independent agency to be able to speak with a loud voice and not be in hock to any particular member state. the commission proposal is a start but it is not enough. in france the racists chant the mantra of 'three million immigrants, three million unemployed, three million immigrants too many' . the tune is the same around the rest of europe even if the numbers are different. we should remember the slogan of the austrian nazi party in the 1930s: ' one million unemployed, one million jews, one million jews too many' . and we know what happened to the jews. mr president, many people today, not least teachers and youth leaders, are confronted with neo-nazis, skinheads and other groups with unconcealed racist and anti-semitic views. few know how to distance themselves from and create something constructive out of such situations. the proposal for a centre to coordinate and initiate action against racism is thus an easy one to support. a great and important task should be assigned to this centre. it should devise, support, and sometimes itself hold courses aimed mainly at teachers and youth leaders, disseminate knowledge on what feeds racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia and how such phenomena can best be countered and combated. with such courses arranged on a broad front, europe would be better equipped for the work of giving our children and young people tolerant and humanistic ideals. no teacher or youth leader in europe who seeks an understanding of the anatomy of racism and hatred must be allowed to stand in need of such knowledge. this would be a proud promise for the european parliament to give on europe day. mr president, one proposal in the report is out of harmony with the others. legislation against racially motivated crimes is self-evident. but we liberals are strongly opposed to legislating against views and prejudices as such. they are best combated by argument and by spiritual and material wellbeing. we in the liberal group reject legislation against parties. it would be a victory for the anti-democrats and a defeat for faith in the power of argument. in the commission's proposal for a european year against racism and in the oostlander report, there is much good sense from which we can gain inspiration in our fight against racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia. but the development and conclusion contributed by mr wiebenga's amendment should further strengthen the proposal. mr president, in the name of antiracism, the oostandler report is totalitarian in inspiration to the extent that it seeks to shape the opinions and behaviour of the citizens of european nations according to the norms of the politically and historically correct. i will simply draw parliament's attention to the consequences of point 20 which attempts to legislate on the history of world war ii. this is what my country, france, did by adopting the gayssot act which led to a veritable intellectual chernobyl, now denounced by gaullist writers and deputies. in seeking to ban the work by paul racinier, a former deportee and socialist deputy, which points out the extravagance of certain reports and questions the existence of the gas chambers, the gayssot act has served to promote its circulation. in seeking to ban professor forisson's critical analyses of the written sources and lack of photos or drawings of the gas chambers, the gayssot act has added to their renown. in seeking to ban the work by henri roc, devoted to the many improbabilities of the ss gerstein report, the gayssot act has made it more widely known. as free spirits say, if you need a law to impose a historical truth, then it ceases to be a historical truth and becomes a political truth. and if you need a law to impose a scientific truth, then it ceases to be a scientific truth and becomes a religious dogma. that is the reason why, in france, the major consciences of the left, such as roger garaudy and abb pierre, are calling for the gayssot act to be repealed and a free debate on the existence of the gas chambers. we believe that they deserve the same freedom as that which the european parliament is demanding for salman rushdie or taslima nasreen. in any event, i solemnly warn mr oostlander that free citizens of a free europe will never accept the introduction of the thought police he seems to be calling for. , member of the commission. (sv) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, racism is not a new phenomenon in europe. it is a problem that has marked much of our history. racism is deeply rooted and affects all parts of the union. it will require major efforts on the part of us all if we are to eradicate the scourge of racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism. i am therefore happy to be able to take part in today's debate on the two resolutions drafted by parliament, on the one hand, on the basis of the commission's communication on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism and, on the other hand, on the basis of our proposal to designate 1997 european year against racism. the fight against racism and xenophobia involves the commission as a whole. we therefore welcome the excellent work done by parliament's rapporteur, mr oostlander, and the committee on civil liberties and internal affairs. the european parliament has long been calling for measures at union level against racism. parliament has an important role to play, amongst other things in creating an awareness of the need for common action in this field. the two resolutions that are being debated today have been drafted in response to a communication from the commission. for the first time we have presented a communication that deals precisely with racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism. it is a major step along the road to creating a role for the commission in the fight against racism. our communication forms part of the union strategy against racism that the european heads of state and government called for at the corfu summit in june 1994. it is based on the work done by the consultative commission on racism and xenophobia, which was given its remit at the corfu meeting. the communication is also a response to the demands put forward by parliament in many resolutions in this field. i welcome the fact that parliament in its motion for a resolution supports the aims we have set out in the communication. our work has been guided by three objectives: 1.we want to fight racism in a number of different policy areas. the communication reviews all the initiatives that the commission has taken or intends to take in order to combat racism. the principle is that the fight against racism must be waged through a whole range of policy measures. these must together form part of our general policy objectives. we seek measures that do not just deal with the symptoms but tackle the causes of racism.we want to promote integration, for example, and combat exclusion, especially on the labour market. we have therefore proposed that the employment initiative be given a new dimension in the context of the european social fund. the new initiative, ' employment integra' , is intended to make the labour market more accessible to such groups as immigrants and ethnic minorities. discrimination and racism make it particularly difficult for these groups to get work. in our communication we also emphasize the importance of giving everyone equal opportunities in working life. in this context, i would make special mention of the joint declaration adopted by the social partners in florence last october. it considers ways of preventing racial discrimination and xenophobia and promoting equal treatment at work. the commission intends to support the aims of this declaration. we also emphasize how important it is to combat prejudices and increase people's awareness of the danger of racism and xenophobia. we propose, amongst other things, a major effort on education; the community's education programme, socrates, could be put to use here. the media people must also be given more support. in addition, the communication highlights the need to counteract racist propaganda targeted at young people. cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs must be improved as regards the detection and prosecution of racist offences. 2.we want to bring about european legislation against racism. we have two aims here. one is an anti-discrimination directive and a possible amendment to the treaty. the commission has already proposed that special powers to combat racial discrimination be written into the treaty in the course of the intergovernmental conference, now under way. we also want to secure community legislation guaranteeing a minimum level of protection against discrimination throughout the union. we will return to this matter, when we know the outcome of the intergovernmental conference. the second aim concerns the need to ensure that community law is applied on a non-discriminatory basis. pending an amendment of the treaty, we will as far as possible include non-discrimination provisions in our proposals for legal acts.3.we want to designate 1997 european year against racism. the purpose of this proposal is quite simply, on the one hand, to show that racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism threaten democratic society and the economic and social cohesion of the union and, on the other hand, to raise public awareness and understanding of how the institutions of the union are working to combat xenophobia. the proposal for a european year is important, not least in order to increase understanding of the important role the union can play in the fight against racism. in short, that would help bring the union closer to the citizens.the commission welcomes parliament's strong support for the proposal. it is now being discussed in the council. i know that some member states are sceptical, not on the substance of the proposal, but because they doubt whether the commission has powers under article 235 of the treaty to present proposals on the matter. however, i hope that the proposal will be adopted during the current italian presidency. the commission has carefully examined parliament's amendments to the proposal, and we will be urging the council to adopt a number of these amendments. to sum up, mr president, i stress that the commission is grateful for parliament's support for our communication on racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism. you can be sure that the commission will continue to do all it can to contribute to the fight against racism, and we think this is a very important debate with which to observe europe day. thank you, commissioner. mr president, the milan european council decided that 9 may should be celebrated as europe day. is it therefore right for parliament to be so alienated from itself and from what should rightfully be its mission that it treats 9 may exactly the same as any other day by holding a plenary sitting, one which furthermore has an agenda containing the adoption of important texts, such as the directive on the postal services? the result of this is that while the politicians, associations and citizens in each of our member states are celebrating 9 may, we - the elected representatives of europe - are faced with the choice between abandoning our legislative responsibilities or being absent from the ceremonies celebrating the founding act which unites us all and bestows upon us our legitimacy. i most certainly do not blame you for this situation, mr president. it is the plenary sitting, it is each one of us, it is our collective inability to recognize the symbols which have permitted a timetable which makes 9 may an ordinary day on which parliament sits. in future we must certainly ensure that all the community's institutions, and especially our own, refrain from any activity on 9 may so that its members can be present at the major annual events uniting europe and its citizens. statement by the president ladies and gentlemen, 9 may is the political birthday of the european union. it is the day on which in 1950 the then french foreign minister, robert schuman, made the declaration that opened the door to the establishment of the european communities and thus also to the european union we have today. the date of 9 may is not just a holiday for brussels and the european institutions. it is europe day for all the citizens of our european union, a europe day that belongs as much to the scots as it does to all other europeans. to prohibit flying the european flag on schools and public buildings on 9 may will not influence your attitude to europe or that of others. the european union is not impressed. we are here today for an ordinary working meeting. we believed that we could best honour the men and women who promoted the unification of europe by working on 9 may and letting the people look over our shoulders as we work, just as we do on our open day. that is certainly what robert schuman, the first president of this parliament, would have wished. but whether we do so again next year or whether we all give ourselves a chance to join in events organized in the towns and communities of the member states is something we still have to discuss together before deciding. the european union, europe as a whole, is facing great challenges. what robert schuman and his generation began 46 years ago we must consolidate and complete by introducing the common european currency, by consolidating the single market and enlarging the union to the south and the east, by improving our ability to act, by creating more transparency, by giving our decisions a broader democratic legitimacy. in this new europe which we must shape, nothing will be as it was over the past five decades. european unification began on the ruins of the great european disaster, which came to an end only five years before 1950 in an inferno of hatred and blood, death and destruction. today we are looking back on a period of economic development and an era of peace in europe which has no parallel in recent history. against the background of the history of the european nations, the process of european unification over the last 46 years has been a unique success story. it has been the most successful peace movement in european history. and yet there is uncertainty and scepticism among the people. they are not against europe but very often they no longer know why they should be for it. that is why we must make it clearer what european unification is today and also what it is not, what european unification need not be and, above all, why we still need european unification. for robert schuman and many others 46 years ago, european unification was the only solution for securing peace and rebuilding the destroyed economy. today some people think europe is part of the problem rather than part of its solution. but even after the end of the cold war, in face of new dangers and uncertainties, the unification of europe, the well-organized, indissoluble cooperation in the european union, remain the solid basis of stability and peace. even in the new, undivided europe the same applies as before: never again must a state become so sovereign that it can decide alone on war and peace and on the weal and woe of its neighbours. (applause) unemployment, which is also a social crisis and can become a political crisis, can only be tackled through european cooperation. the member states may bear the main burden and the main responsibility for creating new jobs, but we will only manage to innovate and modernize our economy if we evolve a common strategy and give each other mutual support in carrying it out. acting together gives us more chances, and we bear a common responsibility for protecting the environment and preserving the foundations of life in our europe. a realistic environmental policy and dreams of national sovereignty are mutually exclusive. either we manage to tackle the problems jointly or we remain alone and sovereign and they destroy us. the challenges of our time cannot be tackled if we keep to the old methods. we would be poor heirs of robert schuman if we tried, in a union of 15 member states, to continue unchanged with the institutions and procedures that were suitable for the community of six 50 years ago. the european union that wants to introduce a common currency and to enlarge towards the south and the east needs to be more steadfast than before, but also more flexible. that is the creative effort that must be made by the intergovernmental conference on the reform of the maastricht treaty. and here we can be guided by the far-sighted realism, the courage to accept the new and the calm resolve of robert schuman. nous sentons qu'il ne nous est pas permis d'chouer , he said on the inauguration of the intergovernmental conference that opened in 1950 on his initiative and then led to the establishment of the european coal and steel community, the first european community, on which our european union today is also based. we must not fail either, ladies and gentlemen! (applause) votes mr president, i should like to draw parliament's attention to the fact that the adoption of amendment no 8 will cause amendment no 48 to fall. the original author of amendment no 8, mr liese, had expressed reservations concerning the fact that he noted, in amendment no 48, a restriction in favour of the biosphere reserves of national and regional parks. i should like to make it clear that 'in particular' does not mean 'exclusively' and that as a result there is no restriction but simply an incitement to take this programme into account because it is a varied programme which concerns 328 biosphere reserves in 83 countries, in the north and the south, because its flexible status is interesting and remarkable examples are to be found, in particular in germany and spain, and finally because there is an undoubted scientific follow-up and local populations are very much involved. the reason i wanted it to be the subject of particular attention was in order to allow the european union to be involved in the accumulation of know-how and experiences under this programme, for the rest i submit it to the house for consideration. (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) mr president, the word bannissement in french comes out differently in some translations. so we are against the word bannissement , which would represent a legal provision. in addition we are against using names. let us first put it to the vote leaving out the word 'bannissement ' and the names. mr president, i should have liked to speak before you proceeded to the vote. i believe that this vote is inadmissible because it is contrary to the general principles of the rights of the people of europe. we are proposing a banishing, a penal sanction of a new kind, one which furthermore does not exist in french law, and which consists of expelling an individual from his own country in the name of antiracism. and this is proposed without even allowing the accused to put his case, denying any opportunity to present a defence, and this in regard to the chairman of a group here in this parliament and an austrian politician. i find such a position to be totalitarian, contrary to the treaty and contrary to the general principles of european law. it reveals the true nature of this report. we have checked all that. the text of this resolution is admissible and we have now voted. mr president, i should like to ask you to request the staff to compare the various language versions. i assume that the original text of the report is the dutch text. in any case there is a clear linguistic difference between the various versions. the french text speaks of bannissement . the dutch text speaks of veroordeling . the english text speaks of ostracizing. those are different concepts. i should like to press emphatically for us to have one unambiguous interpretation in the final text, because i think the interpretation just given by our fellow-member on the right side of the house is incorrect. of course, mr de vries. we will have the translated versions checked, as we have always done in such cases; we will do so again here. after the vote on the amendments: mr president, this has been a complicated matter and a very sensitive one as well. i have written 'chaos' in the margin against one set of votes because i did not understand what was happening. the one that raises most difficulty was your ruling on the query raised by the leader of the liberal, democratic and reformist group and others as to whether the word to be used in the final text is 'banished' , ' ostracized' or 'condemned' . you said the text would be aligned but i am not sure with what. we will check that too, mr kellett-bowman. (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) the reason why we vote against the proposal for common rules on the development of postal services in the community is that the report leaves the possibility open for individual countries to retain their monopolies as regards direct-mail advertising and international mail. a monopoly in itself does not give any guarantees of equal service to all citizens. on the other hand, it makes for well designed legislation. besides, it is important not to mix up deregulation of the market for goods and services with deregulation of the labour market. deregulation of the market for goods and services may be good for the consumers, but at the same time it requires more protection for the employees. retention of monopolies on the postal market poses the risk of failure to cope with the consequences of deregulation on the telecommunications market. if the postal monopoly is not able to meet this competition, jobs may be lost among the postal workforce. following the liberalization of a large section of the telecommunications market in europe and the rest of the world, the commission now puts forward its proposal to deregulate parts of the legislation that currently governs possibilities for starting and operating a business in the field of mail services. the commission's proposal has met with opposition in a number of quarters, which is also noted in the report produced by mr simpson. the debate has drawn in views from the major postal administrations in europe and from the trade union movement. smaller state postal operators and private mail services have not contributed overmuch to the debate. the discussion on competition as a means of promoting the development of this sector and bringing down prices to consumers has also remained in the background. we think that liberalization would be good for existing postal businesses, since it would create incentives to them to improve their service and offer it at lower prices. a multitude of new enterprises would also be created, which would provide jobs for many people. these positive effects have been experienced in countries that have liberalized their postal markets. in view of the above, we vote against the simpson report. i present this brief explanation of vote on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleague michle lindeperg, who is representing us both at a meeting in lyons to mark europe day. it is regrettable that parliament's timetable prevents us from being out and about among the people on the occasion of this popular event. there is no point in organizing major information campaigns on this subject if we, europe's democratic representatives, are prevented from participating due to no fault but our own! i will not repeat the analysis i made this morning on the proposal for a directive on the postal services. it seems to me that the simpson report, in the form we have just approved, guarantees the necessary balance between the requirements of competitiveness and modernization on the one hand and the public service on the other. i hope that the council will respect this balance when it adopts its common position and that the commission does not call it into question once again through an ill-advised use of the powers to act unilaterally in the field of competition as bestowed upon it by the treaty. over and above the present debate, it is high time we defined and laid down the notion of public service in the treaty. through a more precise wording of article 90(2)? by adopting a charter of european public services? by setting out the rights of public service users in a statement of the fundamental rights of citizens? these various proposals have all been made. they must now be referred to the intergovernmental conference so that it can clearly define the framework for action of the public services of the future. i believe that universal access to a quality postal service is a basic right of each consumer as citizen, not least for those who live in rural areas or small, sparsely-populated villages and towns. i believe that such universality which becomes an obligation on the public provider of postal services requires a uniform tariff structure supported by a proper reserved sector. substantial changes are already taking place in the postal market. the union now has fifteen member states whose postal services differ widely in their quality, performance and evolution in recent years. new technologies are opening up new markets, alternatives to the traditional postal service, such as fax and e-mail. premium, high-speed, high-quality services have opened up new markets at premium prices. now even courts are opening up and legitimizing the possibility of cross-border remailing. this climate requires an appropriate european framework to manage, rather than avoid, these developments. i voted against the simpson report today because it is based on a strong ideological streak of protectionism as the best way to preserve the public service ethic. in today's world this is misplaced. the report's balance is too producer-driven which, apart from the issue of universality, fails to take due account of legitimate consumer interests. it strikes the wrong balance on how open or closed the system should be. philosophically the report seems to confuse liberalization with privatization and seems to regard any competition as being unfair competition. my preference is for a controlled, careful and managed opening of the european postal market with universal service guarantees as a fundamental requirement and with a strong role for the european parliament as a partner in managing change. to perpetuate victorian attitudes and systems will carry neither the producers or consumers of postal services into the next millennium. the communications workers union of ireland is seriously concerned about the implications of the directive on the future of postal services in ireland. i would like to take the opportunity of placing on the record a number of these concerns which they have conveyed to me. firstly, i would like to question the use of the ' notice' procedure. this will allow the commission to decide unilaterally by 31 december 2000 whether direct mail should remain within the reserved area. the notice procedure, by only taking account of competition most relevant to articles 90 and 86, ignores regional and social issues. it would have been more satisfactory if article 100a had been chosen as the framework for the proposed directive. secondly, it would appear that the commission has not taken into account the damage that will be done to the viability of the postal service in ireland because of the proposals for liberalization of cross-border mail. thirdly, i dispute the commission view that the different components of the postal business constitute separate markets. while it is possible to regard some services as value added, such as express courier as distinct from express mail services, it is, nonetheless, wrong to allow downstream access to postal facilities. fourthly, as the cost of rural mail in places like ireland is twice the unit cost of urban mail, there should be a large geographic cross-subsidy between urban and rural locations. fifthly, if an post is forced to give access to its network to private sector courier firms, a large multinational with europeanwide infrastructure could do serious damage to an post which would only be a fraction of its size. sixthly, any liberalization of direct mail would be impossible to police, open to abuse by larger mailers and it would be better if it continued to be treated as part of the general letter service. finally, international mail should remain part of the reserved service. ireland is particularly vulnerable to liberalization of this sector as 28 % of revenue comes from international mail - four times the european average. i trust that before the commission makes any final decisions it will take on board the views of those who work in the postal service in ireland and who will be directly affected by policy changes in this area. after six years of consultation, today we have finally succeeded in approving at first reading this proposal for a directive which is of major importance for europe's public postal service operators. i should therefore like to warmly congratulate our rapporteur, brian simpson, for his perseverance in undertaking such a thorough study. in introducing the internal market, there was a need to determine clear and unambiguous 'rules of play' which frame and control the opening up of the single market and preserve the public service mission of the postal service. there was a need to lay down in the legislation exactly what we mean by 'universal service' and 'reserved service' , and to come out in favour of the non-liberalization of direct mail and (incoming and outgoing) cross-border mail. this was necessary in order to maintain an efficient, high quality public service accessible to everybody wherever they live. today's vote should be seen as an expression of the desire for financial and geographical fairness and social and economic cohesion. a certain model of society was at stake, a model based on public intervention to guarantee public service missions. this is why i welcome the vote for this report at first reading. it is also why i want the second reading before the end of the year, and for it to be able to confirm this result and for the european commission to take this into account by refusing to adopt the notice which is contrary to the directive. in view of the great importance of postal services to consumers, we consider the commission's action proposals to be beneath contempt. a postal service that guarantees quality and good service at a reasonable price, regardless of where one might live or who one might be, is a self-evident social responsibility and is particularly ill-suited to either deregulation or free competition. nor is it something the public in the eu want or demand. it is a result of the union's desire to force through harmonization and uniformity through legislation, instead of cooperation across frontiers. we support the amendments enabling member states to secure certain exemptions from the harmonization provisions, so that they can maintain a good service, for example in sparsely populated areas, and take account of the concerns of postal workers in any deregulation. on the other hand, we do not support the amendments under which the eu flag or the value in euro should appear on stamps. in view of the above, we vote in favour of the simpson report, in that it represents an improvement on the commission's proposals. while the european commission has brought forward proposals to liberalize postal services across the eu by the year 2001, 80 % of total mail will still remain with national postal services. liberalization means privatization, plain and simple. however, one cannot agree to the wholesale privatization of what fundamentally amounts to a human industry which is exactly what postal services are in ireland. i am committed to the principle of introducing a universal postal service in europe. however, the postal services in ireland, and particularly in rural towns and villages are at a better standard compared to our european counterparts. it is for this reason that one must ask the question that, if one supports the commission plan, will the postal services in ireland improve or deteriorate? i am pleased that the commission recognizes that national post offices will maintain their monopoly over the collection, sorting, transport and delivery of domestic mail up to 300 grams. if this particular aspect was privatized, operators would only cherrypick lucrative urban markets and leave rural villages and towns with a skeleton service. i voted in favour of the report. the post is a social service which should be available to everyone on equal terms at the same cost throughout the land. the main task of the post office, and hence the mail industry, is to serve the public by moving mail at the lowest possible prices and to the best possible standard of service. the main tasks of the post office should be regulated by law. how the postal service is organized is, in my opinion, of secondary importance. it can be organized by way of monopolies, competition or various forms of mixed enterprise, or it can be on a contract basis. it is a matter for each individual country. there is no reason why the organization and forms of enterprise should be the same throughout the eu. on the other hand, it is important that the national postal services in europe and in the world as a whole coordinate their activities in order to provide the best service. the postal business has been deregulated in sweden. it is important that swedish postal services can compete on equal terms with their foreign competitors in sweden and abroad. competition with other postal enterprises, for example abroad, is important, but must be subordinated to the main task of providing good service to all citizens in the home country at acceptable prices. deregulation, with ensuing privatization, which is implemented too rapidly can lead to reduced standards of service in sparsely populated areas and peripheral regions, which are merely 'loss-making areas' , and to increased unemployment. all changes must therefore take place with due regard to the social and economic consequences. our group has expressed its firm opposition to the proposal for a directive by the commission opening up the postal services to competition. during the discussion on this subject we sought to defend the public service and oppose subjecting communication to financial considerations alone by ensuring that amendments were adopted which recognize the public service, reinforce the reserved sector with the inclusion of direct mail and incoming cross-border mail, and respect uniform tariffs. we welcome the fact that the european parliament adopted these amendments which genuinely put the brake on the ultra-liberalization of the directive. the council must take this into account. it is in this spirit that together with certain members of my group i shall not be voting against the proposal but abstaining. our final vote at second reading will be decided on the basis of what amendments the council accepts or rejects. i fully agree with the position the european parliament's committee on transport and tourism suggested we take vis vis the proposal for a directive on common rules for the development of community postal services and the improvement of quality of service. liberalization measures must indeed not mean the destruction of well-established services or that all citizens no longer have full equal access to postal services. that is why it is essential to ensure equality of opportunity and the financial autonomy of small p &t operators too. in that context it is not acceptable to endanger or even abolish the public service (by imposing conditions and giving exclusive rights and responsibility for operating the 'reserved' services and the universal service). that does not mean that we should oppose opening up the postal service to competition to some extent. a certain amount of competition can certainly be in the interests of the users. absolute competition, however, could mean that only the economically profitable postal services operate to the full while the universal service - to the detriment of many users - is neglected. so it is imperative to choose the right road here! in luxembourg we can boast a high-quality public postal service. it would be irresponsible if this small (in europe-wide terms) operator, which satisfies its small and large customers, were now destroyed by exaggerated liberalization decisions. that is why i entirely agree with the ep rapporteur: the european postal system should only be liberalized to the extent that this benefits all consumers without jeopardizing the universal service. nor should the adverse social effects the liberalization measures might have be forgotten at eu level, where the dialogue with the social partners has become an important component of social policy for some time now. that is why it is appropriate to consult the european social partners with regard to the 'postal services' sector too. i voted for the report, and i consider that the rapporteur's amendments improve substantially on the commission's proposal. i would, however, like to clarify some views. to introduce stamps in 'euro' denominations and to proclaim membership of the eu by encircling the symbol with the twelve stars i think is a bad idea, since the postal services are operated on a member state basis. the provision of postal services is a public service activity. experience in other industries shows that deregulation does not yield greater efficiency but more often, instead, results in increased unemployment and increased regional disparities. in spite of passive, or at least not active, resistance on my part, this is the stage we have reached. brian simpson is experiencing his finest hour. the longest-running rapporteur-ship on a dossier ever seen by the european parliament is drawing to a close. the rapporteur deserves praise, even from me. that is also more or less the only tribute i can pay him. because the present dossier is a blot on the escutcheon of all those who would like to call themselves with any justification representatives of the people. the citizen has an incontestable right to post and to adequate provision of service. it is better to forget as quickly as possible that the trade unions and the poor providers of services have succeeded in frustrating the internal market in this way. meanwhile it will be clear that my group is not happy with the draft report now before us. as the least bad alternative to our own amendments we shall support the ferber amendments. if they are not accepted we shall vote against the report and ask the commission to withdraw the proposal for a directive and apply unabridged and without delay the communication from the commissioner responsible for competition policy. oostlander report mr president, for various reasons the eldr group has voted for the resolution and the proposal. it is necessary for the european union to obtain clear authority to take action in this area of policy. the establishment of an observatory for racism and xenophobia is desirable. finally, an anti-racism year is a good thing but it cannot stop there. the fight must be ongoing. mr president, if the oostlander report had been adopted 50 years ago, historic figures such as winston churchill or charles de gaulle could have been brought before the courts of their country charged with racism or xenophobia due to their comments about the germans during the war. all those throughout history who defended their people's identity, spoke out against an excessive foreign influence or presence, or foreign domination, could today be treated as racists. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am sure you will allow me to laugh when i see this report applauded by the german socialist members who would like everyone to forget their own or their father's hitler youth, and by the christian democrats who believe they are being charitable when they allow immigrants to move into working class districts, and by the communists, the inheritors of the bloodiest massacres in human history. as to anti-semitism, under the pretext of combating this phenomenon - and at the risk of reigniting it - we must one day explain why all forms of nationalism are detestable, with the exception of israeli nationalism of course. that is a question to which i have not yet found the answer. mr president, i think it is a pity that this report, which in my view is a very important one, on a day like today, robert schuman day, 46 years after the solemn announcement that europe wants an ever closer union, that we want to build a common europe based on tolerance, that a report of this kind was allotted only half an hour today. it is also a pity that this half hour was then used by some members to make the kind of statement we have just heard. in my view those are two things we should not just let pass. what is important about this report, however, is that we have managed to carry through some points which in my view are of quite considerable importance. we must do our utmost to create greater tolerance in europe. in europe it is not just the people seeking refuge here but also the people we ourselves brought into the union to work among us, but also all the others who live legally in our union in one way or another, who must be given the chance not just to integrate but to find themselves in a tolerant society which takes them in and in which they can integrate. that is why i consider it most important that in adopting the resolution we have stated that all the people who live here legally should be given political rights in addition to social rights, that after a certain period of residence they should also be able to exercise to the full their right to vote and stand for election here. above all we must ensure that minorities have equal opportunities, not just so that they can integrate but also on the employment market. furthermore, we must ensure that people who hold a european passport, i.e., a union passport, but have a different skin colour, are no longer discriminated against, and the same applies to all the other minorities; here i am referring in particular to the sinti and the romanies. mr president, perfectly reflecting the point of view of the antiracist lobbies, the oostlander report has proposed the following: an extension of the law on historical truth, known as the gayssot law in france, to europe as a whole; support for religions originating in immigration, and in particular aid for the training of imams; the automatic naturalizing of persons of non-european origin with a residence permit; an inquiry into the problems faced by between three and four million residents with unauthorized status in the european union - it is the report which says so; an increase in the european community's budget appropriations in order to, and i quote, ' improve the atmosphere in the city for immigrants' ; improved access for immigrants to the media; training schemes; and propaganda. of course members of the european right opposed this report, and we note how some provisions were adopted without first solving the linguistic problems, which means that our colleagues voted for it without knowing what it was all about, as the language of the oostlander report is not french, english, or german, but 'newspeak' , the newspeak of orwell's nineteen eighty-four. we have now entered the reign of totalitarianism. the resolution presented by mr oostlander concerning the combat against racism, xenophobia and anti-semitism has just been passed by the european parliament despite the fact that it very regrettably fails to distinguish between detestable racist doctrines and the legitimate desire of member states to control the present immigration from third countries. i refuse to allow this confusion and i voted against this resolution. a simple reference to the texts just adopted by the house amply justifies my position. i quote word for word a number of passages selected at random: the european parliament 'considers that it should be made possible for third-country nationals who have the right to reside in a member state of the european union to acquire citizenship of that member state, and appreciates the commission's proposals. to achieve freedom of movement for third-country nationals, which are a step in the right direction' . or alternatively: the european parliament 'calls upon member states to include (immigrants) in social and political decisions, and also to grant them voting rights' . and elsewhere we find parliament denouncing 'statements of the council in which, contrary to scientific facts, a link was established between unemployment in the union and immigration' . two lessons may be drawn from this anthology, which although not exhaustive is representative of the overall tone of this text. first of all, in the knowledge that this resolution reflects a thinking which is commonplace within the brussels institutions, we have every reason to fear the likely results of a 'communitization' of immigration policy, as the present negotiations of the intergovernmental conference suggest will be the ultimate outcome. the whole operation is founded upon a huge misunderstanding: people are going to allow their sovereignty to be relinquished in this area in the belief that they will be better defended, when in fact they will not only be less well defended but will also be prisoners of procedures which will prohibit any autonomous reaction in the future. the second lesson is that we must warn the sincere antiracists of the serious consequences which the confusion at the heart of the oostlander report is likely to produce. by favouring a lax attitude towards immigration, in the name of the combat against racism, the advocates of this resolution and of the policies which it may inspire will alienate people, such as my own, who are not racists but who do want to remain masters of their own country. it is with genuine despair that i foresee the negationists assuming the role of defenders of the people against immigration and in turn, but in the opposite direction, confusing their aberrations with the protection of nations and thus in a sense attaching their evil ideas to a just cause. we must react and we must show that immigration from the third world which we are witnessing at present has nothing whatsoever to do with the jews who were persecuted before the war, that we want to preserve the political asylum procedures - provided that they are used correctly - but that on the other hand we cannot accept the endless influx of rootless masses who destabilize our societies. we vote for the report because we think it important to combat racism and xenophobia. we would further point out that we do not think the eu should take over the powers the council of europe currently has in this field. we do not believe that there is a 'european ideal' or a 'european identity' ; on the contrary, we believe in the diversity that creates the multicultural society. wherever unemployment is increasing, public services are deteriorating and social exclusion is being created, we also see racism and xenophobia increasing. we thus also see the convergence policy currently being implemented in the eu creating precisely the negative conditions that are conducive to racism and xenophobia. the authors of this report intend to pronounce 1997 'european year against racism' . such a decision cannot be enthusiastically supported by the belgian national front. this motion for a resolution could in fact have very serious consequences for the stability and balance of our european institutions. while the promotion of democratic values which we all hold dear naturally involves the rejection of every possible and imaginable form of discrimination, i can only express surprise that we are decreeing a policy of apartheid applied to the leaders of political parties. true democrats pride themselves upon an acceptance of dialogue with their political opponents, even if they do disagree on the immigration issue. the ancient greeks showed us the path of tolerance. is the european parliament ready to disregard thousands of years of democratic tradition and platonic rhetoric? by an irrational reasoning, the demonizing of the defenders of national preference - or of national exclusion - would have us declare the 15 governments of the union to be outside the law as in their national constitutions they reserve for nationals the right to exercise certain essential political rights: the right to vote, to stand for election, and access to ministerial posts. the belgian national front also regrets that the rapporteur considers it essential for the combat against racism to be accompanied by 'the promotion of the study of islam in europe' , with imams being trained at the expense of the descendants of charles martel and charlemagne. some of them seem to have forgotten that islam makes no distinction between spiritual and temporal power and thus rejects the essential foundations of our institutions which have ensured the stable and unique nature of european politics for the past 2000 years. i voted for the report. it is important to combat racism and xenophobia in all situations. it is a good thing, therefore, that the matter is also being discussed in the eu. however, this must not be allowed to lead to a weakening of the broader and more focused responsibility of the council of europe. unemployment, a bad environment for children growing up, bad living conditions and social exclusion are often the breeding ground of racism. if these problems are alleviated, racism will also be curbed. education, knowledge, diversity and human fellowship are important aids to curbing racism and xenophobia in sweden, the eu and the world as a whole. after a number of positions taken by the european parliament, and particularly by our political group, the commission has proposed that 1997 should be proclaimed 'european year against racism' , and has earmarked 6, 000, 000 ecu for activities in all member states, so that national co-ordination committees can be set up, with participation by all associations and clubs. we welcome this decision. the aims of the 'european year against racism' should be to step up the fight against racism and xenophobia, to raise awareness, to improve information and to co-ordinate policies which member states are already carrying out. the motion for a resolution tabled by the committee on civil liberties, which we voted for overall, approves the commission's proposal which has now been strengthened by the adoption of amendments which we originally tabled, in particular amendments which contradict the notion of race and which are instead in favour of the knowledge and recognition of other civilisations and cultures and their contribution to the culture of the countries of europe, promoting equal opportunities for groups of persons who are more vulnerable to discrimination, to stimulate the role of educational and social communication structures in the fight against racism. we felt that we must point out that the point of departure for the european parliament's decision was a negative one, much more half-hearted than the commission proposal. on one hand, we are against an ethno-euro centrist perspective in which this decision was taken, putting forward para-racist 'european ideals and civilisation' , which are too high brow and full of abstract principles and values, some of which are actually ambiguous. on the other hand, the european parliament should not evade what the commission has been forced to admit, namely that the responsibility of social and economic conditions on the climate leading to racism and needs to implement policies which improve those very social and economic conditions. you might say that all is well that ends well, but i wanted to use the opportunity of my explanation of vote to point out that a lot had to be done to make sure that the european parliament's position did not actually weaken rather than strengthen the initiative to fight racism and xenophobia. my delegation and i have registered with great indignation the fact that a majority, although a small one, of the european parliament has approved this report. although we did not agree with the rapporteur on a number of points, which we consider exaggerated, we tried, by taking a differentiated approach during the vote, to make it clear that basically we approve the main thrust (' .against racism and xenophobia' ). however, we not cannot accept and most emphatically reject the discrimination shown against the representative of our party, dr jrg haider, and against our entire party, which was democratically elected by more than 20 % of austrians. the resolution does not just make what are virtually slanderous and libellous allegations, without a shred of evidence, it also cultivates a literary style (' .ostracize and isolate' .) that harks back to precisely the totalitarian, fascist vocabulary that its supporters supposedly reject. it is then only a small step from the early medieval punishment of ostracism to branding and from isolating to outlawing. we believe that in so doing the majority of the european parliament has bowed submissively to a few extremists and done a poor service to the european ideal by this interference in austrian domestic policy. i read carefully and with interest the report on which we have just voted and i approve of its main thrust. but i should like to point out that a report on a subject of such importance, at a time of economic crisis and inward-looking tendencies, could have been the subject of a more searching study. some subjects need time for thought. respect for diversity has always been one of the founding values of the european union and the european parliament plays a major role in this respect. myself, i did not vote for two elements in the report. to state that the european union, due to the policy of its council of ministers, permitted ethnic cleansing on its borders is very regrettable. i prefer to point out that due to the absence of institutional instruments in the field of foreign policy the european union proved unable to prevent atrocities in bosnia, and to express the hope that the intergovernmental conference corrects this situation. i also find it inappropriate to cite the leaders of the two parties of the far right. on the one hand, because a common argument which these parties put to their electorate is that they are 'victims' of isolation in the assemblies, and citing them in this way in the report awards them undue importance. on the other hand, we must deplore the fact that our european parliament includes some equally extremist representatives, and failing to cite these members lends them an unacceptable respectability. the discussion of this umpteenth report on socalled racism and so-called xenophobia is one of the few times in this parliament when one might wish that speaking-time were rather less restricted. one would need at least half a day to sum up all the lies or follies of the report before us. in reality this report, like the commission communication on which it is partly based, has nothing to do with actually combating xenophobia or racism. the report is intended once more at all costs to cram the so-called 'multicultural society' down the throats of the citizens of the european nations although those citizens simply do not want it. the passage on education and youth in the explanatory statement speaks volumes in that respect. you could fancy yourself back in the time of the educational experiments of nazi germany or of the communist tyrannies, where education is used to shape the people's political thinking according to the one true doctrine. since the rapporteur, mr oostlander, drives his brazen intellectual terrorism home in his report and even goes so far as to call the leaders of the right-wing national political parties racists and anti-semitics, i take the liberty of finally paying him back in his own coin, but this time truthfully: mr oostlander is a worthy follower of the sinister political commissars of the former east bloc regimes! finally the fact that fresh demands are being made for the 'racism' theme to be made a european, community competence is the umpteenth indication that the peoples of europe can expect little good from this official europe. i voted for the report, but do not share all the views presented. the report contains a proposal for the setting up of a monitoring centre for racism and xenophobia in the european union, to serve a network of existing organizations answerable to the commission. but to build up central organizations in accordance with the proposal is of doubtful value. in most cases, this merely serves to produce more paper, without actually affecting public attitudes on the matter. i think this question is best left to the council of europe. as the council of europe has a much larger number of member countries in europe, i think that organization is much better suited to directing the struggle for human rights and against racism. i think it would be a mistake to set up internal border controls to restrict the free movement of third country citizens within the european union. it is quite possible to retain internal border controls, while at the same time giving third country citizens freedom to move around within the european union if they have the right of residence in one of the eu member states. mr president, i should like to remind you that if i am not mistaken the rules of procedure state that those who wish to make an explanation of vote must be present in the house at the time. here you have continually ridden roughshod over the rules. mr cassidy has produced a very good report in many respects and presents some important points that are critical of the commission in this matter. we can agree with mr cassidy's word of warning that unemployment is increasing, despite the fact that the common market is almost complete. this means that our criticism of faith in the eu as a politico-economic market is correct and that it will not bring down unemployment but, on the contrary, will lead to more unemployment. we vote for the report as a whole, but do not support all the conclusions drawn by mr cassidy, for example the belief that traditional growth will solve all problems. in paragraph 19, mr cassidy urges the conclusion of an employment pact that carries real weight but, unfortunately, he does not give substance to the phrase. we learn nothing about what an employment pact would mean in concrete terms, so we cannot take a view on the proposal. my group would have been pleased to be able to vote for the cassidy report if amendment no 29 had not been approved. that communist amendment supported by the socialist group, advocates the introduction of a levy on capital transactions. that is contrary to freedom of movement of capital, one of the four pillars of the internal market. an irresponsible decision. my group therefore had to decide to vote against. i think that mr cassidy's report is good overall. but i do not go along with his conclusion in paragraph 13 that the single currency will protect the member states of the union against exchange rate fluctuations (the rate against the dollar, yen and other currencies can vary) and certainly not with the conclusion that the single currency 'would enable monetary policy to be more effectively applied' . in actual fact, monetary union would mean that member states would lose the possibility of applying monetary policy altogether. i also disagree with the rapporteur's remark to the effect that the fiscal burden on labour is excessive, implying that it is a cause of unemployment, and with the conclusion that liberalization of financial services would facilitate a credible growth strategy. that concludes voting time. adjournment of the session i declare the session adjourned. (the sitting was closed at 1.50 p.m.)

20. european conscience and totalitarianism (vote) i would like to bring to your attention the fact that mr nassauer and mr szjer have signed the joint motion for a resolution on behalf of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and european democrats. - before the vote on paragraph 3: mr president, let me recall our significant resolution of 2005 about the end of the second world war in europe, which stated that 'there cannot be reconciliation without truth and remembrance'. i would not like to delete the truth now. please agree that 'truth' be inserted: reconciliation with truth and remembrance. please vote for truth. mr president, the text refers to crimes against humanity that were still happening 'as late as july 1995'. it would be better to say 'were still taking place in july 1995', because nobody can be sure that there were no more such crimes in 1996. (interjection from the floor) yes, indeed - that would be softer; 'took place as late as' should be replaced with 'were still taking place in'. mr president, this is a minor correction. the text now reads 'whereas the central european countries had the added experience of communism'. i would like to change 'central european countries' to 'central and eastern european countries', because everywhere else the text reads this way, and to replace 'had the added experience of communism' with 'have experienced both communism and nazism', because, to eastern european nations, nothing was 'added' by communism: most of them had communism first, then nazism, and then communism again. (pl) mr president, i would just like to add that i also signed the resolution. (fr) mr president, i also signed this resolution and i do not see my name on the motion for a resolution. i would therefore ask you to add my name.

energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond (short presentation) the next item is the report by francisco sosa wagner, on behalf of the committee on industry, research and energy, on energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond. mr president, firstly i would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs for the fruitful help they have given me in drafting this report. i would also like to extend the same comments to the other members, fellow members from the parliamentary committee. sixty years ago, the european coal and steel community was created, and there is no better way of commemorating this event now than by discussing energy infrastructures in europe. today, the objectives of the european union's policy are clear - the common european internal market, the drive for renewable energy as a means of or instrument for fighting against climate change, security of energy supply and diversification of energy sources. in the treaty of lisbon, one title, title xxi, is devoted to energy, and it sets out the commitments that i have just mentioned, as well as endorsing the interconnection of energy grids. well, the goal of the report we have drafted is to improve those energy infrastructures that, in the opinion of the european commission, are outdated and poorly interconnected. for example, the generation of wind energy in the north sea and baltic sea is increasing spectacularly, and with the immense renewable energy potential in southern europe and north africa we find ourselves up against problems relating to large-scale electricity storage and the recharging needs of electric vehicles, as well as many other urgent issues. it is impossible to tackle all of this if we do not design new grids and new connections, both within the european union and in third countries. this is why in coming years we will have to make progress in determining the infrastructure we need: a) establishing the criteria that will make it possible to select projects that are of interest to europe; b) eliminating 'energy islands'; c) ensuring that these projects are carried out within reasonable timescales, and mediating to find ways of resolving the conflict-ridden subject of authorisation and permit procedures in the member states; and d) ensuring funding that will attract and stimulate private investment, without prejudice to whatever public support may be necessary. energy efficiency and saving, as well as smart grids, are pivotal ingredients in the new kind of design contained in the report, because we believe that by reducing energy demand we can reduce our dependency on imports, which will have a knock-on effect on our infrastructure requirements. the fundamental concern of this report from the very outset has been the processing of permits and authorisations to enable the required work to be carried out. at the moment, projects drag on endlessly. this happens due to people's opposition to seeing turbines or other kinds of facilities springing up in their neighbourhoods. we feel that this conflict could be solved by providing early public information and setting up a warning system for cases in which a country's authorities do not deal with an application within a reasonable amount of time. we are up against ambitious objectives, and this calls for everyone to be involved. in this regard, the industry companies, who are rightly calling out for a stable regulatory framework as the best way of assuring financing for their efforts, are of fundamental importance. until now, the european union's energy policy, both outside and within its borders, has lacked any decisively european impetus. europe must speak with one voice, which must be clearly audible and ring out loudly in the vaults of the european building, because it is our very energy fragility that must give us the strength to build a europe that is solid and vigorous in terms of energy, and a worthy successor, in this anniversary year, to the great invention of the european coal and steel community (ecsc), which was our very origin. (lv) mr president, we are all used to making choices. we make choices when we buy soap or televisions, and when we select which mobile-telephone operator to use. as consumers, our ability to make these choices gives us the lowest prices possible, because that is competition. however, there is one field in which we in europe are very often deprived of this competition, these choices. that is energy - electricity and gas. why do many consumers not have the ability to make these choices? the reason is that in europe, we lack the infrastructure and the interconnections to allow for the existence of such a market in which consumers can make a choice. with this report the european parliament clearly declares that european residents and consumers must be able to exercise a choice not only between soaps, but also of energy in the electricity and gas market. by creating this infrastructure, we shall give consumers choices and the lowest prices possible. thank you for your attention. (pt) mr president, the upgrading and renewal of energy infrastructure are essential factors for achieving the targets of sustainable and intelligent growth which we are seeking with the europe 2020 strategy, and for the energy security we need. it is imperative that all regions are involved in this challenge. in order for this to happen, the incentives established in the regulatory systems must be improved, specifically those which apply to higher-risk projects and more innovative projects, such as those which are being developed in the azores in the field of renewable energy. the regions must be involved in the design and implementation phases of projects, in the definition of priorities and in project development and execution, because this will guarantee better results and, thus, a better defence of european interests. the current economic situation accentuates even more the need to adopt an innovative and integrated approach to energy issues in order that all economic, environmental and social aspects may be taken into consideration. it is essential that we do not lose sight of the medium- and long-term effects in the quest to assure all european citizens a safe, sustainable and affordable energy supply. (sk) mr president, the treaty of lisbon offers a specific legal basis for the development of the european union's energy policy, which must be used appropriately for the modernisation, improved interconnection and adjustment of the union's energy infrastructure with a view to achieving the energy and climate objectives for 2020. in my view, security of supply and the strengthening of solidarity between member states in the field of energy can be achieved through cohesion policy. in particular, european territorial cooperation provides new opportunities for cross-border cooperation, facilitating, for example, interconnections between local and regional energy sources and large energy networks. the coordination of energy infrastructure projects at local, regional and european level is essential in order to ensure the proper interconnection of networks and to maximise the efficiency of funding, regardless of whether it has come from regional or european sources. (pt) mr president, the importance of developing energy production and setting priorities for energy infrastructures for 2020 or beyond cannot be emphasised strongly enough. however, as energy is a strategic area which demands high investment, those regions and countries with more fragile economies find it difficult to keep up with innovations, and therefore complete liberalisation in this matter could lead to greater social inequality, greater asymmetry and greater energy poverty. therefore, three measures are required that seem essential to us: maintaining public policies in the field of energy, with the precise objective of ensuring access for all regardless of their circumstances; maintaining strong public companies and public sectors, which will also allow regions and countries with difficulties to innovate, expand and receive support; and ensuring that all people have access to energy, preventing energy poverty and the difficulty of millions of families in accessing energy and heating for their houses. (ga) mr president, firstly may i commend the rapporteur for the excellent speech he gave on energy and what we have to do between now and 2020. the rapporteur used a phrase which is very important. he said 'the european interest'. it is about time we started thinking about the european interest, not the member states' interest, not the global interest, but the european interest. the sooner we become self-sufficient in terms of energy, the better we will be able to contribute to the entire world. certainly we need a europe-wide grid, not in 2050, but as soon as possible. we need renewable energy - wind, wave, tidal, bio, solar. all of these are within our remit. we have to develop these. also if we have fossil fuels within europe, let us develop them. the sooner we wean ourselves off fossil fuels coming from other regimes, the stronger we will be in europe and the greater chance we will have of creating a sense of europe - one voice, one europe - and then we will be able to convert the world. (sk) mr president, the european parliament has already adopted a european union energy policy concept. numerous approved measures setting out european energy interconnection routes are likely to be implemented even after 2020. nevertheless, it may certainly be a useful exercise to look at the more distant future of the european union's energy infrastructure. new technologies and new types of energy sources also place new demands on energy distribution, and the current networks are not always able to transmit new types of energy. in this context, a qualified, expert view of eu energy infrastructure technology beyond 2020 may provide a useful basis for the policymaking of european institutions, as it will help in the forecasting of the financial capacity needed to secure the energy potential for the european union's economic growth, especially in the future. from this perspective, in my opinion, this could be an interesting concept. member of the commission. - mr president, the commission very much welcomes this own-initiative report on energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond. it is a topic that is of course very high on the agenda and i would like to thank the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for their commitment and constructive cooperation. energy networks are at the heart of our energy system. without secure intelligence and sustainable energy networks we cannot meet our climate goals and our energy targets in europe. within the next decades our energy system will therefore need to go through a deep transformation process that will bring huge challenges but also opportunities in the way we generate, transport, distribute and consume energy. in almost any possible future scenario, energy infrastructures will play the key role as a catalyst enabling us to meet our emission reduction objectives. furthermore, as the european council in february confirmed, they will also be crucial in ensuring that solidarity between member states becomes operational, that alternative supply routes materialise and that renewables will develop. the new eu energy infrastructure policy is needed to change the way in which networks are planned and developed in the european union. this is why the european parliament's own-initiative report on energy infrastructure is so timely and important. in november last year the commission adopted a communication outlining our vision for such a new policy, the strategies and priorities to be pursued, and i would like to recall here what is needed. we need to build grids connecting the huge offshore wind energy potential in the northern seas to consumption centres in northern and central europe. we need to diversify our gas supplies, sources, counterparts and routes with the construction of the southern corridor. we need to develop interconnections in south-western europe with a view to integrating renewable energies and increasing the flexibility of gas flows in the region. we need to fully integrate the baltic electricity and gas market into the european market, thus ending the isolation of energy islands, and we need to strengthen the regional network in central-eastern and south-eastern europe. we need now to move from priorities to concrete projects of european interest, from plans on drawing boards to consultation, permit granting, financing and construction on the ground, and that is why our forthcoming legislative proposal on energy infrastructure will be so important. an essential element when implementing infrastructure policies is ensuring financing. it is estimated that over eur 200 billion are needed in the coming years, and not all this investment will just happen by itself. last week, as you know, the commission adopted our proposal for the next multiannual framework; it provides for eur 9.1 billion to be dedicated to energy infrastructures for the period 2014-2020 as part of a common infrastructure fund. this acknowledges the need for specific eu funding for energy infrastructures in order to deliver on our common energy and climate targets but also to ensure continued and secure supply of competitive energy to all european citizens. the commission warmly welcomes the european parliament's support for a fund such as outlined in your resolution on the mff. the commission also appreciates the recommendations, including in the report discussed today, regarding the prioritisation of energy infrastructure projects, the acceleration of permit-granting procedures and better involvement of interested stakeholders as well as the regulation of cross-border infrastructure and financing. we will take all this into due consideration in the process of developing the forthcoming legislative proposal for a regulation on energy infrastructure development, which is scheduled for the autumn of this year. we look forward to cooperating with the parliament on this new proposal and to your support in the efforts to develop the grids europe needs for 2020 and beyond. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on tuesday, 5 july 2011. written statements (rule 149) the european energy and climate strategy must combine a competitive economy with the security of energy supply and environmental concerns. in order to attain the proposed objectives, strong investment in energy infrastructures is fundamental. i welcome the proposal to set up a european connection mechanism contained in the multiannual financial framework 2014-2022 adopted by the european commission. the connecting europe facility aims to expedite the development of infrastructure in the fields of energy, transport and information and communication technology with a budget of eur 40 billion for the 2014-2020 period. i would draw particular attention to this mechanism in terms of its support for the islands and outermost regions, such as the canary islands, madeira, the azores and the french overseas departments, whose specific requirements in terms of energy infrastructure must be taken into account. infrastructure priorities should promote the creation of optimal energy networks within the eu common market. the report focuses on the principles which are to be retained, such as the environment and combating climate change, effective transmission and energy saving, competition and solidarity, security of supply, funding, cooperation between agencies and a 10-year planning period. on this basis, market forces are supposed to create a common market infrastructure themselves, in agreement with member states. i do not believe this can lead to optimal solutions. what we need is a vision and a project agreed with the member states. i have several things to say about the report. first of all, in paragraph 5 the rapporteur warns against the development of an infrastructure between the eu and third countries, because this could increase the risk of leakage of co2 emissions. i do not agree. european networks must be ready to receive energy from external sources and to export it. interference by the commission in this matter is not compatible with the principles of the wto. secondly, european infrastructure should take into account the existence of time zones and also climate zones. thirdly, the transmission of wind energy from north to south requires special new networks, not only from the north sea but also from the baltic. thank you. the main challenge in the energy industry will be to guarantee affordable, safe and sustainable energy for all eu citizens. however, we cannot expect significant success as long as we do not have an efficient and sufficiently flexible energy infrastructure. i agree with the notion that the eu has to treat diversification as a priority. as is emphasised in the report, the density of energy transport networks is inadequate in south-east europe. it is a european interest to decrease the unilateral exposure of the area by providing alternative supply and transit routes, to increase market liquidity and to facilitate appropriate competition between different energy sources. in the light of this, i see it as a great improvement that the report identifies the criteria to be observed by priority investments if they expect eu assistance. these criteria include diversification of transit routes and resources, the increase in market integration and liquidity, the elimination of energy islands and network integration of renewable energy. i agree that in addition to purely economic indicators, the assessment must also take into consideration socio-economic factors. finally, i would like to touch upon financial resources. the commission estimates that energy transport alone requires an investment of eur 200 billion by 2020. as eu sources are only expected to cover a fraction of the total financing requirements, it is of paramount importance to create a stable regulatory environment and new, innovative financing instruments with a view to prompting the private sector to invest in this field. the external dimension of eu energy policy is one of the priorities of the polish presidency. integrated and secure energy networks are a key requirement not only for the aims of eu energy policy, but also for its economic strategy. the eu needs a fully functioning internal market in this area. in accordance with the report's provisions, the construction of an internal energy market should be completed by 2015, which will ensure the free movement of gas and electricity between the countries of the eu, and also connect energy islands to the infrastructure. in view of the growing demand for imported fuels, the eu is creating a common energy policy to avoid future crises similar to those which took place last year. new transmission routes and interconnectors between countries, and the search for alternative fuels, sources and supply routes are to form the basis of energy safety and solidarity between its members. poland forms an important part of this system, but its energy infrastructure is in a state of gradual decay. polish power stations and transmission and distribution networks are suffering from a lack of funding of over 70%. in poland, where the economy is based on coal, it has been possible to exploit native fossil fuel resources, such as, for example, coal, and also shale gas. in poland, over 90% of electricity is generated from coal. mines are profitable, which is the exception in the eu. guaranteeing energy security for the eu member states is one of the most important challenges facing the eu. for many years we have been debating the prospects for solving this problem. meanwhile, the main objective, namely independence from russian exports, has still not been achieved. in order to change this state of affairs, the eu needs considerable investment in energy infrastructure. the construction of new transmission networks is essential. our priority must be the construction of the nabucco pipeline and the north-south pipeline. implementing these ventures will gain us independence from russian blockades and energy blackmail. at the same time, it will contribute to a lowering in gas prices and will strengthen competition in national economies. the construction of these routes will also be an expression of european solidarity in the field of energy, which is very necessary in the recent difficult period the eu has been experiencing. another immensely important aspect contributing to the independence of europe in the energy field is the creation of the so-called polish section of the odessa-brody oil pipeline. its construction would allow the transfer of caucasian oil to central and eastern europe. at the same time, there would be an increase in competition and a reduction in price. this investment is also included in the objectives of the eastern partnership in the field of common energy initiatives. also, the report as a whole does not pay sufficient attention to financial support for the construction of further hydrocarbon storage. construction is essential to extend the safety period to a minimum of 120 days. it matters a lot to us how our energy policy and infrastructure are shaped in the future. it is conspicuous that there is increasing competition between member states concerning energy policy. this is why we need to develop and modernise our infrastructure constantly. we must try to keep national fragmentation to a minimum. we need to pay particular attention to the member states which are dependent on a single provider. i would like to highlight here the vulnerability of central european countries where gas supply is concerned. we need to take this into consideration in future infrastructure development so that we can eliminate it to some extent. we can see positive results in the north-south connection as well, which is a definite improvement. we must build networks that operate efficiently, while taking into account in particular solidarity between member states. the issues of economic prudence and energy efficiency are of key importance as well. the eu is especially dependent on a few energy sources, which is why we have to manage our existing resources wisely. i think that it is very important for europe to create a common market, and this report will assist us in this. it is unfortunate, however, that the report does not deal with the gas infrastructure in depth. the issue of regional cooperation must be emphasised more. annex iv to the report by mr vidal quadras, already adopted in the voting for the security of gas supply, may help us in this regard. i think that the current portfolio of energy-generating sources needs to be changed by focusing on a number of renewable energy sources. this is why i am calling on member states to adapt their infrastructure to the energy mix required to meet the targets set by the eu for renewable energy sources, cutting greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions and promoting energy efficiency. considerable investment needs to be made in the energy infrastructure to achieve this target by 2050 (roughly eur 200 billion). failure to make this investment would entail the following: a much higher cost in terms of environmental deterioration and an increase in energy prices and in energy insecurity and dependency. significant risks are associated with the energy infrastructure: operational (for example, congestion and discontinuity of supply), natural (for example, earthquakes and floods), environmental (for example, pollution, and habitat and biodiversity loss) and anthropogenic/political (for example, risks associated with security and terrorism). member states should map the risks as a tool for making decisions and monitoring the results from creating and improving smart, interconnected grids. modernising national energy grids and interconnecting them in a super smart grid could provide a stable, secure flow of affordable energy for the public and create a number of green jobs. the commission communication published in november 2010, 'energy infrastructure priorities for 2020 and beyond', addresses the main challenges facing the eu's electricity and gas infrastructure, which will help achieve a single energy market and a high level of energy supply security. the obsolete ten-e instrument obviously needs to be replaced with new legislation on energy security and infrastructure, which should produce solutions for the necessary funding as well. more than eur 200 billion are required by 2020 for gas pipelines and electricity grids alone. the report from the committee on industry, research and energy is aimed in particular at presenting the european parliament's position regarding the expected new legislative proposal. first of all, it confirms the four priority corridors for electricity and the three corridors for the gas sector, while also suggesting a way to make the most of the limited financial resources. this is done mainly through clear rules for acquiring the status of a 'project of european interest' for which even public funding can be obtained. i welcome the detailed criteria drawn up for projects with european aspects, which will help increase the level of market integration, eliminate shortcomings in interconnections and end dependence on a single supplier. 'more europe' in the energy sector means more solidarity in europe and more benefits for citizens. energy security has recently become a fashionable and popular buzzword repeated in all institutions of the eu. it means not only access to the raw materials for producing energy, but also a functioning infrastructure for transmission and distribution. the treaty of lisbon has only recently indicated a need for building energy solidarity in europe in this field. this should be exploited and long-term, strategic plans for infrastructure should be put in place. in particular, we need to increase the capacity of energy links between eu member states and to build alternative, strategic routes. interconnectors should form a key part of the energy puzzle. they allow free transfer of hydrocarbons between member states. they are protected against the threat of energy blockades by exporting countries and they make energy price stability possible. that is why it is extremely important for the eu to provide financial support for the construction of this type of project. investment in energy security is also a commitment to the development of new technologies. they make it possible to reduce intervention in the natural environment and enable better exploitation of conventional energy sources, such as coal. this is also why, in spite of a restrictive climate policy, the eu should actively promote carbon capture and storage (ccs) projects, especially those in countries where coal forms a significant part of energy production.

preparation of 2012 budget (debate) the next item is the report by mrs balzani, on behalf of the committee on budgets, on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2012 budget [2011/2042 bud]. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the document we are examining today is not merely a report on the priorities of the next european budget, but also and above all a strategic document looking at the new role that the european budget must play in the context of greater economic governance. this is the first year of the european semester, which has been designed precisely to establish the greatest possible coordination between the union's budget and those of the member states, the greatest possible synergy and the utmost complementarity. all of which essentially means one thing: convergence, and making the budgets of the member states converge with the major goals of the european budget. today, these objectives - these european objectives - can only be those laid down in the europe 2020 strategy: a grand, ambitious strategy with five highly important targets and seven big flagship initiatives. these are big, important goals, but they are also very specific. the first target is extremely important and involves building a more fully, better employed europe by making the right investments. we therefore have a huge priority for the 2012 budget: we must not waste time in executing the 2020 strategy, beginning with the first of the targets, that of higher employment in europe. immediately setting out the dimension of the 2020 strategy in our budget is therefore essential and a matter of urgency. two things are fundamental in order to achieve this: we must plan and we must look to the future. planning means ruling out mathematical approaches to the budget, which are absolutely senseless. mathematical, general and indiscriminate increases are of no use at all. instead we must look at what exactly are the programmes and the actions that can contribute to the 2020 strategy. looking to the future has an absolutely crucial significance: taking the utmost care over our commitments and not simply over our payments, because commitments are the tool with which to build the sustainable financial future of our union. flexibility is another important subject. we are at the end of the planning period and so the budget is particularly rigid. i therefore think that it is really important that, right from the start, we consider all the available flexibility instruments as fundamental and indispensable for the budget we are going to draw up if we want it to be not only possible or essential to take the first step towards the 2020 strategy - which absolutely must not be a failure, as we have seen in the past - but also if we want it to be a useful and effective budget. i am convinced that it will only be possible to reach all these major objectives if we work together patiently, right from the very start, to build a renewed climate of institutional cooperation. institutional cooperation is one of the major challenges of the treaty of lisbon, which we always talk about rather carelessly. institutional collaboration means really finding a renewed feeling of equality so as to work together on this sensitive issue, the budget, which is not only one of the most strategically important instruments to build our future, but also one of the most tangible and practical. member of the commission. - madam president, i welcome parliament's position on the priorities of the 2012 budget as reflected in the proposed guidelines. the commission, in line with its right of initiative, will of course take into account parliament's guidelines and also assess the guidelines of the council. on the other hand, we have to take into account the most recent data coming from the 27 member states, and we will have our services carefully scrutinise and evaluate those elements in order to shape the draft budget on 20 april. this is now the second test of the annual procedure under the treaty of lisbon. the context of financial consolidation is obvious to everybody. i think, in such a context, that it would be responsible to take into account and respond to all the fiscal financial obligations of the european union, but also to bear in mind the context of austerity which is the reality in the member states. at this time, more than ever, no-one could argue against the need to base the budget on the principles of rigorous and sound budgeting. it has never been so important to look for savings, but we should also use the tool of the european budget in order to help europe in this post-crisis situation. with that in mind, i would point out two differences between national budgeting and europe's budget. national budgeting is mainly about social transfers, about consumption. the european budget is about investment with multiplier effects. therefore it could be conducive to growth and jobs. it is not good or sound budgeting to fail to pay out on the outstanding commitments agreed on in previous years, so both must be taken into account when shaping the final draft proposal for 2012. as mentioned in the letter from the president of the commission, and as the rapporteur, ms balzani clearly stated, we must ensure sufficient funding for expenditure under the 2020 strategy. yes, we have to coordinate the efforts of national and european budgeting, but on the other hand, we must be especially rigorous when it comes to administrative expenditure - hence the commission's commitment of less than 1% for administration. that means savings as regards contractual obligations and savings in areas such as conferences, mission costs, meetings and information technology. taking into account what happened last year, we hope that this time it will be a smoother procedure, building on the experience of 2011. therefore i am looking forward to our first trialogue meeting on 30 march. then we will be ready to present our draft budget for 2012. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the guidelines we are shortly to vote on are the first step towards the european budget for 2012. since the beginning, the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) has shown its support for a preliminary report containing an indication of parliament's priorities for the forthcoming budget, which would then be presented to the commission, as is done by the council. our contribution has helped broaden the scope of the priority policies and supported the balanced foundations laid by the rapporteur, mrs balzani, by inserting a number of strong and distinctive priorities that express the traditions of the ppe group, namely development and growth for europe together with research and innovation. indeed, i think these are the policies that we should invest in for the future of the union and that parliament really ought to stress before the preliminary draft budget is tabled by the commission. as mr lewandowski correctly pointed out a short time ago, we also insisted that the concept of responsibility should be at the heart of the 2012 budget. this is not to say that until now we have not exercised budgetary responsibility, but it highlights the fact that now more than before, as a result of the crisis, we must act responsibly. lastly, i think something needs to be said about what has happened and what is happening in many countries in north africa, simply to show that we reject medium-term approaches that are incapable of properly dealing with unexpected events or new policies. in terms of the technical aspect of the vote, i think it would be worth leaving the report produced by the committee on budgets substantially unchanged. i am really puzzled by the insistence of the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left on including the tax on financial transactions. quite apart from the substance of the issue, to me it seems to be of no relevance to the 2012 budget procedure. on behalf of the s&d group. - (sv) madam president, firstly, i would like to express my sincere thanks to mrs balzani. she has chosen a very wise starting point for her report. it is short, specific and constructive and has a clear focus on the most important issues. what then are the most important issues? they involve demonstrating that the europe 2020 strategy is not just hot air, but a serious attempt to enable the eu to play a tangible role in promoting growth and jobs. the eu's budget is controversial, despite the fact that it is actually very small - around 1% of gdp or a little over 2% of overall public expenditure. however, it can play a strategic role when it comes to investments in projects that the member states cannot manage by themselves or that require solidarity within europe. these relate to research and development, infrastructure for transport and energy and being able to realise the true potential of the internal market - a well-functioning labour market in the eu and a real basis for growth and competitiveness. however, these joint projects cost money. evidence is therefore required, particularly on the part of the member states and the council. will the europe 2020 strategy be put into practice, or will it go the way of the lisbon strategy - good ideas that are buried in an office drawer? i believe that the 2012 budget will be crucial in answering that question. on behalf of the alde group. - (sv) madam president, first of all i would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent work. in times like these it is no easy task to set budgetary priorities. i am also pleased that we are choosing to be guided by europe 2020 for next year's budget. as was pointed out earlier, we cannot afford to wait until 2014 when the next budgetary framework enters into force to implement the europe 2020 strategy. the commission has an important responsibility to put forward proposals in its draft budget this summer. we have so far been unable to direct resources to the europe 2020 strategy to the extent that would be needed. there is a risk that it could turn out exactly as mr frm warned: that the strategy does not get implemented but gets stuck in an office drawer, which we do not want, of course. my group tabled a number of amendments to the report and we are very pleased with the way in which they have been incorporated into the proposals. i would like to thank the rapporteur for that. i have to say to the council that we in the european parliament most certainly have reason to examine ourselves and the way that we are approaching the 2011 budget. we have succeeded in creating a conflict that has surely given both ourselves and the politicians in the council cause for reflection. we must consider how we can make the best possible use of the resources we have. we may perhaps have to consider making cuts in the eu budget, too. at the same time, we must not forget that the union has been given a large number of tasks that have to be fulfilled. these tasks will not do themselves. sometimes i have the feeling that the council believes that things can just happen by themselves without us having to reprioritise or earmark resources, but that is unfortunately not the case. i look forward to a constructive proposal from the commission that can help us to find a more constructive tone in the negotiations on the 2012 budget. on behalf of the ecr group. - madam president, i would like to congratulate the rapporteur on her report. i think that, unlike the other guidelines which we have discussed over many others years in this house, it is focused and it does not get into a whole lot of different details, which are obviously to come later in the budget procedure. firstly i would like to say that we in my group would like to take very much into account what is happening elsewhere in the european union and not just keep it within the brussels 'beltway'. therefore the paragraph you have put in paragraph 21 - where you are saying that we should be looking for negative priorities and savings by the institutions, asking our specialised committees to be able to look for priorities - is very important, but very little work has been done on this so far. tied in to the desire, which i can fully understand, to have more monies available for the europe 2020 strategy and the flagships, we should be looking not just for actions which involve money, but strengthening of the single market. it is not just about monies. where we are looking for monies we should be thinking about where we can be generating savings from elsewhere in the budget, as we are looking to do in parliament and in the other institutions. we take the line that if you want more money then you can take it from savings elsewhere. this should also be an important part of our approach to the 2012 budget. lastly, therefore, in looking at the kind of responsibility we should take in an era of austerity, if we are going to be able to cope with the savings of financing where we need new expenditure my group believes we should be heading for a freeze in our expenditure for 2012. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - (de) madam president, mr lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, we in the group of the greens/european free alliance are also of the opinion that when budgets are tight and there is a need for austerity policies we must respond, because we have to reduce levels of debt in the member states. this is not the case on a european level, because fortunately we are not allowed to get into debt. however, the politically clever solution involves not only reducing debt but also achieving a balance, so that it is possible to invest in projects for the future in order not to put the national economy further at risk. reaching this balance must be one of the guidelines for the european budget in 2012. in addition, we have made commitments in recent years in the european budget which come out of the structural funds and which will have to be financed next year and in the years that follow. i think we should take mrs balzani's approach very seriously. it involves focusing on the most important areas of the eu 2020 strategy, which determines where europe is going. we are calling for more funding at a european level to allow us to combat climate change, to switch more quickly to renewable energy sources and to support education and research. we must continue to focus on these issues and we must not put this at risk. i also think that the european semester mechanism is being used correctly to ensure that the member states and the european budget, in other words a total of 28 budgets, commit to the targets in the eu 2020 strategy. where do we need to spend more money? on the basis of what we hope will be democratic change in the arab countries, we europeans have an interest in supporting civil society, democratic structures and the move to parliamentary democracy in these states and, therefore, we need flexible funding to promote democracy throughout the world in our own well-understood interests. as a member of the group of the greens/european free alliance, i would like to ask specifically where we can make savings, in particular in the light of recent events in japan. in my group we are of the opinion that we can save money on the iter nuclear fusion reactor. we do not know what to do with the nuclear waste from this project. why are we spending so much money on launching this project, when we should be redirecting the euratom funding to enable us to move away from nuclear power and introduce renewable energy sources much more quickly? when we look at the united nations and at climate policy, we all know that we need to change the way we generate energy. the 2012 european budget must also make a contribution in this area. i hope that we will have the power to make qualitative changes of this kind in the next multiannual financial framework. madam president, while we are here discussing the guidelines for the next budget, out there are tens of thousands of workers sending us a very clear message. they are telling us that the eu's austerity policies are killing the economy and destroying the benefits and the conditions of life for the european public. they are telling us that the model of economic coordination that is being imposed is based on fines and penalties that provide no guarantee of sustainable growth and job creation - quite the contrary, in fact. they are telling us that the pact for the euro, which the governments are adopting today, is a pact that is against wages and pensions. it is a pact that is continuing to make the workers pay for the cost of the crisis, although it was not caused by them. i believe that we should listen to this protest, because it poses a key question from the point of view of the european budget about the place of public investment in discussions about economic policies. we have heard the conservatives say that what we need is a 'zero budget', with a 'zero increase'. we have heard various governments saying that, in the name of austerity policies, we need a european budget with a 'zero increase'. the discussion that we are having today is crucial, but this is the wrong answer. it is the wrong answer for one simple reason: it is impossible to have ever stronger austerity policies at a national level yet at the same time say that due to these austerity policies we need ever weaker european budgets. this reasoning inevitably leads to only one outcome: lower public investment at both national and european level. it also means more unemployment and more social regression. this is the crucial discussion to be held in talks on the 2012 budget. it argues against those who think that the crisis can be resolved by heightening inequality and transforming the recession itself into a policy. this is what my group is opposing. we are going to abstain from this report because it is full of good intentions, but it does not respond in a clear way to this challenge, and the world of work requires a response from us on this matter. on behalf of the efd group. - madam president, this report's fundamental weakness is that it completely ignores the observations made by the court of auditors in its annual reports. we should remember that the only information available is on the integrity and efficiency with which european union funds have been spent. the attempt to justify an increase in the budget on the basis that the europe 2020 strategy will take us out of the crisis lacks all credibility when we look back at the complete failure of the lisbon strategy. the threat - and it is a threat - that limiting the level of the european union budget will have a detrimental effect on european solidarity and the pace of economic development in the member states is both facile and displays an overwhelming ignorance of the impact of the crisis upon european citizens. on behalf of british taxpayers, i call on david cameron to demand not a freeze, but a significant reduction of the budget for 2012. given his track record today, i will not be holding my breath. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i would like to express my opinion on three areas of mrs balzani's report. the first is that the report on the 2012 budget is based on the assumption of enhanced economic governance involving the eu, the european semester mechanism and the europe 2020 objectives to boost growth and employment. in next year's budget there will be support in particular for two headline targets in the strategy: improving education and promoting social inclusion, which for me are two key aspects with regard to europe's future viability. secondly, the report emphasises the need to improve synergies between european and national public investments in order to achieve the eu's political objectives more effectively. we need to encourage more coordination, greater consistency and a focus on sensible, shared objectives in order to make it more likely that the headline targets can be achieved successfully. my third point concerns climate change and energy targets. in the light of the disaster in japan, we need to do everything possible to speed up the introduction of renewable energy sources. an active climate policy and the creation of green jobs will not only help us to achieve our climate targets, but will also make a positive contribution to social policy. last but not least i would like to remind the house that the eu budget is not permitted to show a public deficit, which is why it is essential that it is implemented properly, and that it makes up only 2% of total public spending. (es) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to begin by thanking the rapporteur mrs balzani for the flexibility she has shown. i say this because the original idea was not to hold this debate on budget guidelines. i believe, however, that it is a good idea, because it will help to define the priorities that will shape the budget negotiations over the coming months. i should like to touch on two fundamental matters. first of all, austerity. austerity is not a principle, it is an instrument. it is an instrument for achieving a truly credible budget that will not lead us to the consequences that are now materialising in many countries: that is, spending beyond our means and later encountering serious political difficulties when it comes to closing the gaps in the budget. i also believe we should not bring matters into the annual budgetary procedure which actually have a multiannual financial scope. i am referring, for instance, to the issue of the tax or levy on financial transactions. this belongs in a far wider financial framework, so any attempt to artificially bring this debate into the annual budget will only lead to a misguided strategy of negotiation with the council right from the start. only last year we saw what happens when we bring into a single-reading annual budget procedure, policies or ideas that actually have a wider scope: failure, stalemate and, ultimately, a situation - as we are now experiencing in 2011 - in which the level of credit appropriations is, as the commissioner is perfectly well aware, insufficient to cover the immediate short-term needs of the european union over the coming months. (de) madam president, commissioner lewandowski, ladies and gentlemen, this morning we are debating the need to make savings in view of the debt crisis that we are experiencing in the member states. mrs trpel and others have quite rightly pointed out that this debt crisis affects us only indirectly, as it is not permitted for debts to be incurred at european level. yet how can we pursue an austerity policy in the european union if the volume of european expenditure is only 2% of the total public expenditure of all 27 member states? i believe that this is not an austerity policy at all. instead, it is a question of symbols - symbols that are in some way passed to us by the member states as if money that is transferred to brussels for the european budget in effect disappears into a deep black hole. this completely ignores the fact that the funds that go into the european budget actually go back to the member states again. of course, they do not go back at a ratio of 1:1, as europe is not a savings bank, and we naturally pursue a policy of solidarity where we support those in the european union that are less well developed. for example, in my state of north rhine-westphalia in germany, all of the labour market instruments that are now implemented there are cofinanced by the european social fund. if we remove this funding, there will be correspondingly less labour market policy. that cannot be what social democrats are aiming for. let us consider for a moment how the member states spend european funds. the court of auditors' annual report states that there are deficiencies in the way the management and control systems for spending european funds operate. it states that the recovery of wrongly invested funds in the member states runs into billions of euro. it also states that the commission is now, thankfully, going to suspend payments in cases where european programmes are being mismanaged. that is also happening for example in germany and the united kingdom. the council, which is not here, represents the member states, which i urgently call on to improve their management of eu budgetary resources. the increase in efficiency that this would make possible would allow us to considerably improve the way we spend eu funds - not by spending more money but by improving the way we spend it. the member states can play a part in this in order to underline their willingness to make savings. (da) madam president, i would like to thank mrs balzani. i think she has a very exciting, but also very difficult task in negotiating this budget, and that is because the framework is tight. the seven-year framework for the eu's budget is devised in such a way that the framework becomes steadily tighter during the course of the seven-year period, particularly in the area of agriculture. we have actually been able to utilise unused agricultural funds almost as a means of financing new initiatives such as energy investments for the recovery package and the satellite navigation system galileo. it is therefore becoming more and more difficult to ensure consistency. i do not agree with the group of the greens/european free alliance that we should not finance the iter fusion energy system. this is important research, particularly in the light of what has happened in japan and against the background of the need to ensure that we are not dependent on fossil fuels. thus, this is also a difficult task. we must find funding for the fusion energy project in 2012. i am pleased that the commissioner emphasised the fact that the eu's budget is not the same as national budgets. it is a project budget, and the eu must be able to settle its accounts. we must pay out the money that we have promised. in this regard, i hope that the commissioner is right that our budget negotiations will be smoother this time around. that will require the council to behave in a more intelligent and less stupid way - for it to give us a very definite figure for the payments, but to be more specific and look at what the real needs are. last but not least, i would like to thank the commissioner for stating that we must cut our administrative expenditure, because this is one of the few areas where we actually can save money in the short term. i think it is good that he started by saying that the commission is reducing its administrative expenditure to next to nothing. that is something we should also do in other institutions, and i believe that it is something that we really should take seriously - also in parliament. - (cs) madam president, the 2012 budget of the european union should continue the tradition of balanced budgets. on the other hand, we must not continue with the disputes we saw when approving the 2011 budget. we must not allow the creation of a temporary budget. that would have a very negative effect on the running of the eu. in order to avoid disputes and approve the budget quickly, we need to propose a sensible budget, which, in the current period of lingering economic crisis, means a tight budget. the public in the member states expect that, in a time of spending cuts, the eu too will run its affairs well and frugally. if we lose sight of this, we will lose credibility. (pt) madam president, we are having our say in this debate in order to show that there is an alternative to the consensus between law and democratic socialism, which has brought this crisis upon us. this consensus does not, in itself, allow for any possibility of ending the crisis. the alternative, which is both possible and necessary, is also undergoing profound changes due to eu budgetary policies, reconsidering the resources and objectives which these serve. at a time when inequalities between the different member states are growing, the eu budget should be at the service of real convergence, promoting the full exploitation of the actual potential of each country, the creation of employment with rights, the eradication of poverty and social exclusion, and the preservation of the environment. it should be a tool at the service of genuine economic and social cohesion. we reject a budget which is at the service of the commercialisation of more and more aspects of social life, liberalisation in numerous areas of economic activity, and lack of job security, as advocated by the europe 2020 strategy. this path will accentuate the existing economic, social, regional and national divisions and disparities, and foment structural unemployment. we therefore propose a new european strategy for solidarity and sustainable development, underpinned by a new set of economic, social and environmental policies, supported by the eu budget, as we explained in our set of proposed amendments to this report. the union budget should also be at the service of a genuine policy of development aid, cooperation and peace, not at the service of external interventionism, interference, militarism and war, areas that have taken an increasing toll on the community budget. we would therefore like to point out the urgency of steering europe along a different course, and this should also be reflected in budgetary decisions. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, this report - which ought to map out parliament's guidelines for the 2012 budget - seems to me to be pretty much devoid of meaning. it only includes a series of vague statements and therefore it does not seem clear to me what parliament's real priorities are for drafting the new budget. for example, the europe 2020 strategy is mentioned a number of times. it is an ambitious, wasteful and perhaps overly broad strategy. what in any case are supposed to be its priorities? it is the member states themselves that have to come to terms with restricted budgets and the consequences of the crisis; we cannot be so nave as to the think that we can do much at a european level. therefore i would have preferred to see fewer statements of intent and fewer words and instead an indication of a few limited and precise areas in which to act. i am aware that this report is dealing with general guidelines, but in its current state it seems to me to be all but useless and merely self-serving. (nl) madam president, mrs balzani from the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats in the european parliament has proved with her report the following fact: the eu does not look after its citizens well, but it does look after itself. the ruling socialist and christian democrat clique is making sure there is a continuing majority in parliament who are in favour of wasting even more money. a nice sum of eur 3 000 per member for a staff allowance, a good job on the side in the house of european history (for those fortunate enough to have the right connections), a totally unnecessary and terribly expensive european tv channel, a prestigious satellite project called galileo, all of which is leading increasingly to financial disaster. oh well, things are clear . and, on top of that, having the nerve to speak about sustainability and responsibility. there is no responsibility to speak of and sustainability is only possible if things are expensive. madam president, i will keep it short and clear: throw out this nonsensical report. this is absolutely not what the citizens of europe are waiting for. the eu is giving no sign of wanting to economise and, on top of that, this will only lead to more money being wasted. i thought that wisdom comes with age, but that unfortunately does not seem to be the case with this parliament. (hu) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, after the last few speeches, i recommend that we try to return to the grounds of reason. the rapporteur was in no easy situation when she was preparing her material. after all, we can not yet talk about figures in any meaningful way until the commission presents to us the boundaries within which it foresees the budget for the next year. we can, however, talk about principles. and in this regard, the rapporteur partially approached the matter very aptly, in that she attempted to integrate the 2020 policy within the bounds of the budget. on the other hand, her decision to not yet get involved in policies at this stage, and to not talk about their outlines and objectives either, indeed justifies certain critical comments that the material seems somewhat hollow. i believe that we can still all agree that, similar to previous years, we continue to consider cohesion policy extremely important. this policy will only really swing into motion now, at the end of the cycle, and it is here that the greatest payment requests will appear. i would very much like to stress, contrary to others, that these payments are not for their own sake, and that this is not about spending the money, but rather about using it in ways which actually further the european cause, and bring us forward in assisting less developed regions in catching up. if they are not doing this, they are doing wrong. then parliament must indeed step up against any kind of inappropriate spending and spending in the nature of prestige investments. i believe that the committee on budgets, in cooperation with the committees, is handling this twofold fight quite well. thank you for your attention. (fr) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, i should like to thank our rapporteur, mrs balzani, for the consistency of her draft resolution on the general guidelines for the 2012 budget. this resolution sends a clear political message. it is because it is fully aware of the budgetary constraints affecting the european union that parliament is today calling for the adoption of a 2012 budget that can respond to the political, economic and social challenges we currently face. at a time when the sole topic of discussion among the member states is the implementation of additional austerity measures, parliament, at least on this side of the house, intends to demonstrate its commitment to the thousands of workers who, today, are marching through the streets of brussels to show their rejection of these economically questionable and socially unjust measures, the result of which will be a further increase in structural unemployment in europe. the fact that the european budget is being aligned with the objectives of the eu 2020 strategy, in a clear way for the first time in 2012, means that employment and growth can be put back at the heart of european policies, which i would point out are our priorities, since the eu 2020 strategy has set the objective of an employment rate of 75% of the working population. however, let us not delude ourselves. this budgetary procedure will be a long and difficult one, contrary to what mr lewandowski indicated in the french press when he anticipated the position of the meps. the member states have already expressed their short-term view of the budget, which advocates discipline, and have called for a limit on their contribution to financing community action. they see the european union and its action not as a means to achieve added value or as a means to help it achieve ambitious policies, but rather as an additional cost. let us not be mistaken. the 2012 budgetary procedure will provide another insight into the tactics being used to define the future multiannual financial framework. the fact is, with a budget which accounts for a mere 2% of the eu's public expenditure, it will be difficult to pursue ambitious policies in all sectors. we are already seeing stormy debates on whether it will be the cap or cohesion policy that will be plundered. this pits citizens against each other when it would be to our credit to help them work in synergy. that is why, commissioner, i would reiterate the importance of your communication on the implementation of own resources. (nl) madam president, if you are having a house built, the biggest bills come at the end. you know this in advance and that is what you agree to from the very start. the same thing is happening in europe. the biggest bills come at the end of multi-annual budgets and you know that, too, ahead of time. refusals by various member states, such as my home country, the netherlands, to pay these bills are therefore nothing more than a reaction by unreliable governments. this is the same as if somebody who is having their house built accepted the offer and then refused to pay the final bill. obviously, in the final stage, you can look at where you can make savings and we in europe have to do that as well. in recital 21, in particular, mrs balzani has rightly pointed to that fact. however, that final bill will still have to be paid. refusing to pay it does not only make you unreliable, it is also stoking the anti-european sentiments in europe. (hu) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the 2012 budget is the sixth among the seven budgets of the current multiannual financial framework. the two arms of the budgetary authority have therefore gained a clear picture of the deficiencies and positive developments with regard to the existing multiannual programmes. the 2012 appropriations must enable the accomplishment of eu goals and priorities in relation to the 2020 strategy. that is because it is this that facilitates europe emerging from the crisis strengthened. the promotion of employment, innovation, research and development, the facilitation of goals related to energy strategy and of social inclusion, in particular through the reduction of poverty. the 2020 strategy can of course only be credible if it receives appropriate funding. we would like to remind everyone that parliament has raised this serious political concern on several occasions. now we must call on the member states and the council to take responsible and decisive steps. we must not be content with a lesser europe in a world where natural disasters and economic crises can ruin the lives of millions without warning, where the impact of such tragedies not only affects one country, people or religious community, but has an effect on entire regions and across oceans. we need a greater europe, and a more effective use of community means. thank you for your attention. (de) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the 2012 budget is set against the background of a difficult economic and financial situation in the 27 member states. for this reason, we will certainly not be able to afford to do everything that we would like to do. i believe that the report tabled by mrs balzani is a workable compromise. however, i also have a few critical remarks to make. in my opinion, more money does not necessarily mean more solidarity and more europe. what is important is to improve the quality of what we get in return for the money spent and above all to ensure that the objectives we set ourselves are actually achieved rather than the money merely being paid out regardless. we must always examine the question of our potential new own resources with a critical eye, too. these own resources must not lead to the additional burdening of citizens or of businesses that need to be, and should be, able to compete with the rest of the world. i also think it is important for us not always to emphasise the fact that the eu budget amounts to only 2% because, at the end of the day, many states cofinance the corresponding european funds, thus, of course, making a considerably larger volume of funds available on the basis of eu programmes. i think it is particularly important for us to make progress in terms of research, education, sustainability and strengthening economic growth. in light of this, i think it is also important for large-scale projects such as iter - and in this regard i would like to thank mrs jensen for her comment - to be fully and clearly financed and clearly managed, because otherwise the americans, who are currently implementing the same project, will be appreciably ahead of us, and we europeans should not always take second place. (pt) madam president, i would like to begin by saying that i welcome the work of mrs balzani, but that i would nevertheless like to make a few observations here. i believe that the general approach that is being adopted is actually too general. i think that this is more of a resolution for an eu 2020 strategy than proper guidelines for 2012. in 2011 the priority has been on young people, and this will no longer be the case in 2012 with these guidelines. however, there is still time. the phrase 'young people' does not appear a single time in these general guidelines. moreover, the focus on the europe 2020 strategy, which i support, does lead to cohesion policy, for example, being forgotten. neither is there a single mention of cohesion policy. cohesion policy is extremely important, and it cannot be a measure for adapting, or a measure or policy which suffers, for example, if money is taken from it in order to be given to the europe 2020 strategy. there is not a single mention of the cohesion policy, which we believe to be extremely important. i believe that there is time to remedy this omission, as i see it. i believe that there is still time to resolve these two issues. (it) madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all i would like to thank the rapporteur, mrs balzani, for the work she has done. the 2012 and 2013 budgets will be consolidation budgets aimed at reflecting the member states' spending cutbacks and setting a benchmark for amounts that will be established in the next financial framework. the contribution of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) to the guidelines for the 2012 budget was based on the concept of responsibility, which means pursuing the aims of economy, efficiency and effectiveness using as little as possible of the available resources. the eu 2020 strategy is based on important priorities - namely research, innovation, development and growth - that were not initially present in the report by mrs balzani, but which have been strongly emphasised by the ppe group. the union's priorities need a suitable level of funding. it is therefore important to ensure flexibility between the expenditure headings in order to more effectively counter the problems linked to the economic crisis and also to propose a budgetary framework that includes own resources. however, i am not in favour of these resources being raised via the introduction of a tax on financial transactions, as proposed by the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left. instead, i am in favour of an investigation by the commission into how to deal with this highly important issue in technical terms, so as to affirm and establish europe's added value. . - (sk) madam president, the european union has set five measurable objectives for the period up to 2020. the objectives have also been agreed by member states themselves. the objectives show us the direction we ought to choose. the success of europe depends on how we fulfil them. it depends on the responsible conduct of individual states as to whether we will have higher employment, whether we will manage to reduce the proportion of people leaving school early, whether we will achieve the planned parameters in the number of young people obtaining a university education, whether we will reduce the number of people at risk of poverty and whether we will protect our climate. despite the prevailing consensus in the eu over the common procedures, the government of my country has decided to restrict the priority operational programmes. it wants to use them for funding high-speed communications, and is discussing this with the commission. i would like to ask you, commissioner, whether you personally and the commission as a whole support states taking a path which goes against the common objectives in this first introductory stage of fulfilling the europe 2020 strategy? - (sk) madam president, the budget is a key instrument for european integration, and how it is set therefore matters. it is precisely in a time of crisis that the eu budget can contribute to mitigating the restrictive budgetary policies of national governments and direct funding towards desirable long-term investment projects. in this context, i welcome the fact that the report supports the plan to introduce project bonds, for example, in the area of infrastructure. i would like to point out, however, that they should not be regarded as an alternative to eurobonds. in my opinion, eurobonds are a special topic and i support their introduction, as they are a logical continuation of the integration process and they mark a deepening of the process. an opposite tendency - towards disintegration - would result from, for example, attempts to slash eu budget levels. in addition to the unfavourable economic impacts, these attempts also undermine solidarity between member states. the selfish and short-sighted division into net contributors and net beneficiaries ignores the deeper and more important context of european integration. all member states can profit from this equally. in my opinion, this is the angle to take in discussions on the eu budget. - (sk) madam president, we are addressing the 2012 budget priorities with an eye to the future as well, and in my opinion we should therefore also look at the possibilities for making savings in the future. in my view, it is very important to think about the regular journeys made by meps and the entire european parliament to strasbourg, which is repeated 12 times a year. i believe that we irritate our citizens with these activities, because taxpayers have to finance our trips, and it costs them a great deal of money. we should therefore, if not in 2012, at least in the long-term perspective, look at the possibility of scaling back or modifying this mechanism in the future. another potential saving which should be discussed, i think, is the cost of setting up the museum of the european union or of europe, which, from a time perspective, could be postponed until a future date, i believe, when the eu is faring better. at present we could transfer this funding to other activities, especially in 2012, in order to fulfil the 2012 programme, and thereby also improve the efficiency of our operations, of course. - (sk) madam president, i would first like to applaud the work of the rapporteur, who has correctly identified numerous problems in her report. the eu budget for 2012, but also for the following years, should be ambitious, if we want to fulfil the tasks and objectives of the 2020 strategy, emerge victorious from the crisis and compete globally. i support the budget committee proposal for meetings to be organised with national parliaments with the aim of discussing the outlines of eu and member state budgets for 2012. it should be emphasised at these meetings that the eu budget must not be in deficit, that it represents only 2% of overall public spending in the eu and that there are fundamental differences between member state budgets and the eu budget. the eu budget largely covers investment in the future of europe. the council, above all, should be aware of this, since we have already heard the representatives of germany, france and great britain talk about trying to freeze the eu budget, through which we would surely slow down european growth. member of the commission. - madam president, i will address three points only. on the 2020 strategy adjustment, a clear point in ms balzani's guidelines: in the current 2011 budget, 41% of expenditure could be attributed to the goals of the 2020 strategy. the same effort is being made for the 2012 strategy, but we must make the readjustment effort within the framework which was agreed several years ago, the 2007-2013 framework. it is, of course, limiting our room for manoeuvre that the adjustment must be done within the framework of the multiannual agreement dated 2006. secondly, my reaction to mr elles - but not only to him: the same remark about negative priorities was also made by mr geier and ms hohlmeier. i am afraid that this is a true story about 2012's budget. it should be like that. this time more than ever, in addition to positive priorities, we should examine what is not performing. we are looking at what is not performing, what is not properly administered in order to find savings. we are thinking as much about positive priorities this time as about negative priorities. for the administration, austerity is a must. my response to mr herczog about the waste of money: administration accounts for only 5.7% of the total budget of the european union. this is a lower proportion than in the municipalities of rotterdam and many other dutch cities famous for a frugal approach to budgeting. in response to ms andreasen: she was not only talking about freezing the budget. she was talking about cutting it. our budget, the european budget, which is without deficit, cannot be blamed for the mismanagement of public finances in many member states. it has its logic, as so clearly explained by mr gerbrandy. the logic is all about the maturity of programmes with time. this is not surprising. this is our credibility. the european budget has its own credibility which is all about commitments and accomplished projects paying out. even in times of austerity, you have to pay your electricity bills. this is really about our credibility. this is about cohesion. this is really an investment, and its nature therefore probably also responds to some of the calls by those who are now demonstrating outside parliament and the berlaymont building. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the word 'responsibility' has been mentioned a number of times during the speeches. there is, however, one responsibility that i really think takes priority for the institutions: above all we are responsible for implementing our programmes and ensuring that eu citizens are not left with just our words. we have the responsibility to be consistent in what we say and what we promise. today's major projects are those set out in the 2020 strategy. the first target of 'more work' is not only very ambitious but also very precise, since it can even be measured using unemployment reduction parameters. this seems to me to be a very specific and very ambitious goal and i think it is essential to start working to achieve it. as long as we continue to consider the 2020 strategy as too big and too ambitious to be squeezed into a practical document like the budget, i think we will achieve nothing more than increasing the risk of another failure, which is exactly what nobody wants, starting with the commission, if i remember the first communication on the 2020 strategy correctly. there is, however, another important issue: austerity is not a policy, it is not an instrument, it is a condition against which we must take action, and not only by consolidating our expenditure, but also by using the european budget, an extraordinary instrument that is radically different from the national budgets and gives us the chance to do something different this year. this is precisely what the european semester is for. clogging up the first six months of the year is not its only use. it enables us to come up with a global strategy and to create synergies; and creating synergies between the budgets of the member states and our budget is an extraordinarily european system to give more value to public resources and to create a real method to turn the 2020 strategy - long and ambitious as it is - into a european reality. the debate is closed. the vote will take place at 11:30. written statements (rule 149) unfortunately this report advocates 'a 2012 budget under the auspices of enhanced european economic governance, the european semester mechanism and europe 2020 objectives'. in other words, this is a budget which supports the deepening of neoliberalism, militarism and federalism in the eu through the adoption of profoundly anti-social and anti-democratic measures, the firm establishment of the stability pact, the enforcing of brutal fines on the member states and permanent monitoring of all national macroeconomic activity. this is also a proposal which seeks to achieve a budget that facilitates liberalisation, job insecurity, and an attack on rights and public services. we therefore propose an important set of changes, aimed not only at denouncing this approach, but also at presenting guidelines for an alternative which is both possible and necessary. these proposals are crucial in order to improve the situation of unemployment, poverty and inequality which exists and is worsening with capitalism, of which the eu is a tool. the eu budget needs to be based on another vision in order to address the economic and social crisis, rejecting the neoliberal path, so-called economic governance and the strengthening of militarism. in writing. - (cs) in her report on general guidelines for the preparation of the 2012 budget, mrs balzani set out the five key budget priorities of the eu. i fully support her view that it is the europe 2020 strategy that should help europe overcome the global economic crisis and emerge stronger from the crisis through the creation of new jobs based on the five priorities, that is, support for employment, improved conditions for innovation, research and development and the provision of funding for these from the public purse, the fulfilment of objectives on climate change and energy, higher levels of education and support for social inclusion, and, above all, reduction of poverty in europe. however, if we want to be successful and to implement this strategy in earnest, we must assign sufficient funding for it, without substantial compromises or cuts. the current multiannual financial framework now offers very little room for manoeuvre, and i therefore agree with the rapporteur that further attempts to limit or cut budgetary resources related to the fulfilment of key priorities are simply out of place at the moment. i support the rapporteur's idea that the fulfilment of key priorities can work as a catalyst for boosting investment, growth and job creation throughout the union. in general, i agree with the proposed guidelines and i recommend the approval of this report. in writing. - across europe governments and public authorities are having to find ways to save money and show restraint. my own country, scotland, was hit by a double whammy - a global recession exacerbated by misrule by governments in london, always willing to plunder scotland's resources but intent on denying the people of scotland control over their own affairs. the scottish government has therefore had to work extra hard to succeed in maintaining scotland's vital public services. in these economic circumstances it is wholly unrealistic for this house to call for a budgetary increase - europe's public services must have priority over the operations of the eu's institutions. (the sitting was suspended at 10:55 and resumed at 11:35)

revision of the package travel directive (debate) the next item is the commission statement on the revision of the package travel directive. member of the commission. - mr president, i am grateful for this opportunity to give you an update of the commission's work on reviewing the package travel directive. at the time of the adoption of the directive in 1990, package holidays were the most common type of holidays. since then, the market scene has changed significantly: the development of the internet has made it possible for consumers to make their reservations directly from tour operators, air carriers and hotels. furthermore, the rapid development of low-cost air carriers has revolutionised the supply of air transport. it has also enhanced competition and consumer choice in the travel market. nowadays, a majority of eu citizens organise their holidays themselves rather than purchasing predefined packages. these changes have resulted in a decreasing number of consumers being protected when going on holiday. we are also aware that the existing directive has led to an uneven playing field for the holiday industry, with some operators being regulated by the directive while others are not, even though they sell similar products. moreover, the minimum harmonisation of the directive has caused legal fragmentation in the member states. this means that the current legislation may not be up to date. for this reason, the commission launched the impact assessment process to prepare for a possible revision of the package travel directive last year. in the context of the impact assessment work, the commission published a study on consumer detriment in the area of the so-called 'dynamic packages' in november 2009. at the same time, the commission launched a public consultation on the revision of the directive. this consultation was closed on 7 february 2010. the commission is now examining more than 170 contributions, which will feed into the impact assessment. the scope of the possible revision will depend on the outcome of the impact assessment. however, let me explain briefly the guiding principles of this work. first, a high level of protection is key if we want to make sure that consumers have confidence in their holiday purchases. second, we must improve the functioning of the internal market for travel, in particular, since cross-border purchases are so frequent in this area. there is therefore a good case for more harmonisation of the relevant legislation in member states. finally, i think it is necessary to create a more level playing field for the businesses selling travel packages. the commission is planning to present its proposal early in 2011. the key challenges for the revision will be to define the scope of the directive. the commission will look into the possibilities of extending the scope of the directive to cover a wider range of travel arrangements including the 'dynamic packages'. this could help to reverse the trend of the decreasing number of consumers being protected when going on holiday. we will need to update the different information requirements and clarify the obligation and liabilities of the professional parties to the contract. finally, in order to improve consumer awareness, the commission will explore the cost and benefits of introducing a standardised package travel label which would have to be displayed when selling package holidays. in parallel with this work, the commission is examining the possibilities of enhancing protection against bankruptcy for passengers buying stand-alone air tickets, as recently requested by the european parliament. at the beginning of 2009, the commission published an independent report that explored the different possible ways of addressing the consequences of bankruptcies. we also launched a public consultation on the future of air passengers' rights on 15 december 2009. these elements will serve as a basis for the impact assessment. we aim to present the most appropriate bankruptcy protection measures to parliament before the end of 2010. mr president, on behalf of my group, i would firstly like to thank commissioner dalli for his promises and explanations that in 2011, he plans to undertake a revision of the package travel directive dating from 1990. in terms of timing, it fits exactly in the current window, which we should use, because in the area of package travel, there is a whole range of issues when consumers are not properly informed about their rights. for example, on many websites, they are seduced into booking further offers through additional links, although these offers are not subject to the same protection mechanisms as the original ones. here we are talking in particular about offers from low-cost airlines. secondly, in most member states of the european union, these low-cost airlines make the service of judicial documents impossible so that consumer protection is greatly hampered, exactly where consumers actually want to defend themselves legally. this absolutely must be changed with a new proposal for a directive. thirdly, we must also ask ourselves whether the rights of air passengers and the rights that are in force pursuant to the existing package travel directive should, in the long term, be transferred into a common document, to eliminate contradictions between components of both legislations. fourthly, i believe - and this is something you have pointed out - that the assessment of the work of travel agents that varies from country to country also means that the cross-border provision of goods and services is being made very difficult for travel agents. in some countries, travel agents are liable just like package tour operators; in other countries, like mine for example, travel agents are only intermediaries. here it would be preferable if, europe-wide, we could at least agree on principles to facilitate the cross-border work of these travel agents. due to the increasing use of the internet by consumers, package travel deals on the internet should, in future, also be labelled as such, so that abuse here, too, remains impossible. on behalf of the s&d group. - mr president, this debate comes at a very timely juncture for tourism, the air travel industry and consumer protection. we had a summer where it seemed that half of europe was stranded on holiday, with airlines and travel agents going bust left, right and centre, and consumers being stranded away from loved ones, in countries that were not their own. it was clear that our laws had failed to properly protect consumers. we had several reports of passengers left with no information about when they could get home, no transparency about who was technically responsible for their situation, no phone number to call to get any information and no idea how to seek redress when they did get home. therefore, i welcome this timely debate and the commission's efforts to tackle this matter, as all of us have let this area go for too long. many problems with the package travel directive were identified almost 10 years ago in a parliamentary report, but very little has moved on it since. i know that the proposed consumer rights directive will deal with some issues, but cross-border air travel needs more european laws for the protection of consumers. the very fact that the law is still called the package travel directive shows how outdated it is. the majority of consumers no longer use travel packages if they have found cheaper methods to go on holiday and see the world. forty per cent of travellers in my own country, ireland, do not bother to use packages, and i know this is replicated in many other member states. most people are now acting as their own travel agents with online booking on sites such as tripadvisor, where they effectively become their own travel agent. our laws now must reflect this change in consumer behaviour. one of the most significant issues that must come from any review is to demonstrate clearly to the consumer who is responsible in the event of these delays and cancellations. travel companies must be mandated to provide very clear information. consumers must be told where they can get this information and be informed of their rights in the circumstances. (the president asked the speaker to speak more slowly for the sake of the interpreters) under the current legislation, there are no clear lines of responsibility. in the event of a mishap, is it the airline that is responsible? is it the travel agent? is it the airport or train station? who should a consumer ask for the information? typically, these situations descend into scrambles of information from various sources and nobody knows whether they are going or coming. if we are trying to build the european economy based on cross-border trade, consumers have to be aware of their rights and entitlements and how these are enforced and communicated. i know, for example, that it is extremely difficult to find an airline's complaints department. how can you get redress if you do not know where to go or ask? what i will be calling for - and i am hopeful that the commission will take this on board - is for the basic principles of customer care to be enshrined in clearly communicated legislation that is uniformly understood and simple. updating this law is not enough. member states must be obliged to communicate new legislation to citizens once it is agreed. finally, one other idea that the commission might consider is: how much does a flight cost? we are all aware that the advertised price does not include taxes and charges: there are charges to check in, charges for extra pieces of luggage, charges for virtually everything and anything. revising this directive provides an opportune moment to compel travel and airline companies to provide better transparency, and we must take this opportunity to do so. mr president, commissioner dalli, i would firstly like to give you a warm welcome on behalf of the alde group. you have already said that you are planning a revision of the directive we are talking about. we can indeed be glad that we live in europe, as in europe in the european parliament, we can even discuss how we can go away on trips with ferrets and other pets. that was the previous debate and i was delighted and proud to be a european because we can even regulate something like that for the protection of consumers and animals. now, however, we are talking about people travelling. that is an important right in europe. we want mobility and freedom of movement for people and we have considered how we can ensure that. twenty years ago, we had the directive regulating package tours, so that you could say to yourself 'i can go and explore other countries, see the beauties of other countries in europe and know exactly that my rights protect me'. i will be informed in advance on what to expect, i will not be misled, the information must be right and if something does not work, i will receive compensation. that was 20 years ago. as you said, commissioner, a lot has changed since then. now people are frequently booking on the internet themselves and that then leads to loopholes in the system. six months ago, we in the transport committee put a question to the transport commissioner because in the context of skyeurope in slovakia, we had the case of passengers with low-cost flights being stranded and not being transported further. here it was actually a matter of a small loophole, which only affected those who had booked on the internet without a credit card, but we do want people to be able to move freely in europe, so that they can actually enjoy their holidays and are protected at the same time. that means if we have loopholes in the system in terms of consumer protection and if we want to have a high standard of consumer protection for people in europe, then we need a revision of this package travel directive and we must also consider whether is it necessary - as my fellow member has already mentioned - to have a special regulation for air passengers. we still have to discuss this and i am already looking forward to this with great expectation, as we want to be able to travel happily and safely, not just with animals, but, of course, also with our families. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as our new commissioner has already said, the legislative framework is no longer suited to today's reality of a greatly changed travel market, which has given rise to very many problems and a great deal of frustration, not only among consumers but also among travel agents and tour operators. it is clear that the number of people still enjoying effective protection under the existing directive has fallen tremendously even though more people are travelling. indeed, the european parliament has been calling for a revision of the directive for years. as you said, the sticking points and possible solutions are well known. another consultation has just been completed. in my opinion, it really is now high time we took the plunge. i welcome the commission statement, but i should just like to identify a number of specific points that are very important to us. firstly, the scope of the directive must certainly be clarified and even extended. as we have already heard, more and more consumers are putting together dynamic travel packages or booking separate travel services. just recently, as a result of the problems with the eurostar, we saw thousands of tourists running into problems because they were not given any compensation for hotels or theatre tickets they had booked. this kind of thing is unacceptable. in my opinion, passengers' rights must also be given a clear place in the directive. we do have to take sufficient account of the widely differing travel markets and differing holiday practices of consumers in the various member states and of national case-law, of course, but harmonisation is required, as some concepts differ greatly, such as that of the tour operator, the agent and force majeure. i read in the consultation held by the commission in 2007 that, in fact, very detailed feedback came in from the industry and the stakeholders, and so i ask myself what the problem is. why are we not taking a decision now? there have also been calls for a kind of 'travel protection label'. i should have liked to hear the commissioner's opinion on this. my second point concerns the role and responsibility of travel agents. this needs to be defined much more clearly, as consumers are inundated with information via the internet but this is far from reliable and can even cause significant harm: in extreme cases, people have paid rent for holiday apartments that do not even exist. therefore, the role of travel agents should be regulated much more precisely. we have already discussed bankruptcies. in a parliament resolution, this house made a very clear call for the passengers affected to be better protected. living as i do in a border region between flanders and the netherlands, i also wish to call for particular attention to cross-border sales, as protection is often limited to the travel contract entered into in a particular member state. my final point concerns consumer information on prices. in most other sectors, the prices of services sold must be fixed and all inclusive, and this should also apply to travel services. do you share this view? i should have liked to hear your views on this. consumer rights must be clarified and stricter and more specific information requirements must apply in the case also of force majeure and a change in the range of travel services offered. perhaps we should also consider introducing sanctions in the new directive. i hope the commission will get to grips with this very soon and present us with a new proposal to discuss in this house. mr president, the eu package travel directive, which we are debating today, comes from the year 1990, 20 years ago, and so from the times when the most popular form of holiday was a two-week package tour, reserved, usually, in a travel agency and chosen from among the offers remaining in the brochure. the directive provides for fundamental means of consumer protection in the case of this type of package, which includes, principally, clear information about the packages being offered, the right to withdraw from the trip, compensation for services of lower standard than agreed and matters related to the insolvency of travel agencies. the problem is that in the last 20 years, there has been a complete change, both in the business model and in the pattern of consumer behaviour. i, myself, reserve most of my holiday trips via the internet, very many people in poland do the same, and in the european union as a whole, the proportion of people who book their trips in this way has now reached 23%. there are countries, such as ireland and sweden, in which this proportion is as high as 40%, while almost two-thirds of the people who buy their holidays in this way do not realise that their interests are protected to a significantly lower degree than in the case of people who still buy holidays in the traditional way. we should fight this. i am pleased that the european commission has, at last, raised this matter. i think 20 years is definitely too long. i hope that, today, we will hear from the commission specifically when the directive will be revised and what direction the revision will take. for it must not be the case that in the european parliament or in other eu institutions, we encourage citizens of the union to use the services of e-commerce and also to buy services in cross-border trade, while at the same time not offering the same protection to the people who do this. (de) mr president, it is certainly not only differences in consumer protection, but also language differences which, until now, have made package tours to other member states difficult. it is already 15 years since the european union created fundamental basic protection as well as common procedures. in my opinion, the revision of these procedures must not get out of hand to the effect that they are subject to blanket standardisation in the name of the freedom to provide services. travel needs themselves may vary from country to country. in general, i also consider it dangerous to measure everything by the same yardstick and campaign for enforced conformity everywhere. if we want travel agents to assume greater liability as travel intermediaries, we must be aware that this may have serious economic consequences. if we want to avoid killing off small local travel agents with the simultaneous uncontrolled growth of online travel, then the tour operator should primarily be made liable. the relatively satisfactory protection on package holidays will hopefully reassure those holidaymakers who are worried by the current negative headlines about greece. further announcements of strikes and protests could intensify the tendency to avoid other mediterranean countries and the price collapse in relation to greece. the state's debt crisis guarantees that this will be a critical year for greek tourism, this we know. we can expect further strikes and protests. hopefully, we will be spared the experience of discovering how travel protection would function in a case of national bankruptcy. (hu) i would like to draw the attention of my fellow members to the excellent objective mentioned during his hearing by the new commissioner for transport, siim kallas. to my mind, what i heard impressed me as an excellent principle: the free movement of people is one of the most important freedoms. to this end, we need to integrate the rights concerning the various modes of transport and incorporate them into one integrated charter. we need transparent systems. i would like to remark that this topic is included among the priorities of the spanish presidency. why is this so important? it is important because the 20-year-old directive fails in every area to take into account the rights of people living with disabilities when they are travelling, even when they are travelling in groups. people living with disabilities are given no opportunities whatsoever. that is why i come back to my remark at the beginning. an integrated charter of passengers' rights would enable everyone - including people living with disabilities - to make use of transportation services, including group travel services. when this becomes a reality, we will truly be able to say that in the european union, everyone can travel freely. (ro) the package travel directive encompasses transport and accommodation services, along with other related services provided through package holidays. it also sets out consumers' rights and the responsibilities of distributors and tourism service providers. the 1990 directive fails to take into account new trends, such as buying package holidays and making payments via the internet. the rise in the level of internet use and the emergence of low-cost operators have made 23% of european tourists and 20% of european households buy customised package holidays via specialist websites. the directive must therefore be revised to include within its remit suppliers of 'dynamic' package holidays as well. consumers must be fully informed about their rights and about how these rights are guaranteed by each of the offerings available, both for the complete package holiday and each component individually. i also feel that it is important that websites which offer travel services are accredited. this will help guarantee that the identity of the tourism service provider can be recognised and, by extension, there will be a clear assumption of responsibility for the information and services provided. the study published by the commission in january 2009 on package holidays organised at the customer's request, known as 'dynamic packages', indicates that the proportion of package holidays purchased online rose by 12% in 2009, even though their value only accounts for 25% of the total value of tourism services sold. 66% of the transactions made online involve direct purchases via the websites of airline operators, travel agents or via specialist websites offering last-minute travel deals. tourists prefer dynamic packages because they offer greater flexibility, lower prices compared to traditional package holidays and a higher quality of service, or because they cannot find traditional package holidays to meet their requirements. in addition, the dynamic package holidays purchased can only be paid for using online payment methods. however, approximately 70% of the complaints received last year by the european consumer centres network related to tourism services and were due to the incorrect and incomplete provision of information prior to and during the trip, the provision of services falling below the standards advertised, flight cancellations or delays, and even to failure to provide the services purchased. i think therefore that it is important and necessary to review this directive. thank you. mr president, i want to thank the commissioner very much, both on behalf of our group, but also as the chairman of the committee on the internal market and consumer protection, for making a very timely appearance before us this evening, and also for having responded so quickly to the oral question from my committee on 3 december which set out a number of areas which he has answered very comprehensively. i think that we have some time available now, as the commission is putting its ideas together, in which my committee and, i am sure, the committee on transport, whose representatives are here as well, will want to reflect together about many of the issues that you have raised and how this is going to move forward. i think that, given the nature and change of the whole of the travel and holiday business, and many of the issues raised by colleagues tonight, the new directive needs to be clearly future-proofed, but that means it does not need to be too rigid in terms of trying to anticipate consumer needs. however, one thing i do think the commission needs to think about is that there are other aspects that online consumers need to consider when they are shopping for travel; issues about the safety of the hotel, if they have young children, a safe swimming pool, for example, or the fire safety of the hotel, where my committee has done extensive work before. we need some proper indicators and markers there, which may be done by voluntary agreement, but i do think that this needs to be a wide-ranging and ambitious proposal. i get a sense from this that this is what you would like to do, and i think my committee would give you full support in coming up with such a proposal. (nl) mr president, this is one of those dossiers where the european union can indeed provide tangible added value by affording a kind of protection to the millions of people in the eu who go on holiday in europe and purchase travel services there. cross-border problems call for a cross-border strategy and approach. all of us here agree that the 1990 directive is hopelessly outdated. twenty years ago, most people chose trips from a travel brochure and then went to a local travel agency to book them. nowadays, more and more people are putting their holidays together themselves and booking trips on the internet. in addition, there are relatively new phenomena such as the emergence of the low-cost air carriers and the growth of the cruise industry. well, then, what do i believe to be the essential components of this new directive? firstly, a definition of the scope of the directive; in short, what kinds of package travel are covered? secondly, a precise definition of legal liability and, last but not least, far-reaching consumer protection in the event of operator bankruptcy. only if there are watertight rules for these things will the revision have succeeded and better protection be afforded to millions of eu consumers. (mt) i would like to seize the opportunity to extend my welcome to commissioner dalli for this, his first session, in this parliament. indeed, as has already been stated, in recent years, there has been a substantial decline in travel bookings via travel agencies and an increase in package tours purchased online. what consumers do not realise is the fact that travel packages purchased online offer limited protection which is much lower than that provided by travel agencies. on the other hand, packages offered by agencies carry added costs in order to ensure compliance with this directive, while those purchased online do not carry such expenses. for these reasons, i believe that this directive is failing to protect consumers and is also creating an imbalance between operators in the travel industry. in order to ensure that this goes on, i appeal to the commission to ensure equal protection on all packages irrespective of where such packages are purchased, so as to protect consumer rights which i know are of paramount importance for the commissioner. therefore, in the context of the revision of the directive, it should be ensured that definitions and terminology are clarified and updated; these include the definition of the consumer, the seller, the operator and essential contractual terms as well as, as was previously stated, the scope of the directive itself. in my opinion, it should be solely the operator who should comply with the directive, irrespective of how the package is sold, whether directly or via an agency. the operator should be the entity which sells or offers for sale at least one of the services included in the package in its name and which provides access by whatever means to the other services included in the package. i believe that this is a clear example of how i think commissioner john dalli will be working in the coming years; we have here clear proof of how the consumer will be given all the rights he merits. (cs) commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the revision of the package travel directive must respond to a series of new challenges in the area of tourism, especially in connection with the development of new technologies which have influenced ways of communicating and selling services. this mainly concerns sales over the internet, which, among other things, has facilitated the dramatic growth in budget airlines. every challenge has its opportunities and risks. the opportunities include greater flexibility and access to services for customers, while there is a possible risk in the insufficient level of protection for consumers. several months ago, the committee on transport and tourism questioned the commission in response to a series of bankruptcies of budget airlines. in these circumstances, we have witnessed the situation of passengers being stranded in airports without money and struggling to make alternative arrangements for their return journeys. this is only one of the examples of insufficient protection for consumers/airline passengers. the commission should find a solution that will deal effectively with the situation in the foreseeable future to assist consumers and to boost confidence in the sector. the holiday season will begin in a few months and we certainly do not want to again experience problems similar to the collapse of the skyeurope company last year. however, the consultation with the commission over this directive has also uncovered other issues. their common denominator is the need to strengthen consumer protection, especially through better levels of awareness on the part of customers concerning the real terms and the price of services. i would like to conclude with one more remark, which applies generally to public consultations with the european commission on various themes. i consider it important for these consultations to be implemented in all eu member state languages, if we really want to discover a broad spectrum of views on a given topic. in this sense, it is eu citizens who are clients with rights to information and for whom we wish to revise the package travel directive. mr president, i would just like to comment on the third point of the oral question this evening on airline bankruptcy. a recent resolution in this house called for the establishment of a guarantee fund that would be used to compensate passengers in case of airline bankruptcy. however, the establishment of such a fund would inevitably have to be funded by the consumer, meaning passengers would be required to pay even more for their tickets. at this stage, this is an unnecessary step and would add to the sizeable list of existing airport taxes, security charges and other duties that they are already forced to pay. in addition, the commission should ensure that the national aviation authorities and regulators uphold existing obligations, such as regularly carrying out financial status checks of airlines and exercising their right to revoke airline operating licences before liquidation occurs. we ask the commission to vigorously pursue this course of action now. finally, i would call on the commission to pursue other options which could protect passengers in this regard, including the provision of obligatory information regarding risk, insurance options and other protective mechanisms. mr president, i think we all applauded when the former commissioner for consumer affairs announced on 29 august 2009 that the current directive is totally out of date and does not meet the challenges or the demands of the modern travelling public. why is it out of date? well, these reasons have been enumerated here this evening, but they are worth looking at again. it was fine in its own time but now it is certainly not equipped to meet the modern challenges of the travelling public. it does not consider consumers self-packaging their holidays, and that has become increasingly the trend. it does not cover consumers based in one country purchasing from suppliers based outside the jurisdiction of the european union. it does not cover scheduled airlines, and more and more people are now arranging their own package holidays by virtue of the fact that they have easy access to the internet. indeed, over the past number of years, the proportion of holidays that are protected has fallen from about 90% to about 60%. in other words, the current measures do not extend to online travel firms selling foreign holidays with flights and hotels as separate components, a practice referred to by the industry as 'dynamic packaging'. we pride ourselves on having a lot of achievements within the eu, and we laud ourselves - quite rightly - on our achievements, but, when you look at the current situation in relation to travel protection, the european union has the least integrated market for travel services of any modern trading bloc. there is also considerable confusion as to who accepts liability and when a customer is covered. for example, additional security can be obtained by someone using a credit card, but not if the billing is taking place, for example, in my own country, the republic of ireland. and because of the diversity of products in the marketplace today, a blurring has occurred between airlines, tour operators, cruise operators, agencies and so on, so the new legislation is urgently needed. what we need is a vastly improved, modern piece of technology by way of the implementation of a new directive to cover all the contingencies. we need clarification, we need certainty, and we need protection for the consumer. (pl) i support revision of the package travel directive. the directive is 20 years old and does not reflect the realities of today. today, over half of all consumers organise their trips by themselves, often using the internet and the offers of cheap airlines. members who have spoken before me have talked about this. not all of them, however, have drawn attention to the fact that the scope of the directive needs to be defined clearly. we cannot allow a situation in which we do not know what comes under the directive. such a situation is not good either for consumers or for business. furthermore, i do not think it is necessary to extend the scope of the directive to include individual products or packages made up from products bought from different suppliers, for extending the directive's requirements to cover dynamic packages or affiliate sales would ultimately mean the consumer would pay in the form of a more expensive ticket. i do not imagine that, for example, a hotel stay bought after clicking on wizz hotels just after buying a ticket from wizz air would constitute a package which would come under the requirements of the directive. consumers must know, in the case of a specific journey, if, and to what extent, they are protected by eu law. all the rest is a matter for the free market. it would be a good idea to mark journeys covered by the directive with a special european logo. (de) mr president, i am from austria, a country for which tourism and the tourist economy continue to play a very important role. almost every one of us is involved in an area of tourism in some way or other. therefore, this question is rather important for our country and i am very pleased that the commission is tackling this issue right at the start of the legislative period - and i would like to extend my thanks to the commissioner in this regard. freedom of travel and travel possibilities mean that purely in quantitative terms, there is a very different level of importance than perhaps twenty or more years ago. the possibilities offered by the internet have also led to the emergence of a completely different kind of travel behaviour. it is, however, all the more important that, if they can afford a proper holiday during the crisis, our citizens can also return from this holiday satisfied. if they should experience a problem, then they should at least get back some of their hard earned money. it is, of course, tempting to make bookings over the internet; we know this and it is also cheaper. however, no traveller will be persuaded that if he books a hotel through a travel agent, he will be treated completely differently from someone who has booked it on the internet and that, above all, any compensation claims will be handled completely differently. finally, another small problem. obviously nobody can see that there are divergences in the guarantee, which treat the tour operator completely differently from the airline. the latter is only liable if its guilt is proven. anyone who has already experienced this problem knows that this is a major problem which you can normally only consider tackling with very good legal cover. i therefore hope very much that the commission will put a proposal before us which takes these problems into consideration and, above all, thinks of our citizens, who have a right to a trouble-free holiday and particularly at this time. (el) mr president, it is true that widespread use of the internet nowadays allows consumers to change the way in which they plan things, even down to their holidays. in other words, they have the facility, via the internet, not to buy ready packages, as we have learned to do in the past, and to pick and choose how they wish to plan their holidays. of course, now that several parties are involved, the question arises as to who is responsible in the event that there is a problem with the service and from whom the consumer will ultimately claim compensation. my fellow members rightly raised this matter and we need to find answers and to update the directive which we have applied to date. this is also crucial for greece which, as you know, is a tourist destination, and the more clearly we define who is responsible in each instance (the greek hotelier or the travel agency or anyone involved in the procedure), the more we shall be able to rely on everyone trading in the tourist sector. i should like to close by saying that legal protection for european citizens is crucial. at the same time, commissioner, we have a duty to inform everyone who chooses to holiday in a european country of the rights which they have had to date and, more importantly, to inform them of the loopholes and of the improvements we want to make. all this is important, but citizens need to know about it in order to exercise these rights. (el) mr president, almost everything has been said. however, i should like to focus on four points. this directive is twenty years old. for a woman, twenty is an excellent age. for a directive, twenty means it is in need of a facelift. that is because four things have entered our lives: the first is the internet. now that the internet has entered our lives, we can choose to holiday in the furthest corner of the world without thinking twice about it. however, when we get there, we may find that perhaps we should have thought twice. the second is prices. consumers have both an obligation and a right to know if the prices which they have to choose between are legal or if there is unfair competition. the third is quality. accommodation which may be considered exceptional in one member state may be considered average by a citizen from another member state. finally, there is the question of security. as people work very hard to save for holidays, we must make them feel secure. that is what we want from the new directive. mr president, many colleagues have pointed out the necessity of having this review, and the sooner the better. they have particularly mentioned the value to the consumer - and that is absolutely correct - but benefiting the consumer does not mean it is going to affect industry: it can benefit both industry and the consumer. i particularly have in mind the fact that over the next few years, we are going to have two million people passing the age of 60 in the european union. that gives a great opportunity to the industry to tap in to what those people would like to do in terms of travel, particularly travel without hassle. if this directive is all-inclusive and offers full protection, it is a great opportunity for the industry to tap into the over-60s in this european union, which would be of great benefit to them. i think, therefore, that, like the timeshare directive, this can be seen as a win-win situation both for the consumer and also for the industry. (de) mr president, commissioner, i am the mother of a large family and over many long years, have learnt to study brochures. it is a great challenge, a challenge that sometimes even those employed in the travel agents are not up to. that is why i would like this new directive to give me real freedom of choice as a consumer. i will only have freedom of choice when comparability is possible, when i have the criteria to compare different offers with one another. for me, one of these criteria is the age of the children. whichever tour operator we are talking about, there are fixed prices for children. sometimes, this affects six year olds, then ten year olds, next time twelve year olds. with some operators, the first child is not worth as much as the second, and the third and fourth do not exist at all. it is important for the protection of consumers - as well as for the protection of travel agents and operators - that as a consumer, i know what i am buying, so that i feel really well informed beforehand and have comparable criteria. mr president, i would like to add my support to what colleagues have said on the rights of disabled travellers, what ms kadenbach said about children, the issue of fire safety in hotels and, in particular, the issue of sprinkler safety in all eu hotels, and the need to future-proof the new proposal. who could have predicted the rate of change that we have seen in the past 20 years? there are, however, two specific issues that i would like to raise. we have heard about the issue of credit card charging, and there has been discussion on hidden charges. however, airline and travel companies are exploiting the fact that more people use their credit cards to book due to the protection they receive from using them, by placing double credit card charges for each leg of our journey or placing credit card charges on passengers for one online booking. you might have one online booking, but you are charged four times for using your credit card because you have four passengers involved. commissioner, could you please look at this in order that people are protected. there is, finally, the issue of bankruptcy. in scotland, we saw the demise of globespan, and we must ensure that people are compensated and that no one loses out. after all, this is the biggest budget expense many families have in a year and they expect us to protect them. we need to do more so thank you, commissioner. (lt) over the last two decades, the travel market has developed in a very dynamic manner. more and more people are making their own travel arrangements by purchasing services from various operators and service providers. however, the provisions of the directive currently in force do not apply to these new travel packages, and this means that our citizens are travelling without proper protection. i think that while revising the directive, it is necessary to define more accurately its scope and we should not allow inflexible rules to leave our citizens without appropriate protection. moreover, the question of liability must be resolved in cases where air carriers or travel service providers go bankrupt. over the last decade, more than 70 airlines have gone bankrupt, leaving travellers in the dark. therefore, i believe that this matter must be highlighted clearly when we review the provisions of the directive. member of the commission. - mr president, i have listened to the views of the honourable members with great interest. many of you have affirmed the direction being taken by the commission. others have underlined and emphasised many points that we have noted to make sure that they are all taken into consideration in the deliberations and discussions that we will be having on this revision of the directive. i would like to assure you that the commission takes these issues very seriously and is determined to find the best solutions for the way forward. we are now in the middle of a consultation process. we are analysing the feedback we gathered from the recent online public consultation. consumers, businesses, organisations and member states have all contributed. moreover, i can inform you that the commission will host a stakeholders' workshop on 22 april 2010. this workshop will focus on possible policy options for the revision of the package travel directive, including all the issues that have been mentioned during this debate. i must stress that it is, as yet, too early to decide the way forward. it is essential to respect the impact assessment procedure. however, i am determined that any action should aim at ensuring a high level of protection for the eu's citizens. before i close, may i once again thank all those present for contributing to this debate. thank you very much. the debate is closed.

8. access to sis ii by the services responsible for issuing vehicle registration certificates (vote) - before the vote: rapporteur. - (pt) mr president, the council could not attend the monday debate and has just issued a statement. i feel it is right that parliament should issue its response to the council's statement through your rapporteur. if i may, mr president, i should just like to make two very simple remarks. firstly, i wish to congratulate the presidency on its work on this matter, and, like the presidency, i believe that parliament can be pleased with the fact that the act that we are about to adopt will help strengthen our external borders, and will help increase our citizens' security. the presidency contributed a great deal to this process, but the council, as such, did not. the council did not honour its undertakings in the trialogue in may here in strasbourg. i hope that the council does not do to the finnish presidency what it did to the austrian presidency. hopefully, it will honour its commitments and adopt the document in the form in which we are set to adopt it, because this is the only way in which we will have an agreement at first reading and in which the second generation schengen information system will enter into force without delay.

enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries (debate) the next item is the debate on the question for oral answer to the commission on the enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries from mrs bearder, mrs ek, mr ouzk, mr seeber, mrs kla and mrs harms on behalf of the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe, the european conservatives and reformists, the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) and the group of the greens/european free alliance - b7-0217/2011) and the question for oral answer to the commission on the enforcement of regulations on the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries from mrs wils, mrs liotard, mrs de brn, mr ferreira, mrs matias and mr chountis on behalf of the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left - b7-0218/2011). author. - mr president, does the commissioner not consider that, if any of us woke up one morning to find our rich neighbours had dumped their toxic rubbish in our front yard, we would be furious? yet that is what the eu is doing every day. every year tonnes of toxic waste is shipped from the eu to developing countries against european environmental law, smuggled through ports with very weak controls. almost three quarters of electric waste in the eu is unaccounted for and only one third of electronic waste is treated according to eu legislation. in the uk the average briton throws away four pieces of electronic waste every year. that is 500 000 tonnes of broken tvs, computers and phones, but over half of this is not recorded as being recycled - it just disappears - and that is only in my own country. the export of controlled waste from the eu for disposal is prohibited under current legislations, yet annually illegal shipments from the eu are thought to average about 22 000 tonnes. the weee directive states that exported electronic items must be in working order. however, this relies on effective eu-wide inspection policies which are clearly missing. this waste contains lead, cadmium, barium, mercury, brominated flame retardants and other chemicals and plastics that become hazardous when burned. burning is often the cheapest method to recover these valuable metals as adults and children scramble over the dumps of rubbish in their quest to earn a few cents. we cannot ignore the environmental and health impacts of this scandal which affects the most vulnerable. frankly, as a european, i am ashamed. i thank the commissioner for the answers and the responses, but we need to know the specifics of how he is going to close this loophole in the waste shipment regulation. does the commission have any plans to address the tonnes of eu waste already dumped in african countries? does the waste shipment regulation need to be revised or is it just a matter of enforcement? this is an urgent problem and action needs to be taken now. i await your response. deputising for the author. - (da) mr president, i am pleased that so many of my fellow members are aware that our waste does not simply disappear of its own accord, but unfortunately often ends up out in the wider world where no one deals with it properly. there is actually nothing new about this, of course. a great many european countries started to send their discarded ferries filled with asbestos to india many years ago, where bare-foot workers separated old iron from the hazardous components on an open shore - as they still do today. an even worse situation is that of the african children who sit on the ground and separate out our electrical waste right down to the individual components. is this acceptable? no, of course it is not. however, the eu lacks reasonable and realistic means to enforce the sound regulations that were laid down as long ago as 12 july 2006. the directive is enforced via the individual member states, as stated in article 50 of the same regulation, but some states turn a blind eye when it comes to this enforcement. something has to be done, however, because 70 million tonnes of hazardous waste per year - and rising - is no trifling matter. i therefore have another question in addition to the written questions that the commission has already received, and that is: has the commission considered utilising special port areas for unloading hazardous waste in selected ports? that would provide better means of control in general. could the commission envisage carrying out some publicity work to encourage eu citizens to take their hazardous waste to specific places in the member states? it is extremely important to make our citizens aware of the problem, because without their help in the struggle to manage hazardous waste we will get nowhere. author. - (de) mr president, mr barnier, it is not just in the banking sector that we have regulations that do not work, but also in the environmental area. although we have a regulation covering the shipping of waste dating back to 2006, this does not work because there is an increasing trend towards shipping hazardous waste beyond the eu's borders, in particular to developing countries where the proper disposal of these hazardous substances cannot be guaranteed. this cavalier approach to disposal leads to environmental and health problems in these countries that can cause many fatalities in extreme cases. in addition, here in the european union, we are discarding valuable resources. part of the 2020 strategy includes a strategy on resources and waste is one of our resources. we should make every effort to improve our research activities in this area so that valuable materials can be segregated at the end of the product lifecycle. in a speech on 7 april of this year, your colleague, commissioner potonik, announced that, despite the commission having avoided this issue and done nothing for many years, he intended presenting a communication in the autumn of this year in which he would tackle the problem, in particular with regard to implementation of existing regulations and an improved inspection system, as well as a broadening of the scientific base. commissioner, i would like to know whether this communication is already being prepared by the commission services. in other speeches, commissioner potonik also referred to a new agency. although we already have a large number of official bodies, he is obviously thinking of a way to strengthen the control of the member states' authorities in this area. i would like to know how things stand in this area, because at present it would seem that we are unable to resolve this problem. what steps does the commission intend to pursue in this area? deputising for the author. - (fi) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the poor implementation of the waste shipments regulation has been a serious problem for a long time now. this has been emphasised by the european union network for the implementation and enforcement of environmental law since 2003, and it has made clear proposals for improvements. the commission, however, has done virtually nothing, unless you count the many studies it has conducted and its proposal for a new renewables directive. for more than 10 years now, parliament has been calling for tighter controls, including legislation on european inspections: for minimum criteria for inspections in mr jackson's report in 1999, for legislative reform for shipments of waste in mr blokland's report in 2003, and for minimum criteria for inspections in the 2008 resolution. all these the commission has mainly just ignored. in 2006, we were shocked by the massive trafigura scandal, when huge quantities of toxic waste were dumped in cte d'ivoire. the then commissioner for the environment, stavros dimas, promised to look for ways to strengthen the waste shipments regulation and its implementation in the member states, but nothing concrete happened. two years ago, a commission study recommended that a special agency should be set up for the implementation of legislation on waste. it would execute numerous tasks, such as checking the investigation systems in place in member states and coordinating controls and inspections, but no proposal was put forward. last year, a commission study came to the conclusion that the best option would be a legal instrument governing the criteria for inspections, but no proposal was put forward, although commissioner potonik has said that the implementation of eu environmental legislation is his priority. now i would ask the commission when it actually intends to introduce proper measures, instead of just conducting more studies. when will we have a proper legislative proposal, and not just communications and studies? as my colleague mr seeber said, this would also improve europe's resource efficiency. author. - (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, illegal waste exports and the illegal disposal of waste pose an increasing threat to the health and environment of millions of people in developing countries. the volume of toxic waste is continuously increasing in the eu. because of the high cost of recycling and disposing of waste, there is an enormous temptation to ship this waste to countries with less stringent environmental controls and lower disposal costs. i am pleased to find that this problem is accepted by all sides of the house and hope that parliament will take a concerted approach to this issue. the legal loopholes that permit these hazardous exports must be closed. the existing regulations on the shipment of toxic waste to developing countries must be tightened up and enforced. we need a legislative proposal for environmental inspections, something that parliament already called for in 2008, so that ships can be inspected effectively by the authorities in the local ports. this must also be linked with the possibility of impounding ships in ports throughout the eu if there are grounds to suspect breaches of the law. we propose that this should be reinforced in a joint resolution by all sides of the house. the entry of waste into the eu must also be better controlled. off the coast of calabria, just a few miles away from the port of cetraro, there is a sunken vessel known for carrying highly toxic waste. it is assumed that many other toxic waste transporters have been sunk just off the coast in the tyrrhenian sea. this example illustrates the need for transparency in the shipment of waste and for reliable official inspections. mr president, honourable members, firstly, my colleague and friend mr potonik sends his apologies, as he is in new york this evening for the signing of an important agreement - the nagoya agreement - on biodiversity. nevertheless, i am pleased to have been given the opportunity to stand in for him, or to try to do so anyway, since the issue you are discussing is one that has always interested me, ladies and gentlemen. i was environment minister in my own country and i have not forgotten the efforts that we made, during my first mandate as commissioner around 10 years ago, to begin to address this extremely serious issue with parliament. the waste shipments regulation prohibits exports of hazardous waste to developing countries, as well as exports outside the union and the european free trade association (efta) countries of waste intended for disposal. however, we know - and you have pointed it out - that the efforts made to enforce this ban vary greatly between member states. operators often seek to benefit from inadequate inspections in order to get round the ban and smuggle the waste through other member states where the inspections are less rigorous, as you said. furthermore, false declarations are often used to export waste as second-hand goods, which complicates the work of the authorities responsible for monitoring and enforcing the rules. then there is the obviously low treatment cost in third countries, which is the main economic factor encouraging or driving these illegal shipments. there is also the very serious situation of countries that receive, so to speak, this waste, these illegal shipments, which cause significant pollution of the air, water, soil and homes, and which threaten - as you said a moment ago, mrs wils, and as mrs bearder and mrs rosbach said with the same emotion before you - people's health, and particularly children's health, which is the most shocking of all, as well as the health of workers and of a large proportion of the population. the already toxic nature of the hazardous substances contained in waste often poses a further increased risk when inappropriate waste management techniques are used, which is often the case in these countries of destination. furthermore, illegal shipments of waste to third countries obviously have an adverse effect on trade and competition since, economically speaking, businesses that comply with the legislation evidently face competition and are put at a disadvantage. the european recycling and waste management sector, which is bound to comply with the eu's rigorous environmental legislation, is a dynamic one. it has a healthy eur 95 billion turnover. it provides, or supports, 1.2 to 1.5 million jobs and accounts for 1% of gdp, and this waste management and recycling sector, which operates by the rules, is also competing with, and put at a disadvantage by, these illegal shipments. effective enforcement of the waste shipments regulation at eu level would encourage this sector, i believe, to invest and to create even more jobs in the future. illegal waste shipments and poor quality recycling also lead to a loss of resources, since secondary raw materials can go a long way towards meeting europe's raw material requirements, and can also improve the effectiveness and use of resources. on the basis of this diagnosis, then, we need to improve the situation. that is why the commission has sought to find out whether additional legislative measures need to be taken at eu level and, if so, which new, specific requirements and criteria they would include for waste shipment inspections. we are currently completing an impact assessment of the various possible approaches to resolving the problem that i just mentioned, including national inspection and mandatory national risk assessment plans and programmes, as well as more targeted training for national officials responsible for enforcing the provisions and, on the other side of the coin, for proving that those who declare waste to be second-hand goods are doing so fraudulently. i should like to conclude, mr president, by raising the following points in response to some specific questions. firstly, it is possible to circumvent the waste shipments regulation by claiming that the articles being exported are second-hand goods rather than waste. the main problem is that the member states are not implementing the inspection requirements properly. to remedy this, the regulation needs to be supplemented by more detailed rules on national inspections. the legislative measures should be accompanied by adequate training for officials in charge of enforcing the rules, as i said. secondly, non-legally binding guidelines at eu level could support and facilitate the implementation and enforcement of the waste shipments regulation, particularly by customs officers, and thus help to combat illegal activities. however, guidelines alone will not be enough. we also need binding rules to combat this problem. thirdly, waste production has increased or stabilised in recent years. waste management is improving throughout the union, and recycling has increased over the last five years. yet what is remarkable today is the great disparities between the member states with regard to the implementation of our waste requirements. the commission, ladies and gentlemen, is conscious of the environmental, economic, social, human and public health consequences of illegal waste shipments, and the probo koala affair, in which several people died after being exposed to hazardous waste illegally dumped in cte d'ivoire, is one of the worst examples in living memory, and here too there are lessons to be learnt. the commission has launched numerous studies on this issue, and the results of these investigations can be consulted on our website. once illegal shipments of waste have been detected, there are measures laid down in the regulation to remedy the situation. the waste must be sent back to its country of origin, pursuant to eu legislation and international law. if the companies responsible cannot be located, the country of origin in the union must pay a fee to have the waste repatriated and treated. in some cases, member states have to bear costs in excess of eur 1 million. in the probo koala affair, which i mentioned a moment ago, the company trafigura had to pay the equivalent of eur 152 million in clean-up costs and eur 33 million in compensation to the residents of the affected towns. lastly, i should like to say to mr seeber that, as far as i am aware, mr potonik promised to present that communication on the implementation and enforcement of eu law and he is in the process of drafting it. mr president, many of us are outraged at the fact that, despite a comprehensive public debate on this, europe is still dumping hazardous waste in poorer countries. as many here have already said, we are right to be outraged. not only do we use products that exhaust and damage the environment and then also fail to deal with them properly once we no longer want them, we also dump the hazardous waste, which damages the health of innocent people, often children, and makes the land and water in other countries toxic for generations to come. that is absolutely unacceptable. how can this be allowed to continue? we have legislation and we have a ban in place, but it is not working. therefore, the commission must now propose amendments. of course, the best solution, as always, would be for there not to be any hazardous waste. the extensive work that we have carried out to identify and phase out hazardous chemicals, within reach for example, is therefore important in this case, too. since the ban on the export of hazardous waste is not working, i think that we should be especially pleased that we have strengthened the legislation concerning waste electrical and electronic equipment (weee) by setting high collection targets. however, knowing how poor the member states' compliance with the export ban is, there are good reasons for the commission also to closely monitor the member states' actions with regard to weee and other legislation stipulating how this type of product should be dealt with. as many people have said, including the commission, we need some form of clarification and simplification of what rules actually apply when it comes to the shipping of toxic waste to developing countries, so that it will be easier for the police and other border control officers to take measures to deal with the crimes against the environment that the export of hazardous waste actually entails. however, we just as surely need the member states to give higher priority to this matter. i think the fact that the member states are failing in their responsibility to check their compliance with eu legislation is a constantly recurring issue. it is very clear here that the member states are not fulfilling their obligations. the member states must take greater responsibility, and we expect the commission to ensure that they do. what you have presented here today, mr barnier, seems to me to be a definite step in the right direction. once we are able to see the whole communication we will be able to decide whether or not we think the number of steps taken are sufficient. thank you. - (cs) mr president, the exponential growth in the volume of waste from european manufacturing and consumption looks like a time bomb, both in the eu and in the developing countries to which hazardous waste is exported, much of it illegally. commissioner, i welcomed your communication of the commission's specific desire to remove the gaps in the legislation relatively soon. along with the speakers who came before me, however, i believe there is little desire on the part of member states, in particular, to invest in controls and to introduce sufficiently harsh penalties for breaches of the existing rules. as the vice-chair of the delegation to the acp-eu joint parliamentary assembly, i believe we also need to establish a common strategy with the acp countries for the fight against illegal imports of toxic waste to these countries, and in particular action plans for introducing a system for the safe management of waste in african countries, including support for recycling technology. (hu) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the seemingly strict eu regulation concerning hazardous waste has many loopholes in practice, which can be eminently used by organised groups of criminals and the hazardous waste mafia. illegal disposal of toxic waste classed as hazardous has become one of the most lucrative businesses. one reason for this is the extremely high cost of legal disposal and recycling; another reason is the over-bureaucratisation of obtaining legal licences. the solution has to be bi-directional: the administrative burdens of enterprises that recycle and dispose of hazardous waste legally has to be relieved, and of course in parallel, producers of hazardous waste should be encouraged to choose the legal course and made interested in restraining the hazardous waste mafia. on the other hand, criminal law sanctions for environmental crimes must be radically tightened, and inspection must be uniformly increased at eu level. - (sk) mr president, it is a quarter to midnight and we are debating a serious matter: the exporting of toxic waste to developing countries. it is scandalous that european countries in the modern age are engaging in the kind of activity we saw in the oscar-winning film erin brockovich, which featured julia roberts, and where we saw that only in california could something like this happen, with factories exporting toxic waste and people then falling seriously ill and even dying. it is a very sad fact that eu member states export their toxic waste to african countries that are almost powerless to prevent this, and it includes toxic elements such as lead, cadmium, mercury, asbestos and others. in my opinion it is good that the commission wants to continue working on this. i would like to call on commissioner barnier, who promised us that the commission would take a more energetic approach, to adopt measures to improve this situation. mr president, there is a problem in the european union because our citizens are dumping on their own doorsteps. to do that in europe is one thing but to do it to the developing world and to the poor is, as the authors of this question said, reprehensible. i will listen carefully to the commission's response about new legislation. i am always concerned that we layer legislation on top of existing laws without looking at the enforcement aspects, and i would ask the commission to address the issue of enforcement. i think in many areas we do not have sufficient numbers in member states to correctly keep control and account of the transportation issue, in this case of toxic waste. the consequences for the health and welfare of those who handle this waste in a very inappropriate way are extremely serious. this is a moral and ethical question. perhaps if our citizens were aware of this - i think they are not - they might think twice about their purchasing and disposal methods. mr president, mrs mcguinness made an important point just now, namely that there is a moral and ethical dimension to this issue, given all the public health, biodiversity and economic concerns we have raised. that is why - and i say this to mrs westlund and mrs roithov, as well as to other speakers - the commission is determined to act. in order to support the impact assessment, which will demonstrate the justification for this initiative, the commission will propose tightening up eu legislation, in particular so as to improve inspections and enforcement of the waste shipments regulation. this should greatly reduce the considerable number of illegal shipments. all possible solutions are being examined. give mr potonik the few weeks he needs to draft this legislation. i can say on his behalf that it will be before the end of this year, 2011, that the commission, taking into consideration the very important debate that you have held, despite the late hour, presents its legislative proposals to step up the fight against these illegal shipments and all their consequences. the debate is closed. written statements (rule 149) , in writing. - earlier this year i made some enquiries to the european commission in response to press reports about shipments of toxic waste from italy to romania. although no evidence was found for the shipments, what was clear from the outcome of my enquiries was that we could benefit from more regular inspections of cargo, as this would act as a deterrent to those involved in the illegal shipment of waste. such measures may have an additional impact in the case of third countries because they may lack the capacity to properly monitor incoming shipments and therefore prevent the entry of toxic material into their territory. we should give serious consideration to the benefits of thorough, regular inspections, coordinated at eu level, especially in the case of shipments to developing countries.

1. zimbabwe the next item is six motions for a resolution on zimbabwe. author. - (nl) mr president, zimbabwe's president mugabe was once the hero of the liberation struggle. thanks to him former southern rhodesia gave way to a new state of zimbabwe which gave a democratic voice to the black majority population, after the end of british colonial rule and in the teeth of a white-led policy of apartheid which rebelled against that colonial authority. for years mugabe was an incredibly moderate ruler. he did not pursue the pressing imperative of redistributing land ownership. he was radical only in his objection to homosexuals. only when he was in danger of losing power did he remember his earlier promises about land reform. since then his ill-considered actions have reduced his country's economy to total ruin. the redistribution of agricultural land did not follow a proper plan, but was done entirely arbitrarily, with his most aggressive supporters grabbing the land for themselves. worse still is the way he has treated his political opponents. they have been relentlessly intimidated and attacked but have so far managed to survive. last time elections were held there was already the suspicion that the results were rigged. this time the opposition won the parliamentary elections, but it seems that the proposed recount is designed to rob them of their victory. the result of the presidential election has been kept secret for a full month already, so the size of mugabe's defeat remains unknown. in the last few days he has declared enthusiastically that he will never change anything in his country. he can only make good that promise by violence and oppression. he will do it using a shipload of imported chinese arms. given these circumstances it is reasonable for the outside world to concern itself with this domestic conflict. support for refugees, support for the opposition and pressure on the ruling party are essential ways of achieving what mugabe himself always claimed to want, namely political power for the majority. author. - mr president, can i first of all express my disappointment that the council is not represented for this important debate. it is almost a month since elections were held in zimbabwe. there can be little doubt that those elections were won by the movement for democratic change. mugabe and his henchmen should now be out of office, but we have heard virtually nothing about the election results except that mugabe's people are once more reacting with violence and are desperately trying to fix the election outcome. for years now, we have pointed to zimbabwe as the great shame on the face of africa, a testimony to the effects of tyranny, corruption and exploitation by one man's appalling regime. mugabe has destroyed a once prosperous country. yet, during this time, over all those years, other african leaders have stood by and either done nothing or else they have applauded the tyrant whenever they had the opportunity. what a disgrace! and what a scandal this has been. and what a tragedy - not just for the people of zimbabwe, but for africa. for all those years, the first key to zimbabwe's fate has been held by south africa, yet thabo mbeki has not only failed properly to discharge his responsibilities as a mediator but he has blatantly sided with mugabe. the world watched dumbstruck when mbeki announced a few days ago that there was no crisis in zimbabwe, just normal electoral politics. while the eu has at least imposed targeted sanctions on the mugabe regime, it went out of its way to ensure that no one took them seriously, even inviting mugabe, banned from travel to eu countries, to its eu-africa summit in lisbon last december for reasons that were wholly false. what diplomatic or economic effort has really been made to persuade other african countries to do the decent thing over zimbabwe? the answer is very little. well, there is still time to do the right thing. jacob zuma, the anc leader, has now called for action on zimbabwe. in our motion for a resolution today we are calling on men of goodwill in the governing zanu-pf in zimbabwe to see the light and recognise that a transformation is on the way. now is the time for us to make our voice heard. let us bring about that democratic change that at last is required for the sake of the people of zimbabwe. author. - (pl) mr president, both the political situation and internal security in zimbabwe took a sudden turn for the worse after the march parliamentary and presidential elections in that country. the very fact that the results of the elections have not yet been announced illustrates the breakdown of the rule of law and it also shows the totalitarian nature of authority in that african state. today, in africa, democracy itself is under serious threat. the regime has again used force against the opposition and against the democratic aspirations of zimbabwe's inhabitants. for this reason a decisive reaction is needed from the european union and this should include our parliament. we should react to the situation, but we should also condemn the action of china, which, by sending a cargo ship full of arms to the african coast, is trying to support the mugabe regime. for this reason i am pleased to support the clause in our joint motion for a resolution calling on china to stop sending arms to zimbabwe. only in this way will it be possible to reduce the number of victims of the state terror to which the citizens of that country are being subjected. author. - mr president, following many years of british colonial rule and a period of apartheid dictatorship by ian smith, the then rhodesia, now zimbabwe, was led to independence by a group of freedom-fighting persons, including mr mugabe. nobody can deny the contribution of these people to achieving freedom for zimbabwe but, as is so often the case, excessive and long-lasting power, along with opportunism and an uncontrolled appetite for personal materialistic gain, soon corrupted the altruistic spirit of freedom and democracy and turned the ruling regime of mugabe into an oppressive governing body with no forward vision and with excessive totalitarian manifestations. the result has been the international isolation of zimbabwe and the continuing slide of the state into poverty and corruption misery. in the recent elections the people of zimbabwe demonstrated their desire for a much-needed change, but the mugabe regime does not want to relinquish power and it is now seriously risking throwing the country into anarchy and civil war. through this motion for a resolution we are sending the message that the wish of the people of zimbabwe, expressed through the electoral process, must be respected. we are also making sure that those in africa who say that they really care about the situation in zimbabwe fully assume their responsibilities, view the reality of the situation, assess mugabe, not as he was many years ago but as he is today, and act decisively to bring about democratic transition in zimbabwe. author. - (es) mr president, in the light of events, i feel that the situation in zimbabwe certainly deserves our consideration at this urgent sitting. i therefore add my voice, how could i not, to the voices of those who have already condemned the violence on the part of government forces against opposition groups, journalists and human rights supporters i also hope that this resolution will at least help to support those who are trying from inside and outside the country to restore democratic process to the situation. however, there is one particular point to which i would like to draw attention and it concerns the famous case of the chinese vessel an yue jiang, carrying 77 tonnes of arms and munitions destined for zimbabwe, which was forced to leave the south african port of durban after dockworkers refused to unload the cargo and a court ruled that the arms could not be transported through south africa. according to my information, the vessel is now seeking another port at which to offload its cargo, although it seems, in view of the opposition in the area to accepting the shipment, that the vessel might return to china without accomplishing its mission. once again, it is clear that the vessel should never have been allowed to sail and that all governments need to get together to devise an international treaty on arms transfers as soon as possible because, unfortunately, there are many places in the world like zimbabwe, which should never be allowed to receive arms or munitions of any description. let this example act as a spur towards the negotiation of a forceful and legally binding att (arms trade treaty), which so many ngos in the iansa network have been calling for for years, as indeed has this parliament. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - mr president, it will shortly be a month since presidential elections took place in zimbabwe. surely this was ample time to count the vote and announce the result. currently a recount continues in 23 constituencies at the request of the ruling zanu-pf party. there are serious concerns regarding how ballot boxes have been stored and it cannot be ruled out that ballot papers are being tampered with in the process of this recount. exit polls suggested that a second round would be necessary in the presidential race. if mr mugabe now announces his victory, it must be questioned. let us hope that a second round will indeed take place. however, the international community must keep up the pressure to ensure that this round is as free and fair as possible. election observers and foreign journalists must be allowed into the country. in the longer term, reforms - including the creation of an independent electoral commission - will be needed to ensure that such a farce can never be called a democratic election again. on behalf of the pse group. - mr president, the constitution of zimbabwe states that 'no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment'. the violations of national and international law are so numerous that there is simply no time even to count them here. i would like to address the following to two people: the commissioner-general of police, augustine chihuri, and army commander constantine chiwenga. torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited absolutely under international law: for example, under article 5 of the african charter of human and people's rights and article 7 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. zimbabwe is a state party of both instruments. i call on you to bring an immediate end to human rights violations by police officers and soldiers, and i urge you to ensure that all allegations of police and military involvement in human rights abuses, including violent attacks on individuals, are promptly, independently and impartially investigated. on behalf of the alde group. - (pl) mr president, the dictatorial government of mr mugabe has transformed zimbabwe from a country with a blossoming economy into a complete disaster. inflation has reached 100 000% per annum. gnp has fallen by a third in the last few years and the decree on reducing prices by 50% has resulted in shops being empty. recently every single company in the country has been nationalised. in addition, life expectancy in zimbabwe is among the lowest in the world: 37 years for men and 34 for women. one quarter of the population is infected with hiv and about 80% live below the poverty line. if we want changes in zimbabwe to take place peacefully - and change is absolutely essential - then we have to ensure that this takes place through elections and not through bloody riots and revolution. on behalf of the uen group. - (pl) mr president, on 29 march 2008 presidential and local elections took place in zimbabwe. however, no results have yet been announced. the blockade on the publication of the results of the presidential elections and the accompanying repression of the opposition are an unacceptable form of stifling the democratic aspirations of the people of zimbabwe. the fact that on 14 april 2008 the high court in zimbabwe rejected an urgent application from the opposition group, the movement for democratic change, for the electoral commission to release the results of the elections shows the dependence of the judiciary on the current incumbent of the presidential office, robert mugabe, who is afraid of losing power. we roundly condemn the breaches of human rights and the use of force against the opposition. to supply arms to this country at this time is to encourage the possibility of an outbreak of civil war and is equally deserving of condemnation. for this reason, too, special appreciation is due to the port employees in south africa, who refused to unload the arms sent from china to the security forces in zimbabwe. (nl) mr president, how many times is it now that the human rights situation in zimbabwe has featured on our agenda here as a matter for urgent debate? how many times have we stood here impotently railing against the way in which mugabe oppresses his people? we have not always been unanimous about everything, but on zimbabwe we do have some kind of consensus. the disgraceful spectacle of the recent elections is proof yet again that this unscrupulous dictator does not give a damn about democracy. the policy of ethnic cleansing against white farmers continues unabated. mugabe holds the opposition, the international community, and his own people in contempt. the weakest in zimbabwe are the first to suffer, but we have known that for years. and yet the european community rolled out the red carpet for this man last december at the eu-african summit in lisbon. only britain's prime minister gordon brown stuck to his guns and boycotted this unsavoury little get-together. we all know it, but the nub of the lamentable situation is this. mugabe knows that he has support. he knows he is backed by a number of fellow-heads of state, or shall we say fellow-dictators in africa, who dismiss any criticism of his criminal policy as 'neo-colonialism'. south africa's role is especially perfidious here. until such time as the african union unequivocally condemns him, mugabe will carry on with impunity. mugabe knows he also has the backing of china, which wants to take over europe's role in africa and does it by telling corrupt heads of state that china will not give them any grief about human rights and good governance. the chinese regime is showing its true colours not only in tibet, but also in darfur and zimbabwe. that is the essence of today's debate and it is the shared culpability of china and africa which we must condemn and highlight more forcefully. mr president, events in zimbabwe would be ridiculous if they were not so dramatic and could in fact become quite tragic. what is the purpose of elections? the purpose is the democratic election of a government. this means the voting process must be free and fair, the votes must be counted, the results published and the people's choice respected. that is not the case in mugabe's zimbabwe. the non-publication of results and the recount in the way it has been ordered are completely absurd. the international community must follow this attentively. we must listen to the warnings of religious leaders who appeal to our sense of responsibility since they are afraid that this could result in a very violent crisis of genocidal dimensions. this is also a test for international bodies and we must put pressure there - the sadc, the african union and the un. finally, concerning the chinese vessel: there are reports that it may be going back to china, as commissioner michel informed us on tuesday. however, we need confirmation, and i urge the commission to put pressure on china - it must be a political decision and not just a decision of the shipping company. (de) mr president, in the old rhodesia there used to be a tourism poster urging people to 'come to rhodesia and see the ruins of zimbabwe'. in later years, the slogan was turned around to make a double-edged joke: 'come to zimbabwe and see the ruins of rhodesia'. today the poster might well read: 'come to zimbabwe and see the ruins of zimbabwe' - referring not to the famous stonework, but to ruined hopes of prosperity and democracy. i believe the european union has a duty to use the current situation - in which, despite manipulation of various kinds, the zimbabwean opposition's courage has, after all, won it a major victory - to advance democracy and the rule of law in this important african state. the people there have suffered enough. we must, however, find ways of supporting them that are not liable to be interpreted as neo-colonialism. so it is important that what we do should also have the backing of neighbouring countries and of the zimbabwean people themselves. that is why i welcome the first positive steps on the part of the african national congress - although it needs to do more! that is why i particularly welcome the brave example set by the dockworkers. we need to state very clearly that it is the shared task of the european union, the african union and the various powers of southern africa to ensure that the opportunity now created, following the elections, is properly used. mr mugabe already has his place in history; each day that passes merely makes it a less impressive one. (sk) the opposition's fears that robert mugabe would decide to use force to cover up the defeat of his ruling party in the elections of 29 march have come to pass: 36 demonstrators were arrested during a peaceful march to protest against the delay in the announcement of the election results. china's interest in africa's oil is another problem facing the country, which is in a deep economic crisis, with hundreds of thousands of people leaving to find a better life elsewhere. in exchange for weapons, china supports corruption and a dictatorial regime, and is one of the largest trading partners of, and providers of aid to, robert mugabe's regime. i agree with the european parliament's resolution on zimbabwe, which supports the opposition, condemns the frequent shows of racism by robert mugabe's supporters and calls on china to make amends. mr president, the people of zimbabwe deserve justice and the rule of law. last month's elections indicate the possible end of tyranny. i think the very fact that mugabe's government has delayed acknowledging the result and is trying to recount the votes indicates - and is proof - that they feel themselves defeated. i am especially worried about the widespread violence in the meantime, directed against supposed supporters of the opposition - people having been beaten up and killed just for differing in their views from the government positions. i would also like to mention the fact that this regime cannot survive without outside support, so the chinese factor is very symbolic - the ships with armaments landing in african ports. in theory, speaking time should be 'not more than two minutes' according to the rules of procedure, but i have a third speaker and i am quite willing for him to speak. (pl) mr president, i would like to add to what my fellow members have said today about the issue of zimbabwe being one that we cannot ignore. europe has invested and continues to invest considerable funds in africa with the good intention of establishing democracy there and raising the average person's standard of living. the example of mugabe and zimbabwe could infect other jumped-up bureaucrats in africa and, even in those places where there is democracy but the opposition is armed with weapons from china or from some other representatives of the socialist world, this poses a threat to these democracies and our task is to defend them. for this reason we cannot just let zimbabwe get away with it and i believe these voices are right and should be heard throughout africa. member of the commission. - mr president, i have followed with interest the debate in this house and i welcome the resolution that will be voted upon shortly. first of all i would like to recall the commission's continued commitment to the people of zimbabwe. in this sense, i also would like to emphasise that the european union remains the most important donor to zimbabwe and we are willing to continue playing this role. the situation in zimbabwe, notably following the 29 march elections, is a major preoccupation and, like the european parliament, the commission follows events very closely. we are working closely with member states, both in zimbabwe and here in europe, to coordinate action at the level of the european union. we believe that zimbabweans and the neighbouring states are the main players in finding a solution to the crisis and consequently we encourage the regional peers of zimbabwe to play a crucial role. therefore the commission supports ongoing regional efforts and the conclusions of the sadc summit, held on 13 april in lusaka, calling for the release of the presidential election results and, in the event of a run-off, the appeal made to the government of zimbabwe to ensure a secure environment. we also welcome the redeployment by the sadc of an electoral observation mission to cover the ongoing electoral process immediately and until its completion, while regretting that the eu has not been invited to deploy its own election observation mission. in the framework of his participation in the sadc summit on poverty, held in mauritius on 19 april, commissioner michel took the opportunity to meet most presidents or prime ministers from sadc member states to discuss the crisis in zimbabwe. he thanked them for their efforts and encouraged them to strengthen their engagement to find acceptable solutions. i would like to confirm the commission's willingness to continue to make use of any opportunity for dialogue in order to find a solution to the zimbabwe crisis. in the meantime, the commission and member states continue to provide unprecedented levels of humanitarian aid to zimbabweans. the debate is closed. the vote will take place after the debates.

resumption of the session i declare resumed the session of the european parliament adjourned on friday, 15 january 1999. mr president, i appeal to you and the office of president to find some time, if only little, during this part-session of parliament to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the death of a young european who gave his life for the freedom and dignity of his people and his country. many people will have understood that i am referring to jan palach who committed suicide in january 1969, turning his body into a human torch in protest against the oppression of his people by national and international communism. mr president, the alleanza nazionale delegation believes a place should be created amongst the many commemorations and prizes this parliament promotes, possibly even a place of honour, in memory of a young man from prague who sacrificed everything in the name of liberty, which is also championed by this parliament. as you will appreciate, mr schifone, what you have just said has no connection with the agenda and cannot be included in our order of business at the present time. mr president, during question time at the december part-session mr prez royo and i put a question to mr van miert concerning the legality of the aid the spanish government intends to award to the electricity industry. subsequently, at a meeting of the european energy foundation held a few days ago, the commission director-general responsible for energy went so far as to criticise so-called political exhibitionism and the fact that certain issues had been brought into the public domain when in his view they should have been dealt with discreetly in the european commission's offices. if the director-general was referring to the public debate members of this house are entitled to during question time, i must ask you to lodge a very strong protest on my behalf with the european commission. i object to a senior official of the european commission voicing the opinion that such issues should not be discussed in the public domain - the precise phrase used was 'in the marketplace' - and that they should instead be discussed discreetly in the offices of the european commission. i believe public declarations of this nature, made at a european forum such as the european energy foundation, must be criticised. as regards the transparency of the debate held in parliament during the december part-session, i would ask you again, please, to convey a strong protest on my behalf to the president of the european commission. that will be done. mr president, can i raise a point of order on the declaration of commissioner's interests. you will recall, as a former distinguished member of the rules committee, that pressure was put on the commission some time ago for a declaration of commissioners' interests. this was done reluctantly but in the best spirit of soviet bureaucracy kept secret, available only to the president and the secretary-general of the commission. following last week's events, it has now been published and what we have is twenty virtually blank pieces of paper, three years out of date, indicating, much to even my surprise, that the commission are so dull and uninteresting that they have no interests. mr ford, that is not a question we need look at today. you know perfectly well as a member of the rules committee that you have the option of putting questions to the commission. then it can explain the matter to your satisfaction or you can call for changes. it is not on the agenda today. ways towards a sustainable agriculture the next item is the statement by the commission on agriculture and the environment - towards sustainable agriculture. commissioner bjerregaard has the floor. mr president, commissioner fischler and i have today presented a communication to the commission on the link between agriculture and environmental policy. the communication comes after long and fruitful cooperation between our departments, and i would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to mr fischler. the political response to the demand for a better environment is currently reforming the way in which the eu makes policy. integration is the watchword of the process that was set in motion by the amsterdam treaty, with the help of the conclusions of the cardiff and vienna summits, and integration is a process of which this parliament has also been a keen supporter. integration can take us further in areas where we are making no progress with traditional environmental policy. the relationship between nature and agriculture is a good example of the fact that it has been difficult to achieve the right balance with the traditional instruments. for too many years now, agricultural policy and environmental policy have each gone their separate ways. in some places, the consequences have been dramatic. pollution of the groundwater with nitrates and pesticides and erosion and impoverishment in some of europe's regions are partly the consequence of intensive farming. other areas are suffering from the marginalisation of agricultural land and depopulation - a development which also has serious consequences for nature and the countryside. alongside these trends in agriculture, europe has adopted some ambitious environmental legislation which reflects its citizens' wish to have a cleaner, healthier and more attractive future. however, it has also become clear that the developments in agriculture have in fact made it difficult to ensure compliance with the environmental legislation. parliament's recent report on the implementation of the nitrates directive was a very good demonstration of this problem. there is therefore every reason to integrate the environment into agricultural policy, and that is precisely the intention of the commission's proposal for agricultural reform as part of the agenda 2000 package. that was the one which we presented in march last year, as you know. it is as one of the components of this integration project that the agriculture commissioner, mr fischler, and i have today presented a communication on agriculture and the environment to the commission. the communication aims to demonstrate and stand up for the need to maintain the environmental elements which are included in the commission's proposal. anything else would make the governments' calls for integration sound hollow. before i deal with some of the key elements in agenda 2000, let me stress that a good deal of community legislation - including some outside traditional agricultural policy - has a bearing on agricultural production. as i have said, the nitrates directive is a good and well-known example, but there is also eu legislation on pesticides, genetically modified organisms and consumer protection. legislation in these three areas is helping to limit the environmental impact of agriculture. but when we turn to purely agricultural policy and the environment, the agenda 2000 proposal is a key element. in brief, a reform is planned which is so green that agricultural policy and environmental policy will increasingly complement one another. i should like to describe some of the main features. firstly, the guaranteed prices for beef and veal, cereals and milk are being reduced. this price reduction is necessary to create a better balance in the market, but lower product prices are also good for the environment. this part of the proposal gets to grips with the artificially high prices which for years have been partly to blame for the over-use of sprays, artificial fertiliser and energy. secondly, the commission is proposing that member states should make the payment of all income support conditional on farmers observing the rules that are required to protect the environment. this will provide a much greater incentive to implement what are ambitious but necessary eu rules in practice, and in this context i would once again mention the nitrates directive, as well as the environmental protection legislation and legislation on pesticides. thirdly, support for particularly environmentally friendly farming methods is being increased as part of the so-called accompanying measures. this is support for farmers who are willing to make a positive environmental contribution beyond the minimum legal requirements. this may be organic farming, extensification or reforestation. in this respect, the proposal is a consolidation of the pioneering schemes introduced at the beginning of the 1990s by what is known as the macsharry reform. fourthly, so-called 'national envelopes' are being established for the livestock sector. this expression covers a sum of money which the member states are free to distribute within the sector as they please. a more environmentally correct distribution might be based on the amount of pasture land a farmer has, rather than providing support in proportion to the number of animals, as is now the case. if used correctly, these 'envelopes' could help further promote environmentally correct forms of cultivation and reduce the cultivation pressure on sensitive land. i would stress the fact that it will be up to the member states, and not the commission alone, to ensure that this takes place. fifthly, it will now be possible for farmers in natura 2000 areas who have had extra burdens placed on them to share in the aid distributed to less-favoured areas. this should make it possible to increase the benefits provided by what is a cornerstone in the protection of europe's environment. let me also remind you that last spring i presented and secured the adoption of a strategy for biodiversity in europe. this means that by the end of 1999 an action plan will be drawn up on how european agriculture will contribute to safeguarding biodiversity. agricultural reform is, of course, a precondition for this measure. all these building-blocks of a new agricultural policy go a long way towards what a number of environmental ngos and a large section of the european parliament have been campaigning for. it is clear that the agenda 2000 reform proposal is an unambiguous signal that, from now on, aid will be redirected towards more neutral support for production and more support for the environment. in future, the common agricultural policy will increasingly reward environmental values and responsible farming. farmers who take up the environmental challenge will have a financial advantage compared with the current system. agriculture itself, as mr fischler has often stressed, has a long-term interest in a redirection of aid. i expect the outcome of the forthcoming negotiating round of the world trade organisation to point in the same direction. it is a positive development in which there is the great challenge of ensuring that environmental aid does not just become a kind of window-dressing, protecting traditional monetary flows. but there are also other long-term perspectives in the reform. my message is that, if it is adopted, the proposal will lead to greater local influence on policy than is the case today. to a greater extent, agricultural policy will become a matter for our citizens and farmers. individual countries, regions and districts will be involved in deciding the requirements that will apply in their areas. there will of course be conditions to ensure that existing european and national legislation is respected, but with an opportunity for people to take more account of local circumstances than is possible with very centralised solutions. in fact, this is the principle of subsidiarity in practice. environmental organisations, local authorities, water companies and other interested groups will be able to sit down together with farmers and discuss how agriculture and the environment should work together to contribute to sustainable development. brussels will continue to draw the outlines, but the citizens will fill them in. this will of course make considerable demands on both citizens and farmers. a dialogue will be created covering everyone's interests. this will give our citizens a great opportunity to influence developments, but they will naturally need to become involved and be willing to accept the responsibility which this brings. it is important that all the eu countries take up this challenge. the commission's proposal, which was put forward in march 1998, has since been discussed in the agriculture council together with mr fischler. it is far from being adopted, and it would be wrong to say that all the european agriculture ministers were enthusiastic about the prospect of a greener policy. as you know, however, at the june summit in cardiff, the heads of state and government called for agriculture to be one of the policy areas which should lead the way and demonstrate how integration should be carried out in practice. this challenge was renewed and built upon in vienna, with a request for a report for helsinki. that report will contain a timetable for gearing agricultural policy further to the environment and will deal with the question of what indicators can be used to measure the state of the environment. this is an important question, because it is difficult to pursue environmental goals if the relationship between agricultural production and the state of the environment cannot be assessed in a way on which there is general agreement. it is of course a precondition for making progress that the agriculture ministers should reach agreement on the reform package. however, it is not enough to cross our fingers and wait for the outcome. the environment could easily be forgotten in the final dash for cash. i see it as a great personal challenge to ensure that that does not happen, which is why mr fischler and i have today presented the communication, which states, amongst other things, that intensive agriculture conflicts with the eu's ambitions for the environment and that a further effort must be made if drinking water and biodiversity are to be safeguarded. the communication also highlights the important role played by organic farming, because it can make a positive contribution to solving these problems. the agriculture ministers will be held to the instructions given by the heads of government in vienna and at previous summits. above all, it will be made clear that a reform without environmental progress is not sustainable, either for the environment or in political terms, for that matter. europe's taxpayers deserve and demand an environmental return on the cheque for eur 40 billion which they donate to the agricultural sector every year. like mr fischler, i hope that the european parliament will welcome this initiative and use it to reopen the public debate on agricultural reform and the environment, which is so essential. the long-term success and acceptance of the reform depend at least as much on a sound environmental profile as on the price of cereals and meat. mr president, this commission initiative must be welcomed. in the last few years i believe that significant progress has been made in reinforcing the environmental dimension of the common agricultural policy. i also believe that the 1992 reform was a very important point given its establishment of agri-environmental and agri-forestry measures. this commission communication is heading in the same direction and will reinforce this aspect. however, there is one issue which i feel is rather contradictory. if we analyse these proposals for reforming the common agricultural policy, now being discussed within agenda 2000, we find that there is only an increase of 5 % in the amounts intended for agri-environmental measures. in other words, this is only a very small increase to reinforce the environmental dimension of the cap, which to a certain extent is in contradiction with the commission's current political aim which i support. i would ask the commissioner to explain why there is only a 5 % increase in the amounts for agri-environmental measures. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, may i point out that mr cunha did not put a direct question, but since i do not agree with his last statement i would like to make the following clear. it may be true that expenditure on those environmental measures that are currently summarised under regulation 20/78 is only rising by a certain amount, but it is also true that this results in a whole range of other, additional expenditure, for instance an extra incentive for extensive beef production. finally, it must be emphasised that in future all direct agricultural aid payments will be subject to the observance of good agricultural practice, which de facto also means higher environmental requirements and for which absolutely no provision is made under our existing rules. mr president, i must first recognise that progress has been made towards reconciling the needs of the environment with those of agriculture. nevertheless, i feel the commission has shown a certain lack of judgment, in that a distinction should be made between measures designed to encourage good practice and simply meeting minimum standards. the arrangements now in place mean that failure to meet minimum standards could lead to farmers not receiving aid. the commission needs to codify these minimum standards clearly. at present, they are scattered throughout community legislation. however, measures designed to create an incentive are better codified, and in future we are likely to see them in the rural development programmes and then in certain sectoral coms. for instance, the commissioner has just mentioned how those who wish to benefit from the ecu 100 extensification premium know they will have to maintain a specific intensity of cattle. these measures are designed as an incentive to improve the quality of the environment. i would like the commission to codify all the standards which will have to be met in order for farmers to qualify for aid. member states should not have the latitude to act as they see fit. it seems from the commission's proposal that it is delegating all its responsibility to the member states, whereas i feel it is incumbent on the commission to codify the minimum standards required across the length and breadth of the community. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am very grateful to mr colino salamanca for the statements he has made. but let me clarify the commission's point of view again. firstly, we have to distinguish in the proposals between measures that are obligatory and those that are voluntary, meaning first of all those that are obligatory or voluntary on the part of the farmer. so the point is that the farmer is guaranteed the same level of direct payments, which correspond to compensatory payments, but that these will be subject to the general requirement of what is called gross compliance, which the member states are indeed required to impose. it will no doubt prove possible under the implementing provisions also to coordinate the level of these requirements in such a way as to avoid any bias. the second aspect is the voluntary payments, which must go beyond normal practice. that is one of the conditions of eligibility for such payments in the first place. but here too it is clear that they are a component of the second pillar, namely rural development policy. after all our proposal is that we must have a rural development policy of this kind for every rural region. but the proposals also specify that a programme will only be accepted if it definitely incorporates an 'agri-environmental measures' heading. seen from that aspect, i believe our proposals to a very large extent satisfy your requirements. mr president, mr fischler, would you admit that environment-friendly agriculture is still the exception, that intensive farming is still the rule, that price reductions within the intervention system trigger more intensive production? secondly, i find it very sensible for you to say that the second pillar should contain an environment-based programme, but the funding is very low. how do you propose to help the rural areas with this kind of structural programme? thirdly, when you, or mrs bjerregaard, refer to subsidiarity i wonder how this is to be achieved if we do not have any framework conditions at european level. that is not subsidiarity, it is giving free rein. two small examples: in set-aside land you allow chemical industrial raw materials to be used in farming but you do not allow vegetables to be grown for animal feed. my other example . the president cut the speaker off mr president, to simplify matters let me reply to the first part of the question and, as mr graefe zu baringdorf wanted, mrs bjerregaard will reply to the second part. on the first part: mr graefe zu baringdorf, i often agree with you but on this point i do not agree that price reductions, in fact the reduction of guarantee prices, automatically triggers more intensive farming. we had the opposite experience with the 1992 reform. if you look at the trend in expenditure on fertilisers, pesticides and so forth between 1992 and 1998 you will find that it fell rather than rose. so your hypothesis is not correct. let me add here that in my comments on subsidiarity there was no suggestion of any kind that people did not need to comply with environmental legislation. on the contrary, i emphasised very clearly in my speech that one condition for discussing these things at all was compliance with environmental legislation. as is emphasised in the communication, the positive message - which is also contained in the agenda 2000 proposals - is that there should be cooperation at local level between people who are close to these problems. so i think we all agree that environmental legislation should be respected, but also that the people who are close to the problems should sit down together more often and find some sensible solutions. mr president, in principle, i am all in favour of decentralisation. nevertheless, i was somewhat surprised, to say the least, to hear commissioner bjerregaard sing the praises of decentralising environmental policy. where the decision-making process in relation to the environment is decentralised, different conditions will naturally obtain in the different countries. this would distort competition by giving countries with lax environmental policies a competitive advantage. that is not the right approach for the union. no, mr olsson, that is definitely not right. european environmental legislation must be complied with. that is also why i said in my introduction that i was pleased with parliament's report on the nitrates directive, and that we have taken specific measures against countries which are failing to comply with the directive. in my introduction just now, i said that 'agricultural policy will become a matter for our citizens and farmers. individual countries, regions and districts will be involved in deciding the requirements that will apply in their areas. there will of course be conditions to ensure that existing european and national legislation is respected, but with an opportunity for people to take more account of local circumstances than is possible with very centralised solutions.' i therefore do not believe that there is a great difference between mr olsson's views and my own in this area. mr president, commissioners, organic farming is a very good example of sustainable agriculture. the joint resolution from the european parliament on organic livestock production questions the commission and the council on the technical progress needed to fulfil the commission's proposal that is currently being examined. as regards the fundamental issue of animal nutrition, the derogation in this proposal that allows 10 % conventional feed to be used is quite sufficient. with the 25 % recommended by the council could production really still be called organic, particularly as organic farming must remain a byword for the strictest and most stringent quality standards? you agree with this, i know for a fact. does the commission believe that an animal fed with 25 % conventional feed can still be described as an 'organic product'? what is more, the nature of this conventional feed is not specified in any way. it could include intensively farmed products, whereas the least we could do would be to specify products from regions covered by the agri-environmental measures, from integrated farming or even farming converting to organic methods. what does . the president cut the speaker off mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the question mrs barthet-mayer has put in fact goes in two directions. we must draw a very careful distinction here: what is conventional production, what is integrated production and what is organic farming? they are three different categories. as you know - and, mrs barthet-mayer, we recently discussed this in parliament - the commission proposed community-wide guidelines that would also protect animal products, so as to establish a common, europe-wide standard for the definition of organic products. this proposal has now been on the table for some years and the council of agriculture ministers is currently discussing it in detail - the most recent discussions were at the december council - but to date it has not managed to reach a unanimous view. there are a few sensitive aspects involved which, in my view, need further discussion, without accepting any watering down of the core question, namely the definition of what is actually meant by organic products; one specific aspect you addressed in this connection is the use of conventional feed and of feed containing gmos. that is a question that is currently being discussed at another level, in connection with the revision of regulation 220/90, and i believe we must endeavour to take a more balanced look at any measures that can lead to clearer consumer information. mr president, could i have an assurance that both commissioners are united in opposition to the import of beef produced with hormones and also milk produced with bst. mr president, mrs hardstaff, this is not in fact directly connected with today's subject but i would like to tell you one thing quite clearly: what we will and must do is, as stated in the panels' findings, to adjust our risk assessment to the wto provisions. in all the commission has commissioned eight scientific studies. we are now awaiting the findings of these studies and i hope we can then adhere to our position, as we have always intended. mr president, mr fischler, am i right in assuming that in fact you drew up agenda 2000 in order to make farmers more competitive on the world market and not in order to reduce the consumption of fertilisers and other means of production that farmers urgently need? that is my first question. mrs bjerregaard's explanation was about the last reason that could be given for why we have to implement the agenda at all! second question: can you tell me what percentage of the aid under regulation 20/78 the member states are taking up? in my region it is 100 %, so it is worth raising this matter. i would also like you to tell me what you mean in real terms by agricultural practice. please do not confuse the concepts of intensive farming and farming appropriate to the location! mr president, i believe there is a good deal of similarity between what i have said to parliament today and the proposal presented by the commission in agenda 2000. the new communications on which mr fischler and i have reached agreement, and which it is important to have distributed, point out that there should be an interaction between environmental and agricultural considerations. neither of us accept non-compliance with environmental legislation. we are framing the policy in such a way that it is feasible. we are both of the confirmed opinion that it is feasible, and that it is possible for us to secure some sensible decisions in the member states. it may be that some help will be required before we achieve a constructive outcome, and we also naturally hope that parliament will enter into this debate, so that we can achieve a result which ensures both sensible agriculture and a sensible environmental policy. commissioner, let us presume that your intentions are good and what you have told us is interesting. let me remind you that agriculture does not stand alone in the economy. it too operates in the context of a complete environment. how can our farmers farm ecologically when the industries that supply them and those which are their customers impel them towards anti-ecological practices? how can they compete against countries from which we import products which are not ecological, not produced by poor farmers but by the worst and most appallingly intensive exploitation of the soil and animals? and how can they farm ecologically - i know many who do in greece - when they face enormous problems in marketing their products, marketing which receives no aid under our regulations? perhaps, therefore, we should consider these issues in relation to their environment? perhaps, instead of talking about ecological farming, we should be talking about an ecological economy? mr president, as mr fischler said a moment ago, the reform is about more than just organic farming, which accounts for a very small percentage of european agriculture. obviously, it is desirable that this percentage should be increased, but we have of course concentrated on many other things. let me say this loud and clear: i believe that the citizens of europe want clean water. they are not willing to accept a situation in which the water they drink is not clean. they cannot understand why it should be impossible to formulate a sensible agricultural policy and at the same time to have clean water. we believe it is possible, and that is why we have put forward these proposals and also why we maintain that the environmental legislation must be observed at the same time that we have sensible agriculture in europe. it may be that we have to talk tough with the americans on occasion, but if that is the case, then that is what we shall do. i should like to put a question to the commission. in the context of the search for a natural balance between agricultural production and the needs of the environment, what use does the commission have in mind for agricultural produce not intended for consumption? in particular, what future does it see for biomass which could be used to produce renewable energy? i believe this would be a logical use for some of the surplus production of european agriculture. mr president, mr robles piquer, on the second part of your question, whether we are also prepared to encourage biomass farming and the production of alternative energy sources, i.e. renewable raw materials, let me reply as follows. firstly, our proposals on cereal growing and oilseeds do provide for support for these products. secondly, under our proposals for rural development, investment in this sector is also eligible for support measures. thirdly, we have included an expanded forestry chapter in the rural development proposals, and these forestry support measures will also provide for increased support for wood as a renewable raw material. mr president, it is very important that environmental policy is integrated into agricultural policy, and that environmental policy is integrated into all policy in the european union. especially important, where agricultural policy is concerned, is the protection of rivers, seas and lakes, as has been mentioned here. there has obviously been progress, in that compliance with environmental standards is being made a direct condition of income support, but, on the other hand, it should be clear as day that aid is to be paid only when the regulations are being observed. but we should be happy to have come this far. now the question arises as to how member states will respond to what is, to my mind at least, a step forward: how shall we monitor it? will we need a long transition period? and how should the matter be treated? should we have recourse, for example, to an agricultural code of practice, to be used as an instrument of comparison in relation to established policy, and only after that grant direct income support? mr president, mrs myller, first of all there will of course be appropriate controls and here, as always in such matters, we will have a shared responsibility. that means that in situ checks on farms will primarily be the task of the member states and the commission departments will be responsible for ensuring and verifying whether the member states are indeed adequately fulfilling this obligation. moreover, you must not forget that in regard to carrying out and applying agricultural practice and the financing of direct payments we are looking at guarantee fund resources, which simply means that all the expenditure is also subject to eaggf supervision. that means that if a member state does not carry out the necessary checks adequately, we can debit that member state when we carry out the audit. mr president, the way we have approached the area of the environment is illustrated very well by the nitrates directive. when it was clear that the member states should have implemented the nitrates directive, we simply carried out a study in all the member states of how far the implementation had progressed. we published this report, and we instituted legal proceedings against - as far as i recall - 12 member states which had not implemented the nitrates directive. i believe that such an approach, whereby we examine the situation in all the member states, increases our chances of persuading the member states to implement the legislation. one point on which i agree entirely with mrs myller is that it is of course vital for the credibility of our policy that it is also implemented by the member states. mr president, when i hear mr fischler and mrs bjerregaard propose a joint strategy here in this chamber i am always very much on my guard, for in the view of the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection there has been no harmonisation at all in the environmental field over the past five years; quite the reverse! the legislation of the past five years teems with vague legal concepts, such as the ato, a high protection level, good agricultural practice, etc. all this has to be transposed into national law and only then, mr fischler, when we have a uniform policy line, can you carry out checks. my question to you, mrs bjerregaard, is this: do you intend to define all the vague legal concepts in this area via ispra or some other instrument? first of all, may i say to mr florenz that i am quite happy to leave the question of a definition and a more detailed explanation of good farming practice to my colleague mr fischler. however, i would like to say that, in view of the many discussions i have had with the committee on the environment, we can only welcome the fact that we now have a joint communication on the environment and agriculture. had we discussed this issue two or three years ago, i am sure parliament would not have thought it possible for us to be in a situation where we have a document like agenda 2000, which contains so much environmental thinking in the area of agricultural policy. obviously, there may be areas in which we would like to achieve more or where there are special wishes, but like mrs myller, i think we have every reason to be pleased that we have come as far as we have today. mr president, i have two questions. in 1950, 35 % of the total european population was involved in agriculture. today this figure is 5 %. as a result of this reform and due to ageing in the sector, this figure will fall to between 2.5 % and 3 % by 2006. my first question is: can the environment be protected while the countryside is being abandoned, and why therefore is this reform heading in this direction? my second question is: how can the protection of the environment be promoted by spending 50 % of the budget on this 5 % of the population, which will shortly be 2.5 %? in particular, aid for production just encourages producers to use every intensive production method available. this does not protect jobs, quality, the environment or safety. how can the commissioner reconcile the policy which he claims to want to implement with the abandonment of the countryside and payments for production? moreover . the president cut the speaker off mr president, mr campos, let me first address the question of expenditure in relation to the percentage of the farming population. to be fair, you would have to compare it with total public expenditure. if you add the national budgets to the community budget and then deduct the agricultural part, you obtain a percentage of 2 % for 5 % of the population. i do not think that is really excessive. secondly, on jobs in agriculture, there is only one thing i can say to you. the more environment-friendly our farming is, the more jobs that will imply and not the reverse. so this proposal to incorporate environmental aspects more firmly in the reform is certainly in the interests of agriculture and of jobs. but there is one thing you must not forget. if we are going to discuss making these additional demands on european agriculture, and in fact considerably higher demands than we make on our overseas competitors, then we must also be prepared to pay for it. and we also have to stop arguing that agricultural reform must not cost anything! mr president, we have talked about implementation of the nitrates directive on a number of occasions already. in reply to a written question of mine, the commission said recently that there were no uniform rules for sampling groundwater to check whether the directive was being implemented correctly. that seems to me a very feeble basis for monitoring legislation. when is that going to improve? my second question is this: nitrate in groundwater can come from sources other than animal manure. it also comes from artificial fertiliser and from factories, sewage treatment plants and so on. how does the commission intend to differentiate between nitrate in groundwater from these sources and nitrate from animal manures, so that the burden is not placed entirely on agriculture? mr president, it is of course not the job of the commission to determine whether nitrates come from one source or another. our job is to monitor whether the member states are complying with the nitrates directive, which simply means that checks are carried out as to how much nitrate there is in the groundwater. that is what we are doing. that is what we are investigating, and we have found that the areas where there have been particular problems in connection with the nitrates directive are also areas with a high concentration of livestock production, whether it be cattle or pigs, although pigs in particular have caused a great many problems. that is why some countries have had particular difficulties in implementing the nitrates directive. as i said, however, it is not our job to check whether it comes from one source or another, but we must ensure that the directive is complied with. mr president, my question is to both the commissioners. tomorrow we take a vote on a pretty important piece of legislation, mr kindermann's report on animal welfare. i would like to know how the commission views the situation. for example, in the united kingdom, because of animal welfare legislation, the british pig farmer is suffering. in sweden it is estimated that environmental legislation in their country puts one swedish kroner per kilogram onto the price of meat. how does the commission see the protection of european agriculture when it comes to imports from countries which do not have the sort of animal welfare legislation that we have in the european union? please, commissioners, do not use the argument that the consumer will decide. the consumer decides on price. i hope i can get a satisfactory answer. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, in regard to animal protection may i point out firstly - and precisely in order to counter the argument about international distortions of competition - that this should play a part during the next wto round and should be considered during the next agricultural negotiations. secondly, let me point out that it is of course self-evident that animal protection provisions must be respected. we can never accept, either in agricultural stock-breeding or in stock-breeding in general, that the existing laws are infringed. but what we have also made provision for, especially in relation to encouraging investment in agricultural undertakings, is that if a farmer sets up stock-breeding systems that are particularly kind to animals and invests to that end he will receive greater support than a farmer who is only prepared to observed the minimum standards. i have seen the report of the consumers consultative committee on the reform of the cap on the dg xxiv internet page. it is a very harsh indictment, expressing the consumers' point of view and in line with the position of the ebcu. my questions are: how do you react to it and do you plan to do anything to reconcile the two sides, agriculture and consumer demands? mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i can entirely agree with mr fantuzzi here. i really do find it most regrettable that this report is based in part on statements that are consistent neither with our actual proposals nor with the current state of the discussions. i invite you to endeavour jointly with us to give the public more objective information, to protect agriculture against wrong and biased accusations. mr president, my question is one for mrs bjerregaard. i am, of course, delighted by the cooperation between the two commissioners on the agriculture/environment problem, but i do wonder about the danger which may emerge as this sector develops in the future, namely the risk of the transfer of pollution. i believe that biodiversity is vital. so i begin to ask questions when i see that the commission, and mrs bjerregaard's service in particular, has shown it is in favour of using genetic technology and putting genetically modified organisms on the market before there has been any serious evaluation of their impact on biodiversity. i should like to know if mrs bjerregaard is prepared to reconsider the authorisation that has already been granted to some genetically modified organisms if it later emerges that such authorisation has a negative effect on biodiversity. mr president, on the question of genetically modified organisms, i would like to say that the commission has been very careful not to put itself into a situation where we have to say either that we want them or that we do not want them. instead, what we have done initially is to try to ensure that everyone who had a need to know was informed, which we did by implementing labelling of the products at a very early stage. we then dealt with the second question which was raised, namely the effects of gmos. obviously, we are also aware of the connection with biodiversity. this means that in the new proposal which is now before parliament we are very clear on the question of risk analyses. but we have also dealt with the long-term effects, which is probably what the question was actually about. we should of course examine what is involved when such products are released into the environment and whether there could be any effects in the long term. we are watching this very closely, and as the questioner perhaps knows, proposal 90/220 contains some provisions which mean that gmo products will not simply be approved for all time, but will be subject to reassessment, because we cannot rule out gaining some experience of the long-term effects or obtaining some new information. so, all in all, we are trying to be as careful as we possibly can, and i am also looking forward to the discussion which i will clearly have with parliament in february. i should like to thank the commission for its comments. that concludes this item. defence-related industries the next item is the report (a4-0482/98) by mr titley, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on the communication from the commission on implementing european union strategy on defence-related industries (com(97)0583 - c4-0223/98). mr president, the european industrial, scientific and technological base is essential to the security of the european union. it is that base which provides the capacity and capability which makes possible the political and military pillars of the european defence identity as expressed through the cfsp, the weu and nato. that statement is as true today as when i made it in my first report nearly two years ago. yet that base continues to get weaker despite the fact that europe has some outstanding companies. we have lost 50 % of the jobs in this sector in the last 10 years. in 1995 the eu imported from the us six times the value of its exports. in 1985 the ratio was 4: 1. the reasons for this are set out very clearly in my first report but can be summed up in one statistic: we have 43 defence-related companies and a defence budget of 94.5 billion euros; the us has 14 defence companies and a defence budget of 212 billion euros. a further 75 % of what we import comes from the usa. we do not even trade with each other, intra-eu trade being only 4 % or 5 % of procurement. it is not that we are not aware of the problem. i have spent the last 3 years attending endless conferences where everyone is agreed on the problem, most people agree on the solution, but very few people seem willing to take the necessary action. this is one field where rhetoric and action almost never meet. i often feel, in fact, that all the players involved are cautiously circling each other in an elaborately choreographed 18th century dance when in fact what we need at this moment is a good dose of rock-and-roll. i am sure that commissioner bangemann will be quite happy to lead that rock-and-roll. of course, there has been progress. there has been the establishment of polarm. we have had the defence armament section in the amsterdam treaty. we have had the setting up of occar. we have had declarations by heads of state saying how important this is. we had the letter of intent of 6 july by the six defence ministers which was actually a vital step along the way, as indeed was the code of conduct on arms sales. we have had the weag action plan decided last november but action is not always carried through in this section. last year there was the announcement of the intention to set up a european aerospace and defence company but nobody can agree how we do it and there is a battle between those who believe there should be heavy state investment and those who believe it should be a private company. we agreed a long time ago that there should be a single corporate entity for airbus but this has still not actually been signed. it has become rather like watching the becket play waiting for godot . westland and agusta helicopters were meant to be merging but they are still wrangling about simple matters of valuation. british aerospace and dasa were meant to be merging but could not agree on the basis of the shareholding which is incompatible. we have had the often proposed but never consummated marriage between arospatiale and dassault. in fact, in europe, it takes us three times as long to create a merger as it does in the usa and the end result is smaller. british aerospace/matra has sales of 1.5 billion dollars compared to its main us competitor with sales of 5 billion dollars. i will say nothing more about the saga of euro-fighter, the horizon or the multi-role armoured vehicle. compare that little minuet with the rock-and-roll in the united states where, since 1992, there has been a mass of mergers resulting in basically 3 1/2 major companies. that is why it is essential that we take action now. we must use all our resources. there should be no institutional wrangling. there should be no standing on our dignity or on ceremony. the commission's recent communication is so important because it shows a willingness to use all the means that we have at our disposal whether they are community or member state instruments. firstly, companies have to be allowed to get on with it following commercial logic. governments should stand back and only use article 223 where it is absolutely essential. that is indeed what british aerospace is doing, which is probably the closest we have got in the industry to a leather-jacketed rocker, in their amalgamation and mergers with companies like saab and matra. the recent merger with gec/marconi is a good deal because it is based on the principles of shareholder value and a sound financial footing is important if we are to get value for money for the taxpayer. it is also important because what we have seen in the us is that mergers have gone along like noah's ark, two by two. they have not tried to force too many companies together at one time. that is why i think the british aerospace merger with marconi makes good sense. secondly, we now need to follow the commission action plan and apply the principles of a single market as far as possible. we should also use the instruments of cfsp in defining a common position on armaments cooperation, although that common position has to be flexible, bearing in mind the needs of this particular industry. we also need to establish greater clarity in the cfsp and the function of the european defence identity which is why the initiative of the british prime minister and the san malo agreement are so important. we need to define exactly what the petersberg tasks involve for our military so that industry knows what equipment it needs to be providing. on procurement, we must move towards a european armament agency, bringing together occar and weag in a loose arrangement, if necessary. there has to be greater coordination here as indeed there has to be on research. we have to establish that the best deliverer gets the contract. we should now no longer rely on a juste retour . basically, if we do not start rocking the americans are going to roll all over us. having said that, it is not intended that this report should be anti-american. rather we need a strong industry if we are to compete with or collaborate with the americans and if we are to fulfil the security demands of nato under the european defence identity. we should be looking to collaborate with the americans. this, after all, is a global industry. european companies are not really european companies any more. they have investments in the united states and companies like boeing have investments in europe. so let us stop this artificial distinction and build a strong european industry to collaborate with the americans. in fact, i know the industry will hate me for saying this, but the logical consequence of the boeing/mcdonnell douglas merger is that the next step forward should be a link between airbus and lockheed martin. then we will have global competition in the aerospace industry. mr president, democracy and freedom are worth defending. if the will to defend them had not existed in europe and america when it was most needed, we would not be sitting here today. in europe, experience has taught us that a feeling of security prevents war and helps bring about the disintegration of powerful dictatorships from within. where an adequate system of defence provides security, ideas about freedom can penetrate and break down even the thickest of walls. the men and women charged with the task of dealing with european defence are entitled to have access to new weapons. the question we should now be asking ourselves is whether some of those weapons could be developed and manufactured in europe. the response of this committee, including myself, is an unconditional 'yes'. it is essential for europe to keep ahead, and even to be right at the forefront in certain areas. if we have something to offer as producers, we shall also be respected as customers. otherwise, we are more likely to have to make do with what we are offered, and at the seller's price. during a long period of peace - something we dare hope may continue - it is natural that we should reduce our defence expenditure. it is therefore all the more important for us to coordinate our dwindling european defence industry, so that by maintaining its competitiveness it will be capable of furnishing us with the arms we need to defend ourselves adequately. there will also be more likelihood of the united states wishing to exchange its experience and defence materials with us. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, following mr titley's very impassioned plea there should really be no need to discuss this report further. let me begin by thanking gary titley for his report in which he tirelessly addressed and discussed a subject that is most important in both economic and defence and security policy terms. economically, we should have no illusions. the united states of america, which of course always stands up for totally free trade, for totally free economic development, shows enormous interest and activity when it is a question of defending its own industry and securing its position on the world market. that is particularly true of anything to do with the defence industry, the aircraft industry and so forth. so unless it is to be naive, europe must respond to this kind of competition, but without creating new monopoly positions. but what we have here is in fact global competition, to which we must of course respond. secondly, in regard to defence policy, we are currently talking - and for the time being we are merely talking but i hope we will soon be taking concrete steps - about a european defence identity. we are talking about europe having to assume certain tasks without always stealing a glance at nato or in particular the united states to check what they are going to do. this kind of european defence identity cannot imply full self-sufficiency, yet a minimum of independence for our arms industry, coupled, of course, with cooperation with the americans, is absolutely necessary. i hope gary titley is right in saying that what is currently happening between british and american undertakings does not prevent the corresponding decisions and mergers from taking place at european level. on the contrary, perhaps this will even create a pressure for rapidly taking the necessary decisions now to build up a european industry, not against the americans but as strong partners. lastly, let me point out something that is also contained in the report although it is not its main subject. we in the european parliament should also talk about disarmament when we talk about defence. the social democrats do not believe that all these endeavours to create a european security identity, a european defence industry, conflict with further steps towards disarmament. that is still on the agenda! the safest world is a world in which disarmament is writ large, which is why we should not play one aspect off against the other. sadly this is a world in which arms are necessary, in which we have to continue to modernise. we should do so at european level while at the same time fighting for global, world disarmament. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we are used to mr titley's numerous well-prepared reports and speeches on the subject of defence-related industries. mr titley's work as a whole represents a commendable effort by this house to bring the matter to the attention of the european institutions and to call for changes to an inadequate policy on the military equipment of the member states' armed forces. i and my group are in total agreement with mr titley's report. however, i am rather pessimistic about just how dynamic a european arms policy would be within a common defence policy, as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the report. in actual fact i believe that only an effective common defence policy will allow a concerted strategy to be convincingly and properly achieved in the european arms industry. but in my opinion, it will take many years for common actions to be realised in defence policy. we are reassured by the protection provided by the americans in terms of defence, although we regret our subordinate position in foreign affairs. while this situation continues, i do not envisage there being a strong will, particularly among certain member states, to develop and genuinely accept an eu strategy on military equipment. if i may briefly refer to bilateral and multilateral cooperation, for which i do not want to take the credit, these initiatives which often benefit from weu support must also be praised. however, they can be sporadic and timid, lacking the comprehensive political will of the eu. with every year that passes, we in the european union are falling further behind our american allies in terms of the quality of our military equipment. this is also true in defence matters. this is why we are increasingly followers and no longer leaders in world policy. mr titley's report, by drawing the eu's attention to these problems, deserves credit and also, therefore, our full support. mr president, the commission is right to have given priority to developing a european policy on the defence industry. the european industry is fragmented and is losing the competition war to our american rivals. fortunately, the industry itself takes occasional steps in the direction of cooperation, mergers or expansions. but the legislation has to keep pace with it all. the member states made a big mistake in keeping the defence industry out of the single market, at amsterdam as well. in seeking to defend their own national industry, our heads of government have signed that industry's death warrant. i hope today's commission proposals may change this. but europeanising the industry also means europeanising the export control regulations. last july's code of conduct was a first small step, and now we need further steps. my group, the liberal group, backs the german presidency's proposals to have this code of conduct made mandatory as part of the legislation. the issues here are not just the industry, but the legislation too. i should also like to thank mr titley for giving us so much of his time as we discussed his report, both in the subcommittee on security and the committee on foreign affairs. my compliments to him. mr president, as the coordinator of the socialist group as well, mr titley has an important contribution to make to the work of the committee on foreign affairs. however, specifically in relation to armament issues, i think it would be better if his passion and, i would say, fanaticism were to give way to a greater sense of reality and cool-headedness. for i believe it would be a mistake for the european union to become involved, so to speak, in a frenzy of competition with the united states over arms industry issues when the european union still has no principles and basic mechanisms for its foreign policy. when we see that over major issues, as for example the recent attack on iraq, some countries align themselves with the americans, other countries pretend an ostrich-like blindness, and others still make critical comments, how and upon what are we to base such an armaments policy? i think we are moving into dangerous territory. the important thing would be to establish the principles and fundamentals of our foreign policy and only then to look at economic and similar aspects related to military equipment for defence. of course, i too wish to stress that mr titley's report contains important observations which we will support despite our primary overall position, such as the issue of continuing the konver programme, such as the subject of measures against anti-personnel mines, and such as the subject of a weapons export code which, we fear, will remain no more than a general principle. and we know very well that the european union countries persist in the iniquity of exporting the weapons they manufacture to various regimes around europe, even the most odious and bloodthirsty among them. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, have you forgotten? we are living in a post-cold war era. europe is surrounded only by friends. this is an age of peace. it is the age of disarmament. it is the arms industry that is not prepared to adapt to the new criteria of an age of disarmament and that is sounding the alarm. it is calling for industrial mergers that would not be approved in the civil sector. it is calling for subsidies, for political support for arms exports; it is calling for a more flexible policy on cartels. what forces us to give in to these demands when we know that it would be senseless to do so, when we know that this will not solve the global problems facing mankind, the problems of unemployment and poverty, the problems of climate change? do not forget that we created konver to replace rather than supplement rearmament. that is why the greens reject this report. mr president, i must add my voice to the criticisms we have heard here today of this report and the commission communication. there are too many arms in the world, nuclear weapons must be banned outright and conventional weapons must be drastically reduced. there is too much selling of arms to unstable areas, whether legal or not, and it merely adds to the level of violence and insecurity in the world. the codes of conduct are inadequate and poorly enforced. if you are asking for a european policy, then we say yes to a european foreign policy and a european security policy which pursues the above priority objectives. we want arms where they are absolutely essential. the only thing to which i can give my unreserved support, and this is my personal view, is that the matter should be coordinated within a common european area. for the rest, i have other priorities. i should like to see a common policy of arms reduction. i should like to see our own defence industry converted into an industry which pursues peaceful objectives. i should like to see as few people as possible dependent on the defence industry for their livelihoods. i want legally binding export controls for arms at european level. i shall certainly endorse the call for the council to submit an annual consolidated report on arms exports to parliament so that we can check on how the codes of conduct are being implemented. in the meantime, there seems to be very little of the european spirit behind the restructuring operations currently under way. mr president, the european commission wants to implement a european strategy on defence-related industries. good idea, it is never too late to do something good like this! the titley report wants europe's security and defence identity to be asserted - i am with him up to this point - but he goes on to say that this should be within nato, which i find very disappointing. as sceptical as i am, in its time, the soviet monster was reason enough, in my eyes, to justify the fact that europe should forget all conflicts of interest that pitted it against the united states in order to present a united front against a common threat. since then, as the european union has developed, such points of conflict have only become more apparent. today, nothing short of an attack by extra-terrestrial monsters could make me forget that europe is the united states' main competitor and that the united states will not rest until they have thwarted our expansion. once again, a free europe cannot thrive without saying 'no' to nato. mr president, i share the view that the titley report is an important one, and it comes at a significant time. it is very much in line with convictions which many of us hold and which we reaffirm, because controlling arms production and exports, indeed raising this issue, is already a way of preventing policy being made by weapons and those who use them, which is exactly what we do not want. so it is an important report, and for three reasons in particular. first, because it evaluates europe's defence industry in terms of forming european groups and competing with others, especially the united states industry, supporting scientific research and cutting-edge technology and, finally, in parallel, establishing coordination between the member states to offer a frame of reference. secondly, because talking about the defence industry is a direct reminder of the need to get the common foreign and security policy off the ground, which is essential to the european union's international credibility - and here i believe coordination with the applicant countries in the enlargement process is important too. thirdly, because i think it is right to highlight the fact that we are establishing a code of conduct for arms exports. this code governs a very sensitive area, introduces morality to it, makes it transparent and specifically prevents arms exports being in contradiction with european union policy. it is significant that the german presidency recently stated its intention of making the code of conduct more legally binding. that is the right road. finally, i think it is right to mention that the titley report contains a small paragraph, which we should bear in mind, on the ratification of the ottawa treaty on anti-personnel mines by all the member states. so all things considered, i think this is an important report. mr president, i would have preferred to see this important report discussed primarily in terms of security policy rather than economic policy aspects, for it represents a major step forwards towards achieving a common foreign and security policy, and surely the political need for that should gradually become undisputed. unfortunately perhaps, that requires an arms and arms procurement policy coordinated at european level. why? firstly, i am convinced that it is important for europe to retain some independence in providing itself with military assets. what i regard as important is not so much economic competition but a policy that is independent of the united states. secondly, it is also quite crucial for us to reduce our existing surplus capacity in the arms industry only on a basis of coordination, thereby also preventing financial resources from being wrongly allocated to arms contracts that are awarded under the heading of 'we want to protect jobs by creating more employment'. we are all familiar with examples of this kind in our own home countries. i also believe it is important that we consistently include the central and eastern european countries. they are facing the biggest problems here and i believe, especially in view of eu and also nato enlargement, that it is important that we include them here. i regret - here i agree with the direction taken in the report - that the konver programme is not being continued. we have to demand that it is! in the end it is not a question of markets. the arms industry is not a question of markets and i believe that security policy is the decisive aspect, which is why it is important that we coordinate the arms industry, arms procurement, on a european basis in the interests of the common foreign and security policy. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, following on from its 1996 communication, in 1997 the commission put forward an action plan for defence-related industries. it refuses to make allowance for the specific nature of this sector, particularly in terms of the close link between defence and sovereignty, and is determined to apply the principle of free competition for the sake of competitiveness. it is even going one step further by opening the way for a european armaments policy within the framework of a european security and defence identity. these guiding principles, approved by the report from the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, are reflected in the restructuring policies that have been implemented in the member states. such restructuring, in the form of merger-acquisition operations at a global level, is based more on financial grounds than purely industrial ones and has serious economic, social and regional consequences. for example, the french government is pressing ahead with the restructuring and privatisation of the armaments industries, jeopardising more than 50 000 jobs. being active supporters of peace and disarmament, the french members of my group support cutting expenditure on armaments, particularly on nuclear weapons. we also suggest that an international conference on reducing the arms trade be organised, which could lead to an international convention. but at the same time, we are against the restructuring and privatisation that cost so many jobs. currently, only 5 % of france's requirements are met by state enterprises and munitions plants. this is why we believe that the arms we need to defend ourselves should be provided by national enterprises, despite the fact that the commission thinks that the rules governing public procurement should be applied to military equipment. the industrial activity generated could also go hand in hand with strengthened cooperation at european level, but without giving up all our advantages, technology and know-how to achieve this. such cooperation will only be effective if it is complemented by the establishment of a genuine community preference for arms purchases, so we can stand up to a dominant america that has cornered 50 % of the world market. this approach is further justified by the fact that 75 % of major conventional weapons bought by european countries come from the united states. we also need to begin, and continue with, the process of diversifying and reorientating some military activities to the civilian sphere, particularly the aeronautical, space and electronic industries. as the cgt, france's national state workers' union, stressed, the engineering and technical staff of these armaments plants have industrial skills and know-how and use technologies that could quite easily be used for civilian purposes. such diversification will only be truly effective if social measures are also introduced, such as reduced working time and improved training, in order to safeguard employment and keep sites operational in places where economic and social life is almost exclusively dependent on the armaments industry. mr president, the overarching goal of any security policy is global disarmament. this presupposes a scaling-down of both the manufacture and sale of arms. the eu should take the lead on disarmament and limiting the arms trade. this should be a constant element in any discussion on the european defence industry. although the international arms trade is a global problem, the member states of the union together represent the second most important player in the international arms market and therefore have a particular responsibility. mr titley has certainly done an excellent job, but i cannot agree with him when he says, in paragraph 3, that 'a european arms policy is an essential element in. the establishment of a european security and defence identity within nato'. sweden is a neutral and non-aligned country; it does not belong to nato and will not be involved in a common defence. moreover, i do not believe that it is appropriate to create an institution to deal with arms production before any decision has been taken on a common defence. as regards article 223 of the ec treaty, in my view armaments cannot be regarded in the same light as other goods and traded freely; on the contrary, they should be subject to special rules. the eu should play an active role, not in making it easier for the arms industry to produce and export weapons, but in tightening up the rules so as to limit the sale and export of armaments. mr president, fortunately we are living at a time when there is far less likelihood of an armed attack against our countries and more scope for europe to continue its policy of disarmament and dtente. however, such a perspective is entirely missing from mr titley's report. instead, it is all about building a common defence and devising a common code of conduct for the arms industry and exports. a report of this kind should be seeking to formulate a strategy for turning a military capability into a civil one. if the eu adopts a more active and aggressive approach to the export of arms, this will also serve to aggravate conflict situations where they occur in the world. i also disagree with paragraph 2, where it is stated that european research and technology policy should begin to be used for military purposes. on the contrary, we should be redirecting the enormous resources squandered on military research into the civil sector, where they will at least be of some benefit to the human race. furthermore, the report does not adequately take account of the fact that some eu member states do not belong to nato or the weu. nevertheless, the rapporteur would like these structures to be included in the western european union and in cooperation links with nato. i am also unhappy that, as we can see, extending nato to include the countries of central and eastern europe is having the effect of encouraging them to energetically rebuild their defence capabilities, which only leads to more countries in turn equipping themselves with new weapons systems. as a result, tension is likely to increase in europe rather than the reverse - even if some arms manufacturers are made happy in the process. i agree that there should be an international code of conduct to limit arms exports, but this proposal goes much further than that. i am therefore going to vote against what is, for the most part, a very reactionary report. mr president, first let me thank mr titley, and not just for the fact that in terms of substance his report follows the lines proposed by the commission but also for his realism and for the courage that is indeed required in order to deal realistically such a difficult subject. that is why i want to begin with a very simple statement, before mr sjstedt leaves. this is what we so often see in debates: a member tells us something or other and then leaves. he never listens to what the others have to say. applause let me begin with a very simple statement. i do not believe there is much dispute in the european parliament about the need for a common security and defence policy. a common security and defence policy, as its name suggests, is not some kind of policy of aggression but reflects the need in a world in which, unfortunately, we cannot guarantee security by peaceful methods alone, to build up a system that shows the public that we are able to defend ourselves. that is why, even in a neutral country such as sweden, there is no question at all about having a national defence system of its own. mr sjstedt, if in relative terms the european union were to export as many weapons as sweden, we would have to increase our exports considerably. the reason why nato adopts a different approach to sweden than to latvia, estonia and lithuania is partly because sweden was never part of the soviet union. so we should begin by stating quite soberly that we do need to defend ourselves. that is my first point. the second is that if that need exists and if it will take some time before we can achieve a common security policy - which is not easy politically - then, if it is going to take us another five or ten years to achieve that common security policy and if when we have finally achieved it we no longer have a common arms policy, we will face the problem that although we have a common security policy we have no means of producing weapons ourselves. anyone who does not understand that is beyond help! that is why the commission has taken the initiative of telling parliament and the member states that we have to do something. for one thing is clear: our industrial policy approach in this area has been purely national to date. that will not get us any further. the complaints that have been made here, by mrs elmalan too, i believe, that we are constantly losing ground to american exports to the european union, are true! the reason is simply that the european industry is too widely dispersed among national undertakings, so that it does not achieve the same overall market penetration as some american undertakings. we should just look at the order of magnitude. if all the companies that produce arms in europe joined forces, merged, they would still not be as big as the largest american undertaking operating in this area. that is also a question of industrial policy. the answer lies not just with the commission, with the european parliament and the european union, it also lies with the member states. all the member states have said they are aware of the need to restructure the industry. the same applies to the airbus. just recently the six countries cooperating on the airbus came together again. the problem there is quite simple. each country begins by defending its own interests, and sometimes its own policy. the reason france finds it more difficult to privatise arospatiale is not because arospatiale does not want this but because the current french government has more problems with this than a different government would have had. the reason two uk firms have now merged is partly because if this aviation merger takes place, a company that has more influence can of course make more demands. so we must realise that a kind of power struggle is taking place here. it would be naive to disregard that. at the same time all these trends show that the industry and the member states have realised that something has to be done here. i consider mr titley's report on this very difficult question most encouraging - it is easy enough for some people, including mr frischenschlager, to take the position that the right method is in fact to disarm. the european union would certainly be the first to accept that if we could make sure it applied worldwide. sadly, that is not an option. that is why we have to take a different road. we have proposed an action plan that quite clearly states what we can do. i can assure you that the commission will propose and implement all the necessary aspects of this action plan this year. standardisation is the first aspect. on public contracts: what mrs elmalan said on the subject is the usual reflex in some eu member states; when a problem arises, people take refuge in protectionism and in a european quota. you could call it agricultural policy transposed to the arms industry. but that is the very last thing we should do. that would not get us any further at all. so we must muster the strength to create competitive structures. that means: common standards, joint invitations to tender, for the european arms industry can only become competitive if it issues joint invitations to tender and has common rules on the internal arms trade and on arms exports. the european court of justice has on several occasions ruled that arms exports also lie within the community's sphere of competence. the commission will do all it can to make progress in this area, for if we do not act now, we cannot complain five years hence that we cannot even ensure our own defence any more. i believe we should follow a good european tradition here. we should be able to produce for ourselves what we need for our own defence. that is precisely the commission's aim and i am glad mr titley also sees it that way and supports it. the commissioner has commented on the fact that sweden exports arms and the manner in which it does so. i agree with him that this is both irresponsible and a good example of how it should not be done. take for example the export of arms to indonesia, or the present extremely aggressive techniques being used to sell fighter aircraft. i too think that such actions are wrong. nevertheless, instead of having to witness the same mistakes at eu level, i should like to reduce the likelihood of that happening. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. environment, security and foreign affairs the next item is the report (a4-0005/99) by mrs theorin, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on the environment, security and foreign policy. mr president, security policy has undergone many changes. the cold war has ended, and a major war in europe would seem impossible. the conflicts which we see around us are the result of ethnic, religious and social differences. at the same time, new threats are emerging in the form of massive displacement of refugees, terrorism, international crime and, no less importantly, environmental and natural disasters. bullets and gunpowder, however, are not the way to resolve such conflicts. a number of environmental disasters have brought the human race new problems, such as the recurrent flooding in europe, the dam disaster in spain and, most recently, the widespread landslides in central america. it is clear that there have not been sufficient resources to detect or prevent such disasters. since environmental threats do not respect national boundaries, what is required is international cooperation. there is a growing international awareness of the extent of environmental problems, as illustrated by the un follow-up conferences on water, desertification, the environment and development, and climate change. environmental problems can lead to such serious difficulties that they endanger the security of both individuals and countries. fresh water is a very unevenly distributed natural resource. fewer than ten countries possess 60 % of the total fresh water resources on earth, and several countries in europe are dependent on water imports. in future conflicts, attacks on fresh water may not simply be an end in themselves, but may also be the cause of conflict. an estimated 300 rivers, lakes and sources of groundwater are located in international border areas. in the middle east, nine of the 14 countries have a shortage of water resources. local and regional ecological problems can have serious implications for international relations, for example limited water resources or the large-scale displacement of environmental refugees. the number of environmental refugees has now reached 25 million, compared with 22 million 'traditional' refugees. by the year 2010, it is estimated that the number of environmental refugees will have doubled. these new causes of conflict must be reflected in foreign, defence and security policy and the way in which nations establish and maintain peace and security. we need to mobilise resources to meet the environmental challenge. a much greater effort is required, but our means and resources are strictly limited. at the same time, the change in the security situation has resulted in dtente and disarmament. the freeing-up of military resources has given the armed forces a unique opportunity and plenty of capacity to deal with the increasing number of environmental problems. the armed forces have a highly efficient organisation and extensive technical resources which could be used for the enhancement of the environment without incurring any significant costs. prevention of environmental crises requires infrastructure, organisation and increased resources. these are to be found within the armed forces, although capability may certainly vary from one country to another. in the main, however, they can supply qualified personnel, technologies, advanced technological resources, organisational capacity and military methods of research and development. military personnel are well equipped to intervene in the event of disasters and are trained to carry out missions under extreme conditions. military activity is also responsible for widespread environmental destruction. destroying the environment has been an established method of waging war since ancient times. war is also far and away the most serious threat to the environment. the military is responsible for emissions of several gases affecting the climate, fossil fuels, freons, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide. nuclear and chemical weapons and landmines are some of the most obvious types of armament that cause extensive damage to the environment, even in peacetime. the committee held a public hearing to find out more about the 'non-lethal' weapons and haarp, the high frequency active auroral research project. however, i very much regret that the usa did not send representatives to the hearing or use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted. there have been two public hearings to try to shed more light on the complex technical and legal aspects of the 'non-lethal' weapons and haarp. we have also put forward proposals relating to the economic and practical implications of a training programme for environmental defence troops. my original proposals were dealt with under the hughes procedure, and the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection has looked into the environmental aspects very carefully. against this more detailed background, i am now presenting this resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy, which makes a series of proposals for measures to be carried out both at eu and national level. the resolution recommends that the member states should seek to utilise military-related resources for environmental protection through the setting-up of a training programme for environmental defence troops with a view to establishing a coordinated european environmental brigade, listing their environmental needs and the military resources available, and exploiting these resources in their national environmental planning while also putting them at the disposal of the united nations and the european union in the event of an environmental disaster, or under the partnership for peace. furthermore, the armed forces should comply with specific environmental rules and make good past damage to the environment caused by their own actions. civil environmental legislation should be applied to all military activities. we call on the commission to present to the council and parliament - as foreseen by the amsterdam treaty - a common strategy which brings together the common foreign and security policy and the eu's policies on trade, aid, development and the environment. it is noted in the resolution that preventive environmental measures are an important instrument of security policy, and the member states are urged to define environmental and health objectives as part of their long-term defence and security assessments. the resolution also addresses the problem of the uncontrolled unprofessional storage and dumping of nuclear submarines and surface vessels, as well as their radioactive fuel and leaking nuclear reactors. the commission is urged to conduct an in-depth study of security-related threats to the environment in europe and to draw up a green paper on military activities affecting the environment. the report also examines the legal aspects of military activities and calls upon the european union to seek to have the new 'non-lethal' weapons technology included in and regulated by the international conventions. so long as nuclear weapons exist, there is a danger of them being used in error. that danger could soon be considerably reduced if the nuclear powers were to implement the six proposals of the canberra commission. let me conclude by saying that almost every day we receive reports of environmental disasters which could be prevented if we used our available resources sensibly. the resources in question belong to the armed forces, who could be allowed to continue to operate them. all that is lacking is political will. mr president, the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection has considered this report and delivered an opinion about which i should like to make a few brief comments. first of all, i am pleased to say that we agree with the background information provided by mrs theorin here in the house. however, i should like to conclude my intervention by touching on one or two issues which we view in a different light. it is quite obvious that nowadays there is no direct military threat to europe's security. however, there are other bigger dangers, such as environmental devastation, shortages of fresh water, desertification, climate change, accidents in chemical and nuclear power plants and so on. it is therefore vital that we revise our ideas about security and develop them to include environmental threats, and on the whole, the report does just that. it is a very good sign that we are applying normal civil environmental criteria to military activities - this is a necessary development in the present situation. tackling the problem posed by earlier nuclear weapons is a major step in this respect. as to how this would be done, the report proposes that the armed forces should be 'trained' to enable them to cope with environmental problems. that would certainly be a practicable solution, but the environment committee would like to make the point that if substantial resources continue to be allocated to the military, which is certainly the case today, some of those resources should be switched from military defence to the environmental sector, for example rescue and disaster relief services, the decontamination of land and water, and preventive measures to safeguard the environment. we believe that this is more important than the creation of a special environmental brigade. it is also an idea which could be put into practice. mr president, i hope colleagues are aware of the importance and significance of this report. i refer not just to the quality of mrs theorin's work, for which i congratulate her, but the fact that this report was produced by the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy. it is a sign that parliament has recognised that the end of the cold war has brought with it an entirely new concept of security and that environmental security is crucial to future peace and prosperity. there is no doubt that the scarcity and degradation of environmental resources will lead in the future to conflict and we have to use all the resources available to prevent that happening. if i have a criticism of the report as it has finally emerged, it is that the way it was amended by both the foreign affairs committee and the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection has meant that we have tended to throw everything in including the kitchen sink. that is a mistake. we ought to focus on the basic points. what is important to most people is the air they breathe, the food they eat and the water they drink - indeed, the water which helps to grow the food they eat. i would like to concentrate on that one question of water. it is perhaps the most important security challenge facing us in the next century. for example, if we look at the caspian sea region, we find that it has tremendous oil potential leading potentially to great prosperity. but it is also a disaster waiting to happen, specifically in the republics of central asia. we all know the horrific tale of the aral sea. equally, there are other conflicts as a result of both the soviet system which wasted water and the collapse of the system which has led to chaos in terms of distribution of water supply. there is kyrgyzstan's hydro-electric power which is undermining the downstream countries. illegal tapping of water supplies and questions of water access intermingled with nationalist rivalries could easily explode at any moment. similarly, if we look at the indian sub-continent, a growing population accompanied by deforestation is causing flooding which is undermining effective water supply and dykes. the headwaters of several river systems are to be found in kashmir and we are all aware of the security implications of that. in the middle east access to the jordan river is one of the key aspects of the middle east peace process, in particular in relation to the golan heights. indeed, the history of israel-jordan relations is as much a history of water relations as anything else. so i welcome the fact that we are addressing these issues at long last. i share with mrs theorin the hope that we can use all our resources - specifically military resources of satellite intelligence, etc. to start to attack environmental security. if we do not, then in terms of conflict 'we ain't seen nothing yet'. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, mrs theorin's report on the environment, security and foreign policy addresses a detail of security policy, namely questions relating to environmental policy, exaggerates their importance and therefore tries to look at the security policy role of the armed forces mainly from that aspect and to change the task and role of the security forces. it has become particularly clear in the former warsaw pact member states how the armed forces can pollute the environment, for there the withdrawal of the then soviet troops very often left serious environmental damage in its wake. abandoned and often disintegrating nuclear submarines have become a danger to the seas, former barracks have left a legacy of oil-polluted soil. of course it is legitimate to ask who is responsible for disposing of the military waste, especially in these countries. but to use this as a pretext for defining armed forces only in relation to their environmental compatibility, to prevent research on the grounds that it is not environmentally compatible, is to undermine the security policy task of those armed forces. since the end of the cold war has not yet brought peace, we have to reject this basic approach that is taken in the report. to hold the armed forces responsible for the environmental damage does not take us forward, for it would put an unacceptable burden on the defence budget, limited as it is. what is, however, important and right, is for the governments to have to pay for environmental damage and to apply the polluter pays principle here. in spite of the basic approach taken in the report, which i reject on principle as unrealistic, some aspects are of course definitely worth supporting, such as the inclusion of environmental aspects in military research, gearing the arms industry more to the production of civil goods, the call for a ban on anti-personnel mines and for the immediate signature of the 1997 ottawa agreement, control of waste from the nuclear weapons industry, control of biological and chemical weapons, the further dismantling of nuclear weapons and in particular observance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. there is a great danger that weapons of this kind could fall into the hands of irresponsible despots or terrorist organisations and this must be prevented by a network of international agreements and by the appropriate controls. to call for environmental training of military personnel with the aim of setting up an environmental protection brigade is inappropriate here and would get us nowhere since environmental aspects are already taken into account in the national armed forces and in the nato partnership for peace. of course the armed forces must be prepared to deal with environmental disasters. but that is certainly not their primary task. mr president, the environment has to be an important factor in our foreign and security policy. that is the essential message of this report. i am grateful to mrs theorin for her energetic input here. it would indeed be a good thing for the union to devise a common strategy in this area. there are already numerous conflicts which have their origins in problems of the environment. mr titley mentioned some of them: water in the middle east, overpopulation as a factor of conflict in the great lakes region, deforestation and floods in southern asia. it is clear too that the armed forces are part of the social fabric, of a society in which high priority is given to protecting the environment. where possible, we must make use of military personnel to resolve environmental problems. airborne surveillance of illegal fuel dumping by tankers in the north sea is a good example of how the military can be used to good effect. environmental troops could usefully have been deployed to cope with the fires in indonesia. but this report also contains many things which are unrealistic and unnecessary. we must not start setting up new centres, writing countless green papers and forming new task forces. and we must leave it to national governments to switch budget funds away from the defence sector. it is not parliament's job to tell governments that they must have the army running environmental policy. each member state must reorganise its budget as it sees fit, and then the environment will naturally be one of the issues dealt with. my group, the liberal group, wants to see the report pruned to its essentials. we shall table amendments to delete a number of paragraphs. my group will wait to see what happens to those, and we shall then decide whether to support this report or not. mr president, mrs theorin has written an important report which has been improved during its passage through the committee. nevertheless, it still lacks muscle in some respects, for example the responsibility of the armed forces for environmental destruction in peacetime, claims for damages against the military and, above all, space-based weapons systems. there is a remarkable contrast between the explanatory statement and the resolution itself. in the explanatory statement, haarp - the high frequency active auroral research project - is said to be a military research project on the lines of 'star wars' which is environmentally damaging, has an unknown effect on people's lives and is legally questionable and probably in breach of international law. however, none of this is mentioned in the resolution, which only refers to further investigation. the green group thinks the time has come to say loud and clear that this research has got to stop, and this we do in our amendment. mr president, commissioner, the realisation that security policy is closely bound up with environmental questions is to be welcomed on principle. the conclusion that military activities have far-reaching environmental effects is also important. but i would also draw your attention to a circumstance to which more account must be given in our future peace policy work. in africa as also in the middle east, in south america and in the states of the former soviet union wars are being waged about oil and other resources. only when we manage to do away with this central source of war over the past century and move instead towards renewable primary energy sources will we see the first real success in regard to long-term peace protection on an environmental basis. i regard one point as particularly important here. the eu should launch an offensive against the increasingly widespread problem of mercenaries, which is very much implicated in this fight for resources. mercenary troops should be prohibited worldwide and their european headquarters should be prosecuted. , security and defence policy. mr president, i want to endorse the conclusions this report comes to. it seems to me clear that the impact of the environment on security is both immediate, important and growing. i absolutely endorse what both mrs theorin and mr titley said about conflict over water and resources and how central this should be as we plan the common foreign and security policy over the next ten years equally, i am not going to add to comments that have been made on the impact of the military on the environment. you can see that in the kola peninsula. you can see that in the insecurity of nuclear sites in the soviet union of the kind that has been highlighted by general lee butler. however, i want to say a word about the haarp project mr gahrton mentioned. having listened to the hearing and done some considerable work myself i find the dangers of experiments with polar electromagnetism to be potentially very damaging and possibly calamitous. i say that without making any particular judgment as to the potential military applications of this technology, either as a weapon for disrupting an enemy's climate or its adaptability for the use in non-lethal weapons in either a military or a civilian situation, or perhaps most dangerously of all as a covert continuation of 'star wars' defence policies. the fact is that when we look at this issue and when we listened in the hearing on haarp, we appeared at times to be listening to science fiction. but that science fiction should not blind us to this turning into a considerably threatening reality. i echo other speakers' comments in saying that i regret that the american administration, despite contacts at the very highest level and contacts inside nato, did not feel it reasonable to come to this parliament and express a view. in the absence of that, i have to say that this parliament must take the view that this is a matter which should concern us all and to which we should return in the next mandate. there are unanswered questions and this parliament deserves some answers both from the americans and from scientists involved in this issue. mr president, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur, mrs theorin, for her considerable efforts, which also - if i may be allowed a brief personal comment - admirably complement much of the political work that she has carried out in the past. clearly, this report covers a number of areas besides those i work with on a daily basis concerning the environment, but i shall be dealing with the report as a whole. the commission has taken great interest in parliament's report and the motion for a resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy which it contains. as has also been emphasised here today, it deals with a complex subject, the great importance of which is now being realised by the international community as a whole. the report is commendable because it clearly points out many of the connections which exist or could arise between the environment, lack of natural resources and security. a number of examples have also been provided in this debate, such as refugee problems and overpopulation or - in terms of the environment itself - water and climate. the commission's services have been investigating a number of security problems and their economic consequences in a broader context. as part of this work, we have held a number of seminars, including one on the environment and security. it was decided that, as a follow-up to these seminars, the commission should produce a paper on the interaction of foreign policy, security and sustainable development, with the aim of starting a debate with the parties concerned and decision-makers throughout europe. as a result of this, my own services are already in the process of taking a closer look at some of the points in parliament's report concerning the risks connected with global climate changes and the exploitation of resources, which could lead to an increase in environmental refugees, crisis situations and - as mrs theorin herself emphasised - direct conflicts. dg xi has started its work on the environment and security. this will focus on issues such as water resources and water shortages, which mr titley touched on in particular, whether we are dealing with the caspian sea, the aral sea or the black sea, which mr spencer and i had the opportunity to look at more closely a little while ago. we shall also be focusing on soil erosion, lack of natural resources, transfrontier problems regarding the destruction of forests and biological diversity and the security problems which could follow as a result. in this context, we shall also look more closely at the effect on policy in other areas, such as trade, development aid and cooperation. this work therefore covers a number of the proposals which have also come from the european parliament, particularly the resolution's very important first paragraph. on various occasions, the commission has expressed its concern at the deforestation and desertification in africa. a large part of the emergency aid under the lom programme has been earmarked for combating these two phenomena, which of course have many causes, some of which are quite clearly of a military nature. however, the commission has neither authority nor expertise in the area of military affairs. it does not have access to military activities or resources, because these are exclusively the concern of the national authorities. we in the commission will therefore not be in a position to ensure that some of the paragraphs in the motion for a resolution are followed up. this applies to paragraphs 18 and 29. the commission participates fully in the common foreign and security policy, and we shall therefore try, together with the council presidency, to act as spokesmen for the views expressed in the resolution in the various international security forums, including the un. finally, mr president, the commission welcomes the fact that parliament has produced this resolution and report. it shares parliament's concerns about the connection between environmental degradation and future risks in terms of security. as i said, we have already started working on some aspects of the problem, particularly those which directly concern the environment. with these comments, i would once again like to thank the rapporteur, mrs theorin, for an excellent report and for the debate which we have had here today. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at 9 a.m. comprehensive partnership with china the next item is the report (a4-0479/98) by mr bernard-reymond, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on the communication from the commission - building a comprehensive partnership with china (com(98)0181 - c4-0248/98). mr president, china, an immutable yet changing country, has once again recently given us an example of its contradictions and its difficulties. having shown encouraging signs of opening up on human rights issues, a series of hurried trials have just reminded us - as if there were any need to be reminded - that unfortunately this country remains hostage to an authoritarian policy that shuns freedom, democracy and human rights. over recent months, there have been several encouraging signs such as the signing of two un conventions on economic, social and cultural rights and on civil and political rights, the fact that there has been indirect contact with representatives of the tibetan people, the taiwanese representative's visit to peking, the freeing of political prisoners, the troika's visit to tibet, the fact that mary robinson, the united nations high commissioner for human rights, visited beijing, and the public dialogue between the united states and jiang zemin which took place on chinese television. we are, of course, not so nave as to think that, in themselves, these things all constitute a bold new policy, but the simple fact that they took place and the fact that the authorities in beijing deemed them necessary, was, in itself, an incentive to continue and extend dialogue. it was in this context that the commission decided to draw up a new communication, which the council has approved before parliament has even given its opinion on it - hardly a good example of democracy to show china. the commission has adopted five guidelines that you already know about and that have been approved by the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy. i note with satisfaction the fact that these guidelines make political dialogue a priority, along with proposed aid to china to help establish the rule of law in compliance with international requirements. we need to maintain political dialogue with this future major actor in the multipolar world, a power that could act as a stabilising influence in that region of asia. but political dialogue is equally necessary in order to persuade china that the key to becoming part of international society lies in the respect of universal values. in view of this, we welcome the legal and judicial cooperation programme put forward by the commission, providing a total of ecu 13 million over four years. in this programme, respect for individual and trade-union freedoms should be made a priority, even though the legal security of economic society is also necessary, particularly as regards protecting investments and intellectual property. however, ladies and gentlemen, we are considering these guidelines at a moment when xu wenli, wang youcai and qin yongmin have once again been imprisoned, and where a wave of arrests and trials forces us to ask just what this crackdown means. of course, we know that the prospect of the tenth anniversary of the events in tiananmen square is worrying beijing, but we fear that the roots of such a hardline stance go much deeper than that. on an economic level, china is undergoing major change. having learned from international developments over the past twenty years, from the development of globalisation and the efficiency of the market economy, china has decided to open up to the world and move from a centralised and bureaucratic economy to a socialist market economy. it has rapidly reaped the benefits of this change. for a long time now growth has been 10 % or more, currency reserve levels have been high, foreign investment has increased considerably, external trade is in full expansion and inflation is gradually being brought under control. the commission proposes to support this trend by offering to cooperate in such diverse fields as human resources development, administrative reform, social protection, reform of the financial sector, combating poverty and regional disparities, the transfer of technological know-how in the energy sector, widening scientific and technical cooperation and protecting the environment. but, as always, these sweeping changes have also exacerbated or created major disparities: between town and country, between coastal regions and the interior, between beijing and local authorities, between the poor and the newly rich, between those in and out of work, and in environmental matters. the authorities' desire to overcome these difficulties without endangering china's unity and whilst preserving its internal stability is justifiable but does the path which the beijing authorities appear to have chosen not increase the danger rather than avert it? a changing society needs flexibility, decentralisation, accountability, initiative, debate: in short, democracy. anything that is inflexible, authoritarian and centralist may fool people for a while, but in a changing economic society such an attitude always leads to obstacles being created, which in turn will trigger explosions or lead to that society being ostracised and isolated. although europe is still willing to enter into constructive dialogue, it does not want china to follow any of these roads. europe would like china to gradually become part of international political and economic society. we are prepared to help it to reach this goal. however, china must be capable of being as courageous in the political world as it has been in the economic world. we strongly encourage china to do this as we know that, for all peoples, freedom is the future of history. mr president, three large economic areas the size of europe have collapsed over the last year and a half. the neo-liberalist doctrines of the imf have been unsuccessfully applied to all three, that is to say, south-east asia, russia and brazil. now it would appear that china is to be the next target of assault by international market forces. china is nevertheless a politically more stable fortress that the other countries i have referred to. its stability could be vital for the whole world, including europe and the united states. if china's currency is devalued, european and american competition will not stand the pressure. mr bernard-reymond's report rightly stresses the importance of a constructive but unconditionally critical attitude towards chinese society. china is crumbling from within as a result of environmental problems. its population is predicted to grow to one and a half billion quite soon. when subject to rapid intensive and extensive economic growth, nature and the environment become vulnerable. 80 % of china's energy is produced from coal, the country relying on exports for other sources of power. burning coal in china adds to the world's carbon dioxide emissions, and china produces more emissions than any other country in the world apart from the usa. china, however, is not bound by an international agreement on climate, and, as a developing country, does not have to be. it would be in its own interests, however, to reduce emissions. the report fails to discuss environmental problems thoroughly enough, and hardly at all, in fact. the committee on external economic relations has focussed its attention on these problems, which the rapporteur has largely ignored. the sale of modern technology that protects the environment and innovative products that incorporate environment-friendly technological know-how would be an important growth industry for companies in the european union. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i believe that the picture painted by the rapporteur, mr bernard-reymond, clearly illustrates the failings of the so-called constructive dialogue policy which the european union has pursued with china for many years now. he has highlighted all the shortcomings, or some of them at least, and the whole thing really is a failure of major proportions. it must be pointed out that the union and the member states showed the same condescending attitude towards the citizens of the soviet union, who it was felt did not count as such. for years, we believed that what worked for us, namely democracy, was something that did not apply to them, and for some time now we have been applying the same analysis to china. we have been following the same policy of not acknowledging that chinese citizens, like us, have a right to democracy. this is particularly serious as the situation in china is much more desperate than we are often told. tens of millions of people are unemployed due to social and economic contradictions. contrary to what people would have us believe, it is not the communist system - and this is indeed the issue here - that will guarantee the stability which our socialist colleague was discussing, but rather democracy, with its safeguards, its opposition forces and its social control mechanisms. only democracy could help china to rid itself of such contradictions once and for all. it would be better to push china, to demand that it and its leading communist class relinquish their monopoly on power, their violent monopoly over tens, even hundreds of millions of people. such violence is the reason behind the tens of thousands of political prisoners - and these are official figures. i would ask everyone to consider for a moment the conditions in which individual political prisoners are today being held in china, tibet, inner mongolia and turkestan. we forget about them, we listen to dissidents when they are released from prison and we applaud them, but we forget that tens of thousands of other political prisoners are being subjected to violence and torture and very often killed, even as we debate this report here today. this is the policy of constructive dialogue with the people's republic of china that the european union is endorsing and it is a disaster. we have seen examples of such a policy with the russian loans at the beginning of the century, and even if the situation is not entirely comparable i believe that, as far as our businesses are concerned, we should perhaps be slightly concerned at the risk to the high levels of capital invested by firms from the member states of the european union, which are in danger of waking up tomorrow to find themselves in a situation of unprecedented confusion in the face of enormous losses. next door to china is the world's largest democracy: india. the european union acts as if it has forgotten that this country and this great democracy exists and that at least there we can count on the ruling democratic classes there. but no, we dig our heels in, we head straight for china and we forget these other examples. my socialist colleague mentioned the asian tigers but he forgets that south korea, following the recent economic growth crisis, has further developed its democratic institutions. he forgets that democracy in taiwan, which is a chinese country, is working better and better. he forgets the positive examples but he also forgets about north korea, a vassal of the people's republic of china. in a few years' time, when the north korean regime has fallen from power because, for one reason or another, there is no longer any support from the international community, we will discover that there were millions of deaths in north korea, and we will act as if we are surprised by this. these are the sorts of regimes we are encouraging with our constructive dialogue policy. we have not seen any progress in the people's republic of china. the rapporteur pointed out that international conventions have been signed, yet a few weeks after they were ratified new dissidents were arrested and sent to the notorious 'laogai', the chinese concentration camps. we saw young chinese people being arrested for surfing the internet. this is the china we wish to support and for which we are providing de facto support with this constructive dialogue policy. i am pleased that sir leon brittan is here with us, as parliament's policy used to be rather different, as shown in its urgent resolutions. no fewer than twenty resolutions have been tabled over the past five years, calling, in particular, for the release of dissidents. none of them was released as a result of pressure from europe. two or three were released due to pressure from america, namely wong dan and wei jingsheng, but we achieved nothing. mr hada, the democratic leader of inner mongolia, is still in prison, as are the dissidents from eastern turkestan, and as are tens of thousands of political prisoners. we do not have a high representative of the european union for tibet, as parliament has requested. we have achieved nothing here either for human rights or for political freedoms. mr president, i would make it clear from the beginning that the socialist group is in favour of the commission's communication about building a comprehensive partnership with china. we emphasise the word partnership which is about dialogue between two parties not one party constantly lecturing another. as mr bernard-reymond is aware, my initial concern at his first draft report was that we were spending most of our time lecturing china. i would like to thank him and pay tribute to him for the way he has been prepared to take on amendments and adapt his report. i feel it is now a far better balanced report. china is, of course, important, not just to the eu but to the world, as we saw when everybody was trembling at the prospect of a devaluation of the currency. that does not, of course, justify us ignoring our own traditional positions. we have our own standards and our own beliefs in relation to democracy and human rights and we are quite entitled to express those and expect our partners to respect the same principles. however, we have to recognise that changing a system is not easy and that china in many ways is actually a developing country, not a developed country. therefore, we should be looking to encourage progress and reform. mr dupuis is right. the political and economic reforms go together. they are not isolated from each other. sudden dramatic about-turns, such as those we had with the cultural revolution in china, do no good to anybody. they disrupt and increase poverty. we should be prepared to recognise when china is moving in the right direction, for example, the transition to chinese rule in hong kong has gone far better than most people ever expected and we should recognise that. we should be trying to encourage china to take its place in the world system, particularly its membership of the wto. that will allow us then to get to grips with issues like counterfeiting and lack of respect for intellectual property, which are major concerns for us at the moment. we should, of course, be constantly driving home the message of human rights but we have to recognise that access was given to mary robinson and that china has moved towards taking on board the un conventions. we need to ensure these are ratified and we are quite right to condemn the recent crackdown which goes against the trend we have seen in the last 12 months. we have to be aware when criticising china that we ought to be looking at ourselves. we must speak as the european union with one voice in our relations to china. it is no good one or two member states deciding to go it alone for trade reasons. the european union has to have a common policy in relation to china. my final observation is in relation to taiwan. i am glad we were able to change the report's comments on relations with taiwan because, while we should not interfere in the relationships between taiwan and china, our position should be very simple. any solution to taiwan should respect international law and the right of self-determination. beyond that, of course, it is a matter for the chinese to resolve. mr president, the christian democrats support the line taken by the commission and the rapporteur, whom we thank for his good report. we believe that only through constructive dialogue can we make progress. in reply to mr dupuis i would say that i share many of his views, but none of our urgent resolutions did any good. we must begin a constructive dialogue and strengthen it, and i hope the other side, the people's republic of china, understands that we are willing to meet it halfway if it does the same for us. both sides bear a great responsibility. firstly, the european union would like and hopes to see the people's republic of china take the necessary domestic steps to enable it to become a member of the world trade organisation as soon as possible. we are also quite prepared, if it so wishes, to support the people's republic of china in achieving its own objectives, to support it in transforming its economic system from a bureaucratic planned economy into a socialist market economy. above all, we believe that in the interests of trade and investment the approach taken by the people's republic of china must lead to reforms of the legal and taxation system, otherwise world trade cannot continue to flourish. signing the un conventions does not suffice for the development of human rights and democracy and we should tell our friends quite clearly that as we see it the principles of democracy and human rights also require the recognition of, in particular, political parties of a different tendency, the recognition of the cultural autonomy of regions such as tibet, the civil rights of the individual and the release of persons imprisoned because of the exercise of their civil rights. this message should in fact have got through today too. allow me to make one more comment on the subject of peace and stability in asia. recognition of the existence of the state of taiwan and of the rights of its citizens to self-determination is a fundamental condition for stability there. the talks between the representatives of the people's republic of china and of taiwan are promising signs that both sides are moving towards a peaceful solution. mr president, the swedish writer per ahlmark has collaborated with a number of famous peace researchers in different parts of the world to show, quite convincingly, that democracies never go to war with each other and that disasters causing hunger over a wide area do not occur in countries which have a free press and market economies. in the twentieth century, the victims of dictatorships can be reckoned in their millions. the dictators have driven these people out in time of war, they have executed them, degraded them in concentration and labour camps, or starved them to death. among the most notorious mass-murderers of our time are hitler, stalin and mao, but others have existed - and still exist - who are their equal in many respects, among them pol pot, verwoerd, saddam hussein and kim ii sung, to mention but a few. since mao's time, china has made considerable progress. in europe, we welcome this and share in the happiness of hundreds of millions of chinese people who are enjoying better lives as a result. but the people of china still have enormous problems to contend with. china is still far from being a democracy; there is little room for freedom of speech or to form trade unions. those who have called for democracy and human rights in china have been given long prison sentences. executions are common, the tibetans are oppressed and taiwan is subject to blatant threats from beijing. so long as this situation continues, it is the duty of the european union and of this parliament in particular to call for change and to use all the means at our disposal to bring it about. it is in our interests, but to an even greater extent it would be in the interest of china and its people too. mr president, the communication by the european commission, and by extension, i think, the debate as it is taking place, seem somewhat ignorant of history. they have no basis in reality. you are not prepared to take any account of the fact that china, that great country, that great nation, emerged only 50 years ago from foreign wars, from a status of prolonged colonialism, from civil wars, and within 50 years it is striving to create its own model, one which matches its history, its culture, which goes back 5 000 years before our debate today. that is why the commission's statement is of questionable credibility, it is presumptuous, self-interested in its objectives, it aims to explore how, through what loophole and by what artifices european multinationals can take part in the sharing of the enormous cake represented by the chinese market. so what is the statement doing? i have no time, so i will try to mention only a few points. at one point, the statement mentions continuing reforms which we will assist. if that were sincerely aimed at china's development, at the prosperity of its people, we should all be in agreement. no such thing! the real aim is to establish reforms which will draw china in and subject it to your own model and to the standards dictated by your multinationals. elsewhere, the statement speaks of assisting the reforms in order to forestall crises in china such as those in other asian countries. but, ladies and gentlemen, those countries - the three you referred to earlier - had long been immersed up to the neck in your own models and liberal measures. and yet the crisis still occurred. is that where you want china to go as well? has there not been a crisis in your own countries too, despite unrestrained liberalism? where are you looking for the causes of the crisis and seeking reforms according to your own models, supposedly out of concern, in case china suffers a crisis? and another thing which means an attempt to intervene in china's internal affairs: yes, let us have bilateral trade, but where this concerns chinese enterprises which, inside china, do not conform absolutely with the rules of the free market, then we must adopt special dumping measures against them. that is blatant and inadmissible intervention. and finally, the rule of law, democracy and so on, so that we can have 'partnership' and close relations with china. that, of course, would be a very good thing for the chinese people, for the european union and from an international perspective. but why are you closing your eyes? the rather small country of latvia, with which you have very close relations and which you are striving to bring into the community, has 700 000 inhabitants out of 2.5 million who do not have the right to call themselves citizens, who have no rights at all. why? because they suffer the sole disadvantage of being russian-speaking. why do you want such relations with them? why can you not see that? this, then, is hypocrisy, self-interest and presumption. one of the speakers even said that you aspire to teach them. mr president, china has opened the door a crack, but at the same time there is great pressure from within the country to ensure that the door does not open too far. china wants a share in the economic leap forward in the global economy, but is not yet prepared to accept the consequences of that as far as shifting its political position is concerned. democracy and respect for human rights are managed from a position of fear. the rapporteur actually uses the word 'authoritarian'. in practical terms, for example, we see the founder of the democratic party of china receiving an eleven-year prison sentence. it is all a little game they play. on the eve of the american visit and the talks of the international olympic committee, the dissidents are released. a few weeks later, a large number of other dissidents are imprisoned again. they are playing games with the rest of the world - games which do not sit well with the comprehensive partnership envisaged by the commission. they are not compatible with that. i think they are frankly unacceptable. it is true that all the european member states are queuing up to do business with china. but i totally agree with mr dupuis. these investments can only be successful if china becomes an open and democratic society. our partnership can be helpful here. the rapporteur suggests a constructive dialogue, but that has to lead to meaningful economic and political measures. otherwise, i can see parliament pursuing a constant debate on constructive dialogue which achieves nothing, as we saw before in our critical dialogue with iran. constructive dialogue has to result in progress. the rapporteur's suggestion that a human rights clause should be included in the trade and cooperation agreement with china which is now coming up for renewal is a step in the right direction. my congratulations to the rapporteur. mr president, democracy in china has suffered a severe setback in recent months. that is why i, as chairman of the delegation for relations with china, together with other members of the delegation and numerous colleagues, have tabled a separate amendment in which we not only express our concern, but also call for concrete information from the chinese authorities regarding the large number of people who have been arrested recently. it is vital that we continue to exert pressure on the chinese government and do not allow them to believe that we only see the positive developments. of course we cannot do that. why are the chinese people behaving in this way? the situation in china is certainly very serious. i should like to quote the french professor, jean-louis rocker, writing in the report of the annual conference organised by the european union - china academic network, which took place last week in madrid: 'in recent years numerous demonstrations, petitions, sit-ins and violent actions have taken place in most big cities in order to protest against the degradation of living conditions'. there is a feeling of social unease in china which the authorities harshly suppress. there is good reason for the european union to reconsider its policy towards china. mr president, the rapporteur mr bernard-reymond deserves congratulations. he has drafted a very good report. we have had a number of discussions and draft amendments and i believe that has resulted in a very balanced report. as members we are in an extremely difficult situation in regard to china. i could quote mr gorbachev, who said 'life punishes latecomers', but perhaps china would find that rather difficult to accept given the man who said it and against the background of the fact that the soviet union disintegrated in a manner that was not exactly positive and that it would be a disaster for china and the world were history to repeat itself in this regard. that is precisely why we must remain in continuous dialogue with the chinese and with the representatives of china and convince them that it is important for them, for china, to carry out the appropriate reforms and that this is not being forced upon them from the outside but forms part and parcel of the democracy movement in china. here we must consider three important issues, the political, the economic and the human rights issue. let us not be naive enough to believe we could eliminate any of these. let us not be naive enough to believe we could fight for human rights unless we continue the political dialogue at the same time and also support and promote the economic development of china. china is an important partner and it is precisely those who keep saying that we need the united nations and the security council for security policy measures and decisions in the world who must conduct this political dialogue with china, even in china's present, unhappy political form. in regard to the economic question, of course i know that a number of undertakings have purely economic or trade interests. but our common objective is the progress of economic development in china. it cannot be in our interest to see china collapse; on the contrary we want china to develop economically. our policy and that of the european union must be that at the same time - not as an alternative or substitute for that objective - we remain unyielding on the human rights issue and endeavour to persuade china to make progress with political democracy, in its own interests and in the interests of human rights. for however many mistakes mr gorbachev made, those words are crucial. they apply for china too and in the case of china they could have far-reaching, disastrous results and consequences for the whole world: life punishes latecomers! china will be the first to be punished if it does not try in good time to make parallel progress in the economic, political and human rights fields. that is why i so much endorse what the report is now endeavouring to do: it is trying to approach china through dialogue, rather than prescribing from above in a kind of imperialist manner how china should conduct itself; instead china is being invited to join with us in making the world a better, fairer and economically more successful place. mr president, mr bernard-reymond's report constitutes a valuable contribution to the on-going and evolving debate about the nature of the relationship between china and the european union. it is important that we engage in a positive and constructive relationship with china. however, it must be an open and honest relationship. the european union has consistently supported the principles of democracy and the protection of human rights. while we want to be positive about many of the changes that are taking place in china, we cannot, and indeed must not, turn a blind eye to the continuing abuse of human rights, in particular the scandalous treatment of political dissidents and members of religious faiths. failure on our part to speak out simply because many of the leading member states of the european union have profitable trading relationships with china would be an abdication of our responsibility and would undermine the moral authority of the union to speak on other situations elsewhere in the world where human rights are being blatantly breached. furthermore, it would be a betrayal of the philosophy of the founding members of this union. as far as hong kong is concerned, i welcome the fact that the handover has taken place without many of our worst fears having been realised. however, we must continue to keep a watching brief on hong kong and i welcome the publication of the commission's recent report in that regard to which i hope we will be able to respond. there have been a number of instances where the independence of the rule of law and the observance of human rights have been called into question. these fears must be addressed as must also the wish to see the introduction of an accelerated timetable for the introduction of universal suffrage. with these few comments, i commend the rapporteur's efforts and i very much welcome the report he has produced. madam president, mr bernard-reymond's report indicates that there is no reasonable alternative to a balanced and comprehensive approach. that is the view of a large majority of this parliament. i also welcome the fact that we do not now have a series of endless urgencies on incidental items but that we have a comprehensive approach. this parliament needs to take a mature approach and this is what mr bernard-reymond has done. as mr gahrton has indicated, the delegation for china tabled amendment no 11 which points out that it is very important that certain of the negative developments at the present time should be tackled. i would like to hear how sir leon brittan sees this turnaround on democracy and human rights. it is an important and a negative development. as other speakers have said, there are also positive developments. we should at the present time see that in economic terms china is in the midst of a hurricane. if that hurricane swamps it we will also feel the effects. there has been economic and political courage on the part of the chinese which is worth noting. on hong kong, as others have said, things are better than we expected. that is why i should like to emphasise that between the extremism of mr ephremidis and - my apologies, mr dupuis - the non-alternative of the are, which has tabled 26 amendments but really has no alternative policies, mr bernard-reymond's policy is the right one. we want to apply pressure to china on human rights, not only for moral self-satisfaction but because it is in the best interests of china itself. that society can only develop if it takes into account pluriformity, human rights and political opposition. that is the road ahead as the example of russia has indicated. the size of china is such that there are not many models that can be applied to that country. for that reason we hope that mr bernard-reymond's approach will be shared by a large majority of this parliament. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, it seems to me that, yet again in dealing with china, europe has demonstrated that it is weak with the strong and strong with the weak. it is easy to get angry with sierra leone or guinea- bissau, but much more difficult to tell the truth about what is happening in china today. every kind of opposition is fiercely repressed, all freedom of expression and opinion is denied, the only representatives of a possible opposition to the communist regime, which tortures and butchers those who oppose it, are convicted after farcical trials. and we continue to have this accommodating attitude. we see it in this report too. despite mr bernard-reymond's excellent intentions, it seems that, here again, europe is demonstrating that it is completely subservient to the de facto logic of trade. what has happened in the last few weeks cannot be passed over in silence. i strongly believe that if europe is worth anything, if it still has a purpose, it must speak out in defence of human rights, especially when dealing with the strongest countries which obviously set an example, as is currently the case with china on the asian front, and not only there. in the light of all this, how can we still consider granting aid and subsidies and maintaining relations with people who torture and butcher their political opponents? in the light of all this, i ask you all whether there should not be a radical change in the attitude of the european parliament and the commission towards this bloody and oppressive regime. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i too approve of the five-point strategy proposed by the commission which has already received the council's support. this strategy is aimed at helping china to become an increasingly prominent player on the international stage. in this respect, bearing in mind its own interests and the need to define an independent policy from that of the united states of america, i believe that the european union should support china's accession to the world trade organisation given the obligations inherent in this. i am pleased to see that progress has been made in the area of human rights. however, i feel that the realpolitik of the economic and commercial interests of the european union, or rather of certain member states, should not make us think that china is already applying the rule of law because it is not! but we should support the progress being made in this direction. however, i believe that we should give our chinese partners a stern warning with regard to the recent worsening of certain problems involving human rights, the persecution of political opponents and ethnic and national minorities and, in particular, the situation of workers laid off without any union rights, trade-union freedoms or respect for the right to strike. turning now to the specific matter of macao, in my opinion the rapporteur has handled this well because he has understood the specific situation of this territory arising from its history and its particular characteristics. macao can act as a gateway for china to the west and to the european union and as a bridge between europe, in all its diversity, and china. in this respect, i believe that the european union should monitor the transfer of macao to chinese rule at the end of this year as closely as it did with hong kong, in order to support the application of the 'one country, two systems' principle. there are many problems still to be resolved relating to human rights and fundamental freedoms, nationality, the guarantee that china will respect the ban in force on the death penalty, religious freedom, freedom of association, the regulation of the two official languages of the territory - chinese and portuguese - and the need to establish an independent judiciary as quickly as possible, specifically with a local court of last instance. i believe that the european union can help the civil society in macao to develop. i would ask the commission to prepare a communication, as happened with hong kong, on future relations between the european union and macao and, at the same time, to produce regular reports on the situation. in order to ensure that everything works correctly, a commission delegation is needed for macao. i must point out that the current delegation to hong kong has not been able to assume its responsibilities of also representing the european union in macao. i would ask the commissioner to explain the unacceptable attitude demonstrated by the european union delegate to hong kong, who seems to be ignoring the fact that he is also responsible for representing the eu in macao. madam president, the building of a comprehensive partnership with china is to be welcomed in all respects as this is in our interest, it is in the interest of china and it is also undoubtedly in the interest of world peace and prosperity. this has been duly emphasised in the commission communication and in mr bernard-raymond's report, both of which should therefore be congratulated. it is clear that this therefore lends particular importance to paragraph a-5 of the communication and to paragraph 41 of the motion for a resolution, which expresses the hope that the transfer of macao to chinese rule will be done correctly. this transfer must happen in a way which benefits the macao population and also china, which has much to gain from the existence in macao of a democratic and prosperous society and of another gateway to the rest of the world. however, the role which macao can play is also of primary interest to the european union. this role must be totally independent of hong kong's role, as has just been mentioned. the alternative to links with us is surely not links through hong kong, which the people of macao are entitled to reject in view of the fear that this would put them in a subordinate position with a real risk that they would become lost, without their own voice, in the massive territory of china. macao has its own identity and lies in an area which is very different from china, giving us twice as many opportunities to become closer. this identity and these opportunities have to date justified the participation of macao in the world trade organisation and the conclusion of a trade and cooperation agreement between the european union and macao - unlike with hong kong - which must be maintained after the transfer to chinese rule. this therefore represents a clear opportunity which the european union would be foolish to waste. an obvious step towards maintaining and increasing our presence would be the immediate introduction of our own representation in macao. this would not cost much as the macao authorities would certainly be keen to share the costs with us. i would ask the commissioner whether he intends to take any steps in this direction? madam president, i am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to mr bernard-reymond's balanced and well-reasoned report. i am glad to see that for many parts of the house, in particular mr swoboda, mr brinkhorst and mr porto, there is considerable support for its balanced approach. the european union has a profound interest in helping the emergence of a stable, prosperous and open china that embraces political pluralism, free markets, the rule of law and assists in building a secure international order. to those such as mr dupuis' wing who believe that we have not been strong enough on the human rights situation, or mr ephremidis who approaches things in a rather different way, i have to say that i do not believe that they have put forward a real alternative. the essence of our approach is that it is a long-term one. it has to be pursued in good times and in bad, unless there is a fundamental change in the situation. there is no doubt that both economically and politically the situation in china today is less hopeful than it was even a year ago. i do not believe that is a reason for fundamentally changing the approach we have followed or the one that is commended by mr bernard-reymond both in his speech and in his report. the adoption of the report is timely. under prime minister zhu rongji china has launched a series of key economic reforms. against the backdrop of the asian crisis, however, these reforms are likely to come under pressure this coming year as economic growth slows. recent events in china have also given rise to serious concerns related to respect for human rights. in these circumstances it is important - indeed essential - for us to convey the right signals to china. our communication set out a number of fundamental objectives. firstly, we want to engage china further through an upgraded political dialogue into the international community. over the past decade china has taken welcome steps on arms control, non-proliferation regimes, on preserving the global environment, combatting international crime and drug trafficking. we should build upon china's desire to be recognised as a global responsible actor on the world stage and develop dialogue on global issues of common concern. the history of the past shows that can yield practical results and is not just an idle dream. secondly, we need to integrate china further in the world economy by bringing it more fully into the world trading system and by supporting the process of economic and social reform that is under way. china is the fastest growing market for european goods and services. it is clearly in our interest to bring it more fully into the global economy. access to that market is too restrictive. we do not want to retaliate though by creating a self-defeating cycle of protectionism. on the contrary, the openness of the european market will constitute our best contribution to helping china face the current crisis in asia but we remain committed to opening markets further, including china's. to the proposition that china should join the wto, the answer is yes, but on commercially meaningful terms, agreeing to the opening up of its economy. that is appropriate for a country of its size and state of economic development. i make no apologies for referring to the question of size. it is the case that in a country the size of china - and it is not going to disappear and it is not going to change because we say nastier things or pass nastier resolutions - it is only by engaging honestly, economically and politically, being frank and candid, that we stand a chance of bringing about change in that country. the european union is dedicated to supporting china's transition to an open society based upon the rule of law and full respect for human rights. of course we are not satisfied with the current situation in china. we have chosen a pragmatic and results-oriented approach on this issue in which we challenge the chinese authorities on issues and events of concern to us such as the recent spate of dissident trials and arrests. we are not silent on those issues but, at the same time, we expand our areas of cooperation. both poles of the policy are necessary. the dialogue on human rights has been useful but we have made it very clear to the chinese authorities that we now need to achieve specific and tangible progress to maintain the credibility of this dialogue. recent developments in china that have been referred to have underlined that need. we have asked for the release of dissidents imprisoned after the recent crackdown and that issue will remain on our agenda until these dissidents are released. most importantly, we have made clear to the chinese authorities that we will identify benchmarks by which progress in the dialogue will be judged. this innovation will ensure that the necessary pressure and momentum in the dialogue is maintained. the question arises: what kind of benchmarks? the kind we will be looking at include the following demands: firstly, we need more detailed information on political prisoners, their number, the charges on which they have been sentenced, their health conditions, as well as access to some prisoners for european and ngo representatives. secondly, we want to see specific steps taken to improve prison conditions and reform the penal system, including conditions of appeal and access to judicial review in line with international standards. the latter point is particularly relevant with regard to the death penalty and the situation of dissidents convicted for so-called counter-revolutionary crimes. thirdly, we want to see benchmarks for progress towards the ratification of the united nations human rights covenants which includes the follow-up to mary robinson's visit and closer cooperation with the european union within the human rights dialogue. fourthly, another category of benchmarks relates to ethnic minorities especially those in tibet. it covers a wide range of issues such as the transparency of demographic information, the free use of the tibetan language as well as open and clear information on alleged incidents involving ethnic minority groups and dissidents. despite these recent differences on human rights, i hope you will agree that european policy towards china, as exemplified by the commission communication and mr bernard-reymond's report, has progressed significantly in a positive direction in recent years. i am heartened to see that our communication and your report are broadly in agreement with each other. that applies to hong kong as well. i am sorry that i am not able to promise an early opening of a delegation in macao. we are having great difficulty in getting the resources and support we need for the delegations we want to open. we will certainly examine the specific suggestions made in the report and incorporate them as fully as possible into the substance of our relations with china. the challenge of developing a comprehensive and robust relationship between china and the european union is one of the great geo-strategic challenges for the next century. it is my belief that we have laid solid foundations to allow the european union of the future to meet such a crucial challenge and that we should be steady in our approach, firm in what we have to say but balanced in our policy. thank you, sir leon. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. regional policy and competition policy the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: a4-0412/98 by mr azzolini, on behalf of the committee on regional policy, on the communication from the commission to the member states on regional policy and competition policy (com(98)0673 - c4-0247/98); -a4-0421/98 by mrs riis-jrgensen, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy, on the xxviith report by the commission on competition policy - 1997 (sec(98)0636 - c4-0379/98). madam president, commissioner, i am delighted that 'my' commissioner, mrs wulf-mathies, is in the chamber, especially as i am sure she will understand and listen very carefully to what i have to say. i do have to thank my committee - the committee on regional policy - for entrusting me with this report on regional policy and competition policy just two years on from 1997. my 1997 report was entitled 'cohesion policy and culture, a contribution to employment'. these are two very important subjects which definitely add value to other european issues that knowledgable colleagues have discussed in detail here in the chamber. commissioner wulf-mathies is naturally very well aware of how difficult some member states find it to transpose directives, legislation and regulations, and it is hardly news to most people involved in the work that, altogether, only five of the fifteen member states of the union have had a systematic approach to community legislation for any length of time. this means that, at bottom, there is no culture of methodology. as commissioner wulf-mathies has frequently told us in committee, communication is needed, a great deal of communication. but i would say that simplification is also needed because some member states, obviously out of lack of understanding, are continuing to swim against the tide, and perhaps do not have the determination to act. being an italian rapporteur, i do not want to confine this criticism to my own country, but it is regrettable that some member states which could be taking advantage of the benefits of belonging to the union are, in actual fact, often using no more than about 52 % - when everything is going well, and in my opinion things are not going well - which shows that there is still a gap between the 'union' as a body and the 'member states' as a periphery. so i do ask everyone to think about this as a real issue. it should not be marginal if it is true - and it is true - that the top priority of the union is its economic and social - i stress that word - cohesion policy. that being so, i must also concur that the rules of competition should represent a guarantee of the correct and transparent operation of the internal market and that exceptions to free competition, claimed by some member states, are in fact only justified by the need to maintain and strengthen that economic and social cohesion. i agree with the commission's statement on the multisectoral framework for regional aid for large investment projects, proposing to limit this type of aid to those projects requiring major inputs of capital which, without seriously distorting competition, have an undeniable impact at regional level, as a genuine source of direct and indirect employment. what i would urge, however, is that it should be possible in future - in the near future, commissioner, not the distant future - to extend this procedure, currently at the experimental stage, to all sensitive sectors still governed by specific rules on control over state aid. i am thinking of sectors like shipbuilding, the motor industry, iron and steel and textiles, all areas in serious crisis and needing to achieve social and economic cohesion even earlier than the rest. but i have to say that certain provisions, like those on the maximum intensity of aid to objective 1 and 2 regions, seem too strict. equally, the rules on competition must be applied in way which takes account of the need to strengthen cohesion, precisely to prevent the proliferation of certain substitute fiscal measures which are bound to damage the internal market but which, because of the lack of methodology i mentioned earlier, many member states end up adopting. i have received 25 amendments to this report and i am grateful to the members who tabled them. i am definitely in favour of some of them, but not of others, because i want to signal very clearly to the commission that i entirely agree that the content of this communication must not be distorted by 'interference' of a different kind, which has been discussed elsewhere. i want to assure those colleagues that no discourtesy towards them is intended. i am simply determined to keep to what is strictly necessary for a report assessing a communication from the commission and calling with equal seriousness and rigour for the commission to adopt our proposals. after the period of great tension between the commission and parliament at the last part-session in strasbourg, we are now asking that same commission to pay greater attention to social cohesion, after having clearly made a good start with economic cohesion. so i hope the commission will not only continue its work with determination but will also take proper account of parliament's recommendations. madam president, i am privileged to have been appointed rapporteur for the report on competition policy for the second time during my career in parliament. i should like to begin by praising the commission for the excellent work it has done in the area of competition policy. i have very much enjoyed working together with the commissioner, and i think there has been superb cooperation between the commissioner and the committee on economic and monetary affairs. in my speech, i would like to concentrate on the five proposals for improvements i have identified in my report, and i look forward to hearing the commissioner's comments on them. the first concerns the democratic control of competition policy. in my first report, we proposed a specific procedure whereby the commissioner comes to the committee on economic and monetary affairs every quarter to give an account of policy in the competition sector. we have been very pleased with that and it has worked very satisfactorily. the committee now wishes to create a permanent and more standardised procedure. this procedure makes the same demands, but represents a more formal arrangement between the committee, parliament and the commissioner. the second point concerns small and medium-sized enterprises, which are very important when we are discussing competition policy. the committee regards it as important to ensure that smes are able to evaluate their legal position and can find out for themselves which side of the competition rules they are on - or in other words, whether or not they are in breach of the rules on competition. i am myself a lawyer by profession, but i have no objection to smes being able to avoid paying too much money to lawyers to help them find out whether they are in breach of eu rules. i am therefore calling on the commission to put forward proposals or guidelines on how to use the so-called de minimis notice. this is discussed in paragraph 10. the third point also concerns smes and is dealt with in paragraph 15 of my report. again, it is a question of how smes can ensure that they comply with the eu's rules. here too, i should like the commission to publish guidelines and criteria on what the relevant market is and how it is defined. those are the two points concerning smes. then there is the question of state aid. i know the commissioner agrees with the committee that there is far too much state aid in europe, but what can we do about it? we should always remember that it is the member states who distribute the money. so it is not the eu which distributes the money, but the member states who are the villains of the piece. i think it is important for parliament to ally itself with the commission in the campaign against state aid. the committee's proposal is that we should make things more transparent, so that third parties are able to see the extent of state aid. i propose that we set up a register in which the level of state aid is published and that this register should be put on the commission's website, so that everyone can easily go and find out the level and purpose of the aid, including state aid given under block exemptions, so that all state aid, regardless of whether it is referred to the commission or simply takes place in the member states, is publicly accessible. it is important for individual companies, both small and large, to be able to find out whether they are being exposed to unfair competition. internet access will help, because in that way the company concerned will be able to check the level of state aid for itself. it will also have, or so i hope, the opportunity to complain to the commission in a simple way via the internet. i have one more proposal concerning state aid. this has been inspired by the commissioner responsible for the single market, mr monti, who has set up a 'scoreboard' showing the good guys and the bad guys of the single market. we could do the same thing, in other words set up a list of the good boys and the bad boys - or girls - in terms of state aid. those are my proposals for improving competition and some instruments for increasing transparency and improving legal certainty for smes. i hope very much that the commissioner will enter into a dialogue with us on the subject of these proposals. once again, i would like to express my thanks to mr van miert for the sincerity and enthusiasm with which he takes care of europe's interests in these matters. and in passing, i should also like to thank him for his excellent work in bringing to an end the tubing cartel in denmark and europe and thus creating price freedom and low prices for consumers, because ultimately that is the most important target group for competition policy. the important thing is that consumers get lower prices and more quality for their money. madam president, as draftsman of the opinion on the xxviith commission report on competition policy, i should start by saying that community competition policy is gradually becoming more transparent. from a legal point of view it is also becoming more efficient and its administration has improved. this is most certainly due to greater decentralisation of the implementation of certain regulations on competition to the relevant national authorities, and to the reduction in unnecessary notifications. if we continue along these lines efficiency and transparency should improve still further. decentralisation has, however, come up against a serious obstacle: some member states lack the legislation needed to implement community legislation. in other cases, national case-law does not allow community legislation to be directly implemented. in addition to these legal difficulties, other problems have arisen concerning state aid. legal protection can be reduced, depending on whether national law or community law is applied. thus, articles 85 and 86 of the treaty allow enterprises and individuals to enjoy greater legal protection and therefore greater rights of appeal under national legislation than they would under articles 92 and 94 of the treaty. no ruling has been given on which law should take precedence in such cases. the issue has not been resolved, and disputes continue. finally, i would like to point out that the procedure adopted for the supervision of state aid for regional development purposes ought to be subject to the demands of economic and social cohesion. further, the method of determining resources must take account of the legal concept of ultraperipherality. mr president, the azzolini report on the communication from the commission to member states on regional policy and competition policy comes at a very pertinent time, only months before member states are expected to deliver their list of state aid areas to dg iv and at a time when big decisions are to be taken by member states on the future maps of structural funds for both objective 1 and objective 2. let us hope that this will be at the berlin summit in march. in this debate i will restrict my comments to the issue of coherence and the linkage between regional policy and competition policy. we know that concentration is the name of the game now in both the community competition policy and indeed in structural fund assistance. of course, in the commission communication consistency is a stated objective. we support those principles, we support coherence and consistency. we perhaps differ on the point of how we deliver that coherence and how we actually ensure some flexibility around the issues. i must say that it is somewhat disappointing that some of the amendments to this report are seeking to look for exemptions for areas under article 92(3)(a) in my view seeking to secure objective 1 status by the back door. my group will not be voting for those particular amendments. parliament is asked to take into account the need for this consistency and we are in favour of ensuring better coherence. this is evident under article 92(3)(a), objective 1 areas, and the principle is very strongly adhered to in this area. nonetheless, there is a need for the commission to acknowledge in its proposals, as is the case in the communication, and i quote 'that member states must have a margin of manoeuvre to pursue regional policy goals specific to their situations in addition to areas designated jointly for purposes of community and regional policy. the commission is aware that member states deploy diverse goals and objectives for national and regional aid policy. we need to respect this diversity and we need to find a balance between diversity and achieving coherence.' therefore, the context of concentration and consistency, referring to article 92(3)(c) areas, is somewhat restrictive and let me say why that is so. the timetable in which member states will produce their maps to dg iv predetermines potentially objective 2 areas on the future structural fund map. i will give you a very good example of that: in the 1994 to 1999 reforms the then conservative government submitted a map to dg iv in the hope that those areas would then automatically be objective 2 areas. i am glad to say, the labour commissioner, bruce millan, spotted this and was very clear about the fact that these areas could not possibly qualify for european objective 2 under economic social cohesion need areas. this is why we need to have that flexibility and we do not believe they should be, in fact, in the same map, even with the measure of flexibility that the commission has proposed. in some ways this commission communication has been overtaken by events and i am delighted to see that in the general affairs council this week there has been a victory for common sense. i believe it is important that we have had this debate. i believe member states must address themselves to the fact that there must be better coherence but we need the flexibility to ensure that we are getting the right areas for state aid and objective 2. in that sense, the time of change, the time for concentration has come but the commission must not complicate or impose additional constraints forcing integration of these areas through prescriptive mechanisms. it is wise for the commission to have chosen the route of allowing some margin of manoeuvre and thereby trying to encourage member states in their efforts to make these maps more consistent. madam president, as a member of the committee on regional policy i will speak on the report by mr azzolini, whom i would sincerely like to congratulate on his work, which was exceptionally difficult because there were conflicting interests and - i think i need not explain - the issue of 'national aid' speaks for itself. i also wish to congratulate the commission on its generally courageous attitude towards this issue. the aid provided by member states to their various regions can indeed constitute a distortion of competition and consequently impede the normal and effective operation of the internal market. that is why the basic principle must be that when national aid is permitted, over and above the areas covered by the activities of the structural funds, such cases should be exceptional and should only be permitted in special cases when justified by the need to achieve economic and social cohesion. in that sense, there is indeed a need for closer links and correspondence between the competition policy and the european union's regional policy. consequently, i agree with the commission's intention to reduce the eligible areas, so far as community aid is concerned, from the present 51 % down to 35 % - 40 % of the population, a reduction completely in line with the corresponding reduction of eligible population which will be entitled to structural aid in the future. i also agree that the criteria for state aid should correspond to those for community aid. however, i must express my concern and opposition to the restriction of the extent of the permitted national aid for objective 1 areas to only 50 % of the cofinancing for those areas which are below 60 % of the community average in terms of gnp, and to 40 % for areas above 60 % of the community average. we also ought not to forget that even if 66 % of national aid in total goes to the less developed areas, the considerable economic resources of some wealthy member states enable them to subsidise areas which, even though they may be less well developed at the national level, are not among the most disadvantaged in the european union. that, of course, goes against both the principles of competition and the need to achieve economic and social cohesion, because it means that already wealthy regions grow still wealthier, so widening the gap compared to the european union's less developed areas. madam president, commissioner, i should first like to congratulate mr azzolini on his report, particularly as it deals with such a complex and complicated issue. in the context of competition policy a ban on state aid should guarantee the operation of the free market, and it is therefore necessary to regulate state aid and also regional aid in those member states whose regions are empowered to grant it. when identifying areas where such aid can be authorised - as provided for in article 92(3)(a) and (c) of the treaty - care must be taken to ensure compatibility with state aid to objective 1 and objective 2 regions. i shall now turn to the objective 2 regions known as 'areas undergoing restructuring'. state aid should be targeted at such areas: areas in the process of rural restructuring, with a low density of population, with population loss, and with an aging population. state aid to such regions should certainly be authorised. other areas undergoing restructuring are experiencing an industrial crisis of some sort, with high and rising levels of unemployment. in the areas where it is granted, state aid is important in order to supplement and guarantee better economic and social cohesion and also territorial cohesion. in conclusion, i should like to support what mrs riis-jrgensen said concerning the need for transparency in connection with aid of this nature. i believe such aid should remain available, but the process of awarding it ought to be as transparent as possible. it should also be made clear that in no way will this aid prejudice the freedom of trade and the single market which must prevail within the european union. madam president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the basic issue raised by the commission document involves deciding whether public, state or regional aid should be restricted territorially. as proposed by the commission, this involves accepting the increasing and almost inevitable overlap between maps of objective 1 and 2 regions and the map of regions which may be granted public aid. this perspective does not seem quite right as, in our opinion, public aid must be granted whenever the social sustainability of certain sectors is at risk, particularly because of employment reasons, and also for many different reasons where problems of economic and social cohesion are involved, regardless of the location of the territory where these are occurring. it is obvious that control and monitoring systems will be acceptable and necessary in order to prevent abuses and instances of unfair competition. however, these systems must not be confused with or turned into a comprehensive and universal obstacle to the granting of public aid where such abuses and instances of unfair competition are identified. in our opinion, mr azzolini's report, on which i congratulate him, does not tackle this question with sufficient clarity or depth. however, it does deal adequately with the need to make the decision-making on specific regional situations more flexible. if approved, the amendments, which deserve our support, should extend and increase the degree and scope of this flexibility. the azzolini report also emphasises the priority given to the most disadvantaged regions, for obvious reasons of economic and social cohesion, the inclusion in the framework of possibilities of public aid for areas which will fall within the 'phasing-out' of the next community support framework and the rejection of the commission proposal to significantly reduce the state aid to be granted to the regions and sectors which need it and which will become eligible for it. finally, on the plus side, we should note the reference made to the need to monitor and control the public aid granted to transnational undertakings in order to prevent them from relocating and to prevent them from taking advantage of public aid without developing long-term economic activities in the region. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, regional policy and competition policy work towards objectives that do not seek to achieve the same outcome. competition policy is based on the principle of banning state aid to businesses, with derogations from article 92(3)(a) and (c) that are restrictively applied in the free competition environment of the single market. as for regional policy, it is based on the principle of providing aid for regional development by redistributing the community budget, and it provides financial support for projects involving all the socio-economic actors in a particular region, including businesses, albeit in a minority capacity. if we want greater coherence we must draw a distinction between the two zoning systems when the diagnosis for certain regions indicates that it would be to their advantage. the member states must still be free to define their own business development policies, as if these were to be brought exactly into line with regional policy it would remove the specific benefits of the zoning of regional aid and the regional planning problems. deciding on the level of coherence should be left to the member states which, in any case, are responsible for submitting proposals for negotiation with the commission. the commission must also realise that there is a risk it could harm many still fragile regions with its proposals for drastically restricting the intensity and duration of aid granted under article 92(3). this is particularly true, as has just been said, of regions which will undergo a 'phasing out' period. finally, as regards the list of regions assisted under article 92(3), i should like to ask the commission to reconsider the possibility of including the regions that the amsterdam treaty has acknowledged as having permanent handicaps, namely island regions, including those that are not eligible for objective 1 status. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioners, the member state governments and you too, ladies and gentlemen, have always emphasised, in relation to agenda 2000, that the union's new structural policy must observe the guiding principles of concentration, efficiency and administrative agreement. i would add that transparency must also be a basic guiding principle. accordingly the commission has presented a proposal for implementing these principles and establishing broad coherence between the structural fund aid and national aid. that is consistent and it is a sensible solution. i hope the member states also decide to follow that line consistently. what it so significant is that this is the only way to restrict competition about standards and the abuse of aid. but we will also find that the different authorisation times in the different member states will make it very easy to circumvent this. so i ask the commission to tell us how it proposes to organise the authorisation timing so as to prevent this from happening. let me also point out that the commission proposal does not deal with one particular problem, namely subsidy shopping. national undertakings can still go on taking up aid unchecked and thereby damage regions. so in that respect there are a few things missing in the proposal. how are you going to resolve this question? madam president, the agenda 2000 proposals as also this report seek to strengthen the complementarity between competition and regional policy. the arguments put forward for this are the ever widening divergences between policies and the overlaps in the various aid maps. but those who support this approach are forgetting that the desired equal cover of national and eu aid areas makes it even more difficult for the member states and regions to support their own problem areas by using their own resources. that reinforces this policy of positive discrimination in favour of the most disadvantaged regions. in any case the objectives of agenda 2000, namely greater concentration and coherence, already involve a serious cutback in aid to the relatively successful regions. it would be not just absurd but in fact inconsistent with the very principle of subsidiarity to also deprive them de facto of the instrument of national aid. madam president, i should like to congratulate the speakers, the commissioner and his department on their reports. the public tend to perceive competition policy as essentially an economic issue. they think of it as the system of ground rules governing the relationship between businesses in a market economy. that is indeed what it is. yet they sometimes overlook the implications these arrangements can have for their daily lives as consumers and workers. in particular, they fail to appreciate the impact of these arrangements on their lives as ordinary citizens. for instance, monitoring concentration of ownership and dominant positions will become increasingly important in view of globalisation and the development of new technologies. this is particularly true in the energy and telecommunications sectors, the information society and the audio-visual industry. as far as these are concerned, not only is concentration taking place, but enterprises are becoming increasingly interrelated both amongst themselves and with the financial groups which control decision-making bodies. this is why public statements such as those made by the commission director-general responsible for energy are so alarming and a cause of such concern to all democrats. i should like to take this opportunity of countering the director-general's remarks. they stem from a reprehensible philosophy of secrecy and confidentiality - in the worst sense of the word - which would confine debate on matters directly affecting consumers and citizens to the european commission's offices. such matters ought of course to be debated instead in the marketplace and with as much exhibitionism as possible. i quote from mr benavides' derogatory description of the parliamentary debate taking place in my country. it is far easier for the economic and strategic power groups we sometimes euphemistically term lobbies to penetrate the commission's offices than it is for the ordinary consumer or for the ordinary citizen to do so. it pains me to say this, as the director-general responsible for energy is a spanish official, but it appears that where the so-called 'transitional costs' relating to competition in the spanish electricity sector are concerned, he has departed utterly and absolutely from the principles of neutrality and objectivity. as the relevant political authority, the energy commissioner should immediately relieve him of responsibility for this matter, as this is the second time mr benavides has allowed himself to be swayed by external pressure and because considerable misgivings have been expressed in spain as to his objectivity and impartiality in this regard. i do not expect the commissioner responsible for competition policy to comment at the moment. i am confident that a thorough and objective study of the legality of this aid will be undertaken, bearing in mind the needs of consumers and small enterprises. they should, in theory, be the ultimate beneficiaries of the free market and of liberalisation, yet in this instance, they have come out unanimously against this aid - aid which i consider to be illegal. they will be forced to pay for it through their electricity bills, like a modern generation of feudal serfs. not only will they have to pay for the losses the liberalised companies will allegedly incur over the next ten to fifteen years in a situation of free competition, but this will be covered by a legal argument alleging that the electricity companies have an acquired right to be indemnified or compensated. i believe this would mean setting a serious legal precedent in the liberalised sectors, which has in fact already been invoked by telefnica, the company which until recently held the monopoly over the telephone service in spain. madam president, it is consumers and citizens who are the touchstone where liberalisation is concerned. if the european union cannot guarantee that they will not be crucified by the processes of liberalisation, the european institutions, including our own, will become ever more distant from the citizens. madam president, i want to confine my comments to two aspects. first, let me unreservedly agree with what is stated so clearly for the first time in paragraphs 17 to 20 of mr azzolini's excellent report: tourism is a good thing! for many parts of europe tourism is the key to survival. but subsidised tourism is a bad thing, it is unacceptable, because it does not produce sustained structural improvement but simply throws away and wastes huge amounts of european money. when an undertaking that receives a large amount of aid relocates to the next place, it generally leaves far more damage than useful things behind it. so let us put an end to this nonsense as quickly as possible! let the commission apply its collective wisdom to finding good solutions. this brings me to the second aspect i want to address. we also need good solutions to agenda 2000 as a whole and to structural reform in particular. we need these good solutions quickly. we have barely two months left under the german presidency's new timetable and we have to put this time to good use. the commission and the european parliament have done good work together in the past months. now the council has to show that it can reach consensus. it will certainly not be easy to accommodate fifteen different opinions on this difficult subject. the council must now show that it is prepared to cooperate with the commission, but also and in particular with parliament, which has been playing a very responsible part in this process so far and sought to find common, rational and objective solutions, but which must now also attach great importance to being included in the final decisions. we cannot wait another seven years for the assent provisions of the amsterdam treaty to enter into force. we want to have a constructive say now. mr president, at the outset i want to congratulate both rapporteurs on the presentation and, of course, the preparation of their reports. i, of course, agree that the internal market for the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital should operate in an even-handed manner. for an internal market to succeed, all regions within europe must be able to economically compete effectively in such an arena. at present there are some regions within my country and within europe lagging behind the european union average for economic performance. it is only right and proper that the poor, disadvantaged and peripheral parts of europe, namely objective 1 regions, continue to be entitled to grant aid to the industries setting up within their region to the maximum of 40 % or indeed higher, if necessary. the commission has already brought out new revised state aid guidelines which have been approved by the 15 member states of the union. these guidelines provide that objective 1 regions will be entitled to grant aid to endogenous and inward investment companies setting up within their localities to a ceiling of 40 %. non-objective 1 regions within the union will be entitled to grant aid to industry to a limit of 20 % only while those areas within the union, which are doing better than the community average, will only be entitled to grant aid to industry to 10 %. this may appear unfair competition but it is necessary to bring the less well off regions up to a union average. i agree with the state aid guidelines and, of course, favourable state aid policies to objective 1 regions, including my own constituency of connaught-ulster, will go a long way to ensuring the creation of long term sustainable jobs in the region. it is also important that such policies are complemented by a higher proportion of spending under the erdf so as to guarantee that any infrastructural deficit which exists in our transport network is rectified in the near future. mr president, i should like to thank mr azzolini for his excellent report. as regards the commission's proposal concerning regional aid, i find it both unacceptable and ridiculous. the reason for this is that the commission is proposing that only those areas which receive eu aid should be eligible for national regional support. this implies that the commission does not believe that the member states are capable of conducting a regional policy which is in the interests of the respective countries and their citizens. instead, everything is to be centralised and managed through the eu and brussels. decentralisation and flexibility are conspicuous by their absence. it is not that i am opposed to a policy on regional aid, it is the way in which national regional aid is to be distributed that i find unacceptable. sweden has a long tradition of regional aid, the purpose of which is to achieve a balance and to iron out differences between the various regions. it was implemented in the interests of social solidarity and was an extremely costly process. however, it was worth the expense and was a sound move, in my view. the commission's proposal rules out this kind of social and economic solidarity, which is a mistake. consequently, i believe the rapporteur has tried to remedy the worst deficiencies of the commission document, and that mr macartney has also tabled a good amendment which i shall support and which substantially improves the report. mr president, all too often the situation in reality suffers when rigid and theoretical rules of economic policy are applied in the name of free competition. there is a risk in this chamber of allowing the european parliament's priority objective of economic and social cohesion to fade into the background and be compromised. the cost will largely be met, so runs the script, by the new objective 2 regions and, under the commission's plan, all the benefits and advantages will be enjoyed by the applicant countries. objective 2 groups together areas with a very wide range of characteristics and needs, but the restrictions announced will further penalise our disadvantaged areas and have negative and indiscriminate impact on all the areas in the new objective 2, which covers urban, industrial, rural and mountain areas, or areas dependent on the fisheries sector. the chorus of members of parliament asking the commission to modify its position is swelling daily: i hope the increase in volume will at last convince the commission. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the need for additionality and coordination between the competition policy and the union's regional policy, aiming to provide equal development opportunities for all the regions and to secure economic and social cohesion, is one which i hope we all understand, along with the need for europe's economy to adapt and respond successfully to the new worldwide competitive environment. a union with huge differences in economic and social development between its various regions certainly can be neither credible, nor viable, nor competitive. that is why the policy of economic and social cohesion, real economic convergence, a reduction of inequalities between the regions, the concentration of resources upon the union's poorest areas and solidarity between europeans are the essential parameters for a development which will be the more effective and competitive the more fairly it is distributed. it is a fact that the european regional policy has led to great improvements in the development rate of areas which were characterised by macroeconomic imbalances and low competitiveness, such as greece. however, there are still important regional inequalities which could become more acute, as a general phenomenon, as a result of economic and monetary union and the union's enlargement. so the policy of economic and social cohesion is a long-term and continual process which, in any event, must be compatible with competition policy if it is to be effective. however, it is known that several member states are pursuing national strategies and state subsidy policies which are in many respects incompatible with the european cohesion policy to combat regional inequalities. indeed, if we include all the horizontal branch and regional forms of aid, it becomes evident that it is the wealthier areas which benefit most, and not the disadvantaged areas. for that reason, i think the commission's proposals, and in particular the efforts by the commissioner responsible, mrs wulf-mathies, to achieve a new, fair and efficient regional aid system are on the right lines, and we support them. however, i have a slight reservation concerning the extent of permitted aid for objective 1, which could have an adverse effect upon the achievement of economic and social cohesion, as mr azzolini very rightly and appropriately pointed out in his excellent report, on which i congratulate him. mr president, as is customary every year, the commission's 27th report on competition policy provides a good picture of the commission's thinking in this area and of its specific policy data. flexible operation of the single market can only be achieved, certainly following the launch of the euro, if competition conditions are fair not only in law but also in fact, and if there really is equality of opportunities for all businesses. the commission's efforts to ensure that there is free competition within the single market are thus vitally important. the commission does good work here, and the fact that its decisions are not always palatable to those member states which it is forced to reprimand in no way detracts from the value of that work. i must compliment the rapporteur, mrs riis-jrgensen, on the work she has done. i thank her for her fine and constructive cooperation, and all i can really say is that her report sets out what we in the ppe group wished to say on the subject. so i have nothing more to add, in point of fact. i just have one question for the commission, a very specific question. last year, in june 1998, the court of justice ruled in a case against italy's national council of customs agents that people in the professions are entrepreneurs like anyone else and are subject to articles 85 and 86 of the treaty. i should like to hear from the commissioner whether that ruling has implications for all the regulated professions. the ppe group's view is that account must be taken of the special role of certain professions in the general interest of society. we should have liked to know the commission's thinking on this. i appreciate that i am rather springing this on the commissioner. i do not necessarily expect an answer here and now, but perhaps a written reply? forgive me, commissioner, for not waiting to hear your answer now, but there is a group of 100 people waiting for me 50 kilometres away. unfortunately, i have to leave the chamber straight away. mr president, i think it is very important that both commissioners are here at the same time, so that we can speak about regional policy and competition policy together, and speak too about regional aid and state aid. the commission should make its work more effective, encouraging as great a degree of transparency as possible with regard to all public aid. in my opinion it makes no difference whether it is a matter of state aid or regional aid. we should be creating a situation where every citizen and business would at any moment in time be able to acquire information about how much state aid or regional aid has been granted to which project. there should be a page on the internet where information could be listed on all public aid in order to ensure transparency. another issue i wish to raise is the importance of real commitment on the part of business to regional aid programmes. thus, if a company receives aid it must remain in the region. it must stay there for at least five years and ensure that jobs are preserved. it cannot just pack its bags the moment it has been given public aid. mr president, we definitely need a strategy which targets better coordination of regional policy and competition policy at european level. the commission plans to reduce the percentage of the total population of the union receiving state-funded regional aid over the period 2000-2006. geographic concentration is welcome if it serves to improve the effectiveness of this type of aid and create positive discrimination towards the less favoured regions, especially when 85 % of state regional aid for industrial projects today goes to the four richest member states and only 8.3 % to the least developed four. in these lean years for employment, synergy between national aid and community aid can open up new paths and inspire new hopes. in particular, national regional aid could be granted to provide an incentive for productive investment, paying particular attention to the creation of jobs directly and indirectly linked to the investment. investment in jobs must then be maintained in the region concerned for at least five years, so that national aid does not encourage relocations. to conclude, while taking note of the guidelines imposed by the commission, i am perplexed by certain points which do not seem to me to encourage greater economic and social cohesion, as rightly emphasised in the excellent azzolini report. i refer to the reduction in the maximum intensity of regional aid especially for the new objective 2 regions, where the maximum intensity of aid is reduced from 30 % to 20 % or even 10 %, in which case these regions will receive less aid than they did in the past. in addition to that there is also a problem for the ultraperipheral and island regions which, because of their difficult geographic position and their particular intrinsic nature, are already amongst the least favoured regions in the whole community. as the elected representatives of the citizens of europe, it is our duty to voice the needs of the people in the least favoured areas and to remain constantly vigilant to ensure respect for the fundamental principle of economic and social cohesion in the policies of the union. mr president, i rise to speak on the competition report introduced by my colleague, mrs riis-jrgensen, to whom i offer my congratulations on the quality of her work. i want to particularly praise paragraph 14, where she is asking the commission to examine unfair practices and also paragraph 22 which is recognising the need for increased consistency between national aid schemes, union aid schemes and competition policy. i want particularly to support the amendments from my colleagues mr hendrick and mme garca arias which talk about the possible abuses of dominant positions. all over the european union we are seeing a merging of the ownership of the old, publicly owned utilities: telecommunications with broadcasting, electricity with telecommunications, railway links used as telecommunication networks, gas companies investing in water and over all banks taking a major share in these utilities. this is not, in itself, an unwelcome development but it does exacerbate the risk of an over-concentration of ownership of the essential utilities. the whole point of the liberalisation process is that it should bring the benefits of efficient, competitive, consumer-sensitive utility supplies to be widely available to consumers, both domestic and business. the reported situation in spain, therefore, is of major concern. it would be against the whole spirit and letter of european union competition rules if the costs of the transition to competition in electricity supply were to be met initially out of public funds and this then to be passed on to the consumer. this is a most serious distortion of the level playing field, particularly if the money is then to be used to gain a share in other utility markets. i hope that the commission will deal with this point in response because it is particularly important that the issue is highlighted and that the commission response is on public record. the rapporteur in this report mentioned naming and shaming and on the basis of the evidence available, this is a situation of sufficient seriousness to merit a considered reply from the commission. i am sure that this will be forthcoming. i have apologised to you, commissioner, because i cannot stay. my colleagues are going to take a careful note of your response. i know that we will want to follow up this issue. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, first i would like to congratulate the rapporteur, mr azzolini, on his excellent work. in the 1960s it was the european assembly, today the european parliament, which was concerned about regional imbalances, drafted the plan for regional policy and started the procedure for implementing it. 30 years later, the geographic distribution of economic prosperity, in other words the achievement of economic and social cohesion, constitutes parliament's, and especially our political group's, main interest. certainly, ever since the treaty of rome, competition policy has been an integral part of the european economy as an essential factor in competitiveness for each of the european regions, whether less favoured or developed. before the treaty of maastricht, competition policy and the policy of economic and social cohesion ran parallel, but with the new provisions of the amsterdam treaty, currently in the process of ratification, it has become necessary to strengthen the complementarity and balance between them, given that cohesion, which expresses the duty of solidarity between the member states, has become the priority for the construction of europe. there is a danger, which is that aid from the european union to particular regions may distort work already in progress in the market in favour of certain areas. here the rapporteur has highlighted the importance of having competition rules capable of guaranteeing the proper and transparent operation of the internal market, bearing in mind that exceptions to free competition, in the form of aid to member states, are justified for the purpose of preserving economic and social cohesion. while, on the one hand, the european union's structural policy has contributed to reducing the existing development disparities, in particular in the cohesion countries, on the other hand it has also led to an ever-growing number of objectives, programmes and community initiatives, a fragmentation of subsidies, and a complex and inconsistent approach to zoning. i think the rapporteur's approach to all this is fundamentally correct and i hope parliament will follow his lead. mr president, i welcome very much the azzolini report and i agree with the essential arguments which are put forward. although the european union's competition policy and its regional policy have very different roots, there is now an obvious need to have greater coherence and consistency on coordination between, on the one hand, national state aids, competition policy and the european union's regional policy. i have to say that i have one reservation and that is whether we should have virtually total co-terminosity between the two kinds of maps that we are talking about. i fear that we could be aiming at uniformity for the sake of uniformity. i really believe that there is a real need for a measure of flexibility, that recognises that there are particular situations in different parts of the union. flexibility is needed essentially because we are talking about two different kinds of aid. on the one hand, there is aid for developing the infrastructure and human resources of the less prosperous regions. that is done through the european union's structural funds. on the other hand, there is aid for particular industries and enterprises through national state aids, like regional selective assistance in the united kingdom. that is national state aid. in many cases, of course, the two will naturally go together. but in some instances we need to acknowledge that to help certain areas we sometimes need to support industries that are adjacent to objective 1 and 2 areas. why do we need to do that? one simple reason is that people are increasingly travelling significant distances to work on a daily basis. to help people in one area occasionally you have to allow state aid to industries in another area. often, of course, firms developing in one particular area help the region immediately next to it. there is a knock-on effect to economic development. therefore, there is a strong case for flexibility and with that one reservation i support mr azzolini's report in total. mr president, i agree with mr azzolini when he says that regions which are coming out of objective 1 must not be treated as strictly as the commission is proposing to do. regions that have just emerged from a state of low economic development usually suffer from serious deficiencies in their infrastructure. in the case of ireland where i come from, it is estimated that it would take 10 billion euro to bring our road networks up to the average eu standard, even if we have just enjoyed six years of very generous structural funds. in all the regions of the eu which are just emerging from economic backwardness we must realise that there is still a serious burden of the past to be carried. until genuine economic equality has been achieved the commission must be extremely careful not to impose rigorous harmonisation which could lead to a reversal of gains already made. the commission must also be aware that countries that have oppressive tax regimes, which are retarding economic growth and creating unemployment, are sometimes the authors of their own misfortune and it is their national policies that drive some industries to locate elsewhere. such tax regimes must not be imposed by the commission as the norm for the eu as a whole. rather, we must promote as normal for all member states the tax regimes which have been shown to be successful. the basis for the european convergence model must be the successful tax regimes rather than the ones that are creating difficulties. it is important to explain to eu citizens that they can only enjoy free trade and the benefits that it brings if they are prepared to have a body to enforce discipline and fairness. there will always be those who will attack the efforts of the european commission as bureaucratic interference but we must be prepared to explain to our citizens that they can only enjoy consumer benefits within a single market if fairness and equality is enforced. it is also fair to say that levels of preferential treatment, either in the form of tax concessions or grant aid, that are not acceptable within a member state are also unacceptable within the european union, whether these are in the form of benefits that come from the eu or from national governments. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the deepening of the single market, the creation of economic and monetary union and the globalisation of markets change the conditions of competition and the rules of play in competition policy, not just at international level but at european level too. when i look at the commission's report on competition policy, i find that it addresses many of these new problems and also considers the fact that in an era of globalisation we will have to reckon with an increasing number of mergers, of forms of cooperation and mega-mergers. however, i wonder whether we always draw the right distinction between strategic alliances and the possible emergence of monopolies, which would be harmful to competition. when i look at the communities' competition law in regard to, for instance, cartels and subsidies i find, however, that it is in fact being reviewed continuously and as required. in regard to state aid it certainly needs emphasising that this aid is still needed. but we have good reason to criticise the very high subsidies granted in a few member states. it is also right to criticise the fact that increasingly few resources are being made available for the aid agreed under the common market rules, in the field, for instance, of small and medium-sized undertakings, environmental protection, research and development, while more and more aid is being given to individual undertakings. that is certainly not in the common interest of effective, free and fair competition. at this moment in time, distortions of competition as a result of tax aids are more important. not enough cases of this kind are being investigated. more and more member states want to attract business to their national locations by granting tax reliefs to undertakings, in the financial and insurance sector, as also in other economic sectors. that distorts competition. i believe the aid rules must look more closely into these distortions of competition. the commission must investigate more of these cases. the list of 85 cases of tax reliefs, some of which are reminiscent of tax havens, currently before us speaks volumes. the commission must also play its part in preparing the next round of wto talks, for we do need competition law that also works at international level. here the current gatt and wto rules need to be supplemented by internationally effective competition rules. i believe it would be important to have national reports on competition, like the wto national trade reports. i also believe it would be important to try to establish minimum standards for all states in order to prevent anti-competitive practices, and to set up independent competition authorities. that could lead to effective, international competition rules under which the signatory states undertake also to make their national competition law internationally applicable. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioners, i want to begin my speech by congratulating mr azzolini on the excellent work he has done on his report on competition and cohesion. moving on to the substance, i want to say right away that the idea that the two maps used by dg iv and dg xvi should coincide might actually make sense if, in applying all its financial and constitutional instruments, the european union would deal with the geo-economic problems by implementing community competition and cohesion policies in the same way. failing that, it would make more sense to leave the member states free to act where the union is not in a position to do so, although within the limits laid down by the regulations of the two separate community policies, or, alternatively, to support countries or take their place where community resources and, above all, the european logic dictated by the requirements of the single currency market permit this. the treaty of rome defines competition policy in order to eliminate any form of distortion likely to interfere with the free play of market forces. from rome to maastricht it was recognised that we needed a cohesion policy geared to strengthening the less favoured regions of the union, thus substantially pursuing the same purpose - a homogeneous common market. between maastricht and amsterdam the aim was adjusted, as it was recognised that the free play of competition and market homogeneity could only be achieved through a policy of economic and social cohesion that paid more attention to territorial reality. it is in that spirit that the amsterdam treaty adds, for example, a reference to the island regions, so that they can start from a level playing-field and compete on an equal footing while respecting market forces. now, on the other hand, we are seeing a development in competition policy, which is attempting to take account of cohesion policy by including it in its most important regulations, but all it is really doing is complicating those regulations. in fact, on the say-so of the commission and regardless of parliament's opinion, only the island regions will be left on the sidelines, and the commission will have to explain to them why, in addition to losing community aid, they are also going to lose national aid, or why, faced with the community's refusal to take their case into consideration, notwithstanding the treaty, and for the sake of consistency with what dg iv wants, they will no longer be able to seek the state intervention which allowed them to compensate for the competitive disadvantage they suffer. mr president, regional policy and competition policy can be complementary and need not conflict with one another. it is the wealthy member states which make greatest use of the instrument of state aid, and cutting down on this by a more rigorous implementation of competition policy will definitely help the poorer member states by creating a level playing field. but regional policy can actually lead to unintentional distortions of competition. i am not talking here about explicitly giving preference to the poorest regions, because that is what we are trying to do. what i am talking about is regions which cannot, by any criterion, be deemed still to need assistance, but which continue to receive a great deal of aid and are also able to benefit from discriminatory tax regimes because they did need assistance in the past. our regional policy is too slow to react to change. part of the reason for this is that we take a decision just once every six or seven years on which regions qualify for aid, and we do that on the basis of figures which are already a few years old. thus it can happen that ireland is still an objective 1 region in 1999, the criterion for which is a gdp of less than 75 % of the union average. yet ireland's gdp in 1997 was already above the union average, and the following year it was actually 116 % of average gdp for the union. to say that a country like ireland has to adjust to no longer being an objective 1 region under the new financial perspective and that it therefore needs both operating and investment aids for a few more years, whilst discriminatory tax regimes can continue till the year 2010, seems to me too daft for words, because that aid enables ireland to lure firms away from other union countries which are now poorer than ireland. the statement in the azzolini report that the provisions are too strict for initial investment for whose who have since become too rich will certainly be too much for some of my group to swallow. mr president, i should like to thank commissioners wulf-mathies and van miert for their presence here today. there is no doubt that to date the single market, together with its necessary consequence, economic and monetary union, has been the greatest achievement of the process of building the new europe. such success would not have been possible without a policy guaranteeing competition as the best security for economic growth and job creation. nevertheless, free competition and growth must never compromise social and economic cohesion, key elements of the acquis communautaire , to which the union devotes a significant proportion of its budget. i should like to focus on the need to tackle the thorny issue of state aid. according to the existing arrangements, agreements between enterprises, the abuse of dominant positions and unjustified state aid are regulated by constant monitoring to safeguard competition. however, what sort of aid could be justified? this is not a trivial question and has never been clarified, though the commission attempted to do so in 1975, 1979 and 1988. the interpretation of articles 92(1), 92(3)(a) and 92(3)(c) still gives rise to a number of problems. as regards the regions with the greatest objective and structural deficits, the only possible interpretation has to be the one that will provide for the greatest development of these areas. any other interpretation would certainly be branded as eurocentrist, difficult to justify and therefore unacceptable. mr van miert is a politician and not a technical expert. he will surely understand that i would be failing as a politician if i did not take advantage of his presence here today to enquire about the current position regarding the problem being discussed by the spanish government and his department in connection with state aid to the canary islands. i realise this is not the time for him to give me a detailed report, but i trust he will be able to give his opinion on the state of the discussions, and reassure public opinion which is very sensitive to this issue. mr president, commissioners, mr azzolini's report on the links between regional policy and competition policy is a most important one. it deals with concerns that directly affect the people in the member states and the regions. the resolution may not have any direct impact on the progress of the regional policy reform, yet it must be regarded as directly linked to it, given that we are talking about coherence between european and national regional aid. some member states have no problem with the requirement of coherence which the commission is laying down in order to secure its competition policy aims because almost their entire territory is covered by european aid. but the situation is different in some other countries. here the dual approach of concentrating the european objective areas on the essential ones, which is right, while at the same time calling for maximum coherence with national aids, sometimes imposes a double burden that is very difficult in regional policy terms. how can we explain to the people living in the regions concerned that both european and national aid is prohibited, despite the imminent threat of unemployment, despite the absence of promising job prospects? it is a contradiction in terms for the commission quite rightly to provide for multiannual transitional periods for phasing out european aid, which ensures that the regions have time to adjust, while using a sledge hammer to reduce national aid and calling for this to be phased out as quickly as possible. the 2 % flexibility margin is not enough, nor is it convincing. nor is there any justification for it being 2 % rather than more or less. that does not mean that the commission's endeavour to bring about greater coherence is wrong as such. in the long term we need a more balanced coverage if we want to avoid distortions of competition. but the commission is not taking sufficient account of the special problems of the regions when it subordinates everything to the imperative of free competition and tries to cut back european aid while at the same time taking away any means of granting national aid to compensate for this in a flexible manner. that would take away any chance of adjustment for many of the regions. in that respect i welcome the fact that agreement seems to be emerging between the council and the commission on taking a more flexible approach to the flexibility question, on not specifying any target dates and giving the member states more margin for decision. so the discussion we held in parliament has had the desired effect. mr president, we have arranged that i will speak first and try to respond to mr azzolini's report. my colleague mr van miert will then address the many concrete questions raised in connection with the competition report. first i want to thank mr azzolini for his most interesting and careful report. i am also grateful that we agree at least on the question of principle, namely that we need greater coherence between national and regional aid policies. let me emphasise again, as others have rightly said, that different problems are involved here. in relation to objective 1 we already have equal cover between competition aid and regional aid from european resources. so no problems can arise here, whereas problems can indeed arise in areas where we have less competition aid and where the need for concentration - for agenda 2000 to lead to greater geographical concentration - basically means that the aid must be reduced from two sides. nevertheless i believe that we must begin by emphasising the logic of our policy. for it makes no sense, given that we concentrate european resources on a minimum number of eligible regions, namely those that have to undergo the biggest structural adjustment processes, for us then to allocate all the resources to these regions, not just european money but also the higher aid intensity. it makes no sense to embark on a kind of division of labour that would mean that european structural policy looked after the less eligible areas and that national aid was then concentrated on the areas most in need of structural adjustment. i do not think that would be logical. what we are in fact proposing is to widen the member states' regional margin for play, for as a rule national competition aid covers areas wider than those that can be supported through the structural funds. that means that over and above european structural aid the national states and the regional authorities have a variety of means of supporting their structurally weak areas. mrs randzio-plath was quite right when she said that unfortunately far less use is made of aid that is authorised, aid for environmental improvement and technological development, than of aid for individual undertakings, which very often does not offer any guarantee that this investment will lead to integrated regional development. that is why i believe that it does indeed make sense to establish more congruence between objective 2 aid and article 92(3)(c). a number of members have pointed out that on 25 january this year the foreign ministers' council reached agreement on a compromise, which i shall briefly describe to you because it is important to your further discussions. let me take up what mr rack said, namely that parliament can play a careful part in the discussions and in seeking agenda 2000 solutions only if it also has the appropriate information. i shall therefore read out part of the foreign ministers' agreement: 'in the interests of efficient programme planning, the regions undergoing economic and social adjustment must to a large extent be the same regions that are assisted by the member states under article 92(3)(c). here the community's aim should be to achieve better coherence by the end of the period 2000 to 2006, with the member states making the appropriate efforts - in accordance with their situation at the time.' as i am sure you will notice, this is not necessarily the most direct way of saying that we want to improve the situation. and i am sure it is no secret either that mr van miert and i myself would certainly have wished to see better coherence. nevertheless, i believe that the compromise the council has now reached will at least lead, on the one side, to rather more flexibility, which is something parliament has always called for, but - and i believe it is important to note this, given also what mrs schroedter said - will also impose an obligation on the member states to contribute through this regulation to a greater concentration. mrs mccarthy may no longer be here, but i would say that consensus will win the day only if we actually succeed in the end in bringing about greater coherence, not because we are purists or take fundamentalist positions in the commission, but because that is the only way we can actually achieve the effects we want. in regard to timing, the problems of competition policy and structural policy do indeed differ. we take the view that the agreement that has now been reached in regard to the common communication will help us find sensible and closely coordinated solutions in both competition and structural policy. regarding subsidy shopping, let me point out that we are calling for a certain sustainability of investment for both policies, to ensure that once they have pocketed the aid undertakings do not then relocate and then claim new aid, be it national or european. in relation to structural policy i just want to point out that i believe that if the monitoring committees play more part in the evaluation and are also given a more substantial role, there will be careful discussion about the sustainability of the investments and that the a major criterion for granting or not granting aid will be whether the assisted undertaking really is established in that region. that could mobilise a substantial steering instrument. i hope that in future the monitoring committees will ensure this too. let me return now to the concentration of aid on the most disadvantaged regions. during this debate many speakers have said that this concentration is the crux of the reform and that without concentration any positive effects for poorer regions would be reduced out. that is why i think it is so important that we do not counteract our own endeavours by watering down the 75 % criterion. for the rest, the ultraperipheral regions do not face any problems, because they all fulfil the strict 75 % criterion. in the case of objective 6 regions we must indeed differentiate, as we must for islands, because there the state of development differs widely and we must all take that into consideration. we would be doing ourselves no favour if we said that exceptions would guarantee everyone their own special rules; instead we must ensure that the level of aid is adjusted to the severity of the problems. in that sense i hope we will agree during the further discussions on agenda 2000, and above all its implementation, on the need jointly to promote the necessary coherence so that the structurally weakest areas can catch up. mr president, firstly i should like to offer my sincerest thanks to the two rapporteurs, mr azzolini and mrs riis-jrgensen. this is not the first time that i have had the pleasure of debating our annual report in person here with mrs riis-jrgensen. i am truly delighted by the quality of the reports, and also of the debate. as a result, it is rather a shame, mr president, that there is so little time to respond to the many comments made and real issues mentioned. therefore, i would like to ask you to forgive me for only responding to a few of the points that have been raised, but this is down to necessity. firstly, i should like to answer mrs riis-jrgensen's question about democratic control and transparency. it is a fundamental issue as the commission has a direct and specific responsibility in this field. it is both logical and necessary that, at any point in time, the commission should be prepared to appear before parliament or before the responsible committees to explain the decisions that it is taking or refusing to take. mrs riis-jrgensen, i am fully prepared to commit myself to coming here every month and talking to the responsible committee, which is much more than the three visits a year that were made a few years ago. this is all i ask. i am in your hands. there are plenty of issues and problems to debate. so it is up to you: if you invite me each month, i will be here. with that said, i should very quickly like to turn to the report by mr azzolini, as mrs wulf-mathies has already responded to a number of comments. we need to agree on the objectives of this process. currently, 51 % of the population live in regions eligible for structural fund aid, and 47 % in regions eligible for national or regional aid. with enlargement on the horizon, and bearing in mind that all the countries involved will be eligible for such aid, our policy is threatening to become illogical, given that the aim of regional policy is to help the regions in greatest need. therefore, we, mrs wulf-mathies and ourselves, must now work together to try to reduce the number of eligible regions. we must make an effort to concentrate aid and try to be as consistent as possible. and i am delighted by the fact that, at commission level, we have been able to reach an agreement on this. this is a rather delicate and at times politically difficult operation because even reducing the number of eligible regions by only 4 % - and reducing them from 47 % to 43-42.7 % is not difficult - is already causing a great deal of political upset. even a small reduction spurs all manner of forces into action, standing up to demand that their region remain eligible. but if we do not do this, i feel that we will not be doing our job or our duty given the forthcoming enlargement of the european union. therefore, we must work along these lines and accept that our policy will have certain effects. we also need to decrease the intensity of aid. on many occasions you have specifically criticised the problem of relocations. such relocations can be explained by the fact that sometimes, in certain regions, the intensity of aid is such that firms leave other eligible regions to move to regions where the intensity of aid is much greater. you have called on us to do something about this. so, in answer to your request, we are reducing the differences in intensity whilst also remaining within acceptable limits as the limit for a regions is 40 or 50 %. for the outermost regions the limit may be even more, but for c regions i believe that an intensity of 20 % is a suitable ceiling and, in certain circumstances, could even drop to 10 %. as a result, i believe that this is a better balance and, what is more, the national authorities will still be able to do a lot for the most needy regions. therefore, in the future, our policy will be much more balanced than before. i will finish there on your report as there are a number of questions on mrs riis-jrgensen's report also awaiting an answer. firstly, there is the general question of state aid. many of you have said that the economically most developed countries award the most aid. this is indeed true, and it is also why we are trying to be much stricter. i can tell you that, last year, we made a series of negative decisions on state aid, as many as 31, compared with only 9 in 1997. this is clear proof that, little by little, we have become far stricter, as should be the case. you know what the consequences of this are, sometimes involving disputes with governments, regional authorities and so on. but that is the price that has to be paid for a more credible, consistent and coherent state aid control policy. there is no other solution. we must be sure of what we want. having said this, there are grounds for forging ahead with this issue. mr metten talked specifically about fiscal aid. mr metten, as you know we currently have approximately thirty cases to consider, but i should like to ask you where i can find the human resources to do so. once again, we have been given an extra job to do, which we are quite prepared to do as there is a need for it, but no one in the council of finance ministers has asked if dg iv has the means to do this job. no one has asked if we have the tax consultants to do it. no one has asked this question. once again, we have been given an additional responsibility, which we would indeed like to carry out, but for goodness' sake, from now on, there should be more consistency by giving us the means we need to carry out this type of work. as regards state aid, i would particularly like to mention the matter of the energy sector in spain very briefly. i am aware that this issue is gaining extraordinary political proportions. this is how the situation stands. firstly, the spanish authorities would like to liberalise the energy sector more rapidly than in other member states or than stated in the directive, and we can only welcome this. this much is clear. secondly, it is true that this operation, not only in spain but in other member states, will involve what we call 'stranded costs', but in principle it is a state aid issue. so the commission and dg iv must be notified of all these cases, as well as dg xvii, so that we can examine them separately but coherently. after the contact i had with the spanish minister a few days ago, the spanish government has now agreed that it will also notify us of spain's case. this will mean it can be examined by my service as it should be, in accordance with the principle that stranded costs should be classified as real costs linked to public service obligations previously imposed on businesses by the public authorities, and which now, in the liberalisation process, are in danger of causing the businesses involved to lose out. this is the background to this whole exercise. for the moment, i cannot say any more than that. once we have been notified, we will, of course, attempt to clarify the situation as quickly as possible. another issue is that of the canary islands. we have already approved what we call ref, the economic and fiscal regime. and now, we have been notified about the zec, as we call it - the canaries special region. the fact that the canary islands will remain an a region will clearly let us consider allowing more aid than if they had moved from an a ranking to a c ranking. it allows for a broader based approach. however, for the moment we are examining what the government has brought to our attention. at this point, i cannot tell you any more. mr president, i see that i have already exceeded my speaking time. please allow me, by way of conclusion, to highlight an issue which unfortunately has not been fully debated here today, namely the modernisation of competition policy. mrs riis-jrgensen, i will take the liberty of suggesting a subject to the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy so we can debate it. you know that we have already taken a series of steps as regards state aid and in other areas such as vertical restraints, and so on. but there are others and, very briefly, i should very much like to have an opportunity to discuss them with the responsible committee. so we are attempting - and i will stop here - to ensure that our competition policy is more transparent, more efficient and more credible, but also that it is well enough prepared to face the challenges ahead. enlargement is one such challenge, and it is an extraordinary one. however, before the end of this commission's term of office, we must also ensure that together we can say that we have done everything possible to prepare for the future and to allow the commission to do its job properly. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. climate change the next item is the statement by the commission on climate change. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am pleased to report to you today on the results of the climate negotiations in buenos aires and the follow-up work for the coming months. parliament has put forward a very interesting resolution and i note with satisfaction that we are agreed on the great majority of points. my assessment of the buenos aires conference is also that it was a success, although the overall result was limited. to begin with the community achieved its minimum objective, namely a plan of action with a work programme for concrete decisions on outstanding issues arising from the kyoto protocol and the convention, which as you know will be taken up by the sixth conference of the parties in less than two years' time. secondly, the eu played an important role in getting the g77 countries and china to the negotiating table, so that they could feel more closely involved in the process. i continue to focus on better relations with the developing countries in connection with the preparations for the fifth conference of the parties, not least by prioritising the practical formulation of the mechanism for sustainable development, the clean development mechanism. finally, there is a commitment on the part of the argentinian presidency to strengthen political control of the process by holding ad hoc meetings at ministerial level in the enlarged executive committee between annual meetings of the conference of the parties. i believe that such ad hoc meetings are crucial in keeping the process on the right track. on the whole, therefore, i think that the fourth conference of the parties succeeded in making good progress towards implementing the kyoto protocol. as regards the individual parts of the buenos aires plan of action, i have the following comments to make: we have some hard work ahead of us in formulating detailed rules on the mechanisms, in particular because monitoring and recording are needed in order to prevent these mechanisms from being used as loopholes in the environmental legislation. i therefore think it important that a decision should be taken at the sixth conference of the parties on the three mechanisms together, so that the package will include a strong and cohesive system for monitoring the mechanisms. we also want to continue the debate on how we can achieve the convention's final objective, namely to prevent dangerous climate change, at the same time ensuring that the burdens are shared fairly and taking into account our common but differentiated responsibilities. i call upon honourable members to consider how we can best resolve this difficult question, especially having regard to the reluctance of the developing countries to take part in discussions on their own obligations, which was in fact again clearly demonstrated at the fourth conference of the parties. it is important that we do further work on implementing policies and measures to combat climate change, not just at international level but to an even greater degree in the eu and hence in the member states. i also agree with parliament that we must concretise how we can achieve our aims, since good intentions are certainly not enough. the commission, parliament and the council must take their responsibilities seriously and come up with concrete actions and decisions. in this connection, i stress that some important proposals have been presented which require a decision, for example the proposal on taxation of energy products. i strongly urge parliament to deliver its opinion on this proposal before the parliamentary elections, so that the new momentum from the german presidency can be used to advantage and so that political agreement can be reached at the meeting of the ecofin council in may. in the field of taxation, our first objective must be to ensure that the proposal on taxation of energy products is adopted, since an increasing number of member states now seem to agree that such taxation is necessary. if the german presidency does not succeed in bringing about agreement - which i certainly hope it will - we can still consider what we can do with the proposal for a co2 tax, which was originally presented in 1992 and which, as you know, has not been withdrawn by the commission. with the plan of action and the internal policies and measures, our aim is that the kyoto protocol should be ratified and take effect as quickly as possible. i am strongly in favour of speedy ratification. but this means that we must put our own house in order, so that ratification will not be just an empty gesture. in this context, the more proactive stance of certain american industrial interests in the effort to combat climate change and the signature of the protocol by the usa can be regarded as positive steps. there were signs in buenos aires of a more positive attitude on the part of certain sections of the american congress. but the goal has still not been attained, far from it, and honourable members have a valuable role to play in continuing - as they did in buenos aires - to persuade their colleagues in the american congress that the protocol must be ratified. here i have to say that i am sceptical with regard to declarations from argentina and kazakhstan signalling their willingness to enter into a binding commitment at the fifth conference of the parties. in the long term it is important that the developing countries should be involved, but the real test of such voluntary commitments is their final effect in practice. in order that a country can take advantage of the benefits of the protocol, it must sign it. it must also honour in full the obligations it has thereby taken upon itself. moreover, we must - as we have said before - ensure that we do not just get more hot air into the system through having unambitious objectives. so let me come back to our internal programme of work. as i already announced in september, i shall be presenting a communication in the spring of 1999. this undertaking was welcomed by the european council in vienna, which concluded that it would take a decision on the basis of a report from the commission on a comprehensive eu strategy for climate policy at its meeting in cologne which, as you know, will be held at the beginning of june. i entirely agree that we need a comprehensive eu strategy. the year 2008 looks far ahead in the future, but we must act now if we are to have any chance of achieving our objective. in the commission communication therefore, we will concentrate on those elements that are crucial to ensuring that the eu can achieve its objectives. these key elements include common and coordinated policies and measures, the kyoto mechanisms and links with third countries. the communication will contain a full analysis of the effects of the trade in emission rights, common implementation and the clean development mechanism. i assure you that i will do my utmost to expedite the adoption of this communication so that it can be presented promptly and be ready for the cologne summit. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i will say in closing that, generally speaking, i can support parliament's resolution and i look forward to further very constructive cooperation in our common effort to combat climate change. mr president, may i remind the commissioner that, according to one of our sayings, words and deeds are often oceans apart. if we want to keep to the timetable that was drawn up in buenos aires and if we want to draw up our own timetable for that purpose, we shall have to cross those oceans together in the fastest possible time with the firmest measures we can implement, otherwise we shall be left sitting helplessly on one shore as the climatic disaster breaks out on the other. i think it is essential, commissioner, to do a number of things at international level. one of these - and a very important one too - is to continue the dialogue with the developing countries that was so productive in buenos aires so that we can develop the proposals for the clean development mechanism together with these countries. i also believe that, even though we have had little joy on this from the outset, we in the european union must come up with some very specific proposals as to how emissions trading should ultimately work, how monitoring can be carried out and how individual emissions and reductions in emissions are to be assessed, so that we are armed with this information when the time comes. i also believe it is essential to incorporate these issues more effectively into our strategies for negotiating the accession of the applicant countries to an enlarged union. in kyoto, the countries whose applications are being considered for accession in the first wave undertook to make the same reductions in emissions as the member states of the european union. the crux of the matter now, however, is to involve them in the preparation process, so that we do not have a situation in which they accede to membership of the union without having made the necessary preparations and therefore cannot be integrated into the european system of burden-sharing. i think some of my colleagues will want to deal in greater detail with european burden-sharing. i only wish to say that, besides the coordination of national plans, it will also be necessary to ensure that we have the required legal bases at eu level and that we create such bases wherever they are lacking, because unless we pool our efforts we shall not achieve the goal we set ourselves in kyoto. i also believe that these measures will have to be accompanied by the development of safeguards in the areas of health, agriculture and ecological protection, because as the change in climate becomes ever more apparent, dangers will emerge that we may never have contemplated. it is my belief that, as we prepare to enter the new millennium, we now have the opportunity to achieve sustainable development, rapid technological progress and above all a fairer distribution of the world's resources, and i hope we have the strength and the courage to grasp that opportunity. mr president, before i speak to the resolution, can i clear up a translation error. in the english interpretation of what the commissioner said, reference was made to the withdrawal by the commission of the co2 tax. in fact, you were much wiser than that. you did not withdraw the proposal, you amended it, and that amended proposal is still on the table and i hope the council will take it up. i trust that all the language versions will be consistent with what you actually said. i am grateful for a copy of the text in english. i had the honour to lead parliament's delegation to the buenos aires conference and the report from myself and other colleagues is available to parliament. in my view, cop iv was a moderate success dragged screaming from the jaws of what might have been a negotiators' deadlock. the buenos aires action plan promises some progress by the time of cop vi in the year 2000. for the first time it reflects interest in the principles of contraction and convergence and of global equity which this parliament has voted for regularly. my report draws attention to the helpful and positive role of the commission in buenos aires for which i am grateful and for the courtesy which it showed towards parliament. my report also draws attention to the failure of the council either to recognise, to use, or intelligently to consult meps during the course of the conference. the latest council guidelines on mep involvement, decided on a week before buenos aires, are positively insulting to parliament. i have raised the matter with the president and i hope that the committee on institutional affairs would look at this in the context of the next igc. the union learnt the lessons of our relative failure in kyoto and reached out towards countries in the group of 77, looking for allies in the cause of sanity in protecting the climate of the planet. i would like to use my last few seconds to make an appeal to the commission. despite what the commissioner said about the possibility of political progress between cops, i should like to encourage the idea of a structural review of the whole process of the conference of the parties. in my view at the moment it is far too prone to technical logjams stopping political initiatives. the rhythm of the conference of the parties makes it difficult to take political initiatives between conferences. i was in bonn yesterday talking to michael zammit-cutajar of the climate change secretariat and i suggested to him that maybe the time had come for a structural review of the way we organise this whole process, perhaps using our old tried and trusted friend the group of wise men - or eminent persons or whatever we call it nowadays - to stand back from the detailed negotiations and look at the destination of this process. it seems to me, having been to all these cops, that we are caught now between this being a continuing and at times difficult negotiation and, at the same time, being an institution with administrative responsibilities. i hope the commission will take up this suggestion. i thank the commissioner for her statement and i commend the resolution to the house. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult to claim that buenos aires was really a success. whilst the kyoto talks managed to agree on a reduction of greenhouse gases, regrettably no detailed rules were agreed on how exactly this should be achieved. i think it is fair to say that the union has done what it could, and i warmly congratulate commissioner bjerregaard on her hard work and determination. we have the buenos aires action plan and we should give this our full attention, because important decisions will have to be taken at the climate conference in the year 2000. i should like to emphasise two points. firstly, if the kyoto protocol is to come into force, it has to be ratified by at least 55 of the parties which account for at least 55 % of all emissions. we must keep hammering home the point that it is essential for the usa to ratify. if the biggest polluter - the usa - and russia do not ratify, for example, then kyoto is meaningless. my second point is that emissions trading can only be allowed if the bulk of the effort is made at national level. i quite agree with commissioner bjerregaard that we must set a ceiling on emissions trading. we must not, so to speak, export the problem. the positions of the union and the usa are diametrically opposed to one another here. the union rightly maintains that action to combat climate change only makes sense if everyone plays their part. and this has always been the position of parliament, even if it is not explicitly stated in the resolution now before us. finally, regarding the harmonised energy tax, we too are in favour of a tax of this kind, but provided it is fiscally neutral. our group has tabled two amendments calling for a harmonised tax, and they should be understood in that context. i have one last question to the commissioner. where does she stand on the question of a possible tax on aviation fuel, to be introduced at european level? there are those who say, perhaps rightly, that the answer lies in better technology so that the level of emissions is reduced. but the increase in air transport means that measures will definitely be needed in this area too. mr president, how can one fail to agree with the commissioner when she proposes specific measures, follow-up procedures, cooperation with developing countries and taxation in connection with the production of energy? i am sure we all agree with her, particularly as she has put forward specific measures to ensure that what has been agreed is carried through. according to scientific opinion and to the united nations' report, 50 000 deaths and losses totalling 12 billion pesetas were caused by natural disasters in 1998. i do not myself believe these disasters were all that natural. i am not sure what the losses amount to in euros, but 12 billion pesetas is certainly a lot of money. in my opinion, there are a lot of economic powers and governments that should be taking appropriate action, if only because of the economic consequences of these natural disasters. we, however, are going further, and we truly believe the european union's proposal was the best, despite being rather cautious. the european parliament has expressed this view on several occasions. scientists also tell us that emissions must be brought down to between 50 % and 60 % of their 1990 levels, if we are to have a positive impact on climate change. we are aiming at an 8 % reduction in the emission of six greenhouse gases. if we do not even achieve that 8 % reduction, we shall be endangering the future of the planet. we therefore welcome your proposals, commissioner, provided you do ensure that the member states comply with them. in particular, we should like to see the load spread fairly between industrialised and developing countries. we are opposed to the idea of making developing countries start to pay, as the united states would have them do. it is for us to pay. mr president, i was part of the delegation with mr spencer and mr linkohr at the conference in buenos aires. how one judges the conference is a matter of opinion. mr spencer said it was a moderate success. i think that is a fair description. i recall commissioner bjerregaard saying at the press conference at the end that we would have wanted to achieve more, that we always do, but that this was as much as we could persuade the other parties to the conference to agree to. the european union showed real leadership, supported to a large extent by the candidate countries, the g77 and china. i also recall the president-in-office of the council saying that at kyoto we agreed on concrete reduction targets and greenhouse gas emissions by the industrialized countries. in buenos aires we kept the momentum of kyoto by establishing the action plan which was one of the objectives of buenos aires and deciding on other measures like the elaboration of a compliance system. the international press treated the conference with a certain amount of cynicism; some called it a fiasco. it was a difficult conference because there were long, tortuous and turgid negotiations but i cannot but support mr spencer and congratulate the commission. i also applaud the decision by the united states to sign the protocol. while recognising that it may be a diplomatic formality, as we say in the resolution, at the same time it is very effective and signals a change of opinion in the united states. we must also applaud the cop iv host countries, argentina and kazakstan for signalling their willingness to enter into a binding commitment at cop v to reduce their greenhouse emissions further. that is progress of some sort, small though it may be. so, it is a good resolution. i support it as does my group and, along with mr spencer, i commend it to the house. ladies and gentlemen, mr fitzsimons, i would ask you not to exceed the time you have been allocated. the services tell me we are running late. i have no wish to cut you off, and i am confident you can regulate yourselves. i know you are all very responsible and will take this reminder in the spirit in which it is meant. mrs hautala now has the floor for one minute on behalf of the green group in the european parliament. mr president, the european union has had a very positive role in worldwide negotiations, and, in my opinion, the commissioner deserves personal recognition for this. but at the same time the fact remains, and it gets ever more embarrassing from one day to the next, that the union has not been able to take any decisions of its own which would lead to establishing its own commitments too. for that reason it is vital that we debate the issue of energy taxation, something the commissioner mentioned earlier. it is also important that those countries that wish to go further than others can, in addition, adopt this original proposal for a carbon dioxide and energy tax. it would be interesting to hear what estimates the commission might have here. we must remember that the treaty of amsterdam makes provision for a situation where some countries can move forward more swiftly than others, if those others are not ready. but i am sure that industry has also realised that climate policy can give it a competitive edge, and this should be seized upon. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, was buenos aires a flop? i do not think so. it was not a flop, it just suffered from the last night at kyoto when the americans tried to introduce flexible mechanisms into the protocol without which they were not going to sign up. it must also be said that the conference president did not show the same diplomacy as ambassador estrada, who led the proceedings at kyoto extremely well, but that is just a minor detail. my group agrees with the idea of pursuing a 50/50 position in the flexible mechanisms. this means that at least 50 % of the reductions must be made at home before the flexible mechanisms may be used. the european union must continue to support this position. i therefore agree with the introduction of the flexible mechanisms, which will finally allow the cost of emitting one tonne of carbon to be calculated in economic terms. this will have repercussions on the tax systems of the industrialised countries which are included in annex i. i particularly dislike the pressure put by the developed countries, in particular the usa, on the developing countries to undertake to reduce their emissions too. it must be said that the developing countries, which are non-annex i countries, do not even have any quota to sell under article 6. i recall a comment by the chinese delegate at kyoto, who said that the americans have three cars per family whereas the chinese go to work on foot and yet the americans and the europeans want to stop the chinese from going to work on the bus. we must be serious about this and rather more flexible with regard to the developing countries. i would now like to turn to a subject of great interest to me, which is forestry. the kyoto protocol stipulates that funding can be granted for reforestation, particularly for carbon sequestration and especially within the cdm or clean development mechanism. this can play an important role in allowing the industrialised countries to support and provide funding for reforestation projects in developing countries. the ngos concerned with the protection of the environment point out that it is essential that only projects which respect biodiversity are subsidised. we must ensure that projects for intensively managed plantations are not subsidised at the expense of protecting biodiversity. mr president, the outcome of the 1997 kyoto conference on climate change was rightly seen as a turning-point, albeit only a first step in the right direction. it represents a first attempt to reduce greenhouse gases and so halt the progress of man-made changes to the world's climate. it is most important that the kyoto protocol should be speedily ratified by all the parties, notably the united states and russia. pressure is building towards this, particularly amongst business circles in the united states. it is clear that much remained to be done after kyoto in terms of concrete follow-up. the follow-up conference in buenos aires has resulted in a single programme of action with pledges and timetables. that was a welcome development. much consideration must also be given to dialogue with the developing world. but there is a danger that it may be restricted to the conclusion of agreements on emissions trading. firstly, in my view, the european union itself must work to cut greenhouse gas emissions within the eu. it is also very important to assist other countries, for example by the transfer of cleaner technology which can be provided through development aid. it may be that emissions trading takes place within the continent of europe. emissions trading will only take place with countries outside europe if those countries actually take steps to reduce greenhouse gases. if countries within the eu itself make an effort, this may encourage non-european countries to play their own part in cutting emissions. to achieve this reduction in emission levels, environmental policy needs to be incorporated into other policy sectors, such as energy, transport and agriculture. appropriate ways to do this are the promotion of efficient energy use, renewable energy and energy taxes. once again, i would advocate the introduction of a tax on aviation fuel. lastly, our responsibility for these issues is a shared one, but each individual country has an individual responsibility to contribute to resolving the problems too. the individual citizen likewise has an individual responsibility. so work is needed to create a worldwide awareness of the fact that things cannot go on this way and that a new model of sustainable economic development is needed, based on respect for the natural world and its creator. mr president, the slower-than-slow approach to reducing emissions that was adopted in buenos aires is like trying to have a wash without getting wet. an effective policy on the global climate will not be achieved until the real cost of emitting active substances into the atmosphere is borne in full by the polluter. for that to happen, we need a suitable legal framework. the oft-repeated excuse that reducing emission levels is too expensive is suicidal. a society that is unwilling to invest in the preservation of its own vital resources, and hence in the survival of the human species, is doomed to extinction. the emissions catalogue that was negotiated in buenos aires is no way to tackle the problem. in the long run, problems can only be solved at the point where they actually occur. mr president, i must say that one pleasant side-effect of the debates in this house on the global climate is that we are always in agreement. that is the one ray of sunshine. but when we compare our declarations of intent with the actual outcome, the picture begins to cloud over. i shall simply use the figures i have obtained from the commission. total co2 emissions in the european union rose by 2 % between 1990 and 1996. in 1997 there was a small reduction, but the winter weather was mild in 1997, and there is nothing to suggest that we have wrought any fundamental changes. the reduction we saw in the first half of this decade, which has now given way to further increases, can be explained away. we replaced coal with gas. we replaced oil with gas. as a result of german reunification, an entire region was deindustrialised. in addition, existing plants were modernised. these are processes that will not be repeated. in other words, accelerated economic growth in particular means that, by the year 2000, we must expect co2 emissions to be higher - and indeed measurably higher - than their 1990 levels. let me cite the example of my own federal state of baden-wrttemberg; it is quite a highly industrialised state. since 1995, per capita co2 emissions have risen considerably there as a result of economic growth. so the tide is definitely not turning. that makes us stop and think. now of course we can say, 'very well, we need to try harder' and so on. but we have tried harder in some respects, as a result of which - and these too are commission figures - there has been an average annual increase in energy efficiency of only 0.6 % since 1990, whereas 2 % increases were being achieved in the eighties and the late seventies. that too makes us stop and think. it implies that we are capable of achieving less now than we could manage ten or fifteen years ago. what we need - and this is addressed to the commission and more especially, of course, to the council - is an action plan with measurable targets. i should really like to know exactly what each country and each industry has to do, what is expected in terms of transport policy and even what households should be doing. above all, we have to ask ourselves how this can be funded. so how can it be funded? and this brings me to my final recommendation to the commission. put something on the table here; suggest a way to reach agreement with the banks so that investments in the energy sector can be prefinanced, because funds are not being advanced at the present time for energy investments, and i believe this is the main reason why we are not making progress. the technology is generally there, but the money is not! mr president, although mr linkohr has taken two-thirds of my speech, i am actually 100 % in agreement with what he has said. i want to start by thanking the commission and particularly the commissioner for their work and personal commitment and also for the way in which, in buenos aires, they received and worked with the representatives of this house. unfortunately, the council adopted an attitude which it cannot maintain. in institutional terms, parliament must now adopt a position in relation to the council and each of the presidencies, and before the next intergovernmental conference at that. the second part of my speech is connected with what mr linkohr said about policies and measures. my concern is that reductions are not being made in many areas of the eu and in the majority of the world's countries. in portugal, for example, electricity consumption grew by 6 % last year, which was double the growth in production. it is clear that this cannot go on. i support the commission's intention to prepare a directive - which i would like to see as soon as possible - in order to establish certain compulsory minimum levels of penetration of renewable energy. we have spoken to commissioner papoutsis and we agree that the directive is urgently needed. the penetration of renewable energy in the market has been shrinking because of the fall in the price of oil and natural gas, and also given that the cost of energy does not currently include environmental costs. secondly, we have the structural funds and the european transport network which are areas over which the committee on agriculture and rural development has some influence through the budget. the member states must be forced to use this money to consider transport options which consume less energy. as for the applicant countries, phare and tacis now have no influence over their energy consumption. if this situation continues, mr linkohr's prediction will come true: as soon as the acute crisis has ended, emissions will increase. to conclude, i must say that the commission could perhaps support the initiatives of certain companies such as bp and others, which are assuming positive attitudes towards climate change, by organising a major event in brussels on the positive role that could be played by companies prepared to take this issue seriously. thank you, mr pimenta. after your first few words, mr pimenta, i was considering withholding two thirds of your speaking time, but you then went on to exceed it by a minute. once again, i must urge members to keep within the time they have been allocated, as the services tell me we are running late. i know you all have very important issues to raise, but i would ask you to be concise. my remarks are addressed in the first instance to mrs breyer, who now has the floor for one minute. mr president, commissioner, you referred to the role of the united states. i believe the issue today is a different one. it is about the need for the european union to take the lead here. to put it plainly, loopholes in the protocol such as the scope for emissions trading must not be used as a means of wriggling out of responsibility. which takes us straight to this question: what has happened to the promised measures? i should also like to hear from you exactly what is to happen now with regard to the implementation of the white paper on renewable energy sources? you referred to the key role that the energy tax is to play. all right, we now have a proposal on an energy consumption tax, but that is surely a tiny step. after all, the commission itself has admitted that the implementation of this proposal will not prevent a 6 % increase in emission levels by the year 2010. what did you say about the most intractable problem of all, namely transport? we know that co2 emissions by vehicles are set to rise by 38 % between now and 2010. here too, i would ask you to answer the questions my fellow members have been asking. when will kerosene finally be taxed? when will you make some serious efforts to honour the promise that was made to us last year? we need action, not paper and not fine words. mr president, we need to lift our eyes from concentrating only on the fiscal measures. we seem to do quite a lot of wringing our hands about the council's reluctance to agree an energy tax and other fiscal measures. i agree with the commissioner that it is time the commission put its own house in order on climate change. i want to hear some detailed commitments that this is happening. early in the debates we heard some nice aspirations about sustainable agriculture and i applaud that. however, i want to ask the commission what action it is taking to green its approach to the single market, to the way it is implemented and to the way competition policy works, to the way in which it spends overseas aid, to its policy on trade, to its accession negotiations, which a lot of colleagues have mentioned, and the structural funds as well as the cap. we need to see active implementation on strategic environmental assessment with an eye to climate change and to use this as a tool for assessment of policy at european level, especially external aid as well as policy here in the european union. we also need more work on exactly what clean development technology transfer will consist of and the relationship with our overseas development assistance. active implementation of cdms is going to be pivotal to winning the support we need for the kyoto protocol from the developing countries. without some support from them for the notion of equity, we will continue to have problems trying to get america to ratify. if we can make progress on some of these issues, the european union could go forward with confidence to set the tone for cops v and vi. certainly we know that climate change is not going away and it certainly will not go away because of the text that parliament is going to vote tomorrow. the united states is not going to ratify simply because we asked it to. this week the environment ministers are down in the antarctic watching how it is melting away, looking at what the problems are going to be. we need some kind of commitment from the commission and i hope that we will hear the commission and the council ensure that the european union takes the necessary action to deal with the points i have raised as well as the perennial favourites of energy taxes. mr president, commissioner, of all the environmental challenges facing us, climate change is undoubtedly the most complex. every country in the world is tangibly affected. emissions do not pose a threat in the short term, but in the long term they are infinitely more serious. the first hesitant steps towards a negotiated solution have been accomplished with a certain amount of pain. since the commitment which has to be made can impinge noticeably on a nation's finances, it is essential to find solutions which benefit the environment at the lowest possible cost. there is no doubt that trade in emission levels provides such a solution. therefore, in my view, it is absolutely crucial for the commission to carry out a wide-ranging study into how this instrument should be used to ensure that the problem of climate change is dealt with in the right way. research carried out in scandinavia shows that trade in carbon dioxide emissions in the nordic countries would cut costs by 50 %. although a reduction in emissions may be hard to verify, the research shows that the benefits of a successful outcome are so substantial that a huge effort needs to be made to establish a sustainable system. it must also be in the eu's best interests not to unilaterally adopt economic instruments which have the effect of substantially increasing costs, for example in comparison with the usa, putting us at a competitive disadvantage. in future negotiations, we should put right some of the mistakes that were made at kyoto. for the sake of the future, we should not dismiss economically sound methods which have shown themselves to be effective. the phasing-out of nuclear power would lead to serious problems if it became a reality. instead, this excellent source of energy should be developed and improved. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, following the kyoto conference on climate change and the conference in buenos aires last november, the european union has drawn up its own genuine action plan covering certain crucial issues. first, it covers funding mechanisms to help developing countries face the challenges linked to climate change. secondly, it covers future work on policies and measures to be implemented which are already on the agenda for the next conference of the parties to the united nations framework convention. thirdly, it covers the development and transfer of clean technologies, which will help developing countries not to repeat the environmental blunders the developed countries have made, and fourthly, it covers the basic rules for the flexibility mechanisms contained in the kyoto protocol, although agreement needs to be reached on an institutional structure for these. i agree with members who have said that dialogue is fundamental, but i also want to mention that, in just two months, the joint acp-eu assembly, which has a working group on climate change in small island states, will not only be adopting a highly important resolution for the developing countries but will certainly be making a statement after two years of work. i would therefore like to ask mrs bjerregaard why on earth we have received no satisfactory response from the commission when, for example, we have highlighted the importance of acting in synergy with other directorates-general, such as dg viii and dg xi, on science, research and development. we are extremely concerned for the acp countries and we have called for a disaster prevention fund because we believe the small island states are extremely vulnerable to climate change. so i would ask the commissioner either to respond here and now or to let those of us who are working in very close synergy have some answers as soon as possible. this is becoming crucial for us because the crises occurring in africa and the acp island states are leading to grave disasters. mr president, i should like to thank parliament for the debate. i think that mr linkohr was quite right and that he put his finger on something we may have noticed in these debates. parliament and the commission are in agreement, but the reality we come up against is different: it could be said that the other parties we have to deal with, who are crucial in ensuring that all this will come to something, are not thinking on the same lines as ourselves. in the course of the debate, i have heard a number of suggestions as to how we can do more to persuade the other parties to become more actively committed to the line that we have taken. so i entirely share the view of mrs graenitz that it is important for us to continue the international effort, not least in relation to the developing countries. i agree with mrs graenitz and others that the applicant countries must be more closely involved. i think it was mr pimenta who also stressed this point. it is what we are trying to do all the time. it is also what we did in buenos aires but clearly, on the point of energy policy and its consequences, there is a great deal still to be done in relation to the applicant countries. mr spencer was quite right about the interpreting error - that happens from time to time when one speaks a minor language - so i am happy to confirm that what i said was that the co2 levy, which had originally been proposed in 1992, was not withdrawn by the commission. i also think we have good reason to consider how we organise the process. we had some discussion of this in buenos aires. i also mentioned that the continued argentine presidency had plans for a more political process, but i am happy to take part in discussions on other ways of tackling it. mrs hautala stressed - and i think quite rightly - that we must meet our own objectives. if we want to stick to the line we have embarked upon, then we must also be in a position to see it through to the end, and that is indeed what we intend to do, both by presenting a communication and also by taking the matter up at council meetings. in other words, the commission must come up with a further plan, which i will be happy to discuss with parliament. the question of a flight tax or a kerosene tax, which we have discussed once or twice, is somewhat more difficult. we have also taken this up in a number of forums. the last occasion on which i myself pressed very hard for it was at a meeting we had under oecd auspices with the environment ministers. it was very clear that there was powerful opposition from the usa, canada, japan and others, so the question is whether something can be done at european level, because the opposition at international level is formidable. i share mrs pollack's view that there are a great many areas we must tackle. there will be some initiatives on the internal market. later in the year, i think, we shall have an opportunity to discuss the problems relating to the wto. i think parliament may remember that there was a joint communication from sir leon brittan and myself, and we certainly intend to continue this cooperation up to the forthcoming wto negotiations. fortunately, i can say that the german presidency has included the proposal on strategic environmental assessment on its prioritised list, so it is also my hope that we can make further progress in this area. mr president, there may well be many things we need to discuss, but let me close by thanking parliament for its support for the line we have embarked on. i look forward to the continuation of that cooperation. we really need all our forces if we are to convince the other parties that we have set the right course. thank you, mrs bjerregaard. i have received a motion for a resolution tabled pursuant to rule 37(2). the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. food treated with ionising radiation the next item is the report (a4-0008/99) by mrs bloch von blottnitz, on behalf of parliament's delegation to the conciliation committee, on the joint text approved by the conciliation committee for a european parliament and council directive on i.the approximation of the laws of the member states concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation (3631/98 - c4-0021/99-00/0169(cod))ii.the establishment of a community list of foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation (3632/98 - c4-0022/99-00/0169b(cod)).i give the floor to the rapporteur, mrs bloch von blottnitz. mr president, i must, of course, express my pleasure at our having finally arrived at a joint text for the directive on irradiated foodstuffs after ten years. it is worth noting that the council alone has spent eight years considering the draft, which further testifies to the controversy that surrounds this method. naturally enough, we might ask why foodstuffs should be irradiated at all, since it has been proved that vitamins in fruit and vegetables are killed off and also that the irradiation of products with fat content releases free radicals, which, as we know, are carcinogenic. but i should also like to remind the house that, for as long as we have not had a standard framework, we have naturally had no compulsory labelling either. since irradiation is practised in several countries, such as france, belgium and the netherlands, and since we have a single market in which irradiated products are traded, there is no real point now in maintaining the old position that parliament once adopted. we must prohibit it. just wait, mr bangemann; it is too soon to be rejoicing. this will not now happen. eighteen months after the entry into force of the directive, labelling will become compulsory. this naturally also applies to spices and other ingredients, even - and this is very important - if such ingredients constitute less than 25 % of the product. in addition, we have managed to ensure that, after 1 january 2003, irradiation will only be permissible if standardised and validated verification methods are in place. you certainly did some resolute stonewalling on this point, mr bangemann, and the only reason why we were able to overcome the resistance of the commission is that the council was on our side for once. that was naturally very gratifying. another important point is that changes to the list of foods and ingredients - which, for its part, has to be on the table by 31 december 2000 - are always governed by the provisions of article 100a of the treaty. it has also been established that the treatment of foodstuffs with ionising radiation must not be a substitute for hygiene, nor must it be used in production processes or in agriculture. it used to be the case that when food started to go off, ionising radiation was applied, and the eye was deceived, so to speak. this will no longer be possible in future. but the crucial point will naturally remain the extent to which we educate consumers on what it means when foodstuffs are treated with ionising radiation. this, of course, is not something that the average housewife would know. i can only hope, and we shall be pressing this point, that it will not appear in such small print that it is overlooked, because i still take the view that there is no real need to irradiate foodstuffs. we should do better to ensure that we eat whatever is in season. it is not absolutely essential to prevent onions, potatoes and so on from germinating. for all that, we are naturally in favour of the agreement we have now reached. goodness knows how hard it was to achieve this agreement, and we shall do everything in our power to ensure that those who buy these products actually know what they are buying. if that can be achieved, then i believe we shall have established a good community system. i am pleased that progress has been made at long last, and at the end of the day it is almost satisfying, if not entirely so, that we have all received our dues. mr president, in several european languages the verb 'to congratulate' is reflexive. i believe that today we not only need to congratulate the rapporteur on her report but that we can also congratulate ourselves as a parliament for our dogged, lengthy and ultimately successful efforts to achieve a number of improvements to the original council proposal and hence to the common position too. even though i myself do not believe it is necessary to treat many foodstuffs with radiation, because i share the rapporteur's view that the healthiest food is local produce consumed when it is ripe, i believe that labelling is of great importance to consumers as a means of indicating to them what they are buying and what they can expect from their purchases. i also consider it important to emphasise that ionising radiation cannot replace good agricultural practice, which means that food should only ever be irradiated when it is fresh. i also believe it is very important to validate and standardise inspection procedures, so that the member states can exercise an unambiguous right of control and so that consumers are ultimately able to assert their rights. at this particular time, when the issue of food safety is under widespread scrutiny, it is essential to have such a directive. i also believe that the large size of many farms in the applicant countries makes it necessary for us to ensure that the directive is adopted before any enlargement of the union, so that there is a body of eu food-safety legislation which can be applied to these farms from the outset. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the treatment of foodstuffs with radiation conjures up diabolic visions in the minds of many people, while sending many a practitioner and expert into transports of delight. european policymakers were faced with the task of reconciling these two extremes and making the practical application of radiation treatment possible. the treatment of foodstuffs with ionising radiation must be possible, we believe, where it is prudent and necessary, but not as a substitute for health measures and hygiene. i do not believe what mrs bloch von blottnitz said about radiation being used on food that is going off to make it fit for consumption again. not even radiation can do that. that will be explicitly stated in future directives too. it is a very important principle. in my opinion, it goes without saying that the food in question poses no health hazard whatsoever. but that has to be re-emphasised, because we have heard the opposite message again today. food treated with ionising radiation is not radioactive food, and we, the population of the eu, can consume it without becoming seriously ill. harmonisation at european level is therefore an urgent necessity. the legal position in the various member states has hitherto been unduly disparate. whereas food has been treated with radiation for years in france, belgium and the netherlands, for instance, irradiated foodstuffs are prohibited in other countries, so there is no trace of the single market here. the result of the conciliation proceedings with the council is good and has our approval. the market in food treated with ionised radiation will gradually become a single market too. compulsory labelling will also enable consumers to make a choice. i believe this represents a major success, and i cannot help emphasising the specific role played by my group in the inclusion of standardised and validated verification methods in the directive. without validated verification methods, there can be no credible labelling system. and without a credible labelling system, there can be no consumer confidence. on the subject of confidence, i must repeat - and i agree with mrs bloch von blottnitz here - that spending ten long years on a directive is not something we can afford to do very often. let me say to the commissioners that we certainly cannot afford a repeat with regard to the chocolate directive or the labelling of alcoholic beverages. directives like the present one should not become the norm. it is high time we started to build up consumer confidence by acting quickly. mr president, i welcome this directive because it creates a legal framework for the single market in foodstuffs treated with ionising radiation. it sets high standards and limits to production which may be treated. improving food variety and quality through added value is now central to a modern food sector. the quality of the product, information on its source and full details of the added value process must at all times be fully available to consumers. food products resulting from new research must only enter the food chain after the most stringent tests have been undertaken. consumers must at all times be protected from the uncertainty of inadequate testing of new products. in a nutshell, public health and consumer protection must be paramount to all other considerations for europe's agrifood sector. this parliament has played a key role in ensuring that the concerns of consumers are taken into account and that the eventual risks related to the control mechanisms are minimized. the highest standards of food quality must be the primary goal of national governments and the eu. and measures which enhance and improve food quality must be supported. i am pleased that in ireland there is a growing appreciation of the professional role of farmers in providing quality raw material to a food sector committed to the highest standards of consumer satisfaction. mr president, in her absence, i should like to congratulate mrs bloch von blottnitz for seeing this very difficult conciliation through. it might have come more quickly. anything which includes the word radiation is bound to be fraught with difficulties, misunderstandings and misgivings. what is the proper use of ionised radiation? essentially it has to be where consumer safety benefits. it is for the consumer and for the consumer's health. it is not where producer profits benefit because of the cosmetic effect on fruit and other foodstuffs of limited durability. we do not benefit from eating strawberries which have passed their natural span simply because they can be artificially preserved. we do, however, benefit from maintaining the natural span of spices and preservatives which are used in our stores and which are kept for long periods of time. we have a strict range of products which can be sold now throughout the single market. we can understand that in each member state the same conditions apply and the same safeguards apply. with enlargement soon to come, we should also understand that this is an important benchmark for the applicant states where all kinds of temptations lie in wait for the agricultural sectors in those countries, as mr schnellhardt has already said. this is perhaps the first time we have been able to come to some sort of consensus on an aspect of radiation and radiation treatment. it will not be the last. mr president, it is always a very silly situation when people feel they have been proved right, because it is very easy, of course, to feel vindicated by events and to say 'there you are, for ten years i have been fighting the good fight, and the others have finally recognised that i was right'. but it really has to be said, as i have told mrs bloch von blottnitz - and i believe this may not be primarily the fault of parliament - that for ten years the council has purely and simply turned a deaf ear to the argument which was presented here by mrs bloch von blottnitz and which i have advanced at every council meeting for the past ten years, namely that the situation we had was worse for the consumer than what we have been proposing. why? because we have placed very tight restrictions on the scope for using ionised radiation. my second point is that we have always pressed for labelling, so that every consumer can choose whether or not to buy one of this limited range of treated food products. consumers can leave them on the shelves. no consumer will be deceived into buying these products unwittingly, because they will be labelled. as for the honourable member who has now left, mr president, i shall get up and leave in the middle of one of the next sittings to bring home to the honourable members of parliament how idiotic it is, not to mention discourteous to the commission, for anyone here to comment on the chocolate issue and then simply to go away before the commissioner can deal with the point that has been raised. protest oh i see, you have put your jacket on. i thought you had left, because you were in shirt-sleeves when you spoke! well, as far as chocolate is concerned, the problem is exactly the same. we proposed labelling so that all consumers can make an entirely free choice as to whether the chocolate they buy is made entirely of cocoa bean ingredients or whether they will accept the use of other vegetable fats. mrs bloch von blottnitz rightly said that we should have a certain amount of trust in the consumer. that is the view of the commission too. so why not let consumers choose what they want? some of them can then insist on buying chocolate with only cocoa fats, while others might not mind taking other types of chocolate. that has been precisely the problem with the radiation too. as long as we did not have a common set of rules, some member states treated all sorts of food with ionising radiation, and it was not labelled. i am now in my eleventh year as a commissioner. if parliament is gracious to me, i shall see out my term. if not, i would not be unduly upset either. but for ten years i have been putting the case for this directive to the council; for ten years i have been advancing these arguments - and this applies to many parliamentary debates too, by the way - and it has been like talking to a brick wall. sometimes one really does wonder whether it is at all possible to come up with a reasonable set of rules which everyone can accept while appreciating that they might not represent any one person's ideal solution. there is no such thing as an ideal solution in a democracy anyway, because wherever a hundred people are gathered together, at least three or four different opinions will emerge. but labelling will give consumers the freedom to choose for themselves. given the range of opinions on such subjects, the only answer is to give the individual a set of reasonable options. that is why i am glad that we have finally reached this point. but if i were a member of parliament, i should think thrice before celebrating this as a parliamentary triumph. thank you, commissioner, for your frankness in speaking to the house. however, it has provoked a comment from mr fernndez martn. mr president, following the misunderstanding which arose and the commissioner's remarks, i feel it is incumbent on him to apologise to the member he addressed so discourteously, and to the whole house. he cannot just get up and leave in the middle of a sitting. mr president, i shall not do that, because the purpose of this debate is to draw some clear political lines at long last. i did not say that parliament alone was to blame; germany, my own member state, has blocked the solution of this problem for ten years. i have spent ten years repeating the arguments that mrs bloch von blottnitz has presented this evening. i am damned if i will apologise, because this is a proper democratic discussion. you have been wrong for the past ten years, and now you do not want to admit it! that is unacceptable. duplicity kills democracy! you will know what it says in the bible about a sinner that repenteth, mr bangemann, and i think you should see mrs bloch von blottnitz in that way. just a brief comment, mr president. commissioner, i have absolutely no idea why you should be pillorying parliament. with regard to the chocolate directive, i was merely trying to express precisely what you went on to say. the council thinks it is entitled to drag this whole thing out, and the other business too. but if you can quote anything in our rules of procedure or in the maastricht treaty to show how parliament could have been any quicker in dealing with this matter, i shall naturally be more than willing to act on your advice when the other two subjects come up. but i agree with you entirely that both of us - the commission and parliament - should pillory the council. that was all i said. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. aid to acp banana producers the next item is the recommendation for second reading (a4-0012/99), on behalf of the committee on development and cooperation, on the common position adopted by the council (10460/98 - c4-0583/98-98/0014(syn)) with a view to adopting a council regulation establishing a special framework of assistance for traditional acp suppliers of bananas (rapporteur: mr liese). mr president, ladies and gentlemen, a rapporteur can discover some astonishing things when he listens to the debate on the preceding report. i was certainly rather surprised to hear mr bangemann say that he would not be unduly upset if he were unable to complete his term of office. that would not be a matter of indifference to me if i were a commissioner bearing responsibility for europe. and perhaps i would work inside the commission to ensure that the cases criticised by parliament did not give any further cause for criticism. but let us move on to the bananas. our debate on my report at second reading deals with bananas at a time when this subject is in the international spotlight once again because of the possible escalation of the dispute between the eu and the united states, as well as some latin american countries, and because of the threat of a trade war. the report, which was adopted unanimously by the committee on development and cooperation, deals with one aspect of the banana problem; although it is undoubtedly relevant to the wto issue, it only deals with the payments to banana producers in acp countries. in 1997, the united states and several latin american countries applied for a wto panel investigation. the wto panel found that the eu market organisation of that time did not conform to wto rules. the commission then submitted a proposed amendment package, which was accepted in 1998. as part of the package of proposals, the commission suggested that additional payments be made from the eu budget to the acp banana producers. there is still some controversy, even within the wto, as to whether the adjustments made to the actual organisation of the eu markets meet wto requirements. i believe i speak for everyone here when i emphasise that it is not for the usa to take this decision, but rather the competent wto authorities. it needs to be emphasised time and again that the usa has no right to take unilateral action in this matter. speaking personally and on behalf of no one, however, i must also say that the european union will surely have to prepare itself to accept the wto ruling, and that further adjustments may have to be accepted at some future date. the report, however, is only concerned with the package of compensatory payments proposed by the commission, even though they are not part of a legal framework. it asks the question how these compensatory payments are to be made, in what form and to which producers. here too, there are various positions within the european union. there are differences between the council and parliament. the council has rejected some important amendments which parliament tabled at first reading. some of these decisions are beyond my comprehension as the rapporteur, and i am sure the whole committee finds them equally baffling. one of parliament's main priorities was to support 'fair trade' producers. this has always been a parliamentary priority and should also play a very prominent part in the allocation of funds to producers, rather than the minor role suggested by the council in the common position. we believe that payment should depend on compliance with minimum standards in terms of working conditions, and we believe that grower and producer organisations, the farmers' organisations, should be involved in the allocation of the funds. the committee also decided by a majority vote to increase the funding of the programme and to diversify the funding targets in some respects, as set out in amendments nos 19, 9 and 15. as the rapporteur, i voiced my opposition to this, but i had to bow to the majority of the house. one of the key amendments, in my view, is our exclusion of multinational corporations from eligibility for support under this financial instrument. it surely cannot be right, when everyone believes that europe's purpose in this market organisation, in everything we do in the banana business, is to protect the small and independent growers against the large multinationals, if we table an amendment to precisely that effect, specifying that support payments are to be made to small and independent growers and not to multinational concerns, and if this amendment is then rejected. that, however, is exactly what the commission and the council have done, even though parliament adopted the amendment by a large majority at the first reading. the committee has tabled it again, and i would ask the commission to reconsider its position very carefully, because the european union will forfeit all its credibility if we operate on the basis that it is all right to support the multinationals as long as they are working in the acp countries, but if they are working in latin america they are evil, and we must erect a wall of bureaucracy to keep them out of the european market. that, in my opinion, is hypocrisy. it divests our entire policy of any credibility. i believe the european commission should express itself quite clearly on this. otherwise, i shall be more convinced than ever that our policy on the banana issue is rather too deeply steeped in hypocrisy. there is a principle involved here, and we must apply it consistently. mr president, commissioner, on behalf of the socialist group i must endorse mr liese's report on the establishment of a special framework of technical and financial assistance to help traditional acp suppliers of bananas to adapt to the new market conditions. i support this report because it takes account of the interests of the most disadvantaged suppliers. small independent producers must be given special assistance and the multinational firms which possess banana plantations in several countries should not be eligible for assistance. i also support this report because it stresses the importance of respecting social standards, working conditions and the environment and because it stipulates special support measures for fair trade bananas. we socialists hope that assistance will be granted to improve quality and we believe that it is essential to help diversify production because, for many acp countries, the banana is the only source of income. thus the contributions made by meps, added to the proposals accepted by the council at first reading, such as taking into account the particularly dramatic situation of somalia, will, i believe, all help to produce a very satisfactory regulation, provided that we are able to allocate a budget to the tune of approximately ecu 500 million for more than ten years, depending on how the acp countries and the market develop. however, what concerns us, as you suspected commissioner, is the new line taken by the united states of america at the wto, with threats of sanctions against numerous european products and delaying tactics and stratagems which do not befit a great country. in a few days, the wto will rule on the import regime for bananas and therefore on the possible sanctions that might be taken by countries which consider themselves to be prejudiced by this regime. i fear that the world trade organisation's decision may once again serve american interests. i hope that these decisions will not be imposed on the european union without us having a chance to respond or at least show our political will to defend our own producers and the producers of the poor countries of africa, the caribbean and the pacific at any cost. i believe that we have more than trade agreements with these countries: we have moral commitments. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, as i said last june during the debate on the first reading of this report, the reform of the common market organisation for bananas proposed by the commission was forced on us following the decision taken by the world trade organisation's group of experts further to the complaint from ecuador and three other countries. now as then, parliament, by a substantial majority, supports the commission's proposal in principle. some amendments have been put forward, and we would like to see them incorporated at the second reading. in the interim, however, a critical event has taken place in the progress of what has become known as 'the banana war', and as a result, the debate has become political rather than technical. what happened was that the united states showed its true colours and is now openly threatening the union with trade reprisals against a list of european products if we do not modify our policy on protecting the banana production of acp countries. weakened by certain developments at home and abroad, the united states administration has been unable to withstand the enormous pressure exerted by a number of american banana multinationals, and is preparing to take the law into its own hands. the most extraordinary scenes were played out only yesterday at parliament's rex committee meeting. in this very house, the ambassador of the united states gave a splendid example of how that would-be empire understands wto regulations, demanding they are complied with when it suits it but disregarding them whenever it sees fit. i should like to take this opportunity to congratulate commissioner brittan on his forthright defence of the legitimacy and legality of our regulations at yesterday's rex committee meeting. given the uncertainty of the current situation, i would ask the commission, at the second reading, to accept parliament's suggestions as they appear in mr liese's report. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the eldr group, i must compliment mr liese on his energetic support in this report for the european union's position on the framework of assistance for banana producers. the stress on diversification, somalia's special position, and not least, socially sustainable production and fair and supportive trading conditions, are definitely some of the report's strong points. these very points indicate the philosophy of the european union, which gives us the right idea of the free market. it is wrong to think of the free market as a market without rules and where everyone competes regardless of relative strength. obviously that kind of free market would see abuse of power by the strongest economic operators or countries to the detriment of the others. that is exactly what the european union must do everything possible to prevent, by all necessary, useful and appropriate means. it is precisely because we support this view of the free market that my group opposes amendment no 9 to article 1(2) of this report, tabled by the are group. the original text talks about a special framework for banana producers, to be implemented for a maximum period not exceeding ten years starting on 1 january 1999. we believe that text should be maintained. we must take action to put the acp banana-producing countries in a position to stand on their own feet and not keep them in a state of permanent immaturity, which in our view would be the result of accepting the are amendment. mr president, commissioner, any changes to the organisation of the market for bananas must not be to the detriment of community or acp producers. though it may be too early to establish whether acp banana suppliers have been adversely affected by the changes made, appropriate preventive measures should be taken, based on the values which underpin the principle of fair trade. these values should be extended and applied to the promotion of alternative economic activities for those producers least able to adapt to the new market conditions, and should include technical and financial support for acp suppliers who are in a position to adapt, enabling them to do so under the best possible conditions. the aim is not only for the special aid regime to reflect the union's desire to meet its obligations to its traditional suppliers, but also for it to contribute to the fight against poverty. at the same time, it should send a clear and unambiguous message that the union will not bow to unacceptable pressures, such as those currently exerted by the united states with its list of reprisals. i would urge the commission to take into account the amendments contained in the liese report, particularly those inspired by the principle of fair trade, which only received cursory attention in the common position. this is most disappointing. it is also unfortunate that the large multinationals may be able to receive aid from union funds in acp countries. it simply would not make sense to help the rich instead of the poor. mr president, we have two symbolic issues before us this evening. on the subject of laying hens, we will shortly be discussing the kindermann report on the revolting practice of battery rearing which is symbolic of hyperproductivity. with mr liese's report on bananas, this is symbolic of globalism. this issue has been around for many years in this house. europe produces around 800 000 to 830 000 tonnes of bananas from guadeloupe, crete, martinique, the canaries and madeira. we buy around 830 000 tonnes of bananas from the acp countries, including the cte d'ivoire and cameroon. and then there are the dollar bananas from central america which the germans particularly like. initially there were two million tonnes of these, and they were subject to customs duties, as were cereal substitutes. then, under the pretext that sweden, austria and finland were joining the european union, thereby prejudicing the united states, we agreed to import 2.5 million tonnes of latin american bananas without customs duties or with reduced customs duties. yet all this is not enough for the united states. they referred the matter to the world trade organisation, we went through various panels of first instance and appeal, we amended our legislation and the issue was referred again to the wto; this evening, now that we have given in, we are even going to have to compensate the poor acp countries that are going to lose out. this smacks of hypocrisy, given all our talk of defending the financial interests of the european union. mrs cresson and mr marn may have redirected a few pence here or there, like any good socialist, but in this case, 14 billion francs have been given as gifts to a multinational firm, chiquita. who are we to talk about the financial interests of the european community? we are calling into question our regional policy in crete, madeira, the canaries, guadeloupe and martinique. we are calling into question our cooperation policy with the acp countries because the import licences are being called into question. we are calling into question our human rights policy because, in honduras, it is the multinational firm united brand, now owned by chiquita, which keeps order. we are calling into question our social policy because the people producing these bananas are slaves earning only eur 35 per month. we are calling into question the superiority of european law because we are submitting to the law of geneva and the world trade organisation. and once again, faced with the united states' section 301, our europe of 370 million inhabitants, of the euro, a europe with new power, is submitting in kosovo, in iraq and now on the issue of bananas. we are toeing the us line. i hope that we can slip on this banana skin in order to get back on track, but i doubt it. mr president, we have now reached the second reading of the proposal for a regulation we are forced to adopt, following the world trade organisation ruling, so as not to penalise further the traditional banana suppliers of the countries of africa, the caribbean and the pacific. on the whole the common position of the council improves the original proposal for a regulation, thanks primarily to the european parliament's action at first reading. in particular i would mention that there is now a stronger possibility of using some of the resources provided under the regulation to promote diversification by suppliers unable to continue banana production in decent conditions. on other points parliament will back its own amendments, above all with a view to ensuring that small and independent producers can use the resources. the council's common position accepts parliament's amendments designed to take account of the special position of somalia and its banana producers. this is the only commodity that unfortunate country can export to the european market and its fate largely depends on being able to maintain and strengthen banana production. that is positive, but i would still point out that for the last two years, despite clear recommendations from the european parliament, the commission has frequently appeared to want to boycott somali banana exports. the country's banana regions have been seriously damaged by the natural disaster which has struck in the last two years but, incredibly, the union has decided not to respond with aid. so the union must immediately undertake to give somali banana producers direct access to the assistance provided under the regulation we are debating. this would be a very tangible way to encourage the rebirth of somalia and prevent its definitive departure from the community 'banana club'. mr president, commissioner, regardless of the validity of each side's reasons, the banana issue cannot fail to shock because of the disproportionate reactions of the americans. just how disproportionate the current reaction is with regard to this product can be seen from the fact that the european union has been pursuing a protectionist agricultural policy with regard to various goods produced in the united states itself for four decades now. as there has never been such a reaction before, we can only conclude that the us administration is more concerned about one or two multinational firms producing bananas in latin america than about its own farmers. having said this, its reaction is also disproportionate in view of the production claimed by the european union, which is relatively small and comes from peripheral regions such as madeira and the canaries or from poor acp countries where there are no alternatives capable of supporting the rural population with a minimum decent standard of living. we are not therefore talking about rich regions but areas which understandably deserve some support. this applies to the financial support currently being suggested, the level of which is to be determined shortly, thereby removing any doubt about the seriousness of our proposals. finally, the retaliation that has been announced of limiting the imports of various products is also disproportionate and inappropriate because it will indiscriminately penalise countries, regions and sectors which have nothing to do with bananas. looking at the list, we can see that in order to defend one major multinational whose name has already been mentioned several times, european sectors where small and medium-sized businesses predominate are to be condemned, to a large extent involving the poorest countries and regions. it seems to us to be in even worse taste that attempts are being made to divide the european union by granting an exemption to denmark and holland, because of their alleged good behaviour, when this is a common policy which we accepted jointly once it was decided. disregarding this sad episode - which we hope will rapidly enter into obscurity - we must now look at the basic question of whether this will be the pattern for the future, with the two major world powers with very particular responsibilities in international trade being at loggerheads? mr president, i want to concentrate on a single issue that was touched on just now by mr vecchi: the case of somalia. i would stress, with satisfaction this time, that the council regulation finally takes sufficient account of this problem, which was something i highlighted in vain as rapporteur for the banana com, when we debated the general problem as well as certain particular issues in this house. somalia is emerging from a couple of seasons which have been disastrous to say the least, in terms of environmental calamities piled on top of those of the past. between october 1997 and january 1998, 70 % of the banana plantations were destroyed by a flood which submerged the plants for four or five months, permanently undermining their ability to survive. despite desperate appeals, the european commission decided not to intervene in any way, either with european social fund money, stabex resources, or any other kind of resources. from the first, during the debate on the com, it has refused to recognise the civil war, endemic and uninterrupted for some 30 years now, as force majeure , a disaster like those which have secured lavish compensation for producers in the caribbean islands, for example. since last june all exports of bananas from somalia have been suspended. either there are no supplies or such as do exist are not cheap enough, in short, they are not marketable. now with this regulation somali producers can finally lift up their heads. but they should be able to have direct and immediate access to the financial benefits through their independent association, which was set up to counter the old excuse that there were no clear and authoritative recipients for aid in the past. well, now the organisation of somali producers exists and is recognised at both continental and international level. dg viii, especially, must take this into account. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i should like firstly to thank the committee on development and cooperation and in particular mr liese for the hard work put into this dossier. before turning to the amendments, i should like to remind you briefly why this proposal is so important for the commission. last year the council adopted the measures necessary to bring the common market organisation for bananas into conformity with wto rules. these have now been applied since 1 january and will radically alter the market conditions for traditional acp banana suppliers. in our opinion this will jeopardise their continuing viability on the eu market, in particular since the special important licence system has been dismantled and there will no longer be a mechanism to bridge the gap in competitiveness between acp and dollar bananas. in order to enable traditional acp suppliers to maintain their presence on the eu market as agreed under the lom convention, the commission has in parallel put forward this proposal establishing a special framework for technical and financial assistance. this support is intended to help them to adapt to the new market conditions and in particular to enhance the competitiveness of their production. i think we are agreed on the need for this regulation and for the need to get it in place as soon as possible so that the traditional acp suppliers can continue their efforts to improve their competitiveness. this action is required whatever the outcome of the ongoing discussions in geneva. turning to the matter in hand, i should like to emphasise how much we see eye-to-eye on this proposal. we have taken on board four specific amendments but our agreement goes much further than that. let us take diversification. we agreed that funding should be available for diversification projects where improvements in competitivity would not be feasible or sustainable. we all know that there are parts of the banana industry in the traditional acp countries where production will probably not survive in a more competitive eu market. these farmers should be given assistance to diversify into other crops. there is now new wording introduced in the common position to provide for this. another area is social and environmentally-friendly banana production, so-called fair-trade bananas. this is an important facet of an acp country strategy to improve its competitiveness. this is why specific wording was added to the common position but i must stress that this is not a regulation about fair trade. there are many other methods by which an acp country can improve its banana sector in a sustainable way. these include improving transport links and distribution, designing new marketing strategies and providing training and technical assistance to farmers. it should also be recalled that the list of programme criteria is not a prescriptive nor an exhaustive one. the wording has been kept simple to allow for the necessary flexibility. another area where we agree is the need for open and transparent consultations. this is part of good working practice to ensure that producer groups and banana growers associations are involved in the process of designing strategies for the banana sector. we are already encouraging these discussions. they are also an integral part of the acp-eu partnership. specific wording does not need to be added to the regulation on this point. there are one or two areas where we have somewhat divergent views. this is where we have not been able to accept your proposed amendments. our arguments are the same as they were for the first reading in june. one of these points is the provision of the direct aid to farmers, a form of income support. this concept does not reflect our overall objective of improving the level of competitiveness of traditional acp banana production. providing income support will postpone the day when non-competitive producers must leave the market. it is a short-term measure. it will not produce a sustainable industry. investments must be made to the infrastructure of the banana sector to unblock the bottlenecks, to produce an efficient industry for the countries as a whole. to give you an example, one of the important producers, where the banana is very important to the economy, is st lucia. for those who do not know it, st lucia is a very hilly country in which it will take you more than an hour to drive a distance of 20 km. there the key to improvement of banana production, competitiveness and productivity will be to be able to water the crop on a drop-by-drop basis. as some of the farms are relatively small, to do this they would have to get together. so we started very early to try to form a strong farmers' association so that they could share this kind of watering system. but this also requires the support of the government so some infrastructure related to this major work will also be taken up by government. therefore, the provision of such aid runs the risk of a challenge from our trading partners for being incompatible with international trade rules. we also believe that regulations should not include specific budget figures in order not to prejudge the annual budgetary discussions as agreed in the joint declaration of 1982. the annual figure of eur 45m is the correct one and additional money should not be set aside for urgent measures. this will create expectations. we would need to discuss what constitutes an urgent measure and in my opinion it will delay the implementation of this project. all projects should be integrated as part of a country strategy within the global envelope envisaged. nor should the door be left open to extend assistance beyond the ten years proposed. this is not because i am absolutely convinced that ten years will be sufficient but because at this juncture we must have some radical changes as soon as possible in order to gain that competitiveness. to give the idea of an extension at this stage would be to send a wrong message. one final issue is the position on multinationals. in this regard, the only one concerned, if i am correctly informed, is fyffes in surinam, belize and the windward islands. the reason we have some resistance is very simple. it is not because we want to finance rich multinationals. it is because quite often it is important not only to have joint financing for some projects but also because, on the specific allocation of funds, one should look at the specific situation of the one who puts the demand and on the merits of the project. this would give us greater flexibility and would in the end be more effective regarding the country. if you ask me if i expect multinationals to have a large share, the answer is no. but we should allow this joint effort to be made if the multinational - in this case, fyffes - wants to contribute. i do not see why they should not co-finance such efforts. finally, i should like to say a word or two on somalia. this country, as you know, has been without a government as such for a long time. therefore, it was impossible for it to ratify the revised lom iv convention, the one which was revised in mauritius. so, in principle and in theory somalia was not entitled to any aid from the european union. the commission proposed that, bearing in mind the conditions prevailing in somalia, and the fact that in some parts of the country the situation was more peaceful and the people were willing to make efforts for the development to continue our assistance, including in the case of bananas. and so we did. what is the current difficulty in somalia? it is not the definition of a quota or providing funds for assistance. it is to identify who should be the one that should a grant a certificate for exporting bananas from somalia. there are some indications conveyed to us that one of the factions that is at war in somalia is willing to have the possibility of certification. this would be equivalent to financing the war effort of that specific faction. that we cannot do. that is the reason why discussions are continuing. we want the association of producers to be the ones issuing the certificate rather than any political faction in somalia. i am confident that with the support of our member states and in particular the efforts that italy is deploying, we will be able to overcome these difficulties. finally on the wto panel, i am absolutely in agreement with those who say that it is not a technical problem any more. it is a clear situation in which the economies of different small countries - and if you visit them you would understand why they depend so much on this product as there are not many options - are being absolutely ignored in comparison with the interests of two multinationals. on top of that, the fact that the united states is apparently not prepared to accept the rules of the wto means that we will have to rethink this concept of globalised liberalisation. my feeling is that if we leave this we turn a blind eye to the interests of the small and the poor and i do not think that europe would be fulfilling its duties. so far the commission has stood very firm in this dispute. i fully agree that sir leon brittan has done a very good job. but we must be aware that if we do not stand united, be it in parliament or especially in the council, we will weaken our position very much. i sincerely hope that will not be the case. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. universal telecommunications service the next item is the report (a4-0386/98) by mrs read, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy, on the commission communication on the first monitoring report on universal service in telecommunications in the european union (com(98)0101 - c4-0249/98). mr president, first of all, can i say that the parliament and the economic and monetary affairs committee recognise that the implementation of universal service is at a very early stage and i hope that my criticisms, as set out in the report, will be taken in that spirit. i want also to remind us all that the european parliament's support for the liberalisation process of telecommunications goes hand in hand with the introduction and implementation of universal service. it is very clear that market forces cannot, at least in the short run, deliver on universal service. if this does happen through market forces in the next year i shall be the first to congratulate and draw attention to this. unfortunately, as the text of my report makes clear, there is a lack of information from the member states on which to assess progress. i give some examples: there is a lack of truly harmonised national data, there are failures to achieve uniform tariffs across an operational territory. it is particularly disappointing that in half the member states there has been a substantial rise in rental charges for the residential consumer. of course, this weighs particularly heavily on the infrequent user, often elderly, housebound, who cuts down on telephone calls. it is important, too, to draw attention to the disabled users. remember in the voice telephony directive, the parliament placed great stress on the rights of disabled users to access to telephones, both from a social point of view and also from the point of view of being able to gain work often from home. disabled users on the whole in the community still do not benefit from satisfactory, special arrangements. indeed, the general trend seems to be that there is a penalty for residential users. although charges have come down they have come down disproportionately in favour of international calls which of course heavily favour the business user. i am not being critical of those reductions in charges but i am drawing attention to the unsatisfactory skew against the residential user. i wanted to draw particular attention to paragraph 9 in the report which talks about the lack of definition of affordability by the member states. without that definition of affordability it really does deprive consumers of a sound legal base with which to defend their interests. i know how hard the commission worked on getting the balance right between being over-prescriptive from the point of view of directives and allowing member states some discretion, but it does rather shake one's faith in the amount of discretion that is left to the member states when on something as basic as the definition of affordability there really has been comparatively little progress. after i had drafted this report, beuc, the european union consumers' organisation, produced their own analysis on the implementation of the voice telephony directive. like me, they recognised that it is comparatively early days. nevertheless, the evidence contained in the beuc report and the lack of satisfactory evidence supplied to the commission give some cause for concern. i will end on a personal note because i think the views of consumers in this field across the european union really are important. i tried to change my telephone. formerly a british telecom consumer i switched some 18 months ago to ionica, a company that sadly has now gone out of business. i transferred my number, as my colleague mr van velzen laid down and as the commission rightly proposed. when i now try and change to a cable company i am told that number portability is not possible. if i want to keep my own number my only choice is to go back to british telecom, the old public monopoly. it was a salutary lesson for me that, in spite of all the efforts of the commission and the efforts of the parliament, in practical terms it is still very rare to find true effective competition at local level for the domestic consumer. i very much hope that the commissioner will accept this report with its criticisms and i hope that it will strengthen his arm and those of his officials in making greater and speedier demands on the member states to truly implement a universal service in the telephone field. mr president, i should like to begin by paying tribute to the wonderful parliamentary work undertaken by the rapporteur, mrs read, during the preparation of this report. i must also say how pleased i am that almost all our amendments - eight in total - were adopted by the committee on economic affairs. these amendments were of great importance to us. amongst other issues, we called for increased social support for the most vulnerable users - the less able - the dissemination of information to consumers, due consideration of the needs of low-income users and a halt to the current discrimination against residential consumers. given our commitment to the aim of putting a genuine information society in place as soon as possible, we are also delighted that this initiative represents a further step towards the implementation of agreements concerning interconnection arrangements, making preferential tariffs for schools, libraries and other educational institutions a reality. i am of course referring to the internet. we remain concerned that the european union has not yet adopted a uniform approach to providing a sensitive response to the needs of the disabled. even now, one member state is proposing to make free access to directory enquiry services available only to the visually impaired. another has so far failed to put forward any proposals. i am aware that reduced connection charges and free specially adapted equipment are available in many member states. i recognise that substantial progress has been made, but the final goal, the ideal, is yet to be achieved. in addition, if we are serious about making the european union increasingly cohesive, a determined effort is urgently needed to put in place the facilities which should be available to consumers in less populated areas. universality of service in the telecommunications sector must be further promoted. i refer not only to take up but also to improvements in the quality of the service offered. for instance, we should press for an across-the-board reduction in the waiting time for connection to the network or for supply, and of the time taken for repairs to be carried out. equally important are improving accessibility to services and the regulation of costs, particularly as regards implementation of the option of spreading payment, types of prepayment, and less distressing disconnection procedures. the introduction of reasonable rates for selected calls and provision by the operators of a range of service packages tailored to the customers' needs should also be considered. in conclusion, mr president, this report certainly represents a significant step forward, but a lot of ground remains to be covered. mr president, a motion for a resolution from the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy is now before us, relating to the first monitoring report on universal service in telecommunications. in this motion, mrs read has given us an excellent opportunity to reflect on the changeover from what were public services originating in the public sector to the so-called universal service to be provided by private companies. our worst fears and expectations have been confirmed. the promises and commitments made have not been fulfilled. the liberalisation and privatisation of the sector has not led to the fall in prices for the economically weakest users which universal service should have provided as a result of the much vaunted virtues of competition. on the contrary, the most powerful users economically speaking, namely multinational firms, have benefited from the change, and the private operators which have come to dominate the sector have even been able to obtain other lucrative benefits through the public financing intended to mitigate the change, contrary to the spirit of universal service, not to mention the public service obligations. it is true that the current competition in mobile telephony, in addition to causing changes in social behaviour, has altered the parameters of the telecommunications market. however, this cannot justify the rises in rental charges and the increased costs of local calls, even to the extent of creating perverse situations where prices for currently competing products are increased in order to assist the introduction of new and more lucrative products. portugal and portugal telecom - and it is impossible in many respects to determine whether the latter is the original or copy of other telecom services - appear, in this process and in this monitoring report, to be in a rather unsatisfactory situation from the point of view of social balance and justice. these elements should be inherent in universal service if this is not just to be an attractive way of dismantling the public service. portugal is participating in the global tariff increase and is one of nine countries which have increased rental charges. it is also, with germany, one of only two countries which have increased installation costs in addition to having created the activation charge which particularly penalises the poorest users. this monitoring report therefore also provides a way of assessing something which is much more than just a name - ' universal service' instead of 'public service' - it is a whole philosophy which is self-revealing as it has shown how commitments which were used as justification or even a pretext have been sidelined or even ignored. mr president, i too would like to join with my colleagues in welcoming the report by mrs read. in particular it now gives us an opportunity to look at the question of liberalisation and its effect on the universal service question. what is common to all the public utilities across europe is the fact that they were originally established to ensure there was a social equality with regard to the distribution of services. whether one looked at telecoms, post office services, water supplies and so on, there was this idea of universality. no matter what part of a country one lived in one got the same level of service at the same cost as everybody else. because of the advent of liberalisation and greater competition, which i welcome, let me hasten to add, we have also learned of some of the mistakes that can be made by just having a headlong rush into liberalisation. there must be some restrictions and some controlling mechanisms and methods with regard to that liberalisation. some of my colleagues have already touched on the points. i would like to deal with four particular points: firstly, ensuring that there is no cherry-picking of the most profitable and easily serviceable areas of telecoms. secondly, dealing with special facilities for the elderly population, particularly in this year, the international year of the elderly. when we look at the increase in the numbers of people who are over 55 years of age in the european union there is a social necessity to ensure them ease of access to telecommunication networks at very low cost, sometimes at no cost at all. to give you one example, in ireland telephone line rental for people who are on the old age pension is free. next, the disabled. because the new technologies which have been brought forward do offer new opportunities for communications and for greater interaction of people with disabilities and the wider community that should be encouraged and given at a lower rate. finally, with the internet now being presented to us, we must ensure that this resource is tapped for the greater good not for exclusivity. mr president, i welcome the consideration given by the rapporteur to the aspects of social policy that have taken on a new dimension in the modern information society. i also support the amendments that are designed to take account of these new factors. we must, for example, be absolutely rigorous in ensuring that disabled people are given access to service models that meet their special needs. the development of public access to the internet, in schools and libraries for instance, is an extremely important matter to which this and other parliaments ought to devote more attention in the future. the information society must not lead to wider social disparities. if access by part of the population to the information media is denied or obstructed, stark differences in education levels will result, and these could create a glaring inequality of opportunity in the job market. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector was a pioneering strategy which not only represented another step from the single market towards a european domestic market, but also had a significant dimension in terms of employment. this development was referred to when we assessed the implementation of the reform package. the information society is currently responsible for every fourth new job in the european union. for that we owe our thanks to the commission, and especially to mr bangemann. the read report makes the accessibility of the basic services at acceptable prices and standards of quality a prerequisite of our support for the present liberalisation process. i would like to go further than that. the provision of a universal service can ultimately be a logical result and product of liberalisation. what exactly are the universal services? they are generally held to comprise a minimum range of telecommunications services of a certain quality that can be made available to all users at reasonable prices. this includes access to standard public telephone services, such as 999 calls, directory enquiries and special facilities for people with particular disabilities. this subject is therefore important in terms of the general confidence which the european technology of the future must enjoy. it is also clear that in many areas, market forces cannot be given free rein from the outset. that is why the concept of affordability is such a topical issue these days - and rightly so. the affordability principle means that the member states set geographical average prices, price ceilings and so forth. one of the important aspects of this mechanism is the scope for easing unreasonable burdens on providers of universal services. but i do support the commission when it says that such measures can only apply until the market is competitive enough to exercise effective price control itself. mr president, i am standing in for my colleague, mr mendes bota, and i must start by saying that telecommunications has now become a permanent part of our lives. it is integral and indispensable to the information society which europe increasingly wants to join and it is the gateway to a global market of which the european internal market is the vanguard. however, there are several points to be considered. firstly, there is a great disparity between tariff trends in terms of installation costs and rental charges and between the costs of local, regional, national and international calls. some countries have low costs, others have high costs, but this report does not give a clear and comparative view of the costs of using the european telecommunications networks in the various member states. we believe that the more open the telecommunications market becomes to competition from the private sector, the more responsible it will be for regulating itself and for ensuring a minimum harmonisation of the european tariff system. secondly, it is clear that users on low incomes and the more peripheral and isolated regions are the sectors most prejudiced by the current tariff regimes. this is an aspect often neglected by the member states. thirdly, the use of the internet has exploded, and it is now being adopted by individuals, companies and institutions. however, it is in no way accessible to everyone and it is far from forming a basic instrument for the promotion of solidarity and equal treatment. negotiations on creating an internet card or code are continuing but the internet remains outside the universal service in telecommunications. we totally agree with the adoption of measures which will allow special tariffs to be granted to schools, libraries and other equivalent institutions and to charitable and non-profit-making organisations. public access to the internet must be regarded as a personal right and as a strategic position in the fight against a new form of emerging illiteracy which will afflict all those in the future who have not mastered the use of the modern information technologies or who do not have access to them. mr president, may i express my sincere thanks to mrs read as well as to everyone else who has contributed to this discussion for their comments. the commission is trying to find sensible solutions to this diverse set of problems. the report we have presented is not entirely up to date, because it cannot yet cover the implementation of the voice telephony directive in its amended form. in other words, when we present another updated report this year as part of our task of evaluating the implementation of the existing directives, we shall be far better able to deal with some of your questions. in the meantime, i should like to focus especially on four questions that have resurfaced in this discussion. first there is the question how the member states have established what affordability means. some member states, anticipating the amended voice telephony directive, have already introduced more stringent measures to protect consumers. amongst other things, there are price-monitoring and prepayment systems, particularly in the field of mobile telephony. six member states - denmark, germany, spain, france, finland and the united kingdom - have already notified us that they have transposed the amended directive. we expect that belgium, greece, ireland, italy, the netherlands, austria and sweden will shortly announce similar measures. as one speaker said in the course of today's discussion, affordability depends to a great extent on income levels in individual member states. these vary widely. average incomes in some areas are three or four times the average income in another. for that reason we are really relying on the member states, in accordance with the solidarity principle, to take greater responsibility in this area than we could take ourselves. what we shall be able to do, however, is to provide details in the new report of the progress that has been made in implementing the stricter consumer safeguards. the second question relates to support for low-income users and disabled users, as well as for occasional users. we have recommended special tariffs for such users precisely because we wish to counteract the first adverse effects of liberalisation that we, like others, expect to occur. we have now managed - and mrs read knows this, as do her colleagues who have spoken on this subject, because they have all been studying these things - to achieve quite considerable reductions in mobile call charges this year, which incidentally has had a knock-on effect on standard call charges for fixed-network subscribers. moreover, the amended voice telephony directive provides for special tariffs for low-income users, price ceilings and affordability criteria in article 3 and prescribes special measures for disabled users and users with special social needs in article 8. this, it should be said, has now been transposed into the national law of five member states - not just of france, as the report stated, but also of italy, the netherlands, sweden and the united kingdom. the new report will show us how things have developed from there. the commission, like parliament, is anxious to ensure that the new legislation is actually benefiting these groups of users. how should the operators of the universal service be chosen? the commission has no objections to any system that ensures the provision of a convenient, cost-effective universal service. the services may be put out to tender, but they may also be based on a cost calculation, prices then being fixed to cover only the net cost of the service. that is why we do not wish to come down on the side of any particular process. the final question concerns the widening of public access to the internet and especially the use of the internet by public institutions. we have always said that this is absolutely crucial to the development of the information society, and we are now gratified to note that competition has developed among service providers, as a result of which interfaces have become more user-friendly and charges have been reduced. that is not the case everywhere, mr president, and mrs read was right to criticise this state of affairs. the root of the problem has been the so-called rebalancing of tariffs, whereby the relatively cheap local calls have become more expensive while the price of the relatively expensive trunk calls and international calls has been reduced; since internet access is obtained through a local number, it initially became more expensive than it had been. but that is now in the past. we have certainly been observing price reductions; special rates for schools and other special tariffs are in no way inconsistent with the rules of competition, and we encourage these as long as the marginal cost is covered. i can promise you that we intend to re-examine the universal service in connection with the review of legislation scheduled for the end of 1999, and that we shall subsequently communicate the results to parliament. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. public procurement the next item is the report (a4-0394/98) by mr tappin, on behalf of the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy, on the communication from the commission on public procurement in the european union com(98)0143 - c4-0202/98). mr president, as colleagues will know, this report offers a broad outline of the progress we have made and should be making in the immediate future on the question of public procurement. in general, the commission is showing that our past discussions during the debate on the green paper have been listened to. what we now need is to ensure that although the broad approach is right, the detail must be equally precise, firstly, in terms of social and environmental standards and sustainability. following the adoption of the amsterdam treaty where the eu underlined its commitment to the greening of european policies, we need to clarify how these principles will affect public procurement legislation. members may remember from previous discussions that we asked the commission for an assurance that there would be horizontal harmonisation of eu directives. it is ridiculous if the right dg does not know what the left dg is doing. the same applies to parliamentary committees. it is even worse if we are aware of the discrepancies but do not take positive action to eliminate them. in this way we have to confront the problems of building a certain model within our union which is not always reflected in the directives we pass. we have further requirements placed upon us by global or international commitments. we must recognise these. this is not a plea for one policy position or another but a recognition of the need for clear legislation which builds upon a secure base and thus becomes operational. until we address this problem, which does not only affect procurement, we lay ourselves open to allegations that the member state is the origin of all clarity and wisdom and it is the eu which is generally mucking up the system. since, following the green paper, we have agreed that contracting authorities have a right to set environmental standards if they so wish, we need to know exactly how they can implement those rights without breaching the overriding rules on competition. i shall say again - and let us be clear on this - we are not recommending a particular policy. we are recognising the need for clarity, simplicity and applicability. in the same way, concerning the issues of social affairs and employment, we have consistently said that public procurement is not a vehicle for promoting a particular policy in this area but adhesion to the rules and regulations of procurement must not be allowed to impede good employment practices. again we need clear guidelines on how this can be operationalised. the commission has promised a report on this. we wait with bated breath. we want to see how they are taking forward the principles of clarity, simplicity and legal applicability and making public procurement legislation pertinent, effective and enforceable within our modern society. any further legislation put forward now must cover these areas. this point is important. we are already looking to exempt telecoms from the procurement directives. i do not think anyone would dispute that, generally, the choice available to the average user is increasing. there may be some differences still which can be identified at national level but it is clear that the process of liberalisation in this sector is irreversible. however, we are now also looking at the future liberalisation and possible exemption from procurement rules of other sectors. there are a couple of issues here. firstly, we are waiting for the commission to come forward with proposals for the process which they intend to use for these sectors: which article, what will be the criteria for deciding who can or cannot apply. secondly, we go back to the point we made at the very beginning of the green paper negotiations, namely the issue of competitiveness. we must never forget that procurement legislation exists to benefit and protect the consumer. that is the reason why we favour competition. it is supposed to benefit the user so the underlying principle of any decision on competition must always include the consumer to ensure they retain the right to choose the most cost-effective service for them. retaining consumer choice will be a key element in proving that real competition exists. as i have said before, new simple procedures must not undermine the principles of best practice through full competition. i am aware that getting a fixed definition of what constitutes competition is not going to be easy. it is not our aim to make it harder but if european industry is not to continue being disadvantaged by a requirement to prove de jure and de facto competition, it is a challenge we have to face. we have tabled an amendment to this effect and hope the house will support us. i wish to make just one oral amendment tomorrow. i should like to thank the commission for listening. i spoke to mr monti outside. i have another engagement now and i know he will understand my reason for leaving. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, we in the committee on employment and social affairs naturally looked at this communication primarily from the point of view of public procurement, on the one hand, and respect for social legislation and the use of social clauses on the other. i am very grateful to mr tappin for incorporating many of our conclusions into his report. this is not the first time we find ourselves debating this subject. i have to say, commissioner, that i am quite disappointed that the european commission has not had the courage to take an important step forward in this communication, but has settled for an interpretative text here. we for our part are convinced that 'soft law' is not enough. the practice surrounding social clauses differs widely in the various member states. there are huge difficulties of interpretation and so we think that clear legislation is required. i shall focus on two points here. firstly, public contracts must indeed be adaptable to the needs of the market, but the market must not be abused, commissioner, as a way of weakening social legislation. contract guidelines must therefore explicitly state that international and national social legislation must be respected, as well as collective labour agreements, both by main contractors and subcontractors. secondly, very many member states and local authorities use public contracts to take positive measures to help the long-term unemployed, the integration of migrants or the launch of neighbourhood campaigns. the court has clearly ruled that such positive measures are not in conflict with the principles of competition. but to avoid confusion, commissioner, the guidelines must state very clearly that positive measures are admissible and in what way social clauses can be introduced. now that the united kingdom too, under labour, has radically altered its position on social clauses in public contracts, i look forward to seeing how the commission will respond to our recommendations. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the commission has issued a communication on public procurement: it wishes to establish a legal framework, to simplify procedures, and bring a degree of flexibility to the market. in addition, however, it is important to bear in mind the broader social objectives: principles of humanity, the demands of society and the working principles of the public sector, which are not always directly compatible with models of private enterprise. i would like to thank my colleague, mr tappin, for an excellent report. he feels that it is necessary to harmonise the social principles of the union with eu legislation. workers' rights, such as minimum pay, working hours and health and safety, have not been such obvious issues to those who have profited from competitive bidding. why, for example, in the privatisation of transport, has it turned out that old drivers are being got rid of while at the same time they have started using old buses? in developing eu procurement legislation the regulations need to be tightened up, and we have to make methods of monitoring their enforcement more effective. obviously, there have been problems in adhering to the content of directives. the are even grounds for suspecting that it is not just a question of practical problems, such as legal complications or problems of varying labour market cultures. what if it were also that bidding for public procurement contracts is not compatible with other principles that apply in the public sector? public corporations have also had to meet certain social policy objectives while involved in the business of procurement. the quality of services has to be improved, employment figures have to rise, and environmental questions have to be tackled. i await the report promised by the commission on the total impact of procurement. both the commission communication and mr tappin's report raise the issue of the need to make it easier for smes to access the public procurement market. that is only right. it is important as there appears to be a danger of cartels forming connected with bidding for procurement contracts. smes, and especially those that are obliged to observe labour legislation and environmental standards, need more information and training, however. that is particularly important when it comes to using information technology as mentioned by the rapporteur, and that too has to be broadly applied, as it speeds up and simplifies processes. we should also remember that local authorities, because of their democratic nature, generally have a better sense of morality than the business world. mr president, the directives on public procurement were an important step in our efforts to make the european market more competitive and more open. a good deal has changed in europe since the first directive in this area. a sector like telecommunications has been liberalised, and there have been optimistic signs here and there concerning public contracts. generally speaking, red tape was once again the villain of the piece. the procedures which business and industry had to grapple with were unbelievably complex and inefficient. we talk of a 720 billion euro market which really must be opened up if we ever want to have a truly single market. but at what cost? the directive provides for thresholds whereby it is no longer possible, above a given threshold, to tender in a private or national capacity. in principle, that is a good thing. the problem is that the incredibly complex bureaucracy involved makes it virtually impossible for small and medium-sized businesses to get a look in. the fact is that under the system, framework contracts are not really feasible. large companies simply decide to have nothing further to do with public contracts and concentrate solely on the ordinary market. the concept of the economically most advantageous bid is also frequently understood as meaning the cheapest bid. that works against sustainable building methods, for example, since public authorities are interested only in the lowest price. many authorities have no provision for the service of capital, a system which is short-sighted and expensive for the citizen in the long run. it is a poor system for small businesses, which do not have the longer-term strength of a bigger company that can calculate its profit out of capital resources. so it is right that the commission should give special attention to smes. in the meantime, a large or medium-sized company can use digital systems to obtain information on published calls for tender. but there is a good deal of ground to cover between the announcement of an opportunity and actually securing a contract. in addition to the expense of putting together a bid, the firm or consortium has to demonstrate that it is financially sound and has enough experience in the field in question. registration systems may be the answer here. these mean that companies only have to prove once that they are sound and competent, but for an authority which does not put work out to tender often, it makes no sense to set up a system of this kind. i have therefore tabled an amendment jointly with mr langen and my group, an amendment which won the backing of the committee on economic affairs, to have the threshold amounts increased. this places the majority of contracts outside the scope of the directive. to my mind, the thresholds are at present unacceptably low, given the huge amount of bureaucracy - hence the need to raise them. the european commission produced a green paper in 1996 and now it has produced a communication. the communication does include some constructive proposals, but not a word on threshold amounts. i hope that parliament will give a clear message to the commission with this report that things have to change, and that the commission will address the matter. my group will be voting against mr tappin's amendment no 5. it is unacceptable for firms to be blacklisted because accusations have been made against them. in my country, you are innocent until proved guilty. that would make competition far too easy. we oppose amendment no 4 because we have no idea what it means. we have already requested a number of split votes and, lastly, we congratulate mr tappin on his report. mr president, in its communication, the commission has stressed the importance of full and fair competition. however, similar emphasis has not been placed on the fact that it should be possible to apply environmental and social criteria to public procurement. this point has been made by the rapporteur, as well as by mrs van lancker in her capacity as draftsman of the opinion of the committee on employment and social affairs. they are proposing certain amendments which would mean that environmental and social considerations are taken into account in public procurement, but in my view the wording should have been tighter and clearer. nevertheless, the green group will vote in favour of the amendments, which still go further than the commission's proposal or the report itself. it seems to me to be quite a commonly held view that applying environmental and social criteria to public procurement would destroy free competition. nothing could be further from the truth, since environmental and social considerations naturally involve additional costs for individual firms. if public procurement is not subject to the same extra costs, then those firms will be at a disadvantage - so much for full and fair competition. mr president, first i would like to express the support and appreciation of my group for the commission's initiative designed to improve the community's legislative framework for public procurement. as has already been mentioned, this is an enormously important area of activity, representing over 10 % of the union's gdp. there are many innovations, an ambitious timetable has been proposed, and naturally we hope the various measures can be implemented smoothly. there are two points i want to make: the first is to explain why i have tabled amendment no 1 to paragraph 30, which is about making the competitive dialogue procedures more widely available. i have to say that i am opposed to the possibility of post -tendering negotiations because even if they could be done transparently - and i find that hard to believe as there does not seem to be much point to them beyond publicity as an end in itself - surely such negotiations would damage parity of conditions, given that only the successful tenderer would enjoy its results. that is what is behind amendment no 1. i also tabled amendment no 2, but i hereby withdraw it so obviously i shall not dwell on it. that just leaves amendment no 1 from me. at a general level, i want to take this opportunity to emphasise the need to make the tender procedure more transparent at european level, both procedurally and in terms of the dissemination of information. this laudable initiative must not prejudice the need to simplify and remove some of the red tape, as my colleague mrs peijs and others have already said, particularly with a view to further integrating small and medium-sized firms into the single market. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i wish to draw your attention to one aspect of these directives and of this report by the commission. parliament, through the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy, has called for a marked increase in the thresholds, and i believe, commissioner, that the commission ought to display considerably more courage in this matter than it has done in the past. the thresholds that apply today are far too low in many areas. in particular, experience has shown that, with cross-border transactions accounting for less than 3 % of public procurement, the whole bureaucratic fuss, if i may say so, is a waste of time, because the thresholds are so low that no genuine competition takes place at all. that is why our amendment provides for a marked increase in the thresholds, amounting to an average rise of 100 %. it is a proposal that we ask you to incorporate into the next amendment of the directives, and we would urge you not to wait until something happens on the international front, but to ensure that europe takes the lead in increasing these thresholds. there is no point at all in insisting that all procurement contracts are put out to tender if the procedure is insufficiently transparent, small and medium-sized businesses do not bid, and these thresholds are ultimately devoid of impact on the competitive structure in europe. that is why we ask you, commissioner, not only to improve the transparency of the public procurement system, but also to take the initiative now in preparation for the next round of international negotiations in the gatt framework in the year 2000 by substantially increasing the thresholds, not only for services but also for public works contracts. i believe that this, along with the exemption of telecommunications from the utilities directive, will signal europe's future intentions with regard to the development of public procurement. if additional transparency can also be achieved through the use of modern media, such as the internet, i believe all these things will put us on the right path, and i am convinced that the commission can also take action to that end with the support of parliament. mr president, first i would like to thank the european parliament and the rapporteur, mr tappin, for the very significant contribution which his report makes towards making procurement policy more effective and adapting it to the needs of today's society. the largely positive assessment of the action programme launched by the commission with the communication on public procurement, which emerges from reading mr tappin's report and the motion for a resolution, is further evidence of the fruitful spirit of cooperation developing between the commission and the european parliament in this sector. so it gives me great satisfaction to welcome the proposals and suggestions in the report on which there is a substantial convergence of view between our two institutions. this applies first and foremost to parliament's manifest concern about environmental and social issues, which the commission fully shares and has already addressed in the communication. it is our intention to examine these issues in depth to identify appropriate ways of reconciling the objectives of competition and transparency pursued by the rules on procurement contracts with the legitimate environmental and social protection requirements, which have been strengthened by the treaty of amsterdam. here we should not forget that the current rules already offer concrete opportunities for achieving adequate levels of protection, environmental in particular, but also social, without this altering the fundamental purpose of procurement policy, which remains essentially economic in nature. these opportunities are not widely known and the commission therefore believes they should be promoted and their scope clarified. that is why we propose to adopt instruments for this specific purpose as soon as possible. if this proves inadequate, the commission will certainly consider whether it is appropriate to put forward more incisive proposals. with reference to the social aspects mentioned by mrs van lancker, mr paasilinna and mr schrling, i would point out that respecting current social legislation forms part of the clear and recognised obligation to comply with current legislation - all current legislation, not just social legislation - arising not from the directive but from the national legal system into which the directive is transposed. positive action is far more feasible than is commonly believed. of course it must respect the principles of the treaty, and the interpretative communication we will be publishing is precisely intended to clarify all this. i would add that there are provisions in the directives to exclude candidates failing to comply with national social legislation. the case-law of the court of justice confirms, in the benjes judgment, that social requirements can be taken into account if this is stated in the general specifications for a contract. again, the commission will spell out the possibility of taking these requirements into account in its interpretative communication. as to the need, mentioned by mr secchi in particular, to simplify the current rules and related procedures and make them more flexible and adaptable to market developments, the commission intends to clarify the scope of obscure or complex provisions and, if necessary, modify the current system. with a view to this, proposals are being put forward designed to exclude from the scope of directive 93/38 the sectors and/or services covered by it which operate under conditions of effective competition - water, energy, transport and telecommunications - and establish more flexible procedures, like the procedure known as 'competitive dialogue' and the framework agreements system. with two 'public procurement' consultative committees, we are examining a new competitive dialogue procedure which ensures maximum transparency, as well as allowing greater flexibility. mr president, the report also specifically refers to the need for the new initiatives announced in the communication to help to ensure healthy and effective competition between economic operators during the tendering procedure. this is an aim the commission has always pursued in public procurement and it is the ultimate purpose of the interpretative communication on concessions and other forms of public and private partnership, which will be published in draft form in the next few weeks. i would also like to touch very quickly on the important point raised, in particular, by mrs peijs. we are aware of the difficulties currently faced by small and medium-sized businesses in taking part directly in tendering procedures, especially cross-border. to reduce these difficulties and encourage the participation of small and medium-sized businesses, the commission is drafting a communication to highlight the possibilities for giving smes increased access to public procurement in general, both through appropriate legislative changes and by identifying the opportunities currently offered by the existing programmes. internationally, the commission will continue to act to ensure that the principle of reciprocity is established in the context of the current world trade organisation negotiations on the modification and simplification of the public procurement agreement. i agree with mr tappin when he says that communication simply announces the initiatives the commission intends to take and presents them in general terms, without providing details and particulars on each of them. mr tappin is absolutely right. that is inherent in the very nature of a general policy statement like the communication in question. obviously the details on each initiative will emerge when the initiatives themselves take shape. as regards the legislative initiatives, these will be based on article 100a of the treaty and their adoption will therefore require the active participation of parliament. finally, on the drafting of the interpretative instruments, while emphasising that this is an institutional responsibility entrusted to it by the treaty, the commission naturally appreciates the support of parliament. in this regard i have already proposed that a discussion group should be set up in parliament for ad hoc informal meetings, tasked with interacting with the commission departments concerned, and i think this idea should be studied in greater depth and acted upon, while still, of course, respecting the separate spheres of responsibility of our two institutions. mr president, even at this late hour, a certain degree of attentiveness is required. i found it difficult to follow the commissioner's interesting remarks because the background noise level had risen very perceptibly in this chamber, where sound carries over considerable distances, as a result of individual conversations. please ensure in future that we can listen in silence to every speaker. please advise members and parliamentary staff that conversations involving groups of people can be conducted outside. protests the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. jobs of the future the next item is the report (a4-0475/98) by mr thomas mann, on behalf of the committee on employment and social affairs, on jobs of the future in europe. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, numerous academic studies and publications by employers' associations, organisations representing small and medium-sized businesses, trade unions and public institutions have served as the basis for my report on jobs of the future in europe. i am grateful to my colleagues in the committee on employment and social affairs and the committee on women's rights for their amendments, most of which i have incorporated into the report. in the brochures i have obtained, even the glossiest of them, i find only a catalogue of achievements. there are no visions or specific statements of intent for the next 10 to 15 years. globalisation, fierce international competition and ever shorter lifespans for innovations and decisions are resulting in deep-seated insecurity for everyone, from managers to part-time staff. the hearing organised by the committee on employment and social affairs, in which the union of the industries of the european community (unice), the european trade union confederation (etuc) and the european union of crafts and small and medium-sized enterprises (ueapme) took part, also made it clear that the current structural transformation is moving too fast to permit any long-term forecasts. what are the trends that might influence the jobs of the future? first of all, as we enter the information and knowledge society, we shall need suitably qualified employees. they must have facts at their fingertips, they must keep educating themselves, even in their spare time, and they must be able to master technological equipment. once they have amassed a wide range of knowledge, they will be able to move from one discipline to another, switching from the occupation for which they were initially trained to another occupation and repeating that process three or four times in the course of their working lives. they will have to be specialists and all-rounders at the same time, and will have to acquire key skills such as in-house communication, public relations, creativity and the skills of conflict resolution. as hierarchical structures dissolve and staff assume an increasing amount of responsibility, they must also be good team players. they must be multilingual and able to empathise with foreign cultures. school curricula and training programmes in the member states will have to be reformed so as to emphasise knowledge of applied technology, educational breadth, new career profiles and the mentality of lifelong learning. it is not only wrong to demand too much of people; it is also wrong to expect too little of them. secondly, in order to achieve high employment potential, in addition to these multiskilled employees there will be an increase in the number of job opportunities which involve the performance of basic tasks. these are required in manufacturing and in labour-intensive industries. millions of people will obtain this type of work and will contribute to gains in productivity. thirdly, i cannot share the euphoric vision in which the service sector appears as an indestructible generator of jobs, because not every job that is done without payment today can be transformed into external paid employment. demand for services provided by regions and individuals will certainly increase. these include care services, from the training of carers and care management to care of the elderly, home care and health care in hospitals and nursing homes. some services are business-related, ranging from insurance to corporate services; others are distributive, such as transport and communications; household-related services include retailing and catering, while other services relate to the social sector, covering areas such as employment and personal finance. tourism will be a strong growth area, from travel agencies marketing products designed for specific target groups to rural and cultural tourism. to pave the way for new entrants to these jobs of the future in the member states, the european commission will need to launch initiatives but must, of course, respect the principle of subsidiarity at the same time. fourthly, there are good prospects in the fields of biopharmaceuticals and agricultural biotechnology, although public acceptance must be secured before these industries can take off. no such controversy, however, attaches to systematically applied environmental technology, in which we europeans already lead the field. considerable growth should be seen in research and development, which are the source of the innovative products and processes that enable companies to secure niches in the world market. the time industries - telecommunications, information technology, the media and electronics - will be among the beneficiaries of the changing employment structure as networking and decentralisation take hold. i believe there are three priorities with regard to sustainable jobs in the european union. first of all, european support programmes - and this, mr flynn, is addressed to the european commission - must be maintained in the long term without any reduction in their volume. these include start-up programmes, schemes designed to enhance the competitiveness of smes and measures whereby women, who are still a disadvantaged group, can upgrade their qualifications and enjoy real equality of opportunity. secondly, the flexibility that is required for the jobs of the future demands a reorganisation of the work process. there is a need for more company agreements to be concluded, providing for such things as part-time arrangements designed to enable parents to reconcile their occupational and family responsibilities, as well as proper social protection and childcare facilities. thirdly, instead of merely considering how to share out the existing workload among more people, the member states must launch education and training campaigns. the current presidency of the council would do well to give up the idea of an eu-wide alliance for work, which is still a nebulous concept, and replace it with a far more meaningful and, what is more, an achievable alliance for the future. millions of people, especially those who are marginalised and unemployed as well as young, experienced and women employees, are waiting for this ambitious step towards a new dawn. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i did not understand your last comment at all, mr mann. there is absolutely nothing contradictory in the fact that the alliance for work which the german federal government is pursuing nationally, and which it is pursuing at european level during its presidency, is a useful contribution to employment growth. so i am quite amazed by your comment because, as you know, we support your report in principle. we also support your proposals on the environmental orientation of future economic activity and on the sabbatical year, and we hope that your group will not succeed in watering down the content of your report. we see your report as a tile in the mosaic of the parliamentary quest for more employment, as part of the continuous process that we have been pursuing in parliament for the past four years through the employment policy we initiated, through the amsterdam employment summit and through the luxembourg guidelines, despite some governments having dropped the occasional spanner into the works. i also think you were right to include in your report the commission's critical assessment of the national action plans, because there is little point in our being unwilling to learn from past mistakes. but i am pleased, and i take the liberty of stating it here, that the priorities of the german presidency will be the fight against youth unemployment and female unemployment. this was not such a matter of course in germany as you have implied. i support the proposals contained in your report regarding the various means of creating sustainable jobs, and particularly the two main avenues. the first of these is the redistribution of existing work. that is hardly a new proposal, but we should not underestimate it in the context of a democratic society which enables mothers to hold down a job and which allows fathers to fulfil other social responsibilities besides their paid employment. in my opinion, the second avenue of strengthening growth potential and improving basic conditions also requires special support. by this, of course, i mean support for new business activities, for the tertiary sector, care services and, needless to say, for our great hope for the future, the smes. by basic conditions i do not mean the supply-side policies that some countries have been pursuing, but the conditions for a modern system of education and vocational training. i was also pleased to hear mrs edelgard bulmahn, the german federal minister of education and research, emphasising to our committee that many member states - including germany, unfortunately - have education systems that are not europe-friendly, not to mention their systems of further education, which are essentially at odds with the objectives we always proclaim in connection with lifelong learning. another important aspect is undoubtedly the acquisition of key skills, team skills and holistic thinking; we agree on that, and you know that i laid particular stress on the need for the men of our society to learn this kind of team skill. i also thank mrs bulmahn for her pledge that germany for one would be doubling its education and research budget over the next five years. that, of course, is a signal by which we shall judge her. we all know that the transfer of knowledge between the academic world and industry, in terms of real exploitable discoveries, is far too slow and that in many member states it falls far short of what is required. our best bet in the initial stages, of course, is to support small and medium-sized businesses, which are the most powerful generators of new employment. i should also like to mention one other target group that is often neglected in this debate, namely the foreigners who live with us in our eu member states and whose enterprising spirit has done a great deal to provide additional employment. let me say here that i consider it a scandal that in my home state of hesse, foreigners are currently being subjected to an unacceptable campaign of discrimination. my last point concerns the lack of emphasis on what women can do in small and medium-sized businesses. their innovative capacity and their creativity are simply not able to come to the fore in the real world. i believe the european union should provide special support for enterprising women who want to start up in business. mr president, i should like to thank mr mann for his report. i think he has made a good attempt to focus attention on a number of new sectors in which jobs can be created. he mentioned small businesses. he also mentioned the need to learn. 'learn, learn, learn' is the title i would like to give his report, because we can only create enough jobs if we have a population capable of meeting the challenge of the new technologies. i think that is a most important point to make, and his report makes it. we in the ppe group of course support this report most warmly, but it is naturally something of a compromise. i think mrs weiler is right in calling it a mosaic. i have to say that some of the pieces added to the mosaic are worth rather less than others. the bits added by the rapporteur himself are rather better than those put in later, and that is a danger. when i was learning german, i had a little book entitled schwere wrter - difficult words -the differences between german and dutch. what we are getting at the moment from the german government are schne wrter - fine words. no new deeds. at most it is going as far as the previous government went, but no further. absolutely nothing new is being done in real terms. but the language used is splendid. old ideas are being dressed up in splendid new words. but we are interested in deeds, in action. i think it is important that the rapporteur has emphasised the need for action, for real and new jobs here and not various kinds of redistribution and other solutions, and not the fine words of the federal chancellor. what we need is action, and it is on this that we shall ultimately be judged. mr president, jobs are the achilles' heel of the eu. the economy and competition have dominated cooperation in the eu for far too long. emu has become a kind of mantra for the member states which has pushed them into fighting inflation, meeting the convergence criteria, reducing their budgets and cutting back public spending, at the expense of creating new jobs. from a european perspective, these things are important, but the approach is too narrow and one-sided. emu is actually making it more difficult to increase the number of jobs in the future. i believe that peace, employment and the environment are the only areas by which our european citizens set great store. the sections of the amsterdam treaty devoted to employment are commendable. the approach should be based on intergovernmental cooperation, with objectives and guidelines set at european level and the possibility of coordinating national efforts. a good way for countries to do this would be by adopting sound ideas from other countries, for example variable taxation, shorter working hours and time off for study or training. i would emphasise the fact that transport, the environment and energy are the sectors of the future. i should for example like to see the eu, together with the member states, making a substantial investment to ensure that, over the next ten years, petrol is replaced by environmentally friendly fuels, creating a large pool of environmentally friendly jobs in the process. there is a market for vehicles powered by ethanol, methanol, electricity and so on. last summer, i visited a company in central sweden: a small paper mill with 300 employees. i asked the managing director what his biggest problems were in terms of the workforce. i was anticipating that they would be pay, taxes and eu rules, but he told me that above all people wanted to know about schools, childcare, medical facilities and communications. basic public services are absolutely crucial when creating new jobs in many places, not least the northern part of europe. the liberal group supports this report. mr president, i would like to welcome, very warmly, the report by my colleague, thomas mann, because it looks to the future and that is what we are talking about. not trying out failed systems of the past, not trying out failed mechanisms of the past, but dealing with the reality of what we are presented with. despite the risks and the dangers which new advances and new technologies present, they also offer us a wonderful new opportunity to correct some of the errors of the past, to be more socially cohesive within europe. a lot of mention has been made within the report and by colleagues speaking here tonight, and i am sure the commissioner will also touch on it, about the importance of lifelong learning and education. there is a very old saying 'give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. teach a man to fish, you feed him for life'. by investing more of our resources into giving real education and real training to our people then we can guarantee that they will benefit from the huge explosion in job creation opportunities which will be presented. but there are dangers relating not just to individual actions taken by member states but also to the question of tax harmonisation, about increasing taxation. that is the biggest disincentive to investment which will hit job opportunities. no longer can we have a huge state sector which will automatically take the overflow from the unemployed and give them meaningless jobs. people now demand that they must have a meaningful role to play in life, with dignity. if that requires them working part-time, so be it. if it requires bringing more women back into the workplace, so be it. nobody should be denied the opportunity to ensure that they can play their full role in life. but likewise, nobody should be forced, out of necessity, out of poverty, to take up a job opportunity that is not suitable for them. let us focus on education, let us work together for the common good. mr president, actions, not fine words - that is absolutely the right approach; that has to be appreciated from the outset. an employment pact, rather than an alliance for goodness, beauty, truth or other intangible values, seems to me to be the proper step for us to take at this time. there is much in mr mann's report that we are able to endorse, and we are opposed to any attempt by the ppe to emasculate it, but there are also a few points in it which are rather unclear. so that we can have these points clarified, i shall try to present them systematically. there are two possible sets of measures. additional demand for work can be created. this can be achieved by means of an employment-oriented economic policy, by restructuring society and the tax system in line with environmental objectives, and by developing the tertiary sector to create social tasks which are necessary but which the market does not perform. the second set of measures is designed to cut back the available volume of work. this can be achieved by redistributing the workload, reducing working hours, introducing part-time work, reorganising the work process, cutting the supply of work to employees by granting individual and collective rights to leave of absence and by granting sabbatical leave, which mr mann had in his report but which his group now wishes to delete. this training measure has the dual effect of improving the quality of human resources after the sabbatical year and drastically reducing the available labour pool during it. these measures can be taken, and we can close the labour gap in the european union: 27 to 34 million, the commission has calculated. to do this, however, we must consciously address the problem, and for that we need a very substantive employment pact, not just a finely worded document. we are in agreement on that. mr president, this report is like a mosaic which has the virtue of being in many different parts and therefore raising many issues. it is a report which has not confined itself to simply expressing our concerns or to obtaining the unanimous approval of the committee on employment and social affairs (our concerns necessarily involve opposing exclusions from the current development model), but has put forward certain solutions which have already been mentioned such as work-sharing. however, we all know that work-sharing is an approach that produces immediate but inadequate results given the scale of the problem. we therefore have to find new ways of tackling this problem by recognising that we need to establish companies rooted in the people which, as has already been said, can help to solve the problems of the elderly, of community services and of the environment and which can be recognised and compensated in tax terms. companies involving the people and rooted in the people have a new role which must be welcomed and encouraged. we know that the social security systems are now playing a role which they are unable to fulfil and for which they were not created. never, since the post-war years, have so many depended so much on these systems, either totally or partially, and they cannot withstand the pressure. therefore, only employment can produce appropriate, reliable and genuine social integration. jobs must be created and this means achieving agreement and cooperation on investment, because jobs which appear only in social statistics, which have no social quality, which have no future and which are inappropriate forms of social interaction between people are surely not the european social model which we want to build. therefore, it is not with jobs 'for statistics' that we will solve the problems, nor can quick fixes of training and work help us to tackle this mosaic which has to be sorted out. we look to the commission, knowing that, with the white paper, we have overcome the obstacle of indifference. it is time to act! mr president, i should like to sincerely congratulate our esteemed friend and colleague mr thomas mann on his very good work, although i think the end result is less good compared with the initial proposals he himself put to the committee on social affairs. in any event, be that as it may, i think this report is particularly important for two reasons. the first reason is that we are in a period of very rapid developments. we are in the age of globalisation, biotechnology, the information society, and it is essential and important for the european parliament to look at the issue we are considering today, jobs for the future. the second reason is unemployment, which is the scourge of the working population in the european union in particular, and that is therefore yet another reason to consider how to deal with the developments that are coming and which are before us. in a free economy, it is clear that the state cannot foresee exactly what is going to happen. it can, however, do two things. firstly, it can support flexible, up-to-date and effective systems for the training and retraining of working people so as to keep pace with developments; and, secondly, it can put emphasis on language education, which also encourages the mobility of working people, especially in the context of the common market. above and beyond that, it is clear that the sectors to which attention should be turned, even in an indicative way, can be identified. and here, quite rightly i think, the report points out that, firstly, one such sector is information technology and the electronics industry; a second sector, and one of particular interest to my own country, is tourism, agri-tourism and more generally the leisure industry. thirdly, emphasis should be placed on the tertiary sector, the provision of services. it is clear that this sector will grow at the expense of the secondary sector; and, of course, a fourth sector comprises small and medium-sized enterprises, which are much more flexible and can create many jobs, as has been demonstrated. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to raise three points. a major problem group throughout the european labour market of the future will consist not only of young people and adults without any training qualifications at all, but also those whose training qualifications are outdated or irrelevant. vocational training and further education systems must be adapted ever more rapidly to changing employment structures. joint efforts by the member states to introduce innovations in this sector seem to hold the greatest promise. leonardo ii in particular will offer excellent opportunities for cooperation in education and training, and it is imperative that these opportunities should be taken. secondly, the people of europe have hitherto made little use of the single european job market. a mere 2 % have been living and working for any length of time in a member state other than their own. jobseekers are still too frequently unaware of employment opportunities beyond their national borders, and obstacles to the mobility of trainees and labour have still not been removed. initiatives such as eures and citizens first are steps in the right direction, but are not yet the complete answer. it is up to parliament, the commission and the council to launch new initiatives. one particularly useful development has been the introduction of the europass training document, which guarantees the transparency of vocational qualifications acquired abroad. thirdly, additional employment opportunities can be created in europe if new businesses are set up on the basis of innovative technology, new marketing potential or new service functions. this, however, depends on young people in particular being able to take full advantage of these assets. even during initial training and then in the course of lifelong learning, entrepreneurship and knowledge of business practices must be imparted and encouraged. at the same time, however, it is also necessary to eliminate excessive legal regulation, financial obstacles and information gaps. the availability of venture capital, for example, is a key factor here. finally, may i again express my very sincere thanks to thomas mann for his excellent report. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, a few weeks ago, the unemployment rate dipped below 10 % for the first time in several years. that is encouraging, but let us not rest on our laurels. in particular, it would seem important to highlight positive trends and future job markets. thomas mann's excellent report is especially valuable in this sense. he quite rightly states that employers have an obligation to ensure the continuous training of their employees. the point here is that the ability of staff to apply the latest specialised knowledge will primarily serve the interests of their employer. that is why lifelong learning must be at the forefront as the prime instrument with which we can increase the level of employment throughout the union, because only consumers can create jobs. for this reason, it is essential to supply products and services that will actually be bought. care should also be taken to ensure that when a company changes hands there is a possibility of securing the jobs of the existing staff and subsequently expanding the workforce. the report also refers to the fear that technological change could result in more redundancies than new jobs. we must work resolutely and systematically to allay those fears. the information society, for example, is the most dynamic economic sector in the european union. it already accounts for 5 % of our total gdp, is growing faster than every other sector and is creating more jobs too. more than four million people are already employed by companies in the field of information and communications technology. more than 300 000 new jobs were created in this area of the information society between 1995 and 1997. but this potential has not been exhausted by any means. there are still about 500 000 vacancies for ict specialists. opportunities abound. all we have to do is take them. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, as the last speaker on this item, let me examine the problem under a slightly different light. what are jobs with a future? the crucial thing is not the type of work that will be done, but rather whether jobs will still be available in the future. the way i see it, some of the jobs of the future already exist. and so what i should like to analyse is why these jobs of the present have a future. that is not even a difficult task. the management team or, in smaller businesses, the manager, must be quick to recognise market openings for their products and services and must adjust their range rapidly to keep up with customer demand. to that end they require employees who are well trained, highly motivated and always prepared to undergo further training. such workforces do not grow on trees. they need to be well treated, well informed and well paid. greater flexibility is more essential than ever today, but it must be a two-way flexibility that benefits not only the company but its employees too. modern workday patterns must not be detrimental to employees, as the latest example from the volkswagen works in wolfsburg illustrates. duties at work must not exclude anyone from his or her own family or from society. national governments must play their part with a balanced taxation system, including tax relief where necessary, and must not capitulate under pressure, as in the case of your new government's dem 630 legislation, mrs weiler. so much for my basic analysis. inadequate school education, a lack of vocational training, an absence of further education and insufficient skills prevent many people from obtaining employment. discrimination against the older age groups and against disabled people must henceforth be prohibited by law. we in europe should learn from one another in this field. the rapporteur, thomas mann, has made many good proposals. the latest technological developments and in particular the service sector offer opportunities for the creation of secure, sustainable employment in which women and men would enjoy real equality. i am all for defending the welfare state in the market economies of europe, but i reject any attempt to spoonfeed people, because that could prevent the creation of jobs with a future. commission. mr president, employment is europe's top political priority and i welcome this report on the jobs of the future and i congratulate the rapporteur for his excellent work. thank you mr mann. it follows on, of course, from the commission's employment rates report of 1998 which identified the constraints on europe's employment performance and the sectors where employment is lagging behind in europe. i welcome many aspects of the report and, for example, that the resolution identifies the high road for europe. we should expand our capacity to provide high quality products and services which are at the forefront of technological change and which lead to high quality jobs. the emphasis is given to the potential which exists to increase employment and services; the need to reform education and training systems and to allow for lifelong learning; the emphasis that needs to be given to women in employment policy and the importance of targeting small and medium sized enterprises in employment policy; the call for involvement of the social partners in the formulation of training policy and the calls for greater links between industry and sites. now the commission is called upon to act on a number of points in this resolution and i would like to make the following brief comments, if i may. in paragraph 21 the resolution mentions the philoxenia programme. this is a tourism programme which was proposed by the commission in 1996 but which has still not been approved by the council. let me clarify that the commission has not withdrawn the proposal and has no intention of doing so. i believe that the german presidency may discuss it. regarding paragraph 24, within the framework of the employment and labour market committee, the commission has launched a series of peer reviews which aim at identifying good practice in employment policies in the member states. the results of this peer review will be included in the 1999 joint employment report. lessons drawn from this review will be used in the drafting of the employment guidelines. i would like to make the point, however, that specific policies to be carried out in each member state are normally best determined at national level. in paragraphs 32 and 33 i welcome that the parliament recognises women as a special target group. women's unemployment is higher than that of men and the level of employment is also much lower. community action in favour of employment of women already exists, of course, both in the community initiative now and in the mainstream european social fund, objective 3. but more can be done and more has been proposed in the reform of a social fund which is now being negotiated. the new fund will include specific action for women to allow them to fully exploit new job opportunities. as regards working time, dealt with in paragraph 16, the formulation given by the parliament in its resolution embodying parliament's proposal to the luxembourg job summit, adopted in october 1997, reflects what should be the position at european level. it is stated, and i quote 'that member states need to address the issue of promoting flexibility on the labour market with regard to working hours, working time and working patterns, such as career breaks and sabbaticals, etc, through a non-legislative, non-compulsory process based on social dialogue at the level of the individual enterprises'. i would like to say to mr mann that he is right when he says that portfolio jobs will be the order of the future, three and four changes in a lifetime. that can only be accomplished, mr mann, by emphasis on lifelong learning, by saying what mr crowley said, that we have to have a different situation for education and training so that everybody can participate in the labour market.i would like to say to you, mrs weiler, that it is my understanding that there will be a much strengthened german national action plan. that is my understanding, having been to bonn and spoken to the german government on this particular issue. they are focusing extremely highly on the question of young unemployed people and the question of women in the labour market. the key point in so far as the strengthening of the german plan, is going to be that they are putting up the money, the millions and billions of deutschmarks, to satisfy the implementation of the guidelines. that is what we want to see from the implementation in every member state. now i understand very well, mr pronk, what you are saying about new services and the interesting thing about it is, of course, that there is a huge gap. but it is not in agriculture or manufacturing or the public sector. it is in the services sector, the communal services, the business services, distribution of services and the whole question of leisure. it is there that we have fallen behind the united states and we have to make up that difference because our employment rate has been falling for the past 25 years. but it cannot happen, mr lindqvist, unless there is a huge resource put into child care and the means to bring all of the resources of the labour market to bear and that includes giving much more attention to women. i have to say to you, mrs heinisch, that the question of mobility is a key element here, in so far as the european labour market is concerned. we do not have a good record here but we are putting in place in the eures network, a system that is making it possible for people to move more easily around the union and hopefully bring about a situation where that mobility can be increased. finally, half a million jobs are vacant this evening in the european union in the information society and in technology. your are quite right, mr rbig, half a million jobs. but the industry tells me that in five years it will be 1.2 million vacancies in europe that we cannot fill. i say that the only way that we can come to grips with this is to change, mrs weiler, and reform the education and training systems so that the technology that is here today, which will be obsolete in ten years time, is matched up by an educational system, mr crowley, that will allow everybody to particpate and everybody to have a chance to work in this union. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. protection for laying hens the next item is the report (a4-0481/98) by mr kindermann, on behalf of the committee on agriculture and rural development, on the proposal for a council directive laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing (com(98)0135 - c4-0196/98-98/0092(cns)). mr president, this commission proposal is intended to replace, from 1 january 1999, the existing directive 88/166/eec on battery cages with a directive on the protection of laying hens kept in a variety of rearing systems. these are only minimum standards. the commission's proposal implements the revision clause in article 9 of the existing directive, whereby, on the basis of a report by the scientific veterinary committee, it must put forward proposals for adaptation to take account of advances in our knowledge. all new rearing systems will have to have nests, perches and litter. conventional cages without nests and litter may continue, exceptionally, to be permitted by member states, but they must allow at least 800 cm2 floor area per bird and be at least 50 cm high at all points. under certain circumstances, old systems may continue in use until 31 december 2008 at the latest. our committee welcomed the commission proposal because it is a step in the right direction, in other words it seeks to improve the conditions in which laying hens are kept. in the first place, there is the increasing of the minimum floor area per bird from 450 to 800 cm2 , a measure which we particularly welcome, since the widely held view is that the current rules do not allow birds to follow their natural behaviour patterns, with the result that they are not kept in a manner appropriate to their species. regrettably, in formulating minium requirements for other rearing systems, the commission only went half way. the rules for non-cage systems in enclosed premises are incomplete, and above all there are no provisions on stocking density. on free-range farming, there are no provisions at all. we find that unfortunate, since the new directive will mean greater competition between the different rearing systems. we therefore call on the commission to bring forward a proposal on this shortly. also regrettable in the committee's view is the fact that the new 'enriched' cage with a nestbox, perches and litter, which in future is to be the standard cage, is not defined in detail. i think we have helped to remedy that. we also suggested that the date on which the new directive comes into force should be put back by two years, because the timetable envisaged by the commission is totally unrealistic. by the deadline it is setting, there will not be any cages on the market in the form specified for commercial use. we also want a tighter definition of the commission's monitoring activity. this is because if the commission merely tightens up the conditions for farming and changes the obligation to conduct on-the-spot inspections into an option, it is not carrying out its duty to ensure that the directive is complied with throughout the eu. i shall move on now to the socio-economic considerations. in addition to the option of cofinanced investment aids under the efficiency regulation 950/97/ec, the committee is proposing the introduction of a system of aid which is independent of production, limited in time and paid on a reducing scale. we think this tax mechanism will encourage reluctant member states to adopt higher standards of animal welfare, and we urge the council and commission to consider this proposal closely. the committee also wants care to be taken to ensure that community producers are not disadvantaged vis--vis imports from non-union countries. in particular, this means that imports must meet the same animal welfare, veterinary and hygiene standards as eu products. at this point, i should like to add a few words on the demand for a total ban on battery cages, made primarily by animal welfare groups. the committee did not use the term 'battery cage' in connection with the new proposal for a directive, because it is inadequate and misleading. there are at least three types of cage and each one, including the so-called 'enriched' cage, can be used as part of a battery. so the term 'battery cage' only tells us how the cage is used, but nothing about its dimensions and properties. our committee therefore suggests that the term 'conventional cages' should be used to describe the cages defined in the current directive. it is true that the october 1996 report of the scientific veterinary committee concludes that 'because of its small size and barrenness, the battery cage as used at present has inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens.' but the key words here are 'at present', because the veterinary committee also says that alternative farming systems have serious disadvantages due to the risk of pecking and cannibalism . the president cut the speaker off mr president, firstly i should like to say that i very much welcome the constructive and well-informed work of mr kindermann as a significant improvement to the commission proposals which the committee on the environment, public health and consumer protection feel are an inadequate compromise between the understandable concerns of producers and the welfare of laying hens. the life-sized photograph i have brought with me tonight from a national newspaper showing the realities of space that are allowed by a conventional or battery cage says more than many hours of debate here possibly could. sadly, my committee is of the opinion that without financial measures in member states to assist producers to move to alternative methods, it is unlikely the welcome aims of the directive will be effectively met. they meet neither the aspirations of those seeking to achieve the best possible welfare standards, nor provide a realistic framework for eu egg producers to remain competitive or change rearing methods and retain sustainable employment levels. in those circumstance, the committee gave priority to tackling the inherent severe disadvantages as quoted in the report of the battery system and therefore calls for an eu-wide ban on the use of such cages to be implemented as soon as possible but together with appropriate financial measures to be put in place by member states with support from the commission for alternative systems and relevant studies. the commission is also urged to take a strong negotiating position at the forthcoming wto negotiations on equal welfare conditions for imported eggs, and particularly egg products, in line with the recommendation of the commission egg and poultry advisory committee. therefore, in conclusion, i hope that tomorrow parliament will adopt amendments such as nos 50 and 92 tabled by my colleague mr watts and others and that the passage of mr kindermann's good report, thus amended, will be seen as a positive step towards the end of these cages - however we describe them - in the european union. mr president, i would also like to thank the rapporteur for his report and for the constructive and comprehensive way in which he has tackled this very sensitive and controversial issue. like him, i welcome the commission proposal to reform the battery cage system. there appears to be recognition across the board that the existing battery cage system has got to go. whilst the proposal, from my point of view, does not go far enough, it signals the end of the existing battery cage system of production. and about time too! according to the european commission's own scientific veterinary committee, the battery cage system has - and my colleague clive needle just referred to this - ' inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens'. only yesterday a new report highlighted the pitiful plight of the battery hen, crammed into a cage at just 18 weeks, no room to flap its wings, not enough room to stand fully upright, not able to scratch, doze or bathe. after a year, at the end of their working lives, the scrawny near-naked birds are slaughtered and turned into pies, soup or petfood. one in three of these birds sent for slaughter have fresh broken bones and almost all birds suffer from osteoporosis. the cage is factory farming at its very worst. however, if we believe the cage system to be cruel we should ban it completely. my amendments and those of other colleagues seek to do just that. by 2009 the battery cage system of egg production will be no more. a ten-year phase-out is the best way of promoting the welfare of laying hens. a ten-year phase-out is fair on the industry with a clear and certain future to plan for. that future is free-range production. in britain it works. it protects the welfare of the hen; it is profitable and it is popular. 89 % of the british public believe keeping hens in small cages in cruel. almost half of all britain's households now buy barn or free-range eggs. some supermarkets like marks & spencers have banned battery cage eggs completely and now only sell free-range eggs. this is the cruelty-free future we should all plan for and i hope we will all vote for tomorrow. mr president, the new directive on battery cages is a political issue of the first rank. we get a great many reactions on this from the public. but it is also relevant to the farming operations from which many eu poultry farmers derive their living. this latter fact means that we must take care over our legislative work and give producers a powerful incentive to review their systems of production in such a way as to ensure a higher level of animal welfare in farms which are economically viable in the european union. that must never mean an approach which forces all eu poultry farmers to switch to free-range egg production, even though this method is set to become increasingly important. an alternative must remain in place, whereby birds are kept in greatly improved cages. tests on systems of this kind show that their quality of life is much better. the scientific veterinary committee will have to give a ruling on this too, and other aspects will have to be considered such as environmental considerations and the working conditions of poultry farmers. if we want these greatly improved systems to take off in the very near future, we must make it more expensive to keep laying hens in conventional battery cages by significantly increasing the statutory number of square centimetres required per bird. whichever of the two production methods the european poultry farmer opts for in the next few years, in the interests of fair competition we shall also have to take full account of the conditions in which imported eggs are produced, whether fresh or as egg products. what we must resist is any threat of a total ban, from a given date onwards, on the whole system of keeping hens in cages, even greatly improved cages. the majority of the ppe group will be supporting the line of the kindermann report. we do so with grateful thanks to the rapporteur. we greatly appreciated his expert guidance as we tackled this subject. mr president, to start with i must compliment mr kindermann on his report and on all his hard work. i think he has produced a good report. the liberal group believes, in the first place, that in this case we should have not a directive, but a regulation. we think it is most important to have this proposal acted on in the same way in all the countries of the european union. we cannot have certain countries falling short of the requirements. so that is one important argument which the liberals wish to express. i have to say that i have rarely received as much post as i have in recent weeks on this matter. my group has always been in favour of consumers deciding what they want to eat, and if they want to eat eggs from cages with a larger floor area, then we are very much in favour of that. in this respect, we therefore support the kindermann report's advocacy of 800 cm2 , rather than the 450 cm2 which are the rule at present. we think that as much research as possible is needed in the meantime into alternative systems. we shall look with great interest at the commission's reports on this matter. there is one thing we do not like. in the usa, a major exporter to europe, the area for laying hens is 350 cm2 . and no one in america is making any fuss about it. it is of course totally unfair competition if american eggs are imported free of any restriction under the wto rules, and we strongly urge the commission to raise this issue forcefully at the wto talks. we have to have fair conditions of competition. we are very much in favour of mandatory labelling. the customer has to be able to make a choice. we hope that they will do exactly what they tell us in their letters. lastly, my group will be divided in its vote on mr watts's amendment seeking to have all battery hens banned from 2009. mr president, a cage is no place to live in. and mr kindermann's honest and well-intentioned report will certainly do nothing to change that, because all it achieves is better cages and then only in ten years' time. what we want is no cages at all, and i therefore hope that the amendments tabled by my honourable friend mr graefe zu baringdorf will be approved tomorrow, because until we stop thinking of animals just as commodities with a sell-by date, supplying us with products as cheaply as possible, we shall not have decent and appropriate methods of animal husbandry. we really must start seeing animals as they really are, namely living creatures, and not commodities to be used and then discarded at will. i therefore urge the house to vote for our amendments tomorrow. it would also be very beneficial to consumers if we do so, in the interests of health. only decent and appropriate methods of livestock management will produce healthy products. mr president, i should firstly like to congratulate the rapporteur on his report. it is a subject that causes great concern to many people. it is extremely difficult to achieve the necessary balance between all the elements involved and the committee on agriculture and rural development amendments are just about as good as we can achieve at this moment in time. i know some will want to go further and much faster. but i do not believe that we are in the right position to do so at present. in the long term we must aim to achieve the ultimate. this can only be achieved in cooperation with the industry. we need to ensure that the industry is in a profitable position for these new regulations and others that will be required in the future which are extremely expensive to implement and to carry through. the industry is in no fit position at this present moment in time to take on board the challenge that has been presented to it. profit margins are low. i would support the amendment to provide assistance to modernise but with no expansion through increased numbers of birds within the industry. we must also be very conscious as we burden our industry with extra costs that other world producers will not have the same criteria or pressures. we have witnessed this in the pig industry, the beef industry and the milk industry. i know it is a hobby-horse of mine but i firmly believe that if we in the european union are going to set down such strict criteria and tie the hands of our producers so tightly then we must not allow imports into the european union that fall below the criteria under which are expected to produce. that must be the bottom line. i urge the commissioner to stand firmly behind the producers in the european union because, while we will respond to him and the producers will respond to him, he must defend them against the world when it tries to take over our markets. mr president, commissioner, i am in favour of abandoning the use of cages for laying hens. naturally, i welcome the commission's initiative to improve things and draw up a new directive, but that is not enough. even the scientific veterinary committee agrees that the current method of keeping birds in cages is particularly problematic. i think it is an especially cruel form of livestock management which should be eliminated as soon as possible. of course perches, litter, baths and nestboxes are an improvement, but are we not once again encouraging producers to invest money which will very soon prove to have been wasted? the fact is that more and more consumers throughout europe are calling for a blanket ban on cages. this will come, the only question is when. we have 250 million hens in conventional cages, and only eight million free-range hens. certainly we cannot change that overnight, but we can change it in maybe eight, nine or ten years, and the amendments tabled by mr ebner, mr watts and mr graefe zu baringdorf are all aimed at achieving that. europe's farmers have enough land to make the change, and the extra jobs will no doubt be easy to fill! and battery farming cannot be healthy. these poor hens usually die after a year, they last no longer than that, whereas a normal chicken usually lives for four to five years. the extra cost to the consumer of an appropriate system of poultry management is estimated by the commission - and for this too we thank them - at two euros per person per year. anyone who has ever seen a battery cage operation goes right off eggs for a very long time! but the enlightened, informed consumer is perfectly willing to pay a little more and - once again i quote the commission here - wants to see cages scrapped. please vote tomorrow in favour of amendments nos 52, 62 and 67. you will all find that your breakfast egg tastes a little better! mr president, it is as well to bear in mind that the current legislation on laying hens goes back to 1988 and should have been revised in 1993. so this debate is taking place at least five years late, and yet the revision proposed by the commission, which ought to guarantee both the welfare of the animals and the quality of the product, is not at all satisfactory. the extraordinary logic underlying the rearing of laying hens in batteries will be recalled: they are no longer regarded as living creatures but as objects, industrial machines, parts of a production line. unfortunately, 93 % of eggs are produced like this in europe, but the consumer does not know that the eggs he buys come from egg factories, where the hens are kept in narrow cages, piled up to ten storeys, like a sort of concentration camp. there are four or five hens in each cage, they cannot spread their wings or scratch the ground or perform any of the activities typical of their natural behaviour. but a few extra square centimetres do not solve the problem. that is why the greens urge all colleagues to support the amendments tabled with a view to eliminating cages over the next few years and proposing free range rearing at a density compatible with the characteristics of these birds, a law which is, moreover, already in force in switzerland. finally we support the request to the commission to make it compulsory, as soon as possible, to label eggs so that the consumer will know how the hens laying them are reared. mr president, i find it deeply depressing when animal welfare is only taken really seriously in this parliament when it is a question of fox trapping or seal hunting and when it is indigenous populations who have to pay the price with their own welfare, which is sometimes even more precarious than that of the animals. we have 70 amendments to a report on chickens, seeking to improve conditions for laying hens, in particular by imposing requirements for more space and stimulus. this is somewhat illogical when what really disrupts the welfare of the hens is that they cannot satisfy the particular egg-laying needs which are natural to them. and that will not be altered by giving the hens more space, which will only help to legitimise the situation for many years to come. we should be more ambitious than that. we should of course in the long term ban battery cages for laying hens. in order to minimise the disadvantages for the egg producers, we could pay transitional premiums for a switch to alternative production systems. neither the commission paper nor the kindermann report contained proposals for such a ban. i can therefore only urge everyone to support the amendments which seek to achieve this. if the eu wants to speak up in the forthcoming wto negotiations for including animal welfare in world trade, a domestic ban on battery cages would undeniably strengthen the eu's credibility and hence its negotiating position. as a next-best solution, the commission's proposal for compulsory labelling of the production system used should be welcomed. all the indications are that a great many consumers are willing to pay extra and choose alternatively produced eggs. but that is only possible if the market is transparent. for example, the designation 'fresh eggs' is confusing. all eggs should be fresh. besides, these eggs do not come from free-range hens, as some may be tempted to believe. in denmark, a labelling scheme of this kind specifying the production system was recently introduced, and there was a marked shift in consumer choice, since it was then clear which eggs were from battery hens. politically aware consumers are generally far more responsible than politicians. the committee's proposal that labelling should also include egg products is a good step in the direction of better consumer information, and the proposal that the new minimum requirements should also apply to imports from third countries needs to be supported. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we should not just improve battery rearing, we should ban it. if we look at battery rearing in general, we can see that firstly it destroys biodiversity, secondly it destroys jobs and rural employment in particular and thirdly it constitutes a real hell on earth for these poor birds. i personally cannot accept billions of hens spending their unfortunate lives in a space smaller than a shoebox. these birds also have to live through having their beaks being cut, their decalcified skeletons fracturing repeatedly and the skin being burnt from their feet and abdomen by the ammonia from their droppings. how can we talk about quality after that? finally, at about the age of one year when their production drops, they are gathered together in scandalous conditions and piled up for their final journey. on arriving at the abattoir, one in three have broken feet. as with sows, their sorry state means that their flesh cannot be sold, even in pieces. they will end up as the filling for ravioli or in stock cubes. there is a fourth aspect which should be decisive in this dossier and which should result - if we are fortunate enough to live in an intelligent economic and social system - in a total and definitive ban on this type of rearing. this fourth aspect is the health of consumers. here are birds which eat flavourless food with no consistency but which is loaded with hormones, if only natural hormones resulting from the animal's stress, and antibiotics whose improper use has significantly contributed, through a process of habituation, to penicillin-based antibiotics becoming ineffective in humans. it is clear that these diabolical methods and this gigantic-scale production do not benefit consumers, who are entitled to expect more than poor quality food full of water and medicines, or producers, who can only watch as prices crash with the resulting risks of bankruptcy, or of course the animals who are the first victims. the solution is obvious but it goes against the interests of the large multinationals. priority must be given to a system which is healthy, which creates jobs and which is capable of revitalising the rural environment. basically, priority must be given to everything which is contrary to the concept of meat factories. we need free range rearing where the hens can wander across grass and gravel. we need quality products which obviously are a little more expensive, by say two euros per person per year, but which will reduce the social burden and medical costs. finally, we should not forget that one of the basic elements at stake in this type of dossier is quite simply the future of the rural environment. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we should 'go to work on an egg', as the advert has it. for many europeans, a hen's egg is a welcome part of their breakfast. but increasingly, they have cause to wonder about the conditions in which that egg is produced. animal welfare organisations have enlightened us on the subject. thousands of laying hens, shut up in iron coops with no freedom to move, that is an appalling thought. sadly, consumers' purchasing behaviour does not change to reflect their concern. because more humanely produced eggs cost slightly more, many people continue to buy eggs from battery hens. in our relatively prosperous europe, it is all the more surprising, since the price of eggs in the last few decades has risen very little and they have thus effectively become cheaper. ten or so eggs will cost you just one euro, a price by weight which few foods can rival. that exceptionally low price is only possible thanks to mass production on as small a surface area as possible. i am convinced that the economic motive is out of place here. animals are part of god's creation; they may be subordinate to man, but they still deserve a decent and appropriate quality of life. in 1996, the scientific veterinary committee reported on the welfare of laying hens. on the basis of that report, the european commission has proposed new minimum standards. i agree with the rapporteur that this proposal is a step in the right direction, but no more than that. battery cages must be got rid of entirely, and the sooner the better. the commission is proposing a lengthy transitional period, so that existing batteries may remain in use for a further ten years. but there are amendments seeking to stretch that period further, and even to allow new battery cages to be introduced for a further two years. given that producers have known for years that new standards were coming, i think that is an ill-judged concession. imports from countries whose systems are even less kind to animals must not lead to distortions of competition. producers who switch to animal-friendly systems must not suffer financially as a result. getting rid of battery cages is a matter of civilised behaviour. and we must make sure that once they are scrapped in the european union, they are not then reassembled in countries outside the union. i therefore urge the commission to consider, as part of its interim reporting, the possibility of a scheme for dismantling battery cages, tied to the provision of aid for systems of production which allow the birds their proper dignity. mr president, i too very much regret the fact that neither the commission report nor mr kindermann's report proposes ending the practice of keeping laying hens in cages. as long as cages continue to be used, even if they are bigger and fitted with a perch, we cannot really speak of appropriate methods of keeping these birds. the european parliament ought to prove that it wants no half-hearted compromises in matters of animal welfare, and it should vote for those amendments which seek to have the cage system done away with altogether. the fact that 93 % of eggs produced for consumption in the eu come from battery cages must not stand in the way of a ban on this shameful form of mass animal torment. rather, this figure proves that the european consumer is not sufficiently aware of animal welfare issues, or of questions of product quality. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, first of all i must thank mr kindermann for his extremely competent and detailed report. i am happy to see that parliament's basic position on the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing is the same as that of the commission. what objective is the commission pursuing with the proposal we are debating here today? firstly, a real improvement in the welfare of laying hens on the basis of scientific knowledge. the present system of battery cages is very much a candidate for being improved or replaced. secondly, in order to facilitate the switch to methods of rearing which are more appropriate to the basic needs of laying hens, we wish to ensure that the minimum standards result in production costs which are comparable for the various alternative methods of rearing and the improved battery cage system. acceptable systems are non-cage systems and so-called 'enriched' cages. these are enriched in the sense that they have not only perches, as already mentioned, but above all nestboxes and scratching areas. thirdly, a ten-year transitional period is envisaged for existing barns, but new and converted barns will have to meet the new standards straight away. fourthly, the directive will be revised after seven years to take account of any further scientific progress. egg labelling will be mandatory. let me comment now on the amendments which have been tabled. in drafting its proposal, the commission took due account of jobs, the environment, health and the economy. amendment no 1 is therefore consistent with the commission's thinking and we accept it. this does not apply, however, to amendments nos 20, 21, 45, 51 and 61. amendment no 10 represents an improvement in the wording and seeks better protection for poultry. so this amendment too is acceptable. the commission's proposal amounts to the same thing as parliament's amendment no 13, but this amendment can also be accepted as it makes the text clearer. amendment no 15 is acceptable, since the provisions on feed and water systems in the commission proposal relate to cages. in systems other than cages, however, the space per hen can be reduced. the distinction between single-floor cages and multi-floor systems is perfectly acceptable. so amendments nos 16 to 19 can also be accepted. amendments nos 22, 23 and 29 are also acceptable. these are improvements to the commission proposal. the remaining amendments are not acceptable to the commission for the following reasons: amendments nos 2, 37(3) and 36, 42, 59, 69 and 70 are not consistent with community policy. as for amendments nos 5, 38 and 55, current wto rules do not allow the community to use animal welfare provisions as an instrument of trade. as you know, however, the commission is considering whether, at the forthcoming round of wto negotiations, animal welfare provisions might be introduced as a new element in the wto's terms of trade. amendments nos 4, 54, 57 and 68 are superfluous to this proposal. amendments nos 6, 12, 43, 44, 45, 51, 58, 63, 64 and 65 have no scientific basis, and our proposals have to be constructed on a scientific basis. amendment no 8 is linked to amendments nos 24 to 28, 30, 32 and 33. these, together with amendments nos 9, 14, 46, 49 and 56, do not constitute improvements of any kind and therefore cannot be accepted. amendment no 7 clearly concerns a linguistic problem, because this amendment corresponds exactly to the english text of the commission's proposal. amendments nos 50, 52, 60, 62, 66 and 67 are premature in the commission's view, since the matter concerned is still under discussion. it is therefore a good idea to postpone the date of the directive's entry into force. this then makes amendment no 11 and the related amendments nos 31, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 47 and 48 perfectly acceptable. finally, i agree with the view that a directive is preferable to a regulation, and consequently i cannot accept amendment no 53. thank you, commissioner. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 9 a.m. the sitting was closed at 0.15 a.m.

explanations of vote (de) madam president, i really must say something here because, unlike a previous esteemed speaker, i was not given a chance to be heard. obviously some people are more equal than others in this chamber. i understand that the commissioner was in a hurry, so that i could not be called upon to raise my point of order. time should have been used efficiently when discussing the last item on the agenda. it is with regret that i find that the president was a little too generous with his allocation of time in the debate. we cannot allow so many people to wait for the catch-the-eye procedure throughout the entire process. however, madam president, it would seem that you are not listening to me either. a system obviously operates in this house whereby good time-keeping is regarded as unimportant. when we hear numerous references to solidarity from our fellow members, a word they seem to use in every second sentence, while going over their allotted time by at least twenty to thirty seconds, then i would contend that this flies in the face of their expressions of solidarity. i would ask you to take my request to the conference of presidents and that the otherwise esteemed previous speaker should try to keep to his allotted speaking time in future. that way, we will not lose so much time. it would then be possible to allow one or other of my fellow members to speak using the catch-the-eye procedure, without restricting them to a minimal amount of time. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i voted in favour of the sommer report because i firmly believe that europeans should be able to make a free and informed choice about what they eat. in adopting this report, parliament is giving the green light to clearer rules on food labelling. these rules concern not only the energy content and the percentage of fat present in the labelled food, but also the obligation to indicate the origin of the meat used. these are common-sense rules that have the merit of allowing citizens the freedom of choice, so that they can follow a healthy, balanced diet and know what they are eating. this regulation is a vehicle for citizens to be able to voice their specific requirements with regard to their choice of foodstuffs. (da) madam president, after two years of arguments back and forth, we have finally reached an agreement on new rules for food information for consumers. the danish liberal party would have liked to have seen some more ambitious rules. we will make no secret of that. it is not because we politicians should dictate what people eat, but in people's stressful everyday lives, it can actually be difficult to determine what individual foods contain. we must therefore make it easy to see which foods are healthy and which are unhealthy. the focus is still on the mandatory 100 g nutrition labelling. the danish liberal party would also have liked to have seen a common system for indicating the proportion of a person's daily calorie intake that a particular food item represents. we did not entirely achieve this aim. there will be more realistic and accurate rules for guideline daily amounts (gdas), so this nevertheless represents a step in the right direction. therefore, we have today voted in favour of the compromise with the council. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, thanks to the compromise reached between parliament and the european council, european consumers will now be able to know where the meat on their table comes from. my amendment, which is taken up in the institutional compromise, was undoubtedly more ambitious and required more extensive marking of the origin and provenance of other products too - not just of meat, but of milk, dairy products in general and meat used as an ingredient in food. nevertheless, it is satisfying to know that a road map has been established that will see the commission present a specific report on this issue in two and three years' time. the report will therefore include proposals to ensure the increased - not to say full - protection of all europeans in the near future. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the sommer report is definitely a milestone, but i would say that it is only one milestone along the way, not the final milestone, as mr uggias said. two- and three-year deadlines have been set, deadlines which the commission has pledged to meet, and within which it will surely be possible to develop the rules that have been approved, albeit with difficulty and by means of arduous, extensive negotiations that have been going on for many years, perhaps because something was missed. i wish to take advantage of this speech to say that, overall, i consider this to be a positive report, and i therefore voted in favour of it. however, i do believe that the commission should endeavour to reassess certain shortcomings, such as the failure to include rabbit meat, which is acknowledged to be one of the best types of white meat for a person's diet and nutrition and which could be included in the assessment that the commission has pledged to carry out within the next three years, with a compatibility assessment that i hope it can develop as soon as possible. (es) madam president, i have supported this report because it is going to improve the quality of food products while also contributing to informed and responsible consumption. european consumers will know where the food that we eat comes from, which is especially important for meat and even more so for fish. moreover, an obligation existed to provide information about the nutritional properties of foods. the price of foodstuffs is not the only important thing at the time of purchase. spending available funds wisely involves buying foods that have been grown, reared or fished in a sustainable manner, and in accordance with known standards, and being aware that spending a bit more on foods that contain less saturated fat, are low in salt, or contain moderate levels of sugar, contributes to our health. accordingly, in order to tie up any loose ends relating to this regulation, we need to investigate in-depth the training that consumers need in order to make the most of all the information that is going to be available to them. finally, i regret the somewhat insensitive approach in the report in relation to linguistic diversity. basque, catalan, galician and other languages also exist and are official in the shops in which these new labels are going to be read. (sv) madam president, finally, we are to have simple common eu rules for the labelling of food. they have been pushed through and will enter into force in 2014. i am pleased that the line that i pursued from the beginning was adopted. we are to have correct, clear and easy-to-understand information on the packaging, but no more mandatory information. we will increase the opportunity for consumers to make informed choices with regard to which wholesome foods they want on their plates, and we will not lecture or dictate what people should eat. i am particularly pleased that origin labelling for all meat, as i proposed from the start, was included. the commission is to ensure that this is implemented in a reasonable way. allergens are to be highlighted in the list of ingredients. we are to have rules concerning legibility, with minimum requirements concerning a clear typeface and contrast. the rules relating to imitations are also extremely good, and we are to make vigorous efforts to prohibit all misleading information. it is regrettable, however, that trans fats will not be clearly labelled. i believe that this balanced and sound compromise will give consumers greater freedom of choice without creating additional unnecessary bureaucracy for small businesses. (et) madam president, i, too, voted in favour of the report. although the document has been diluted, i think that the adoption of this regulation and the necessary changes to existing legislation are a very important step in the protection of european consumers' interests. european consumers must know what they are eating and where the raw materials actually come from. information on the product label must be informative and clear. pretty labels such as 'made in the eu' or 'made in estonia' can be a myth, actually deceiving consumers even more. above all, of course, this report is good news for consumers, though not for certain unethical companies who have been manipulating consumers and, as we know, have also tried to frustrate the completion of this regulation. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, today's vote ends an incredible work cycle that has seen more than 3 000 amendments tabled in three years. thanks, in fact, to the political agreement reached last week with the council, the approved text will ensure that european consumers have access to clearer food labels with more detailed information on products that we find on our tables every day. i welcome the new and specific information on allergen content, for example: from now on, the presence of allergens can be conveniently identified and recognised at a glance. lastly, as an italian, i can only be pleased that the so-called traffic-light labelling has been abandoned for good. from now on, no food can ever be labelled as harmful unless it really is, meaning that consumers will not be forced to exclude it completely from their diet. it will therefore be possible to consciously include it in a varied and balanced diet, which i hope will be modelled on our beloved and envied mediterranean diet. (fi) madam president, the free movement of food is an essential aspect of a viable internal market, and that is why i supported this report. the european union must, in future, promote the health and well-being of citizens, as well as their social and economic interests. clear, comprehensible and easily legible food labelling is one such way that the european union could actually have a combined impact on increasing the well-being of its citizens. nutrition labelling is one method of informing consumers about the composition of foods and also of helping them to make an informed choice. education and information campaigns are also an important mechanism for improving consumer understanding of food information. there should not be interference in all respects, however, and that is why it is important that the sale of food at charity events or fairs, for example, should not fall within the scope of this regulation. (de) madam president, i, too, voted in favour of the compromise amendment tabled by the rapporteur, mrs sommer, because this will be a cornerstone in improving consumer protection. i believe that all consumers have the right to know what is in the food that they buy. we have a common european market. for that reason, we also need to standardise information, so that consumers will know exactly where they stand. we have achieved a whole series of successes and compromises. i firmly believe this is a first step in the right direction. i also assume that we shall continue to monitor the situation and that we shall be able to achieve further advances in the interests of the consumer as time progresses. we cannot stress often enough that consumer information is one thing, but the consumer's lifestyle is quite another. naturally, we must continue to pay close attention to this perspective. madam president, i support the compromises reached in this report, in particular, the country-of-origin labelling, because we are extending country-of-origin labelling to meat from pigs, poultry and sheep. i think it is really important. citizens want this information and they want it presented in a clear and unambiguous way. we have strict rules in the european union regarding traceability from farm to fork. we have strict rules regarding protection of the environment and we have strict rules on ensuring animal welfare. consumers demand this from their producers and i think it is essential that they are easily able to identify country of origin in order to make informed choices when they spend their money. also, we have committed to examining within two years the possible extension of compulsory country-of-origin labelling to meat that is used as an ingredient. i believe it is an important step in ensuring clear and unambiguous information to consumers when they are purchasing processed foods. (fi) madam president, these days, a lot of additives are used in foods, and these cause allergies or are harmful or even dangerous when they are eaten. consequently, it is really important that these ingredients are clearly indicated, allowing the consumer to avoid buying them. it is, in fact, to the eu's shame that such a simple matter as this has had to be the subject of debate for years. i hope that we can now make speedy progress with regard to the issue, and that the origin of food and, furthermore, how it was produced, will be clearly labelled. that is relevant to the age we live in. if the eu wants to be up-to-date and live in the present, it will make speedy progress on this, and the origin labelling of food will be written clearly and legibly. (sk) madam president, the regulation on food labelling is progress, but it is also a major interference in the lives of consumers, producers and distributors. the negotiations were therefore long and complicated, and i would like to thank the rapporteur, mrs sommer, and the shadow rapporteurs for their patience and responsiveness in seeking a definitive text. i am pleased that a compromise has been reached over the labelling of energy values: per 100 ml or 100 g and per single portion on the front of the packaging. consumers should be provided with the essential information, but complex and ambiguous labelling would be to the detriment of consumers. madam president, i wish to speak in favour of the sommer report on food labelling. this is a good step forward in providing full information to the consumer. it will improve the nutritional information that consumers receive and it will also clarify where food has come from, in particular, meat. we need to end the scandal whereby an animal reared in country x and slaughtered in country y is then imported into britain, processed, and sold as british meat. that is a scandal that must end because consumers must have confidence that, when something is labelled as british, it really is british. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, we have before us a very sensitive report that has already caused controversy at first reading and which has an immediate impact on european consumers. it does not take a feuerbach, who said that man is what he eats, or the fundamentals of micro-economic theory, to be able to state with certainty that consumers have a right to access comprehensive and truthful information on what they buy. however, the crux of the matter is really knowing which type of information needs to be included and how. in this respect, i believe that the rapporteur has done a truly excellent job in finding compromises with the council. i believe that aiming for complete traceability of certain foods, such as meat, fish, oil and honey, is a great achievement and is also in line with the common agricultural policy. as an italian, i hope that in future, traceability can also be extended to pasta, pizza and mozzarella. this is something that we want for ourselves and for all europeans and consumers. (ga) madam president, i voted for this report because it seems to me to be vital that the frequency of fatalities and serious injuries be greatly reduced and road safety improved. i am grateful to ins ayala sender for the excellent work she has done in regard to this report. we, as europeans, must work together and reduce the number of road deaths. speed and speeding, driving under the influence of drink and driving without a seatbelt are a major feature of traffic collisions on european roads. we also have a major problem with drivers who fail to obey red lights or have no regard for them. although ireland is not participating in this directive, i am hopeful and confident that she will participate when this directive has been implemented. i am in contact with the minister for transport in ireland about this, and i am confident that we will be able to adopt it. (fi) madam president, i myself voted in favour of this report. this is an extremely important proposal for a directive, in which we will be moving forward on common traffic rules and controls. we need common rules and controls. this is, above all, a question of road safety. if europeans know that fines cannot be forwarded from other countries and that the information cannot be transferred, it could easily tempt people to commit offences, which only serve to reduce standards of road safety. that we cannot accept. another prominent feature of this vote was a correlation table. the original problem with that was that it might delay the progress of this excellent solution. anyway, that was the original problem. (et) madam president, i, too, voted for the adoption of this report because it is clear that we need harmonisation, we need controls and we need unity in this very important area. facilitating cross-border communication in order to identify traffic offences is very important and necessary in order to reduce the number of road deaths. it is also necessary, however, so that road users do not have a sense of impunity in another country. when driving, for example, on the road from brussels to strasbourg, we can see a lot of drivers and cars registered in far-away countries boldly exceeding the speed limit in the knowledge that they will not be punished. of course, the objective is not merely to punish and fine people. above all, road safety is in all our interests, and the objective is to reduce the number of road deaths significantly, as i mentioned at the start. i hope that all the member states and all road users will be the winners from this report. (fi) madam president, improving road safety must be a prime objective of the european union's transport policy and, for that reason, mrs ayala sender's report is very relevant. the eu must pursue a policy to improve road safety and reduce fatalities, injuries and material damage on the roads. i consider it a good idea that there could be greater convergence of control measures and technical equipment for road safety between member states. in addition, public awareness should be raised as regards the road safety traffic rules in force in different countries. controls and sanctions for breaches of road traffic rules are one of the most effective means to reduce the number of accidents and victims on the roads. although controls act as a deterrent, safety nevertheless consists of many different factors: it is not just about what is between two or four wheels and tyres, but, above all, about what is between the driver's own ears. (de) madam president, i have also voted in favour of this important report. we all want freedom of movement, but this ideal must not be allowed to become a license for foolishness. this is simply about observing the laws and regulations for road use in other member states. i tend to side with those who believe that we need greater harmonisation here. however, if you break the law, if you violate the rules, then, of course, it must be possible to punish you. immunity from penalties should not encourage people to behave like traffic terrorists in other member states. i therefore believe that this is an important step in the right direction. i hope that this decision by the european parliament will not just be noted by the european council and member states, but actually implemented, so that we will not have to wait another two years to pass the next decision. (cs) madam president, i supported the compromise that has emerged from the trialogue because it is a sensible piece of legislation which should lead to safer roads. in my opinion, it is right that this directive will form the basis only for an exchange of information, and not a harmonisation of penalties and an enforcement of fines, as i think that would impose an excessive administrative burden on the individual states. i would nonetheless like to draw attention to the fact that the resulting text has certain problems from a legal perspective. under article 9, the commission should draw up at union level guidelines for road traffic safety within the framework of the common transport policy. this directive, however, is established on the basis of legislation concerning the police, and it is therefore not possible to propose harmonising measures in the form of the proposed guidelines in the area of law enforcement, where member states have sole jurisdiction. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, every year, my country, italy, plays host to an ever-increasing number of tourists and, with the holiday period fast upon us, we are about to see a repeat of what happens every year: most of the foreigners who commit an offence will go unpunished, apart from the ones who are caught red-handed. this will not be the case for much longer, however, since we welcome this measure aimed at finally standardising the procedure by which information is used to identify the owners of vehicles with which an offence has been committed. to give a few statistics, some 15% of the speeding offences in the member states are committed by non-residents, and 67% of those who visited italy last year did so by car. you can therefore understand why, for my country, this directive is an important prerogative in terms of identifying and recovering a substantial amount of money which is owed to the state and which continues to place a strain on local authority budgets. i also welcome the fact that, as well as the traditional offence of speeding, other offences will include non-use of seat belts, failure to stop at a red traffic light, drink-driving and driving under the influence of drugs, to mention the most common ones. i therefore approve of the approach taken by the directive, which does not seek to interfere with national procedures concerning the criminal or administrative nature of offences and of which i therefore voted in favour. (fr) madam president, i already gave my opinion on this report at first reading, as well as yesterday in the debate. i do not wish to repeat what i have already said. there is simply one thing that strikes me in this whole matter. i do not underestimate the importance of road safety, yet, all the same, most of the speakers in the debate yesterday came from left-wing, extreme-left or green parties, and they have suddenly discovered the virtues of repression: repression as a means to re-establish order, repression as a means to ensure respect for the law and repression as a means to protect victims. most of the time, from these same people and the same political movements, we hear the exact opposite: whether it pertains to drug trafficking, urban violence, attacks on property or even attacks on individuals. in these cases, it pertains to people who are not wearing a seatbelt, who may possibly have been caught, as in my country, driving at 70 km/h where the speed limit was 60 km/h, and for them, repression should be unforgiving. it is quite the paradox. madam president, the stealthy harmonisation of social security across europe has been one of the great unreported stories of recent months. it has happened not as the result of a decision of this house or of any of the national legislatures. it has been driven, rather, by creative interpretation on the commission's part and judicial activism by the european court of justice. the european treaties provide for free movement and settlement where the person moving is able to support himself, either from a pension or by working in the host country, but a series of recent cases has undermined the basis of that agreement. we have had the case of a portuguese national who worked in germany and is claiming german benefits on his return to portugal, and we have dutch nationals who are denied dutch benefits when they move abroad, whereas foreign nationals continue to claim them if they have been in holland. we have a similar case in britain: a pensioner from one of the baltic states who is claiming supplementary benefits because her baltic pension is not enough to support her. the point is not just that this attacks the basis of national statehood, which is discrimination on the basis of nationality. i do not expect much sympathy when i say that in this house, but surely those on the left will also understand that it breaks the social compact on which the whole post-war welfare system is based, because you cannot ask people to pay into a system if anyone else is then able to arrive and claim from it without having paid a penny into it. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, over time, the number of drivers who have committed traffic offences in a member state other than their own has progressively increased. this is a worrying situation to which we must not remain indifferent. i am convinced that a clearer legal framework on the exchange of information between the competent authorities in order to identify more rapidly and uniformly the data pertaining to vehicle owners who have committed an offence in another member state is indispensable and can no longer be deferred. when the legislative process is concluded, we shall see less unjustified impunity due to the impossibility of applying effective penalty procedures. i am pleased that the important subject of correlation tables has not compromised the possibility for parliament to prepare a strong negotiating position with the council. it would have been curious if a similar argument, rejected as risible when it was raised in the case of the eurovignette, which was certainly an issue that was subject to less discussion in parliament than this, would nevertheless have been considered today as decisive in this case. going forward, we must in any case definitively come to grips with this subject. we must legislate once and for all and we must not permit a value judgment on each single issue that assigns it an importance according to the political and numerical weight of those who challenge those correlation tables. madam president, as we look ahead to 2012, i would like to offer the following advice to the commission. the first piece of advice is to stop asking for more money. you have plenty of money. at a time of austerity, when national governments are cutting budgets, it is absurd that you are asking for more. mr barroso, you have more than one thousand officials who currently earn more than the british prime minister. we have two seats for the parliament. there is plenty of waste; use your resources more wisely. the second piece of advice is: account for the money you are given. our accounts have not been signed off for sixteen years, so aim to have the court of auditors approve them in 2012. seventeenth time lucky, perhaps. thirdly, concentrate on what you do best. complete the single market and strive for free trade around the world. free markets will do more to improve the conditions of our citizens and those in developing nations than any number of european regulations, initiatives and agencies could ever achieve. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, the report on which we voted today regarding european union legislation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, known as 'mad cow disease', testifies to the excellence of the european policies that have been adopted to protect human and animal health. the number of cases has certainly diminished in recent years, and this enables us to apply less alarming countermeasures, hence, for example, where a case appears in a herd, it is now possible to avoid culling the entire herd, but to use the milk produced until it is fully depleted. we all remember with great concern the images of entire herds slaughtered if one animal had contracted the disease, and that is something that we shall now avoid. we must, however, continue to be vigilant, madam president, because the text we have adopted today introduces a considerable risk to health and opens the way to free use of animal meal. in this regard, we must remain vigilant. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i voted in favour of this important own-initiative report by mr de grandes pascual, which not only covers the question of security scanners, but also constitutes a step towards an integrated and coherent strategy on aviation security generally. nowadays, the prevention of possible terrorist attacks is still a priority for air transport, and in this area there is still much for us to do. that is why it is important for security scanners to be included in the list of screening methods, with appropriate regulations for their use and guarantees on the protection of health, privacy and passengers' rights in general. i should have preferred more courageous steps towards making equipment and procedures more uniform and obligatory in the 27 member states, consistent with the common security space that we are building, but i realise that there is still strong resistance within the council. it is for these reasons that i am thankful to mr de grandes pascual for the excellent job of consolidation that he has done on this question. madam president, we are still living with the legacy of the 9/11 attack on the twin towers in new york. we can never, ever compromise security because of the fact that we are only one day away from the next atrocity. one of the problems faced by the travelling public is the delays that are incurred at airports - every airport - in going through security. mr de grandes pascual's report addresses this by virtue of the fact that it gets the balance right. firstly, it will speed up the passage of passengers through security - because it is only a matter of seconds - and, secondly, it will ensure personal integrity, because the moment that the actual image has been taken, the image will be destroyed. also, from the point of view of the danger to public health, it deals with the issue of ionising radiation. the radiation exposure represents merely 2% of that of radiation treatment or an x-ray. so it is a good report, but the important thing is that it is not left lying on a commission desk gathering dust. we should implement this. (fi) madam president, scanners are an excellent idea. i myself went through a scanner like this once in the united states, and i found that it was a very agreeable experience. it was a lot quicker, and it is definitely a bit different when you can walk into a scanner and you do not need, as you do now, to strip half-naked and take off your shoes, jacket, belt and everything. i am therefore in favour of scanners. of course, we have to ensure that they do not have any impact on health, and there always needs to be another option if someone does not want to go through the scanner. many of the fears that relate to how the data might be misused, however, are surely grossly exaggerated, and i hope that scanners will be introduced as quickly as possible. another issue, obviously, is taking liquids on board an aircraft. on this point we have got behind the times, and ordinary people's lives are being made very difficult indeed, and i would hope that this ban can also be lifted as quickly as possible. (et) madam president, given the terrorist threat and previous tragic experience of terrorism in the world, it is vitally important to increase the level of air safety, and, of course, to do so using security scanners. scanners are a powerful weapon in the fight against terrorism. this topic is described very well in the report, although unfortunately, the issue of cost remains unresolved. it is unfortunate that we increase protection for air passengers and develop air security only when some terrorist attack has happened; in other words, after air security has been tested. we need a proper risk assessment which could anticipate various risk factors early on and deal pre-emptively with the corresponding threats. this means that we also need a strategy. although i support security, i am against methods which would pose a threat to human health or privacy, or which would humiliate people. madam president, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and other terrorist attacks, clearly all countries have had to face a difficult debate on getting the right balance between security and liberty. the issue has always been one of great difficulty for authorities. but what concerns me about the use of these scanners is where there is no alternative. fortunately, an alternative is called for in this report, but there are still a number of countries around the world where you are refused the right to travel if you refuse to use a scanner. there are genuine concerns. there are still people who are medically trained who are frequent travellers and who complain about the health hazards of travelling. but, in particular, i would like to point out one problem which some of my constituents have written to me about: the problem that arises for people who carry colostomy bags or ileostomy bags. if people who carry those refuse to be scanned, they are either refused travel or, what happens in the end, is that they are subjected to the most amazing humiliation in front of fellow travellers. it is about time staff were trained better and made to be more sensitive to members of the travelling public who suffer from these problems. (et) madam president, i supported the adoption of this report. this is not a legislative document, but it is undoubtedly a report that can be used to send a message. i am especially pleased that four-fifths of those in attendance supported the adoption of this report. i should say that, in the seven years that i have been in the european parliament, this is still the first report on this topic that has gained this level of support. gender equality is a basic right in the european union. i would now ask whether, in the time that the european union has existed, we are satisfied with our achievements in this area. i am not. do women in europe have equal opportunities with men? without immersing ourselves in facts, we can see that they do not. the report indeed dealt with only one facet of this topic - increasing women's participation in business - though here it must be said that this report is not about intervening in the free market or creating unfair competition. it is about eliminating discrimination on one side. (it) madam president, ladies and gentlemen, it is with a great sense of pride that i bring to your attention the fact that, last tuesday, my country finally enacted a law introducing quotas for women board members at listed companies and companies in which the state has a shareholding. unfortunately, at the moment, barely 4% of the board members in italy are women. other countries have already passed similar legislation and i hope many others will do so in the coming months. capable and qualified women must be allowed to achieve professional growth in line with their male colleagues, demonstrating and exercising their capabilities. you know, holding a position due exclusively to merit and professionalism is surely more gratifying and less humiliating, but i am convinced that we have to carry out a true 'pink revolution' which has an ever growing female presence as its ultimate objective, without necessarily having to resort to quotas. in future, due to our daily commitment, equal opportunity will not have to be recognised solely by law, but must represent an indefeasible value held by society, based not only on gender equality, but also on a genuine and inherent cultural equality. (es) madam president, our motto should be 'from words to deeds'. the 2020 programme advocates equality to overcome the crisis. european companies hardly have any women on their boards of administration, although different studies show that their presence brings these companies innovation, improved management and profits. women train more than men and achieve better academic results. however, men occupy 90% of the seats on the boards of stock-exchange listed companies and chair 90% of the boards. in order to even out these figures, we need measures that have produced results where they have been applied and the resolution adopted today will contribute to this. i do not support the reference in the report to competent and qualified women because the small percentage of women who succeed to positions of responsibility do satisfy those aspects and also because do you know any text in the world with that requirement for men, who take up 90% and 97% of the figures? are they all competent and qualified? if we want to achieve equality, let us change the language and the paradigm. (sv) madam president, i welcome the fact that the commission and the european parliament have made vigorous efforts to promote female business leaders. as a female entrepreneur, i have given a great deal of support to several women in leadership positions in business. unfortunately, however, i voted against this report, because i do not believe that the solution to this lies at eu level. we should not legislate on quotas and we should not ask the commission to take measures to force wage differences to be dealt with or certain quotas of women to be taken on in companies. the european parliament and the commission have an important role to play in stimulating debate, shaping opinion and putting pressure on companies, but not in dictating from above. governance is better dealt with at national level, in our own countries. i also believe that voluntary measures could yield better results in sweden, but the situation is different in other countries in europe when it comes to putting pressure on companies to include more women on their boards. (cs) madam president, both my group and i support and take a positive view of the will to increase the representation of women in leadership positions and on company boards, where they are currently still very few in number. nevertheless, we could not support this report, since proposals have been adopted which support and call for binding targets and legislative measures at european level. the principle of competitiveness on the labour market is fundamental for us. the selection of women for leading roles and their appointment to boards should not happen on the basis of gender, but on the basis of qualifications and appropriate experience. we are opposed to the introduction of binding legislative measures and quotas for women at european level, and we believe that national governments and employers are the ones who can best decide when and in what way they will support the increased participation of women in these positions. (sk) madam president, i will always fight discrimination against women in employment, whatever role they are in. i have therefore voted in favour of mrs kratsa's report. all we will achieve with quotas, however, will be to create so-called women's roles in management. the role of the management of a firm is to generate profit, from which it pays taxes and employs people. i wonder if anyone really believes that profitability depends on the gender of the management. i experienced an attempt to emancipate the working class through quotas. i firmly believe that quotas constitute positive discrimination, and women do not deserve any type of discrimination. the process of changing thinking in society may take longer, but it will be natural. i have therefore not supported paragraphs 1, 2 and 16. (et) madam president, i supported the adoption of this report, which was balanced and contained concrete proposals. furthermore, while the crisis is far from over - although many politicians like to claim it is - i am convinced that the european parliament's special financial, economic and social crisis committee, which has become a temporary committee, should continue its work, and i would support it in doing so. we can only give due recognition to the committee's work up to this point. we must recognise the work it has done in drafting recommendations on the european union's sustainable growth model and in contributing to the creation of a coordinated policy. i think it is important for the committee to continue its work so that attention can be focused on the large debts of the european states and on a solution for the problems of the euro crisis. (sk) madam president, the report by mrs bers confirms that we are approaching a crossroads. if we take the path proposed in this report, in a few years' time, the union will turn into a federation, with all that that entails: a government, a ministry of finance and a federal tax. we currently have no mandate from our voters to create such a europe, but i am afraid that the second path will lead to the fall of the euro and the beginning of the end of european integration. we have to decide. i have not voted for the report, as a decision such as this must be taken by the voters. those who want a federation and a common budget, however, should also finally start talking about equal levels of pay, health care and equal pensions, and about the willingness to show solidarity and equalise the differences here. (ga) madam president, although there are many good recommendations in the bers report, i have to say that we, fine gael members in the epp, had to abstain at the final vote and i will now explain why. taxation is a matter of subsidiarity and we feel that talk of tax harmonisation at this stage, while it may be idealistic, is premature, especially as we in ireland are in the midst of an imf-eu bail-out, and for the eu part of that bail-out, we are paying what we consider to be draconian interest rates. this is recognised by the european parliament and by the commission, including commissioner rehn and president barroso, but we cannot get a reduction because at council level, some member states want to have a quid pro quo - a reduction of interest rates if we give up our right to set our own corporation tax rate. this is contrary to the spirit of subsidiarity and it is also contrary to the spirit of solidarity which is supposed to exist in the european union. madam president, when i was a teenager, i travelled in what we still thought of as eastern europe and i remember being struck, even then, by the paradox that here was a system that nobody believed in. even the people running it no longer professed, if ever they had, the principles of marxism-leninism. yet one could not see how it was going to end because so many people had a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo. i had an eerie sense of nostalgia as i listened to the debate this morning. one by one, the pillars that sustained the european ideal have been kicked away and yet we continue to tell ourselves that the answer is more integration, more europe, monetary and fiscal union, common economic governance, and so on. the schengen treaty is collapsing as governments begin to reimpose border controls, and now the euro is also showing itself to be unsustainable. yet the apparat of europe in this house and in the palaces and chancelleries of the continent continues to trot out the same slogans about ever-closer union, not to convince the voters, not even really to convince themselves - not any more - but simply because they do not know what else to do. madam president, as i listened to the debate this morning on the financial crisis, i was struck by how much we have not really learnt from the crisis. why have we not learnt the lessons that governments should not print money too cheaply, and that when you print money cheaply, the citizens think they have more money than they have and they make what ludwig von mises called 'malinvestments'. and when the market corrects itself, the whole bubble bursts and the market crashes. that is what we saw with credit first. why have we not learnt the lessons that individuals and governments and families should not spend more money than they earn? surely, of all the countries, greece should have learnt that, and other countries around the eu. they simply got themselves into trouble because they spent money they did not have. why have we not tackled the real problem in the financial system, which is the fact that banks are deemed too big to fail? in which other industry do we really now believe that if you get into trouble, you should have taxpayers' money to bail yourself out? if you actually leave it to the market, then other competitors will come forward. worst of all, we think that governments can spend money better than the private sector and create jobs. the last country to do that was the ussr. let us not go that way. (hu) madam president, the report from the special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis emphasises that both agricultural and cohesion policy must play a key role in the europe 2020 strategy. the common agricultural policy reform must be planned while taking into account the need to meet global challenges, while the cohesion policy must be planned with clear objectives aimed at promoting competitiveness. in the majority of new member states, agricultural producers are counting on the current system of the common agricultural policy, while from the cohesion policy they expect the realisation of basic infrastructure investments, as in this area we fall well behind the old member states. the eu 2020 strategy must serve the development of the entire european union and this is impossible without developing backward regions and keeping the original objectives of the agricultural and cohesion policies. (da) madam president, regrettably, i felt compelled to vote against the bers report today. the report does not adequately address the crux of the matter - namely, the fact that the individual member states of the eu have accumulated excessive national debts in combination with our lack of competitiveness. that is why we are struggling in europe. it is not simply a matter of creating more liquidity - we need to regain our competitiveness. paragraph 99 concerning an eu budget corresponding to 5-10% of the union's gdp is a bad and irresponsible proposal that is completely out of step with what the majority of citizens in the member states actually want. it is a theoretical proposal with no basis in reality. we are in this house in order to represent the populations out there in the member states, and the idea of transferring up to 10% of the member states' gdp is pie in the sky and has no place in this parliament. written explanations of vote i am voting for this proposal founded on article 77(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the european union - issues relating to the borders - because it should be of benefit as a legislative act of the union, not least by ensuring the safety of the border guards who are entitled to check travel documents at the external borders. i agree with the rapporteur that the proposed text would respect the member states' competence for the recognition of travel documents. in line with the convention implementing the schengen agreement, of 14 june 1985, decisions sch/com-ex (98) 56 and sch/com-ex (99) 14 concern the compilation of a manual of travel documents enabling the crossing of external borders which may be endorsed with a visa. however, these decisions go back to the time of intergovernmental cooperation on schengen and need to be adapted to the eu's current institutional and legal framework. i voted in favour of this report because the purpose of this decision of the european parliament and the council is to create legal certainty with regard to the list of travel documents. this decision should also present added value, namely, by providing security to border guards who are entitled to check travel documents at external borders. otherwise, the objective of the draft proposal would be completely undermined. therefore, the list of travel documents should be legally binding. i agree with the rapporteur's opinion that the proposed wording would respect the competence of the member states to recognise the travel documents but would, at the same time, ensure legal certainty after the given period, which could indeed be longer than proposed by the commission. furthermore, i agree that an online database containing specimens of all travel documents should be established in the long term to facilitate the examination of a given travel document by border control authorities and consular staff. it is important to underline that the purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: this means that it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders, or it allows consular staff to verify whether member states recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. i voted in favour of mrs fajon's report because i consider it important that we succeed in coordinating the countries in what is known as the schengen area with respect to valid travel documents entitling the holder to cross external borders i consider the rapporteur's approach to this issue to be correct, since member states must retain their right to recognise which documents are valid for crossing their borders and which are not. at the same time, however, i see only benefits from allowing the european commission, with the help of member states, to draft a list containing all documents fit for this particular purpose. such a list would facilitate work at border points and would, moreover, make it easier to identify forged documents. europe is a resource that can be drawn upon both now and even more so in future. therefore, by all working together to coordinate our activities, especially in the important area of the movement of persons, we shall have taken another step towards a true european union. in writing. - i voted against this report as it aims to establish a harmonised list of acceptable travel documents which may be endorsed with a visa upon entry into an eu member state. it is another step towards the creation of a pan-european immigration policy when it is essential that individual nations are able to control their own borders. i voted for the report because i agree that, in line with the convention implementing the schengen agreement, of 14 june 1985, decisions sch/com-ex (98) 56 and sch/com-ex (99) 14 concern the compilation of a manual of travel documents enabling the crossing of external borders which may be endorsed with a visa. however, these decisions go back to the time of intergovernmental cooperation on schengen and need to be adapted to the eu's current institutional and legal framework. given that the purpose of the decision is to create legal certainty with regard to the list of travel documents, this declaration proposes clarifying the consequences of failure to give notice of a member state's position in the given time period. this provision is consistent with the exclusive competence of the member states for the recognition of travel documents, since they would always have the right to give notice of the non-recognition of these documents. the framework of travel documents, firstly, enables border control authorities to verify whether a given document is recognised for the purposes of crossing the external borders and, secondly, enables consular staff to verify whether all the member states applying the common visa policy recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. there is a need to adapt the current framework to the eu's new institutional and legal framework. the fact that the member states are not obliged to indicate whether or not they recognise each of the documents included on the list creates legal uncertainty, so holders of these travel documents run the risk that their entry will be refused or that they will be granted a visa for a limited area. it is not possible to harmonise recognition of the listed travel documents as this is an exclusive competence of the member states, but the continuous updating of the list must be ensured. i support the creation of a mechanism that ensures the constant updating of the list of travel documents that countries issue, and the introduction of a centralised mechanism for technical evaluation of these documents. it should also be ensured that all the member states express their position on whether or not they recognise the travel documents listed. although the union does not want to be 'fortress europe', there is obviously a need to restrict passage through its external borders and to set out which documents issued by third countries are suitable for enabling their nationals to enter the eu. the union must, therefore, list the documents suitable for this purpose, and the member states will have to continuously update this list so as to give notice to others of what will be accepted or refused, so that the border services can get to know them, and that those seeking entry to the schengen area may know what documents they will have to provide. decisions taken on this matter previously need to be adapted to the current european institutional and legal framework. this information is required for the sake of legal certainty, but also out of respect for the people working at the borders and for all those travelling to the eu. this report represents an effort by the european parliament to harmonise the procedures and rules of the european union member states, with a view to adapting them to the eu's new institutional and legal framework. the list of travel documents enables border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purposes of crossing the external borders under the legislation in force, and also enables consular staff to verify whether all the member states recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. i consider it necessary to ensure the continuous updating of the list of travel documents, obliging the member states to give notice of their position with respect to the recognition or non-recognition of these documents for the purposes of simplification and efficiency. i would also stress the concern to ensure the safety of border guards, and the fact that this decision does not violate the member states' competence for the recognition of travel documents. this report concerns a proposal for a decision on the list of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa, as well as the establishment of a mechanism for compiling this list. under the pretext of ensuring uniform conditions for compiling and updating the list of travel documents, the intention is for powers to be delegated to the european commission. it will fall to the commission to confirm whether a given document is recognised for the purpose of crossing borders. what we have before us is a proposal that is not lacking in contradictions. on the one hand, it could facilitate verification of a given travel document by border control authorities. on the other, however, the proposal is to centralise, and it gives the commission too many powers in this area, which could be at the expense of the member states' rights relating to aspects important to their sovereignty. this report concerns a proposal for a decision on the list of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa, as well as the establishment of a mechanism for compiling this list. however, under the pretext of ensuring uniform conditions for compiling and updating the list of travel documents, the intention is for powers to be delegated to the commission. it will fall to the commission to confirm whether a given document is recognised for the purpose of crossing borders. what we have before us, then, is a proposal containing contradictory elements. on the one hand, it could facilitate verification of a given travel document by border control authorities. on the other, however, it gives the european commission too many powers in this area, which could be at the expense of the member states' rights relating to aspects important to their sovereignty. in accordance with the convention of 14 june 1985 implementing the schengen agreement, a manual was drawn up listing the travel documents which entitled the holder to cross external borders and to which a visa might be affixed. these decisions, however, apply to the period of schengen cooperation at the intergovernmental level, and they must be adapted to the current interinstitutional and legal framework of the eu. the list of travel documents has a dual purpose: on the one hand, it allows border guards to check whether a certain travel document is recognised for the purposes of crossing external borders and, on the other, it allows consular officials to check whether the member states recognise a particular travel document for the purposes of affixing the visa sticker. in this context, it seems essential to have a measure ensuring that the list of travel documents is constantly updated, while at the same time ensuring that member states have the fullest possible information available. in the interests of simplicity and effectiveness, member states would be asked to give an opinion on the recognition or non-recognition of these documents. the proposal as such should therefore provide added value as a piece of eu legislation by providing certainty to border guards who have the right to check travel documents on external borders. the list of travel documents should therefore be legally binding, as this would be consistent with the power of member states to recognise travel documents. if there is one thing i cannot be accused of, it would be underestimating the importance of border controls. on the contrary, it is common knowledge that i am campaigning for the total re-establishment of the sovereign rights of member states to determine the conditions for entering and remaining in their territory, and to coordinate compliance with those conditions. however, we are, alas, in the schengen area, and states are supposed to ensure that their own border controls benefit everybody. thus, the proposal for a decision to establish a list of travel documents which may be endorsed with a visa is not, in itself, in this context, absurd. on the other hand, it is absurd, in terms of security and the fight against illegal immigration, to leave the commission to draw up this list and deem documents to be recognised as valid if member states do not state their position on the aforementioned list during a specified period, on the principle that silence implies consent. on the contrary, it should have been presumed that silence automatically implied a refusal to recognise certain documents as legal. we call this an implied refusal, a common notion in public law. this is why i abstained from voting on this report. i welcomed this document because, in accordance with the 1985 convention implementing the schengen agreement, a manual of travel documents has been compiled enabling the crossing of external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa. however, these decisions are out of date and need to be adapted to the eu's current institutional and legal framework. the purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: on the one hand, it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders. on the other hand, it allows consular staff to verify whether member states recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. this decision establishes the list of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa and a mechanism for compiling this list. this decision applies to travel documents such as national passports (ordinary, diplomatic, service/official or special passports), emergency travel documents, refugee or stateless person's travel documents, travel documents issued by international organisations or laissez-passers. this decision does not affect member states' competence for the recognition of travel documents. in writing. - i voted for this report, the purpose of which is to create legal certainty with regard to the list of travel documents. therefore, the rapporteur proposes to clarify the consequences of a failure to notify a member state's position in the given time period. this provision is consistent with the exclusive competence of member states for the recognition of travel documents since they would always have the right to notify that they do not recognise the travel document concerned. during the phase of intergovernmental cooperation on schengen, it was necessary to draw up a list of certain travel documents for crossing external borders between the european union member states. in fact, on the one hand, the list of travel documents allowed border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document was recognised by the schengen borders code and, on the other, it allowed consular staff to verify whether member states considered it necessary to affix the visa sticker. given the current institutional and legal framework, we consider it necessary for the purposes of simplification and efficiency that the list of travel documents be constantly updated and that member states notify their position in relation to the recognition or non-recognition of these documents, thereby ensuring that information in this respect is as complete as possible. we are of the view, finally, that the list of travel documents should be legally binding. the proposed wording dutifully respects the competence of member states to recognise the travel documents, or otherwise, while at the same time guaranteeing legal certainty after the given period, which could indeed be longer than that proposed by the commission. controlling the external borders is essential to the eu's security, so we believe there is a need to rigorously set out a list of travel documents which will enable such control. this list should be common to all the member states, despite recognition of travel documents being one of their exclusive competences. on the one hand, this list should allow border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders, in accordance with the schengen borders code. on the other hand, it should allow consular staff to verify whether member states recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. a mechanism should be established to place an obligation on member states to express their position on the recognition and non-recognition of these documents. in order to guarantee correct information for the public and member states and to make the system efficient, a constantly updated electronic publication containing the list of travel documents should be established. this list of documents should present added value in terms of providing security at border controls and legal certainty concerning the list of travel documents. in writing. - the purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: on the one hand, it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders as set out in article 5(1)(a) of regulation (ec) no 562/2006 of the european parliament and of the council of 15 march 2006 establishing a community code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (schengen borders code). on the other hand, it allows consular staff to verify whether member states recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. the purpose of this decision is to create legal certainty with regard to the list of travel documents. lastly, i would like to address a question to the member states. why do latvia and lithuania not allow people holding italian or french visas to cross their borders? such cases have been known to take place. i voted 'in favour', but the report should be improved. in 1985, as part of the schengen agreement, a list was produced of the travel papers that could be used to cross the external borders. this list is now to be adapted to reflect the institutional and legal changes within the european union. the member states are to be obliged to state their acceptance or non-acceptance of the relevant documents. the list of travel documents in the present report is to become legally binding. i abstained from voting because i am not completely convinced by the proposals in this report. in 1985, within the framework of the schengen agreement, a manual was produced listing the travel papers that could be used to cross the external borders. given that the framework conditions of the eu have changed radically in the meantime, it would seem that some changes would be in order. however, because i am not sure that the means listed in the report are the ideal solution, i have abstained from the vote. i welcomed this resolution, which establishes the list of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa, and a mechanism for compiling this list. to enable border control authorities and consular staff to properly carry out their duties, the manual of travel documents needs to be updated and adapted to the eu's current institutional and legal framework. it is very important for the recognition of travel documents to remain the competence of each member state and this decision should not have any impact in this respect. i believe that the deadline of three months, during which member states must report their position on the recognition of travel documents, is appropriate and sufficient. in order to combat the use of forged personal documents more effectively, the commission should draw up a list of known fantasy and camouflage passports. i voted for this report on the proposal for a decision of the european parliament and of the council on the list of travel documents enabling the crossing of external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa, and on setting up a mechanism for establishing this list. i would congratulate the rapporteur on a well structured report for the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs. it is not possible to harmonise recognition of travel documents as it is an exclusive competence of the member states. however, it must be ensured that the list is continually updated. i also support the creation of a mechanism that ensures the constant updating of the list of travel documents that countries issue, and the introduction of a centralised mechanism for the technical evaluation of these documents. i believe it should be ensured that all the member states will be able to express their position on whether or not they recognise the listed travel documents, since this falls under their exclusive competence. the rules on travel documents authorising their holder to cross the external borders, provided for in the convention implementing the schengen agreement of 14 june 1985, need to be harmonised with the union's new legal framework. the defence of legal certainty should be central to this issue: the member states need to have the facility to check whether such documents meet the requirements for crossing borders, as well as to know whether a given document is recognised in all the member states. it is therefore reasonable to demand a binding list of documents that takes the form of a piece of union legislation. in a very important area for union security, certainty that the law is being applied should be the priority. in writing. - in favour. in accordance with the convention implementing the schengen agreement of 14 june 1985, the decisions sch/com-ex (98) 56 and sch/com-ex (99) 14 concerning the compilation of a manual of travel documents enabling the crossing of external borders which may be endorsed with a visa. however, these decisions go back to the time of intergovernmental cooperation on schengen and need to be adapted to the eu's current institutional and legal framework. the purpose of the list of travel documents is twofold: on the one hand, it allows border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document is recognised for the purpose of crossing the external borders as set out in article 5 (1)(a) of regulation (ec) no 562/2006 of the european parliament and of the council of 15 march 2006 establishing a community code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (schengen borders code); on the other hand, it allows consular staff to verify whether member states recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. i voted in favour of this document because i consider it fundamental to create legal certainty as regards the list of travel documents that entitle the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa. on the one hand, the list of travel documents would allow border control authorities to verify whether a given travel document was recognised for the purpose of crossing external borders while, on the other, it would allow consular staff to verify whether member states recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. i voted in favour of mrs fajon's report because it aims to create security of law in terms of the list of travel documents and, as a result, i consider that the rapporteur's proposal to clarify the consequences of a member state's failure to notify its position in the given time period is absolutely right. this provision must be consistent with the exclusive competence of the member states to recognise travel documents, given that they will always have the right to notify that they do not recognise the travel document in question. given an increasing flow of border crossings, whether by european citizens or citizens of third countries, for the purposes of study, work, family reunion, etc, as the statistics of recent years demonstrate, i consider it timely and ever more fitting that the european union review the implementing regulations as regards the travel documents needed for crossing borders. this text has two strong points: on the one hand, there is the simplification and increased efficiency of procedures taken by the border control authorities that check the acceptability of a given travel document, while, on the other, there is the compilation of a list of travel documents that allows consular staff to verify whether member states recognise or do not recognise a given travel document for the purpose of affixing the visa sticker. i therefore believe that the report on which we have voted today in this chamber, and which i voted in favour of, in itself constitutes a step towards the harmonisation of the recognition of documentation within the european union. in particular, it provides legal certainty and equalises the bureaucratic difficulties concerning the implementation of the free movement of european citizens. the background to this report is the need to bring the decisions under the convention to implement the schengen agreement into line with the modern legal framework of the eu. as the rapporteur rightly explains, the legal provision will only add value if it significantly increases legal certainty in relation to the work of border guards. for this reason, i have voted in favour. i am voting for this proposal as i would stress the importance of broadband in europe as an element of territorial cohesion, which also offers opportunities for geographically remote and isolated regions. digital technologies are essential for territorial cohesion in that they give the european union's most outlying regions a more central role. there is therefore a need to overcome the difficulties that the regions face in the area of technology and services, in terms of availability, quality and prices. i agree that, in addition to the measures intended to help with the supply of broadband networks and other online technologies, it is particularly important to ensure that investment is also channelled into developing applications and programmes for using it infrastructure, which will contribute to improving europeans' lives, to promoting the online provision of public services, and to improving public administration. i voted in favour of this resolution on european broadband: investing in digitally driven growth. in this document, we, the members of the european parliament, state that it is essential to bridge the digital divide and achieve broadband internet access for all across the eu for european added value, especially with regard to remote and rural areas, in order to ensure social and territorial cohesion. the eu-wide provision of fast broadband networks is of vital importance if the objectives of the eu 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive, territorially cohesive economic growth, improving the employment situation, strengthening europe's competitiveness, and facilitating scientific research and innovation. it is crucial for broadband to enable all regions, cities, municipalities and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment, giving them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services. access to efficient broadband networks for all europeans is a crucial element for realising the europe 2020 strategy objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. broadband is essential to the competitiveness of eu industry, as it makes a robust contribution to economic growth and employment, as well as to the participation of all regions and social groups in the eu's digital life. despite the development and improvements recorded in this area, this report, for which i voted, suggests a series of measures for realising european objectives: in particular, it stresses the need for better use of all the complementary technologies available, including mobile telephony and satellites, in order to achieve broadband coverage for rural areas as well as mountainous and island regions. it also asks the commission to urgently table an appropriate proposal for a strategic plan containing a single framework applicable to all aspects of cyber security. finally, it calls for specific measures to be taken to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can fully enjoy the potential of broadband in the fields of e-commerce and e-procurement. today, the internet is a basic tool of work. the number of subscriptions to fixed and mobile broadband internet connections in europe currently stands at 150 million. demand for connections continues to grow systematically. unfortunately, the phenomenon of social digital exclusion is still common, particularly in relation to people on low incomes and people with disabilities. i agree, therefore, with the proposal that the commission and the member states aim to provide broadband internet access to all europeans as quickly as possible, including by the use of financial aid. supporting investments based on broadband technologies and reducing the costs of these technologies, while ensuring fair competition between networks, strengthens the position of small and medium-sized enterprises. by making it possible for them to enjoy the full potential of broadband in the fields of e-commerce and e-procurement, we help increase demand. therefore, i support the appeal to accelerate public procurement operations using online resources and electronic invoicing. i endorsed the report. i voted in favour of this initiative because the provision of fast broadband throughout the eu will help fulfil the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy, thereby driving sustainable, inclusive and cohesive economic growth for the territory, the creation of jobs and powers of competitiveness in europe. at the same time, it will favour research and innovation, so that all regions, cities, municipalities, social groups and people can benefit from them. i voted in favour of the report by mrs tzavela because it emphasises the fundamental role that fast access to the internet can have in economic recovery, as a great aid to innovation and productivity in all sectors of the economy. broadband will enable the development of new sectors, such as e-health, which will contribute to reducing bureaucracy and lead to significant savings. moreover, i join in the rapporteur's call for member states to set national broadband plans and to adopt measures to promote new skills and capabilities for offering ever more innovative services. i voted in favour of mrs tzavela's report. the speed of information transmission, trade and social interconnectivity require efficient policies on technology infrastructures, which are now essential in the everyday lives of our citizens. the eu must rapidly achieve a competitive broadband market capable of facilitating services and creating new jobs and new commercial possibilities at the same time. we must support and carry out investment in the technology sector in order to achieve the ambitious objectives set by the digital agenda and the goals in the europe 2020 strategy for sustainable and inclusive growth, partly through the active involvement of the private sector, which is a fundamental part of that strategy. i agree with the need for member states to adopt common and coordinated policies in the broadband sector and incisive public policies aimed at the widespread diffusion of this fundamental tool even in the more remote areas. by taking the lead in this sector, europe will offer important possibilities for growth, guaranteeing competitiveness, free competition and a greater choice for consumers. i support an expansion of broadband coverage as i believe it will lead to easier communication, particularly for people with reduced mobility or people living in isolation, and it will improve access to services in rural areas, supporting the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. i am therefore disappointed that the funding of eur 1 billion promised in the 2008 european economic recovery plan for 100% broadband coverage by 2010 was not allocated, and that this target was thus not achieved. i have no doubt that broadband services are vital for the competitiveness of eu industry, contributing, to a large extent, to economic growth, social cohesion, job creation and the increased participation of all social groups in digital life in the eu. in my opinion, the successful implementation of the package of measures for a broadband network is of fundamental importance for solving the problem of unemployment in the context of the europe 2020 strategy, particularly among young people. i therefore support the cooperation between the commission and the european investment bank to boost funding for fast and ultra-fast networks, while recognising the need to direct this funding towards open infrastructure projects supporting a diverse range of services. i also support the commission in its effort to review the possibility of new funding sources and innovative financial instruments. i voted for the report because i agree that the eu-wide provision of efficient broadband networks is of vital importance if the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive, and territorially cohesive economic growth; of improving the employment situation; of strengthening europe's competitiveness; and of facilitating scientific research and innovation. this will enable all regions, cities, municipalities and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment and give them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services. i consider it essential for academic and research institutions to have access to broadband infrastructure in order to ensure the free movement of knowledge, to prepare younger generations, and to make the european union competitive. the report calls on the commission and the member states to develop european and national programmes capable of guaranteeing and financing access to broadband infrastructure for all academic and research institutions by 2015. it also considers that by 2015, all european academic and research institutions should be connected by ultra high-speed networks, operating at speeds of gigabytes per second, creating an intranet for the single european research area. in writing. - it is crucially important that europe invests in high quality broadband and maintains our position at the upper ends of the technology and infrastructure markets. for this reason, i supported this vote. i voted for this report because i advocate the extension of high-speed open-access internet to schools, hospitals and other public institutions as a means of improving the quality and accessibility of public services, and of strengthening connectivity in outlying or disadvantaged regions. the digital agenda is a particularly important and relevant aspect of the europe 2020 strategy because of the gains it could represent, not just in terms of innovation and knowledge, but also in terms of benefits brought to consumers and companies, not least small and medium-sized enterprises. given the current difficulties of the member states and of companies in achieving europe 2020 strategy targets on the broadband objectives, and the lack of financial resources, i consider the committee on the internal market and consumer protection's recommendation that money be made available from the structural funds to deploy broadband and increase high-speed internet access opportune, on account of all the benefits that this could bring for consumers and businesses, and because it would increase competitiveness. with a view to realising the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy, and given the strategic importance of the digital agenda for the benefit of the public, of businesses, and of the commitment to innovation and knowledge, universal access to efficient broadband networks is extremely important, not least for global competitiveness, economic growth and employment, involving the participation of all regions and social groups. i am therefore voting for this report, and i would also stress its advocating of investment and competition, so as to avoid distorting the market or creating an undue burden on the companies comprising it. the protection of consumer interests and the promotion of consumer benefits are also amongst the important initiatives proposed. in contrast with this european effort and recognition of the digital agenda's importance, i cannot fail to express my regret at portugal's wasting of funds intended to develop internet and broadband infrastructure in rural areas, and to consolidate operations related to the 'new challenges'. universal access to broadband is an indispensable condition for social development and improving public services. although the report is generally positive and even proposes that 'the member states be urged to implement public policies to support the introduction of new technologies', it should, even so, call for the improvement and the promotion of public services, as a guarantee that all europeans will have access to broadband, thereby enabling its benefits to extend to every section of the population, particularly in the less developed regions of the union. an example would be the outermost regions, whose territories are widely scattered, who still have no access to essential information and communication technology (ict) infrastructure, such as broadband internet, and are therefore being penalised twice over, in addition to the constraints resulting from their remoteness. we would express our concern at excessive trends towards increased security measures for controlling and monitoring the internet under the pretext of cyber terrorism, in which the guarantee of protection of personal data is just another illusion. this threatens people's rights, freedoms and guarantees. by 2020, all europeans should have access to the internet at speeds of over 30 mbps, and at least 50% of households in europe should have internet access at speeds of 100 mbps. this objective forms part of the digital agenda for europe, a priority initiative of the europe 2020 strategy aimed at an intelligent, sustainable and inclusive economy. the digital agenda also confirms the objective outlined by the european council of providing all europeans with basic broadband by 2013. a comprehensive policy must be drawn up for these ambitious objectives, based on a whole range of technologies and careful monitoring of the progress achieved. the objective was outlined of securing a fast and ultra-fast internet because it will play a central role in economic recovery, representing a platform for supporting innovation throughout the economy, as was the case with electricity and transport in the past. the introduction of ultra-fast, open and competitive networks will stimulate a virtuous cycle in the development of a digital economy, making possible the creation and expansion of new broadband-based services, demand for which will increase among citizens, as a result of which there will also be greater demand for broadband. broadband is an innovation that can help us emerge from the crisis. it is an important stimulus for the modernisation of europe. the european union sees it as a priority to enable all sectors of society to benefit from digital technology. the objective that must be supported is that of being able to guarantee that all european citizens receive 100% broadband coverage by 2013. the aim of improving dialogue and giving a stimulus to development is one with which i completely agree. that is why i confirm my vote in favour. in writing. - the provision of high-speed broadband coverage for all by 2013 is an integral part of the european commission's digital agenda strategy. it is critical that the most remote and disadvantaged regions in europe are not ignored by the european commission as they pursue this objective. the european commission must ensure that all member states reach this important target, which is vital for growth and jobs. i welcomed this document because the eu-wide provision of fast broadband networks is of vital importance if the objectives of the eu 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive, territorially cohesive economic growth, improving the employment situation, strengthening europe's competitiveness, facilitating scientific research and innovation and thereby enabling all regions, cities, municipalities and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment and giving them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services. in writing. - the european union should invest more in the creation of a common broadband area in order to clear obstacles to free movement in the european area. the european union should be an example for the world in terms of digital development. one of the main problems in this area for the citizens of the union is pricing, especially the lack of harmonisation in pricing on the territory of the european union. a citizen should know that the price of using broadband services in different member countries is always the same, just like with mobile phone calls. in writing. - i voted for this resolution, which asks the commission, in order to create a coherent, consistent and effective eu structure marshalling all resources, to urgently present an appropriate proposal for a strategic plan containing a single framework for all aspects of eu cyber security, to ensure full protection and resilience of network and critical information infrastructures, including minimum safety standards and certifications, a common terminology, cyber incident management and a road map on cyber security. it takes the view that such a plan should define the contributions required from each actor, including the commission, member states, enisa, europol, eurojust, eu and national computer emergency response teams and other relevant eu and national bodies and authorities, as well as the private sector, and also address the eu's role and representation internationally. although all member states have a national broadband strategy, only a few have fully-fledged operational plans which include the targets laid out in the europe 2020 strategy, namely: ensuring non-discrimination, promoting available technologies and preventing measures placing unfair burdens on consumers and business. we believe broadband services are essential for the competitiveness of the economy and are a prerequisite if all regions and social groups are to participate in digital life in the european union. we therefore call on the member states to open up network competition fully and to avoid both subsidies that distort the market and the emergence and abuse of dominant market positions. they must promote and extend high-speed open-access connectivity to important public infrastructure located in remote areas as a means of improving public services. in conclusion, we believe that the european union should increase research investment in both fixed and mobile future communication technologies and develop joint technology initiatives in these areas, involving universities, research institutes, device manufacturers and service and content providers. the increasing growth in information technologies must be accompanied by significant investment in developing european broadband. as such, the eu-wide provision of efficient broadband networks is of vital importance if the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive, and territorially cohesive economic growth; of improving the employment situation; of strengthening europe's competitiveness; and of facilitating scientific research and innovation. this will enable all regions, cities, municipalities and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment, and will give them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services. in order for broadband to reach everyone, therefore, it is important to continue investing in this area. in writing. - taking into account the inequality of the broadband market throughout europe and the disappointing absorption capacity in this area, mrs tzavela pointed out that 'basic broadband' of at least 2 mbps by 2013 in all 27 member states, including 100% coverage, is a realistic goal. the ultimate goal for 2020 is 30 mbps with 100% european coverage, and for 50% or more of european households to have subscriptions above 100 mbps. another important point of this paper includes providing incentives to investors for rural and remote areas, as well as islands. furthermore, while fibre optics will be the main platform capable of providing 100 mbps, the document welcomes and promotes the use of complementary technologies such as fixed and mobile wireless, as well as satellite. unfortunately, the rapporteur is lobbying only one direction - the internet. providers are interested in that. such a project is necessary, but with some stipulations and red lines. in case of european investments, radio, tv and the press will lose the ability to compete, and that will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and bankruptcies within the mass media. therefore, during the transitional period, the eu should draft a plan of investments in traditional mass media, prohibit use of the internet for piracy and prevent dishonest competition. i abstained. in these times of great mobility and freedom of movement, it is essential that people should be offered unlimited access to 'new' communications media, such as e-mail. fast internet connections are vital for a wide variety of enterprises that communicate solely via the web and also use the technology for networking purposes. however, this is not just a big market for users; investors and businesses also have an interest in the expansion of broadband development because this will create a broad, commercially rewarding field. the european union is pursuing an ambitious target to become the world market leader in this area. i have abstained because the report does not go into sufficient detail about how the measures are to be funded. now, in the second decade of the 21st century, people are becoming increasingly mobile, not least because of the free movement of persons. in a highly developed information society, it is vital, in view of such developments, that we invest in infrastructure, in particular, in information technology. the european union has set itself the ambitious target of becoming the world leader in the area of broadband availability. i have abstained because the report does not go into sufficient detail about how the measures are to be funded. i voted in favour of this resolution because eu-wide provision of fast broadband networks is essential. furthermore, it is very important for there to be sufficient investment in digitally driven growth. the commission and the member states must develop european and national programmes to facilitate and provide funding so that all eu citizens have access to broadband speeds of not less than 30mbps, and all teaching and research institutions have access to broadband infrastructure by 2015. the implementation of these measures would contribute to smart, sustainable, inclusive and territorially cohesive economic growth. we must make every effort to establish eu global leadership in information and communication technology (ict) infrastructure. i voted in favour of the own-initiative report on european broadband networks. the report sets the political signal for the action needed at national level in order to support investments in broadband networks. this report is even more valuable for countries with terrain like greece, where many areas are geographically isolated. that is because the development of broadband networks may mitigate any isolation or remoteness. the digital agenda is one of the pillars of the europe 2020 strategy. achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth for the european union nowadays is linked to access to efficient broadband networks for all europeans. this report, for which i voted, suggests a series of measures for realising european objectives, and particularly stresses the need for better use of all the complementary technologies available, including mobile telephony and satellites, so as to achieve broadband coverage for rural areas, as well as mountainous and island regions. given the purpose of this report and the benefits for all europeans, particularly consumers and businesses, and in terms of strengthening competitiveness, i consider the committee on the internal market and consumer protection's recommendation that money be made available from the structural funds to deploy broadband and increase high-speed internet access extremely important. in writing. - i welcome this report on broadband in europe, as widespread coverage of high-quality, high-speed broadband networks across the eu is essential to build up europe's competitiveness, research and innovation potential and to foster social and territorial cohesion. broadband underpins new information and communication technologies, such as cloud computing or the internet of things, which will help determine the future of industrial innovation. we need consistent research investment in fixed and mobile icts in europe. the european territory should be fully covered by 2013 and, in order to ensure that the digital agenda target of universal access at speeds of no less than 30 mbps by 2020 is met, intermediate benchmarks should be set for earlier dates. the radio spectrum has to be managed in such a way as to allow low frequency bands to provide wide wireless coverage in rural areas, islands and mountains. those with reduced mobility, disabilities and those living and doing business in isolated areas would enjoy new opportunities which only a combination of public and private investment strategies can bring about. the digital agenda has immense potential for growth, enhanced productivity and inclusion, as well as more integrated information in fields such as education, health and public administration. i fully support this report by mrs tzavela. the development of broadband can, in fact, be useful for economic recovery, for the support that it guarantees to innovation and the possibility of making transactions faster and simpler. the implementation of high-speed broadband networks in europe is extremely important for the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy. the development of broadband is particularly important for disadvantaged regions, such as mountainous areas, in which new technology can support the creation and facilitate the activities of new small and medium-sized enterprises, leading to the possibility of creating new jobs. in order for the eu to establish itself as a genuine knowledge economy, it needs to be equipped with technical structures that support the economy's online development. broadband represents one of the great opportunities for the various member states in the coming period: it is a case of adopting a network that covers the entire union - an area unparalleled at global level - which has undeniable advantages for businesses, for the public and for technological development. the most pressing challenge is therefore to successfully establish a structure of this nature that is universal or almost universal, whilst, at the same time, providing the necessary conditions for the eu's various actors to make full use of it. this must be done in a way that respects the union's legal framework, specifically with regard to equitable distribution of costs and benefits, to consumer protection, and to ensuring free competition in the market. in today's plenary session of parliament in strasbourg, we voted on the report on european broadband: investing in digitally driven growth. the eu-wide provision of fast broadband networks is important if the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart and sustainable economic growth, improving the employment situation, strengthening europe's competitiveness, facilitating scientific research and innovation and thereby enabling all regions and sectors of society to benefit from digital technology and giving them the opportunity to exploit new digital technologies for public services. to that effect, mrs tzavela's report emphasises that europe should achieve a competitive market for broadband infrastructure and services in order to facilitate investment. the report insists on the importance of using all technologies at our disposal for improving access to broadband, including in more remote areas. all this will boost innovation, competitiveness and consumer choice. in writing. - the provision of broadband and high-speed broadband for all citizens by 2020 is a key criterion in securing the future growth and competitiveness of our economy. the internet and ict services account for 55% of all productivity growth; they generate new business opportunities and expand the field for existing businesses and promote social inclusion and cohesion. but we are still a long way from this. it demands strong political decisions, a leap in investment levels and innovation. it will not be easy. we need to show the political will, which is what we have done today. secondly, we need to take some tough political decisions that allow the development of the different technologies. we need them all: copper, fibre, cable, satellite and mobile. we need to stay technology-neutral and let the market decide. but we also need to create the framework conditions that give each of these technologies a level playing field. the goal is set - now let us get to work. in writing. - in favour. very comprehensive (maybe overly so: it counts 77 paragraphs and it covers all aspects and all technologies) - even the impact of wireless technologies on health is included in para. 65. supports the commission - the core issue is the funding of the ngas (suggest an eu broadband deployment act to coordinate all the funds; funds can be equity funds, structural and cohesion funds, regional funds, state and private investments, eib), see part 3 'incentivising investment and competition'. sets ambitious targets for broadband coverage: 100% coverage delivered to all europeans by 2013 - at least 2 mbps in rural areas and much higher speed in other areas (para. 4) - note that the target in eu 2020 is 30 megabits by 2020. public funds are mentioned: broadband state aid framework, the nga recommendation, and the public sector investments (para. h); the balance between private and public investments is well covered. the issue of net neutrality is included in para. 53. for information, stakeholders involved in the discussions include etno members (in particular, at&t), ecta, beuc, and ses. i voted in favour of this report because i believe that the development of a proper european digital infrastructure is an essential ingredient of economic development and the recovery of our businesses. achieving digital connectivity at a rate of at least 2mbps for all european citizens by 2013 would bring advantages in all main social and economic sectors, with positive implications for small and medium-sized enterprises, e-government, e-health and e-learning. in order to realise the objectives of the digital agenda, we need to continue on the road we have already taken, increasing competition in the sector and proceeding with policies to counter the digital divide between central and outlying areas. i am in favour of this report on european broadband, which sets out the objective of guaranteeing that all european citizens receive 100% broadband coverage by 2013. the eu-wide provision of fast broadband networks is of fundamental importance if the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy are to be achieved in terms of promoting smart, sustainable, inclusive and territorially cohesive growth, improving the employment situation and strengthening europe's competitiveness. achieving fast services is also fundamental for research institutes in order to guarantee the free circulation of knowledge, while improving the level of service to remote areas as well. the development of new information technologies represents an excellent opportunity to improve communication between citizens and eu institutions. i voted in favour of mrs tzavela's report because i consider that it is comprehensive and balanced and that the objectives it sets are realistic and respond to the needs of the modern digital society. the report states, among other things, that the objective must be to establish eu global leadership in ict infrastructure and that 100% coverage must be delivered to all europeans, giving at least 2 mbps service to all users in rural areas. attaining these objectives is crucial to promoting growth, competitiveness and social cohesion in the eu. to promote innovation, business development, the civil growth of european society and freedom of consumer choice, it is necessary to introduce broadband infrastructure, and especially in the most remote areas which often see the highest levels of failure to invest in digital technology. the information issued by the director of the directorate-general for regional policy, rudolf niessler, during the 'every european digital' event, is not comforting in this regard: only 418 million, of a total of 2.3 billion earmarked to promote the spread of broadband in eu countries, has actually been used. these funds have not, though, been channelled in the right way. this is because, sometimes, projects are unconvincing for investors or they go against the priorities of individual states, whose governments are obliged to make economic savings, at the expense of a broad common view of the future, as the eu hopes. the percentage of homes connected to broadband in italy is less than 50%, compared with a european average of 61%. however, without broadband, italy, like other countries, risks soon being relegated to the second division compared with other countries where extensive use has been made of earmarked funds and it is the level of investments and competitiveness that will lose out. the main strategic aim of the europe 2020 strategy is to turn the eu into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. the digital agenda is one of the seven flagship initiatives of the europe 2020 strategy, and it presents ambitious and specific objectives for the period of time in question. i am voting for this report because i am in favour of creating a mutually supportive system aimed at increasing investment and innovation as a means of developing better communication technologies and giving even more users access to terrestrial fixed and mobile networks. at a time when data traffic is increasing exponentially, there is an urgent need to work alongside the european network and information security agency (enisa), the european police office (europol), eurojust and the full range of competent bodies and authorities, as well as with private sector bodies, to commit to boosting information and communication technology infrastructure, to increasing the efficiency and rapid implementation of new-generation networks, to sharing best practices, and to promoting a strategic plan that safeguards aspects of cyber security in the eu. i would also argue that the individuality of rural areas, of mountainous and island regions, and of the outermost regions, should be safeguarded, as broadband will contribute decisively to reducing regional asymmetries and will strengthen territorial cohesion. in writing. - this report outlines the eu's intention to provide fast broadband to homes and businesses across the eu. broadband is of vital importance if the objectives of the eu 2020 strategy are to be achieved and if we are to contribute to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. the eu's objectives should include enabling all regions and sectors of society to benefit from the digital environment, and this report - along with its complementary initiatives - takes important steps to achieving this. i abstained from voting on this report on the development of broadband in the union which, while containing many references to competition and liberalisation of high-speed broadband services (a sector which is already too liberalised), also contains a number of positive proposals. among these was the commitment to provide the largest possible number of citizens with 100% broadband coverage by 2013 by strengthening public investment in infrastructure. this is indispensable, particularly for citizens living in isolated conditions. it is to be done while maintaining high-quality access and at affordable prices for users. we can also note the proposal to ensure open-access connectivity to public infrastructure in order to guarantee the free movement of knowledge and to enhance online public services, the intention to guarantee net neutrality, the use of open standards, data protection and respect for citizens' private lives, and, finally, the need to combat the digital divide, paying particular attention to the most vulnerable populations, such as people with disabilities, immigrants or people on low incomes. once again, we expect to see actions that go beyond words. at a time when social networking has become daily reality for most europeans, 30% have never been able to use the internet. our house's vote rightly aims to put an end to this digital divide. the objective is to achieve 100% broadband coverage by 2013 across the whole of european territory. this strategy is all the more important because the internet now shapes the whole of society. successfully executing this plan would address multiple objectives, such as social cohesion, tackling unemployment, the right to information and the right to access culture. initially conceived as a network created for use by soldiers, this tool has increased tenfold the efficiency and economies of scale of our businesses and thus become a vector for economic growth that cannot be ignored. this is a competitive advantage which we must use more and more, as us businesses do. in order to transform this strategy into smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, it is imperative that we agree to appropriate investment and put in place a legal framework for cyber security (tackling online crime, personal data protection) and the fair remuneration of all internet providers. i endorsed the report. i think that development and investment in the field of broadband technology can have considerable significance for accomplishment of the competitiveness strategy which is part of the europe 2020 initiative. the need to increase access to fast internet, as well as to increase its mobility and capacity, are key issues for around 500 million european consumers. this is an exceptional number on a world scale, and it includes users of all types: consumers, businesses, administrative authorities and public benefit organisations, which reap the benefits of the internet both in professional and in private life. it should be remembered that rapid deployment of broadband networks is essential to boost innovation and eu efficiency and to stimulate new small and medium-sized enterprises and job creation in the eu. the benefits of the roll-out of infrastructure in this area have a very positive impact in the context of increasing access to education, and particularly to distance learning in the outermost areas. i think there is a need for publications on investing in broadband networks, particularly for public-private partnerships and local and regional authorities, in order to ensure the best grassroots use of eu resources allocated for this purpose. further development can also be a great opportunity for projects which promote dialogue between the citizens and the institutions of the european union. the european union's digital agenda involves some extremely ambitious objectives. i can see the value added by the implementation of these objectives - particularly in relation to future job opportunities and new working arrangements, as well as territorial cohesion. i voted in favour of the report presented by mrs tzavela. europe's future competitiveness is also linked to the development of broadband infrastructure: it is therefore important to use all the technologies at our disposal to improve access to broadband, including in the most remote and least accessible areas. i feel that, as well as promoting innovation, broadband development will improve the choices of european consumers and, i believe, it will facilitate investments in our continent. in writing. - (fr) in may 2009, the european commission launched an evaluation of the 1995 data protection directive. by the end of the year, it must present a legislative proposal to amend that directive, while also adapting other legal instruments into a new general framework for data protection. the last 15 years have been marked by the internet revolution and, more globally, by the increasing use of new technologies. this has resulted in the collection and processing of personal data on an unprecedented scale, reinforced by the globalisation of exchanges. this report underlines some important elements of the future reform: enhancing the right to information; improving data transfer, particularly in the case of police and judicial cooperation; and harmonising the status and powers of national authorities responsible for data protection. as a fervent defender of the 'right to be forgotten' and making online transactions more secure, i voted in favour of this report. i am voting for this report. the increased exchanging of personal data is vitally important, as are the new technological developments leading to the increased collection, storage and use of these personal data. there is a need to include a wide-ranging reform of the eu framework for legislation on this matter in the review of directive 95/46/ec on the protection of personal data, establishing rules regarding data collection that are more rigorous, not least by informing people why their data will be collected and used, by whom and for how long. the effects of increased security in personal data protection could have positive economic consequences, given that individuals do not feel as secure buying online as they do offline because of fears of identity theft and of the lack of transparency in how their data will be processed and used. i voted in favour of this resolution on a comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the european union. it is an important document in which the european parliament speaks in favour of strengthening existing arrangements in the area of personal data protection, putting forward new principles and mechanisms and ensuring coherence and high standards of data protection under the now binding charter of fundamental rights, particularly article 8. it is important for each individual to know at any time what data has been stored, by whom, when, for what purpose and for what period of time, and how it is being processed, and to be able to have data deleted, corrected or blocked in an unbureaucratic way and to be informed of any misuse of data or data breach. i agree with the rapporteur that there is a particular need to protect children and minors, in light, inter alia, of increased access for children to the internet and digital content. media literacy must become part of formal education with a view to teaching children and minors how to act responsibly in the online environment. i voted in favour of this initiative because of the content described in the title, that of full commitment to a global focus on protection of personal data in the eu, together with the strengthening of provisions already in force, such as directive 95/46/ec, the new principles and mechanisms that establish that it is possible to have more coherent and stronger rules in terms of protection of data in the new situation following the treaty of lisbon and the charter of fundamental rights. in short, it will strengthen the guarantee of fundamental rights of european citizens. i voted in favour of this report because violations of data protection provisions can seriously threaten the fundamental rights of individuals and the values of the member states. therefore, the european union and the member states must take effective measures against such violations. furthermore, such violations lead to a lack of trust on the part of individuals that will weaken expedient use of new technologies, and misuse and abuse of personal data should therefore be punishable by appropriate, severe and dissuasive sanctions, including criminal sanctions. the european commission should introduce a system of mandatory personal data breach notifications and extend it to sectors other than the telecommunications sector, while ensuring that it does not become a routine alert for all sorts of breaches, but relates mainly to those that may impact negatively on the individual. we must also ensure that all breaches, without exception, are logged and at the disposal of data protection or other appropriate authorities for inspection and evaluation, thus ensuring a level playing field and uniform protection for all individuals. it is very important to understand the need to provide for specific forms of protection for vulnerable persons, especially children, above all, by requiring a high level of data protection to be used as the default setting and by taking appropriate specific measures to protect their personal data. i am firmly convinced that the right to privacy is one of the guiding principles of democracy. ongoing technological development can jeopardise this right and that is why i believe that we should mould the old rules, even if they are still essentially relevant, to the new requirements. mr voss's report, which i endorsed by voting in favour, highlights the changes to be made so that every european citizen can be guaranteed, even where this involves relations with citizens of third countries, the requirement of privacy to be safeguarded as a guarantee of our freedom. i also agree with what is set out in the document, namely, that rules should be issued with a high level of protection of sensitive data which strike a fair balance between the right to privacy and the right to information and to expression, and lastly, rules that do not unnecessarily hinder everyday processing of these data. this means that, in general terms, sensitive data must remain secret, except where it is the data subject himself who is interested in derogating, by express consent, from this rule. in writing. - i have voted against the creation of the new eu tool which would create a harmonised system of data protection legislation. it represents yet another approach towards creation of one-size-fits-all eu-wide legislation. i cannot support any calls to harmonise member states' legislation, especially in the area of the protection of the citizens, when each country should have sovereignty over all of the competences involved. i voted for the report because i believe the collection, analysis, exchange and misuse of data, and the risk of 'profiling', stimulated by technical developments, have reached unprecedented dimensions. there is therefore a need for strong data protection rules, such as applicable law and the setting out of the responsibilities of all interested parties in terms of the implementation of eu data protection legislation, taking into account that loyalty cards - club cards, discount cards, advantage cards, etc. - are being used increasingly frequently by companies and in commerce, and are, or can be, used for customer profiling. in writing. - personal data is a crucial area and one which must be scrutinised closely. while security concerns exist, the privacy of european citizens is also of paramount importance and it is important that both the european parliament and european commission keep this in mind at all times. the fundamental principles of the data protection directive remain valid, despite being more than 15 years old, because they enshrine two key aspects of european integration: the protection of people's fundamental rights and freedoms, and the realisation of the internal market and the free movement of personal data. they need to be revised in order to respond to the new challenges faced by personal data protection as a result of globalisation and technological change, in particular, encouraging the collection, analysis, exchange and misuse of data, and the risk of profiling. the implementation of this directive and its application has been approached differently in each member state, while each national control authority has been given a different status, and different resources and powers. it is crucial to equip the eu with a comprehensive, coherent, modern, high-level framework that is able to protect effectively individuals' fundamental rights, in particular, the right to privacy, inside and outside the eu, and to guarantee greater legal certainty and a level playing field for economic operators, to increase public confidence and to boost the digital single market. i am voting for the initiative and await the commission's tabling of the necessary legislative initiatives on the basis of the additional means provided for in the treaty of lisbon. i voted for the motion for a resolution on a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the european union. the eu must equip itself, after carrying out a thorough impact assessment, with a comprehensive, coherent, modern, high-level framework capable of protecting individuals' fundamental rights effectively, in particular, their right to privacy with regard to the processing of personal data, in order to be able to face the numerous challenges presented by globalisation, technological development, increased online activity and the fight against terrorism. such a data protection framework can increase legal certainty, keep the administrative burden to a minimum, provide a level playing field for all economic operators, boost the digital single market and instil trust in the behaviour of data controllers and law enforcement authorities. the right to protection of personal data is recognised by the treaty on the functioning of the european union and by the charter of fundamental rights of the european union. at the start of november 2010, the european commission published its communication 'a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the european union' with a view to revising the data protection directive. the european parliament, which wants to take part in this debate and influence the revision of the data protection directive, has drafted a report. this document, which was voted for almost unanimously in the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, reflects my concerns. i believe that citizens should be able to have control of their information, and to access, modify and delete their data. in my view, these are the essential rights which should be guaranteed in our digital society. each citizen must have the 'right to be forgotten'. fifteen years after the adoption of this directive, it is essential to acknowledge that the speed of technological development and globalisation have significantly altered the world and given rise to new challenges regarding data protection. at the same time, the multiplication of means and methods of data collection are constantly challenging the capacity for controlling and monitoring, both of the subjects of the data collected, and of the authorities responsible for their legality, and for defending personal identity and privacy. the fact that a significant proportion of the communication undertaken by many citizens of the member states is already carried out using the internet is an illustrative example of the importance and sensitivity of this issue. i believe the union cannot neglect its responsibilities in this area, and should ensure the maximum transparency of proceedings and guarantee subjects the greatest possible access to and control of their data. i also think it should incessantly strive to prevent the endangerment of the public's rights, freedoms and guarantees, whilst also ensuring that companies are not disproportionately burdened with bureaucracy and excessive obligations. globalisation and technological development have brought the european union new challenges in terms of protecting personal data in its territory, and it has even been said that they have encouraged the collection, analysis, exchange and misuse of data, while exacerbating the risk of profiling. as it recognises the value of the fundamental principle of data protection, which remains absolutely valid, this issue is very important to european integration and merits the attention of the member states and the commission towards making legislation, standards and interventions uniform, by eliminating the member states' different approaches to its implementation and application. i also support this report's call for the eu to be able to equip itself with a comprehensive, coherent, modern, high-level framework that is able to effectively protect individuals' fundamental rights, in particular, the right to privacy, with regard to any processing of personal data of individuals. the report tackles the issue of personal data protection in the eu. in our opinion, the comprehensive approach of this report results in a series of risks to people's fundamental rights. the rapporteur himself acknowledges that the rights, freedoms and guarantees of individuals risk being violated and attacked, resulting from the danger that data will be improperly used by the member states themselves or by other entities, specifically private ones. however, at the same time as acknowledging this, the report ends up providing for the use of data whenever necessary, giving a vague and unclear idea of its true objectives. the lack of adequate protection of personal data, the possibility that these data will be misused, and the way such services are transferred or even coordinated, are the reasons for our vote against. in the name of security, we do not accept the violation of the fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees of individuals. we believe this report on the comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the european union involves risks to people's fundamental rights. it is true that the rapporteur acknowledges that the freedoms and guarantees of individuals risk being violated and attacked, resulting from the danger that data will be improperly used by the member state itself or by other entities, specifically private ones. however, the report itself simultaneously provides for the use of data whenever necessary, giving a vague and unclear idea of its true objectives. as such, we voted against this report because we believe greater attention needs to be given to the protection of personal data, to its improper use, and to how such services are transferred or even coordinated. in the name of security, we do not accept the violation of the fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees of individuals. the world around us has been completely transformed by the rapid development of technology and globalisation, and new challenges have appeared in the area of personal data protection. technology today enables individuals to share information about what they do and about their likes and dislikes, and enables them to publish this and make it globally accessible on a scale never seen before. social networking websites are the most prominent example, with hundreds of millions of members all around the world. a recent study confirmed that data protection bodies, business federations and organisations representing consumers all agree that online activities entail increased risks from the perspective of protecting privacy and personal data. at the same time, the methods for collecting personal data are more sophisticated and perhaps more difficult to detect. it is therefore right to ask whether existing eu legislation in the area of data protection is still capable of responding fully and effectively to potential threats. despite the existence of the eu's common legal framework on data protection, the insufficient harmonisation of member state legislation is one of the main continuing fears of the parties concerned. i firmly believe that the eu should draw up a complex and coherent approach, ensuring full compliance with the basic right of individuals to the protection of data, both inside and outside the eu. in writing. - in the age of the internet, the question of the protection of personal data is one of the most crucial. consumers expect to know who is using their data and how, and sometimes wish to enjoy 'the right to be forgotten' if they do not allow companies to take advantage of their personal data. this is the purpose of the commission's communication on a 'comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the eu', which was followed by an own-initiative report in parliament. the commission is proposing to revise current legislation on data protection and adjust it to the fast-moving technological and globalised environment created by the use of the internet. against this background, the voss report identifies challenges in the commission revision and calls for the establishment of a harmonised law on data protection that consolidates the diverse rules across the member states. another scoop of this report relates to the geographical coverage on the data protection legislation. accordingly, european companies who operate within and outside europe, as well as international companies who process european citizens' data, will apply european data protection law. i believe the voss report is a desirable step in guaranteeing further protection of the personal data of eu citizens. therefore, i voted in favour of it. european citizens having access to their data; the right to information on how our data are used; explicit consent to the processing of our data; the right of modification; the right of erasure; the 'right to be forgotten'; blocking data, and so on: these are the guarantees to which every citizen has the right under the framework for personal data protection and which the european union must respect and, furthermore, promote and protect. improving data transfer; harmonising the status and powers of national authorities responsible for data protection; making online transactions more secure; protecting vulnerable individuals, and particularly minors, on the internet and networks; raising awareness among citizens and young people of data protection issues; severe european sanctions in cases of abuse of data, and so on: these are the elements, measures and clear rules that the european union must put in place and encourage in order to guarantee these rights to citizens. therefore, i supported this report which responds to my concerns and contains a strong message for the european commission in its work to revise the 1995 data protection directive which must now be updated in the face of the spread of new technologies and the globalisation of data exchanges. i supported sending a strong message to the european commission in view of the revision of the data protection directive. several points are particularly important for me. firstly, there is the protection of vulnerable persons, particularly minors, who are surfing the web in ever-growing numbers, especially on social networks, where they can easily divulge their personal data. in the face of this, we demand that young people are made aware that responsible behaviour is indispensable. furthermore, i strongly support the right of citizens to easily delete, correct or block their data, and to be informed of any possible misuse or errors in terms of data protection. this would seem obvious; however, there are obstacles and they must be removed. finally, the forthcoming legislation must provide for severe european sanctions in the case of misuse of data and thereby reassure consumers by guaranteeing that they need not be afraid of shopping online. the new threats to the protection of personal data brought about by technological developments must receive an appropriate response from the european union. for example, i refer to the widespread use of social networks such as facebook and twitter, which involve creating real digital profiles containing personal information that requires protection that, so far, is not adequately guaranteed. i therefore fully support mr voss's report in that it seeks to guarantee a uniform level of protection for individuals, as well as to reinforce principles such as transparency, purpose limitation and informed, prior and explicit consent. data subjects must be able to have data deleted, corrected or blocked and must be informed of any misuse of data, without underestimating very important aspects such as the need to provide specific protection for minors. for these reasons, in the firm belief that the european parliament has moved in the right direction to guarantee citizens a suitable level of protection, i fully support actions such as the introduction of the principle of accountability by means of the mandatory appointment of data protection officers and the application of severe and dissuasive sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for misuse and abuse of personal data. i supported this document because the european parliament strongly welcomes and supports the commission communication entitled 'a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the european union' and its focus on strengthening existing arrangements, putting forward new principles and mechanisms and ensuring coherence and high standards of data protection in the new setting offered by the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon. the standards and principles set out in directive 95/46/ec represent an ideal starting point and should be further elaborated, extended and enforced. the european parliament recognises that technological developments have, on the one hand, created new threats to the protection of personal data and, on the other, led to a vast increase in the use of information technologies for everyday and normally harmless purposes, and that these developments mean that a thorough evaluation of the current data protection rules is required in order to ensure that the rules still provide a high level of protection, that they still strike a fair balance between the right to protection of personal data and the right to freedom of speech and information, and that they do not unnecessarily hinder everyday processing of personal data, which is typically harmless. this motion for a european parliament resolution on a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the european union is important as data protection in the eu is guaranteed as a fundamental human right by article 8 of the charter of fundamental rights of the european union. a comprehensive approach on data protection is also required due to the technological advances which have created new threats to the protection of personal data and led to a vast increase in the use of information technologies for normal, everyday purposes. this means that full harmonisation is required at the highest level, which will guarantee legal certainty and a uniform, high level of personal protection in all circumstances. last but not least, this motion for a resolution provides further clarification of the rules on the applicable legislation with a view to delivering a uniform degree of personal protection, irrespective of the data controller's geographical location, including enforcement of data protection rules by authorities or in courts. in writing. - i voted for this resolution, which calls on the commission to streamline and strengthen current procedures for international data transfers - legally binding agreements and binding corporate rules - and to define the ambitious core eu data protection aspects to be used in international agreements; it stresses that the provisions of eu personal data protection agreements with third countries should give european citizens the same level of personal data protection as that provided within the european union. the rapid pace of technological development in the global information society calls for comprehensive and coherent rules on data protection. the current lack of harmonisation between member states' national laws calls for the adoption of a comprehensive legal instrument at european level. every citizen must have the right not only to be fully informed about processed data about them, including its source and recipients, but also to receive intelligible information about the logic involved in any automatic processing of that data. we therefore support the need to introduce a general principle of transparency for the processing of personal data, to provide specific forms of protection for vulnerable persons and to maintain the derogations allowed for certain journalistic purposes in order to safeguard freedom of the press. lastly, we call on the european commission to consider how a personal data breach notification requirement might be established on a general basis (such a requirement at present applies to the telecommunications sector only), to establish a personal data breach notification system along the lines of that introduced by the eprivacy directive, and to provide for a special restrictive regime for 'sensitive data', which will consequently require a clear definition of this category of data. the data protection directive (1995/46/ec) remains valid. however, it has not been applied consistently by all the member states. the eu must therefore equip itself - after a thorough impact assessment - with a comprehensive, coherent, modern, high-level framework that is able to effectively protect the fundamental rights of citizens, in particular privacy, with regard to any processing of personal data of individuals within and beyond the eu in all circumstances, in order to face the numerous challenges facing data protection, such as those caused by globalisation, technological development, enhanced online activity, uses related to more and more activities, and security concerns like the fight against terrorism. i am convinced a data protection framework like the one that has just been passed can increase legal certainty, keep the administrative burden to a minimum, provide a level playing field for economic operators, boost the digital single market and encourage trust in data controllers and enforcement authorities. in the digital age, technology allows us to create, store and send enormous quantities of data. it is an illusion to think we could stop this technological revolution. that being the case, the risk of a violation of data protection provisions is very real and could pose serious risks to individuals' fundamental rights. first, it is essential to educate and raise awareness among citizens, particularly young people, about intelligent use of these technologies. the emphasis should be on reinforcing existing measures and we should engage in a comprehensive approach. we must consolidate and further reinforce the high level of protection for data subjects and specifically protect vulnerable persons, in particular, children. we must also ensure that we improve the means of exercising, and awareness of, the rights of access, of rectification, of erasure and blocking of data, so that citizens are able to exercise their rights. nonetheless, we must underline that the data protection regime, without hindering the protection of private life and data, must keep administrative and financial costs to a minimum, particularly for smes. it is vital that individual civil liberties should be effectively protected, particularly in the private sphere, when it comes to the processing of personal data both within the eu and beyond. the tendencies arising as a result of globalisation, technological advancement, increased online activity and infringements of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror are all highly alarming developments. when it comes to data protection, the eu talks about the need to increase legal certainty, reduce administrative effort, and so on. the questionable developments in the context of the agreement on passenger data with the united states and the plans to gather data on internal european flights have not been considered at all. an opportunity for clarity has been missed here. for this reason, i have abstained from voting on this report. there is no doubt that the fundamental civil liberties of the individual are among the most valuable assets in a developed society. the tendencies arising from globalisation, technological advancement, increased online activity and infringements of civil liberties in the name of the war on terror are all highly alarming developments. it is therefore right to examine whether the legal provisions in this area are sufficient to protect civil liberties. unfortunately, this report fails to condemn the future plans to collect data on internal european flights. for that reason, i have abstained from voting. protection of personal data is one of the human rights to private life, anchored in the european convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. attention should be drawn to the fact that technological developments are creating new threats to the protection of personal data. we must make every effort to ensure the highest level of data protection and successfully implement the right to protection of personal data. furthermore, the revised data protection regime should keep bureaucratic and financial burdens to a minimum. we need to reinforce data controllers' obligations, with regard to provisions on information about data subjects, in order to ensure compliance with the requirements of data protection legislation. we also need more stringent regulation of the processing of sensitive data and reinforced guarantees on the processing of such data. i voted in favour of the report on a comprehensive approach to personal data protection in the european union. data protection legislation at european level needs to be revised in order to cover the new demands created by the rapid development of technology. luckily, this initiative was approved - albeit belatedly - by the european parliament in order to pave the way for a uniform approach to issues raised in the past, such as the swift agreement on financial data transmitted from the eu to the usa in a bid to combat funding for terrorism and pnr agreements on exchanges of passenger data. in may 2009, the european commission launched an evaluation of the 1995 data protection directive. a legislative proposal for amending it should also be tabled by the end of the year, without ruling out other instruments for adapting it to the new legal framework on data protection. the last 15 years have witnessed an internet revolution and an exponential increase in the use of new technologies. large-scale collection and processing of personal data are a consequence of the globalisation of trade. this report stresses some aspects of future reform: increased right to information; improved data transfer, particularly in the context of judicial and police cooperation; and harmonised status and powers of the national data protection authorities responsible for data protection and internet security. i voted in favour of this report for all these reasons. protection of personal data constitutes one of the greatest challenges to modern societies. while online society has enabled information sharing unparalleled in any other medium, it has, at the same time, put personal data in a position more vulnerable than ever previously known: for example, with customer profiling by companies that have loyalty cards. the same could occur with search engines or electronic means of payment. as such, the protection of the inviolability of individuals and their data is essential if it is to be trusted that these information structures are functioning properly and, therefore, making use of the potential of an online society. that is the intention of this report, for which i voted. today, we voted during the plenary session of the european parliament in strasbourg on the report on personal data protection in the european union. the report approves personal data protection measures in the european union, laid down by the commission communication, and draws attention to the principles set out in the 1995 data protection directive, which have not been completely implemented in the member states, such as, for example, the transparency principle, the purpose limitation principle, and other provisions on consent. the new data protection regime should reduce bureaucratic and financial burdens and carefully assess the application of several rules relating to small enterprises. the increased use of the internet and the development of social networks, profiling and cloud computing have given rise to new challenges in personal data protection. that is why i support the efforts to strengthen personal data protection and harmonise the implementation of european rules on this matter. the free circulation of personal data must be accompanied by guarantees for citizens, who should know how to access, use, rectify and delete their data free of charge, enjoy a high level of protection in their online and offline activities, both within the european union and in third countries, and be able to defend their rights using class-action lawsuits. in particular, we must protect young users from the threats that uncontrolled use of the new technologies can pose, for example, by integrating media education into school curricula or by requiring a high level of data protection to be used as the default setting. i also believe the 'right to be forgotten' to be a key notion for developing personal data protection. there are two reasons why i am pleased that we have adopted this own-initiative report. the first of these is that, in order to safeguard the basic rights of individuals to privacy, it is absolutely crucial that we lay down requirements concerning protection against the monitoring and misuse of personal data. secondly, for the sake of cross-border trade, we need to have a consistent level of protection for personal data at eu level. this is necessary in order to create uniform conditions for economic operators and in order to avoid distortions of the market. the risk of the misuse of personal data has reached unprecedented proportions as a result of technical developments. this, coupled with the differences in data legislation in the different member states, makes it absolutely essential for us to have an effective global data protection framework. i therefore hope that the commission and the council will include this report in their ongoing work on the protection of personal data in the eu. in writing. - in favour. this resolution: 1. strongly welcomes and supports the commission communication entitled 'a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the european union' and its focus on strengthening existing arrangements, putting forward new principles and mechanisms and ensuring coherence and high standards of data protection in the new setting offered by the entry into force of the lisbon treaty (article 16 tfeu) and the now binding charter of fundamental rights, particularly its article 8. 2. emphasises that the standards and principles set out in directive 95/46/ec represent an ideal starting point and should be further elaborated, extended and enforced, as part of a modern data protection law. i voted in favour of this text because i believe it is important to fully commit to a global approach to personal data protection in europe. this protection must set out a series of coordinated legislative measures that are balanced and able to protect citizens without excessively burdening enterprises with red tape. in particular, such rules must not jeopardise the right to freedom of speech and information unnecessarily hindering everyday processing of personal data, which is typically harmless. i voted in favour of the report on data protection because it is necessary for europe to lay down clear and common rules for all the member states regarding accessing, storing and deleting the personal data of european citizens. the existing legislation (which dates from 1995) must be updated and modernised in the face of the spread of new information and communication technologies. it will also ensure that the commission's future legislative proposal establishes a true 'right to be forgotten', meaning the right of individuals, under certain conditions, to have their personal data no longer collected, analysed, processed or used in any way, and deleted, especially in the world of online social networks. privacy and security are very important for us all. we cannot make citizens choose between freedom and security. i agree with the rapporteur that we need to modernise data protection legislation due to the privacy challenges posed by new technologies. however, the problem is much greater than the report suggests. in certain eu member states, including lithuania, the problem is not just one of obsolete legislation, but implementation. article 22 of the constitution of the republic of lithuania prohibits interference with a person's personal correspondence or his life. according to a report published a few months ago in the american, in 2010, the lithuanian state data protection inspectorate investigated 270 allegations of arbitrary interference with privacy against government officials or companies. in the majority of complaints, the person stated that the government agency gathered or used their personal data, such as a personal code, without legal basis or explanation. we must restore confidence. it is important for citizens to know what happens to their data. european leaders must implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure protection against loss of data or unauthorised access. it is a matter of honour and dignity. i voted in favour of the report on the european approach to data protection since it contains many positive points: strengthening certain rights of individuals regarding their data; protecting individuals, whatever their geographic location; strengthening the powers of national data protection authorities; appointing data protection officers within businesses; referring to the 'right to be forgotten'; the notion of explicit consent for data to be processed; extending the list of sensitive data, and so forth. nonetheless, it has overlooked some points, a few of which are quite alarming. the examples of 'cloud computing' (storing data on external platforms rather than on personal computers), scope for self-regulation by businesses, and agreements concerning international data transfer, are all cases in point. these agreements must reflect the same level of personal data protection as that provided within the union. we know this is not the case in the united states in particular. i am disappointed that this report has been adopted without debate in plenary since it indicates the framework for the coming revision of the data protection directive. let us hope that the coming debates will enable us to overcome these deficiencies. the development of new technologies is one of the major objectives of the europe 2020 strategy and has an ever-increasing impact on the daily lives of european citizens. the significance of these tools in our private and professional lives offers a tremendous opportunity to develop knowledge sharing. nonetheless, this phenomenon must be accompanied by adequate data protection so that europeans can express themselves freely, with personal information being protected. i welcome the adoption of this report which sets out a clear legislative framework, and which believes that the optimal use of tomorrow's technologies should not undermine individual liberties. europe must rise to the challenge of making information accessible to the greatest number of people. this ambitious goal must be accompanied by legal harmonisation and legal certainty in order to provide our fellow citizens with the highest level of protection. i voted in favour of the report on a comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the european union. whereas the general trend throughout the world in the last 10 years has been for security concepts to become umbrella terms, the european union has gone in the opposite direction by making the charter of fundamental rights binding at eu level in the treaty of lisbon. we absolutely must continue along this path. i voted in favour of the text presented by mr voss on personal data protection measures within the eu. i believe it is important that the approved text refers to the measures set out in the 1995 data protection directive, which, for various reasons, are still yet to be fully implemented in the member states: i refer, in particular, to the transparency principle and to the purpose limitation principle. thanks to the text on which we voted today, the new data protection regime should, in addition to reducing bureaucratic and financial burdens, lead to a more careful assessment of the application of several rules relating to small enterprises. in writing. - (fr) under current legislation, all ingredients, including substances which can cause allergies, must be listed on the label of prepacked food. from now on, consumers will be able to verify more easily if a product contains substances which can cause allergies, given that they will appear clearly on the list of ingredients. consumers will be able to obtain the necessary information at first glance. i voted in favour of this report because i think that consumers should no longer be misled by the presentation of the product on the packaging, the description and/or the pictorial representations. we have decided that businesses in the food sector will have three years to comply with the new requirements. they will then have two further years, i.e. five years in total, to apply the rules relating to the nutrition declaration. i did not vote for this proposal, not because i do not agree with it, but because i believe parliament should have taken a tougher stance towards the council's proposal. even so, improvements have been introduced as regards food information, simplifying and updating the rules applicable to labelling by merging the eu directives into one legislative text. it is also important to stress that origin marking is mandatory for a significant range of products, such as vegetables, fish, beef, honey, fruit and oil, and that specific rules have been introduced on labelling food 'imitation' and on waiving the need for a nutrition declaration for handcrafted products, which is of the greatest importance for many regions, such as the azores. i voted in favour of this resolution on the provision of food information to consumers. the free movement of safe food is an essential aspect of the internal market and contributes significantly to the health and well-being of citizens, as well as to their social and economic interests. with this regulation, we, the members of the european parliament, aim to serve both the interests of the internal market, by reducing the administrative burden, and benefit citizens by requiring clear, comprehensible and legible labelling of foods. citizens must know what products they are eating, where they are produced and what their ingredients are. food labelling must be easily recognisable, legible and understandable for the consumer. i believe that it is worthwhile and right that consumers in the member states should be able to turn to a neutral information source in order to clarify individual nutrition questions. the member states should, therefore, establish appropriate hotlines. the main aim behind introducing new rules on the provision of information about food products marketed within the eu is to offer consumers the opportunity to make healthier and fully informed choices when buying food. however, it is not enough for european citizens to be able to choose freely from among the various products. it is vital that they make a conscious choice according to the benefits or drawbacks a food product can have for their health. this is why i think that, in future, efforts must be geared towards informing european citizens about the importance of reading all the items of information on food labels in order to maintain and guarantee a healthy lifestyle. at the same time, the new regulations will also make the situation easier for food producers by offering legal certainty, less red tape and much improved legislation. i voted in favour of this report because i consider it essential that european consumers have packaging with the necessary information for them to make an informed choice. therefore, i am glad that the rapporteur has found a compromise so that indications will be more legible and more detailed, products which can cause allergies will be mentioned on packaging in order to protect people suffering from allergies, and imitations will be identified as such (because it is, for example, unacceptable to deceive consumers by selling them cheese made from vegetable fat instead of milk), and so forth. finally, i am very pleased that from now on, it will be obligatory to declare the country of origin for pork, sheep, goat and poultry meat on the packaging. including this information will make consumers better informed and provide more effective protection against potential contamination. furthermore, i am keen to reassure you: my political group has defeated the socialists' ludicrous idea that all our products should be categorised according to their theoretical danger and bear a red, orange or green traffic light on the packaging. thus, you can count on us to inform and empower consumers. consumers must know which region the food they are buying is produced and grown in, and there must be clear information available about that food. i voted in favour of the report, and i welcome what it says on extending the mandatory labelling concerning the country of origin of products to include fresh pork, mutton and chicken. currently, country-of-origin labelling on fresh beef, fruit and vegetables, honey and olive oil is mandatory, and consumers are often misled when there is a lack of clear information about an item's country of origin. european farmers produce high-quality food that is safe to eat and complies with legislation on environmental protection and animal welfare. country-of-origin labelling on goods being sold on the eu market helps consumers make informed choices when buying fresh meat and other products. the purpose of this proposal is to recast the eu rules on labelling of food products and improve union legislation by replacing and collating seven directives and one regulation into a single text. there is a need for an eu-level standardisation of food labelling in order to contribute to increased transparency for the consumer, greater clarity in the acquis communautaire and more certainty for businesses in the food sector. this new regulation will put an end to the legislative fragmentation that has been blocking trade and to competition problems, which will mean reduced costs for producers and distributors of foodstuffs, whilst also helping consumers decide which foodstuffs to buy in a way that is independent, conscious and knowledgeable of the facts. i would stress the new provisions making it mandatory to include substances that cause allergies in the ingredients list; allergenic substances will also have to be provided for non-packed products. country-of-origin labelling is becoming mandatory for fresh meat from pigs, goats, sheep and poultry. consumers must also be informed about the specific source of the vegetable oils used in products, for example, palm oil. i voted for this report for the above reasons. it is crucially important to improve the information available to customers about what they eat every day. despite the difficulty of finding a compromise between the political groups in parliament and with the council, i still voted in favour of this report because it is a step in the right direction. by recommending clearer and more visible labelling, especially regarding the energy value, it will enable consumers to be better informed at first glance about the products they are buying. furthermore, as more than 80% of the european food sector is comprised of small and medium-sized enterprises (smes), these new rules will give smes better legal protection while reducing bureaucracy. since the e. coli health crisis has once again put the spotlight on the importance of food safety in europe, i felt it was crucial to vote in favour of this report in order to strengthen consumer protection. nonetheless, i will pay close attention to the proper transposition of the law by member states and businesses in the sector, in order that the new rules can be effective and beneficial for all european consumers. the draft regulation under discussion today, on the provision of food information to consumers, is currently one of the most frequently discussed issues at community level in the food sector. in my view, insofar as it could guarantee uniformity of rules at union level, it could decisively help boost the competitiveness of european agri-food enterprises. in particular, i feel that the compromise reached, resulting from the interinstitutional trialogues, meets both the requirement for accurate consumer information and protection of the key role played by the food industry in processing raw materials to produce 'made in italy' products, which are recognised and established across the world. while i feel that a fair compromise has been reached in the regulation of allergenic substances by stipulating that these should be highlighted in the list of ingredients without the need to repeat them elsewhere on the label, i would express reservations about the option provided for member states to introduce, at a national level, compulsory information that goes beyond the system of common rules. in my view, there is still the risk of having to deal with 27 different systems of rules and of facing increased costs associated with the periodic updating of advice in each country and the revision of labels. following the implementation of the new food labelling regulations, consumers will be able to make a fully informed and healthier choice when they are buying food. at a time when illnesses relating to food consumption are one of the biggest causes of mortality, it is important that products are purchased on an informed basis and consumers know exactly the quantities of fats, fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins and salt they contain. consumers will also know exactly the origin of certain foods, which it is not mandatory to specify at the moment. this is an important step at a time when product labels can very often be misleading. the new food labelling regulations will help educate european consumers, even though it will mean them spending more time at the shelves, learning what is healthy and what is not, and what ought to be eaten only occasionally. it is likely that, over time, there will also be a campaign to discourage those companies producing very unhealthy foods, which could see their sales fall as a result of detailed ingredient information being displayed. it is right that it will take at least 5 years for the european market to become standardised and for the new regulations to be implemented. however, it is better late than never. i consider it a positive development that nutritional information does not have to be stated on the front of packaging. more room is thus left to producers to incorporate the name, logo and various marketing messages essential for ensuring the competitiveness of a product on the market. the consumer will also, for the first time, obtain information from the packaging on the origin of poultry, pork, mutton and lamb meat, which, particularly in the context of the recent avian influenza epidemic, is an important precondition for being able to make qualified decisions when purchasing products containing meat. all in all, i firmly believe that the compromise that has been reached balances the interests of consumers and producers, which is more the exception than the rule in the case of european regulations. the weak point of the new food labelling regulations, in my opinion, is the insufficient response to the problem of obesity, which is becoming the epidemic of the third millennium. it is a sensitive topic, particularly for inhabitants of the czech republic, more than two-thirds of whom suffer from obesity, and which is currently the second most overweight country in the eu. in such circumstances, i can imagine the possible implementation of an obligation to place a warning on the packaging of products containing excessive amounts of fat or sugar. the new food labelling rules unfortunately do not go that far. i voted for the report because i believe the free movement of safe and wholesome food is a crucial aspect of the internal market and contributes significantly to the health and well-being of citizens, and to their social and economic interests. i am also voting for this report because i believe this regulation serves the interests, firstly, of the internal market, by simplifying legislation, guaranteeing legal certainty and reducing the administrative burden, and, secondly, of the public, by providing for the clear, comprehensible and legible labelling of food. in writing. - this issue is one which is of central importance to me and many of my colleagues on the envi committee. while this report does not include all of the provisions which i would have liked, such as traffic light labels on food, the measures which will be implemented will be a definite improvement on that which currently exists in many member states. i voted against the sommer report for four main reasons: firstly, because it does not require nutritional information, such as fats, sugar and salt, to be included on the front-of-pack label, which the food industry lobbied against. secondly, because it does not call for 'colour codes' or 'signs' on packs, with the use of red, orange or green to indicate the calorific, fat, sugar, salt and other content of foods (high, medium, low). thirdly, because natural trans-fatty acids will not be included on the label. fourthly, because the label will state the country of origin only for fresh meat and fish. this undermines the position of the committee on the environment, public health and food safety, which voted to include the country of origin on the label both for frozen or processed meat and for meat and dairy products. the agreement between the european parliament and the council on the provision of information to food consumers benefits industry, not consumers. the risks to health (obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer) from inadequate or misleading information are enormous. nonetheless, the food industry spends approximately usd 10 billion a year to influence children's eating habits. although the original objectives and main elements of current labelling legislation are still valid, it needs to be streamlined in order to ensure that stakeholders will comply with it more easily and benefit from greater clarity so as to take into account the new developments involving the provision of food information. this regulation will serve both the interests of the internal market, by simplifying legislation, providing legal certainty and reducing red tape, and those of citizens by making it mandatory to label food products in a clear, legible way that can be understood by any citizen. in writing. - i supported this report, which seeks to improve the food information available to consumers. it will now soon be mandatory throughout the eu to include information on how much sugar, salt, fat and other key nutrients a product contains. this report also introduces country-of-origin labelling for fresh lamb, pork, goat and poultry, just as we have already for beef, fish, fruit and vegetables. it also obliges the commission to produce a report and possible legislation on the origin of meat in processed food within two years. however, we must continue to fight for more transparency and for an eu-wide ban on added trans fats, similar to that currently on the statute books in denmark and austria. trans fats are often added unnecessarily to processed foods even though they can increase the risk of a whole range of problems including obesity, heart disease, infertility and alzheimer's disease. this report ensures that the commission will investigate the problem and report back within three years. disappointingly, however, nutritional labelling will only be mandatory on the back of the pack and not on the front. if we are serious about tackling some of our major health issues, we should give consumers the information they need to quickly identify healthy choices. i supported the agreement reached by parliament and the council on food labelling. this regulation allows clearer rules to be put in place for the many stakeholders in the agri-food and catering sectors and will directly benefit consumers who, with more complete and simpler information, will be able to make a real choice about the foods they consume every day. in writing. - consumers have the right to expect the information given on food labels to be correct and not misleading. nutritional information is important to the consumer, and the quality standard to which the food complies is important for consumer choice and safety. in relation to country of origin, i agree with the concept but i have some reservations in relation to the potential impact on trade. in northern ireland, local business has seen how country-of-origin labelling can be used as a protectionist measure. this has had a negative impact on trade and northern ireland producers and processors have suffered as a result. i do know this is a matter which many member states who are reliant on exports have voiced concern over. it is imperative that the commission carry out an impact assessment to investigate the potential effect of new food labelling legislation. i am concerned about the commission's ability to adopt common sense measures in the implementation of this regulation, in particular, the manner of indicating the country of origin or place of provenance and, therefore, am unwilling to lend my support to this report in this area. i voted for the report on 'the provision of food information to consumers' because i believe the agreement reached with the council includes important provisions that are in line with european consumers' interests, such as making information on the main nutrients and the origin of foodstuffs mandatory. in writing. - 1. we have previously voted against the following legislation, which removes our right to control our own food labelling. we do not support this existing legislation and do not confirm it in this vote: council regulation (ec) no 509/2006 - which prevents us labelling our own products as, for example, 'welsh beef' and 'cheddar cheese', without eu permission. 2. further, it also gives the commission unspecified powers to apply delegated acts in the future, thus changing the legislation in a manner which they choose, without reference to the ep members or any voting process in the ep. 3. we also have previously voted against the following legislation, which removes our right to control our own food labelling. we do not support this existing legislation and do not confirm it in this vote: council regulation (ec) no 510/2006 on protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, which even removes our power to freely designate a product as 'english' or 'welsh' or 'scottish': article 2, section b: " 'geographical indication' means the name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases, a country .". as in the vote at first reading, i would once again stress the idea that it is essential to guarantee consumers the information they need in order to know exactly what types of food they are consuming, and to make a conscious and informed choice. the compromise reached with the council has achieved an adequate balance of the interests of food producers and consumers, whilst safeguarding public health, and all the member states support it. i therefore consider this a victory for consumers and hope that the new rules applicable to labelling of foodstuffs will enable them to make more informed choices. i voted for this report as it is in favour of quality of life and ensuring freedom of choice and food safety for citizens, and i would congratulate my colleague, mrs sommer, on her report, which is the result of a long and intensive endeavour. as i have been arguing, it is essential to ensure that citizens have free choice of food products, by guaranteeing safe and credible mechanisms for providing comprehensive information about products so that well-informed decisions can be made, and not least by providing specific information about the energy value and the amount of fat, saturates, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt, as well as a mandatory list of allergenic substances. this regulation contributes to the better functioning of the internal market by simplifying legislation, reducing the administrative burden, guaranteeing legal certainty, and prioritising free choice and public interest with access to informative food labels, which are clear, comprehensible and legible. good sense and rationality has prevailed to ensure balanced legislation and to take into account specific characteristics of the sector. i would stress the recognition of the specific nature of products from the handcrafted food sector, and of those produced directly at the place of sale and at retail sites. we voted for parliament's position at first reading because we believe it represented progress in the field of information given to consumers about foodstuffs. this was in spite of the last-minute concessions that had already weakened the report's content. as we stressed then, consumers have a fundamental right to know as much as is possible and justifiable about the composition of foodstuffs. furthermore, such knowledge is a necessary - though insufficient - prerequisite for enabling consumers to make informed, conscious decisions about their diet and, as such, it helps promote public health and welfare. following negotiations with the council, despite the proposal containing positive aspects, parliament has ended up giving ground on others at second reading, with a view to reaching an agreement. we consider positive, inter alia, the points on the need for information on food additives with allergenic effects and mandatory origin marking for certain qualities of meat. however, we believe it was necessary to go further in this area of origin marking, extending it to all types of meat, including processed meat, to milk and its derivatives, and to single-ingredient products, including fruit and vegetables. we would stress again that information on genetically modified organisms should be mandatory. i voted in favour of mrs sommer's report since i feel it is very important to have adopted this regulation, which lays the foundations to ensure a high level of consumer protection in terms of food information, by broadly defining the principles, requirements and responsibilities that govern food information, while simultaneously reducing trade distortions, costs and bureaucracy. i welcome the choice of the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) to have reached a compromise with the other groups so as to vote for the report: going to a conciliation procedure would have meant losing many of the benefits obtained during negotiations with the council. making food packaging more understandable will make it possible to distinguish original products from so-called imitation products: this is even more important for italy, which has always been a country of excellent products and which is often the victim of agri-food counterfeiting. we voted for parliament's position at first reading because we believe it represented progress in the field of information given to consumers about foodstuffs. this was in spite of the last-minute concessions that had already weakened the report's content. as we stressed then, consumers have a fundamental right to know as much as is possible and justifiable about the composition of foodstuffs. furthermore, such knowledge is a necessary - though not sufficient - prerequisite for consumers to make informed, conscious decisions about their diet and, as such, it helps promote public health and welfare. following negotiations with the council, despite the proposal containing positive aspects, parliament has ended up giving ground on others at second reading, with a view to reaching an agreement. we consider positive, inter alia, the points on the need for information on food additives with allergenic effects and mandatory origin marking for certain qualities of meat. however, we believe it was necessary to go further in this area of origin marking, extending it to all types of meat, including processed meat, to milk and its derivatives, and to single-ingredient products, including fruit and vegetables. we would stress again that information on genetically modified organisms should be mandatory. with respect to nutrition labelling, the recent white paper on a strategy for addressing nutrition, overweight and obesity-related issues in europe emphasised the need for consumers to have access to clear, consistent and well-founded information. nutrition labelling is an established method for providing information to consumers and should promote the health-conscious selection of foods. there is a broad consensus that the effectiveness of nutrition labelling can be strengthened as a means of promoting the ability of consumers to select a balanced diet. the parties concerned have presented several suggestions in support of front-of-pack information on nutritional value. the labelling systems in use differ in a way that may create obstacles to trading. the submitted proposal introduces certain general principles relating to the provision of information on foods and to the development of a regulatory mechanism aimed at enabling consumers to select foods on the basis of information. the mandatory requirements remain almost the same, but the commission has the option of proposing new requirements for special issues. in an effort to take account of changes and developments in the area of information on foods, provisions need to be drawn up authorising the commission to amend the list of mandatory information by adding or removing information, and making some information available by alternative means. consultations with the parties concerned should enable prompt and well-targeted changes to be made to food information requirements. i subscribe to the report's general philosophy of better information for consumers about the foods they purchase, particularly when it comes to the presence of ingredients which can cause allergies or indicating the origin of all types of meat. this last provision is entirely consistent with my belief that consumers should be allowed to choose products from the closest possible place to them. it is one of their legitimate aspirations: producing and consuming locally. it also avoids the co2 emissions from long distance transport. it is odd that you never think about this. i have more reservations about nutrition declarations, a european attempt to control our plates, our behaviour and our culinary traditions. finally, i am disappointed that the obligation to indicate the method of ritual slaughter, an amendment miraculously adopted by the committee several weeks ago, has turned into the possibility of starting to think about a potential report on this subject in several years' time. defenders of animal rights, secular people, agnostics, christians and those who are indifferent will therefore continue to consume, without knowing it, meat produced in an entirely unnecessary manner according to practices that they reject, condemn or simply do not want to support. it is for that reason i abstained from voting on the compromise amendment. in view of the growing number of health scandals linked to food over the last few years, we want to improve information for consumers on the foods they eat every day and on the origin of the foods. in a global economy, and at a time when trade is developing increasingly, this report calls for clearer labelling. this concerns the origin, but also the nutritional value of foods and whether they contain allergens, among other things. from now on, the energy value and the levels of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates and protein will be clearly visible on packaging. i also voted for amendment 61 on mandatory labelling of country or place of origin for meat and poultry. this represents a major step forward for consumers, as labelling has often lacked sufficient detail in the past, leaving gaps in consumers' information. from now on, consumers will know exactly what is in their food and which country it has come from. this is a major improvement in the daily lives of european citizens. standardised information for consumers should be supported at eu level, and that is precisely what this report does. if we are to protect consumers, particularly in border areas, it is important that this information should be provided according to the same criteria. however, this welcome harmonisation should not hide the fact that consumer information is still far from perfect and that this topic will require regular improvements and adjustments in the years ahead. after our decision to adopt this report, consumers will, in future, be given clearer, more legible and more comprehensive food labelling. the mandatory labelling of origin that applies to beef has been extended to fresh pork, lamb, mutton, goat meat and poultry. this is genuine progress, for which we have the european parliament to thank. in the future, we must go further still and impose mandatory country-of-origin labelling on the meat present in processed foods, for example, and on certain 'single ingredient' foods, though without imposing excessive constraints on producers, of course. at a time when our fellow citizens are taking an increasing interest in the quality of the products they consume, it was vital for the european union to improve information standards and address consumer demands. in addition to the progress on labelling of origin, the legibility of labels has also been improved. the nutritional information will make it easier to compare different foods and to make more informed choices. by adopting the sommer report, parliament is showing that it is mindful of the transparency of information about the nutritional value and the provenance of foodstuffs, in line with the requirements of european consumers for greater safety in the products they buy. by confirming the agreement at second reading with the council, parliament is introducing the obligation to provide detailed information about the composition and energy value of foodstuffs, as well as extending origin labelling to fresh swine, sheep, goat and poultry meat. the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats in the european parliament has played a dynamic role in the negotiations, convincing the council and commission to consider the subsequent adoption of rules on origin for meat used in packaged foods, as well as on the effects of using hydrogenated fats, which, from today, are subject to legislation. the adopted text signals recognition of the italian approach, which has already previously shown how to protect and promote italian and european excellence, and it is therefore a source of satisfaction both for italy and for operators in the sector. however, although the step taken is important, our commitment to european citizens being able to make ever more independent and informed choices about the products they put on their tables will go on. the opportunity for european citizens to make informed choices, through accurate, transparent information about the foods they consume, will become a reality by the end of 2014, and it is the effort made in this area that i have supported by my vote today. i feel this is a step in the right direction, given that obesity and the number of overweight people are constantly on the increase, with the damaging effects this has on public health. this now means it will be compulsory to state the origin of meat on the label. labels will be more legible, with a larger typeface, and will state information such as energy value and any allergens contained in the food. europe's socialists fought hard on this subject and have obtained an excellent outcome as a result, in the face of a right wing that is very quick to serve the interests of the agri-food industry. this is worth highlighting, especially in the light of the resources that these lobbies are able to deploy, compared with the meagre resources that consumer associations have at their disposal. the regulation which has been adopted on the provision of food information to consumers is an extremely important instrument for consumers, who, thanks to the new legislation, will be able to make better-informed decisions when buying food. the new legislation means that labels used by producers will be more legible. there is no doubt that this will make it easier for consumers to choose the food products which they need in their diet. in accordance with the new legislation, the energy content and the amount of fat, saturates, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt has to be given on the package in the form of a legible table. the content of these ingredients has to be expressed per 100 g or per 100 ml. in addition, the content of these ingredients has to be expressed per portion of product. labels will also have to contain information on allergenic substances. this is extremely important in view of the increasingly common problem of allergies. i hope that with the entry into force of the new legislation, consumers will pay greater attention to what they buy. i think, however, that consumers also need information campaigns on the new legislation and, in particular, about how to read some of the graphical symbols which often appear on food products. i welcome the adoption by a very large majority of the report on the provision of food information to consumers. by adopting this report, we are once again expressing the will of the european parliament, and of the member states meeting in the european council, to take concrete steps towards improving information for citizens on the day-to-day subjects that concern them. the aim of this report is to simplify and clarify the existing rules on food labelling in the european union, but also to extend the rules to other categories of food: fresh pork, poultry, lamb, goat meat, and so on. it will now be compulsory to state not only the use-by date but also the nutritional and energy values of the foods we buy, which is a major step forward. in addition, information on allergens will have to be shown on packaging, and measures to combat misleading information will be tightened up. with the adoption of this recommendation and the regulation that will follow, we are encouraging the most transparent information possible for consumers, which will allow them to make informed choices. i welcomed this document because it is aimed at improving the regulation of information provided to consumers on the labels of food products. under this regulation, the name or address of the food business operator placed on the label does not constitute an indication of the country or place of provenance of the food product concerned. food labels should be clear and understandable in order to assist consumers wanting to make better-informed food and dietary choices. studies show that legibility is an important element in maximising the possibility that labelled information can influence its audience and that illegible product information is one of the main causes of consumer dissatisfaction with food labels. therefore, a comprehensive approach should be developed in order to take into account all aspects related to legibility, including font, colour and contrast. food safety is a priority of union policy. therefore, all measures intended to deepen consumers' knowledge about the food they eat are to be welcomed. we understand very well that in times when a huge number of europeans die because of obesity and circulatory diseases caused by improper diet, labelling food packages with energy and nutrition information helps ordinary people compose a balanced diet by themselves. however, to be of use to the consumer, such information must be legible and comprehensible. giving data on chemical compounds which do not affect human health, or placing this information on very small packages, is pointless. we have a similar situation in connection with stating the place of origin of food. it should not be compulsory to provide such details. the recent situation with spanish vegetables shows that the result of this is not always beneficial. false accusations over contamination with e. coli caused the spanish food market to lose millions. after an almost three-year journey, during which the debate on the right to complete and exhaustive consumer information has seen contrasting positions between the various players, we have finally achieved a good result that meets most of consumers' expectations. by means of this regulation, which i voted for, we are showing proof of our great concern not only for consumers, but also for manufacturers of agri-food products. we wanted to make the significant role a label plays in the final phase of buying a product the focus of public opinion. this guarantees consumers recognisable products and gives them the nutritional information required to make an informed choice. i would also add that it is a healthy choice since i believe an agri-food label to be an effective tool for preventing cardiovascular disease and tackling obesity. the fight against agro-piracy has now been tightened further and the protection of agri-food production has taken a step forward. i welcome the adoption of the new rules on food labelling, thanks to the new regulation on the subject, which received my vote. this legislation greatly improves the information provided to consumers when they are deciding which food to buy. from now on, a standardised 'nutritional declaration' will help them to recognise the respective qualities of the various products on sale in shops. manufacturers will have to display the energy value and the quantities of six nutrients (fat, saturates, carbohydrates, protein, sugars and salt). this information will have to be written in a minimum font size and appear in the same field of vision to ensure that it is legible. it has been left up to manufacturers, however, to decide where to display it. the mandatory indication of origin for beef has now been extended to swine, sheep, goat and poultry meat. the commission has been tasked with proposing a regulation aimed at extending this indication of origin to meat used an ingredient when it makes up 50% of the end product. the text voted on by parliament offers an excellent compromise as it is consumers who will stand to gain by selecting healthier food. in fact, consumers will be able, in future, to identify much more quickly from the food packaging details such as the energy value, quantities of fats, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrates, sugars, proteins and salt. there is also a novel element whereby, in future, consumers will be able to see much more easily whether a product contains allergenic substances as it will be mandatory for them to be highlighted in the list of ingredients. the aim of the regulation adopted by parliament today is to give consumers more and better information about food, in order to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. the new regulation also brings benefits in the form of more legal certainty, less red tape and better law making for the european food industry and, in particular, for the small and medium-sized enterprises which are responsible for 80% of food production and processing in the eu. i congratulate the rapporteur on her successful opposition to the misleading traffic-light labelling system. this type of labelling would have resulted in a whole range of foods, such as olive oil and some dairy products, being condemned, and so-called 'light' drinks containing the sweetener aspartame being given the green light. information about allergenic substances must be provided for fresh, non-prepacked foods, such as bakery products or meat. however, these foods do not need the nutrient information which can only be obtained by means of costly analyses and which was required in the original commission proposal. i have voted in favour of the report because politics is the art of the achievable, despite the fact that the commission report requires nutrition labelling for alcoholic drinks to be provided in three years' time and not, as originally planned, in five. in writing. - thanks to today's vote, food shoppers will be able to make better informed, healthier choices as a result of new eu food labelling rules. labels will have to spell out a food's energy content as well as fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt levels, in a way that makes them easy for consumers to read. i voted in favour of the regulation on the provision of food information to consumers. while the report could have gone further in terms of the visibility of the information, the amendments that parliament has adopted are a step forward for consumers. it is important for citizens to have as much information as possible on what they are eating so that they can make informed choices with a view to eating a balanced diet. packaging will now need to display the energy value and the quantities of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt. these are factors that will contribute towards europe's strategy to combat health problems linked with nutrition, being overweight and obesity. in addition, allergens will have to be highlighted in the list of ingredients, and the rules on marketing will be tightened up in order to prevent confusion over products whose ingredients do not correspond to the way the product is presented on the packaging. among other things, this report proposes the mandatory inclusion on labels of a food's place of origin. i am in favour of this measure. a statement of the ecological footprint of each foodstuff and its packaging should also be mandatory. with the adoption of this regulation, the labelling of foodstuffs in the eu is now guaranteed to be clearer and more legible, meaning that consumers are in a position to choose healthier options when shopping. this new regulation also aims to cut bureaucracy for the food sector's producers and operators, and to strengthen the internal market. the regulation updates the eu rules on labelling of foodstuffs, merging the directives on nutritional labelling and labelling in general into a single legislative text. these amendments mean consumer interests are better safeguarded, thereby contributing to an increasingly robust internal market. this report is a good compromise in that it guarantees clear, legible, intelligible information for consumers on the products they buy without imposing a heavier burden on the industry, and on small and medium-sized enterprises (smes) in particular. the report will improve product quality. it makes the nutritional properties and trans fat content of foods the central concern, with a view to providing better protection of consumer health. all consumers, in particular, those who suffer from allergies, have the right to know what is in foods and, above all, the place of origin of meat and poultry, fruit, vegetables and fish. this will allow them to meet their needs, especially their special dietary needs, more effectively. it also addresses the need for harmonisation of information, and the need to guarantee fair competition within the internal market. consumers' awareness of foodstuffs and the substances they contain has changed significantly over recent years. people are paying much more attention to what they eat and there is a strong trend in the food sector towards eating local produce. there is also a boom in seasonal food. in particular, when diseases or pathogens are found in food, such as in the recent e. coli (ehec) outbreak, people move increasingly to eating local products that they trust. in order to make it clear to consumers what they are actually eating, we need more transparency in food labelling. it should not be possible to use incomprehensible abbreviations which either confuse consumers or lull them into a false sense of security, in order to conceal the fact that certain ingredients are present. the same applies to country of provenance labelling. for these reasons, the eu intends to introduce a standardised, eu-wide, mandatory labelling system on food packaging. the same information must be provided everywhere. it must also be clearly legible and positioned and worded in such a way that absolute transparency for consumers is guaranteed. in my opinion, this is an important step towards helping people to have a good diet and, therefore, bringing about lasting improvements in the health of the population. however, as the food industry has to pay the costs of the new labelling procedure, we cannot exclude the possibility of food price rises. i have taken this into consideration when voting. during the vote on the report on the provision of food information to consumers, i supported a balanced position which protects the interests of consumers and producers at the same time. i voted in favour of offering consumers the opportunity to make an informed choice when buying food products and selecting a particular diet. i voted for improving the legibility on labels and for a ban on practices which mislead consumers. i support the regulation on the labelling of the origin of fresh meat and i hope that this will become widespread in the future. european consumers have the right to know the origin of their food so that they can make their choice. i believe that these provisions can be beneficial to consumers' health by providing information on allergenic substances and the ingredients in a given product. however, it is important to avoid information overload, which can have the opposite effect on consumers and create financial and bureaucratic burdens for the food industry and, most of all, for small and medium-sized enterprises. we should not forget that as well as large companies, small local producers also work in the food industry. i have tried to use my vote to take this fact into account so that they will not be financially and administratively hampered by the new legislation. i voted in favour of this recommendation because the requirements applied to food labels must be regulated more strictly. above all, it will improve the functioning of the internal market and facilitate the free movement of goods. furthermore, consumers will be provided with clear, comprehensible and legible information. it is very important for food labels to carry the information that needs to be known for consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. attention should be drawn to the fact that while laying down strict labelling requirements, there should be derogations for micro-enterprises, particularly for those producing handcrafted products. i believe that it is appropriate to establish a transitional period when the new labelling requirements enter into force. this will ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market and reduce the amount of waste packaging. food labelling protects and informs consumers and it enables detailed classification of the product, making the purchaser's choice informed and safe. finally, with mrs sommer's report, a harmonised legislative framework has been established at european level that will also help those enterprises that will no longer have to comply with the rules of the member states to which they export their products. rather, they will be able to refer to a single regulatory framework which, while not perfect, is still a massive step forward for the european food market. specifically, in the light of recent events concerning viruses and bacteria transmitted from infected animal meat, i believe mandatory origin labelling for fresh meat is important. this proposal for informing consumers on food products is one of the most important issues relating to the food sector currently being debated at eu level. i believe the guarantee of uniform standards at union level could contribute decisively to making agro-food companies more competitive. i also believe the agreements reached satisfy the needs both in relation to providing consumers with adequate information and in relation to safeguarding the fundamental role played by foodstuffs. i would stress the compromises reached on the regulation of allergenic substances through the provision of a list of ingredients without the need for repetition on other parts of the label. i also consider it essential to guarantee consumers the information they need in order to know exactly what types of food they are consuming, and to make a conscious and informed choice. the compromise reached with the council has achieved an adequate balance of the interests of food producers and consumers, whilst safeguarding public health, and all the member states support it. i voted in favour because i believe this report represents a victory for consumers. according to the new labelling regulations, the energy value, quantities of fats, saturated fatty acids, carbohydrates, proteins and salt must be easy to see from the food packaging. allergenic substances must be highlighted in the list of ingredients. it will become compulsory to specify the country of origin for fresh pork, sheep, goat and poultry meat, and not only for beef, as was the case hitherto. consumers will be informed about the specific source of origin of vegetable oils used in different products, as is the case with palm oil. in addition, there will be strict rules for preventing consumers from being misled by the type of food packaging, as well as rules for labelling 'counterfeit foods' such as cheese or ham. i think that the compromise reached between the european parliament and the council will ensure that labels are easier to read, thereby allowing consumers to find the information they need more easily when they go shopping so that they can make fully informed and healthier choices when they are buying food. the new regulations will modernise, simplify and clarify food labelling in the eu. at the same time, the new law will reduce the red tape for producers and operators in the food industry and will strengthen the single market. in writing. - i welcome this regulation, which supports consumers' entitlement to accurate information about the food they eat and where it comes from. i especially welcome the provisions relating to the country of origin. while the origin of certain foods such as beef, honey, olive oil and fresh fruit and vegetables must already be shown on labels, these new rules will extend them to other foods. this regulation is also good news for allergy sufferers, as all ingredients - including allergenic substances - must be indicated on the labels of pre-packed foods. without proper labelling, allergy sufferers may buy a product containing harmful ingredients without realising it. i also welcome the proposal for information on allergens to be given on food sold in restaurants or canteens. this information must be provided in a clear and consistent manner and must be easily understood by people. the provision of such information will allow consumers to make better-informed and healthier choices. we have finally reached an agreement on a new european regulation on food information for consumers in the eu. this regulation will bring europe's consumers tangible improvements in their day-to-day lives, which is why i supported it. those who wish to do so will now be able to make healthier and more informed choices about what they buy, as labelling will be properly legible, with a minimum size of typeface and rules on clarity and contrast. in addition, for the first time, it will now be compulsory to include a nutritional statement on the energy value and the quantities of protein, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars and salt. this nutritional information will have to be stated as quantity per 100g/100ml, which will enable people to compare products quickly and easily. another important point to note is that it will be obligatory to mention allergens in the list of ingredients, where applicable, which is a significant step, considering the clear consumer demand on this subject. this will also apply to non-packaged foods, such as dishes in restaurants and canteens. lastly, consumers will be informed of whether vegetable oils, such as palm oil, are present and, if so, of their precise origin. i would like to express my satisfaction at parliament's adoption of the compromise version of the food labelling regulation. this compromise has come close to the opinion which the committee on the internal market and consumer protection, of which i am a member, recommended two years ago. finally, a minimum font size (1.2 mm) will be introduced for the mandatory information on nutritional composition, allergen warnings, information on the use of substitutes and pressed or chopped meat, and other information which will help consumers make a better choice in food shops. the information also includes country-of-origin labelling for all types of meat and fish, and information on when food was first frozen. i applaud the fact that mrs sommer has managed to negotiate a compromise with the council for the second reading. the advantage of this is that the commission will verify the benefits and costs of possibly including more mandatory nutritional information in two years' time. in writing. - the purpose of the proposal is to recast the rules on general food labelling provisions. it consolidates and updates two areas of labelling legislation: the area of general food law covered by directive 2000/13/ec, and that of nutrition labelling covered by directive 90/496/eec. the dossier was affected by the extensive tabling of amendments at each stage of the process (up to 800) and two major groups within parliament: the rapporteur (partly supported by ecr) and the 'opposition' in the form of s&d, greens/efa, gue and partly alde. ms sommer's draft report was substantially improved by parliament. we supported the report both in plenary first reading and in envi second reading, as several of our key demands had been incorporated. the council common position partly showed steps towards the parliament position (e.g. country of origin), and, from a green perspective, was better than the parliament position on some issues (e.g. alcohol). the only 'but' is the inclusion of a text that says that member states may stipulate that the particulars shall be given in one or more languages from among the official languages of the union, which puts the non-official languages at risk. i voted in favour of the report because its objective is to improve consumer information and, at the same time, protect them from possibly being misled. the free movement of safe goods is a fundamental aspect of the internal market; it contributes enormously to the health and prosperity of citizens and safeguards their social and financial interests. i believe that this fundamental aspect is covered by this report, as it protects consumer rights and its aim is to guarantee comprehensive information for consumers on the foods they choose to consume, alongside healthy competition. consumers are at the heart of eu information policy and, as such, they must receive the best protection. i voted in favour of the report on the provision of food information to consumers since i believe that the new regulation as it is drafted enables users directly to check the composition of the products they buy. as such, not only do the energy content and the percentages of the various ingredients now have to be indicated, but labelling relating to the country of origin has been extended to more products compared with the previous directive. the new law, in addition to guaranteeing better consumer protection, also reduces bureaucracy, thus helping smes, which make up over 80% of the european food sector. i am convinced that this recommendation will help boost the competitiveness of agri-food enterprises, insofar as it will guarantee total uniformity of rules. in this regard, i regret that the text has provided the option for member states to introduce, at national level, mandatory information that goes beyond the system of common rules. however, the compromise appears to satisfy both consumers' information requirements and the safeguarding of the important role the food industry plays in processing raw materials for the benefit of the 'made in' concept. with regard to nutritional labelling, i welcome the measure to state on the front label the guideline daily amount (gda) as a percentage, including with regard to the portion of the food. i believe that clear information for citizens in terms of recommended daily intakes can prevent and considerably reduce the pressing problem of obesity, as well as help consumers to make more informed and healthy choices in buying food. in the same way, i support the mandatory criterion for a certain font size for the sake of a clearly legible label. lastly, i believe it is positive that the choice has been made to proceed with caution in introducing the mandatory indication of trans fatty acids, which can be found in food not just after a production process but can also be naturally present. at a time when our fellow citizens are taking an increasing interest in the quality of the products they consume, it was vital for the european union to improve information about the content of foodstuffs and to address consumer demands. in addition to the progress on stating the origin, the legibility of labels has also been improved, and nutritional information will make it easier to compare different foods and to make more informed choices. this is why i voted in favour of the report on food information for consumers. in writing. - my vote against this report is due to one reason: that my language, catalan, which is spoken by 8 million europeans, is not well protected and will not be able to be used exclusively in food labelling if spain so decides under article 15(2). taking into account that spain has not defended the status of catalan in the eu institutions and the main parties of spain have repeatedly voted against the inclusion of amendments allowing the normal use of catalan in food labelling, there is little hope that catalan will ever become a fully fledged official eu language. i understand that this is a very important report, but for me and my constituency, there are some red lines that cannot be crossed. in writing. - i voted in favour of the new rules that will introduce clearer nutritional labelling and a country-of-origin labelling on products and make information on allergens easier to read on packaging. it is vitally important that customers are provided with clear information about the produce that they are buying in order to ensure that they make informed choices when shopping. shoppers have the right to know where the food they are buying comes from and what exactly is in the products, and these changes will bring clarity to the traceability of foods in the eu. the european parliament has adopted a report on the labelling of food products. the text stipulates that labels will have to visibly state the energy value of the food product and the quantities of fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugars, protein and salt it contains. if we consider the long, drawn-out procedure that led to this report and the legislative and political battles that have surrounded it, all this hype has not amounted to much. the european parliament has been subject to fierce lobbying at various stages of the vote on this text, in particular, around the issue of a green, amber and red traffic light system designed to quickly highlight which products have a high salt, sugar or fat content. this system was rejected by parliament at first reading. the adoption of this report today marks the culmination of this procedure, but it does not deserve to be called a victory. i abstained from the vote on this report, which could have gone much further in terms of information and protection for consumers. i would like to thank mrs sommer, the rapporteur, for her excellent work over the last four years. today's vote in the european parliament is groundbreaking. it brings more clarity and openness for consumers. the model i have in mind is that of responsible consumers who are aware of what they are buying. however, that will only be the case when they also know what a product contains. today's decision will introduce standardised, mandatory nutrition labelling relating to per 100 g/100 ml amounts, thereby allowing consumers to compare products on the supermarket shelves. all the existing food labelling is voluntary, sometimes confusing and difficult to compare. mandatory labelling which shows the nutritional value of foods will give consumers the information they need to make informed purchasing decisions. consumers are increasingly being misled or deceived about food. we only need to think of imitation cheese on pizza, reconstituted ham, ice cream that contains no milk and chocolate biscuits without chocolate. often, cheap substitutes or aromas are used. all these imitation products must, in future, be labelled as such. the food labelling regulation is a major success on behalf of european consumers, which is why i have supported it. i would like to thank mrs sommer for her commitment to the cause of small and medium-sized enterprises (smes) in the food industry in particular, of which there are 2 300 in saxony alone. after three years of negotiations, she has succeeded in introducing a mandatory eu food labelling system which is manageable for smes. it is true that customers must also be informed in future about the substances which cause allergies that could be contained in loose, non-prepacked products. however, the member states are entitled to decide for themselves how this is to be done. this means that every country can identify the solution which is best for its own businesses and consumers, for example, signs or discussions at the time of sale. german bakers and butchers already have very high standards in this respect. the eu is not imposing any other mandatory nutrition labelling requirements on products which are sold loose. a derogation has been granted for handcrafted food which is sold directly by the manufacturer in small quantities to end consumers or to local retailers who, in their turn, sell the products directly to end consumers. my group, the group of the european people's party (christian democrats) has therefore been successful in bringing the interests of consumers and of manufacturers into line. i am pleased that small and medium-sized enterprises will not have to meet any impractical requirements imposed by the eu. i voted in favour of the text presented by mrs sommer since, by considerably improving the rules on the traceability of foodstuffs, it will represent a better kind of guarantee for european citizens. it is important to stress how the new label will make the sector more transparent, making it possible to clearly understand the provenance of the product at all stages. this is a clear sign of how much the community institutions are doing to guarantee improved protection and safety for consumers, not only with regard to food, but also in other areas, with the traceability principle increasingly present in various production sectors. i am voting for the position of the rapporteur who, following long negotiations, has managed to reach a compromise with the council on a common transport policy in the field of road safety, the main elements of which are the provision of essential and confidential data, the mandatory notification of offenders, the delegated acts and the correlation tables. in writing. - i voted in favour of the resolution on the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences. the resolution is aimed at helping to ensure more safety on european roads and so reduce the number of casualties. the basis of cross-border law enforcement is a smooth data exchange among member states. dangerous traffic offences covered under these provisions include speeding, not wearing a seat belt, not stopping at a red light and drink-driving. the list of offences has been expanded to cover crimes such as driving under the influence of drugs and using mobile phones at the wheel. i strongly believe that this resolution will make a significant contribution to ensuring road safety in the member states and urge the council to follow the european parliament's ambitious recommendations. in 2008, parliament adopted an ambitious standpoint on increasing cross-border exchange of information on road safety offences, but the subject was held up in the council for two years. the belgian presidency has made it possible to move forward by amending the legal basis for police cooperation, and i am delighted with this, even though the council ought to have shown more ambition. this represents a first step, and it should increase road safety by not allowing those who commit offences in a member state other than their own to go unpunished. this is why i voted in favour of mrs sender's report, and i hope that these provisions will come into force as soon as possible. the objective adopted by the eu in 2001 was to halve the number of fatalities on the roads. the available data show a 36% reduction in 2001-2009 in the number of fatalities, which falls short of the objective set by the eu in 2001 with the publication of the green paper on european transport policy. recent studies show a large percentage of non-residents involved in road accidents, particularly resulting from speeding. on the other hand, penalties imposed for infractions committed in another member state are those that most often go unenforced. this report, for which i voted, sets out new rules with the intention of facilitating the enforcement of penalties against drivers who commit offences relating to speeding, drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs, fail to wear a seatbelt, illegally use a mobile phone, use a forbidden lane, fail to wear a safety helmet or fail to stop at a red light in an eu country other than their own. data sharing between member states and the obligation to inform drivers are reinforced in the new directive. the aim is to put a stop to the impunity of any driver committing a traffic infraction in another eu member state. in countries which still have a poorly developed road infrastructure, such as poland, the safety of road travel is a serious challenge. the number of fatal victims continues to be appalling. nearly 4 000 people died on poland's roads last year, and during the last long weekend alone, there were 71 fatalities. citizens of other countries are also involved in these events, and they not infrequently underestimate the awful state of poland's roads. drunk drivers are a huge problem in many countries. although the ambitious objective of reducing fatal accidents by half over the last decade has not been achieved, everything possible should still be done to increase the level of safety on the roads. the certainty of being punished for offences such as drinking and driving, failing to use seat belts or exceeding the speed limit committed in any of the eu's member states should definitely improve safety on the roads and reduce the risk to life associated with driving. i endorsed the report. road safety in the european union only stands to gain following implementation of the directive which formalises the exchange of vehicle registration data between member states. it will make it possible to pursue serious road incidents throughout the whole of the eu and ensure that european citizens are equal before the law, no matter which member state they live in. the union will have safer roads once the directive has been enforced. this is a first very important step towards greater road safety and, given that it has been achieved after three years of negotiations, this makes it all the more important. we are moving towards the ideal situation where people who have committed offences or infringements will no longer get away with them simply because they do not live in the state where the act was committed. the authorities in the country where the act was committed will subsequently send offenders a registered letter to make them aware of the nature of their offence and the penalty which will be applied, as well as of possible methods of redress and the legal repercussions. fines and the methods of enforcement will be set out according to the regulations of the country where the offence was committed. i hope that the directive will be adopted soon by the council of ministers and that it will come into force by the specified deadline. studies have shown that foreign drivers are responsible for a disproportionately high number of road accidents, and particularly those caused by speeding. the penalties imposed for offences committed on the territory of a member state other than the one in which the offending driver is resident are very often not enforced, and this applies particularly to automatically recorded offences, the number of which has substantially increased with the expansion in automatic radar systems on europe's roads. this relative immunity undermines the fulfilment of objectives in the area of road traffic safety and casts doubt on the justification for these controls in the eyes of european citizens, who demand that resident and foreign drivers are treated in the same way. on the one hand, i welcome the fact that, at first reading, the council transferred the legal basis from transport policy to police cooperation, since i regard the new legal basis as being neater in legislative terms. on the other hand, it concerns me that the council has used these amendments to weaken the integration elements by removing references to enforcement procedures, and has limited its proposal to the exchange of information. enforcement thus remains non-mandatory, dependent on the decisions of individual member states and the relevant national procedures. in my opinion, an opportunity to make an effective contribution to increasing road traffic safety in the eu has been wasted. i voted in favour of the ayala sender recommendation on the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences, because i strongly believe in its guiding objective: road safety. more than two years on from the adoption of the proposal by parliament, certain elements that are crucial to the extension of road safety rules at international level have also been accepted by the council, via the agreement reached after the trialogue on 20 june. although the council maintained a rather inflexible position throughout the negotiations, i am satisfied with the message sent by this parliament, namely, that international recognition of serious road traffic offences, such as speeding, drink-driving and non-use of seat belts, is a fundamental objective to be achieved. the application of the legislation that we have adopted today is important for two reasons: the first being to punish offenders and the second being to encourage responsible driving. i voted for this report because i believe improving road safety is a key objective of union transport policy. the union is pursuing a policy to improve road safety, with the objective of reducing fatalities, injuries and material damage. an important element of that policy is the consistent enforcement of sanctions for road traffic offences committed in the union. such offences jeopardise road safety considerably. i would encourage greater convergence of control measures between member states, and the commission should examine, in this respect, whether it is necessary to propose the harmonisation of technical equipment for road safety controls. this directive respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in particular, by the charter of fundamental rights of the european union, as referred to in article 6 of the treaty on european union. when receiving the notification letter, a person suspected of committing a road safety-related traffic offence should be informed accordingly of his or her rights with regard to access to, rectification of, and deletion of personal data, and to the maximum legal period for which the data can be kept. in writing. - while it is unfortunate that certain countries have opted out of this measure, it is important that europe takes measures such as this to target road offences and reduce the loss of life on roads across the eu through proper implementation of sanctions. given the high mortality rate in road accidents, it is essential that the eu adopt the necessary measures in terms of road safety that will enable it to contribute to reducing these figures. monitoring of compliance with road safety rules is, without doubt, an effective instrument. however, at present, road infractions are not often penalised if they are committed with a vehicle registered in another member state, which also calls into question the principle of equal treatment of residents and non-residents. the infractions covered by the proposal are those that cause the greatest number of accidents and deaths on the roads: speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to wear a seatbelt, or failure to stop at a red light. this is the second reading of the ambitious proposal tabled in 2008, which, after two years of being blocked in the council, has come back significantly watered-down, with a new legal framework that, apart from allowing the united kingdom, ireland and denmark to opt out, has also reduced the proposal to the mere exchanging of data between the member states. nonetheless, i support this proposal because i believe it at least enables us to break the deadlock and is a first step towards a common road safety policy. i fully support the agreement that has been reached between parliament and the council on the cross-border exchange of information on safety-related road traffic offences. even though this agreement is less ambitious than the commission's initial proposal, it should, however, put an end to the impunity enjoyed by some drivers, who place their own lives and those of other people at risk when they commit serious offences. it will now be possible for the identities of these reckless drivers to be forwarded to the authorities in the state in which the offence was committed. i hope this provision will help reduce the number of offences and accidents, which are especially high during this summer holiday season. the european parliament today voted in favour of a report on cross-border exchange of information concerning road traffic offences. each year, 31 000 people are still killed on europe's roads and 300 000 seriously injured. of these accidents, 30% are due to speed changes caused by drivers from a country other than the one in which they committed the traffic offence. what is more, charges are not brought in many cases of cross-border road traffic offences. parliament is therefore asking, with a view to protecting road users, that the country of origin of the driver responsible for the accident should be informed in the case of serious accidents, so that the offence can be properly punished. this is because there are still major obstacles to cross-border cooperation, including a lack of cooperation between member states on policing. this report is therefore a first step towards the type of cross-border cooperation that already exists between belgium, the netherlands, germany and luxembourg. coming from a country where road accidents are assuming alarming proportions, i cannot but welcome any measure which tends towards increasing cross-border exchange of information concerning road safety-related traffic offences. in fact, in a union aiming for more open and free movement of people and goods, it would be incomprehensible if offending citizens could take refuge in their respective national jurisdictions and were not held to account for infractions committed in other member states. the safety of all those travelling on europe's roads requires that anyone breaking traffic rules be held liable under the civil, or even criminal, law, where justified, irrespective of where they are resident or what nationality they are. i hope that this will be another step in the right direction. safety on all of the european union's roads is of unquestionable importance. any initiative that we can take to reduce the number of fatalities and accidents on the roads should merit the greatest urgency and priority. although i welcome the result that we could now achieve with this report, i cannot fail to regret the lengthy amount of time that has been spent on this process since 2008, once again because of an obstructive minority in the council. with a view to the objective set of at least halving the number of fatalities on eu roads - currently at 31 000 per year - by 2020, we must be enthusiastic and determined in our compliance with traffic and citizenship rules, and in our enforcement of penalties against drivers who commit serious infractions, regardless of the member state in which they occur: speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, failure to wear a seatbelt, illegal use of a mobile phone, use of a forbidden lane, failure to wear a safety helmet or failure to respect traffic lights. harmonising rules and procedures and seeking a common road safety policy seem to be in the best interests of all europeans. after going through a first reading and the council's position, the proposal for a directive, which is now at second reading, aims to facilitate the enforcement of penalties against drivers who have committed offences relating to speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to wear a seatbelt, or failure to stop at a red light, in a member state other than their own. road safety and efforts to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on the roads are extremely important issues, as many of these accidents are caused by the majority of the infractions dealt with in the directive. moreover, we cannot forget that reducing these figures and promoting road safety require prevention work based on situations that are both specific and unique to each country. we believe there is a need to take measures to combat 'impunity' in cases where offenders are in a member state in which they do not reside. nevertheless, we cannot fail to express some reservations with regard to surveillance and control procedures and equipment that do not offer adequate guarantees in terms of protecting personal data. the proposal for a directive, which is now at second reading, aims to facilitate the enforcement of penalties against drivers who have committed offences relating to speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, failure to wear a seatbelt, or failure to stop at a red light, in a member state other than their own. road safety and efforts to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities on the roads are extremely important issues, as many of these accidents are caused by the majority of the infractions dealt with in the directive. however, reducing these figures and promoting road safety is more effectively achieved through prevention based on situations that are both specific and unique to each country. while it is true that measures need to be taken to combat 'impunity' in cases where offenders are in a member state in which they do not reside, disproportionate eu-level harmonisation measures - such as harmonising traffic rules and monitoring procedures by installing control and surveillance equipment that offers few guarantees in terms of personal data protection - cannot be a catchall solution. the white paper on european transport policy from 2001 includes the ambitious eu target of halving the number of fatal traffic accidents by 2010. despite a decline in the number of fatal traffic accidents, the objective set out in the white paper was, unfortunately, not achieved. the proposal submitted is based on studies showing that the number of non-resident drivers involved in accidents is disproportionately high, particularly where speeding offences are concerned. penalties for offences committed by non-resident drivers are mostly avoided, particularly in the case of offences that are recorded automatically. this relative immunity undermines the objectives set out in the field of road safety, and weakens the legality of these controls in the eyes of european citizens, who may question them, given that everyone should be treated equally, regardless of whether they have permanent residence in a given state. the commission's aim is to facilitate the enforcement of penalties in the case of drivers who commit a speeding offence, drive under the influence of alcohol, fail to use safety belts or fail to stop at a red light in a foreign member state. the commission deliberately decided to limit the scope of the directive to these four offences, which are the cause of the greatest number of fatal accidents, and which are regarded as offences in all member states of the eu. in writing. - recent figures from eurostat state that road fatalities in ireland fell by 16% in 2010 and have decreased by 51% over the last ten years. this is a real improvement; however, every effort must be made to further reduce the number of fatalities on our roads. the new directive represents an important new development in identifying and punishing foreign offenders who commit serious offences such as, for example, speeding, driving under the influence of drugs or failing to stop at red traffic lights, which cost many lives each year. thanks to a new procedure for exchanging information between member states on vehicle registrations, it will be simpler to trace foreign offenders who, all too often, enjoy unjustified impunity due to the impossibility of applying effective penalty procedures. even the commissioner for transport, siim kallas, pointed out that the chances a foreign driver will commit an offence are three times higher compared with residents and that many seem to believe that when they are abroad, the rules do not apply to them. with this directive, we want to put a stop to this dangerous situation. let us remember that in 2010, there were 30 926 road deaths in the european union and that the economic costs to society are estimated to be eur 130 billion per year. although there has been an 11% fall in the number of victims compared with the previous year, much remains to be done to guarantee our citizens greater road safety throughout the eu. i supported the report on the exchange of information between the member states on road safety, which will mean that serious traffic offences will be prosecuted across borders throughout the eu. reckless drivers let loose in other countries will no longer go unpunished. nevertheless, i am keen to warn against an ever-expanding police and surveillance system. for instance, i do not consider using a mobile telephone while driving as a serious offence. we will never achieve zero risk, even by criss-crossing europe with cameras like in a high-security prison. we must not sacrifice all freedoms for the purpose of achieving safety. i voted for this text because too many europeans are still dying on our roads each year. globally, it is the leading cause of death among young people aged 15 to 29. in its white paper on european transport policy (2001), the commission had the commendable objective of cutting by half the number of casualties on roads by 2010, but since 2005, the drop in the number of casualties has slowed down. in the union, one of the problems is that the sanctions relating to offences committed in a member state other than that of the driver are often dropped. this impunity weakens road safety objectives. it was therefore essential to legislate in order to remove this inconsistency, by facilitating the application of sanctions against drivers who commit the most dangerous offences outside their own member state. putting an end to the impunity and inequality of treatment between european citizens with respect to traffic offences committed in europe, such is the aim of this new legislation which i voted for. indeed, it has been proven that when drivers drive in other countries, they are more likely to commit a traffic offence. this is very damaging in terms of road safety. despite strong resistance from the council, it has been possible to end up with a balanced approach: while respecting penalties at national level, it is targeted at eight offences identified as causing risk (speeding, drink-driving, non-use of a seat belt, failing to stop at a red light, drugs, failing to wear a helmet, driving on a restricted lane and using a mobile telephone while driving), some of which can cause lethal accidents, which is significant. thanks to its determination, the european parliament has also obtained a firm rendezvous clause for a subsequent revision of the text so as to envisage going further in the future towards common road safety rules, which i welcome. i welcomed this document because improving road safety is a prime objective of the european union's transport policy. the union is pursuing a policy to improve road safety with the objective of reducing fatalities, injuries and material damage. an important element of that policy is the consistent enforcement of sanctions for road traffic offences committed in the union which considerably jeopardise road safety. sanctions in the form of financial penalties for certain road traffic offences are often not enforced if those offences are committed with a vehicle which is registered in a member state other than the member state where the offence took place, etc. this directive aims to ensure that even in such cases, the effectiveness of the investigation of road safety-related traffic offences should be ensured. this directive also aims to ensure a high level of protection for all road users in the union by facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences and thereby enforcing sanctions where those offences are committed with a vehicle registered in a member state other than the member state where the offence took place. the european union should continue to strive for achievement of the targets set in the 2001 white paper. it is essential to arrange for cross-border cooperation between member states in the form of facilitating access to national databases and harmonisation of road safety legislation. particular attention should be given to legislation on drinking and driving. every year, it is mainly drunk drivers who cause fatal accidents. it must not be possible for someone who breaks the law, creating a danger to life and health on the roads, to go unpunished. i voted for the draft directive aimed at setting up a system for exchanging information on traffic offences committed by citizens of one member state on another member state's territory. until now, this exchange of information has not been subject to any specific coordination and the offences committed abroad by european drivers are, most of the time, not followed through. road rage does not stop at the borders of one's country. dangerous driving remains so outside that country. from now on, drivers will be held responsible wherever they are and systematically. this will be the end of impunity for reckless drivers. nevertheless, this systematisation will only apply for the most serious offences or for minor offences, in order to make sure the new legislation is fully effective. in writing. - i welcome today's vote but regret that, because of a uk government decision, drivers of non-british vehicles in the uk remain free to speed, drink and drive, jump red lights and not wear a seatbelt with limited fear of prosecution. the new european measure makes it possible for governments to share information on road traffic offences and prosecute dangerous drivers in their own country. in europe, the percentage of non-residents involved in road accidents, particularly due to speeding, is very high. adoption of the council's position at first reading is a first step towards a common transport policy in the field of road safety. among the substantial amendments set out, many provisions originally proposed and strengthened have been completely removed from the text. as a result, the new text now restricts itself to exchanging information between member states through an electronic data exchange network to identify a vehicle which has committed an offence. three member states are not party to the directive, since the new legal basis chosen by the council left the door open for ireland and the united kingdom to opt-in and denmark to opt-out. this decision will have negative repercussions on the equal and fair treatment of european citizens by preserving a general feeling of impunity. we therefore propose right and more stringent reporting obligations for member states, which should be reinforced in terms of timing and content. we hope that the enforcement procedures are revised and that traffic rules and control procedures are harmonised. i voted in favour of the draft directive for the cross-border application of legislation in the area of road safety. amending the legal basis for police cooperation will make it possible to follow up traffic offences such as driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol, speeding, failure to wear a seatbelt, the illegal use of mobile telephones, driving through a red light, or using restricted lanes or bus lanes. in practice, after a letter has informed the owner of the vehicle about the offence, the sanction will be that of the country where the offence was committed. if the text is adopted unanimously by the members of the council, it will come into force within two years of being adopted. the adoption of these new rules will facilitate the enforcement of penalties against drivers who have committed offences relating to speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, failure to wear a seatbelt, illegal use of a mobile phone, use of a forbidden lane, failure to wear a safety helmet, or failure to stop at a red light, in a member state other than their own. the exchanging of data between the member states using the european vehicle and driving licence information system (eucaris) and the obligation to inform drivers are reinforced in this new directive, which must be transposed into national legislation within two years. this directive aims to put a stop to the impunity of drivers who commit traffic infractions in other eu member states. the increase in personal mobility within the eu is inevitably leading to a growth in the volume of traffic on our roads. violations of a wide range of road traffic rules, such as exceeding speed limits, failing to wear a safety belt or drink-driving, are causing large numbers of serious accidents. in 2001, the european union set itself the ambitious target of reducing the number of road fatalities by half, which it was not able to achieve. subsequently, the eu called for cross-border prosecutions for traffic offences. however, the individual member states are not obliged to pass on information and the united kingdom, ireland and denmark have even rejected the directive. i voted in favour of the report because i believe that the rapporteur has taken a sensible approach by reintroducing certain elements, such as the original legal basis in the transport sector. violations of a wide range of road traffic rules, such as exceeding speed limits, failing to wear a safety belt or drink-driving, represent a significant danger on our roads. the increasing volume of traffic caused by the free movement of people throughout the eu is resulting in large numbers of serious accidents. in 2001, the european union set itself the ambitious target of reducing the number of road fatalities by half, which it was not able to achieve. now it is aiming to introduce cross-border prosecutions. i have voted in favour of the report, because i support the direction it is taking. i voted in favour of this recommendation, facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences, because it will help to improve road safety, and harmonise road safety policies and enforcement procedures throughout the eu. i believe there should be further convergence in addressing issues concerning the harmonisation of checking and technical equipment among the member states. with the implementation of the provisions of this directive, drivers will be better informed about the consequences of not respecting road safety traffic rules when travelling in another member state, and the authorities of the member state in which the offence was committed will be able to do their job rapidly and more efficiently. it should be noted that whenever data is exchanged between member states, the protection of the person's fundamental rights and their personal data must be guaranteed. i voted in favour of this report because in my opinion, road traffic offences must not go unpunished, regardless of whether they are committed in the driver's own country or another eu member state. when they travel to other countries, drivers often show less respect for speed restrictions and other road traffic rules. although we have noticed a reduction in the number of deaths on our roads in the last decade, the number of accidents, particularly in the baltic states, is too high. the sense of impunity people feel when driving abroad really does not help matters. regrettably, denmark, ireland and the united kingdom have not yet shown any desire to join this agreement. when exchanging information, eu member states must guarantee the protection of personal data. however, fears that this information may be used for another purpose should not delay the introduction of a data exchange system. guaranteeing safety on the european road network is the primary objective of this recommendation on the council's position, a text which, after two years' work, seems to have reached an effective conclusion with a good agreement on road traffic in europe. that is why i voted in favour of the directive, which will enable the exchange of information between european countries relating to traffic offences, particularly to tackle drink-driving, speeding and non-use of seat belts. the member states will be able to recognise the offence even internationally and so apply the appropriate sanctions. the 36% reduction in 2001-2009 in the number of fatalities in the european union fell short of the objective of cutting the number of fatalities to half the average recorded at the time, set by the eu in 2001 following the publication of the green paper on european transport policy. this directive aims to institutionalise the exchange of information between the member states on vehicle registrations, also enabling serious road accidents to be judged throughout the union, and guaranteeing equality for citizens before the law, regardless of the member state in which they reside. i believe the union's roads will be safer when the directive is applied, and this is a very important first step towards increasing road safety. in this new system, the authorities in the country where the offence was committed will be able to send a letter to notify the person responsible of the type of infraction and the applicable penalties, as well as of the potential legal solutions and consequences of the act. fines will be levied in accordance with the rules of the member state in which the crime was committed. i voted in favour of this report for all these reasons. in writing. - i welcome this directive and expect that it will have a deterrent effect on driver behaviour, as drivers will know they are not exempt from driving safety laws across europe. the consistent enforcement of penalties for traffic offences is an important element in improving road safety. financial penalties for certain road traffic offences are often not enforced if those offences are committed in a vehicle registered outside the state. eu figures also suggest a non-resident driver is three times more likely to commit an offence than a resident driver. also, while foreign drivers account for 5% of traffic, they account for 15% of speeding offences. while ireland is not automatically bound by legislation enacted in the area of freedom, security and justice, the irish government has indicated it will give careful consideration to opting into this directive. the white paper on european transport policy published in 2001 set the objective of halving the number of people killed on the roads by 2010. however, the figures show a 36% reduction, which is below the envisaged target. meanwhile, some studies show a disproportional percentage of accidents caused by non-residents, particularly resulting from speeding. this gives a good idea of the difficulty of applying penalties to a failure to comply with the rules of the road. as the rapporteur points out, this situation could harm the residents of a member state, so calling into question the faith of its national citizens in the virtues of the eu. for this reason, parliament has been regulating its conduct, in order to increase the exchange of information between the various member states, not just in terms of exchanging data that will enable the offender to be identified, but also in terms of applying penalties relating to a failure to comply with the rules of the road. in writing. - in favour. according to the rapporteur, this text should bring: a new technical annex which replaces the reference to the decision 2008/616/jha on the prm convention. this new annex should be modified via the delegated acts procedure. some clarifications are introduced on the provisions on the software applications and on the information letter. the reporting obligations to be respected by member states should be reinforced with regard to timing and content. elements of the first reading of the parliament are reintroduced concerning personal data protection (article 7). the obligation to inform drivers is also reinforced, in line with the first reading of the parliament. article 9 on the revision of the directive is reinforced and extended to elements other than the scope. it asks for a revision of the enforcement procedures, the harmonisation of traffic rules and the control procedures, as described in a second new annex retaining the main elements of the guidelines proposed by the parliament in its first reading. i voted in favour of this report because i believe that it is extremely important to continue along the road of harmonising the road traffic rules of the various european union countries. in particular, it is necessary to enable adequate cross-border exchange of information to ensure that road offences can be prosecuted, even if they are committed in countries other than the country of residence. the percentage of non-residents involved in road accidents, particularly due to speeding, is, unfortunately, still very high. as if that were not enough, sanctions imposed for offences committed on the territory of member states other than the driver's country of residence are most frequently not enforced. this undermines eu objectives of road safety and undermines the legitimacy of these controls in the eyes of european citizens. now we need to continue along this road, so that closer collaboration between member states guarantees increasingly comprehensive road safety throughout the european network. i am in favour of the directive of the european parliament and of the council facilitating the cross-border exchange of information on road safety-related traffic offences. this proposal arose from the fact that sanctions imposed for offences committed on the territory of member states other than the driver's country of residence are most frequently not enforced, in particular, for automatically recorded offences. the text enables the exchange of data and allows the member states greater autonomy with regard to road safety. furthermore, no harmonisation is laid down for national road traffic rules, in that the objective remains to punish irresponsible drivers when they commit offences in a member state other than their country of residence. following this report, eu motorists who choose to drive whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol, to exceed the speed limit, to go through a red light, to use their mobile telephone whilst driving or to use forbidden lanes in another member state, will no longer be able to return home with a clear conscience. this proposal for a directive requires the national authorities to pass on the vehicle registration details (vrd) of a reckless driver. then, a notification letter will be sent to the offender. finally, a penalty may be imposed on the driver in accordance with the rules of the country in which the offence was committed. this cooperation must, however, fulfil certain rules for the transparency and protection of the data exchanged, to prevent such information from being misused for other purposes and to allow the possibility to correct or challenge it. i welcome the adoption of this report and i hope that the council will follow parliament's recommendations in order to put an end to the impunity of those reckless cross-border drivers who so often make driving a misery in border areas. today's decision by the european parliament in favour of adopting this report is an important step towards increasing road safety. the directive introduced in the report makes it easier for the member states to discipline road users and to encourage them to follow road traffic rules. unfortunately, the amendment on correlation tables was not supported. on 30 june, the conference of presidents unanimously decided that correlation tables must be used in all directives. clearly, the presidents are not always entirely of the same mind as the members, and the necessary consensus was not achieved. i hope that in the future, agreements will be reached and such situations will no longer arise. undoubtedly, the council's role in this matter cannot be underestimated; in any case, it does not want to include correlation tables in any legal act, nor to report when different legal acts come into effect. the adoption of the directive is highly necessary and important in order to increase road safety and reduce road deaths. it is therefore not rational for the council, out of stubbornness, not to adopt it. despite the shortcomings contained in the report, then, i supported its adoption. safety on europe's roads is one of the union's great priorities. the ambitious project of reducing the number of fatalities on the roads by more than half by 2010 ended in failure. as portugal is the eu country with the second highest road fatality rate, i voted for this report, and would stress that more measures need to be taken urgently to increase penalties for infractions by drivers not resident in the various member states. i regret that parliament's proposal has been rejected at first reading and that this document focuses essentially on the exchange of data between the member states by amending the legal basis that, at the same time, will enable three member states to opt out of this directive. moreover, utilisation of the european vehicle and driving licence information system (eucaris) as an instrument to manage data on innumerable infractions should be rethought, since its primary purpose is to cooperate against organised crime and terrorism. the loss of human life on european roads must be combated with concrete measures that hold offenders to account. expanding the scope to include other infractions should be the next step. i have declared my support for mrs sender's report as it is not only a major step forward for road safety but also for european citizenship. how can we make motorists understand that they have to obey the rules in their country when they see drivers with foreign plates committing offences with total impunity? it is, above all, an issue of equality before the law. whilst i can only regret that three member states have refused to participate, it is a first step towards harmonisation and the objective is clearly road safety, as only serious offences, rather than, for example, parking offences, will result in follow-up cross-border proceedings. the campaign to reduce the number of deaths on the road is a shared objective for all european countries and there is an urgent need for the eu to develop an adequate strategy in this area. indeed, how could we explain to citizens that freedom of movement guarantees the right to travel freely throughout the european union without there being, at the same time, cross-border enforcement when traffic offences occur? i therefore welcome the fact that our parliament has convinced some of the recalcitrant member states. however, it is only a minimum compromise that has been reached at second reading and i hope that a european action will go beyond a system for exchanging information to punish reckless drivers. it is only natural then that i should have supported the introduction of a review clause. the safety of our roads is a necessity that should not fall victim to any savings in resources or lowering of sights. it is up to us to ensure that improvements in road safety are constantly strengthened. i also think that it is essential to link our road safety strategy with the need to improve the quality and resilience of our infrastructure. the well-being and safety of europe's citizens depends on this, whether or not they are motorists. i voted in favour of the text presented by mrs sender since i believe it to be a step towards a common transport policy in the field of road safety. it is of considerable importance to establish a procedure by which information is used to identify the owners of vehicles with which an offence has been committed, in a cross-border setting. to date, notwithstanding the existence of many bilateral agreements between member states to identify and transfer information, offenders, due to red tape, have benefited from unfair impunity. thanks to the adoption of this text - which, nonetheless, is flawed in that it does not introduce a standard european model for reporting offences - it will be possible to raise safety standards on european roads and motorways, making it possible to identify and, if necessary, punish offenders. i am pleased with the result of today's vote. the outcome of the vote was uncertain to the end, so i welcomed the news that the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe had withdrawn amendment 36. this will enable adoption of the document at second reading. according to the results of research, drivers more often commit traffic offences when they are not in their own country, and sanctions imposed for offences committed on the territory of member states other than the driver's country of residence are most frequently not enforced. the draft resolution which has been adopted today provides for the electronic exchange of information between the police of eu member states about a driver from a foreign country who has committed a traffic offence. the national authorities with which the driver's vehicle is registered will be obliged to provide the vehicle's registration data if its owner is suspected of committing an offence. the police will then inform the owner or driver of the vehicle in writing in the owner or driver's native language that an offence has been committed. i am sure that the document which has been adopted today will help save at least a few human lives on europe's roads. i am voting for the report, above all, because it draws attention to the fact that the current legal instrument laying down the multiannual financial framework (mff) needs to be amended following the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, and that article 312(5) of the treaty on the functioning of the european union requires the three institutions to work together to find a solution 'throughout the procedure leading to the adoption of the financial framework': in other words, the process of adopting the mff regulation is founded on the presupposition of prior negotiation. this is a principle that the eu cannot abandon. the treaty of lisbon was not intended to lead to a reduction in parliament's prerogatives, so parliament should not accept such a reduction. article 312 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union specifies that the regulation on the multiannual financial framework shall be adopted by the council after obtaining the consent of the european parliament. article 312(5) requires the three institutions to work together to find a solution 'throughout the procedure leading to the adoption of the financial framework', i.e. prior negotiation is required. as mr bge stated in his report, this negotiation has not taken place. the council asked parliament simply for approval, with no attempt to reach a common solution. not even parliament's wish for greater flexibility has been addressed by the council. i therefore agree with the rapporteur that parliament cannot consent to this proposal for a draft council regulation on the multiannual financial framework 2007-2013. i hope that for all future proposals, this institution's voice will be heard, as, moreover, required by article 312 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union. i voted in favour of denying approval of the draft council regulation taking into account that the instruments must be amended following the adoption of the treaty of lisbon and that the council has shown no willingness to negotiate the lisbon package in accordance with the provisions of the treaty on the functioning of the european union. furthermore, its proposal was aimed at reducing the powers of parliament. therefore, this situation being unacceptable, i have adopted the abovementioned position. this proposal for a draft council regulation on the multiannual financial framework 2007-2013 underlines how the council has adopted the draft without first consulting parliament, thus not complying with article 312 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union, the very objective of which was to strengthen the role of parliament. since this recommendation concerns a purely procedural issue, i decided to abstain from the vote. i should like to begin by congratulating the commission on the proposal tabled. this is a budget that will not cost the taxpayer any more but is ambitious and innovative. this budget clearly supports the areas of scientific research and innovation, education, professional training, and encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises. another innovative aspect is the creation of a fund for investing in future infrastructure, for example, energy, telecommunications and transport. i believe this budget, which is simpler and more flexible, will have a real impact on europeans' lives. i voted for the report on the draft council regulation laying down the 'multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013' because i believe there is a need for an ambitious european budget to enable responses to the challenges that the european union is experiencing, within the framework of the new powers introduced by the treaty of lisbon. i agree with the rapporteur's position on not adopting the draft council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013, for the reasons set out in the report in question. the european union is experiencing times of tension and uncertainty, exacerbated by the caution of our european leaders, and by the wave of populism and nationalism that is growing, along with selfish and short-term interests incapable of finding solutions for the future that are of wide social and economic scope. the euro crisis and the return of borders in denmark, as well as the exacerbation of popular discontent and the most recent electoral victories of nationalist groups in a number of countries, are signs of the times in europe. there is a need to realise measures that guarantee the strengthening of european integration and of the eu authorities' capacity for intervention. there is a need for more europe, not just as a way of overcoming the current crisis, but also in line with the treaty of lisbon, which increases parliament's powers in a codecision process that the council and the member states insist on degrading. as such, i am voting for this report and i believe that parliament cannot adopt the draft council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013. it is well known that we profoundly disagree with the financial perspective 2007-2013, which represented a significant cut in the eu budget. moreover, it established the notorious 'lisbon strategy' and external policy as its priorities, at the expense of the structural and cohesion funds. it is clear today that it was inadequate for tackling the economic, social and environmental situation facing the eu, where inequality has increased, and where there is also, therefore, an even greater need for cohesion. with the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, it was established that 'the council. shall adopt a regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework [(mff)]. after obtaining the consent of the european parliament', and that the three institutions must work together to find a solution with a view to the mff's adoption. this new framework is the reason justifying the rapporteur's position rejecting the council's draft regulation - which represents nothing more than the regulation for the agreement concluded in 2006 - because he believes that parliament's new powers are not safeguarded. for our part, we would reiterate that the absolute priority of the mff should be responding to the serious social problems created by the economic and social crisis, with a significant increase in the union budget for supporting economic and social cohesion. the agreement on the financial perspective 2007-2013 was concluded in 2006 between the council, parliament and the commission. we expressed our profound disagreement at the time, as the agreement represented a significant cut in the eu budget and had the notorious 'lisbon strategy' and external policy set as its priorities, at the expense of the structural and cohesion funds. in other words, it was clearly inadequate for tackling the economic, social and environmental situation facing the eu, where inequality has increased and where there is also, therefore, an even greater need for cohesion. with the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, it was established that 'the council. shall adopt a regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework [(mff)]. after obtaining the consent of the european parliament', and that the three institutions must work together to find a solution with a view to the mff's adoption. although the rapporteur advocates non-adoption of the draft council regulation essentially because of the council's lack of respect for the new powers accorded to parliament, we voted in favour of not adopting this report because it is nothing more than the regulation of the agreement concluded in 2006, instead of responding to the serious social problems created by the economic and social crisis. article 312 of the treaty on the functioning of the european union stipulates that the council should adopt a regulation on the multiannual financial framework after obtaining the consent of the european parliament. the article requires that all three institutions cooperate on finding a solution 'throughout the procedure leading to the adoption of the financial framework'. parliament has clearly explained its position regarding the commission proposal in the oral questions of may 2010 and in its resolution of september 2010. the council adopted its own proposal in december 2010, and asked parliament to consent to this proposal on 18 january 2011, without commencing any negotiations with parliament aiming to reach a common position. the council pointed out in its letter that the proposal included the introduction of a certain measure of flexibility, in accordance with parliament's wishes. this offer is not enough. parliament has insisted on a greater level of flexibility in view of increasing needs and reduced capacities, and the increased use of the flexibility instruments established in the interinstitutional agreement. none of its other demands concerning the 2011 budget got a hearing. it cannot therefore agree to this draft council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for 2007-2013. on the basis of legal advice, it is thought that the current agreement will remain in force, with the exception of the provisions that became obsolete with the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon. in writing. - this report relates to the changes to the legal procedure for adopting the eu budget as a result of the entry into force of the lisbon treaty. the lisbon treaty sets a special legislative procedure for the adoption of the multiannual financial framework, that is, unanimity in the council after the european parliament has given its consent (via the majority of its component members). i would like to take advantage of mr bge's report on budget programming for the current period to return to the commission's crazy proposals for the coming 2014-2020 period. with a budget of eur 1 000 billion, which represents a 30% increase, the commission is removing, for itself, the fiscal constraints that it imposes on the member states. it is proposing to slash its bte noire, the common agricultural policy, whilst prohibiting its partial renationalisation, despite the issues of food self-sufficiency and safety being more important than ever. it is promoting policies whose operation and effectiveness are increasingly being called into question by the member states and even by the court of auditors. the same is true, in particular, for those policies that feed into the structural funds. now, regional policy, with its requirement for cofinancing, is an incitement to public spending. its objective is, above all, to grease the palms of local bigwigs and to destroy the member states. finally, i wish to mention the very worrying 2% vat proposal, a proposed new own resource to fill the coffers in brussels. it is not clear whether it is 2% of the income from this tax that will be allocated to it, or 2 extra points from which it alone will benefit. in short, it is wholly unacceptable. i abstained from the vote on this document because the european parliament declines to consent to the draft council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework (mff) for the years 2007-2013. the mff regulation is supposed to be adopted by council after obtaining the consent of the european parliament. the treaty on the functioning of the european union (tfeu) requires the three institutions to work together to find a solution throughout the procedure leading to the adoption of the financial framework. however, the existing legal instrument laying down the multiannual financial framework needs to be amended following the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon. the commission has brought forward the so-called lisbon package involving a proposal for a council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013, a draft interinstitutional agreement on cooperation in budgetary matters and a proposal to amend the financial regulation. the council adopted its proposal and asked the european parliament for consent to its proposal without entering into any negotiations with the european parliament with a view to agreeing a common position. in writing. - in times like these, we need more european union and efforts should be made to increase the value of the euro. for the european union to have a successful future, no cuts should be made in innovation or research and development in the union. it is also very important not to cut funding in the field of agriculture. freezing the budget would, in many cases, mean cuts in reality. making cuts in that field is not a sustainable future road to go down. the consequences can be more serious than expected. when discussing the budget, particularly at a time of economic crisis, we very often talk about special flexibility instruments, that is, the eu solidarity fund and the european globalisation adjustment fund. they are very important instruments, and i fully support their use. i should like, however, to refer to the part of the budget which is allocated to the support of european agriculture. the population of our planet is growing, and so is demand for food. in order to ensure food security, or universal access to healthy food for every citizen, expenditure on the common agricultural policy is fully justified. in writing. - i voted for this report because i agree with the rapporteur that 'the european parliament cannot consent to this proposal for a draft council regulation on the multiannual financial framework 2007-2013. after taking legal advice, the european parliament considers that the current interinstitutional agreement between the european parliament, the council and the commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management of 17.5.2006 continues to remain in force in the meantime, with the exception of the articles listed in annex which have become obsolete following the entry into force of the lisbon treaty, until the new regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework enters into force. and it insists on genuine negotiations, in line with tfeu article 312(5), on any future proposals'. with regard to the multiannual financial framework, we believe that, in the light of increased needs and reduced margins, and increasing recourse to the flexibility instruments foreseen in the iia (adjustment and revision of the ceilings and mobilisation of the flexibility instrument, the european globalisation adjustment fund, the european union solidarity fund and the emergency aid reserve), more flexibility is required. we believe that the current interinstitutional agreement should be considered as being in force, with the exception of the articles listed in annex which have become obsolete following the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, until the new regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework enters into force. we believe genuine negotiations are required for any future proposals. the european parliament is fighting to assert its right to negotiate the european budget. this right is supposedly clearly assigned to it by the treaties, as is the right to initiate legislation. the eu, however, does not want a european parliament. it prefers this assembly, that either ratifies or rejects proposals from the commission and the council. i am voting for this report to show my support for this battle and also my rejection of a budget that serves the liberal eurocracy. i am voting to block an anti-european budget. i agree with parliament's position on not adopting the multiannual financial framework (mff) for 2007-2013, as it is parliament's understanding that the current interinstitutional act on budgetary discipline and good financial management remains applicable until the new regulation laying down the mff comes into force, with the exception of the articles that became obsolete following the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon. the reduction in the mff's flexibility proposed by the council would also restrict the powers and prerogatives of the european parliament in comparison with those from which it currently benefits, which makes no sense to us or in the spirit of the treaty of lisbon. in writing. - under the lisbon treaty, for the multiannual financial framework to be adopted, the council must vote unanimously in favour of it following its adoption in the european parliament by a majority of votes. in the report, the european parliament disagrees with amendments to the current multiannual financial framework 2007-2013. i absolutely agree with that and i voted 'in favour' of the report. since the fiasco involving the euro rescue package, the net contributors have been asked to pay up two and three times over. in the next few years, hard cash will be poured into these rescue mechanisms instead of guarantees. this will have to be financed by the net contributors, in other words, the hard-working german, french, italian, dutch and austrian citizens, from their national budgets. however, the first painful cuts are already being felt in these countries. demanding budget increases in this difficult situation is scandalous. we do not need an inflated eu budget that may be up to ten times larger than necessary. we do not need a budget funded by eu taxpayers which is completely lacking in any awareness of the need for austerity measures, which will bring about a further increase in the brussels bureaucracy and which will rob the net contributors of their last pennies. instead, we should take every opportunity to make savings. farming subsidies, the largest and most controversial item on the budget, should be renationalised. this would take the pressure off the eu budget and put the member states in a better position to offer subsidies suited to the specific features of their agricultural industries. for this reason, i had no hesitation in voting against mr bge's report. the euro rescue package is changing the nature of the rescue mechanisms within the eu so that real payments are involved, rather than guarantees. as a result, the hardworking citizens of some member states will be called on to pay up several times over for the mistakes made by others. in addition, europe remains in the depths of a serious financial crisis. the calls for an increase in the eu budget in a difficult situation of this kind simply demonstrate how distant the delusions of those in power in europe are from the real lives of the citizens. it would be better to focus on budget discipline and to renationalise a large proportion of the budgetary authority. for this reason, i have voted against this report. it is very important for the european parliament and the council to negotiate a common position on the draft regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework (mff) for the years 2007-2013. the council cannot ignore and fail to consider parliament's position on this matter. the proposal put to parliament provides for a certain degree of flexibility, but essentially the proposal on the mff is not sufficient. given increased needs and reduced margins, and increasing recourse to the flexibility instruments foreseen in the interinstitutional agreement (iia), we need to establish greater flexibility. attention should be drawn to the fact that the proposal remains significantly less flexible than the current iia. i voted in favour of not adopting the draft council regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013, as i agree with the rapporteur's position on the basis of the reasons set out in the report in question. under the terms of the treaty on the functioning of the european union, parliament, the council and the commission have to work together on the process of adopting a multiannual financial framework (mff). given that we are still starting out with a new eu-level fundamental legal framework, there is a need to move towards healthy coordination among the various bodies, starting now. it is therefore regrettable that the council's agreement is, according to the rapporteur, less flexible than the interinstitutional agreement currently in force, despite the amendments to the treaties. as such, it is to be hoped that the draft mff, applicable from 2013 onwards, will be in line with the position that the treaties justly confer on the european parliament. today, we voted during the plenary session of the european parliament in strasbourg on the report on the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013. following the entry into force of the treaty of lisbon, a new council regulation is necessary for the multiannual financial framework for the years 2007-2013. the council has adopted the proposal. mr bge's report highlights the disagreement. the main reason is that the proposal does not provide any flexibility in the event the multiannual financial framework is revised under 0.03% gross. parliament is insisting on the need to maintain the current flexibility and, in this case, unanimity with the council is not required to make a decision regarding a revision. after taking legal advice, parliament considers that the rules in force, which are still part of the interinstitutional agreement, continue to remain in force until the new regulation laying down the multiannual financial framework enters into force. as regards the multiannual financial framework after 2013, parliament hopes that the commission proposal contains significant flexibility. in writing. - in favour. tfeu article 312 specifies that the mff regulation shall be adopted by council after obtaining the consent of the european parliament. tfeu 312(5) requires the three institutions to work together to find a solution 'throughout the procedure leading to the adoption of the financial framework' i.e. the consent procedure regarding the mff regulation is based on the assumption of prior negotiation. the european parliament set out its views on the commission proposal clearly in oral questions of 20 may 2010 and in its resolution of 22 september 2010. the council adopted its proposal on 21 december 2010 and asked the european parliament for consent to its proposal on 18 january 2011 without entering into any negotiations with the european parliament with a view to agreeing a common position. the european parliament has repeatedly asked the commission and council to provide for more flexibility in the eu's multiannual financial framework, which was one of the main obstacles to overcoming the effects of the economic crisis in europe, particularly in relation to providing emergency relief. the eu must take into account increasing competition in the world, and new challenges such as energy security. the eu will only become more competitive in the world when we have fair competition between member states. therefore, we must develop our cohesion policy in order to reduce the existing economic and social disparities between member states. we must straighten out agricultural policy and equalise direct payments to farmers. a situation in which, for example, greek farmers continue to receive 3-4 times larger payments than latvian farmers cannot be tolerated. i should also like to see more funding for support to business in the eu budget. the draft regulation does not provide for the necessary flexibility within the eu budget, nor does it call for supplementary funding to implement political and economic priorities. this resolution rejects the draft financial framework that has been presented to us, and that is why i support it. negotiations over the budgetary framework have only just begun. the commission proposal, however, does not respect the member states' wishes, in a period when costs are being cut, for the eu to make savings as well. the commission has instead come up with a dodge, involving the transfer of large planned investment packages outside the eu budget. this is just an optical illusion, however, as taxpayers will ultimately have to foot the bill for all of this. a responsible manager draws up a budget first by working out the revenues, and then by planning the expenditure. bureaucrats and many politicians, unfortunately, do precisely the opposite. i am voting for this document because it points to the attention that the commission should pay to the financial crisis, to member states' economies, and to the stability of the euro area. the commission should promote the general interests of the member states and their citizens, and effectively meet its obligation to supervise the application of the treaties and of eu law. it is primarily the commission's responsibility to shape the future of the eu. it falls to the commission to use its upcoming work programme to promote the union's objectives and values, reinforce commitment to the european project, help combat the crisis, ensure its representation, and strengthen its political position in the world. the european commission plays a major role in shaping the future of the eu and its future work programme. the europe 2020 strategy provides for many ambitious objectives in the most important areas of eu policy, which will have to be properly reflected in the future financial perspective. at eu level, we need to initiate an open and constructive dialogue and cooperation on issues concerning the objectives, scope and direction of the union's multiannual financial framework (mff) and the reform of its revenue system, including a conference on own resources, which would involve members of the european parliament and national parliaments. given the commitments made in the field of energy and the objective of establishing an internal energy market by 2014, i welcome the call for the commission to monitor the implementation of eu legislation in the areas of energy and energy efficiency, and to urgently adopt the appropriate implementing measures and put forward all new proposals needed to achieve these objectives. another major challenge - the future common agricultural policy (cap) - must be clearly geared towards the objectives of the eu 2020 strategy. we hope that the basic principle of the commission's future proposals on the reform of the cap will be sustainability, in order to ensure the long-term viability of european food production, while also improving the competitiveness of farmers, fairly distributing direct payments and promoting rural development, maintaining farming methods and diversity of production and avoiding bureaucracy. i voted in favour of this resolution because of the need to give a clear signal to the eu in relation to its work programme, taking into account the crisis situation that we are experiencing. it is essential that the eu creates new resources of its own to help achieve the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy. in the report on the commission work programme for the next year, there are several points that, in my view, are absolutely unfavourable. the call for the need for the eu to establish new forms of own resources and the renewed wish to continue the enlargement process in the balkans mean that i cannot vote in favour of the joint resolution. on the other hand, it contains points i agree with, particularly concerning the work programme regarding agriculture, the economy and the policy on smes. i therefore abstained in the vote. i voted in favour of this report because the european commission should continue its work and cooperate with the european parliament and the council to improve law making. i agree with parliament's proposal that it is very important to submit as soon as possible a proposal on the european social fund - the main instrument for combating unemployment and social inequality, as well as reducing poverty and improving education and professional training. furthermore, more attention should be paid to youth unemployment, whose scale is a major cause for concern, and the problem of young people leaving school without qualifications. it is regrettable that the commission has yet to put forward a legislative proposal on combating violence against women under a framework, created by a comprehensive strategy and appropriate approximation of sanctions. there is also a lack of proposals and initiatives in the field of public health. furthermore, we should maintain important new multiannual programmes in the areas of education, culture, sport and citizenship, because these programmes are very important for successfully implementing the europe 2020 strategy and preserving the eu's multicultural and multilingual diversity. it is crucial to take action and measures, based on an appropriate and efficient budget programme, in order to ensure that these efficient programmes continue to meet the needs of european society post 2013. i voted for the joint motion for a resolution on 'preparation of the commission work programme 2012' because there is a need for the commission to use its next work programme to promote the union's objectives and values, to reinforce commitment to the european project, and to table solutions for pulling the eu out of crisis, whilst fully respecting the fundamental rights of citizens. paragraph 14 of this motion for a resolution talks in positive terms of the creation of a public european credit rating agency. we can see that this could be a means of putting pressure on the large private agencies. at the same time, we see fundamental problems with this. it would therefore be beneficial to get a better picture of both the advantages and disadvantages of a public agency by means of a detailed study. a better knowledge base is required in order to enable further discussion of this matter to be constructive. paragraph 45 welcomes the introduction of a system of european border guards. we voted against this, as we believe that border controls should continue to be the responsibility of the member states. furthermore, paragraph 46 welcomes a new framework for frontex that is designed to strengthen its operational capacity on the eu's external borders. we do not believe that frontex should be strengthened. instead, we believe that adequate guarantees should be given that the organisation respects human rights in all of its operations. in spite of these objections, we chose to vote in favour of the resolution as a whole. in my opinion, the commission work programme for 2012 should focus on two key issues: (i) overcoming the debt crisis with new rules on economic governance, and (ii) committing to smart and sustainable growth policies. only with these two aspects - one of regulation and monitoring of public accounts, and the other of sustained growth - will europe be able to escape the crisis and achieve the targets set by the europe 2020 strategy. no state can manage to grow and be competitive without sustainable public finances. i would therefore re-emphasise the importance that we already have all the economic governance measures fully functioning by 2012, such as the new rules of the stability and growth pact, the european semester for increased coordination of economic policies, and the new procedure regarding excessive macro-economic imbalances. with a view to the return of economic growth, to genuine solidarity and to the stability of the euro, the europe 2020 strategy is crucial to the future of europe. as such, in 2012, and for the foreseeable future, the commission already has an arduous task to carry out in terms of ensuring a budget that can support robust and convergent economic governance, as well as of preparing a new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 that is able to respond to the great challenges confronting the european project. as such, i would reiterate the importance of realising new own resources capable of reinforcing the eu's capacity for intervention and autonomy. the commission should also table proposals as soon as possible relating to a common strategic framework (csf) that includes the cohesion fund, the european regional development fund (erdf), the european agricultural fund for rural development (eafrd) and the european fisheries fund (eff), as well as a proposal relating to the european social fund as the key instrument for combating unemployment, and reducing social inequality and poverty thanks to improved education and vocational training. i would particularly stress the need to give greater emphasis to youth unemployment, which is alarmingly high, as well as to early school-leavers. the obstinacy of this parliament on the deepening of its neoliberal, federalist and militarist choices is regrettable. they have not learned from the crisis. for example: the public-private partnerships; the liberalisation of the energy and transport sectors; the maintenance of the fundamental elements of the choices that have been made in the revisions of the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy; the reinforcement of fortress europe through the european agency for the management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the member states of the european union (frontex), and the criminalisation of immigrants; the 'strengthening of europe's military capability' through greater concentration of resources and increased cooperation with the united states and the north atlantic treaty organisation (nato); and the deepening of deregulation and liberalisation of international trade through pressure to sign 'free trade' agreements. faced with a crisis of capitalism that is threatening the very foundations of the eu, this persistence with the same choices is worrying and unacceptable. their - old - objective is to generate more profits for large companies and financial institutions, and to promote concentration and centralisation of capital by increasing the exploitation of workers and peoples. it is indifferent to serious social problems. no solution is tabled for the runaway increase in unemployment, poverty and social exclusion that these choices continue to generate. this resolution demonstrates that the majority in the european parliament has learnt nothing from the severe crisis that the eu is experiencing. it obstinately continues deepening its neoliberal, federalist and militarist choices. for example: the public-private partnerships that have been significantly contributing to increasing the public debt of countries with weaker economies like portugal; the liberalisation of the energy and transport sectors; the maintenance of the fundamental elements of the choices that have been made in the revisions of the common agricultural policy and common fisheries policy; the reinforcement of fortress europe through the european agency for the management of operational cooperation at the external borders of the member states of the european union (frontex), and the criminalisation of immigrants; the 'strengthening of europe's military capability' through greater concentration of resources and increased cooperation with the united states and the north atlantic treaty organisation; and the removal of barriers to trade and investment at global level, through pressure to sign 'free trade' agreements. faced with a crisis of capitalism, it is persisting with the same choices, whose central objective is to generate more profits for large companies and financial institutions by exploiting workers and peoples. it is indifferent to serious social problems. however, no solution is tabled for the runaway increase in unemployment, poverty and social exclusion that these choices continue to generate. we therefore voted against. in view of the current economic, social and environmental crisis, strong european leadership and closer cooperation at eu level are more necessary than ever. the current approach to governance remains unbalanced. we must strengthen supervision of economic policies and ensure effective compliance with fiscal consolidation. we must also take appropriate steps to find a solution to macro-financial imbalances. better coordination and harmonisation of tax policies are desirable, as well as an attempt at further measures leading to new revenues. it is important to supervise long-term investments in order to maintain sustainable economic growth. in this context, euro funds are also a correct and essential component of a balanced and strengthened economy. in my opinion, the crisis should be used as an opportunity to transform society in the direction of a highly efficient economy. this is another reason why a strong cohesion policy is needed in the effort to achieve the set objectives and the reforms planned for the forthcoming period. in writing. - i would like to express my disappointment at the result of the vote on the proposal for the commission's work programme 2012, which disregards much of the hard work that parliamentary committees have carried out following extensive dialogue with commissioners to scrutinise policy priorities for the forthcoming year. this undermines the expertise of committees and has given rise to several serious omissions of proposals which committees had stressed were vital in 2012. while the rules of the framework agreement required the resolution to reflect the summary report produced by the conference of committee chairs, the final resolution, supported by the epp, s&d and alde groups, was instead merely a wish-list of vague long-standing political beliefs. these even included issues such as defence capability, where the commission has no role. the call for enhanced financial resources was also unrealistic and unacceptable. therefore, the ecr voted against the resolution. i welcomed this document because the european commission has a key responsibility in shaping the eu's future and should use its next work programme to promote community objectives and values, strengthen ownership of the eu project, lift the eu from the crisis and ensure its representation and respected position in the world. today, it is important for us to revive growth in order to create jobs. we should continue to implement the citizens' agenda: freedom, security and justice. we should also increase our influence on the world stage. in writing. - i voted for this resolution, which, among other things, stresses that the economic crisis still remains to be addressed by means of the development of an economic governance framework with the power to enforce fiscal discipline and coordination, stabilise monetary union and raise the level of investment in productive jobs; urges the commission to bring forward as soon as possible proposals for a permanent crisis mechanism managed under union rules, a feasibility study on the setting-up of a system for the common issuance of european sovereign bonds on the basis of joint and several liability and proposals to fully integrate the eu 2020 strategy into the stability framework and for a single external representation arrangement for the eurozone. this resolution sets out what the group of the european people's party (christian democrats), the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats in the european parliament and the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe expect of the commission in 2012. we can be pleased with the instruction given to the commission to respect the general interests of the member states and of the citizens, as well as their powers in the area of wages and pensions. as for the rest, none of it is any good. the europe 2020 strategy, the energy market, the strengthening of military capabilities to support nato, the fight against protectionism by third countries and the implementation of the large transatlantic market in 2015: almost everything is included. europe is failing because of this majority. i am voting against this report. it is primarily the commission's responsibility to shape the future of the eu. it falls to the commission to use its upcoming work programme to promote the union's objectives and values, reinforce commitment to the european project, pull the eu out of crisis, ensure its representation, and maintain a respected position in the world. the commission's work programme for 2012 should be concerned with these objectives. i voted for this resolution because i agree with the suggestions tabled by the european parliament for the commission work programme for 2012. i would stress the need to re-establish job-creating growth by accelerating the programme for 2020, the need to complete the reform of financial market regulation, and the commitment to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, not least through developing the single market's potential for growth. in writing. - the commission has to deliver a 2012 work programme primarily oriented towards growth, job creation, a rise in living standards, mobility, guaranteeing a good level of security and social protection for citizens, while promoting europe's competitiveness and capacity as a global actor. the main priority of the 2012 programme and the years after should be the exit process out of the crisis, for the benefit of our citizens, with a fair share of responsibility to be borne by those who caused or amplified it. it is necessary to develop and implement a strategy to halve child poverty by 2020, to mainstream individual children's rights in all eu policies, and to promote measures to monitor and evaluate steps undertaken to end child poverty at national level. moreover, the revision of the directive on maternity leave must be adopted as a matter of urgency. the commission should develop specific policies to ensure the transition towards a green and smart growth, especially as regards worker re-skilling for green jobs and assistance for greening european industry in the context of global markets, as well as encouraging the private sector to invest in low emissions technologies that are favourable to innovation and job creation. the success of eu action is largely the result of good cooperation between the various bodies, based on respect and the linkup between their competences. as such, parliament stresses the need for the commission to behave as guardian of the treaties and the european project in its resolution on preparation of the commission work programme for 2012. in this way, it recommends that measures be adopted as soon as possible to enable the union's most pressing problems to be tackled: the development of its economy, which must involve immediate programmes maximising employment; the regulation of financial markets, without neglecting social and environmental balance; and the defence of the european project's fundamental values. at a time of extremely difficult challenges for the member states' joint action at global level, it is also important, with a view to a broader horizon, to launch the foundations for reinforcing eu action as a leading political and economic player; an ambitious project to which the european parliament is committed, with a view to the economic and social well-being of european citizens. i have voted in favour of the resolution for the preparation of the commission work programme as i believe that it makes it quite clear what the european parliament is calling for. the section concerning free trade agreements is very important to me and this represents part of the european parliament's new codecision powers under the treaty of lisbon. the european parliament is clearly in favour of respect for human rights and minimum social standards becoming a mandatory component of free trade agreements in future. this is particularly crucial in the context of forthcoming and all future free trade agreements. the european parliament must not vote in favour of the free trade agreement with colombia and peru in particular until the human rights situation in these countries has been resolved and the maintenance of minimum social standards is guaranteed. in writing. - abstention. we lost some key amendments (for instance, those related to liability for nuclear plants). we also regret delays in initiatives in field employment and social affairs, but we also had some good news, especially related to some amendments on hr. i voted in favour of adoption of the european parliament resolution on preparation of the commission work programme for 2012. as a member of the committee on culture and education, and as the initiator of the written declaration on increased european union support for grassroots sports which was adopted by the european parliament, i call on the commission to ensure the provision of appropriate financial resources for local and amateur sport. the year 2012 has been declared european year of active ageing and solidarity between generations. i am counting on numerous initiatives from the commission to help older people find work and to support them in the labour market. in poland, only 28% of people over the age of 50 are in work. this is the worst figure in the european union. i appeal, too, for an eu directive on the prevention of violence against women and for efficient action to renew work on the directive on non-discrimination. in writing. - i find it regrettable that the funding for iter, the fusion project in culham, oxfordshire, in my region has yet again been left hanging in the air. my disappointment is equally shared between the institutions. the responsibility for the project has been fraught with problems, some caused by ignorance (deliberate and otherwise) of 'fusion' as against 'fission'. yes, it is an expensive project but this commitment holds out a promise of energy supply absent of the problems of nuclear and fossil fuels. the excellent work of the 500 international scientists must continue and the commission and council must ensure the continuity of funding. i supported the resolution on the commission work programme for 2012 as i believe that this is only an indication of our expectations. on the foreign policy front and with regard more specifically to the european neighbourhood policy and the european union's enlargement, the following year will be particularly busy. i am expecting work to get under way on the progress reports for the countries in the southern mediterranean and eastern europe, as was stipulated in the revised european neighbourhood policy. they will provide proper guidelines for the flexible financing that has been introduced, announced with the slogan 'more for more'. this means that more resources will be given to wherever there are more reforms going on and better results. i hope that a new balanced approach will be adopted next year and all the european union's neighbours will receive the necessary attention and support. i would like the european commission to make a more serious commitment to resolving the issue of the name of the former yugoslav republic of macedonia so that negotiations for membership can finally be launched. there is a real chance that serbia will also be given a date for the start of negotiations, which may even begin in 2012. i would like to see a breakthrough being achieved on cyprus, allowing negotiations to be opened with turkey, in the full knowledge that turkey itself also has to fulfil its commitments to the ankara agreement. the joint motion for a resolution on the preparation of the commission work programme for 2012 is a step in the right direction. the forthcoming work programme should definitely be used to promote and to achieve the goals and values of the european union. it is essential that the europe 2020 agenda is implemented immediately. to do this, we need to have a detailed and objective discussion on the multiannual financial framework and to come to an agreement about it. this will include debates on the reform of expenditure and revenues. a conference on own resources involving the members of the european parliament and the representatives of the national parliaments is being called for and we must support this call. the paragraph on climate strategy covers the issue of sustainable growth. on the one hand, this deals with ways of combating climate change. on the other hand, it is inevitable that we will have to invest in renewable energies so that we can successfully address the problem of ongoing unemployment, in particular, among young people. energy security is another aspect of the resolution. security in this context refers not only to learning lessons from fukushima, but also to our independence in terms of energy. finally, i welcome the initiatives on reconciling work and family life. the continuing pay inequalities between men and women who do the same jobs must finally be consigned to the dustbin of history. i am voting for this report because i agree with the rapporteur's point of view that, on the one hand, welcomes a review of the road map started in 2005 but that, on the other, stresses the need to keep up the stringent measures on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) and surveillance mechanisms. animal heath and consumer protection need to be maintained as the guiding principles of any future measures. the number of cases of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) in the european union has dramatically decreased in recent years. this is important evidence that the eu's tse eradication measures have been successful. however, this downward trend must not lead to less stringent monitoring and control measures in the future. the highest level of consumer protection and food safety must always be the overarching goal of any measures in this field. i would therefore like to encourage member states to continue to stay alert and monitor closely the development of tse in case of a recurrence in animals or humans. although a majority of the members of the european parliament voted in favour of a clearly defined authorisation of 'processed animal proteins' (animal meal), i did not. i rejected the reintroduction of such animal meal. it must be recognised that scientists' views on the question of the dangers of using animal meal have changed greatly and, for some of them, it now seems possible to define the conditions for the safe use of these animal proteins. however, it seemed to me that we needed to take time to reflect and carry out studies, not to change the rules on animal meal and therefore apply the precautionary principle. that is why i voted against this reintroduction. as for the specific case of france, i would like to point out that the french minister for agriculture is saying that animal meal would still be banned in france. he made the commitment that, as long as he is the minister for agriculture, animal meal will not be reintroduced in france. in fact, there is nothing to stop a member state from laying down a rule that offers greater protection than that laid down at the european level. whilst animal meal is considered to be one of the direct causes of mad cow disease and at the origin of one of europe's worst health crises, the european parliament has today voted by a majority in favour of partially lifting the ban on animal meal in europe. indeed, in an own-initiative report with no legislative value, the european parliament advocates lifting the provisions banning the feeding of processed animal proteins to non-ruminants, subject to certain conditions. along with the other democratic movement meps, i voted against this report. indeed, whilst bovine spongiform encephalopathy has all but disappeared, we still do not know the extent of the creutzfeldt-jakob epidemic and too many uncertainties remain as regards the health guarantees for animal meal. moreover, other economically and environmentally viable solutions are available, especially the development of vegetable protein crops. do we wish to align ourselves with practices which have demonstrated in the past how dangerous they can be, or shall we commit to defending common sense and a european agricultural model that guarantees the safety of consumers whilst maintaining their health? as for me, i therefore voted against this report to reaffirm my view that there should be no compromise on food safety and health. i voted in favour of this initiative which supports, particularly in the light of the existing protein deficit in the eu, the proposal to lift the provisions banning the feeding of processed animal proteins to non-ruminants, provided that this applies to non-herbivores only and with all the safeguards. whilst animal meal is considered to be one of the direct causes of mad cow disease and at the origin of one of europe's worst health crises, parliament has voted in favour of partially lifting its ban in europe. doubtless under pressure from the industry, the commission and also the french national food council dare to assure us that the risks are now 'negligible' and that a change to practices would be enough to reduce these risks. whilst bovine spongiform encephalopathy has all but disappeared, we still do not know the extent of the creutzfeldt-jakob epidemic that we might face as the disease can take many years to appear. too many uncertainties remain as regards the health guarantees. other economically and environmentally viable solutions are available. the development of vegetable protein crops especially is a more desirable path. do we wish to align ourselves with practices which have demonstrated in the past how dangerous they can be, or shall we commit to defending common sense and a european agricultural model that guarantees consumer safety? we have therefore voted against this report to reaffirm our view that there should be no compromise on food safety and health. i voted against the european parliament's resolution on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) because i vigorously oppose the lifting of the feed ban for non-ruminants. even if it is true that transmissible diseases in animals have fallen in recent years, i believe that it is irresponsible at present to relax the measures taken by the european union to combat epizootic diseases. in writing. - i welcome the work which has been done to date by the commission and the industry in reducing the cases of bse throughout the eu. the goal should continue to be the eradication of bse, and, to do this, we must continue to have a stringent surveillance programme and funding for research. i believe any progression must be under clear scientific evidence but with the support of the consumer. upholding consumer confidence, safety of goods and animal welfare standards are the key goals. the industry has worked extremely hard and suffered huge losses since the outbreak of bse in the uk in the late 1990s. northern ireland is slowly recovering and now exports large quantities of red meat all over the world and into new markets; any question mark over the quality of our meat could have repercussions for the industry. i believe the commission must work to find a reliable system to identify species origin of paps. cross contamination within animal feed production must be addressed before any further steps are taken by the commission. transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) include serious diseases such as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which reached an epidemic scale in the eu in the mid-1990s because of the feeding of contaminated processed animal protein to cattle. this disease is orally transferable to humans, and takes the form of creutzfeldt-jakob disease, which leads to the deterioration of brain tissue and, eventually, death. following the epidemic of the 1990s and the resulting social alarm, innumerable measures have been taken in the eu to control the spread of bse, which have been very successful and have led to a real decline in the disease. however, the success of the measures taken should not lead us to relax controls and preventative measures, but rather to understand the importance of these measures and to keep them up, as well as to review them and adapt them appropriately to the present situation. i voted in favour of this report because of the need for and importance of food safety. there is a need to maintain a rigorous and effective system for controlling and monitoring feed and food that can minimise risk and ensure better conditions for preventing new diseases or outbreaks in the context of the global economy, given the repercussions of infection by diseases and epidemics, specifically transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse). tse are a family of diseases that occur in humans and animals and are characterised by the degeneration of brain tissue, giving it a 'sponge-like' appearance, and can potentially lead to death, as was the case with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse), popularly known as 'mad cow disease'. it is in this context that we have witnessed a significant decline in cases of tse, resulting from action that it is important to keep up if we are to eradicate it. we can all still remember the social alarm caused in the middle of the 1990s by the epidemic scale that bovine spongiform encephalopathy reached in the eu; it is a type of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, as is its human variant: creutzfeldt-jakob disease. the immediate cause of the scale reached by the disease - transmitted by an agent called a prion, which is an abnormal form of protein - was the feeding of contaminated processed animal protein to cattle. based on commission proposals motivated by the substantial decline recorded in the number of cases of the disease - 2 167 in 2001 to 67 in 2009 - resulting from the application of a series of legislative measures with a view to eradicating it, the report proposes that the legislative provisions currently in force be adapted. the obligations and requirements for doing this seem justified and adequate to us. we would stress the importance of maintaining tough rules on prohibition of foodstuffs. the deeper causes of this epidemic, as well as of other problems concerning food security and public health, are founded in the use of the intensive production models that the eu has been promoting, at the expense of extensive production models, which are primarily concerned with consumer health, environmental security and animal welfare. we can all still remember the social alarm caused in the middle of the 1990s by the epidemic scale that bovine spongiform encephalopathy reached in the eu; it is a type of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, as is its human variant: creutzfeldt-jakob disease. the immediate cause of the scale reached by the disease - transmitted by an agent called a prion, which is an abnormal form of protein - was the feeding of contaminated processed animal protein to cattle. based on commission proposals motivated by the substantial decline recorded in the number of cases of the disease - 2 167 in 2001 to 67 in 2009 - resulting from the application of a series of legislative measures with a view to eradicating it, the report proposes that the legislative provisions currently in force be adapted. the obligations and requirements for doing this seem justified and adequate to us. we would stress the importance of maintaining tough rules on prohibition of foodstuffs. the deeper causes of this epidemic, as well as of other problems concerning food security and public health, are founded in the use of the intensive production models that the eu has been promoting at the expense of extensive production models, which are primarily concerned with consumer health, environmental security and animal welfare. transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) are a family of diseases occurring in humans and animals, characterised by a degeneration of brain tissue resulting in a sponge-like appearance and leading to death. in response to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse) epidemic, a regulation of the european parliament and the council, known as the 'tse regulation', was adopted in the eu, laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain spongiform encephalopathies. the regulation first introduced a unified legal basis for the control and prevention of tse and bse. the regulation consolidated all previous eu legislation in the area of tse. it has been amended several times since it was introduced, and a number of supplementary measures have been added with the aim of further eradicating, controlling and monitoring tse. in addition to this, there are other measures contributing to a comprehensive safety and surveillance regime for managing tse. in my opinion, it is essential that consumer protection, animal health and tse eradication remain the chief objectives and the top priorities when considering any changes to current legislation, and we must also continue the close monitoring of developments in the tse family of diseases, in case of a repeat tse or bse outbreak. it is also essential to promote research in these areas, where our knowledge is still incomplete. only in this way will it be possible to adopt well-founded policy decisions in the future. in recent years, the agro-food industry has been marked by numerous epidemics, among which the most representative are certainly transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse), commonly known as 'mad cow' disease. in the mid-90s, the spread of this disease in the eu saw over 2 200 cases and, to date, has led to the deaths of 207 people. i should like to point out that this epidemic radically changed not only the european system for managing food crises, but also public awareness of these issues. even today, over 10 years later, a survey conducted by eurobarometer reveals that 62% of europeans feel they cannot protect themselves against diseases such as mad cow disease. it is therefore important that citizens know that in europe, there is constant monitoring of spongiform diseases, which can offer prevention and guarantee, if necessary, rapid identification. i agree with the rapporteur as to the validity of the proposals tabled by the commission on the tse road map 2. lastly, i hope that the member states together with the eu scrupulously apply the european legislation on feed and food. i voted against amendment 7 to paragraph 1 concerning the feed ban on provisions for non-ruminants, as i believe that there are very serious health risks for humans. the 1990s and 2000 were marked by the health scandal of mad cow disease. whilst animal meal has been clearly identified as being at the origin of this disease, a majority of meps have voted in favour of the partial lifting of the ban on animal meal in europe. as we know, given the devastating effects of this meal, this is extraordinary. i therefore voted against this report as, although the epidemic has all but disappeared, a great number of unknowns remain. there are other viable solutions and it would have been preferable to prioritise these, rather than reviving old formulas that have already caused so much damage. do we wish to align ourselves with practices which have demonstrated in the past how dangerous they can be, or shall we commit to defending common sense and a european agricultural model that guarantees consumer safety? together with the other members of the democratic movement, i therefore voted against this report to reaffirm my view that there should be no compromise on food safety and health. the number of cases of mad cow disease (bse) and other transmissible diseases such as scrapie (tse) has decreased dramatically in recent years. this is important evidence that the eu's tse eradication measures have been successful. however, this downward trend must not lead to less stringent surveillance measures. this is why i voted against this report that recommends, subject to certain conditions, lifting the feed ban for non-ruminants, especially poultry, pigs and fish. there is real public concern about this issue and i believe that lifting the ban on feeding processed animal protein to non-ruminants, even subject to conditions, is neither justified nor free from health risks, such as cross-contamination in mixed livestock farms or in abattoirs. we all remember the very serious consequences caused by 'mad cow' disease, a striking example of how often the desire to grow rich as quickly as possible overrides everything, until it ends, in this case, with extremely serious consequences in both health and economic terms. we should remember the numerous cases of human deaths, such was the crisis in the bovine meat sector. having changed the habits of herbivorous animals is an example of how human nature much more readily identifies with unbounded profiteering. it is true that cases of tse/bse in the european union have fallen considerably in recent years and that is significant proof of the effective prevention measures undertaken during this period. however, i fully agree with the rapporteur when she states that, considering the seriousness of the phenomenon, control and surveillance measures must, if anything, be strengthened. as such, i fully agree with the need to foster research in those areas where knowledge remains incomplete only in this way can future policy decisions be made and justified and public health be protected in the global system. i welcomed this document because in 1997-1998, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse) reached epidemic proportions in the eu due to cattle being fed with bse contaminated processed animal proteins (pap). in reaction to the bse epidemic in the eu, regulation (ec) no 999/2001 of the european parliament and of the council of 22 may 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) was adopted and established for the first time in a uniform legal basis for the control and prevention of tse and bse. the regulation consolidated all previous eu legislation governing tse. it has been amended several times since its introduction and several additional measures have been amended or introduced to further eradicate, control and monitor the spread of tse. in addition, other measures contribute to a comprehensive safety and surveillance regime governing tse. the communication from the commission to the european parliament and the council entitled 'the tse road map 2: a strategy paper on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies for 2010-2015' was published on 16 july 2010 and was welcomed by the european parliament. however, the european parliament underlines the importance of ensuring that the significant decline in bse cases in the european union does not lead to less stringent tse measures or to a reduction in the strict control and surveillance mechanisms in the eu and takes note of the contribution of past and current tse legislation to the eradication of tse in the eu. in the 1990s, we experienced the nightmare of creutzfeldt-jakob disease, which is a form of bse. since that time therefore, research in this field has been carried out continuously, and standards for breeding, feeding and the slaughter of animals have been made higher than ever. despite the intensified activity and the real progress which has been made, scientific research has not shown that the danger has been completely eliminated from europe, so there is no reason to significantly weaken legislation. after all, the safety of consumers is of primary importance. however, the question of protein deficit in the diet of ruminants remains important. eu legislation has established detailed standards governing the presence of animal protein in feed. however, in view of the insufficient amounts of protein crops grown in europe, we are forced to import them from outside the union, where high standards of production are not always maintained. the solution is a liberalisation of legislation on feed or a change in protein crop production policy (the husling report). my support for mrs roth-behrendt's report is an endorsement of the success achieved in recent years through constant monitoring, which has led to the almost total eradication of the bse problem, based on the number of confirmed cases, which, in europe, has fallen from 2 167 in 2001 to approximately 65 in 2009. the difficult time europe went through during the bse epidemic is still vivid in the minds of european citizens who, for the first time, found themselves confronted with a food scare, but also a collapse in production that devastated the economy of many rural areas. we therefore welcome the tse road map 2, so that monitoring can continue effectively together with the development of ante-mortem and post-mortem rapid bse-diagnostic tests, and with research dedicated to this animal health problem, which now forms part of an ugly chapter of european agriculture. in writing. - i welcome this report, which stresses that the age limits for testing for bse can be raised only after a thorough risk assessment. consumer protection, animal health and the eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies are our main goals and must, therefore, be of overriding importance when considering changes to the current rules. for this reason, we call on the commission and the member states to continue to monitor their development closely, with particular attention to the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. we believe that the highest level of consumer protection and food safety should always be the overarching goal of any measures in this field. therefore, where scientific knowledge is not broad or advanced enough, the precautionary principle shall always prevail. the commission shall be bound to inform parliament about new findings on this matter; the proposed changes to the feed ban can be supported under certain conditions; processed animal proteins derived from animal parts fit for human consumption have to undergo additional sterilisation methods and any changes to the srm list must be considered carefully. lastly, we believe it is necessary to foster research in those areas where knowledge remains incomplete. only in this way can future policy decisions be made and justified. i voted against the european commission's proposal on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) for a relaxation of the feed ban provisions. for food safety reasons, i feel it is important to oppose the lifting of the ban, even subject to conditions, on the feeding of animal meal to non-ruminants, especially to poultry, pigs and fish. although cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse) and creutzfeldt-jakob disease are falling in europe, the recent e. coli health crisis reminds us of the importance of maintaining a high level of animal and public health. in order to effectively control this disease, it is essential to carry out checks on feed and food, as well as on other related issues, such as high levels of dioxin and mechanically separated meat. consumer protection, animal health and the eradication of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) will always be the main objectives and of crucial importance when changes to the existing rules are being contemplated. as a result, it is important that the commission and member states continue to closely monitor the development of tse, in case of a resurgence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. in writing. - in 2005 and 2010, the commission adopted two road maps. since then, the incidence of cases of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy has continued to decline. in general, the rapporteur welcomes the commission's proposals to revise certain provisions of current tse legislation, but i also believe that strict measures should be applied to producers of food made from domestic animals. insurance against the risk of disease in animals should also be obligatory, thus making the responsibility of producers more complete. transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) are caused by a transmissible agent known as a prion which is an abnormal form of protein. this disease is extremely dangerous to people and animals. although the european union has recently seen a decline in bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse) cases, it is essential to maintain the same level of control of tse and related feed and food and stringent surveillance mechanisms. at eu level, we must be in a state of constant readiness to stop an outbreak of this disease. i believe that the commission should encourage research to develop rapid bse-diagnostic tests. furthermore, it is very important for the commission to review the current threshold levels for dioxin in fish-meal. it should be noted that the limit currently permitted is too low, because it poses a threat to human and animal health. consequently, i welcome this proposed resolution on eu legislation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and on related feed and food controls - implementation and outlook. on the basis of the commission proposals, this report proposes that the legislative provisions currently in force be adapted because a substantial decline has been recorded in the number of cases - 2 167 in 2001 to 67 in 2009 - resulting from the application of a series of legislative measures, and with a view to eradicating transmissible spongiform encephalopathies. the responsibilities and requirements put forward in the proposal are justified and adequate. the importance of maintaining the tough rules on prohibition of foodstuffs should be stressed. some of the causes of this epidemic, as well as other problems of food security and public health, result from the use of intensive production models rather than extensive production models, which are primarily concerned with consumer health, environmental security and animal welfare. i voted in favour of this report as i agree with the balanced measures proposed, without losing sight of regular controls and preventative measures. in writing. - (ro) the number of positive bse (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) cases in the eu has decreased from 2 167 cases in 2001 to 67 cases in 2009. this is why the relevant tse legislation can be modified in the future, while ensuring and maintaining a high level of animal and public health standards in the european union. these changes could include measures relating to the removal of specified risk materials (srm), the review of the total feed ban provisions, eradication of scrapie, cohort culling and monitoring the evolution/involution of tse by correlating member states' reports. i call on the commission and member states to take measures to ensure that the requirements under the current legislation in this area are complied with and that illegal diversion into the feed chain is prevented. i urge the commission and member states to continue to stay alert and monitor closely the development of tse in case of a recurrence of tse/bse. i should stress that consumer protection, animal health and the eradication of tse must always be the main goals and be of overriding importance when considering changes to the current regulations. transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) are the cause of a range of diseases, including creutzfeldt-jakob disease, which affects humans. in order to combat the first bovine spongiform encephalopathy- the bovine variant of tse - epidemic, parliament and council adopted a series of control and preventative measures in 2001. it should now be stressed that there has been a decline in the number of cases of this disease in recent years, reflecting the relative success of the measures adopted. nevertheless, as the rapporteur rightly points out, since our scientific knowledge does not allow us to guarantee a risk-free withdrawal of preventative measures, the precautionary principle should prevail, given the risks to human health of a potential new outbreak of the epidemic. by adopting this report on eu legislation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) and on related feed and food controls, the european parliament has betrayed its moral obligation towards europe's citizens. it has brought an end, admittedly subject to conditions, to 15 years of prohibition. that decision was taken in 1996, following the mad cow (bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse)) crisis. today's vote at noon (485 votes to 162) delivers a message that is diametrically opposed to the one that not only a majority of consumers, but also the livestock farmers and food distributors and manufacturers, were hoping to hear. so many of the direct stakeholders are opposed to the reintroduction of animal meal. however, nothing has changed in 15 years; the scientific uncertainties remain, especially for farmed fish, and there is nothing to ensure the effective traceability at european level of the origin of feed made from animal by-products. in conclusion, as long as the commission does not clearly spell out that animal meal poses no food safety risk, the 27 ministers for agriculture should oppose a new food policy that europe's citizens no longer want. in writing. - against. the fact that paragraph 7 of the original text was kept (despite our negative vote) made some of us vote against in the final vote. the text says: 'supports - particularly in the light of the existing protein deficit in the eu - the commission proposal to lift the provisions banning the feeding of processed animal proteins to non-ruminants, provided that this applies to non-herbivores only, and that: .'. i voted in favour of this report because i believe it is necessary not to lower our guard against the threat posed by transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, which have threatened european citizens in the past, causing considerable harm to local cattle production. it is now necessary more than ever to clarify the legislative framework in force, updating it on the basis of the latest scientific evidence, in order to make it even more useful for consumer protection and animal health. i voted in favour of the roth-behrendt report because i consider that, in light of the commission's proposal, food and feed control reports and other related matters, such as high levels of dioxin and mechanically separated meat, consumer protection, animal health and the elimination of tse should always be the basic and most important objectives when considering any changes to the current rules. that is why i endorse the rapporteur's position in calling for the commission and the member states to remain vigilant and to continue to monitor the development of tse closely, should any new cases of tse/bse emerge. a little while ago, the commission proposed lifting the provisions banning the feeding of processed animal proteins to non-ruminants. the european parliament advocates strict preconditions. processed slaughterhouse waste must only be derived from species which are not linked to tse. the production and sterilisation methods used to process the slaughterhouse waste must comply with the highest safety standards. the ban on intra-species recycling ('cannibalism') must remain in force. the production channels for slaughterhouse waste derived from different species must be completely separated. the separation of these production channels must be guaranteed by the competent authorities in the member states and audited by the commission. before the ban on meat and bone meal is lifted, a reliable species-specific method must be put in place to identify the species origin of the proteins in animal feed so that 'cannibalism' and the feeding of animal meal to ruminants can be prevented. finally, the production of processed animal proteins from category 1 or category 2 material must be prohibited. only category 3 material fit for human consumption may be used for the production of processed animal proteins. only strict compliance with these conditions can result in the lifting of the ban on meat and bone meal. the european commission wishes, subject to conditions, to lift the provisions banning the feeding of processed animal proteins to non-ruminants. the number of cases of mad cow and other diseases, such as tse, has dramatically decreased but this is due to the eu's eradication measures. this downward trend must not lead to less stringent measures. i therefore voted against this proposal. we must take a long-term view by promoting a true policy for the development of vegetable protein crops. it is out of the question to lift the feed ban. i am obviously disappointed with the result of this vote as, whilst the reintroduction of animal meal may indeed be a solution to the union's current protein deficit, it is nonetheless true that the food safety of europe's citizens must be a priority. moreover, whilst we must take into consideration the scientific and economic data relating to the use of animal meal, we also need to respect the expectations of those citizens. in the middle of the e. coli health scare, the issue of consumer acceptability is wholly understandable. the spectre of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and the pictures of hundreds of slaughtered mad cows, plus the added fear of variant creutzfeldt-jakob disease, should make us extremely prudent and responsible. this is why i voted against this motion for a resolution. the european parliament has voted to lift the ban on animal meal and is authorising its use for non-herbivores, in other words, poultry, fish and pigs. i voted against this authorisation. whilst the european parliament boasts interminably about the importance of traceability in the food sector, it admits that, for the moment, there is no guarantee of a clear separation of products derived from animal meal from others, whether at the time of slaughter or during transport. in this text, the european parliament is bending to pressure from the lobbies, to the detriment of public health. i strongly object to this vote. the argument put forward in this resolution of a protein deficit in europe seems to me to fall well short of justifying such a risk. we can clearly see here that, faced with pressure from the lobbies, the majority of the european parliament has renounced the precautionary principle and is not hesitating to take risks with public health, merely in exchange for a request to the commission to improve traceability. following the example of the french socialist delegation, i voted against the roth-behrendt report on eu legislation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) and on related feed and food controls. it is difficult to understand, 15 years after the start of the mad cow crisis, how we could act as if nothing had happened and how we can envisage putting animal meal intended for ruminants back onto the market, even if subject to strict controls. the current crisis in the livestock sector, linked, in particular, to rising world cereal prices, has to be resolved by regulations at the economic and trade level and by combating speculation, and certainly not by endangering health security. regulation (ec) no 999/2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) was adopted in response to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse) epidemic. the tse regulation has constantly been amended and extended. one of the important instruments in this respect was regulation (ec) no 882/2004 on feed and food controls. this proposal for another amendment of the regulation involves the far-reaching relaxation of the legal provisions. i was not able to support this, because it means that there will be a lack of regular, strict checks. i voted in favour of the text presented by mrs roth-behrendt on legislation on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (tse) and on related feed and food controls. fourteen years on from the summer of 1997, when the so-called 'mad cow disease' epidemic broke out, i believe it is vital to insist on strict monitoring of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and on surveillance mechanisms, bans on the use of animal meal in feed, the srm list, cohort culling and mechanically separated meat. only by carrying out controls of this kind can we avoid the proliferation in the member states of new, dreadful epidemics that jeopardise the health of european citizens. i am voting for the report, and would draw attention to the need to continue to pay the greatest attention to individual freedoms, health and data protection, which led to the rejection of the 2008 commission communication. at a time when we are living permanently under threat, we need a more expansive approach to security issues, so that they are not restricted to tackling issues relating to body scanners. in writing. - i voted in favour of the resolution on aviation security, with a special focus on security scanners. the resolution lays down the conditions for the use of body scanners at airport check-ins and calls for a definitive end to the ban on carrying liquids in 2013. it is very important to stress that the new generation of scanners fulfil parliament's demands for the protection of human rights, as, rather than showing a human body, they display a standard image that simply indicates if the passenger is carrying anything dangerous or not. the european parliament rejected the use of body scanners in 2008 because there were no guarantees on the respect of passenger privacy. developments in the technology of the scanners have overcome doubts regarding fundamental rights or risks for human health due to frequent exposure to x-ray technologies. i support the rapporteur on the issue of liquids, aerosols and gels in passengers' hand luggage. the european commission must quickly clarify the current ambiguous situation and, in any case, transform the ban on carrying liquids into an obligation to screen them from 2013. the european union, together with all the democratic institutions of the member states, has an inescapable duty to guarantee public safety against a global phenomenon such as terrorism. this is a duty that often involves the difficult task of reconciling limitations on certain freedoms with guaranteeing safety. most concerns arise from the civil aviation sector. mr de grandes pascual's report contributes to the discussion and joint consideration by the three institutions with a view to adopting new measures and moving forward on this task. i agree with the call to implement harmonised rules across the eu regulating operating conditions and common standards for the detection performance of scanners, which is why i fully support the work done by my colleague. i voted in favour of this report. i agree with the rapporteur that an integrated approach to aviation security is needed, with one-stop security so that passengers, luggage and cargo arriving at an eu airport from another eu airport do not need to be screened again. in the report, the european parliament calls on the commission to propose adding body scanners, which should serve to speed up the pace and tempo of checks at airports and reduce inconvenience to passengers, to the list of authorised screening methods. i agree that appropriate rules and common minimum standards for their use must also be provided. i also believe that before adding body scanners to the list, an impact assessment should be carried out which demonstrates that the devices do not constitute a risk to passenger health, personal data or the individual dignity and privacy of passengers. the use of body scanners must be regulated by common eu rules, procedures and standards. i voted in favour of the report by my colleague, mr de grandes pascual, as i think that it deals with a subject of paramount importance in the context of the international fight against terrorism. i feel that the measure banning the boarding of aircraft with liquids was justified at the time it was adopted. technology did not yet allow us to carry out rapid scans and prevention was the most effective solution for reducing the risk of attacks being carried out. with the prospect of this restriction being lifted in 2013, cooperation between european and national institutions must be stepped up. this is why a review needs to be carried out of the control mechanisms at airports to ensure the same level of security as at the moment. at the same time, it is important that passengers' rights are respected, regardless of the type of new aviation security measures introduced. this means that the proportionality of the measures applied by states to their citizens must remain a priority in all circumstances. this report proposes introducing body scanners in airports in order to further reduce the risk of potential attackers successfully transporting hazardous material on board airplanes. considering that the danger of new attacks has not entirely diminished but, on the contrary, has been reconfirmed by the recent attacks in the united states and in sweden, as well as the continued existence of al-qaeda, despite the killing of osama bin laden, more stringent security measures appear to be more than necessary. since the report emphasises what health risks could arise from the implementation of new body scanners and then stipulates that they could be introduced only after thorough medical assessments have confirmed that they are not harmful to the human body, the report can be adopted and i am therefore voting in favour. i voted in favour of this report because it is undoubtedly essential to ensure aviation security in the fight against terrorist attacks, but we must ascertain the impact that the measures established to ensure this security have on our health, fundamental rights and freedoms, privacy and dignity. parliament is therefore taking up the challenge of analysing the measures adopted and proposing others where appropriate, with a view to preventing risks. furthermore, international coordination on aviation security measures is needed in order to guarantee a high level of protection, whilst avoiding a situation where passengers are subjected to successive checks, with the restrictions and additional costs these entail. it is important to draw attention to the fact that while applying new technical measures aimed at achieving a high level of airport security, it is also crucial to set boundaries between human rights and security itself, because those measures are not just about protecting citizens, but the impact on their rights and freedoms. moreover, it is necessary to ensure that this technical security arrangement really is safe, effective and reasonable. all body scanners should make use of a stick figure to protect passengers' identities and to ensure that they cannot be identified through images of any part of their body. when member states install body scanners, they must comply with the minimum standards and requirements. the european parliament's vote on the report on body scanners in airports has sent out a vital message: security is of paramount importance, but not at any price. this is the second time the european legislative is sending out a message about this after it voted against the swift agreement with the united states, which breaches european citizens' right to personal data protection. it is important that meps have asked for the devices to respect passengers' privacy and dignity and not to pose a health risk. at the moment, body scanners do not feature on the list of control methods and technologies capable of detecting objects hidden in clothing. this is the list drawn up as part of the eu legal framework for aviation security. the european commission is due to propose a set of regulations which will add body scanners to the list of search methods authorised at eu level. however, this does not mean that parliament will not have the opportunity to reject the proposal tabled by the commission. the fact that these devices could affect passengers' health is an important detail which needs to be resolved prior to approving any of these technologies. i voted in favour of this report, which also has the virtue of reviving the debate on aviation security. following the attacks of 2001 and subsequent terrorist alerts, europe adopted restrictive yet necessary measures to guarantee public safety. in recent years, the alert has still not been called off, so now the eu needs to implement harmonised rules on scanners, with a special focus on the use of body scanners and, at the same time, common standards need to be set for their operation and detection performance. the use of body scanners will thus be subject to strict rules so as to protect the health and privacy of passengers, whose right not to undergo a check using a scanner but with other equipment needs to be recognised. lastly, i agree with the decision to phase out the ban on carrying liquids, gels and aerosols by 29 april 2013: by that date, all airports should have new and reliable equipment capable of screening liquids, aerosols and gels. i believe, however, that we must give member states the option of re-establishing these checks if situations arise that could jeopardise security. i am voting for this report because i believe 'security scanner' is the generic term used for a technology capable of detecting metallic and non-metallic objects transported in clothing, taking into account that detection performance lies in the scanner's ability to detect banned objects hidden in the inspected person's clothing. i welcome the fact that the european commission has consulted the european data protection supervisor, the article 29 working party and the european fundamental rights agency, and that their replies contain significant elements regarding the necessary conditions under which the use of security scanners at airports could comply with the protection of fundamental rights. the issue of security for civil aviation has been one of the eu's top priorities. several initiatives have been adopted to create an integrated approach to aviation security, so as to achieve a high level of security for the public. body scanners have been considered as an additional protection instrument, and the number of member states - finland, the netherlands, france, italy and the united kingdom - using body scanners, with the intention of improving their ability to detect banned objects that cannot be detected by current metal detectors, such as explosives, liquids or plastics, has increased. i agree that there should be a common level of protection of citizens, and that european regulations should be adopted that are to be applied by any member state opting to use this method of scanning. this should include common technical standards and operational conditions which ensure that the inherent risk to personal data protection, to passengers' privacy and dignity, and to human health is minimised. passengers should be provided with sufficient information about all aspects of using scanners and be offered a real alternative to these checks. the workers responsible for using the scanners should be subject to appropriate training and to a code of professional ethics. despite our opposition over the years, security scanners are now a reality. security scanners must not compromise our civil liberties or our health. therefore, their use must be governed by common european rules in order to guarantee discretion and to ensure that they are subject to clear and strict conditions. the member states must deploy technology which is the least harmful to human health and which respects privacy. the images generated should be stick figures, with the data being destroyed immediately after the individual has undergone the security check. the european commission should table new european rules this summer. parliament will have the option of rejecting them within three months in accordance with the comitology procedure. therefore, the european commission should not take this vote to be a blank cheque, but rather a red line showing what is acceptable to parliament and to the citizens of the european union. i welcome parliament's adoption of mr de grandes pascual's report proposing the authorisation of the use of body scanners in european airports, provided that the standards on passenger health and privacy are properly complied with. security scanners are more effective in security terms (detecting non-metallic items such as plastic explosives and ceramic knives) and less intrusive for passengers as they avoid full-body searches and take no longer than the time required to check hand luggage (three to 30 seconds, depending on the type of scanner). parliament is, however, proposing to ban ionising technologies which might affect the health of users and to guarantee that no images or data relating to passengers are recorded or stored. for me, one particularly important issue with regard to security scanners is that the machines which are available must meet the necessary technical requirements, so that they do not slow down the operational processes and, therefore, lead to undesirable results. the main problems in my view are a reduction in passenger comfort and the introduction of complex processes which ultimately do not bring any increase in security. unfortunately, past experience indicates that difficulties of this kind may occur. it is important to make the deadline for introducing the new systems dependent on the technology being fully functioning rather than on a specified date. in addition, it must be possible to combine the new machines with systems for detecting liquids. i would also like to highlight the fact that issues of space and structural engineering need to be taken into consideration in the case of the control unit (in other words, the security scanner and the x-ray device). major structural alterations will be needed at many airports to support the weight of the machine and to make the necessary space available. the throughput rate for passengers must be equivalent to the existing figures at the passenger checkpoints. otherwise there will be significant operational and quality problems. it is essential that the airports are able to put realistic plans in place. we must not forget that the necessary facilities must be made available, including space for the machines, structural engineering work and training measures, and that comprehensive plans are needed which cover the time and funding needed for the alterations to the buildings. aviation security is absolutely necessary, and the member states - and the european union - should take all measures necessary to guarantee it, particularly in a world in which the threats are increasingly global, and in which terrorism requires concrete measures from governments guaranteeing the public and society adequate protection. given that aviation and airports are particularly vulnerable, the security of transporting passengers and cargo requires stringent and rigorous controls, and effective security measures for the prevention and detection of potential threats. this involves the use of security scanners, along with any other types of control considered proportional and adequate for ensuring security. making security measures more effective, particularly for aviation and, above all, with regard to the associated terrorist risks, cannot be neglected under any circumstances, provided that guarantees of freedom and rights of citizens are safeguarded. i am therefore voting for this report, which promotes a complete model for responding to the area of aviation security. the assurances given regarding airport security scanners should be stressed, above all, with regard to detecting dangerous objects and instruments, and to protecting the privacy of citizens; their application by the member states is optional. i would stress the reinforcement of the recommendations to reduce the limitations and constraints imposed on air travellers, specifically regarding the use of liquids, aerosols and gels (lag), through use of a technology that guarantees the maintenance or even the increase of levels of control and surveillance. aviation security is, clearly, an issue of the greatest importance for both workers and passengers. however, it seems necessary to us to guarantee this security without calling into question the freedoms and guarantees of individuals. the document adopted by the majority in parliament, which follows in the wake of the panic that has spread about the 'escalating terrorist threat', seeks to implement the method of body scanning at eu level. by stressing the speed and effectiveness of this method, the report is twisting people's concerns, and is consequently ignoring the fundamental issue: that this method is a veritable assault on the dignity and privacy of passengers. furthermore, its effectiveness is contested, although the report does not mention this. however, the report does not omit all the risks associated with this equipment. whilst advocating the use of scanners, it does not fail to mention that 'exposure to doses of cumulative ionising radiation cannot be acceptable' because it increases the risk of skin cancer. it is also unacceptable that this solution is advocated, in spite of this. another disconcerting issue is the difficulty of guaranteeing passengers effective protection for their data and images generated by the scanners: this situation could once again constitute a violation of dignity and privacy. we know aviation security is an important issue for both workers and passengers. however, we consider it essential to guarantee this security without impacting on the freedoms and guarantees of individuals. the document adopted by the majority in parliament, which follows in the wake of the panic caused by the 'escalating terrorist threat', seeks to implement the method of body scanning at eu level, supporting this with its speed and effectiveness. however, it is twisting people's concerns and ignores the fundamental issue. parliament is forgetting that this method is a veritable assault on the dignity and privacy of passengers. moreover, the report ends up being contradictory, on the one hand promoting the use of scanners and, on the other, acknowledging that 'exposure to doses of cumulative ionising radiation cannot be acceptable' because it increases the risk of skin cancer. another disconcerting issue is the difficulty of guaranteeing passengers effective protection for their data and images generated by the scanners: this situation could once again constitute a violation of dignity and privacy. no form of terrorism can be justified in a democratic society, and there is no cause that can legitimise terrorism. the democratic institutions involved therefore have an urgent obligation to adopt all measures necessary to ensure the safety of citizens. decisions adopted in favour of security often entail the loss of certain freedoms and, in any case, cause inconvenience, annoyance and a change to normal rules of behaviour. it is a sad fact that, among the values of modern societies, security is a value that has to be protected, because it is not guaranteed. civil aviation security is undoubtedly one of the most important issues for the european union. the eu's regulatory framework in the area of aviation security establishes a list of methods and technologies for detection and other checks, but the current legislation has to be amended in order to incorporate security scanners into the list. these scanners seem to be an appropriate means of improving aviation security, contributing to the effectiveness of security controls at eu airports. detection checks, intelligence services and security services, the exchange of police information and analysis of the human element are key factors forming part of the definition of the concept of aviation security and comprise an integrated whole. it is essential to focus all efforts on protecting democratic values and on combating terrorism, which is a threat to these values. i abstained on the report on aviation security. once again, absolute security is being sought, but at the expense of human rights. to seek to force all passengers to undress using these so-called security scanners does not constitute progress in terms of human dignity. i voted against mr de grandes pascual's report. in the era of the 'war for civilisation' that mr bush launched and given the continuing terrorist threat, aviation safety is a real concern. however, its organisation, particularly checks on passengers, falls under the responsibility of the member states rather than that of the commission, as these are public order and security measures. it is also up to each member state to decide on the use of body scanners in airports, taking due account of the issues of health and respect for privacy raised by their use. as for the systematic call for non-discrimination and the rejection of profiling, do those same meps who support the occupation of afghanistan by western armies - which does, in any case, prove that they have a vague idea of where the threat might come from - need reminding that it is highly unlikely that one of these days, a swedish lutheran is going to be arrested wearing explosive trainers on an aeroplane? whilst remaining sceptical of the actual effectiveness of using body scanner technology in the fight against terrorism, i supported this report as it stipulates, in particular, that scanners using x-rays will be banned in order to avoid any effect on passenger health, especially vulnerable passengers (pregnant women, the elderly, children, the sick and so on). moreover, several components of this report answer my concerns about respect for human dignity and privacy, as passengers may refuse the body scanner and submit to more traditional checking procedures, such as a body search. moreover, only stick figures can be used, with the images being destroyed immediately after the check, ensuring that they cannot be saved. however, the question of who will foot the bill in this matter remains. later in this process, we will really need to ask ourselves about the cost-effectiveness of such a measure, especially in the context of an economic crisis where everyone is being asked to make an effort. i welcomed this document because this report addresses body scanners, an analysis of the decisions taken on liquids, aerosols and gels (lag) and security measures for cargo and mail. given that the eu's legislative framework on aviation security lays down the list of screening and control methods and technologies from which the member states and/or airports are to choose, the current legislation will need to be amended to include body scanners on that list (without prejudice to the possibility of installing scanners for trial purposes or as a more stringent security measure). the rapporteur recommends the implementation of harmonised rules across the eu regulating operating conditions and common standards for the detection performance of body scanners. aviation security is a topic of endless discussion. it includes the safe transport of people (performing checks on people and baggage), and of freight and postal items. which materials can be potentially dangerous? liquids, gels and aerosols with a volume 'greater than 100 ml', firearms and explosives, and solid objects of a certain shape and size (for example, small nail scissors). the author of the report overlooks the fact that the european commission has not found anyone who would justify this technically non-sensical regulation - a general ban on liquids, aerosols and gels (lags) on board aircraft - requested by the european parliament for the seventh year. by the way, there are no similar regulations for underground trains or high-speed trains, despite the fact that passenger numbers and the risk of attack are comparable. security scanners have two important unofficial functions. they are good business for the suppliers, and provide employment for large numbers of people. their 'reliability' is not 100%, despite considerable technical progress. the question is: what are we really looking for? are we capable of detecting the items we are looking for with the desired level of probability? this is the weak point of the whole operation, i suspect, and i have considerable doubts about it. as far as the matter of lags is concerned, i see in the background the exorbitant prices of drinks on board aircraft and in airports. i can see no other rational reason for the 100 ml limit on fluids. despite my reservations regarding scanners, i think that many parts of the report are rational, and the confederal group of the european united left - nordic green left is therefore supporting it. in writing. - i voted for this report. successive terrorist alerts, first in the united kingdom, when an explosive package was found on a cargo plane, and subsequently in greece, when the greek police intercepted a number of parcel bombs addressed to a senior figure and various embassies in athens, have obliged the eu to take measures in proportion to the new risks that have been detected. parliament is therefore taking up the challenge of analysing the measures adopted and proposing others where appropriate, with a view to preventing risks on the basis of an integral view of civil aviation security. the new-generation security scanners appear to offer a suitable means of improving security in eu air transport. they provide added value in relation to the effectiveness of security screening at eu airports and are also proportional to the risk that is being averted. we agree with their addition to the list of permissible screening and control methods and technologies that european citizens can choose, in that we believe that it is vital to adopt all the necessary measures to guarantee their security, while not curtailing their fundamental rights. we are also in favour of implementing harmonised rules across the eu regulating operating conditions and common standards for the detection performance of scanners. it should not be forgotten that screening, the intelligence and security services, the exchange of police information and analysis of the human factor are key elements in the area of aviation security as a whole. lastly, we believe that the use of body scanners provides the highest level of protection for european citizens. in short, it is a question of protecting democratic values and fighting against the terrorism that threatens them. airport security is essential to ensuring the well-being of the millions of people who use the aeroplane as a mode of transport every day. constant terrorist threats are leading to increasingly strict controls for security checks in airports, specifically by introducing security scanners. however, i believe the adoption of this report still requires in-depth studies, both in terms of public health and the protection of passenger privacy. in writing. - the new generation security scanners appear to offer a suitable means of improving security in eu air transport. they provide added value in relation to the effectiveness of security screening at eu airports and are proportional to the risk that is being averted. terrorism represents a genuine danger for the member states of the european union. it is important for us to put adequate prevention measures in place in order to ensure the security of every country. in the field of air security in particular, there is definitely room for improvement and the measures which have already been taken need to be evaluated to identify where they can be made better. however, as the report mentions, our society, which requires protection, is calling for security for its citizens, but this must not, under any circumstances, involve their fundamental rights being restricted. especially in the case of the use of security scanners, this involves a delicate balancing act. in addition, when it comes to the measures that have been taken so far, there is always the feeling that the eu is lagging behind the terrorists. according to the rapporteur, security scanners could close some of the loopholes and, following consultation with experts, they have been evaluated with regard to damage to health, fundamental rights and the effects on the economy. the rapporteur comes to the conclusion that the european union should agree on the eu-wide use of scanners. i have not voted in favour of the report because the rapporteur goes into too little detail about the measures that have already and will, in future, be taken, in particular, with regard to respect for fundamental rights. in addition, every member state should be free to choose whether or not it should install security scanners. i welcome this resolution because we must ensure civil aviation security at eu level, based on an integrated one-stop approach to aviation security. i believe that body scanners can only be added to the list of authorised screening methods if an independent body carries out a comprehensive scientifically-based impact assessment. this assessment should take into account immediate and delayed effects and the long-term cumulative impact on human health, as well as risks to personal data, individual dignity and privacy. in addition, we must draw up common eu rules, minimum standards and procedures for the use of scanners. these measures must be implemented in order to properly protect the health and fundamental rights and interests of passengers, workers, crew members and security staff. it is also crucial to ensure that the random process of selecting passengers to pass through a body scanner is not based on discriminatory criteria. i would like to point out that i disagree with the statement that the detection performance of security scanners is higher than that offered by current metal detectors, particularly with regard to non-metallic objects and liquids, as this has yet to be proven scientifically. i voted in favour of the report on aviation security. the terrorist attacks carried out during passenger flights and the attacks and suspicious packages sent to london and greece illustrate the need to step up aviation security. the introduction of body scanners at airports may provide valuable help in detecting explosive objects. however, we must pay careful attention to issues of public health and personal data protection in relation to european passengers and to how body scanners are used, in order to ensure that privacy rights are not jeopardised. security scanners, along with any other types of control considered proportional and adequate for guaranteeing the security of aviation, are essential. indeed, the european union should take all measures necessary to ensure that they do exist, particularly in a world with increasingly global threats, and in which terrorism requires concrete measures from governments guaranteeing the public and society adequate protection. i voted for this report because i consider aviation and airports particularly vulnerable. in fact, the security of transporting passengers and cargo requires stringent and rigorous controls, and effective security measures for the prevention and detection of potential threats. since the events that occurred at the start of this century, the security of air transport is one of the main concerns of modern democracies. as well as the traditional advocating of the freedoms of citizens, the various countries have become aware of the need to protect citizens. in this way, security has become a fundamental value of these countries. air transport is one of the areas in which it makes itself most felt. as such, eu policy is governed by seeking a balance between areas of freedom and the need to protect the value of security. at its heart, it is seeking protection measures proportional to the possibility that harm will be caused. this report is guided by this laudable principle, and specifically affects the use of security scanners, liquids, aerosols and gels, and the transportation of goods. i should like to offer my congratulations on the excellent work carried out by mr de grandes pascual. today, we voted during the plenary session of the european parliament in strasbourg on the report on aviation security, with a special focus on security scanners. given that the eu's legislative framework on aviation security lays down the list of screening and control methods and technologies from which the member states and/or airports are to choose, the current legislation will need to be amended to include security scanners on that list (without prejudice to the possibility of installing scanners for trial purposes or as a more stringent security measure). i fully agree with the rapporteur's positive assessment of the commission communication in response to parliament's resolution of 2008 and i believe that it is vital to assess all the different available technologies offered by new-generation security scanners so as to minimise the possible negative consequences that radiation emitted by this equipment, even if low, could have on health. whilst security scanners or body scanners have been an undeniable step forward for aviation security as they allow the detection of banned items hidden under clothing, they should not be introduced without extreme precautions. on the one hand, citizens' health must be safeguarded and therefore i support the ban on monitoring technologies that use ionising radiation. on the other hand, the dignity and privacy of individuals must be protected. therefore, it is essential, if we are to add security scanners to the list of approved inspection methods, that only stick figures are permitted, that the data are destroyed and that it is possible to refuse to submit to such a check. the use of these scanners must be harmonised and subject to common protection rules that guarantee respect for fundamental rights in each member state that chooses to introduce this system. regular updates of the standards will be necessary to cope with new risks, technological developments and any resulting negative effects. moreover, lifting the ban on the carrying of liquids, aerosols and gels in 2013, and instead having a system for inspecting these substances, is, in my view, highly appropriate. in writing. - in favour. the european parliament (ep) today adopted a report on the use of body scanners in airports (grandes report). the greens welcomed the outcome, after green proposals calling for stricter conditions on the use of body scanners were adopted, notably, the exclusion of x-ray technology. the ep has today made it clear that citizens' interests must come first in considerations on the use of controversial body scanning technology. the ep wants to ensure that member states will not be obliged to introduce body scanners. where they decide to use this technology, the ep has made clear this should only be done under restricted conditions: only for use in airports, and under the condition that appropriate rules are in place to safeguard the health and fundamental rights of passengers. there are serious concerns about the potential impacts of the widespread use of body scanners - in airports and beyond - both in terms of privacy and public health, and these cannot be ignored. i voted in favour of this report because i believe a new integral view of aviation security is required which can deal with new terrorist alerts and new terror strategies. current systems for carrying out checks to detect non-metallic prohibited items at european airports have shown their limitations, while trials of body scanners have, up to now, shown satisfactory results. it is now necessary to move towards prevention, adopting, in this regard, even more effective screening technologies that, by using the latest technology, are capable of not infringing public privacy and affecting the time it takes for checks. it was confirmed in yesterday evening's debate that air safety is a highly important and relevant topic. i am very pleased that this report was adopted today, and i just want to repeat why i think it is important. 1. according to eurostat data, there were 751 million air passengers in the european union in 2009. security in aircraft and airports must be ensured for them and for many others. 2. security scanners must protect passengers' identities and ensure that they cannot be identified through images of any part of their body. 3. data generated by the scanning process must not be used for purposes other than that of detecting prohibited objects, may be used only for the amount of time necessary for the screening process, must be destroyed immediately after each person has passed through the security control and may not be stored. 4. for the health and safety of travellers and employees, it is important to use technology which is the least harmful to human health. furthermore, exposure to cumulative ionising radiation should not be permitted in the future, and should therefore be explicitly excluded from use. i think that this report on air safety, and security scanners in particular, is necessary in order to ensure the rational and justified use of new technologies. i therefore supported the adoption of this report. airport security was tightened up tremendously in the wake of the attacks in new york, london and madrid. that is absolutely necessary in order to thwart possible attacks, but there are limits to what is permissible. fortunately, the report covering the use of security scanners at airports has been improved considerably when it comes to the protection of privacy. thus, the report no longer expresses a clear preference for body scanners but instead allows for other security screening technologies to be used. these technologies must also be guaranteed not to adversely affect the health or fundamental rights of passengers. as a result, data gathered from screening of this nature may only be used in that context and must be deleted immediately for reasons of privacy. another restriction is that there must be no use of profiling. screening must take place on a random basis and there must certainly not be any selection on the basis of specific characteristics. finally, x-ray technology is prohibited on the grounds of the health of both passengers and workers. our group also proposed forcing a revision of the groundhandling directive. i gave my full backing to this report because it had been significantly improved in large part due to amendments tabled by the group of the greens/european free alliance. the security of civil aviation is an issue that the eu cannot neglect, since globalisation, for all its positive aspects, also opens the door to international criminals and terrorist acts, with unforeseeable consequences for public safety. nonetheless, and given that 100% security is impossible, there is a need to impose mechanisms that safeguard security but, at the same time, do not threaten fundamental rights. in this specific case, the introduction of security scanners in european airports will not just enable the reinforcement of security, but will also reduce passenger disruption. the introduction of these scanners through harmonised rules for the whole eu, which regulate conditions and common standards for detection performance, will also take into account health risks for passengers and staff. i believe it is important to commit to the technological development of scanners for uniform application in all the member states, not least as regards restrictions imposed on liquids, aerosols and gels since 2006. another point i would like to stress is closer monitoring of cargo and post originating in third countries, by exchanging best practices, sharing information and training airport staff. in writing. - as i am the strongest advocate of effective security measures against terrorism at our airports and to protect passengers and cargo, i voted in favour of the report. however, it places excessive emphasis on a range of 'human rights' concerns and insists on regular mention of the eu charter of fundamental rights, which we opposed and which is now yet another of the baleful consequences of the treaty of lisbon. by definition, effective security measures must be 'discriminatory' - they must be targeted primarily against those most likely to fit the current threat profile. this will not just be a matter of race, or religion or place of origin - although these may be important factors - but also of behaviour and other aspects. security measures that alienate the innocent travelling public but do not focus on the most likely suspects are counter-productive. and airports will remain insecure as long as there is weak airside access control of employees and contract staff. in writing. - this report has achieved a balance between aviation security and the dignity and privacy of passengers. meps have supported calls that selection for scanning should be random, with no discriminatory profiling of passengers on any criteria, including, for example, sex, ethnicity or religion. built in to the parliament's message to the commission is a right to opt for alternative screening that will guarantee the same level of effectiveness of security, which should not give rise to suspicion in any case. the parliament has also called on the commission to lift the ban on carry-on liquids by 2013, and has called on member states to ensure that adequate technology is in place by that time. i voted against this report as the use of this checking method, which is similar to a full body search, is an attack on individual privacy. of course, semantic precautions are taken to make the use of body scanners, referred to as 'security scanners', admissible in airports; their use is surrounded by privacy and data protection 'safeguards' (the option of not submitting to the scan and going through a checking process, a very remote image viewing room, restricted data storage, among other things). as always with the use of technologies that call into question data protection and privacy, the issues of purpose and proportionality arise. reducing the terrorist threat depends on the resolution of the political causes at the root of terrorism and on strengthening the human resources allocated to the services concerned: victims, just like others - despite the optical illusions - of austerity policies. the proliferation of ever-more sophisticated technological resources is somewhat illusory. this headlong rush can only serve to cover up the failings of the fight against terrorism and its use for 'political' ends. the rapporteur says that his doubts have been dispelled by the communication submitted by the commission. i do not believe we have yet been given the proof called for by the european parliament in 2008 that full-body scanners increase aviation security in the eu to such an extent that the accompanying intrusion into the fundamental rights of dignity and privacy is proportional. in a similar way to the amendments that have been tabled, i am calling for further impact assessments of the security scanners to be carried out by experts 'without interference from the industry sector, the governments of member states and third countries'. i voted in favour of the text presented by mr de grandes pascual on adding security scanners to the list of methods used for screening, provided that, with specific rules, the health and rights of passengers are guaranteed. after the tragedy of 11 september and subsequent terrorist acts committed in various parts of europe (see london, madrid, istanbul), european citizens preparing to travel have a greater need for security. i therefore completely agree with the text adopted today, which, in any case, protects passengers' privacy by establishing restricted use of scanner images and, in specific cases, allows the right to refuse use of the scanner and to be checked in another way. i am voting for this proposal because i am in favour of promoting the increased representation of women on the boards of companies. if a ratio of 30% women on boards cannot be achieved by 2015 and of 40% by 2020, recourse to goal-specific initiatives at union level will be considered. i await the meeting on 1 march with female managers of companies, and the document that will be published later in march, describing the current situation in the member states. the commission should then table specific proposals on the matter, addressing the needs of women executives with a view to enhancing their career prospects but also addressing the needs of the european economy. to this end, it is crucial to take into account how well women are represented in companies. in writing. - i voted in favour of the resolution on women and business leadership aimed at increasing access to top jobs for competent women. we, the members of the european parliament, have required companies to take daring measures to increase women's participation on boards of directors. the new legislation ought to include quotas in order to increase female representation in corporate management bodies: 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2020, while taking account of the member states' responsibilities and of their economic, structural (i.e. company size), legal and regional specificities. it is important to further raise awareness among social partners, companies, governments and public opinion on the necessity of enhanced representation of women on boards, and to inform them of the specific targets that need to be reached. i welcome the commission's strong support for this process and its stated aim of proposing binding measures on companies if voluntary measures fail to increase women's representation. women currently make up 10% of the members of the boards of directors and just 3% of ceos in the largest listed companies in the european union. yet i believe that women can contribute a great deal to corporate governance by providing a different perspective and approach. this report calls on the european commission to present a comprehensive review of current data on women's representation in all types of european union companies as soon as possible, together with information on statutory and voluntary measures in each economic sector and recent measures adopted by member states in order to boost that representation. if voluntary corporate and national measures fail to deliver results, the report calls on the commission to propose legislation by 2012, which should include quotas designed to increase the number of women in corporate management bodies to 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2020. although i feel that measures other than quotas should be our first priority, i have voted in favour of this report so as to clearly endorse its aims. despite the progress made, there is still significant discrimination in the eu labour market. the difference between men and women as regards leadership positions in companies is particularly well known. only 12% of the board members of the eu's largest stock exchange-listed companies are women, and just 3% of those bodies are chaired by a woman. in portugal, only 5% of management jobs in companies listed on the portuguese stock index (psi 20) are held by women: there are only 12 of them, in total, with only one having achieved the position of chairing a board of directors. the eu cannot disregard 50% of its intelligence and its workforce. european economies could benefit from using women's skills better. i voted in favour of this report as i agree that there is a need to encourage companies to achieve balanced representation. although mrs kratsa-tsagaropoulou's report stresses the importance of the presence of women in the decision-making bodies of companies, a view with which i agree, i am not convinced that by imposing legislation or quotas can we obtain really positive results in that sense. moreover, the adoption of an amendment has led me to vote against the report. i do not agree with the intention expressed in this adopted amendment to increase the representation of women from an ethnic minority or immigrant background in business leadership. i voted in favour of this report because it is very important to afford competent and qualified women access to jobs that are currently difficult for them to obtain. as for gender equality in business, attention should be drawn to the fact that only 3% of companies are chaired by women, because they face discrimination and obstacles preventing them from climbing the career ladder and pursuing leadership. the introduction of a quota system is proposed because companies themselves are failing to take any steps and introduce changes to improve gender equality in business. consequently, there are plans to anchor quotas in legislation. furthermore, the european commission has announced that it will present legislative measures to ensure that companies take effective measures to reach equal representation of women and men on boards, in case self-regulation fails to achieve this within the next 12 months. the commission intends to propose european legislation in 2012 if companies do not manage to achieve through voluntary measures the targets of 30% women on company boards by 2015 and 40% by 2020. in turn, the european parliament invites the commission to present a road map setting out specific, measurable and attainable targets for the achievement of balanced representation in enterprises of all sizes, and calls on the commission to draw up a specific guide for small and medium-sized enterprises. in writing. - although i do recognise the importance of a female presence in business, i cannot agree with the european parliament that we need to introduce the idea of quotas of 30% in the largest listed eu companies by 2015 and 40% by 2020. people should be employed upon merit and positive discrimination is often counter productive. successful women want to feel that they have achieved or earned their positions and have not been gifted them. if member states had a greater say over the operation of business from working hours to child care and paternity leave, each country would be able to address the issues that have led to the divide between men and women particular to their culture rather than enforce quotas upon already over-regulated industries. i am for empowering the role of women sensu largo, but, at the same time, i am against any form of discrimination, as well as so-called 'positive discrimination '. all the analyses tend to the conclusion that it is imperative for companies, in the future, to promote better representation of women. they actually need to put in place systems for encouraging women with managerial aspirations, notably offering more career opportunities and better prospects within their organisations. it is vital for companies to introduce target setting for greater female involvement, as well as for the recruitment of women to top posts in the company hierarchy, with a view to promoting equality and diversity. having more women in decision-making positions would also help combat discrimination against female employees at a time when, according to the statistics, 53% of women in the world are in a vulnerable job situation. the excellent report by my colleague, mrs kratsa-tsagaropoulou, highlights the fact that women currently only make up around 10% of board members in major eu listed companies and 3% of ceos in those companies. in the light of this worrying inequality, europe has a duty to take action - if necessary by force. the european commission has announced plans to propose legislation in 2012 that will set a target of 30% for female representation in corporate governing bodies by 2015 and 40% by 2020. it is now parliament's turn to express its support for these binding targets if companies fail to improve the proportion of women in these bodies of their own volition. for this reason, i have, of course, voted in favour of the report. however, we do also need to fight to promote equal career development and a better balance between work and family life for all women, no matter what their position in the hierarchy, their qualifications and social standing may be. we are all well aware of the fact that very few women hold corporate management positions or directorships. given the growing number of working women with a university degree, one might expect to find similar numbers occupying managerial positions, but that is not the case. this report, produced by my colleague, mrs kratsa-tsagaropoulou, is a step in the right direction, and that is why i supported it. it stresses that member states need to take measures to allow women to achieve a better work-life balance, not least by proving high-quality, affordable services such as child care. i am pleased to see that the report also suggests establishing quotas for corporate decision-making bodies. as you know, a few weeks ago, the belgian parliament adopted legislation making it mandatory for one-third of the members of the management boards of public undertakings and listed companies to be women. belgium is a trailblazer in this area, as are france and norway. i voted for this report because i argue that the european commission should table legislation covering a series of proposals to increase the number of women in leadership roles, including the introduction of quotas. it is essential to implement these measures by 2012 if it is to be possible to achieve the goals of increasing female representation in corporate management bodies to 30% by 2015, and to 40% by 2020. the principle of equality is, along with freedom, one of the pillars of the democratic rule of law. it is because i believe in the importance of the principle of equality that i believe men and women deserve the same opportunities, and should both be in a position to achieve management and leadership roles in the world of business. however, this should be achieved by removing the barriers that still remain for women - such as, for example, the negative impact of motherhood on career progression - and not by imposition using regulation and quotas. as i have had occasion to say numerous times, i believe that quotas only diminish women rather than guaranteeing them equal access to a profession, to public office, or to management and leadership roles in business. i still believe we should instead continue to fight to prevent 21st century women from having to choose between motherhood and a career, between family and work, and between children and management and leadership roles in business. the objective of increasing female representation in corporate management bodies to 30% by 2015 and to 40% by 2020 will reinforce the efforts of parliament and the european union to promote a society that is more equitable, and socially fair and developed. currently, only 10% of the board members of the eu's largest stock exchange-listed companies are women and just 3% of those boards are chaired by a woman. the gender pay gap is still as high as 17.5% for the eu as a whole, and this applies not just in more physically demanding productive sectors or in roles that are more basic, but also to management or administrative roles. however, i am opposed to implementing quotas as i believe they reduce and erode the prestige of those benefiting from them, and could devalue efforts to evaluate merit and quality. women's participation in the labour market, covering a variety of levels of responsibility in companies, including management, today constitutes a crucial and central issue in the struggle for equal rights and opportunities. in fact, it is in this area that some of the worst discrimination takes place, such as the significant wage discrimination, especially in the private sector and, above all, in industry. overall, there is a difference of around 18% between men's and women's wages in the eu as a whole. the report gives particular emphasis to the issue of business leadership, on the basis of positive examples in some countries, specifically france, the netherlands, spain and finland. it also covers the debates on the same issue in countries like belgium, germany and italy. one of the proposals put forward in the report is that of setting a threshold for female membership of management bodies, which must be respected by companies. the reality is that the labour market cannot be separated from the inequalities that persist between men and women, which have been exacerbated by the current economic and social crisis. equality of rights and opportunities is a central issue, including women's participation in the labour market and companies' management positions. it is well known that there is still significant wage discrimination, especially in the private sector and, above all, in industry. there is a difference of around 18% between men's and women's wages in the european union. this report gives particular emphasis to the issue of women in business leadership, on the basis of positive examples in some countries, specifically france, the netherlands, and spain, which have tended towards setting a threshold for female membership of management bodies, which must be respected by companies. it also covers the debates on the same issue in countries like belgium, germany and italy, and welcomes finland's corporate governance code, under which firms' decision-taking bodies must contain both male and female representatives; the proportion of women on finnish firms' decision-taking bodies is now 25%. we consider all the steps taken towards equality between men and women positive, but we cannot separate the issue of inequality from the reality of the labour market, especially given the current economic and social crisis, whose impact is particularly felt in the lives of working women and men, thereby exacerbating differences which already exist. this broad topic includes all of the issues relating to women and the area of work, such as access to the labour market, equality and fairness, work-life balance, personal ambitions and cultural stereotypes. our aim should be to enable capable and qualified women to have access to posts that are currently difficult for them to access. the public hearing on this theme held in the european parliament in october 2010 was, in many ways, fruitful, with questions put forward and answered on a range of topics, and discussion facilitated particularly between women from the private sector, women from the political sphere and women from various women's networks who hold posts at managerial levels in business. one clear response arising from this public hearing is that we must develop women's potential and their creative energy, and make use of their managerial talent, entrepreneurial spirit and sound judgment of risk. the representation of women in business management roles, in business leadership, and in the various bodies which regulate businesses, is, unfortunately, low. the large number of women with a university education ought to be reflected in a large number of women in managerial roles. in my opinion, there is an urgent need to respond, in order to avoid squandering talent, abilities and human potential in the european union. in writing. - i fully support measures to improve gender equality in the workplace, in particular, action to reduce the so-called gender pay gap which exists between men and women. the persistent unequal career opportunities and the pay differential between men and women with similar jobs, qualifications and skills are a problem, as is the failure to take into account some of the specific constraints involved in reconciling work and family life. however, the problem will not be resolved by the main method proposed in this report: so-called positive discrimination and quotas. that is because this approach is based on the misguided notion that men and women's roles should be interchangeable at all times and in all circumstances. another reason is that this method creates enduring doubts about the actual skills of the individuals involved, thereby undermining their legitimacy. it also seems rather patronising to offer specific mentoring and training for women to improve their access to management roles. is it that they are suffering from discrimination or do you think that they are not clever enough? combine this with a desire for legislation on home life to create a fairer division of family care duties and the whole thing becomes ludicrous. it is depressing to imagine a world where men do the laundry while women are a silent but decorative token presence on management boards, having been appointed purely on the strength of being female. the proportion of women on management boards has increased by just 0.5% per annum over the past seven years. at this rate, it will take 50 years to achieve a reasonable balance whereby women make up 40% of management bodies. in view of this reality, urgent action is needed. i have therefore voted in favour of this own-initiative report which calls on the commission to take ad hoc measures that will allow us to up the pace. to this end, we need comprehensive current data on female representation within eu companies. if this analysis confirms that voluntary measures taken by companies and member states to reverse the current overwhelming male dominance are not enough, then we should, of course, consider targeted, quantifiable and binding measures to increase female representation on corporate management bodies. as someone who has many years' experience in running a business, i am pleased by the measures for increasing the numbers of women in business. the statistics show clearly that women are not sufficiently represented, particularly in managerial positions. the introduction of legal regulations in this area is important, particularly when businesses themselves do not want to adopt measures for promoting the appointment of women to managerial positions, in line with the concept of the social responsibility of business. the motion also underscores the necessity of creating a suitable mentoring and training network for women. the key to increasing the number of women in managerial positions is also to introduce an appropriate system of support, making it possible for women to balance their family life with their professional life. i agree with the opinion that it is incumbent on policy makers at both eu and member state level and on companies to remove the barriers to women joining the labour market generally and management bodies in particular, and to offer women equal opportunities so that they can obtain senior posts, with a view to ensuring that all existing resources are efficiently utilised, that women's skills and strengths are channelled to best effect, that the best possible use is made of the union's human potential, and that the eu's core values are defended, given that equality is a fundamental principle. i abstained from the vote because the report stresses that if the steps taken by companies and the member states are found to be inadequate, legislation, including quotas, should be proposed by 2012 to increase female representation in corporate management bodies to 30% by 2015 and to 40% by 2020, while taking account of the member states' responsibilities and of their economic, structural (i.e. company size), legal and regional specificities. i do not feel that it makes sense to set quotas in the field of business. i chose to support the report by my colleague, mrs kratsa-tsagaropoulou, on women and business leadership. i am pleased to see that the report contains proposals on improving the number of women on the management boards of leading listed companies. in particular, i appreciate the fact that the commission is invited to propose legislation containing quotas by 2012 in order to make progress on this subject. my country, france, has established quotas which have already produced very positive results. i feel that it is important to promote gender equality on management boards in order to create real equal career opportunities within companies. we also need to recognise women's skills, and how their talents can contribute to business management. above all, i believe that we urgently need to remedy the iniquitous pay differential whereby women earn 17% less than men, which i feel is an aberration. perception of women in the workplace has to change: our economy cannot afford to ignore the potential for development and competitiveness that parity, equal gender representation and equal opportunities can provide. the european parliament has just adopted the kratsa-tsagaropoulou report on women and business leadership, which raises issues such as the promotion of corporate social responsibility and women's involvement in the workplace. it is worth highlighting the fact that equal rights for women and men are one of the european union's leading principles. differences can currently be seen in the employment of women, particularly as regards high-ranking positions. women earn less than men for performing the same jobs, and the gender-based imbalances can be seen clearly from employment statistics for managerial positions. according to the data, the vast majority of the highest-ranking positions on company boards are held by men, but it is evident that women are making ever bolder advances towards these prestigious and well-paid jobs. personally, i support all measures aimed at removing these barriers, and i therefore voted in favour of adopting the report. in writing. - i warmly welcome this report in which parliament has declared its support for efforts to increase women's presence on boards of directors, with a target of 30% female membership by 2015 and 40% by 2020, to be achieved through voluntary measures and self-regulation. should that approach fail to produce convincing results, recourse to goal-specific initiatives at union level will be considered. the commission has recently stepped up its activities in this area. i voted in favour because it is necessary to reduce gender inequality in corporate management. i support a strong gesture by europe with regard to women's integration into companies at the highest level, in order to prevent a loss of talents and skills in the workforce and to contribute to the performance of companies. gender diversity has a powerful effect on the results of a company. it is necessary to act swiftly and with quota systems, because the information available in the european union is worrying: on average, only 12% of the board members of the largest stock-exchange listed companies are women and just 3% are chief executives. in this sense, it is necessary to give more space to competent, qualified women, and to use the quota system to help them not to be marginalised from the corporate decision-making process. lastly, it is important to tackle the root of the problem, by supporting actions to orient young women more towards scientific and technological studies, enabling them to reach top positions in sectors with low female representation. i think we should all contribute to affording competent and qualified women access to jobs that are currently difficult for them to obtain by removing the persistent barriers and gender inequalities that prevent women from advancing in their careers. gender equality in employment must entail the advancement of men and women, without distinction, both within the labour market and to management posts at all levels, in the interests of social justice and of making full use of women's skills, so as to strengthen the economy and improve economic performance in the process, and must guarantee women the same career development prospects as men. in writing. - strengthening the role of women in the management of companies is not only a question of ethics and equality; it is also essential for economic growth and a competitive internal market. the report on 'women and business leadership' intends to increase women's access to top jobs. the european parliament requires companies to take measures to increase women's presence on boards of directors. if no significant improvement is made, parliament intends to ask the european commission to propose strict legislation. companies do not hire men or women, they hire talents. women in italy, greece and spain are particularly vulnerable to gender discrimination. we should not only declare our position on that problem but also take steps to prevent discrimination in specific countries. i voted 'in favour'. europe is currently in the midst of a demographic disaster and the ruling political establishment in europe has obviously been overcome by an attack of demographic blindness. in my opinion, the measures called for in the report are ideologically motivated attempts to force women onto the labour market, which will result in falling wage levels. quotas for women will simply result in token women being appointed, which will harm the economy. well-qualified, competent women will find their own way into management positions. they do not need the measures described in the report to achieve this. we do not expect from men what we expect from women, which is to combine child care with a job. we should finally take into consideration the valuable experience which women who have brought up their own children can offer the economy. apart from all of this, the measures proposed come under the authority of the member states and should not be a matter for the eu. in writing. - i abstained on the 'women and business leadership' report. i subscribe to the fact that women are being discriminated against when it comes to taking leadership positions in companies and business, and i also argue for the existing gender wage gap to be removed. the principle of equal pay for equal work must be defended by the trade union movement. despite the progress achieved by the women's and trade union movement on women's rights, women still carry the biggest share of domestic tasks, child care and care for elderly or ill members of the family. this has adverse affects on their careers and pension rights. women, more than men, work in low wage sectors and are subject to employers' flexibility demands. i am in favour of more women in leadership positions. however, i do not support the idea that a bigger share of female ceos will contribute towards genuine equality between men and women. as long as companies are functioning in the interests of accumulating more profit for the few, ceos' decisions generally - whether taken by a man or a woman - will impact negatively on the interests of the workforce, and women will continue to face extra hardships. i voted in favour of the report on women and business leadership because the problems that it addresses are very topical and deserve to be taken seriously at long last by public decision makers. once and for all, we need to tackle the unjust discrepancies that still exist between the qualifications held by women, including young women, and the number of women in positions of responsibility. consequently, i support the commission's plan to propose legislation in 2012 if large companies and the member states fail to take action to eradicate this problem before then. the quotas - 30% of women on management boards by 2015 and 40% by 2020 - will provide a considerable incentive. firstly, i would like to thank and congratulate the rapporteur, mrs kratsa-tsagaropoulou, who has succeeded over months of tough negotiations in drafting a report on the subject of women and business leadership which, to a large extent, is very balanced and deserves our support. i would like to explain briefly why i voted against paragraph 1 and paragraph 16b. the figures on the proportion of women in management positions are shameful. therefore, i am fully convinced that we finally need to take targeted measures to bring about a significant increase in this proportion. however, i feel that the calls made in paragraph 1 and paragraph 16b go too far. i do not believe that we should intervene in the operational management of businesses or set quotas even for the board of directors. therefore, we should first of all call on companies to take voluntary measures. in particular, i think that 2012 is far too early for the introduction of legislative provisions and quotas. however, in order to send out a clear political signal that something needs to be done urgently and, at the same time, to support the efforts made by mrs kroes, i have voted in favour of the resolution as a whole. when appointing people to management positions, companies must, above all, take account of their competence, knowledge and experience. i believe that an obligation on companies to increase the number of women in management bodies to a certain figure will be neither effective nor efficient, and that such an overriding requirement may lead business operators to experience certain losses, particularly as regards the competence of staff. furthermore, i do not feel that good economic performance and competitiveness depend on the gender of a company's ceo. we must make every effort to ensure that women do not face discrimination. we must remove all barriers to women joining the labour market generally and management bodies in particular. women must be guaranteed equal pay. furthermore, at national level, member states must develop initiatives regarding the fair division of family care responsibilities and a reduction in the gender pay gap. worryingly, the report states that only 3% of the ceos of the eu's largest companies are women and women only make up 10% of the membership of boards of directors. i agree that we must enable qualified and competent women to have a career and to obtain senior posts. i voted in favour of this report because it calls for the current deadlock to be broken, and outlines ways of doing this, by encouraging discussions at both national and eu levels. companies need a practical model to promote the participation of women in management, objectives must be set and the timeline for their implementation must be defined. i agree with the commission's opinion that there should be 30% women on company boards by 2015 and 40% by 2020. balanced representation of men and women on boards should be one of the priorities for action for companies and, in this area, the eu could be an example to the rest of the world. i voted in favour of mrs kratsa-tsagaropoulou's report and now i hope that the commission tables a proposal to form the basis for thorough discussions on the issue in the future. i strongly believe in equality between men and women and i believe that women can bring added value to corporate management. i am not authoritarian by nature, but i believe that in some sectors, it is necessary to set a good example and use legislation to introduce quotas and rules that cannot be obtained by letting freedom of access prevail. however, precisely because of this 'educational' and exemplary role, i believe these rules should be applied only to public companies, while i believe that private companies should be free to choose and manage their business as they see fit. that is why i abstained on paragraph 16. i voted for this report because i consider this reflection and society's opinion on this issue important. nonetheless, i do not support a quota system. as such, i agree with the commission when it declares its support for efforts to increase women's presence on boards of directors, with a target of 30% female membership by 2015, and 40% by 2020, to be achieved solely through voluntary measures and self-regulation. in writing. - an equal participation of women and men in decision making is a democratic and economic necessity and all the more important in the current economic situation, where all talent needs to be mobilised. although many structural barriers have been removed through legislation in order to promote gender equality in corporate management, men continue to predominate in leadership positions. today, only one out of 10 board members of the largest companies listed on the national stock exchanges of eu member states is a woman, and progress has been slow in recent years. the disparity is widest at the very top, where only 3% of such companies have a woman directing the highest decision-making body. member states and the commission should consider introducing new policies enabling more women to become involved in managing companies, in particular, by: initiating a dialogue with the management of large companies about ways of increasing female representation; supporting initiatives to assess male-female equality on recruitment committees and in other areas, e.g. with regard to wage differentials and career patterns and developing women's individual capabilities in-house, by means of specific further training courses and other forms of professional support, in order to prepare them effectively for management duties. despite enormous social progress towards ensuring parity between men and women, particularly in the workplace, there is still today a noticeable imbalance amongst those in leading roles in business. these differing levels of representation can be seen throughout the eu, and this is emerging as one of the problems that the union needs to tackle at the moment. as such, union actors should particularly gear themselves towards eradicating any unjustified differences in treatment on the basis of gender. any measure that successfully contributes to solving this problem, whilst properly considering the various interests in question, should therefore merit the attention and agreement of anyone who can contribute to overcoming this type of inequality, in particular, parliament. i support the report on the subject of women and business leadership because i was committed to the cause of bringing more women into management positions before i became a member of the european parliament. as shadow rapporteur for the committee on legal affairs, i was able to ensure that a corresponding section was included in the report on corporate governance in financial institutions which called on the commission to submit a plan to bring about phased increases. in particular, i support the paragraph in the report on which we are now voting which requires companies to achieve a quota of 30% women on company boards by 2015 and 40% by 2020. of course, voluntary measures will not be enough in this respect. we need binding legislative provisions to implement the quotas of 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2020 which will increase the representation of women on boards of directors. we are calling on the commission to draft and submit legislative proposals on this issue. in terms of social and economic policy, i believe it to be fundamentally right to increase the proportion of women in management positions. however, i have deliberately voted against the report, because paragraph 16b calls for the europe-wide introduction of quotas for women. this is going too far. a mandatory quota will interfere on a large scale with companies' freedom to do business and is therefore questionable from a constitutional perspective. in addition, an across-the-board quota does not take into consideration the specific circumstances of each company and industry. for example, it would not currently be possible to impose a standard quota in the construction, engineering or it industries in germany. in this area, it is essential to focus initially on training and study opportunities in order to bring about a significant increase in the proportion of young women employed in these traditionally male-dominated industries. in addition, we need to improve conditions for working parents, in particular, by introducing family-conscious, flexible work models and developing the child care infrastructure. against this background, i would rather see a voluntary undertaking by companies and cooperation between the worlds of politics and business instead of an inflexible, mandatory quota. there must be no distinction in the advancement of men and women, both within the labour market generally and in terms of their promotion to management posts. achieving social justice and making use of women's skills also strengthen the economy. having society represented at all levels of management can only be of benefit. women and men must, however, be guaranteed equal chances to develop. we need to think of effective ways to increase the number of women on the boards of companies. the current trend is much too slow. special action needs to be taken to enable qualified and educated women to reach positions that are difficult for them to reach at present. norms regarding self-regulation and good governance are an excellent method for achieving this. in finland, we have been able to increase board membership among women without a need for legislation on quotas, and both genders are represented in decision-making bodies. could this become a broader model for the whole of europe? parliament has adopted this report which aims to encourage the commission to impose quotas for the number of women on the management bodies of listed companies. the underlying message is good: achieving a better gender balance must be a priority. at present, women make up just 10% of board members in companies listed in the union and that figure drops to 3% for ceos. however, i think that it is a pity that the report did not give greater consideration to how to improve female representation. the report does not mention public undertakings, which could lead by example and where the state could impose a quota or require parity within the management structures. furthermore, the belgian council of state recently reminded us that under the freedom of association enshrined in the constitution, shareholders retain and must retain responsibility for the composition and oversight of the governing bodies in listed private companies. on the whole, by opting for limits rather than leading by example, there is a real risk that we will undermine women and confirm doubts about the legitimacy of women who are only appointed in order to comply with the rules. in 2009, the proportion of women in the governing bodies of the top listed companies was 10.9%. only 3% of ceos in those same companies are women. in view of these extremely low figures, which are not changing much, i think that, once we have an overview of female representation within companies in the european union, and if voluntary measures prove insufficient, the commission needs to propose legislation by 2012. indeed, although some states have adopted interesting measures, the union as a whole needs constructive regulatory input. european legislation could set a 30% quota for female representation in decision-making bodies by 2015 and 40% by 2020. the merit of the parliamentary motion for a resolution, which i support, is that these measures would be accompanied by measures designed to achieve a better balance between work and family life, to tackle the gender pay gap and to encourage more flexible working hours. european initiatives will allow us to promote gender parity and equal opportunities, but will also foster economic growth and competitiveness by building on everyone's talents and skills, irrespective of gender. in writing. - in favour. the european parliament has sent a clear message to businesses and member state governments on the need to increase the share of women in leading positions. meps have called on the commission to come forward with a legislative proposal on women in business leadership by 2012 with binding targets and quotas, in case steps taken by companies and member states do not work. if business believes in self-regulation, they will have to hurry up and prove that it is effective. the draft report on women and business leadership has several positive aspects: implementing the participation of women in the labour market, at any level, based on the skills and abilities of individuals. despite their acquired knowledge, women often find themselves hindered by the so-called 'glass ceiling', which prevents them from occupying high-level positions. although i agree with the report on several points, i do not agree when it stresses the intention to increase the representation in business leadership of women from an immigrant or ethnic minority background. i am therefore voting against the report. i voted in favour of mrs kratsa's report because i consider that society's needs are such that we need greater involvement of women in the workplace; at the same time, improving female participation in education will safeguard the equality of opportunity needed for participation in leading positions in the business world. i agree with the proposal made in the report to increase female participation on managing boards, in order to achieve a critical mass of 30% by 2015. i trust that the commission will apply new policies to promote female equality in the workplace and to prevent discrimination against them in terms of pay and professional classification, among other things. i voted in favour of the resolution on women and business leadership. as a member of the committee on women's rights and gender equality, i would like to draw your attention to two matters in particular. the first of these is the significant imbalance between the number of women and men in decision-making bodies. men account for 89% of the members of management and supervisory boards in europe. according to eurostat research, in the third quarter of 2010 women made up barely 37% of all managers and higher-ranking officials in poland. the boards of public limited companies and supervisory boards have an even lower female representation (around 12% in 2009). in view of these sad statistics, i would call on companies and the member states (in line with paragraph 1 of the resolution) to act quickly on a voluntary basis to increase the proportion of women in the highest ranks. otherwise, i support the commission's suggestion to put forward a proposal for eu legislative acts on this matter. the second matter concerns the differences in pay for men and women in managerial positions. according to the polish salary survey, in poland, men's average pay was over 33% higher than women's, while the difference was around 25% in managerial positions. the resolution we have voted on today calls on the member states to adopt regulations on this issue as a matter of urgency. we are adopting this report during the polish presidency, and i hope that it will take measures to resolve this extremely important issue. in writing. - i voted in favour of this report as it is important to consider quotas to increase female representation on boards of directors. women's rights are human rights, regardless of whether we are talking about the home or ceos' offices. it is impossible to envisage a truly democratic society without the participation of women. democracy cannot exist if certain members of society are not respected equally and violations are defended - this is true both for women and other groups facing discrimination. this report pays most attention to the representation of women on the boards of medium and large companies. however, this is a much broader issue, particularly in lithuania. according to eurostat data, more than 91% of lithuanian women have been educated at secondary and higher levels, the highest rate in the eu. at the same time, less than 17% of lithuanian women become ceos, and only 18% of them are elected to parliament, while there are practically no female university rectors. having a female president is not enough. there needs to be a rapid response in order to avoid a drain of talent and skills into the eu workforce. we must close the gender pay gap in lithuania and throughout the eu. in lithuania, women often earn 20% less than men for the same work. the eu must prove that fundamental rights apply to all citizens. unfortunately, there are still many places in society where an unequal attitude to women and men in senior posts prevails. a man in a senior post is regarded much more favourably and his skills and character as more appropriate to such a position. by contrast, certain unjustified stereotypes are still directed at women in senior posts. women are no less knowledgeable and talented than men, and yet, in order to obtain a senior post, they have to overcome significantly more obstacles. statistics show us that the representation of women in leading positions both in business and in trade unions and politics in the eu is weak. women make up only 10% of the membership of boards of directors of the largest listed companies in the european union and only 3% of the chief executive officers of these companies are women. what is more, the majority (64%) of companies have not taken proactive steps to improve this situation. this report contains all the major problem issues related to women in the world of work, from access and equal opportunities in the labour market to reconciling work with family life and personal ambitions. the report is intended to ensure that competent and qualified women can take on positions that are currently not available to them, and to change society's attitude to women in leading positions. the objective is to increase women's membership of corporate management bodies to 30% by 2015 and to 40% by 2020. discussion of these issues and paying serious attention to improving the situation are important. that is why i supported this report. in writing. - in light of recent reports on the number of women at director level across the eu, which found that more women in high-level positions in financial institutions would have meant the financial crisis would not have been so severe, i welcome this report. this report sends a strong message to companies that the eu is serious about addressing the gender gap, and that if they will not take voluntary action, the commission will come forward with legislative proposals including introducing quotas. evidence proves that companies with a higher percentage of women in senior positions tend to perform better both commercially and financially, but the parliament underlines that recruitment should nonetheless still be based on skill, qualifications and experience and not positive discrimination, which only diminishes the position of women in the workforce. i voted in favour of the report on women and business leadership that has been adopted by parliament. this report is based on studies by the commission and the private sector which have demonstrated the benefits of improving female representation in corporate management. if we were to leave the situation to develop at its current pace, it would be 50 years before women made up 40% of management boards. we therefore need to speed things up. that is why parliament has emphasised the need to develop high-quality services providing care for children, the elderly and other dependents so as to allow women and men alike to achieve a better balance between work and family life. the member states and the commission are invited to take measures to combat stereotypes and change existing perceptions of women, but also women's perception of their place in the workplace. one priority must be to tackle the enduring gender pay gap that is caused in part, although only in part, by the stereotypes that affect career development. all that remains is for member states to put parliament's recommendations into practice. although the number of female university graduates is now consistently higher than the number of male graduates, women in europe are still under-represented in management positions. therefore, i welcome the fact that the commission has recently launched a number of initiatives with the aim of recognising and making use of women's potential, energies and capabilities. this will benefit the european economy, as studies show that bringing women into companies and into top management positions improves productivity and efficiency and produces better financial results. the goal is to promote women to the positions which they are qualified for and which they are currently unable to access because different types of obstacles are placed in their way. in writing. - whilst i am the strongest advocate of women in leadership positions in management and business, i am unable to support this report, due to the adoption of amendments calling for and supporting eu-set binding legislative targets and quotas. i am a businesswoman and have been for the past 25 years. the value of women in the business world cannot be underestimated, and studies have shown that women's participation in boardrooms and corporate businesses can increase the profitability of a company. this being said, i believe that the best person should get the job and that appointments should not be made on the basis of gender. in my experience, it is clear that imposed quotas do not advance gender equality. i do not believe in patronising women. i want to see women getting the top job because they are excellent at what they do, not because they fulfil a quota. i, along with my political group, fundamentally oppose the setting by the eu of binding and legislative targets and quotas for women, and believe that national governments and business communities are better placed to decide when and how they encourage women to participate in business and management. i am voting for this report. i agree with this report's recommendations, particularly when it stresses that all the member states have systemic importance, and calls for a comprehensive, socially inclusive and cohesive reform package addressing the weaknesses of the financial system. it also suggests measures to overcome the current lack of competitiveness through appropriate structural reforms, addressing the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy and the fundamental causes underlying the public debt crisis. i also voted in favour because it points out that the member states need to return to sustainable public finance and growth rates, based on sound policies for quality public expenditure and fair and efficient revenue collection. in writing. - i voted in favour of this important resolution on the report entitled 'financial, economic and social crisis: measures and initiatives to be taken'. we, the members of the european parliament, call for 'more europe': a 'smarter' more efficient and more united eu with clearly defined and commonly agreed goals, to which all member states should clearly commit and which should be supported by ambitious financial means. it is true that existing vulnerabilities in the eu's capacity to respond to the crisis derive from the lack of adequate european instruments or their inappropriate use. the main prerequisites for europe's recovery are competitiveness and sound finances in member states. innovation, the internal market and the further opening up of economies and markets are the main domains of european action. i agree with the rapporteur in that, if europe is to succeed in delivering the necessary answers to the crisis, concrete strategic action needs to be taken at european level to bring additional benefits for citizens, member states and the union. the eu needs to be able to achieve more with less, and the prioritisation of eu spending should help bring about competitive, sustainable and inclusive growth. the report on the economic crisis in the eu makes an agonising attempt to conceal the fact that this is a capitalist crisis caused by an over-accumulation of capital which cannot be invested by the monopolies at the high rate of return inherent in the capitalist method of production. that is why it attempts to attribute the crisis to speculation (as if that were not a structural component of capitalism itself), to credit rating agencies, to 'irresponsible lending practices', in other words, to secondary aspects of the capitalist economy, in order to acquit the capitalist system and ignore the fact that it is rotten to the core. the solutions proposed by the political representatives of the monopolies revolve around the central strategic objective of the eu and the bourgeois governments: to safeguard and maximise the profitability of capital, reduce the price of labour to the absolute minimum, demolish any labour and social rights of the working classes and strengthen the position of the euro-unifying monopolies in global competition between the imperialists. the report supports all the barbaric, anti-grassroots measures promoted by the eu and the governments of capital to shift the entire burden of the crisis on to the workers. the capitalist restructurings at the epicentre of their action will be unable to prevent the next crisis that will break faster than they anticipate. capitalism brooks no remedy, nor can it acquire a 'human face' although, according to the signs, the wave of adverse effects triggered by the economic and financial crisis has passed, we can see from the actual social environment and macro-economic landscape around the world that the process of returning to normal is tough. against the backdrop of the growing sovereign debt and states' inability to rebalance public spending, there is increasingly frequent talk about the concept of democracy by credit or governance by loan, which is a typical feature of certain eu member states. the critical time has not passed for these member states. this is precisely why i think, along with the rapporteur, that present or future systemic risks need to be very closely monitored by the authorised institutions. we need to restore the balance within europe so that we can take steady steps towards exiting the grey area of the effects triggered by the crisis. i believe that the high level of potential which coordinating fiscal policies may offer in rebalancing the european budgets is one of the solutions which must be considered in the medium and long term. this report, which was produced by the special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis, is a step in the right direction. it argues in favour of a strong european response to the crisis, based on the principles enshrined in the treaty and the charter of fundamental rights. it speaks out in favour of 'more europe', but a more intelligent, effective and united europe - a europe that would operate on the basis of clearly defined and agreed objectives. the member states would have to sign up to those objectives, which would be underpinned by impressive financial resources. i am in favour of an ambitious european budget. i am aware of the budgetary constraints currently facing member states, but i do nevertheless believe that it is feasible and necessary to increase the european budget, primarily through the creation of own resources. in writing. - ireland is geographically a 'peripheral' country in europe. a low corporate tax rate is a tool to address the economic limitations that come with being a peripheral country. in this regard, we voted to oppose measures in this report proposing the introduction of a ccctb and strongly condemn recommendations for the allocation of eu funds to be based on the taxation strategy of the member states and their willingness to cooperate on closer tax cooperation. measures of this nature are contrary to the ethos of the eu and the right of member states to determine their own taxation structures. secondly, a well financed eu budget is essential for delivering on the eu 2020 objectives. it is the foundation for increasing the competitiveness of the eu and is central to the long-term success of the cap. however, as member states are faced with increasing demands on their national budgets, it is essential that a fair balance is found in financing the eu budget. in this regard, we support the recommendations contained in the draft multiannual financial framework for the period 2014 to 2020 published by the european commission on 29 june last. i voted in favour of this report. the financial and economic crisis has resulted in unemployment for 23 million economically active people (9.6% in total), and a youth unemployment rate of 21%, while 17% of eu citizens risk falling into poverty. the crisis has made clear the need for progress towards establishing genuine economic governance of the union, consisting of a systematic set of policies designed to ensure sustainable growth, good stable jobs, budgetary discipline, the correction of excessive macro-economic imbalances, competitiveness and productivity in the eu economy, and stricter regulation and supervision of financial markets, as well as a suitable mechanism for resolving the financial crisis. i agree with the report's observation that credit rating agencies played a significant role in deepening the financial crisis through the allocation of incorrect ratings to structured finance instruments which had to be downgraded. i believe that we must reduce reliance on external credit ratings, and the eu urgently needs to establish its own credit rating agency in order to objectively assess the economies of the member states. since 2008, national governments and european decision makers have chosen to focus their attention on the fallout from the crisis. yet there has been very little analysis of the causes of the crisis. the structural elements needed to resolve the situation have been systematically rejected by all stakeholders. this has serious implications for european integration and political legitimacy in general. european citizens want answers and vision. this report sets out a few options. we urgently need these ideas to be translated into very specific legislative and political proposals. the sooner this happens, the better. in 2009, the european parliament set up a parliamentary committee on the financial, economic and social crisis (cris). the financial, economic and social crisis of the years 2007-2009 was fundamentally challenging the current governance system of the economic and monetary union and was a harsh threat to the stability of the euro. therefore, about a year ago, i agreed with the need to extend the term of office of the cris special committee, which then proved to be vital for developing recommendations for a sustainable eu growth model. in my view, these recommendations should then be taken into account by the special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a sustainable eu after 2013. furthermore, i believe more work is necessary to develop a viable eu crisis management mechanism and to define a political strategy for the future which is linked to the reform of european economic governance and the eu 2020 strategy. lastly, i would stress the need to establish mechanisms to develop coordinated policies to exit the public debt crisis in the member states while fostering employment and close cooperation with the national parliaments. a continuing effect of the economic crisis of the past few years is the reduced economic potential of many eu member states. the most glaring manifestation of the current slump is the situation relating to the debt crisis in greece. although poland's membership in the eu has helped it to maintain positive economic growth, polish citizens are particularly alarmed by the turbulence on the foreign currency credit market. the report correctly analyses the reasons behind the public debt crisis, but some of its recommendations are unacceptable, in particular, the proposal to deepen political and economic integration in order to strengthen the eu's legitimacy and control. the associated increase in the eu budget to a level of 5-10% of the eu's gdp, at the same time as national budgets are being restricted, is not a good way out of the situation either. in my opinion, the proposal for mandatory presentation of annual reports evaluating corporate social and environmental responsibility is off-the-mark. i voted in favour of rejecting the report. i voted in favour of this proposed resolution, which supports the need to carry out future research on a system of eurobonds, the europe 2020 strategy, the possible funding of resources and the pursuit of own resources and of a tax system to combat fraud and tax evasion. the eu needs a budget of sufficient capacity to accommodate the euro in a sustainable manner. the report contains points with which i agree, such as the call for the need to concentrate on the real economy, the only sector that produces certain wealth and is capable of protecting the economy from speculation. in the same way, i also fully agree with the passages dedicated to smes, which alone make up 99% of europe's productive fabric. however, the overall tone of the report is characterised by a euro-centralist view of the situation. i cannot agree, for example, with the continued calls for the need, repeatedly stressed by the rapporteur, to set up a new eu system to find funding from own resources, an expression which hides the more or less surreptitious creation of a european tax to finance the activities of the union and its programmes to intervene in the economy and society of our countries. too much importance - as well as excessive expectations - are attached to the eu 2020 strategy, a slavish copy of the previous wonderful lisbon strategy, which has come to nothing except a decade lost in pursuing elusive eu economic and social development programmes. i therefore abstained in the vote. the current crisis affecting greece, portugal, ireland and, therefore, the european union, requires a strong response on the part of the european parliament, as is the case with the economic governance package. however, parliament also has a duty to analyse and evaluate the scale of the financial, economic and social crisis so as to be able to propose appropriate solutions to the member states and citizens. we need to resolve the crisis and, at all costs, avoid excesses that could trigger further crises. i, together with my colleagues in the group of the european people's party (christian democrats), have therefore voted in favour of the report on the financial, economic and social crisis, as it focuses on the key issues. it is designed to raise confidence among our citizens on matters such as reducing debt, taxation, world governance, the single market, services, the eu budget, education and state aid. this report will serve as the bedrock for future member state policies designed to promote sustainable growth and employment and to preserve the welfare state in the interests of the european union and, above all, the interests of european citizens. in writing. - although it would appear more effort is needed to resolve the financial crisis, using even more taxpayers' money appropriated by the eu is unacceptable. what markets and consumers need is greater flexibility and purchasing power enshrined within domestic law that provides for the idiomatic economic and financial circumstances within each country. creating further eu competences while increasing eu budgetary powers, alongside green strategies and eu taxes, would stifle markets through pan-european homogenisation. the eurozone contagion is the product of erroneous legislation connected with the common currency. it follows that i do not support an increase in the eu budget or a further increase to the scope of the eu's own resources. i voted in favour of the own-initiative report on the financial, economic and social crisis. almost two years since the special committee set to work, the report is presented as a document that summarises the measures to be taken in various policy sectors to define the future political strategy for reform of european economic governance. the aim of the report is to provide the necessary guidelines to respond to the current crisis, but also to prevent future economic and financial imbalances, by means of 'more europe'. this should happen by combining a solid legislative package on economic governance, with an increase in the budget available. this increase should be obtained though eu own resources, made available by taxation on investment income, fines, vat, but, above all, by the acquisition of new capital on the market, using instruments such as project bonds, which will play an important role in creating strategic infrastructures in the transport, energy and telecommunications sectors. in writing. - it is of crucial importance that the eu takes the requisite measures to tackle the financial, economic and social crisis, and return both the union and each member state to growth and stability. it is also of crucial importance that each member state is given the independence to set their own tax rates on corporation taxes and all connected charges and rates. while i supported this resolution as a whole, i do not support a common consolidated corporate tax base or any other form of european involvement in setting the corporate tax rates (or connected charges and measures) of member states. i voted for the motion for a resolution on the financial, economic and social crisis to support the recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken, with the aim of creating mechanisms and devising coordinated policies to overcome the public debt crisis in the member states and of preventing its recurrence by addressing its underlying causes, while fostering strong and sustainable growth and employment. i think that greater efforts are needed to develop a viable eu crisis management mechanism and to define a political strategy for the future, which will also include the reform of european economic governance and fiscal policy, especially at financial regulation and supervision level. in writing. - (fr) i voted in favour of this report, as it is essential that we explore every possible avenue, both for laying sound new foundations for our financial system, with clear rules, and for promoting strong economic recovery. i feel it is absolutely essential that we include paragraphs 57 to 60 on energy policy. with the treaty of lisbon, we now have the means to build a strong european energy policy. it must now become a tool for economic recovery in europe. in its communication of november 2010, the european commission estimated that the energy industry would need investment of up to eur 1 000 billion between now and 2020. we must make the development of interconnected systems a priority, in order to make the networks secure, and we must develop more infrastructures, with a view to diversifying our energy sources and establishing energy independence. it is also important to note, as the report emphasises, that investment in renewable energies will secure new jobs and competitiveness for the europe of the future. if we want sustainable growth, energy must become a concrete priority for the european union over the coming years. i was pleased to vote for this report, which represents a significant compromise between almost all the groups in parliament. i agree with practically all the measures suggested in this report for combating the current period of crisis, which i also consider fundamental to the future of the european union as a political project. my only regrets are that the european union has once again reached an agreement too late, perhaps, and that the eu may get there too late again with the current sovereign debt crisis. we need a more effective, not less effective europe. nationalism must not gain a foothold once again in europe. we need to take a positive view of free trade, globalisation and movement across borders. the eu needs to have less power in certain areas, but greater power in others. the report is visionary and forward-looking, but i have one objection: the committee wants to increase the eu budget to between 2.5 and 10% of the member states' combined gni. this extreme increase is a long way from being realistic in today's climate. we are against an extreme increase in the eu budget. it is possible that the eu may need more resources for common commitments in the future, but such a change must be made in dialogue and in agreement with the citizens. in the current climate, it is therefore important for us to make smarter use of our existing resources. visions are good and necessary, but they must be well-anchored. today more than ever, the european project needs democratic legitimacy. therefore, our proposals must be credible and feasible - not merely visionary. i voted for this report because i advocate the urgently needed measures in order to help the eu escape the current crisis and prevent future ones. i would stress the document's mention of the negative role of the credit rating agencies, which 'played a significant role in the build-up to the financial crisis'. the issuing of eurobonds, a financial transaction tax, better coordination of national fiscal policies and carrying out transparent auditing of public debt, inter alia, are crucial to reducing future dependence on external credit ratings. the current crisis has laid bare the weaknesses of the euro area, not least its vulnerability; the fact it is an economic and monetary union lacking its own policies for economic, financial and budgetary coordination; the existence of failings in terms of surveillance; and the repeated failures of some member states to meet their obligations under the stability and growth pact, with all the associated systemic risks. all this has contributed to exacerbating the economic crisis and to creating the current sovereign debt crisis, made worse by increasing pressure from the markets and credit rating agencies. i therefore consider the rapporteur's proposal to undertake a transparent audit of public debt very positive. finally, i would stress the importance of adopting the economic governance package, which has already been debated and voted for in this house, and which is essential in order to get the public accounts back in order and start a new cycle, which i hope will be one of accounting stability and rigour, and of growth and competitiveness. since the outbreak of the financial crisis, economic and social consequences and repercussions for the sovereignty of the member states have persisted. as a result, parliament has been advocating urgent measures to resolve problems and reverse the trend of this crisis. unfortunately, parliament's determination has not been duly shared by the other institutions, particularly the council, which has been blocking the most effective and timely responses to the challenges of the crisis. as this report argues, commitment to the community method, and to strengthening economic governance, are crucial to consolidating economic integration and to ensuring that europe starts growing again; the europe 2020 strategy plays a critical role in this. in order to achieve this, there is a need to expand a union budget able to respond to the new needs and challenges, because the costs of prolonging the crisis will be extremely high for everyone, as can be seen in the commission forecast, which reveals that output will fall by about 4.8% of gross domestic product by 2013 and will be significantly lower over the next decade than it has been over the last 20 years. as i have been advocating, the union should be equipped with a system of truly own resources, instead of a system fed by national contributions. this is the only way it will be possible to overcome the difficulties and constraints caused by the contributing member states. this report results from the work of a temporary committee, set up to debate, draw conclusions and come up with recommendations on measures to be taken regarding the financial, economic and social crisis. as was to be expected, the report is full of contradictions resulting from the positions the various political groups have been adopting on this subject. the essential issue is that the most negative features and consequences of the current european integration process, whose nature and content are strongly neoliberal, are being exacerbated. these are the reinforced criteria of the stability and growth pact and the so-called 'euro plus pact', with more attacks on rights and social regression; it is so-called 'economic governance', which is an attack on democracy itself; and it is the europe 2020 strategy, with the parade of more liberalisations, privatisations and deregulation that it provides for. in this context - in which the main political groups support this report: the group of the european people's party (christian democrats), the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats in the european parliament (s&d group), the group of the alliance of liberals and democrats for europe, and even the so-called group of the greens/european free alliance - the more progressive gentle criticism that some are seeking to give the report, particularly the s&d group, matters little. the series of policies that are not being called into question here, but rather are being endorsed, do not create the necessary conditions for overcoming the crisis: on the contrary, they will deepen it for us. as we know, the purpose of this report was to draw conclusions and come up with recommendations on measures to be taken regarding the financial, economic and social crisis. regrettably, however, the report still contains many contradictions, first saying one thing, only to undermine it in the subsequent proposals, particularly when it calls for deepened european integration. as reality is demonstrating, capitalist integration is creating enormous inequality and serious social problems, as it is based on a foundation of the neoliberal policies of reinforcing the stability and growth pact and the euro plus pact, and on so-called economic governance and on the europe 2020 strategy, alongside liberalisations and attacks on social and labour rights. therefore, while there is the odd positive thing in the proposals being adopted in this report here today, its overall vision does not create the necessary conditions for the required change. what we will continue to see is the deepening of the crisis, especially the social crisis, with the intensification of the recession in countries with weaker economies, particularly in the case of portugal, greece and ireland. we will have increased unemployment, greater social inequality and more poverty. only struggle will bring about change. that is why we voted against this report. although the measures and initiatives relating to the financial, economic and social crisis might all be much better implemented in less troubled times, it is sometimes the case that crises create opportunities - and i hope that will be the case here as well. it seems that the most urgent issue in today's situation is to maintain the common european currency. in this context, all the indications are that we will not manage to avoid fundamental reform of the eu budget. it was clear more than three decades ago that currency union requires a larger budget than the eu has at present. the budget needs its own sources, and we must take into account the serious long-term implementation of budgetary policies at eu level. this is therefore one of the most key requirements at present. measures to limit capital flows, however, and an emphasis on support for the real economy, are also important. in my opinion, the stronger role of the un is an extremely positive move - the eu can be a valid part of a multilateral world. a common ministry of finance, eurobonds, a european debt agency - these are all very important proposals. now more than ever, we need political union and economic integration. the debate on how we should emerge from the current economic crisis has coincided with the start of the polish presidency of the eu council. while listening to today's parliamentary debate on these issues, i noted that the opinion of the rapporteur responsible for the report on how to emerge from the economic crisis, mrs bers, who belongs to my own group, the group of the progressive alliance of socialists and democrats in the european parliament, largely reflects what the polish authorities have said in connection with the newly inaugurated presidency. i am thinking of the call for a more integrated, not a more diffuse european union to be the response to the economic crisis. in my opinion too, this statement should form the basis for the eu's 'anti-crisis' measures. i would also like to note that the very sensible but, at the same time, controversial proposal put forward by our political group, namely, that the eu budget should be increased to a level of 5-10% of gdp, may gain wider recognition in future, at the conference planned by poland on the future financial framework, in which both the national parliaments and the european parliament will participate. i believe that it is a very fortunate coincidence that the proposals of the s&d group, as outlined in the bers report, are viewed positively by the government of the country which currently holds the eu presidency, in spite of the fact that it is part of a different political family. i therefore voted in favour of the report, and i also hope that its proposals will be implemented before the end of the polish presidency. in writing. - i am voting in favour of paragraph 73 of the bers report on the financial, economic and social crisis, which supports the commission's efforts to deal effectively with tax fraud and tax evasion both at european and international level. however, i do not agree with the recommendation concerning the introduction of a common consolidated corporate tax, as stipulated in that clause. i voted in favour of the report by the special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis, as drafted by my colleague, pervenche bers, as it proposes ambitious yet practical solutions to help the eu come out of the financial, economic and social crisis from which european citizens are suffering on a daily basis. it is only by implementing europe-wide solutions, such as issuing eurobonds, which will enable more effective management of sovereign debt, greater investment in education, research and vocational education and the establishment of sound, effective economic governance, that europe will be able to come out of this crisis for good. in its report by the special committee on policy challenges of 8 june 2011, parliament called for eu budget resources to match the goals of the europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. however, this message was regrettably not repeated in the final version of the crisis committee's report. if we are to implement the europe 2020 strategy, boost europe's economy and promote employment, we will certainly need a substantial increase in the eu budget over the next few years. i voted in favour of the report by my colleague, pervenche bers, on measures to deal with the financial, economic and social crisis. i can only welcome an initiative that emphasises the need for an integrated, europe-wide political and economic approach that will enable us to recover from the crisis and revitalise the european project. i am particularly pleased with the idea of creating a eurobond system, and that of establishing a european energy community. i also welcome the creation of a european treasury, which would provide a means of pooling debt, and would be led by a commission vice-president who could coordinate european monetary policy effectively. nonetheless, it is regrettable that the amendment on increasing the eu budget with a view to boosting growth, employment, innovation and investment, within the framework of the eu 2020 strategy, was rejected in the plenary vote. i doubt whether austerity is the best way for the european union to recover from the financial, economic and social crisis. i welcomed this document because it is calling for a transparent audit of public debt in order to determine its origin and to ascertain the identity of the main holders of debt securities and the amounts involved. the sovereign debt crisis has revealed the risks posed by intra-european imbalances. i believe that the eu needs to act as one, to develop much closer coordination of fiscal policies and, where appropriate, a common policy with a sufficient eu budget funded partly through own resources, and to put in place adequate provisions for crisis management and economic convergence. the economic crisis which has disrupted the functioning of the european union in recent years has affected not only the financial sector, but also the social sector, since a drop in employment, lower incomes and higher prices are problems which affect every european. the threat to the financial stability of many enterprises has resulted in many factories and companies going into liquidation, and the public debt of certain countries has given rise to strikes and demonstrations, and continues to do so. the work of the specially appointed parliamentary committee on the crisis is therefore extremely significant. the key achievements of this committee include developing savings programmes, drafting agreements, initiating cooperation with national parliaments and coordinating the operation of governance mechanisms in a crisis situation. all measures aimed at counteracting the effects of the crisis, such as restoring balance on the market, reducing unemployment and ensuring sustainable development, absolutely deserve our support. the european economic crisis has been under the microscope of academics and politicians and, although outwardly, people have tried to show a united front, it has been bubbling away under the surface the whole time. recently, there have been more and more views on debt restructuring, which, just six months ago, was rejected as being completely out of the question. more and more, however, people have been inclined to think that such arrangements are inevitable. the debate has switched from a 'yes' or 'no' to whether, sooner or later, they will be the lesser of two evils. the unsustainable political culture in the countries in crisis, as well as their incapacity for self-regulation, have resulted in irresponsible housekeeping and a chronic budget deficit. the corrective measures will be painful, and a fair share of the burden will fall on politicians. by 'fair', i mean that those who have benefited from the bubble over the last decade will suffer to the same degree when it bursts. a standard of living acquired through debt and deceit is not genuine, and it cannot become so at the expense of others. when we speak of coherence and solidarity, it is worth bearing in mind that the eu treaties explicitly state that the member states are not liable for the debts of others. this report contains elements that threaten to conflict with these specific points. the promissory notes issued by the union would represent joint and several liability, which would not only allow people to live above their means at eu level, but would also dilute political liability for indebtedness, so that it no longer becomes the immediate responsibility of the governments of the member states and their citizens. i do not think that any increase in joint and several liability is something that we want, before an overwhelming majority of eu politicians understand that, in the longer term, no one can live beyond their means. the crisis is far from over and we can expect the economic situation to deteriorate at any time, both in europe and globally. one matter of concern is the current situation of young people in the european union with an unemployment rate of 21%, while in some member states, this figure even passes the 40% mark. this makes them the main group affected by the economic crisis. i think that the main job creation efforts must focus on creating employment for the young workforce. to achieve this, we have to incorporate the needs of young people into eu employment strategies, devise programmes intended to provide young people with the skills they need in the real economy, promote opportunities for them to specialise or work in another member state, not to mention support the development of the entrepreneurial spirit among young people through providing specific vocational training, access to eu funds and business advice. in writing. - i voted against this report. we believe that the work undertaken in the special committee on the financial, economic and social committee (cris) so far has allowed us to acquire a profound and holistic understanding of the crisis, to draw conclusions and to make important recommendations, especially with regard to public investments and fiscal policy. in particular, the extension of the term of office of the special committee was required to develop recommendations for a sustainable eu growth model which complement the cris recommendations already adopted by the european parliament; to establish mechanisms and develop coordinated policies to exit the public debt crisis in the member states and prevent its repetition by addressing its underlying causes, while fostering strong and sustainable growth and employment and, finally, to develop a close cooperation with the national parliaments. we also believe that more work is necessary to develop a viable eu crisis management mechanism and to define a political strategy for the future, which includes and is linked to the reform of european economic governance, the eu 2020 strategy, the fiscal policy and budgetary implications, financial regulation and supervision as well as the reform of global governance and representation of the eu on a global scale. the advantage of this report is that it includes a series of european responses to tackling the euro crisis with measures heading in the direction, very specifically, of eurobonds and the need to tax financial institutions. the report is also positive as regards the reform of the international monetary system. its limitations stem from its adoption of the idea that the austerity strategy effectively dominates the european semester. i abstained in view of the positive and negative points of this report. this report is positive in several respects: it calls for a reduction in income inequalities; it underlines the damaging role played by the banks in the economic crisis; it advocates saving energy and an increased use of renewable energy, and it asserts that freedom of movement should be maintained within the eu. however, these are good intentions that amount to nothing, since the rest of the report is an apology for an authoritarian, liberal europe. it welcomes the establishment of the european semester from beginning to end, and adheres to the approach of the euro plus pact, though without saying as much. it explains that fiscal competition could be acceptable; it expresses concern over poverty among women and children, then hurriedly passes the problem on to non-governmental organisations (ngos). it warns against protectionism and populism. these are all reasons that prevent me from voting for this text. the report by the special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis brings us important conclusions on measures to adopt in future, and introduces some of the main culprits of the financial, economic and social crisis, in particular, the fact that market finance at acceptable rates became inaccessible for greece, ireland and portugal, and that credit rating agencies played 'a significant role in the build-up to the financial crisis'. in addition, the issuing of eurobonds, a financial transaction tax, better coordination of national fiscal policies and carrying out transparent auditing of public debt, inter alia, will be able to help the eu emerge from the crisis stronger and with growth that is more sustainable. in writing. - it is necessary to take measures to promote innovation, job creation and investment in r&d. this will boost european competency and provide sustainable growth. the proposed measures address such issues as youth unemployment, social cohesion, the sovereign debt crisis, slow growth, enhanced cooperation in the area of foreign policy, better coordination of national tax policies, the establishment of a corporate tax base and stimulation of fiscal discipline. i voted 'in favour'. in the opinion of many of those who hold political power, 'more europe' is the solution to european financial, economic and social problems. in many areas, the eu could usefully begin to take action against global financial speculators and to protect the european economy. however, i do not believe that a european governance system, in other words, economic governance, would allow us to achieve our objectives. first of all, the eu must comply with its own treaties in order to uphold the rule of law. this has not been the case with regard to the aid provided to greece. alternatives to the current difficulties have not even been considered. this report will completely abolish the national sovereignty of the member states. in addition, the principle of subsidiarity, which was previously upheld by the eu, is being totally ignored. this will be the end of democracy in europe. we must act as one for the good of the entire european union and each of its member states. each member state must ensure a positive business environment in the country and care for the well-being of society. the objectives and actions of the member states urgently need to close the gap between national levels of material wealth and the european average. we must increase employment and reduce social exclusion. all of the european union's financial resources, knowledge, intelligence and skills should be used to address the issues of unemployment and emigration. we can no longer delay decisions on creating jobs and incentivising the employers creating them. not only do we have to support foreign firms investing in the eu, but local employers creating new jobs. high labour costs represent one of the most serious obstacles to establishing new businesses and increasing employment. lower labour taxation would stimulate investment. furthermore, it is crucial to increase investment in research and development. the instability of farm and food prices is another problem that demands immediate solutions. we must reduce the fiscal and administrative burden for small and medium-sized enterprises. pensions must meet people's needs and give working people the opportunity to start saving money today for their future pension. i am voting in favour of mrs bers's report, which is the result of the joint work carried out over the last 18 months by us members of the cris committee. in particular, i should like to stress that union and solidarity are fundamental for europe to successfully overcome the global challenge, and in that sense, i welcome the reference made in the report to eurobonds. the current european national bond market is extremely fragmented; the mutual issuance of eurobonds may get round this fragmentation by creating a new european market with a global dimension. the lack of a strong and substantial european bond on the global markets penalises the whole union, including states with healthy public finances. any solution, though, must avoid countries with responsible budgetary policies being forced to rescue, in one way or another, 'undisciplined' states. the concept of eurobonds is based on solidarity but they must not become an instrument to reward unsound policies and to weaken incentives towards greater future budgetary prudence by states. in 2009, parliament established a special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis. in june 2010, although it had reached conclusions and the crisis was in full swing, parliament decided to prolong the committee's mandate until the end of july 2011. the goal of prolonging the mandate of the special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis was to develop recommendations for a sustainable eu growth model which complement the committee's recommendations already adopted by parliament; and to establish mechanisms and develop coordinated policies to end the public debt crisis in the member states and prevent its repetition by addressing its underlying causes, while fostering strong and sustainable growth and employment. i think it is important to reflect on the route we have taken, and to continue seeking and implementing new solutions, so that the crisis we are experiencing may be overcome and not repeated under the terms in which it took place. we need more europe, not less. nationalism must not gain a foothold once again in europe. we must take a positive view of free trade, globalisation and movement across borders. we need a clearer and stronger europe. the bers report is visionary and forward-looking, but we have one objection: the committee wants to increase the eu budget to between 2.5 and 10% of the member states' combined gni. this extreme increase is a long way from being realistic in today's climate. we are against an extreme increase in the eu budget. the eu may need more resources for common commitments in the future, but such a change must be made in dialogue and in agreement with the citizens. visions are good and necessary, but they must be well-anchored. today, more than ever, the european project needs democratic legitimacy. therefore, our proposals must be credible and feasible - not merely visionary. the advantage of this report is that it includes a series of european responses to tackling the euro crisis with measures heading in the direction, very specifically, of eurobonds and the need to tax financial institutions. the report is also positive as regards the reform of the international monetary system. its limitations stem from its adoption of the idea that the austerity strategy effectively dominates the european semester. i abstained in view of the positive and negative points of this report. i voted in favour of the report by mrs bers because, amidst a climate of pervading scepticism, parliament has shown that there is a way out of the crisis and, of course, it is 'more europe'. parliament is offering a long-term vision in the face of the detractors of european development. this vision aims to act as a guide for the commission and for member states, to show the way out of the crisis and to lay the foundations for recovery. i strongly believe that europe should capitalise on the return of growth in order to become an international example, and for lasting progress. we must ensure that our policies are consistent across the continent, especially on economic and monetary affairs, transport and cohesion. the economic and financial stability of the eu will eventually make the european project sustainable. as such, on 7 october 2009, a special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis was created. however, as will be clear to everyone, the causes of the recent financial crisis still have not been overcome, nor has the restructuring of the eu response system for dealing with any situations that might arise been initiated. for these reasons, the prolongation of the aforementioned committee's mandate should be welcomed, so that it might continue to carry out its work of identifying the causes of recent events and preparing responses that guarantee the long-term stability of the european project, alongside other national institutions and bodies. i have voted in favour of the report on overcoming the financial, economic and social crisis because the european parliament has produced some really good recommendations for combating the crisis during the two years over which the report has been drafted by the special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis. the basic principle of the report is 'more rather than less europe'. that is the only possible long-term response to the crisis. i would also like to highlight the call for the introduction of a system of eurobonds, which my group was responsible for including in the report. i am now relying on the commission to take up parliament's proposals and implement them as quickly as possible so that we can breathe life into the report. the economic crisis has been a grim ordeal for europe. the social costs are high, as the number of those going out to work has dropped by 23 million across the eu, and the youth unemployment rate is over 20%. uncertainty has increased all over europe. the economic and social crisis triggered by the financial crisis has resulted in a political crisis in several countries. many governments have trembled, while their citizens have mounted barricades to show their displeasure with the current situation. the crisis has also revealed a lack of confidence and interest in the eu. there has been no consensus on how to manage the crisis. we need clear strategies and jointly agreed, long-term, political choices for the combined benefit of all 27 member states. appropriately focused education and training must be one of the main, long-term strategic priorities. at the same time, though, we must be able to increase the number of jobs. in writing. - i voted in favour. by decision of 7 october 2009, the european parliament set up a special committee on the financial, economic and social crisis (cris). on 20 october 2010, the european parliament adopted its resolution on the financial, economic and social crisis: recommendations concerning the measures and initiatives to be taken based on the mid-term report of the cris committee adopted in committee on 29 september 2010. but bringing the special committee's mandate to an end in the middle of the financial, economic and social turmoil would have given the impression that the european parliament considered the crisis as resolved, while financial markets were far from being stabilised and citizens and enterprises were still struggling with increasing economic and social threats. the financial, economic and social crisis of the years 2007-2009 was fundamentally challenging the current governance system of the economic and monetary union. the eu was witnessing the most serious economic and social crisis in the eu since it was established and an unprecedented and harsh threat to the stability of the euro with severe consequences for economic and social stability and cohesion in the eu. i voted in favour of this text because i believe it is along the right lines in helping to fight the economic crisis, the consequences of which we are still enduring. the financial markets have not yet stabilised and citizens and enterprises are still struggling with serious socio-economic threats. the financial, economic and social crisis of the years 2007-2009 was fundamentally challenging the current governance system of the economic and monetary union and at worst, nothing less than the existence of economic and monetary union, the internal market, and the social basis of the european union appeared to be at stake. the challenge is now to continue along the path already marked out, particularly addressing public investments and suitable fiscal policies, developing a new proposal for sustainable growth and establishing coordinated mechanisms to exit the public debt crisis in the member states, thereby preventing its repetition in future. we are not satisfied with the crisis committee's results. greece, but also other eu countries, risk bankruptcy and the percentage of citizens in employment is constantly falling. the crisis is not over with european taxes, oppressive rules for industry and for enterprises, and with reduced duties only benefiting third countries. the objectives that, according to the special committee, the union should put in place, in our view, go against the interests of our citizens. achieving a balanced, free and fair global trade agreement in order to reduce contrasts between emerging economies and developed ones by dismantling trade barriers means liberalising the unfair competition of manufacturers in third countries in relation to european manufacturers. even the commission regards the absence of a global trade agreement as a major handicap, since emerging economies are blocked by developed ones on agricultural export projects. as if that were not enough, the commission is also concerned with creating employment opportunities for the roma. it seems incredible how removed the commission's proposals are from the real requirements of european citizens and enterprises. that is why our vote will be against. in writing. - in line with my group, i voted in favour of the amendment to paragraph 73 of the original text, because i agree that there is a need to tackle harmful tax competition, tax avoidance and fraud and tax havens. however, i do not support the establishment of a ccctb with an indicative range of tax rates. we need to have better coordination of economic policy, but taxation policy must remain in the hands of member states. in writing. - (pl) i voted in favour of adopting the report on the financial, economic and social crisis: measures and initiatives to be taken. as author of the opinion on european cooperation on vocational education and training in support of the europe 2020 strategy, i would like to highlight the report's recommendations as regards educational strategies. in line with the central objectives and initiatives outlined in the europe 2020 strategy, the member states must improve the correlation between vocational education and the demands of the labour market, for example, by putting a wider range of educational and career counselling on offer and by promoting work experience and vocational training for women. it is also important to draft new proposals on training, including in the field of science, mathematics and technology, in order to increase women's chances of being employed in technical and scientific jobs, in non-traditional careers, in low emission sectors of the economy and in advanced technology sectors. i also support the motion for a resolution on the adoption of an eu programme for work experience along the lines of the erasmus programme, with full private sector involvement. one of the aims of such a programme should be to guarantee european women, including groups of disadvantaged women, access to training in order to support lifelong learning. in writing. - i voted against the rises in the budget and the shift in competences away from national to european where they involved spending. critical to this decision has been the recent cuts governments across the eu have had to make in order to ensure balanced budgets and to cut deficits. therefore, at this time, i believe it would not be sensible to vote for rises. furthermore, i cannot support the reduction of national representatives to the imf when it is the member states who are contributing to the fund. i have supported other aspects i believe to be useful and appropriate. in writing. - i voted against, as i cannot support an eu seat in imf meetings, since this would be at the expense of the uk, nor can i support an increase in the eu budget. economic governance of the european union made up of a series of policies enabling greater rigour to be achieved in correcting budgetary imbalances is essential in order to set out european initiatives aimed at overcoming the current lack of competitiveness and enabling a return to a cycle of economic growth. i agree with this report because i believe other measures should be adopted to solve the current european crisis, such as implementing transparent auditing of public debt; examining a future system of eurobonds; introducing new provisions to the financial bailout packages of the european union, the european central bank and the international monetary fund, involving the international labour organisation; and building an international monetary system that is more stable and resistant. i would also stress that the budgets of the european union and the various member states should be geared towards pursuit of the objectives of the europe 2020 strategy, so as to make the european economy more competitive and sustainable, and to give it more of a leading role in the global context. it is therefore essential to encourage commitment to innovation and long-term investment, to stimulate economic growth, to create jobs and to generate wealth. in conclusion, i cannot fail to acknowledge the great efforts that various member states are making towards budgetary consolidation and implementation of the structural reforms that will enable greater economic integration and financial stability, and which will make the euro more credible. in writing. - i voted in favour of this report as i think that its comprehensiveness makes it a very useful tool for europe to envisage a way out of the crisis. i would like to stress my vote in favour of an increase in the eu's budget to reach 5-10% of the eu's gdp and thereby make progress in the political and economic integration of the continent. i think that the foreign and defence policy should be run by the eu as a whole. two significant factors caused the economic crisis in the eu and the decline in its global competitiveness: namely, excessive member state budget deficits and unfair internal competition. the eu has not complied with its own criteria in relation to budget spending. unequal direct payments to farmers and incomplete cohesion policy, which has been unable in these last 12 years to eliminate significant economic and social divergences between member states, are the first issues we must tackle if we wish to achieve sustainable development and a uniform improvement in the welfare of our citizens throughout the eu. this report makes several important proposals, including cutting member state budget deficits, supervision of financial transactions and support for small and medium-sized enterprises (smes). however, it places too much emphasis on the 'europeanisation' of financial and economic policy, including harmonisation of tax systems throughout the eu, which would not only deprive latvia of the ability to make its own decisions concerning these processes, but also take away one of the major advantages of its tax policy, namely, attracting new investment. i also find the rapporteur's proposal to increase the eu budget to a level between 5% and 10% of eu gross domestic product, focusing its revenue on vat and increased contributions from member states, unacceptable. far from improving the economic situation in the eu, this would have exactly the opposite effect. it would deepen the imbalances between member states and place a disproportionate burden on the smallest states, which have also suffered most from the economic crisis. for these reasons, i voted against the report.

application of the schengen acquis - application of the schengen acquis in the czech republic, estonia, latvia, lithuania, hungary, malta, poland, slovenia and slovakia (debate) the next item is the joint debate on the council declaration on application of the provisions of the schengen acquis, and the report by carlos coelho, on behalf of the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, on the draft council decision on the full application of the provisions of the schengen acquis in the czech republic, the republic of estonia, the republic of latvia, the republic of lithuania, the republic of hungary, the republic of malta, the republic of poland, the republic of slovenia and the slovak republic (11722/2007 - c6-0244/2007 -. president-in-office of the council. - (pt) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i am absolutely delighted to be here today before this house, on behalf of the presidency and the portuguese republic, to discuss the imminent enlargement of the schengen area. only a year ago dark clouds were hanging over europe with the risk of an extremely serious political crisis due to the technical impossibility of bringing the second generation schengen information system (sis) into operation in 2007. indefinitely postponing the satisfaction of the reasonable expectations of free movement of citizens from the member states which joined the european union in 2004 would not only have been an intolerable demonstration of technological incapacity but also, in particular, a heavy defeat for the european ideal and evidence of the impotence and incompetence of our institutions and member states. we could have given these citizens a thousand explanations but all would have sounded like feeble excuses and would have invited a search for the guilty parties, thereby preventing the practical solution of the problem. fortunately, we took another route with a speed and cohesion that was truly without precedent. first of all, we found in lisbon the appropriate technological response to the technological crisis. sisone4all was a project conceived in around 30 days with its feasibility study being scrutinised by top european experts within a similar timescale. in december 2006 the jha council was able to green light the start of the process with a schedule of operations worthy of a european version of the film 'mission impossible' and with a minuscule budget, little more than half a million euros. in march, as promised, the software application - a clone of the portuguese n.sis (national sis) - was ready and was delivered to the new project partners. the c.sis (central sis) also underwent a major upgrade thanks to the total commitment of the french republic, which we must thank. the german presidency drove forward the appropriate legal measures with impeccable timing. on 31 august we managed to finish installing the applications and migrating the data which was a difficult and complex process. the next day, the security forces of the new member states gained access to the new tools which they then started to use with great success. it only remained to check whether all the other many measures needed for admission into the schengen area had been adopted with equal success, such as those relating to land and sea borders, police cooperation, data protection and issue of visas. fortunately, these have been adopted. last week, on 8 november, the jha council learnt that the member states in question have demonstrated a sufficient degree of preparation in order to satisfactorily apply both the provisions not relating to the sis and the provisions relating to the schengen information system of the schengen acquis. i should like to thank, here in this house, everyone who implemented the changes and carried out the assessment programme in recent months. particular mention should be made of the important work carried out by the many experts involved in the visits which enabled the transformations achieved in just a few months to be confirmed without a shadow of a doubt. we now have, at what will be the new external border of our european union, some of the most sophisticated and modern equipment, organisational solutions which deserve prizes for innovation and appropriate procedures for ensuring a very high level in the fight against crime. these will be supplemented by special policing measures, already agreed on a bilateral or multilateral level, so that, in the 'day after' the abolition of controls, there is more freedom but no less security. i must also stress that the concern for maximum transparency led the portuguese presidency to take very successful steps so that the european parliament could access the information resulting from the enormous effort made. this house was therefore able to verify the absolute rigour of the impact assessment summary which we also wanted to provide as a separate document. i must congratulate the rapporteur, mr coelho, on his total commitment to meeting the deadlines set and on the excellent quality of his report. ladies and gentlemen, this is the method we need to use in order to overcome the future challenge of setting up and managing, in an integrated manner, the sis ii, vis (visa information system) and new information systems on travellers which vice-president frattini recently announced. no one should have any illusions as mega-projects of this kind can be huge successes or heavy failures. success can only be achieved with strong command structures, determined leadership and very tight schedules. we do not need a technology tsar but rather a great deal of work in a democratic network involving the commission, member states and the european parliament, as was demonstrated in exemplary fashion in this case. i should also like to officially thank all those who contributed to this success. this is the secret of the success of sisone4all and only in this way can we save resources, create synergies between projects and in particular, ladies and gentlemen, meet deadlines. there is only one requirement to be met before the council can take a decision, which is planned for december 2007, on the full application of the provisions of the schengen acquis in the new member states. this requirement is your vote, the vote of the european parliament. i hope i can count on its result and be confident in this respect, given the very positive content of the motion for a resolution which is already on the agenda. please allow me, finally, to give warm thanks for the very complimentary comments which, through this motion for a resolution, the european parliament has made to the presidency and the portuguese republic. on behalf of the men and women who in recent months have dedicated themselves to our task of preparing for this historic decision which will finally bury the iron curtain, i must say that we were not inspired only by a desire for victory and to avoid a serious crisis. we mobilised the best know-how in europe, we took advantage of the tools of the new digital europe to quickly discuss our plans and difficulties and we created a fantastic network of experts and a 24/7 help desk to find solutions. all of this was accompanied by close and unprecedented liaison between experts and politicians, the ministers in this area who periodically met in special meetings to direct the process with the total solidarity of the commission. i must particularly highlight the role of vice-president frattini. we also never forget, ladies and gentlemen, that europe has its parliamentary representatives, whose opinion must have a bearing on what we do. we took due note of your recommendations and we are counting on your representation at the commemorative ceremonies to mark the historic enlargement of the european area of free movement, which will take place on 21 and 22 november. thank you, too, ladies and gentlemen, for your contribution to this historic result. vice-president of the commission. - mr president, first of all i would like to congratulate all the member states on their achievements in making it possible for citizens in poland, estonia, lithuania, latvia, the czech republic, slovenia, hungary, slovakia, malta and in the current schengen countries to finally fully benefit from the free movement of persons, which is one of the pillars of the european union. this is a real benefit for the citizens of the member states that joined the eu in 2004. it will make travelling quicker and easier. for all the member states of the european union, this shows the benefit of acting together in the european framework. an area without internal border control is an amazing achievement, without historical precedent. from 21 december onwards, travel will be possible from, for example, the iberian peninsula to the baltic states and from greece to finland without border checks. this is truly symbolic of a united europe and a basic right for all european citizens. as you are all aware, this historic achievement follows much preparation. joining the schengen area is not an easy undertaking. it is a challenge, and we must strike the right balance between freedom and security. lifting internal border controls is also a question of trust between member states. it is through a peer evaluation process, the 'schengen evaluation', that member states gain confidence in each other's capacity to guard the external borders on behalf of all the others and issue visas valid for the whole schengen area. member states will also improve police cooperation and security controls within the broader schengen space, in order to prevent criminals from enjoying free movement and better opportunities to act illegally. all this would not have been possible without financial solidarity. the schengen facility, providing nearly eur 1 billion, enabled the new member states to meet, in particular, the challenge of building up an efficient border control and becoming full partners in the schengen area. i would also like to thank the rapporteur, mr coelho, and the european parliament for their positive support in reaching this fundamental achievement, and last, but not least, i congratulate the portuguese presidency. i congratulate you personally, and ministers of the interior, minister costa and minister pereira, on your strategic partnership and clarity of purpose for the successful implementation of the schengen information system project, known as 'sis one for all'. we have worked hard, together with the former german and the future slovenian presidencies, to support our portuguese colleagues, and we have succeeded. this shows what can be accomplished if everyone is fully committed to a complex project. now, ladies and gentlemen, work is not finished. our ultimate goal is to make schengen information system ii fully operational by december 2008. we will again have to work very hard together. rapporteur. - (pt) mr president, mr vice-president of the commission, mr president-in-office of the council, ladies and gentlemen, the schengen area is one of the greatest successes in the history of european integration. abolishing internal borders and implementing several compensatory measures, such as the reinforcement of controls at the external borders, police and judicial cooperation and the creation of the schengen information system, are the best way to enable freedom of movement. like the european union, schengen has grown. from the five original member states, we are now 15, including two non-community countries, iceland and norway, and with the partial participation of ireland and the united kingdom. we are now facing an historic event: the biggest enlargement in schengen's history, with the simultaneous abolition of internal borders with nine member states: the czech republic, estonia, hungary, latvia, poland, lithuania, slovenia, slovakia and malta. this is an event full of significance for europe, for free movement and for these new member states and their citizens. i must start by welcoming and congratulating them. i want to congratulate them not only on their entry into this area but also, in particular, on the systematic and committed effort that they have made to meet all the requirements laid down by the strict schengen rules. the december 2006 reports, already mentioned by minister magalhes, highlighted various problems which have in the main been overcome. the evaluation teams were composed of experts from all the member states. they went to the borders and consulates and prepared exhaustive reports containing factual descriptions, assessments and recommendations, many of which required additional measures and follow-up visits due to the problems that still existed in the vast majority of member states. i want to congratulate the evaluation team, led by dr carlos moreira, not only for the exacting work carried out in a short space of time, but also because it did not just fulfil its inspection role, it also frequently suggested measures and solutions allowing the problems identified to be solved. mr president, the absence of internal borders not only requires better controls at the external borders and a good exchange of information and data through the schengen information system (sis), it is notably an exercise in mutual trust in which everyone must strictly comply with the adopted rules. guaranteeing effective control at our borders allows the security of all european citizens to be ensured. in fact, the security of the schengen area depends on the rigour and efficiency that each member state applies to controls at its external borders and also on the quality and rapidity of the exchange of information via the sis. any weakness or incorrect working of any of these elements is liable to jeopardise the security of the union. that is why the remaining minor problems must be ironed out. although they do not constitute an obstacle to abolishing the internal borders, they must be solved. that is why the european parliament, in the political resolution to be adopted, which has been co-signed by five political groups, and in the legislative resolution, asks to be informed in detail within six months about all pending issues. that is why we also ask that a global evaluation of the functioning of the schengen area is carried out within two years, involving all the member states, both new and old. finally, i want to thank the portuguese presidency for its commitment and spirit of cooperation, in particular the portuguese government and the portuguese secretary of state, jos magalhes, who is here today, and for the solution found with sisone4all, as already underlined by vice-president frattini. this solution has enabled the new member states to be connected to the sis. if this had not occurred, given the delay with sis ii, it would not have been possible to extend the schengen area this year. minister magalhes, i am fully aware of your extensive personal commitment and i also want to congratulate dr eduarda peixeiro, to whom much is owed for the solution adopted. i have two final comments. the first is to the european commission. i would like to remind it once again that the creation of sis ii continues to be a priority for the european parliament, not necessarily to allow the new member states to access the system, as this has been solved with sisone4all, but mainly because, within the community framework, it will enable more efficient use of data, thereby improving security through both the inclusion of biometric data and the interlinking of alerts. my second comment is to the council. i must express my regret that at the start of this consultation process it did not respect the principle of reasonable cooperation with parliament as it refused to send the evaluation reports prepared by the experts, on security grounds. although a compromise was found to resolve the situation temporarily, a long-term solution must be sought. it is absurd to deny parliament material with which it exercises its legislative competences. mr president, we have taken another step towards european integration. it is up to all of us to make sure that this step results in more freedom and greater security. on behalf of the ppe-de group. - (hu) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the european people's party and european democrats group i would like to welcome the introduction of the schengen system, and to use the occasion on behalf of the nine new member states to thank both the german and portuguese presidencies, the council, the commission and especially mr coelho for the enormous amount of work needed to achieve this. i must also mention the efforts of the new member states, since their work has enabled us to be at this point today. the free movement of people is one of the four freedoms of the union. we are now extending this achievement, this new area of freedom to many millions of new union citizens. this is a joint act by all of us: we europeans have created this together, and we should be proud of it. ladies and gentlemen of the house, i come from a town on the border of austria and hungary. for many decades my town, sopron, was separated from its immediate environment and from austria by an iron curtain. i have brought in a piece of this iron curtain to parliament - as i have many other times. it was this iron curtain that made it impossible to exercise freedom in europe. with the introduction of the schengen system, we are eliminating the last remnants of it. this piece of iron should remind us that our recent past did not have freedom, and that we should never allow freedom to be taken away from us. with freedom comes responsibility. the new member states are taking on the responsibility of guarding the common european external borders rigorously, since the security of all of us depends on this. furthermore, we must not allow ourselves to undermine widespread social support for the right to move freely. for this reason every citizen of the union must comply with the laws of the union; as commissioner frattini said just now, freedom of movement does not mean freedom of crime without borders. freedom must not and cannot be abused, because that endangers freedom itself and the right to move freely. nor can we allow certain forces to revitalise the principle of collective guilt, which brings bad memories, so as to undermine the right to move freely. we cannot allow the perpetrators of crimes to go unpunished. for this very reason, i would like to express my thanks again that the schengen system can be extended to these nine new member states. this is an historical event. on behalf of the pse group. - (nl) mr president, on behalf of my group i, too, would like to congratulate the citizens of the nine new member states on the present that the portuguese presidency will be giving them on 21 and 22 december. i am in complete agreement with the minister and the presidency, who are indeed dismantling the last remains of the iron curtain. the free movement of citizens without internal borders is a very positive thing and one of the most important freedoms of the european union, and i welcome the fact that the inhabitants of the nine new member states will now be able to enjoy it. the schengen agreement, however, concerns more than just the removal of internal borders. it also means that the external borders of the union must now be monitored by these new countries, in the interest of all the other member states. it is very important that the expansion of the schengen area does not jeopardise our security. mr frattini and the minister have both said the same. efficient and effective border controls are therefore essential. the assessment of the council and the commission show that the nine countries are in principle ready to take on this task, but that improvements could be made in a number of areas, for example as regards staffing and airport infrastructure, and our curiosity has been aroused as to the evaluations and monitoring that will appear as a result. we hope, too, that parliament will be swiftly informed about this. schengen of course relates to much more than border controls. it implies greater police and judicial cooperation between schengen countries. we are glad that in the case of these nine member states the portuguese presidency has found a solution with a sort of sis 1+, although we maintain that progress must be made as soon as possible on sis ii. i am happy with mr frattini's promise to have it by december 2008, and naturally we will hold him to that. we understand that bulgaria and romania still have to wait a number of years, but we also hope that these countries will continue to work hard, with our help, so that in a few years they can also join the schengen area. the same applies to cyprus. it is a shame that the problem that has been holding the country back for so long is now also preventing it from joining the schengen area. that is another argument for working together to find a solution to the problem that has affected this country for too long already. in other areas, too, for example in relations with turkey, this question leads to problems. naturally a solution is also necessary for the people of cyprus themselves. finally, i want to refer again to yesterday's discussion. it has rightly been indicated that the enlargement of the schengen area and the entire schengen system requires mutual solidarity between the member states. as i have already said, controlling the external borders is a task that affects all our security and in which the nine countries concerned are now involved. we will now speak to them about this. that security and the need for cooperation are themselves potential future problems, as regards internal migration for example. we must also agree that we will not try to solve the problems unilaterally, but that we will seek to cooperate, with all the countries that belong to the schengen area working together to solve the problems that arise in the future. as i said, we must ensure that what is currently happening in italy does not happen, i.e. that one country tries to solve on its own what is in fact a shared problem. mr president, i would also like to join the congratulators. i congratulate the new schengen members for having succeeded in the feat of satisfying the requirements of the schengen rules in such a short space of time. i would also like to congratulate portugal, which is a double congratulation. portugal was the first to come up with the proposal of "sis i for all". now, under its presidency, portugal has had the ability and energy to drive through the evaluation process. we have heard here what an historic step forward this is. to reunite europe also in this form, with free movement, is an achievement which cannot be overestimated. the road has been difficult. in particular, the problem with sis ii, which has been delayed for reasons which are unacceptable and have been much criticised by parliament. as we have heard, we need sis ii in order to strengthen security within the new enlarged area. parliament has also been critical of not immediately having had full transparency and access to the evaluation documents. i would like to give special thanks to my friend and colleague mr coelho. without his efforts we would not have been able to complete our parliamentary scrutiny. finally, i would like to recall that many of the new member states have long historical ties to their european neighbours. we must now ensure that the schengen enlargement does not lead to a schengen iron curtain against these. these, our neighbours, must also have access to the knowledge we have here if they are to be able to follow in our footsteps and build up a society governed by the rule of law, democracy and a market economy. once again, congratulations to all three parties that have succeeded here. on behalf of the uen group. - mr president, i would like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the portuguese presidency on being able to create an agreement and understanding with regard to the enlargement of schengen, and indeed it is historic. it ranks there alongside the enlargement of the european union and it is one that we should welcome. there are concerns, however, as rightly mentioned by other colleagues, with regard to our external borders and what we can do and how we can deal with them, about the issue of solidarity and about showing solidarity with other member states. in particular, from my own position coming from ireland, because of the common travel area which exists between ireland and britain, there are certain difficulties with regard to ireland becoming part of the schengen agreement, for no other reason, maybe, except the most important one of all: that it would reintroduce a border between the north and south of ireland. so there is a difficulty there but we do not want to see hindered the progress that is being made. now, with your permission, i would like to continue in irish. (ga) the eu will continue to grapple with the problems of drug imports into the eu and illicit trafficking in children, as well as addressing itself to common policy on migration, common asylum policy, eu-wide police cooperation, and the fight against organised crime. europol is doing a wonderful job in tackling international crime in europe. and together we can actually achieve the required double result of free movement of people and security and certainty for all countries. on behalf of the verts/ale group. - mr president, first of all, on behalf of my group, i would like to congratulate the new member states, including my own state, latvia, on the occasion of joining the schengen area. i also thank portugal for its sis i initiative, which has opened the way to free movement for many europeans. many thanks to all the people who were involved in this work and did their best in order to make this christmas gift possible. in the mean time, a lot of problems still exist in this field. what has happened with sis ii? when can it start operating? we are also worried about the use of sensitive data by sis ii. the data protection regime applicable to these sis ii rules is unduly complex. will we have a political agreement on the third pillar data protection framework decision by the end of this year? will the framework decision solve all the problems? do data protection authorities have adequate resources to enforce data protection rules in respect of sis ii? will all member states act in good faith when processing schengen data? why am i posing so many questions now? i just want to remind you that the schengen system is far from complete. a good job has been done in order to enlarge the schengen area, but now we have a new task - maybe a more difficult one - to make the area of freedom and liberty a guaranteed area for everyone. on behalf of the gue/ngl group. - (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i too, on behalf of my group, believe that today is a very important day because we are extending the possibility of free movement for many community citizens. this marks a ground-breaking step forward, about which we are very happy because it guarantees additional freedom of movement. it is a great achievement, pointing us in the direction of a single european space. my group is nevertheless somewhat hesitant about certain other aspects, especially concerning the external dimension of the schengen area. we are in fact strengthening the external dimension of the schengen area, reinforcing and in a sense actually militarising our external borders. we have grave doubts about this: while guaranteeing ever greater freedom of movement for community citizens belonging to the schengen area, we are at the same time impeding access for non-community citizens. for this reason we are not happy with the entire process. furthermore, we have our doubts about the implementation of sis ii: we are very concerned, and believe that in certain cases these exchanges of information do not afford proper protection for sensitive data. we therefore think that a very tangible step forward has been taken today in the building of the european union, yet at the same time we have sent out a very negative signal about the form and substance of this european union. on behalf of the ind/dem group. - (nl) mr president, i would like to speak on behalf of my colleague mr blokland. in previous weeks it has become clear in the media that since the accession of romania to the european union, 500 000 romanians have already moved to italy. there is therefore a great deal of free movement of people within the european union even without the application of the schengen acquis. i am therefore very concerned about the controls on undesirable persons crossing our internal borders. italy's decision to turn away european citizens is an extreme measure that clearly shows that open borders can also have negative consequences. specific controls will therefore be necessary. that is possible at the borders, but controls can also be carried out at airports and railway stations. for this reason it is necessary for a functional sis to be operational in the short term. can the commission, in its schengen assessment, also focus on the free movement of people from countries that belong to the union but not to the schengen area? on behalf of the its group. - (de) mr president, we too are pleased that the iron curtain which the communists drew across europe for more than half a century, with such contempt for human dignity, is finally down. i say this as an austrian, for whom access to our neighbours, the czechs, slovaks, hungarians and slovenians, is now open again, just as it was a hundred years ago. may i nonetheless voice a point of criticism: on a decision of such gravity, the fact that the schengen information system is functioning properly is by no means enough. in my view, the new guardians of the external borders must actually have the capacities to perform their role. if we consider that some eu countries in east central europe were still major transit countries in 2006 and that the figures for the apprehension of illegal immigrants were far higher at the eu's previous schengen borders in austria and germany than at the eu's external borders, we cannot afford to ignore this concern. nonetheless, it is a very good thing that the iron curtain has finally been consigned to history. (sk) i believe that the new member states, including the slovak republic, are all well prepared to join the schengen area. the slovak republic has fulfilled the individual criteria in the area of schengen cooperation and has therefore fulfilled all the basic conditions, so that slovak citizens will be able to enjoy the removal of internal border controls on the ground from december 2007 and from march 2008 in the air as well. the slovak republic implemented the schengen acquis in regard to the schengen information system by 1 september 2007 and police information is now flowing through the system in both directions. we have built a network of points of contact to facilitate the exchange of data from police information systems. our border protection and control are now in compliance with requirements of the schengen border code. the shortcomings identified in personal data protection and at bratislava airport have been remedied. after three and a half years of eu membership, there are no longer any obstacles to slovak citizens at last getting the right to which they are entitled under the ec treaty, the right to the free movement of persons. i trust that the european union will soon grant our citizens another right to which they are entitled, which is the right to work without restrictions in other eu countries and that european union will no longer give priority to workers from third countries but will instead prioritise eu citizens from the eastern europe. (de) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i myself represent lower bavaria, which borders on the czech republic, here in the european parliament. when i was even younger than i am today, this area really was the end of the world. looking at the gallery, i see so many young people in the audience, and i think we can remind ourselves that it is an historic day when these borders finally fall and we are united in europe. for that reason, yes, it is a cause for celebration! as a political representative, may i say in all honesty that many people were not convinced that this would work as well as it has, or that our east european friends, one for all, would implement sis in this way. may i express my congratulations and respect for that achievement. i would also like to thank carlos coelho. the fact that the european parliament is playing such a major role when it comes to schengen is due to our rapporteur. i would like to emphasise that point as well. however, politicians always have to think of tomorrow and what will be facing us then. here, i would like to remind everyone of what the executive director of frontex, ilkka laitinen, said at the last meeting of the justice and home affairs (jha) council: he said that migration flows are already demonstrably changing, away from the southern border across the mediterranean and towards the eastern border. that is something we need to prepare for today. we must also work through the problems identified in the evaluation reports. that is why the evaluation clause proposed by parliament is so important. we need sis ii and may i appeal to the vice-president of the commission not to cease applying pressure here, for it is important that member states resist any temptation to sit back and say, that is it, we have done it. we need the same level of commitment from them when it comes to the implementation of sis ii as well. once we have open borders for citizens, we will also have open borders for criminals, and when we have open borders for criminals, we need open borders for our police as well. for that reason, there must be no slackening of commitment now when it comes to the prm treaty; we need closer cooperation here too. as my fifth point, may i say that there is a need for a strengthening of frontex. i would like to see frontex taking on responsibility for the evaluation of standards at the external borders in future. we will be celebrating in december, and i hope that what will come afterwards will not be a hangover but the positive memory of the celebration itself and the reasons for it. (sk) excuse me, mr chairman, excuse me, but i have been informed that the english interpreter said the czech republic instead of the slovak republic. i would like to appeal to our interpreters to get used to the fact that czechoslovakia has been divided into two sovereign states, which also means that in the context of my speech, i meant that it was the slovak republic that was fulfilling the conditions. thank you, mrs belohorsk. we are aware of what happened, and you know that we were in fact exceptional witnesses to the situation. in any case we have taken due note of this, and if any corrections are necessary they will be made in due course. to tell you the truth, i am not altogether sure who you mean, who mentioned czechoslovakia. i do not think it came from the presidency. (hu) thank you, mr president. today's decision is truly symbolic, and it can be experienced most keenly by those of us who grew up behind the barbed-wire fence, who were able to cross the border to the west every three years, and who today can remember the stomach-churning moment of crossing the border. hungary implemented the necessary legislation by 2004, the time of the accession. since then, it has developed its system of instruments necessary for schengen protection. the inspections have classified the preparations as excellent, both for the land and air borders. in addition, hungary will take responsibility for 15% of the eastern border. we would like to thank the member states who have shown us solidarity, and especially the portuguese presidency, for this opportunity that is full of responsibility. we would also like to thank the council for their flexibility, which has enabled us to solve the problem we had with croatia, and which has also made it possible to resolve the situation of hungarians living abroad through bilateral agreements, in accordance with their wishes and the approval of neighbouring countries. thank you everyone! thank you for the floor, mr president. mr president, with the accession of nine new member states to the schengen area, which is a true and final falling of the historical iron curtain, the eu has truly given the opportunity to their european citizens to travel and fraternise in a reciprocal manner. last autumn i drew the attention of the estonian public to the threat that the accession of the new member states might be delayed until the beginning of 2009. i am glad that the european commission has found the means to speed up the process and i hope that it has not affected the pertinence of the system. but, besides the positive products of this accession, the eu must be up to the challenge of managing the possible threats that might result from such a vast administrative unit. the sis is a necessary safeguard to secure the normal functioning of the schengen area and it should definitely be left open to future complements. now the practice might induce some new issues. working off the threats and maintaining a flexible nature is essential for the sis to address the challenges that this enlargement brings about. (it) mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the spirit of the schengen treaty is about safeguarding the security of european citizens. to this end, it is undoubtedly better to have a few queues at borders and in airports rather than allowing free entry not only to decent people but also to the most hardened criminals, whom we do not want in our countries. we wish to see border checks, for example on romanian roma, with compulsory detection of biometric data including digital fingerprints. we must know who we are allowing into our country, as well as the exact date of entry, so as to be able for example to apply scrupulously the european directive enabling us - as pointed out just a moment ago - to expel after three months anyone who lacks the funds to support themselves. romano prodi's commission made commitments to the new member states without giving any consideration at all to emergencies, of which there have been several since then. they are now giving rise to appalling security problems, and the european union must think not only about european citizens' rights, but also about their security. security is an inalienable right, a natural right. action is now required, and commissioner frattini is quite rightly sending out well-balanced, positive signals in this regard, but we should not forget that schengen must also concern itself with checks at the european union's external borders, and must do so ever more efficiently. we have nothing against any ethnic group or population group, still less against our brothers in eastern europe; however, we do not want criminals moving around freely in our land. padania is a land of honest, hard-working people. its doors are open only to those who come to work, who behave well and - as befits the european union's area of justice and freedom - who abide by the rules, namely the rules of honesty and law and order. (cs) the history of the enlargement of the schengen area is marked by double standards. in 1995 the three new schengen states only had to fulfil a few formalities. in 2004, however, the new member states were subjected to a series of humiliating controls and assessments lasting three and a half years. there were objections from germany and austria in particular, which maintained that enlarging the existing schengen information system to include the new countries was not possible. in the end this problem was overcome thanks to the portuguese presidency, which is to be highly commended for having been able to overrule these voices. sisone4all now fulfils all the requirements. the new members are now ready to ensure adequate security of the schengen area. there are a few issues that have yet to be resolved, such as data protection, perhaps even protection of the new member states against the transport of toxic substances, such as in the case of germany and the czech republic. i believe, however, that all these issues will be successfully dealt with and that europe will not in the process become some sort of enclosed fortress. i hope that europe will continue to be open to collaboration with other nations of central, eastern and south-eastern europe. without eastern europe and the balkans, europe is not and will never be complete. (nl) mr president, like the european ministers of home affairs this parliament is now giving the green light to the extension of the schengen system to the member states that joined in 2004.it will be a relief to many. however, i am somewhat less euphoric about schengen itself: the fact is that the european policy of open borders also noticeably strengthens the scope of international organised crime. as a result, schengen has a spill-over effect. the system of open borders has always demanded a further transfer of competences and ever-closer police cooperation, which will eventually result in a full-blown european police force, prosecutors and criminal law, with their positive but also their negative aspects. however, the policy of open borders renders the individual member states powerless in the face of the regularisation programmes for illegal migrants adopted in certain countries - i am thinking of spain and italy in particular - which always attract more migrants to europe's poorly protected borders. the famous european solidarity is completely lacking here and this has to be said. (pl) mr president, the decision on the schengen issue was mission impossible, as mr magalhes stated. it proves that if there really is a will to do so, it can be possible to interconnect in practice the areas of freedom for the citizens of europe, including the freedom to travel, whilst simultaneously reinforcing security for those same citizens, that is to say, internal security. preparations for this decision have lasted at least 10 years, and have been very intense in the last two of these. in its present form, the schengen project is quite different from what it was in the mid-1980s. the main difference is that it is now fully enshrined in the community's legal and organisational order. in other words, as far as the new countries are concerned, the question is not if but when we will begin to benefit fully from the schengen area. at this juncture one is inclined to indulge in historical and symbolic reminiscences. after the second world war the issue of borders and their control resulted in bloody dividing lines being drawn across the map of europe. crossing a border often meant risking one's life. as things now stand we can state that part of our post-war legacy has gone forever. the new countries have come through the preparatory stage with flying colours. it is abundantly obvious that many of the solutions adopted by poland and other new member states can and do serve as examples for current members of the schengen area. the wind of change from the new countries will be an inspiration for the old union, not a threat. it will also help to increase mutual trust. the schengen enlargement process also constitutes a challenge and hard work for us in parliament. on a personal level, i was honoured to be able to work with such a distinguished rapporteur as mr coelho, with my colleagues from the group, and with the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs. i would like to thank the portuguese presidency for its tremendous determination. thanks are also due to mr frattini for his favourable attitude and commitment to this splendid achievement, which is without precedent in the course of history. (de) mr president, extending the schengen area to include nine new member states is an historic step which completes the enlargement of the european union and dismantles those borders where once the iron curtain separated our nations. there were those who believed, in advance of the process, that it was too early to do this, but we can now allay those fears. the most recent evaluation has shown that the new members are implementing the schengen acquis to everyone's satisfaction. let us be honest: border controls and the traffic jams which they produced have only ever made a limited contribution to our countries' security. real cross-border organised crime can only be combated effectively through intensive cooperation by our police and security agencies. this cooperation must be improved in future, and everyone is invited to play a role here. after all, among the old member states, germany is one of the countries whose borders have been most affected by the removal of controls. i would therefore like to welcome the citizens of our neighbour countries to our common area of free movement. may i say that people in our own countries - in germany, austria, italy, france and spain - will benefit from the newly acquired freedom as well, whether during their vacations or a visit to friends. on 21 december, europe will move a step closer together. this is good for its people, and it is good for europe. (pt) once again, many thanks to mr coelho, our president-in-office and commissioner frattini. (pl) mr president, poland is to join the schengen area on 21 december of this year along with other new member sates. this will represent a further significant step towards full membership of the european union. we would therefore like to say how much we welcome this development. the next stage will be joining the euro zone. joining the schengen area does not amount to turning our backs on our eastern neighbours. we shall try to facilitate entry into poland for their citizens within the framework of the schengen commitments. allow me to emphasise, however, that we shall only do so in accordance with our commitments as members of the schengen area. (hu) thank you for the floor, mr president. the new europe is now coming into our reach, in that the dividing lines that were drawn up so skilfully in the past have ceased to exist, and this will have a bigger impact than anything else on the everyday lives of all of us who live in the area. i would like to congratulate and thank the portuguese presidency for creating the opportunity and the technical framework for the events of today. we would like to thank commissioner frattini for the help that these member states have received. last, but not least, i would like to thank my colleague, mr coelho, for his sense of vocation in dealing with this matter. we can now feel the advantages of enlargement as a physical reality, and also the symbolic and practical importance of being able, for example, to cross the bridges of the danube without checks, or rowing across the danube, which was an inconceivable dream for our parents. the precious desires of generations are coming true. in this way, history now admits that our young heroes of 1956 were right. at the same time, we must do everything to extend this zone as soon as possible to bulgaria and romania, who acceded recently. in this latter case - for example in the case of transylvania - the romanian-hungarian border will be so important, and it can only be compared to what must have been felt when the franco-german border was dissolved, by the people living there. at the same time, we cannot forget that checks will be even more stringent at the external borders of the schengen zone. for this reason, the ethnic groups living outside our borders, the hungarians living in vojvodina and subcarpathia, will be at a disadvantage: our close contact with them is a condition for their staying there and a constitutional obligation for us. the external borders cannot turn into a new iron curtain for these communities. it is only in this way, paying attention to those who remain outside, that the celebrations for opening up the borders can be complete for us. thank you for the floor. (pl) mr president, along with previous speakers i would like to thank the portuguese presidency for its very determined work on enlarging the schengen system. i welcome the fact that one of the last remaining differences of treatment between citizens of the old and the new union will disappear on 21 december of this year. in particular, as a pole i am proud that my country is responsible for the control of more than 1 200 kilometres of the union's external land border, and that the frontex agency is located in warsaw. at the same time i should like to emphasise that the schengen system is not intended to isolate the union from its neighbours. it does not aim to create a so-called fortress europe. i think we should take this opportunity to send out a signal from the house to our neighbours beyond the union's borders, including the citizens of russia, ukraine and belarus, making it clear that the strengthened union border is certainly not a wall to defend ourselves against them. we must let it be known that it is simply a feature of our security as a union, and that we shall not cease being good neighbours. (hu) the entry of nine member states is a significant step forward in the field of integration, both for the european union and for the member states concerned. there will finally be a tangible benefit for citizens from membership of the european union. thanks for this are due to the portuguese presidency, which has done everything for us to join at the planned date, in 2007, even though there were attempts to prevent this. the member states concerned are also due recognition for making great efforts to fulfil the stringent criteria and conditions. it is very important that no new iron curtain should fall between the countries that have just joined and their neighbouring countries. the agreements on easing visa procedures and local border traffic might be a great help in this, but the ultimate goal in any case is to achieve visa exemption. a specific, realistic timetable is needed for this, to enable the creation of visa exemption as soon as possible. thank you.

approval of the minutes the minutes for yesterday's sitting have been circulated. are there any comments? (the minutes were adopted) madam president, i should like to ask the bureau finally to take steps to ensure that parliament's staff - i am not referring to the members - are actually able to set foot in the restaurants during their short lunch-break. yesterday at 12.30 p.m., all the restaurants were full of visitors groups, so that parliament staff had to queue for half an hour and spend at least another ten minutes finding a seat. that is just not acceptable. from 12.30 p.m. onwards, the restaurants are chock-a-block with visitors, and that can no longer be tolerated. i note your request. i would simply point out that, as you know, we completed the voting rather quickly yesterday and everyone - visitors, staff and members of parliament - left at the same time. madam president, we agreed at yesterday's conference that we would ask the president to write a letter about the fire in turin cathedral. could you confirm whether this has already been done or is at least in hand? the request has been recorded, mrs oomen-ruijten, and the letter will be written, but we cannot go any faster than we are already going. madam president, i wonder if you could help me. there has been some difficulty over the israeli delegation which was meant to be going to israel from the 1 to 5 june. for some reason or other, at very short notice, this has been changed to the 3-6 june. this is very disruptive to members who had already made arrangements to go on that delegation. i gather that the decision has been taken without consultation of the bureau of the israeli delegation or with any members of the delegation. i would ask you, as president here today, to have an investigation into why this has happened because not only is it disruptive to members here but it is also extremely discourteous to our israeli hosts. mr provan, we are obviously not going to get into a debate on that point. you want us to make enquiries, and we will. topical and urgent debate (objections) i must inform you that, under rule 47, paragraph 2, second indent of the rules of procedure, i have received the following objections, tabled and justified in writing, to the list of subjects for the next debate on topical and urgent subjects of major importance. on item v - discriminatory measures by china against certain eu member states - i have an objection from the group of the party of european socialists which seeks to replace this item by an item entitled 'western sahara' and to include the item on china under human rights. if that is clear to everyone, i shall put that request to the vote. madam president, i wonder whether we are actually allowed to add an eighth item under human rights? i know that mr de vries and others always object if there are more than five items, and i just wonder whether it is allowed under the rules of procedure. i do not understand, mrs oomen-ruijten. we are not adding an item. perhaps i did not explain myself very well. the proposal is to replace the item on china with an item on western sahara and to add a sub-item on human rights, which is in fact the item on china. now, this is what we have just done on some other items. i assure you that this is perfectly in order under the rules of procedure. i checked that before putting the matter to the vote. (the motion was rejected) madam president, perhaps i did not express myself very well, but what we have done today is to include seven items under human rights instead of five. i thought we had an agreement here in the house that we would never have more than five. we keep adding more and more items under human rights every time, which rules out any chance of a proper debate. mrs oomen-ruijten, we are not going to get into a debate on this. actually i think the conference of presidents could look at this matter for next time, so as to harmonize things. madam president, i wish to clear up a misapprehension. item no 5 which is listed under the heading china is in fact a call for political solidarity by european member states with those states threatened by chinese retaliation in trade or other terms as a result of the un human rights conference in geneva. it is a political question about european solidarity with member states such as denmark and holland and not in fact, strictly speaking, about human rights in china at all. you know very well that we do not hold debates about objections, we just vote. you were actually giving an explanation after the vote and i had a lot of trouble following you. i did think it might be a point of order, but it was not. decision on urgency madam president, this is a very important commission proposal. we have begun our work in committee, but we shall not be ready by the second may part-session. our earliest possible deadline is the first part-session in june, so we shall complete our work then. i would therefore recommend that we reject this request for urgent procedure, but undertake to debate this proposal at the first part-session in june. (parliament rejected the request for urgent procedure) common security policy the next item is the report (a4-0162/97) by mr tindemans, on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on the formulation of perspectives for the common security policy of the european union. before giving the floor to mr tindemans, i would simply like to express my regret that the council did not consider it necessary to attend this extremely important debate. i had to say that. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, it was decided at the maastricht summit that the european community was now to be called the european union and was to have a common foreign and security policy. what it talks about in the texts is a security policy that could be developed into a common defence policy or even a common defence. now, i am sure, since i believe the vast majority of members here share my views, that i am not alone in thinking that when heads of state and government meet at important summits like maastricht and take such well-publicized decisions, we have to take them seriously. we have to assume that they mean what they have decided and that they know what is involved. the decision was taken at maastricht, and the question now is how it should be put into practice. when looking at this issue i have tried to avoid going into the institutional aspects as much as possible. we all expect these to be examined at the intergovernmental conference, the igc, which was announced at maastricht as the forum where any problems with the texts, such as inaccuracies or incomplete or unclear sections, would be dealt with. we in the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy felt that as the directly elected representatives of the people, we simply had to state our position on such important issues as security and defence. we have to say what we think is right for the people and what is essential for our security, and particularly our internal security at the moment, which is of great concern to us all. the report we produced in the committee is an own-initiative report, rather than a response to a commission or council text, such as the titley report on the arms industry which is also on this morning's agenda, and which is a response to a text by the commission. in this case, it was the committee on foreign affairs itself which had a number of ideas on security that it wanted to put forward. there was unanimous agreement in the committee that we should draw a distinction between security and defence for the time being, devoting this first section of the report to security and then later, after the intergovernmental conference, when we know whether any important decisions have been taken on the subject or not, producing a second section on defence. the two sections together would then be taken as a statement of parliament's views. it is extremely important for parliament to have a position on such sensitive but vital issues as security and defence. this, then, is the first section on security. the government leaders and the french president tried to establish a position on security as early as the lisbon summit in 1992. we in the committee and in the subcommittee on security and disarmament, which has worked very hard, felt it was our duty to visit the headquarters of nato, the western european union and the council of europe: we really left no stone unturned. we felt that we needed to provide a clearer definition of what security really meant for us, and we hope that the council, the summit and the igc will also give this question rather closer attention. we have looked at both external and internal security, although less time has been devoted to internal security, important as it is. we all know that people in the member states are currently very anxious about national security, but because it is to be specifically dealt with at the igc and there is some talk of a separate pillar being created for it in future, we thought we should concentrate on external security for the time being. what can we in the house say about this? as we all know, security is clearly more than just a military issue. it is also clear that security affects living conditions, employment, public health, the fight against poverty and unemployment, and so on. we say this, but we must also not forget that the whole purpose of the construction of europe was to bring greater prosperity and peace. one of the reasons for founding the ecsc was to establish a policy of peace, to prevent any further wars in western europe or between member states and to establish a different structure from the past. so everything we do in europe is in pursuit of peace, security and greater prosperity. think of the white paper on growth and employment - everything we do in the various committees is designed to create the best possible conditions we can. however, when it comes to external security, our security at international level, there is a military aspect too. i think we all felt ashamed that the european union failed to assert its presence in the conflict in the balkans, and that it took the united states to restore peace and push through an agreement. and today, are we not ashamed about what is happening in central africa? what is our position? what is our policy? i think it is now clear that no foreign policy in the world stands a chance of succeeding if it is not backed up by military force. this is not something i welcome, it is simply a statement of fact. we are one of the world's major economic powers, and we hope that we shall grow in importance further still if we enlarge. it would therefore be very cowardly of us if we could not, or dared not, accept any responsibility on the international stage, or if we had only a security or defence policy without a common foreign policy. this is the main thrust of the report that we in the committee on foreign affairs and the subcommittee on defence and disarmament have been busy preparing for some considerable time now. we have put forward a number of very serious proposals, and we hope we will win a large enough vote to force the council and the european council to take account of what this house and the people's representatives say, and that we can establish talks between the council and parliament on the best policy to pursue. if we adopt a position here today which forces the council - despite being absent from this debate - to take account of our report, we shall be helping to give parliament greater dignity, influence and importance. it will mean that we have managed to produce a report which no one can ignore on a very sensitive and difficult issue. people will at least know what we think about security, and we shall see how this can be further developed in future. i cannot emphasize enough what an important issue this is, and it is also a debate in which parliament could greatly enhance its reputation. thank you, mr tindemans. i think your speech was much appreciated, but in future i would like the groups to inform the members properly of the speaking time allocated to them. quite clearly mr tindemans did not know that he only had six minutes. he went well over time and i did not stop him because i did not think he was aware of it. madam president, i think that this morning's debate is a very important one on a subject which should also be high on the agenda for the intergovernmental conference: security and the role of the european union. my group feels it is important to stress that for us, security is more than just the efficient organization of the military aspects of our security policy. we see it as a broad concept covering economic instruments, environmental instruments, conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and so on. so for us, security is more than it was originally intended to mean, in other words it is more than just military security, which i think is a significant point in the position we have adopted as a group. we welcome the fact that mr tindemans' report also focuses on security policy, rather than the defence aspect of the development of the union's second pillar. we feel this is extremely important. we now wish to focus the debate on security policy in the broader sense, which for the union means petersberg missions. we think that the european union should give itself the possibility of taking independent action, such as occurred in bosnia under nato, and in order to do this it needs more instruments. as we have said before, it is better to try to develop prevention measures as part of our security policy, but if prevention fails, then the union must be in a position to carry out petersberg missions, in other words peace enforcement and peacekeeping, on its own. this is my group's position, and it is also where we feel the emphasis should be placed in the present debate. we are rather more reluctant to discuss what the union's defence policy or common defence should mean in future. it is not that we wish to avoid the issue, but we think that we should be focusing now on the petersberg missions, particularly since the european union has not been able to pursue an effective policy in practice in recent years. but if we give the union the right instruments now, we hope that it will be able to use them and show people that genuine progress has been made on our security policy. and once we have made progress, then we can start talking about what to do next. but i think we first need to give our own people a more reliable impression of the union's ability to carry out petersberg missions. of the several amendments which my group has tabled, i should like to draw your attention to two which we feel are particularly important. the tindemans report leaves it open to the european union to carry out petersberg-type measures without a mandate from the un or the osce. we do not agree with this. secondly, the report contains a passage on decision-making which proposes that the council should be able to take majority decisions on important questions like petersberg missions, in other words issues with military implications. we do not agree with this either. but otherwise we would congratulate mr tindemans on the work he has done over the last few years in preparing this report for parliament. madam president, firstly, i would like to pay tribute to the rapporteur, leo tindemans. we should give serious consideration to any report bearing his name. his experience at the highest political levels over the years in matters european renders his views particularly important. his report is a comprehensive one, which makes an important contribution to the debate on the evolving eu security policy as defined by the maastricht treaty and accepted at the time by all member state governments. in the limited time at my disposal, i want to concentrate on his proposal in paragraph 6 for the carrying out of a feasibility study into the establishment of a military and police unit responsible for keeping and restoring the peace. the role of the united nations in conflict situations around the globe provides us with many examples from which we can learn and build upon to define the eu peacekeeping role. for example a united nations peacekeeping force in the 1960s in the belgian congo (now zaire) oversaw what may have been an uneasy peace but, nonetheless, a vital one. unifil procured for south lebanon decades of stability, notwithstanding the horrific civil war which that country endured until recently. unficyp was another success, as was the operation of the un force which assisted and oversaw the end of the iraq-iran war. in all of these instances a cessation of conflict had generally been brokered by the un itself and a form of peace had ensued. the authority and success of the united nations peacekeeping units was not based on the strength of their arms but on the moral clout of the un, and this, in turn, was based on the acceptance by the conflicting parties of the political neutrality of the un and its genuine wish to secure the peace. offhand i can recall only one instance where the un moved from a peacekeeping simpliciter to an operation with an element of peace enforcing and that was in sudan several years ago and, by all accounts, it was an unhappy and unsuccessful intervention. this experience raises a fundamental dilemma for the eu: would its military and police operations be exclusively peacekeeping or should it have a peace-enforcing capability? it is not appropriate for a polity like the eu, with its proper and legitimate aspiration to be a world force, to be benignly neutral in the un mode. for example, let us not forget the recent conflict in the balkans where we were criticised for our impotence. furthermore, what would or should be the role of the eu if a vital interest such as our energy supplies or our telecommunications links were threatened? these are issues which we need to address. this is precisely why a feasibility study to explore the dimensions of that role would be extremely valuable. however, it must not get bogged down debating institutional points concerning relationships, for example between nato/weu, and the national idiosyncrasies of some member states relating to their security obligations. the function of such a study must be to clarify the basic principles for the eu - the logistics of implementing that policy can come later. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, europe is a community with a shared destiny. that principle has guided our history for nearly half a century, and underlies the maastricht treaty which established the european union and set the objective of defining europe's international identity by implementing a common foreign and security policy, including a common defence policy. mr tindemans, whose skill and wisdom are unequalled in this field, has primarily tried to develop our overall thinking on new perspectives for the cfsp. he recognized that it was premature for such a text to gather the strong majority a subject of this importance deserves. national reflexes, but above all the reticence of the new member states attached to their traditional neutrality, have rather slowed down consideration of an eventual common security policy. arguing for that process to develop in the future, because he is a citizen of a country which has been invaded every time it declared itself neutral, the rapporteur does not despair of convincing the hesitant and has chosen to concentrate on the security aspect of the cfsp for the time being. his remarkable report leads us to the recognition that the common security policy is still in its infancy. every international crisis demonstrates our inadequacy. we have only been able to take decisions on humanitarian missions and sometimes carry them out but the union's foreign policy should not and cannot end there. in 1992, the lisbon european council established a remit for the cfsp by which common action could and should be decided if the need was recognized. the balance sheet in this respect is disappointing. clearly the concept has remained too abstract and mr tindemans must be heartily congratulated for offering us a concept of security which distinguishes between internal and external security. that is a new approach which should allow europeans and their governments to better appreciate the value of jointly agreed measures to fight drugs, terrorism, organized crime and traffic of all kinds more effectively as far as internal security is concerned. while the pathetic progress of the cfsp is certainly deplorable, paradoxically we may not have wasted any time because the most important thing is to convince people that common measures are effective and necessary. europe cannot be built without the consent of the peoples and to obtain that we need permanent education. security in our immediate environment will allow us to understand better that the inviolability of the frontiers of the union is a problem common to all and one we can only deal with together, never alone. if ever a member state were threatened, common security would immediately become an obvious idea and recognizing that would lead to accepting its corollary, the idea of common defence which is essential to the existence of common foreign policy. mr tindemans' report and his proposals offer us a dynamic conception of security. that is why i strongly applaud it and that is why my group will support it. madam president, well done mr tindemans! he has just realized, along with mrs hlne carrre d'encausse, that it is increasingly difficult to draw up perspectives on common security that are in any way credible, for lack of agreement on the objectives. the fate of leo tindemans' report provides a perfect illustration of that deplorable state of affairs. the first version of the report was decisive and straightforward, with constructive proposals and vision. but after its passage through the committee what is left is a toned-down and rather timid text, certainly a fine reflection of the temptation to succumb to the lowest common denominator approach which our parliament now seems to share with other institutions of the union. by proceeding in this way our parliament has abandoned its role of providing political impetus, which still remains after all, and will for a long time, its chief mission in the context of the cfsp. rather than identifying and clearly stating the difficulties and political obstacles which stand in the way of the cfsp taking shape and substance, we prefer to skirt round them by subscribing to the illusion of a europe at peace internally and externally, which can economize on the defence and security effort. we are being lulled into a dangerous state of illusion and this is no way to succeed in liberating ourselves from the oppressive goodwill of our american allies who will continue to defend our security. it is significant that the americans themselves are beginning to get annoyed at the european hesitation waltz and our determined failure to emancipate ourselves, except in words. in the circumstances, one of the innovative proposals of the tindemans report, the integration of petersberg missions into the treaty, may actually be twisting our rapporteur's intentions to some extent. it is certainly desirable to confer on these missions the status of common action and thus extend the panoply of our means of intervention, but given our patent lack of resolution, it is a good bet that what could be an important breakthrough will only be window-dressing in the end, and consequently a pointer to our indecision. madam president, we debate the tindemans report in circumstances especially significant for the security of our union. for one thing we have an intergovernmental conference advancing at a snail's pace on this chapter, but, most important of all, we are rapidly approaching a nato summit which is going to widen that organization geographically and strengthen its functions. the conclusion is clear: if union security remains a runt policy after the igc, the security of our continent and the geographic area of the european union will end up being exclusively run by nato. i believe this goes against majority public opinion in our countries, and it is against our own interests of course. we cannot entrust the post-cold war security of our continent to an organization like nato born of the cold war, dominated by a power external to the region, the united states, and continuing to base all its activities on the outdated concept of nuclear deterrence. nato security and defence cannot possibly have a european identity. that identity must exist inside the union. a union capable of understanding that security is not a military concept but an all-round concept based on trust and preventive diplomacy. the european union ought to be promoting a new model of pan-european security, developing the osce by reforming its decision-making processes and increasing its capacities and resources, and coordinating the armed forces of member states to perform 'petersburg' missions - but always at the request of the united nations or the osce. without cfsp there is no political union and vice-versa. the council, which is not here of course, should understand that. your first draft of this report, mr tindemans, in which you called for the creation of a defence identity for the european union, was met by massive criticism in committee. your actual task was to develop a concept of security for all the citizens of europe. europe must remain a civil power. what you are doing, however, is building another fortress europe, and in your report, you have taken defence to mean the defence of the special interests of the eu member states, in other words of resources, sea lanes and transport routes. is what you are constructing here intended to be a new front between north and south? is europe - a europe of peace, law and freedom as it was founded, a civil europe - supposed to become a military union? that is what your report suggests. you clearly state at a number of points that the goal is a defence identity. the three-stage integration of the weu - which will be dissolved as such next year - is designed to breathe new life into it, enabling it to carry out independent intervention tasks. however, we - the young generation - do not wish to return to the traditional, outmoded system, where security means our own security alone. we have long been aware that dictatorships can also be overcome by peaceful means. there is now the organization for security and cooperation in europe, which has developed ways of breaching walls so that threats are no longer necessary. a comprehensive joint model of security for the twentyfirst century will not entail a division between internal and external security, but an indivisible security order, a security order that tackles the causes of instability where they really lie, namely in the economic, social and development fields. the range of civil instruments at our disposal must undoubtedly be extended. the creation of a european civil peace corps is an important project in this context, and it will need us to exercise all our political, financial and material power. madam president, i too wish to associate myself with those who have spoken before me in congratulating the rapporteur. i think this is a good report. like mr goerens i just think it could have been less conditional. i think that there was a majority in parliament to eliminate the few remaining conditional statements. essentially i want to say two things. the first is not a criticism, but perhaps an appeal to our socialist friends, to mr wiersma. if we are going to talk about petersberg missions i think we must equip ourselves to carry them out and, in my view, we cannot accept unanimous decision-making in the council if we really want europe to be in a position to accomplish these missions. my second point is addressed to our friends the greens. it is clear to me that a peace-keeping operation is inconceivable with just a civilian force. the bosnian experience demonstrated that. so did the rwandan experience. to carry out this kind of mission, there has to be a military force to back up the civilian force. a civilian force alone is certainly not up to the task. mr commissioner, i would like to draw your attention to paragraph 6 which asks the commission and the council to carry out a feasibility study into setting up a corps responsible for keeping and restoring peace. i hope we will receive a response from the commission on this point. i think this is one of the conditions for allowing europe to intervene, so that what recently happened with albania is not repeated, when we were not in a position to react as a european union, but had to delegate the task of facing that crisis to the member states. there should be a european instrument for crisis management, alongside majority voting in the council, of course. if the commission could respond to us on that point, i think it would be an excellent step forward. i hope our socialist friends will understand that without institutional means and majority decision-making capacity, we will continue to find ourselves in the same situation as we are in today, with europe incapable of doing anything at all. madam president, with the break-up of the soviet union, the relative decline of the united states and the increased might of germany, a european approach to defence and armaments does not correspond to the reality of the world today. defence is the very expression of national sovereignty and not to be shared. of course, you will always find french leaders who, to advance their careers or out of vanity, will try to engage france and its industries on a route which, deep down, they know is contrary to the long term interests of the french nation, but the french people are not fools and they feel threatened by this federal europe, which some want to establish come what may. ladies and gentlemen, i know what the rapporteurs, mr tindemans and mr titley, really want. they want france, which possesses the second largest arms industry in the world and has the capacity to manufacture every type of military materiel, to get involved in general partnership agreements which will bring it no advantages in terms of price or quality. past examples of european cooperation are significant, moreover: hybrid materials, budgets overspent, series cancelled. in 1958, when general de gaulle returned to power, the american arms industry was incomparably stronger than the french. but france independently pursued a series of arms programmes, and their success is well-known. that policy was maintained by presidents pompidou, giscard-d'estaing and mitterand. why should president chirac abandon it? madam president, i am not sure that we should be happy to accept the decision to confine this report to common security aspects alone, without also considering the question of defence policy, especially since recent experience in bosnia - and, indeed, the present albanian problem - show the need for a common foreign policy and suggest that no more time should be wasted in agreeing a common defence policy. as we know, the two issues are indissolubly linked. however, the method adopted by the rapporteur does have one positive aspect in allowing a definition of what the members of the committee on institutional affairs have called 'the essence of the union's security' , meaning the whole set of basic guarantees which enable the union to exist and to adopt the form of a legal system which is able to live and develop freely and to assert its identity on the international scene. we must, though, be aware of the fact that a common security policy cannot in itself safeguard the european union against all threats. the question of defence will therefore have to be dealt with as soon as possible, by convening a conference similar to that held in messina in 1955 with a view to defining the gradual merging of the western european union into the european union in the context of a common defence policy. the possibility for the union to decide to implement humanitarian and aid missions, to keep the peace and to administer the weu will represent the first significant expression of the security and defence aspects of the maastricht treaty. there is another question, too, among the many referred to in mr tindemans's report, which is not mentioned in the chapter on the internal security of the union: i refer to secessionist movements, whether violent or otherwise, which are sources of instability and disintegration that are difficult to reconcile with the democratic development of society. a europe reduced to trying to contain a series of secessionist aspirations would certainly lack the credibility needed for the balancing role that should be entrusted to it. national entities resulting from secessionist divisions would undermine internal security, based as they are on egotistical local interests or even on ethnic prejudices. the european union must therefore confront these dangers and work to ensure that, within the context of political union, we preserve those forms of autonomy and subsidiarity which recognize certain differences but, at the same time, that we guarantee the protection of internal security as an inalienable benefit for the development of the union and its people, and for the integrity of states. madam president, this report is clearly better than the proposals which have been debated several times in committee. but there are still proposals which are unacceptable. sweden has made its position on the common foreign and security policy clear through its proposal, in conjunction with finland, to the current intergovernmental conference. as a non-aligned state which aims to remain neutral during a war, sweden cannot accept the development of a common european defence position within the framework of the eu or via organisational integration of the eu and the weu. there can be no doubt about this. the proposal for a conference to discuss a common defence policy and a common defence position cannot be accepted. the eu must not be allowed to develop a military organisation alongside the united nations which competes with it. the future role for eu security policy ought to be to work for peaceful solutions to conflicts, to develop institutions which will detect conflicts early and resolve them using political and economic methods, to take upon itself peace keeping operations and humanitarian initiatives and to manage crisis. petersberg missions should only be carried out with a direct mandate from the un or osce. it is unacceptable that the union should act independently outside the framework of these organisations. the proposal for a common european military and civil corps is neither well thought out nor capable of implementation in practice. future security policy must be expanded from its traditional focus on military state security to encompass security for people and security for the planet. common security and all embracing security is built on co-operation, the creation of trust, openness and on disarmament and requires completely different tools from military security. in order to resolve conflict by peaceful means the eu ought to develop a broad spectrum of preventative measures which allow early warning, conflict resolution, mediation and political and economic aid instead of clinging to the military solutions of the cold war. madam president, i too would like to congratulate mr tindemans on his work, which is appearing at a very important time, precisely because it recommends a number of proposals for the formulation of a common security policy. i too am sorry that the council is absent from this debate. some representative of the council should have been here out of respect both for the issue and for parliament, especially since the council in particular bears the burden of a series of serious failures in the area of security policy. the report by mr tindemans contains several particularly important points. the first is its methodological approach, in other words the distinction between general principles and particular headings, relating mainly to the consideration of areas that are the focus of crisis, because it is precisely these that pose some threat to european security. speaking of general principles, i would like to dwell on two of these. the first is the concept of territorial integrity, a concept which is very important and certainly, in my view, the core of any common security policy. however, here we need imagination and an eye on the future, because the tools, the weapons systems that present the prime threat to territorial integrity have developed and compel us to change views that until now have been traditional. the second is the concept of preventive diplomacy, which i think is the most important proposal, because prevention means avoidance of the disagreeable facts which nowadays make up the picture of the international system. however, madam president, ladies and gentlemen, prevention means procedures, it means information, contacts, specialization and analytical consideration of all the causes of a crisis, things which of course - and needless to say, the council is not here - have not existed so far. another point is the proposal and introduction of measures to build trust as an established factor, which has already been tried in previous difficult times, but which can clearly contribute to creating the conditions required for the problems to be addressed. and the last point, madam president, concerns the 'particular headings' . the balkans: a failure of the european union. the mediterranean and the middle east: a second failure. it is not enough to appoint mediators overnight and by means of untransparent procedures, we must have specific proposals. mr president, i too would like to congratulate mr tindermans on the excellent report he has produced, even though i too have certain reservations, especially regarding the fact that this version has been watered down and incorporates numerous changes introduced by the committee on foreign affairs. in particular, i am not happy that this version has become somewhat illusory in mingling a whole series of issues such as organized crime, prostitution, the economic crisis and racism. i do have my doubts about this. but, clearly, the day of reckoning is at hand. the intergovernmental conference is not producing the results for which we hoped, and the provisions of the maastricht treaty are not really being appropriately taken into account in the context of a common security policy. clearly, without a security policy there can be no defence policy, and without a defence policy there can be no common foreign policy. so europe, which could be a giant - and is a giant in part - in economic terms is a political dwarf; or more precisely we have fifteen political dwarflets, the fifteen member states, bickering in the interests of their own little egos and counting for absolutely nothing in international terms. for this reason, i also appreciate the vehemence with which mr tindemans has stated this problem. this is a point on which we must be clear, dispensing with ambiguity. preventing conflicts and finding peaceful solutions to them - peace keeping and peace making - cannot be just a rhetorical exercise. how many times have voices been raised in this house - and i turn to the members of the socialist group - who have been seriously perplexed, as evident again today from what they have said - about the question of resolving conflicts and restoring peace and democracy. none of this can be just a rhetorical exercise. there is a price to be paid for this policy, and anyone who has the courage to invest in operations like petersberg or the other operations, like those of nato which, whatever anyone may say, now represents the one great bastion of security for europe, as it does elsewhere, anyone who has the courage to invest in the security policy and so in the capacity to intervene and to export peace, democracy and freedom, is working for the only possible future for a europe which is an area of democracy and freedom. i believe, then, that the weu must be harnessed to the service of the cfsp, and that there must be not just cooperation between the weu and the european union but real, genuine integration with, maybe, the possibility of creating an opt-out - giving those countries which are unwilling to participate in military peace-keeping initiatives the right to withdraw. it is essential here that parliament should adopt a clear position and call upon the council to face up to its responsibilities. mr president, i take this opportunity to express my great appreciation for mr tindemans before this packed and enthusiastic house, but at the same time to express my regret at the fact that his excellent initial effort has been mutilated in committee. nor does it seem to me that the admittedly numerous and wordy amendments can restore its original force and substance. we are missing an important opportunity today to show that parliament is capable of venturing beyond the narrow confines of its own affairs. what we are going to propose to the intergovernmental conference on the subject of the cfsp is little more than a plaintive murmur, before which not so much as a leaf will tremble. on this subject, a parliament which is still a slave to its political and ideological prejudices and to empty defences of national sovereignty is expressing an opinion that is destined to leave no trace in the historic record of european integration, endeavouring as it does to fill the void of its political proposals with a few feeble practical ones. no, we have no need to strengthen co-operation with the weu, but only to integrate it into the european union. this body, extraneous both to the union and to nato, revived like lazarus after 40 years of slumber, is today incapable of taking control of the mission to albania, totally consistent though it is with the petersberg undertakings. no, we have no need for any surveillance or analytical capacity if we then lack the will and the political and military machinery to react. no, we have no need of a european humanitarian core, a futile addition to the proliferation of so-called strengths - which are really weaknesses - of european cores. what we do need is a clear, authoritative common foreign and security policy, and the will to provide it with all the necessary instruments that will make the european union not just a market, which it is, not just a gigantic central bank, which for better or worse it is going to be, but an international political entity of the first magnitude with greater and greater autonomy. theodore roosevelt told the united states that his foreign policy would be 'talk soft and carry a big stick' . unfortunately, the foreign policy of the european union seems to be: ' talk a lot provided you don't carry a big stick' . ladies and gentlemen, i know it is very difficult to keep to one's speaking time, but i would like to draw this problem to the attention of the groups. i think there must be more vigilance in future. it seems that an hour and twenty minutes of speaking time was not used yesterday because the speakers were not here. by contrast the timetable is very tight today. i think we must have another look at all this so that we can devote all the time they deserve to important debates. for my part, i must do my best to ensure that speaking time is respected by all. madam president, mr tindemans has said that security is not only a military question. quite right, but this must then also be acknowledged in the eu's relationships with other countries. the deepest gulf in standards of living on the eu's borders is on the border between finland and russia. russia is no longer the evil empire, but 90 % of its population is experiencing social insecurity. the cost of living has risen six-thousandfold, life expectancy for men has dropped to 57 years and 60 % of the population earns less than ecu 500 a month. this gap in living standards is a very serious threat and in finland we have wished to meet that threat by peaceful cooperation and neutrality. to us, military tension in the north would mean an increase in insecurity and for this reason we have wished to maintain our neutrality. if nato is enlarged to include poland, the czech republic, hungary and slovenia, it will still not reach russia's borders. if nato is enlarged to include finland, then it will. in proposing the merger of the eu and weu, mr tindemans is trying to get finland and other neutral countries into nato by the back door. mr tindemans and mr titley, in their report, advocate a common defence and a common military complex. these reports would turn a civilian union into a military union. some large countries seem to be pressuring the finnish prime minister into approving the merger of the eu and the weu, but the prime minister's position does not have wide support in our country. we nordic meps from several countries have agreed on a joint explanation of vote, in which we express our hope that this report will be rejected. madam president, i congratulate the rapporteur on his thought-provoking report on european external and internal security policy. i shall concentrate on internal aspects. the threats and dangers we face today from terrorism and the activities of organized criminals in drug-trafficking and other areas are extremely far-reaching. coming as i do from northern ireland, i am very conscious of the network of international terrorism and terrorists' ability to bypass and defeat cross-border controls, and to get round whatever security member states and the european union try to impose. their weapons of death and destruction are brought into our environment. it is of little consequence if they bring material for making bombs or weapons for shooting and killing: the threat of terrorism creates fear and instability in our communities and gives rise to total insecurity in those communities. it eats away at the very fabric of our society and creates suspicion, tension and distrust. the european union cannot ignore such a challenge to its position. if there is to be trust and respect, it must come from all member states. they have to face up to the threat that international terrorism presents to us all in the european union. this is a problem that will not disappear. it must be faced head on. some member states have not covered themselves with glory in these matters in the past. i now turn to the matter of drugs. in my area this problem has not loomed large, but drugs have become a massive problem in society. we need stringent controls and inspections. we have to protect our people from this danger, from those on the outside who wish to destroy our societies and our young people. in conclusion, i support this report as far as it goes, but there is a lot more that should be done. there are many challenges ahead to combat the many and varied attacks on our society. we must do all we can to bring about a society in which we can all live together. madam president, mr tindemans' report on the common security policy of the european union is welcome. i feel like saying 'at last!' surely it is about time the peoples of europe took hold of their destiny? or should we always continue to leave our security in the hands of mr bill clinton? contemporary history demonstrates every day that european and american interests are usually different. so the role of world policeman cannot be reserved exclusively to the americans. i am glad mr tindemans, who was an enlightened foreign minister in my country, belgium, insists on a strengthening of the operational structures of the weu, on better cooperation between the european union and the weu, and on the creation of a european military and civilian peace-keeping force. as my french grandmother, who was also dutch-speaking, used to say, ' wie geen put graaft oor een ander valt er zelf in' - which translates as 'if you do not dig a hole for the other fellow, you are liable to fall into one yourself' . i also subscribe to the rapporteur's determination to make the mediterranean countries respect the relevant un resolutions, which the state of israel obstinately ignores. finally, i share the opinion that control of migration from the southern shores of the mediterranean depends on improving the standard of living of the inhabitants. however, i deplore the excessively important role nato is still expected to play in the security of our peoples. i think it would be more appropriate to strengthen the weu and enlarge it to include the countries of central and eastern europe. and to end, i would like to express regret that this report has overlooked an internal danger threatening several union countries: the rise of separatist forces, which belgium is experiencing, as everyone knows, but spain, italy, even france and the united kingdom are not spared either. madam president, first i want to express my appreciation for mr tindemans' report and announce that the spanish socialists are going to vote for it. our main reason for doing so is that europeans, who have made war on each other for centuries, can formulate and develop a joint security policy for the first time, based on responsibility and solidarity, instead of each seeking individual hegemony. there is another important reason: the intergovernmental conference is about to conclude and we are seeking to apply a treaty on european union which establishes common citizenship, the single market and the single currency. with money and life in common, it is striking that we are so reticent about establishing common security when that is the only thing that can really guarantee this union stability and a future. i think we should remember that our citizens' main concerns are employment and security - domestic security, of course, but external security too. and there is also another fundamental reason: now the cold war is over, we europeans cannot systematically delegate responsibility for our protection and security to a partner and protector, however strong and powerful. we must shoulder our responsibilities. and our first responsibility is to stabilize the continent of europe. we have a passion for self-flagellation and regularly recite the litany of our failures as a european union. what we never say is that we need to stabilize the baltic, we need to stabilize the mediterranean, we need to guarantee security in central europe, we need to show solidarity when there are problems on the borders, and recently there have been problems in italy and greece, and there is anxiety - which has been expressed here - in finland. there is only one way to do all that: as the old saying goes, unity is strength. that is the specific justification for concern about security policy - and a security policy which is all-inclusive and pacifist, but credible too. just as health policy cannot be based on prayer or rain dances, but needs hospitals and doctors, security policy will only be credible if we all support it with all our strength. and this means integrating the weu finally into the union, as affirmed in the maastricht treaty, and developing our capacity for mediation and peaceful intervention, supported by the strength that comes from solidarity and union. madam president, mr tindeman's report makes a very constructive contribution to the debate on security policy and to its development. several months ago president clinton met president yeltsin in helsinki to discuss european security policy. this was not a bad thing in itself, but we must be mindful of the risk that european security policy will be decided over the heads of europe. weakly developed co-operation in this area means that europe's contribution is becoming more and more fragmented and the opportunity for influence is being reduced. there are obvious large scale advantages within security policy which, through increased co-operation, could be better used to strengthen europe's role and the opportunity to make our own contribution. point 7 of tindeman's report states '.the natural solidarity between member states in itself constitutes an important factor of security in as much as it acts in synergy with the security guarantees provided under the weu and nato and from which states of the european union which are not members of those organisations already directly benefit' . this is true but in order to avoid misunderstandings it ought to be pointed out that those countries which are not full members of nato or the weu are nevertheless not trying to hitch a ride. sweden has maintained an extensive defence organisation which has had a stabilising effect in northern europe. swedish defence spending per capita has been higher than in many other countries. if we look at the current situation there are further opportunities for these countries to contribute to security policy through active and perhaps even imaginative co-operation within the framework of the petersberg agreement. expanded co-operation within the third pillar to combat organised crime and terrorism is to be welcomed. membership of the eu, participation in the pff and association with the weu will give those countries which have remained outside military alliances greater experience of participating in a co-operation with mutual obligations. the report includes a separate section on the baltic region. the baltic countries and the eu can make an important contribution in this sensitive area by creating various networks, some of which may even take the form of military co-operation, in order to increase regional security. several such initiatives are already underway. the new security policy conditions which have ruled since the end of the cold war have given rise to new debate even in sweden. there have been considerable changes in sweden's attitudes to co-operation, even military cooperation. in his well balanced report mr tindeman is facilitating this gradual but obvious change and i would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his report. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, i must join the chorus of compliments and congratulations addressed to our rapporteur, mr tindemans, for this very important own-initiative report, which comes at a key moment in our foreign policy. if the union really wants to preserve, sustain and strengthen stability and peace, we must take urgent and unambiguous action to define our common foreign and security policy - a policy which is really able to function, and one which addresses the question of defence, especially as regards disarmament, conflict prevention and the creation of trust. the union must contribute not only to the stability of the european continent and the neighbouring regions but also to that of the baltic sea region, the mediterranean basin, the middle east and the black sea region, with a view to guaranteeing the continuance of peace, basing its actions on the principles of the cfsp and also on the principles of the united nations charter. in this connection, i would stress how important the mediterranean is to the security of the union, as was previously made apparent on the occasion of the barcelona conference. we would do well to create security structures in the mediterranean basin which supplement the existing euro-mediterranean agreements, improving the economic and social conditions and, in particular, controlling the immigration flows and the trade in armaments. my fervent hope is that the intergovernmental conference will lead us to conclude an agreement designed specifically to endow the european community with the necessary machinery for the implementation of a genuinely common foreign and security policy, an agreement concluded jointly between all the member states and thus a credible and practicable one. it is important, in any case, that our actions should be co-ordinated and complementary and consistent with other community policies, since a single foreign policy measure or a single development co-operation policy measure or a single humanitarian aid measure may produce results quite different from what we would like and what we have agreed. madam president, i entirely accept the tindemans report, especially the points which the rapporteur has made in his speech today, and i regret that we have had to remove the section on defence policy. i really cannot understand this reluctance, since i believe it is a question of seizing an historic opportunity: the opportunity of being able to hope legitimately, for the first time, that by applying common european decision-making structures and capabilities we can make the use of force to achieve political goals impossible. that is our historic opportunity. all the member states, including those which are neutral, should therefore participate in this common foreign and security policy, including the defence dimension, because that represents the great step forward. the benefits of neutrality, which is important to us and which has a long tradition, pale into insignificance behind the great hope and the broad security dimension which the cfsp can provide. we can ensure that europe's power is used to pursue the peacemaking objectives of the united nations, the osce and the european union itself. i am therefore in favour of the neutral member states also participating in the common foreign and security policy, and of the merging of the eu and weu. i am in favour of cooperation between ourselves and nato, but i also believe that security cooperation with russia must take priority over expanding nato. security in europe is not possible in opposition to russia, but only in collaboration with it. madam president, i would first like to stress the importance of the council's essential absence in contrast to the parliamentary consistency of commissioner van den broek, who continually reminds us of it. this ultimately downgrades parliament's debate to a coffee-house discussion, and the bureau in particular should take some measures to demonstrate parliament's power to the council. my second point is that on the committee on foreign affairs i witnessed the effort made by the rapporteur, mr tindemans, to produce a report with broad support, to stress that there are points which merit our active support, such as the issue of political solidarity, and the defence of the frontiers and territorial integrity of the member states. thirdly, along with the whole of my group, i too would like to say that overall, i oppose this report and will not vote for it because in my opinion, despite its initial intentions, it ultimately downgrades the principle of political security, but rather, favours easy recourse to military security. other colleagues have raised the question whether we could deal with yugoslavia or zaire without military measures. my answer is yes . it would be yes if there were any appropriate, correct and level-headed political intervention by the european union and the member states, if it were not for the superficial and very rapid recognition of the former yugoslavian republics or the support by member states of the european union for the degraded mobutu regime in zaire, when perhaps the political security we ought to support would have given us much better results. madam president, in the light of the union's lamentable foreign policy performance, especially in the balkans, the need for europe's people and politicians to pull together in the security field, to install more rapid and effective decision-making mechanisms, and to speak with one voice on the international stage is greater than ever. the report by mr tindemans provides an excellent basis for this. naturally, this issue poses a particular challenge to those member states which are still officially neutral. in austria, the current security debate among the government parties somewhat resembles the confusion of tongues in babel. the pronouncements of those responsible change virtually every day. it is dishonest, populist and improper to tell one's own citizens that it is possible to join nato and still preserve a modicum of neutrality. it is improper to look for a free ride in terms of security policy from the other member states. we cannot call on our eu partners for solidarity and support when we have a crisis, and then invoke our neutrality when another country needs our help. austria has to make up its mind! the freedom party is the only austrian party with a credible and honest policy in this respect. we are a very reliable partner in any sensible projects which form part of european integration. madam president, mr tindemans is to be congratulated on the diligence and intellectual rigour with which he approached this contentious subject. however, it is to be deeply regretted that so many of my group's amendments were rejected at the committee stage of this report. there are a number of reasons why labour members of this house are unable to support the report as it stands before us today. we all agree that the common foreign and security policy must be strengthened. the nub of the problem is how this can be achieved while ensuring a broad consensus amongst eu member states. mr tindemans' report on a common security policy for the eu contains some unacceptable elements. the reference to qualified majority voting to joint actions under the cfsp goes beyond the position of the socialist group and the new british labour government. nor is it appropriate, in my view, to refer to the eu undertaking peace-restoring missions as distinct from peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. the emphasis on maintaining the eu's territorial integrity and an economic security clause designed to secure the eu's communications and supplies implies a defence capability for the european union. this is confirmed in the explicit reference to establishing a european core of civilian and military units responsible for 'keeping and restoring peace' . with respect, this is not the message this house should be sending to the amsterdam summit in june. it is unfortunate because there is much in the report to commend. this includes references to disarmament and arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, inequality and protection of the environment. but on balance it is impossible to agree with important sections of this report. the tindemans report has laid down the parameters for debate although i and my group - and especially the labour group of meps - still await a report on security policy more in tune with europe's aspirations for peace and security in the next millennium. madam president, the tindemans report comes at an opportune time, six weeks before the end of the intergovernmental conference. should this report be defeated in the house, the european parliament would appear in a very poor light, since it would then have missed an opportunity to gain a hearing and to be taken seriously on a key aspect of european policy, namely foreign and security policy. we should welcome any politically realistic positions adopted by parliament which ensure that the common foreign and security policy does not remain a hollow phrase. the tindemans report considers in a balanced way the need for arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, as well as the union's capacity to act. its central message that the protection of the union's territorial integrity must form part of the cfsp, possibly leading to a common defence policy, represents a quantum leap for european security policy - from a non-binding 'may' to a binding 'shall' . we also support the gradual integration of the western european union into the eu, and the dovetailing of the weu and nato that is required, as well as the incorporation of the petersberg missions into the eu treaty, since this would underpin the credibility of european security policy. austria does not wish to be a beneficiary of european security policy, but is keen to play a full part in that policy. i therefore very much hope that the tindemans report not only gains support in the european parliament, but also helps to foster the debate in austria itself on our country's security policy position as a future full member of the weu and a member of a newly reformed nato, so that it can play its proper role in europe's security order. madam president, i should like to begin by congratulating mr tindemans on the fact that his report has at last made it to a plenary debate. i consider that the division of the report into two parts is a successful solution. i am pleased that, in the discussion in committee, the report's security policy aspect broadened and became more diverse. in spite of this, as a member from a neutral nordic country, i am unable to approve all its details and i cannot give it my support. the debate going on in the eu about security policy is made more difficult by the widely differing promises on which it is based. with some people, the thought uppermost in their minds is federalist theory and its concomitant objective that the eu should become a great power with a single defence policy and defence. i am one of those who criticize the eu's foreign security policy from a practical point of view and wonder what security threats we are actually faced with. there is no sign of a military attack on the horizon. on the other hand, our security may be endangered by the uncertainties arising from the development of eastern europe and particularly russia. these threats cannot be removed by transferring the eu into a military union and a military great power. by these means we might even aggravate them. we can overcome these threats only by tightening pan-european cooperation. finally, i hope that all members will support my amendments aimed at ensuring that the barents sea area is given the place in the report which it deserves. madam president, in the one minute i have at my disposal, i should like to say that anybody talking about security policy in europe today should wonder, first, about the dangers involved for europe's peoples by the rationale expressed by the report, according to which, if an external policy is to be reliable, it should not exclude a priori any solution concerning how it is to be implemented. in other words, the european union is openly threatening the use of arms to impose its will, and this indeed, by means of autonomous activity. secondly, nowadays who needs cold-war organizations such as nato and the western european union and their enlargement? from whom do they wish to protect the values - as they say - and fundamental interests of the union? madam president, europe's peoples have no need of an international police force, but what they need is policies to address the very acute economic and social problems of our times in accordance with the interests of the peoples, and collective security institutions for the peaceful solution of differences without the threat or exercise of violence. madam president, ladies and gentlemen, mr tindemans' report attracts our severe disapproval. not to repeat my colleague mr de gaulle's excellent remarks on defence, the fundamental element of national sovereignty, i shall content myself with observing that what mr tindemans is advocating is the total integration of our nations into the atlantic system of internationalist coercion. and to drive us faster down this road they top it off by playing the good old refrain about the spirit of the treaties going beyond the letter of the treaties. although we are not yet bluntly told that the member states must submit or resign, the fact is the spirit of what is being said is not far away from that. but the most extraordinary thing is the introduction of the famous dogmatic incantation condemning so-called racism and xenophobia. mr tindemans mentions popular discontent giving rise to reactions of racism and xenophobia. mr tindemans is partly right: there is popular discontent, and it is increasingly strong. but this discontent is in fact swelling against genuine, authentic, violent racism, which no-one here wants to recognize. one very recent example of this took place at montfermeil hospital near paris, where groups of young people, to put it politely, formed themselves into a veritable commando; not a prayer commando like those who are fighting abortion, a commando of louts, come to terrorize the patients and care staff for two hours. every day, mr tindemans, police stations are set on fire, fire engines are attacked, there is extortion in the schools and knife attacks - which ought to cause as much outrage as the one by an immigrant against a minister of culture. poor children are knifed for not handing over their watches or jackets immediately, and it is never mentioned. you see, mr tindemans, the man who is talking to you and the movement he is part of, are total strangers to racism. did you know that? two black west indians are on the central committee of the national front. one of them, my friend stphane durbette, the youngest regional councillor in france, was beaten up, left for dead and sent to hospital, because a socialist/communist commando regarded him as genetically defective. that is racism. my three indo-chinese godchildren tell me about the racism they observe, not from the old french, but from communities which detest that quiet community of vietnamese people who love france. many of the 3, 000 orphans or destitute children i was concerned with during fifteen years of civil war in the lebanon, tell me of their fears. they tell me, they write to me: ' the same thing will happen to you in france as happened in beirut' . you make timid mention of the tensions in the southern mediterranean; are you blind to fact that the atrocious and inexpiable struggles of the algerian civil war, with throats cut as prescribed by the prophet in the koran, may spread to the millions of muslims with dual nationality who live in my country with no sense of being french first or wanting to be? every day, politicians are expelled from certain quarters, and not just from my movement. 'you do not belong here' they are told. it all started like that in the lebanon. shortly before the fall of constantinople, mehmed ii addressed these words to constantine xi: ' both shores of the bosphorus belong to me, the asian shore populated by our ottomans, the european shore because you are incapable of defending it' . madam president, the european union was changed when three non-aligned countries acceded in 1995. at the same time those three countries, by accepting the maastricht treaty, declared their political alignment to the principles of the union. scandinavia would have looked totally different if the swedes and the finns had joined nato or were to join in the foreseeable future. we are looking forward to peaceful collaboration with the baltic area and with a russia grappling with the problems of a changeover to democratic and legally binding structures. the tindemans report ostensibly dealing only with security seems partly to believe that security in europe is enhanced by military means. it therefore contains a glaring omission. security for all of us is dependent not only upon developments in russia but also in the ukraine and belarus. presupposing aggressive soviet intentions, for which there may have been some basis in the past, was the rationale behind nato and western european defence. the situation today is radically different. enlargement of the union is the best means to enhance security. the nato option is not. nor the idea, which crops up from time to time, of making the weu part of the union. this said, proposals in the report for enhanced efficiency in peacekeeping and peacemaking missions are welcome and in line with the initiatives taken by the swedish and finnish ministers of foreign affairs. the tindemans report, despite its many qualities, is a poor compromise. finally, there are quite a number of translation errors in the finnish text of the report. peacemaking, for instance, is translated as rauhanhieronta which in english means peace massage. i hope we do not need to go to a massage parlour in order to live in peace and security. madam chairman, i should like to thank the rapporteur for his thorough work and calm approach to the development aspects of a common security policy at eu level. the great achievement of the report is that it approaches the idea of security in a broad sense. it is also important to stress that the ordinary citizen does not measure the significance of security issues solely in military terms. the threats which citizens feel to their security are now primarily non-military in nature and relate, among other things, to environmental threats and nuclear safety. the treaty on european union sets out the objective of a common foreign and security policy which may in future lead to a common defence. there is no natural common european consensus about the real significance, interpretation and implementation of this objective and this should be more widely acknowledged. the theoretical difficulty in shaping the future of security policy is of course obvious, because those involved differ widely in their objectives and resources. a good example of this difficulty is the varying status of the eu countries in their relations with the western european union. for this reason, the unilateral adoption of the maastricht treaty does not create a fruitful basis for further discussions. finland and sweden have proposed in the context of the igc that the weu's role in developing the common foreign and security policy should concentrate on crisis management tasks. mr tindemans has also very tellingly stressed the tasks referred to in the 'petersburg declaration', which finland and sweden seized on in their proposal. the theoretical approach to military security issues set out in the tindemans report is either its strong point or its failing, depending on your point of view. i hope that the very heterogeneity of the parties involved would lead to the terms being defined extremely carefully when talking, for example, of the baltic region. it would also be good to put some flesh on the bones of the strategic partnership between nato, the eu and russia, in place of the current terminological debate. mr seppnen referred to the nordic countries' point of view. this point of view is not, however, uniformly shared. in finland the debates on security policy, membership of the weu and of nato, divide opinions not only along party lines but within parties. i support mr tindemans' report, because i regard its basic assumptions as being to the advantage of europe and finland. i hope that finnish public opinion will also take notice of this debate. madam president, mr tindeman's report is totally unrealistic! there is no real basis for a common foreign and security policy. member states do not share the same outlook or policy interests. the differences have been made clear for example during the vietnam war, over the south african boycott, concerning turkey, the balkans, nuclear weapon policy and so on. to create a sham agreement in these circumstances can only mean that the voices of the smaller member states will be hushed, they will be outvoted, and some countries will be turned into satellites of the super powers. in fact, the creation of regional blocs destabilises global security. it increases the risk of aggressive and expansionist policies, for what we are talking about are expansionist policies and a new colonialism if the eu were to adopt the right to intervene independently with military force in countries outside their own territory. global security means rallying around a global organisation. the united nations, alone, is the people's true forum in the work for peace and security. mr president, i shall be voting in favour of mr tindemans's report, because i believe that it is only right that we should send a message to the intergovernmental conference and that message can only come from a parliament which is pressing forward towards a common security policy. having said that, i do feel that the message - through no fault of yours, mr tindemans - is a weak one. we are trying to talk about security and defence, but we lack the essential basis of the existence, or otherwise, of a european union foreign policy. that is the real problem, our real difficulty. i would like to call upon all honourable members - and every persuasion is represented here, from one extreme to the other - to consider that we shall only achieve real maturity when we stop debating whether or not we should have a foreign policy, a security policy or a defence policy, and get down to the serious business of debating what that union foreign policy should be. i would say to all the member states, large and small, and to every group and every member of this house that believing that a foreign security or defence policy is beneficial to some and not to others is mistaken. it is beneficial to the union of peoples, the union of states; when we come to debate what form such a policy will take, then we will have truly grown up. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, reading the tindemans report has left me with some positive impressions. i am thinking here of paragraphs 20 to 32, which describe the tasks relating to peace and stability. i have also taken particular note of the reference to the baltic. the second point i welcome is the discussion of the joint analysis centre, and the third is the agreement on the so-called petersberg missions. i do not care greatly for paragraph 6 on the european corps and paragraphs 33 to 38 involving the defence policy. the western european union and nato should not be set up as two parallel, rival institutions. i am extremely concerned that we must learn to walk before we can run, as the saying goes. we must not develop the weu in such a way that it becomes an integral part of the union. there is indeed reason to welcome the cooperation which has been established in the baltic between member states, non-aligned countries and nato countries. through this cooperation - the partnership for peace - the baltic battalion has also been created, which has therefore been possible without an actual union army. as regards the balkans, i would like to say that there is still a greater need for peaceful economic efforts than for military ones. this debate reminds me that we cannot even agree on a simple statement on human rights in china, so how are we going to be able to agree on a common foreign and security policy which has a military element? mr president, mr tindemans is a champion of a common foreign and security policy in europe, and in this respect we can and must support his report and congratulate him on it. our group's support would have been even greater and more heartfelt if the following points had been taken into account. firstly, the cfsp must be a common policy for all. the neutral member states, those bound by conventions and those abstaining in some areas must therefore also be given the opportunity to integrate into the cfsp. secondly, it must be quite clear that the civil components of the cfsp take precedence over the military components. military action has to be a last resort. the civil components must be at the forefront. and it must also be quite clear that pre-empting and preventing conflicts takes precedence over resolving them. thirdly, it must be quite clear that 'out-of-area' actions should be carried out with the greatest care and only under the aegis of the united nations or the osce. since a rapid military intervention force has been mentioned, it must also be quite clear that while we do need such a force, at the same time we need a civil corps whose task is peace-making in the broadest sense of the word, and which is not tied to the military components from the outset. and i would repeat here, on behalf of my group, that while we welcome the progress on this issue, we are hoping for more impetus in this direction in the future. this will undoubtedly not be our last debate on the subject, and we shall be holding further talks with mr tindemans and other colleagues in this context. mr president, i should like to begin by adding my congratulations to those already addressed to mr tindemans on his report, which has appeared at a very timely moment just before the amsterdam summit and the important decisions on security to be taken at the nato summit in madrid. i should also like to thank you for inviting me to attend this debate, since i am aware that the impetus needed for the process of developing a security policy should really come from the council rather than the commission. having said that, however, i would point out once again that the commission has clearly set out its views on the future of the european union's common foreign and security policy in its report to the intergovernmental conference. it goes without saying that, as the guardian of the treaties, the commission has no intention of dissociating itself from what the maastricht treaty says about the common foreign and security policy. mr tindemans began his speech by referring to this, and all the member states, both old and new, have given an undertaking to develop a common foreign and security policy and, in time, a common defence policy that could eventually lead, as the treaty says, to a common defence. i quite understand why mr tindemans felt obliged to refrain from discussing the defence aspects in this report, in view of what he rightly feels is their sensitive and controversial nature. however, he also announced - and this is something i wholeheartedly support - that parliament would be having further discussions on the subject of the defence policy at a later date, and i very much hope that i shall be able to attend that debate. an integrated foreign and security policy naturally involves more than just the defence component. the military aspects also affect the operation of our external economic and socio-economic policy and can therefore help to promote stability. everything the european union has done in recent years in its external relations in the form of association agreements, partnership agreements and modernizing its cooperation agreements with the mediterranean countries, everything it has done to strengthen relations in its immediate strategic environment, such as with central and eastern europe, the mediterranean, the middle east, the russian federation and ukraine - all this directly concerns its security policy. i entirely agree with all those who have talked today about the need to pursue a policy of peace by economic means as well and to remove the socio-economic causes of instability, and i think that this is a field where the european union is already doing a great deal for the outside world. but where the union visibly and tangibly fails is in the area of crisis management. it uses its cooperation with other countries to do whatever is necessary to prevent crises, but if prevention fails, what then? is the european union, a world economic power, then left powerless? is it incapable of organizing a rapid armed defence force when even the security council agrees that it is a good idea to send such a force to provide humanitarian aid for albania? at such a time, the european union clearly fails. a great deal of attention, though never enough, is given to crisis prevention, but up to now we have never really wanted to give ourselves the instruments we need for crisis management and control. the most glaring example of this happened recently with albania. why did it have to be a practically anonymous force - and by that i mean a force put together on an ad hoc basis under the inspired and expert leadership of the italians - why did it have to be this anonymous body that was sent in with the approval of the security council and the cooperation of the osce, rather than a force under the flag of the western european union? because there was no political agreement, despite the fact that the practical possibilities were there: and just look at what is happening in albania now. this is the clearest possible illustration of the fact that the european union does not need to turn itself into a world policeman or a military superpower to rival the united states. the real question is whether the union wishes to give itself scope in its common foreign and security policy to accept responsibility and take the initiative at international level when its own strategic environment is being destabilized. i think it is extremely useful to examine this whole question and how best it can be resolved in future as an integral part of the comprehensive discussions on the future of an enlarged european union. i think that today's debate on this issue has been a very useful start, and i sincerely hope that there will be a followup, based perhaps on what i hope will be very positive results in the treaty of amsterdam. it is absolutely clear that the union can never have a credible common security policy, let alone a common defence policy, if it does not first have a credible common foreign policy. there are already proposals on the table, as the baron crespo report that we are to discuss later today underlines. all in all, i think we have a great deal to discuss on this whole issue, but i am delighted that mr tindemans has set the ball rolling with this report. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken at noon. defence-related industries the next item is the debate on the report by mr titley (a4-0076/97), on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on the commission communication on the challenges facing the european defence-related industries, a contribution for action at european level (com(96)0010 - c4-0093/96). mr president, first of all i wish to say how much i regret the fact that the council has not seen fit to be represented during this morning's important debates. to turn to my report, at 7 o'clock in the morning in the 1989 european elections, i was stood outside the royal ordnance factory in patricroft in eccles in my constituency. i was handing out my election leaflets to the hundreds of workers who were changing shifts. by the 1994 european elections that factory had closed, another victim of the contraction of the european defence industry, which has seen some four out of every ten defence jobs disappear in the last ten years. now had that contraction had been simply the result of the peace dividend, the consequence of the very welcome ending of the cold war, most people would simply shrug their shoulders and say that, regrettably, it was a price worth paying for peace and stability. the situation, however, is not as simple as that. firstly, because the fall of the berlin wall has not led to peace and stability in europe - rather it has led to a different sort of security environment. secondly, while it is true that global defence expenditure has gone down, this has not stopped the americans from increasing their dominance of the world defence market. their large single market and single procurement agencies for the army, navy and air force have provided a favourable background for a radical restructuring and rationalization which have seen the creation of huge and powerful defence giants like lockheed martin. european companies are being left trailing further and further behind, shackled by our fragmented structures, with fifteen different procurement systems and competing national industries which often duplicate the production of very expensive equipment. we do not even buy from each other: only about 4 % of eu procurement comes from intra-eu trade, whilst 75 % of member states' imports come from the united states. now why is this important? well, to begin with, the defence industry accounts for about one million, mostly very high-quality jobs, often to be found in the most vulnerable regions of the european union. the health of other industries often depends on it, for example, 70 % of military equipment sales comes from the aerospace and electronics industries. it is a major technology driver in the european economy and, at its best, it is highly competitive. the defence industry is of self-evident strategic importance. if we become dependent on imported equipment, we risk not only compromising our security, but also undermining our ability to fulfil our international obligations under global security arrangements such as nato, a point underlined last year by admiral norman ray, the assistant secretary-general of nato. for all these reasons it is vital that eu governments recognize that the european defence, industrial and technological base is a vital strategic asset and that its maintenance is essential for the future of european security and defence. i realize that this is a very sensitive subject: there are ethical concerns. my report, however, is not about whether or not we should have arms but rather about where the arms we think we need should come from. nor does my report advocate giving public support to the arms industry, rather i argue that the industry should be open to the demands of the market. my report is not anti-american: a viable european defence industry would be better placed to cooperate, as well as compete, with the americans. there are also, naturally, concerns about national sovereignty. hence my report deals only with the existing security architecture and does not advocate new eu powers. i am, frankly, less concerned about who does what institutionally and more concerned about getting action taken. the contribution europe can make here is to identify a europe-wide problem and to recommend europe-wide solutions. for that reason i congratulate the commission on its communication, which is to be welcomed. it has focused attention on the crisis facing the industry. now we need action. firstly, economic action: we need to break the shackles of national preference and open up the defence industry to the discipline of the single market. of course, account has to be taken of the sensitive nature of some parts of this industry, but greater competition will lead to considerable savings for the taxpayer. we need to allow the industry to restructure through mergers, so that genuine european companies can emerge. for these things to happen, member states have to agree not to invoke article 223 for internal eu activity, but to use it only to ensure reciprocal trading arrangements with third countries. nothing better illustrates the problems facing us than the contrast between the speed of american restructuring and the long agonizing of the french government over the future of the thomson company. there is also to be a political framework for the industry to operate within. amsterdam clearly has to identify and clarify the objectives and functioning of the cfsp, as well as the nature of the european defence identity in the light of the petersburg and berlin declarations. we then need, through the weu, to explore the operational implications of those declarations, and we need to ensure that there is a proper forum for defence ministers. recent years have seen some promising developments in arms cooperation, with the evolution of the weao and the joint organization for armaments cooperation. progress has been generally very slow, however. impetus could be given to the process if member states were to adopt a joint action on armaments cooperation under article j.3 of the maastricht treaty, and we need more synergy and less duplication in this area. finally, the different national regulations governing arms exports are a major obstacle to industrial cooperation. the eu has already agreed eight criteria on arms exports. now we need to agree a common interpretation of them and then they should be turned into a legally-binding code of conduct. no one should be in any doubt about the crisis facing the defence industry. we need decisive action now by european member states before it is too late. mr president, i would first like to congratulate the commission on this initiative, because we believe it has really cooperated as an institution to identify and put on the table a highly important and sensitive issue for the economy, and not just the union economy. i also want to thank mr titley for his magnificent report and for having reflected the feelings of the committee on economic and monetary affairs and industrial policy, incorporating virtually 90 % of the suggestions and conclusions of our committee. the diagnosis of the situation in the armaments industry made by the commission and the rapporteur is quite right. it is a very important sector - 3 % of industrial gdp - providing significant employment; there is major dependence on the united states and a distinct absence of intra-community trade; dispersion and lack of concentration weaken the industry's position. the reasons we are in this situation are partly attributable to the absence of a common defence policy, but not entirely so. of course, differences in procurement policies in the largest member states and the absence of a common foreign policy or arms export policy are due to the lack of a common defence policy. but there are other causes, like mergers requiring government authorization, differences between the states as regards ownership and the way this relates to the arms industries, and the absence of the transnational legal structures to permit such mergers, where there are still opportunities for action by the european union. we think the issue can be presented in this way and we agree with the rapporteur that the european union should take steps with a view to putting the industry in a strong position to cooperate when a real defence policy comes into being. amongst the areas of action, many of which mr titley has already mentioned, i would like to stress two very specific points: the first is the use of the structural funds in the process of restructuring the defence industry under the community industrial restructuring policy, and the second relates to research and development, where the european union has a wide remit and which accounts for a large part of its budget, and coordinating all the programmes involving the defence industry or associated civil industry. mr president, the reduction of defence expenditure in the union's member states, and consequently, the corresponding reduction of expenditure on defence research and technology, combined with the fragmented nature of the western european defence market, have left the european defence industry in a situation of stagnation. the committee on research, technological development and energy was asked to respond to the commission's questioning of the extent to which the framework programme could help to revitalize the defence industry without putting its non-military aims at risk. the answer concerns, first, the technological framework that influences defence research and, secondly, the framework within which the european union's security policy is outlined. the framework for security is created by the demographic pressure that favours small systems of military organization based on professionals and volunteers, the need for the union to compete in research and development with the usa and the far east, and international competition to secure energy resources. in addition, to address the future of europe's defence industry, we cannot ignore factors that will determine the mission of military systems, such as peace-keeping, the protection of energy resources, the suppression of blackmail and terrorism, surveillance, counter espionage and recognition at world-wide level. granted that in the future it will be difficult to define special weapons systems able to deal directly with the widespread dangers faced by the union, covering the technological needs of the military sector is likely to demand a zero-reserve policy which will enable incorporation of the products of general research into new weapons systems, depending on the dangers emerging at the time. in the technological context, where political technology is more advanced than military technology, defence capabilities depend on the reorganization of the technological dependence of the defence sector. based on the above, the question arises: to what degree should the fifth framework programme aspire to support collaboration between military and non-military activities. the european commission's positive response and its proposals, though well-intentioned, are in the opinion of the committee on research and technology rather inappropriate. and this, because they imply the restoration of the importance of an armament economy, even though the peak technologies are becoming more and more non-military, and at the same time overlook the limited resources of the framework programme which make it inappropriate to seek new research links between the military and non-military sectors. in conclusion, mr president, i want to stress that the fifth framework programme could on the one hand continue to devote resources to research and technologies of combined utility, and on the other hand, help to convert defence-related industrial research installations. under no circumstances must we consider redirecting the community's research towards defence-related aims in particular. mr president, i should firstly like to thank the rapporteur, mr titley. his report essentially endorses the commission communication, from which it can be concluded that the commission and its communication can be supported. european arms policy has two dimensions: a strategic and an operational dimension. the tindemans and titley reports are therefore linked and complementary. this is the strategy which i am glad to say has been deemed appropriate. european arms policy has both a strategic and an operational dimension because it is an essential part of the common foreign and security policy and also the common defence policy called for in the maastricht treaty, and it is therefore an urgent necessity. much of what we are debating today was decided with the adoption of the maastricht treaty. it is now a question of implementing it. the industrial aspect is especially important, because as everyone agrees - some welcome the fact, the majority do not - the european arms industry is fragmented, depressed and subject to the constraints of ever tighter budgets. for the european union and those member states which have an arms industry, a european arms industry appears to be the only possible way of withstanding american competition in this sector in the long term. european external trade is faced with a crucial choice: to abandon the arms industry, or to pursue new opportunities. shall we relinquish it to the united states, or perhaps to other countries that are filling the gap, such as south africa, russia or the czech republic, or shall we take up the challenge? far beyond the arms industry, this is a crucial question for the external trade of the european union, as well as germany - if i may be allowed a brief national remark - the united kingdom, france and other member states. however, this report is also an opportunity for the european parliament, which is the only effective, democratic body able to discuss this issue in european terms and put forward european recommendations. and despite the many concerns which have been expressed, i am confident that it will seize that opportunity. parliament must safeguard the member states' independence in the military and foreign policy areas. it must call for conditions to be defined and measures to be taken that will enable the member states to ensure the rationalization, organization and preservation of a competitive industrial and technological defence basis in europe in relation to defence products. this basis must be freely accessible to the participating member states. that, in short, is what should be said from the point of view of external trade. we are well aware that the european arms industry is increasingly losing its competitiveness. anyone who wishes to reverse that trend must support the titley and tindemans reports today. mr president, first i want to congratulate the commission on this communication and mr titley on the work he had to do to achieve maximum consensus and link in the various opinions from the committees involved. i am speaking on behalf of the committee on institutional affairs and i shall refer exclusively to institutional issues, but before i do i would like to make one comment: can the concepts of common armaments policy and european defence identity be separated from each other? i do not think so. i believe it is a political decision, not a dogma, but we can hardly talk about a european defence identity without including a common armaments policy, because common armaments policy is an integral part of that european identity. when we go back to our constituencies and our fellow-citizens ask us why europe did not intervene in yugolavia, why we have not intervened effectively in other parts of the world - i am thinking of the gulf war, why we have to depend on others, one of the many reasons is that there is still no european identity and one of the fundamental ingredients is common armaments policy, so we must change our position on these issues. consequently, what needs to be done in the institutional area, mr president? article 223 of the treaty of rome allows member states to take such measures as they consider necessary for the protection of the essential interests of their security, including producing and trading in weapons, munitions and war materiel. the way member states have interpreted that article of the treaty consists of looking for some general principle whereby all areas relating to national security fall outwith the scope of the treaties. so article 223 has been the great outstanding question of the treaty. what needs to be done now? i think parliament must act firmly and call for the deletion of article 223, but i do not think this issue is currently on the table for the intergovernmental conference. hence our amendments, mr president: first we ask for common armaments policy and a common european defence identity to be treated as one issue. and at some stage in the future, and this is one of the amendments tabled to the titley report, article 223 will need to be revised in order to achieve integrated production, trading and monitoring of armaments. secondly, we ask the commission to initiate consideration of article 223 and in particular, to amend the list attached thereto, which has not been changed since 1958. and thirdly, mr president, we also ask for the weu to be incorporated by stages into the european union, another fundamental factor for achieving what we all want, a europe of tomorrow speaking with one strong voice and guaranteeing the freedom of all europeans through its security policy. mr president, i should firstly like to congratulate mr titley on this report, on behalf of my group. he himself knows how much effort it sometimes took to find common ground, but the central message of this report - that the european arms industry must resist the hegemony of the us arms industry - is the right one. it is not that we wish to see the creation of monopolies, which then dictate prices to the member states. europe must be very careful to ensure that a common arms industry does not turn into a set of monopolies with a dominant market position. however - and after all, this report was dealt with by the committee on foreign affairs - we cannot talk about the arms industry and arms cooperation without outlining the general context, which i see as follows. firstly, there is the question of disarmament. it is not possible to talk about the arms industry and arms cooperation without declaring support for disarmament - as expressed by mr titley - throughout its various stages and especially, of course, in cooperation with russia, since disarmament has to be a joint project. secondly, there is the very important question of controls on arms exports. efforts are being made in this area, but in view of the conflicts in a great many regions of the world, in view of the large number of dictatorships which unfortunately still exist and which sometimes use armaments against their own people, europe, which has already laid down a number of appropriate criteria, must ensure that these criteria are strictly interpreted, binding and, of course, applied not only to europe but to the entire world. the legal and illegal export of armaments to crisis areas costs countless human lives, and often results in europe subsequently being forced to combat its own weapons. consequently, there is a need for increased controls, and ultimately penalties for arms exports, especially to crisis areas, dictatorships, and so on. thirdly, and this is another important point, we are not going to see a process of rearmament that gives a general boost to the arms industry. there is a need for sensible conversion programmes. a un conference on this subject was held recently. europe can serve as an example in this field, since part of its arms industry has already been sensibly converted in civil programmes. i see that as a very important complement to the common armaments policy in europe. it must be made clear that the european community is committed not to rearmament, but to disarmament, as i have already said. we are strongly in favour of european arms cooperation, but we do not wish to see disarmament taking place at the expense of europe and european workers alone. in this sense, we are unequivocally in favour of sensible arms control and sensible arms cooperation on european territory. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, this is probably the first time that parliament has discussed the arms industry, which is examined in mr titley's excellent report on which i congratulate him. it is a response to a commission document, and having heard what commissioner van den broek had to say, i should like to thank him for his excellent speech. i think that his words and everything that has been said in this debate, and in the titley report, show that we are gradually moving towards agreement on a common security and defence policy to support our common foreign policy. progress is slow, but i think we will succeed in the end thanks to this excellent document. in his report, mr titley says that a common foreign and security policy is really divided into three sections: a political section, a military section and an industrial, scientific and technology section. that covers everything. however, i would stress that arms cannot be regarded just like any other products or commodities. a country may depend for its very existence, freedom or independence - though let us hope that it never happens again - on having weapons to defend itself or whatever it holds dear if it is attacked. we therefore need to consider what our requirements are here in the european union. this is extremely important. if we have to depend on other countries outside the union, we can have no credible defence, since we can only buy whatever they are selling rather than what we really need. it is also true, as many people here know - though i entirely agree that we must work towards disarmament, and i think we can achieve more if we have a common policy rather than all acting individually - that the armaments industry in europe cannot simply be closed down if we want to have products that meet our requirements, but it is in grave danger at the moment. there is a great deal of competition at european level, and we in europe can no longer compete with what other countries are producing - i will not say which ones, but you all know. so it is a particularly delicate issue, not just for defence, but also from the socio-economic point of view, since jobs are involved, as well as in relation to the arms trade and so on. it is all very sensitive, but i think it is handled very well in the report. there is not enough time to quote from the report, but mr titley also refers to some other very interesting aspects, such as our defence profile and relations between the european union and the western european union. i do not wish to go into this in detail, but these considerations could be very useful in future when we come to discuss defence policy. so we in my group think that the titley report in response to the commission communication is an extremely important document. there are many concerns to be taken into account: economic interests and employment, defence, disarmament - which is a goal we all share - and peace, which we all wish to help to achieve. we therefore intend to vote in favour of the report, provided that nothing goes wrong in the meantime. we are delighted that parliament has been able to discuss such a sensitive issue, and we hope that we shall achieve a successful outcome. mr president, i feel sure that high-profile debates like these on the tindemans and titley reports increase our awareness and sense of responsibility with regard to a common european foreign policy. until such time as that policy becomes a reality, though, the defence industry must progressively and pragmatically move away from the national approach and adopt european programmes and rules. among the new european-inspired rules which i feel i must support is the principle of standardizing the common rules governing the purchase and exporting of defence hardware. i also have no doubt - a point which is made in the reports - that we need to achieve and accept a technological interdependence between european states in matters of defence, which is a political project as well as a technical argument. i believe that the criterion of a fair return on industrial investment in common european programmes should not be completely abandoned but should be integrated and quantified over broader time frames and planning scales. i believe in - and support - the idea of a european armaments agency with technical co-ordination functions, similar to the european space agency, which would arrange multi-speed - if i may use that term - optional development programmes from which all concerned can derive some benefit, in some cases as reference shareholders and in others as minor but fully involved participants. finally, i believe it is inappropriate - and this is a suggestion that can be considered during the further course of the debate - to separate the defence industry completely from the aerospace industry. after all, the two sectors often involve the same participants, and it seems to me that a logical process of european consolidation - squaring the circle in this sector, if you like - will be easier to achieve if all the players are at the same table and all their cards are on it. mr president, there is one sector of industry in europe, the defence industry, which is facing considerable difficulties. the reason for this is something which has been the most joyous event which has happened to us in europe and in the whole world, namely the fall of the soviet union and with it the end of the cold war. the demand for weapons is thankfully no longer what is was before the iron curtain fell. but security in europe is still dependent on access to weapons, which we liberals well understand. if europe is not to be totally dependent on imports our countries must co-ordinate their research, development and production of defence material. this is the basis for the commission's communication and the foreign committee's report, a report which has been drawn up well by mr tindeman. it is worth noting that increased co-ordination of defence material in europe will, inevitably, lead to increased mutual dependency. this must be recognised and accepted by all concerned. co-ordination of the european defence industry will be facilitated by growing unity based on the content of a common foreign and security policy. it is worth noting that co-operation within the defence industry will itself act as a driving force and increase the need for a common foreign and security policy. article 223 needs to be revised and conditions created for common rules on export restrictions for european weapons, the implementation of which can be controlled. in this way, mr president, the world should see the more united europe as a force and a partner for freedom, peace, security and common security. the report which we are discussing is a step towards this. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the commission's 1996 communication ignores the close link between defence/weapons and national sovereignty and seeks to apply the principle of free competition to weapons for the sake of competitiveness. the report of the committee on foreign affairs and security goes further, with a common arms policy and the revision of the treaty article on the essential security interests of each member state. for its part, the french government is restructuring the weapons industries, planning to cut 50, 000 to 75, 000 jobs, and privatize key sectors, despite the strong opposition of the employees and inhabitants of the areas involved. active militants for peace and disarmament, the french members of parliament in the confederal group of the united european left - nordic green left defend a military doctrine guaranteeing freedom and security against external threats. we oppose restructuring and privatization measures and demand the maintenance of national capacity, which meets only 5 % of military orders, and its diversification into civilian industry, notably in the aeronautics, space and electronics industries. at community level we oppose any european defence policy which is bound to make us vassals of the united states. we favour development of cooperation between the arms industries and research, and we call for the establishment of genuine community preference. thank you, mr querbes, and i must congratulate you because i think that was your maiden speech. you bear a heavy responsibility replacing our colleague mr piquet, who was much appreciated by everyone here. we wish you every success. mr president, on the eve of the amsterdam summit, parliament is debating the tindemans and titley reports, two elements of a new foreign and security policy - or rather a military policy. there is repeated reference to concepts such as a defence identity, or the petersberg missions that we are obliged to carry out. that means nothing more than making strike forces available for intervention. a qualitative change in eu foreign policy is taking place here. the european union, hitherto a civil organization with its enormous single market, is now organizing itself into a hegemonic power. this is perhaps the point of no return. a defence identity in relation to whom? the cold war is over. europe is still heavily armed, and if it wishes to protect itself against organized crime or arms smuggling, it needs not military forces, but police forces to do so. mr titley said it clearly: this is about creating acceptance for the arms industry, so that it can determine foreign policy. there is a need not for a defence identity, but for a european identity, for our citizens to accept the europe that we wish to build on civil foundations. for future intervention under the petersberg missions, however, we need new strike forces, new ships, new satellites and the future large aircraft. four years ago, mr titley, you tried to set up a budget line for the future large aircraft. this report is the key to ensuring the swift introduction of budget lines that enable the european arms industry to gain access to the eu budget. who is going to pay for that? we do not have the money in the social sector. there are cheaper defence products, and we know from the meda programme that the funds made available to us there for such things as civil foreign policy, development policy and proper conflict prevention are inadequate. a final word concerning democratic trends. mr kittelmann referred to this. the intergovernmental conference and this report are leading to the creation of a new council of princes of the holy roman empire, in the sense that the eu council of ministers determines and controls foreign and military policies and ultimately approves the relevant funds. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, since the fall of the berlin wall, we have gradually been making progress towards international agreements on reducing nuclear weapons and a total ban on chemical weapons. i am wholeheartedly in favour of coordinating arms production, but our real goal must be to achieve further reductions and to increase the growing peace dividend. i was initially pleased that a british socialist was to be the rapporteur, since i hoped he would be familiar with the history of his own party. labour was always the pioneer of the broken gun. but instead i was completely amazed when i read his report. as far as he is concerned, the armaments industry is an industry like any other, with all the bogus arguments which this implies. arms production, i read, is of vital economic importance in creating jobs, including in the supply sector. he complains about the unequal balance of trade, unfair competition and the development of powerful equipment with the best possible price/quality ratio. what really takes the biscuit is paragraph 24 of the resolution, where he says that parliament believes that the restructuring of the armaments industry will result in greater value for money for the european taxpayer. how cynical can you get? next, there is the arms trade. the sipri report from sweden gives an annual overview of the trade in conventional weapons. mr titley is wrong when he says that the end customers are always governments: in point of fact, many of them are dictatorships. the report also does not say a single word about the massive trade in second-hand weapons, or the widespread practice of selling handguns in sections or as technical equipment. there is no comment about the widespread practice of transit trade through friendly countries or countries involved in conflicts. arms are not washing powder. they must be covered by strict codes of conduct, with an annual report to the european parliament. i shall therefore be voting for the amendments tabled by the green group, and if they are not adopted, i hope this report will be consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs. mr president, the report by our colleague mr titley has the double merit of emphasizing the radically new character of the international context surrounding arms policy today and rehabilitating the notion of community preference in this very sensitive domain. it is a shame the draft resolution departs from the premises of the explanatory statement. the new context is the fierce competition from american producers of defence equipment faced by european business. this aggressive competition threatens to lead, in the future, to the disappearance of industries vital to our security and the independence of our national defence policies, if europe allows the high-tech weapons sector to become the monopoly of a single power. although defence remains fundamentally a national prerogative and certainly not calling existing assets - which are considerable - into question, the massive cost of the new arms programmes should, however, lead us to identify the real common needs, determine what can be produced better together than by each alone, and what should be purchased jointly. it is not a case of systematically europeanizing all armaments production, as the resolution proposes. on the contrary, the member states should learn the lesson of the failure of many past attempts at cooperation - recalled by my colleague, mr de gaulle - and only engage in programmes corresponding exactly to needs, with a determination to complete them by making the necessary financial effort. as well as producing together when it is necessary and possible, we should also purchase in common, buy european, practice european preference, in order to prevent certain member states - as was again the case recently - purchasing american military equipment rather than european equipment of at least equivalent technological level and lower in cost. the titley report contains positive elements, but unfortunately it will not be possible to vote for it, because there are gaps in it, and because of its systematic approach and the federalist philosophy which underlies it. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, mr titley's report is based on the economic pillars of increasing efficiency, reducing costs and improving coordination and international competitiveness. it should therefore be greatly welcomed. mergers of arms companies within the eu improve their competitiveness, especially in relation to us companies, which have been putting massive pressure on the european arms industry since the end of the cold war. on moral grounds, it is completely unacceptable for us to increase the production and export of armaments, on the flimsy and cynical pretext of securing jobs. however, we should as far as possible manufacture ourselves those armaments which we definitely need for the protection of the european union and its citizens - for military and economic reasons, as well as in view of the extremely tense jobs situation in the eu. from austria's point of view, it could be asked whether the harmonization of arms export regulations called for in the report does not represent a further strategy - deliberately veiled from the austrian people - for the progressive dismantling of its neutrality, and whether it would not be more honest to come clean with the citizens of the eu's neutral states and allow them to decide whether or not formally to give up their neutrality in a referendum. mr president, the commission communication, and consequently parliament's report on the arms industry and arms cooperation, have come at the wrong time and are guided by the wrong principles. i should therefore like to express the misgivings of the german social democrats on this subject. there must first be an agreement on the concepts of common security and defence before there can be any moves towards arms cooperation of a kind that can meet our demands, namely to encourage the disarmament that will produce the peace dividend which people have been expecting since the end of the cold war. the communication and the report are geared to arms production rather than conversion, to rearmament rather than disarmament. at a time when the world is waiting for conversion projects for the arms industry and for clear signs of disarmament, these documents equate the competitive advantage of the arms industry with the competitiveness and viability of european industry as a whole. in my view, that is not what is required. what is needed is investment in conversion research and conversion projects. in the end, no industry requires such a high level of capital investment for each job as the arms industry. we should be supporting greater investment in environmental technologies, civil technologies and new materials, rather than in arms cooperation, because that will not generate the jobs that we are led to believe will be created. moreover, i believe that there is a tremendous danger that arms cooperation at european level will produce monopolies which will then be able to dictate fictitious prices for defence products to governments. also, undertakings which produce non-military goods will be exposed to cut-throat competition, because subsidizing the european arms industry for civil production as well will give it a competitive advantage over such undertakings. i also believe that there is a great risk that arms cooperation of this kind will clear the way for an expansive export policy, and that competition between the european union and the united states will jeopardize the adoption of a restrictive arms export policy in the eu. in my view, therefore, this report fails to set out a forward-looking strategy for the european union. mr president, mr titley has written an important report. the european weapon's industry faces a huge challenge. many companies have problems of profitability and restructuring is necessary. the weapons industry has a special role to play in the security policy of individual countries and of the union as a whole. equally the industry must, in the long term, operate under the same conditions as every other industry. attempts to support the defence industry using state aid costs money and makes it harder to maintain the right quantitative level on defence. company aid also tends to reduce industrial efficiency and leads to demands for ever more extensive aid input. besides, this is not just a question of money but of expertise as well. modern military technology requires more and more expertise. it requires an ever increasing level of advanced electronics and gigantic information handling systems. the boundaries between civil and military research are becoming much less clear. one of the difficulties which the european weapons industry has is the fact that there is not the same background of research at elite universities as there is for the weapons industry in the usa. without going into issues concerning universities, i would like to point out that much of the usa's advantage in this respect stems from the fact that the universities there are open to competition in a totally different way from the enormous state universities in europe. this has led to greater efficiency in research and in the training of researchers. the us advantage in the fields of electronics and information handling is clear to see and this has also given them precedence when it comes to new weapon systems. us superiority has revolutionary significance for foreign and security policy, not just for their adversaries but also for their allies. for defence material to be operational between defence powers there is a requirement that the material is made to the same level of quality. we need to be bolder within the framework of european co-operation if europe is not to become an even more of an inferior partner in the long term. the green group have put forward a number of proposed amendments to the titley report. if such negative views win approval, the usa's hegemony will be further strengthened. we must be careful that we do not reach a state of specialisation which means that the usa supplies the machines, in other words the weapons and europe supplies the people, by which we mean the soldiers. sweden has a large weapons industry producing such specialised weapons systems as military planes, submarines, robots and artillery. this investment is based on the fact that sweden's non-aligned policy requires that we are independent in this respect as well, or at least that we have sufficient capacity to be a suitably advanced co-operation partner to be able to buy the most modern equipment which we do not ourselves manufacture. it has become even more difficult for sweden, as well as for other european countries, to maintain such a broad weapons industry. it is easy to express support for mr titley's proposal for an action programme to make the european weapons industry a more competitive force and to contribute to security in europe in this way. mr president, first of all, mr titley should be thanked for addressing this far from pleasant but absolutely fundamental issue. this is an industrial sector which is frequently beset by crises. it is one in which - to be quite frank - there are very often scandals. however - and i would address this comment to our colleagues in the green group - as long as we need a military defence capability, there will have to be an arms industry. as long as we are sensibly working together here in europe, it is also necessary to organize european arms cooperation. all this has been said repeatedly. however, there are three points which i should like to stress. firstly, disarmament is of course the paramount issue. we have overcapacity. the aim of a common european arms policy must therefore be to reduce this overcapacity in an orderly way. secondly, we must pursue the goal of easing the pressure on public budgets. it has frequently been the case in the past, and is probably still the case, that defence contracts are awarded purely on economic or employment policy grounds, and not with the primary - and sensible - aim of improving defence structures. my third point concerns arms export policy. a common european arms policy is a prerequisite for an export policy guided by the following principles: no arms exports to regimes which violate human rights; and no arms exports to regimes which are totalitarian in nature or pursue aggressive policies. clearly, this is only possible if we conduct arms policy jointly. (the president cut the speaker off) mr president, it seems that for the commission a revolver is the same thing as a loaf of bread and a destroyer is the same thing as a hospital. because in the commission's communication on european defence industry there is only a single idea : to remove the distinction between warlike military production and non-military production, and on the basis of that general idea, to give the green light to the community budget, the research programme, the structural funds, export policy, and the review of the treaty itself. i think this is a dangerous step, which only generates surprise, puzzlement and sadness, and which i think has made the european parliament look like a room in the pentagon today, or a chamber of multi-national military industry. this must stop. it is sad that the committee on foreign affairs has pursued this path, and i would like to tell mr titley that the labour party, with its tradition and values, brings some hopes. let us not extinguish them so soon. you told us that your area is one with a defence industry. we understand that, but just think about an italian colleague from the south of italy, in an area where the mafia has businesses: what should he do? i think that at the conference of mr coates next week, you will find proposals concerning employment for your area too, much more interesting than those contained in your report. mr president, the two reports which have been discussed here this morning should set alarm bells ringing for most european citizens. it is quite clear that we are setting up a military superstate within the eu with its own arms industry. i know that mr titley is a lobbyist for what i would call 'the merchants of death' . there is no mention of the fact that british aerospace, for example, is responsible for arming indonesia with hawk jets so it can terrorise the people of east timor. now he wants the european taxpayer to contribute to the arms industry. if this is our only answer to the eu's unemployment problem, we have a long way to go before launching any kind of humane policy. there is no word here that eu arms supplied around the world are the cause of many of the disputes which we talk about settling. there is total hypocrisy as regards this parliament and what we discuss. mr titley is out of step with his own foreign minister who said that he wanted to clean up the uk's international arms export reputation. it is quite clear that by the discussions here today we are setting up a european military state with its own arms industry, and neutral countries such as ireland should be well aware of this. i am most disappointed with the briefing from ireland's permanent representative. it glosses over what is actually being discussed and what is happening. do you want your children to be involved in industries that are responsible for the persecution and death of so many people around the world? mr president, i congratulate my colleague, mr titley, on a concise and well written report. there are two things in the last ten years that have put immense pressure on defence-related industries. the first one is the demise of the cold war and the second is the advent of the cfsp. clearly the demise of the cold war has created tremendous pressure because of reductions in demand from eu countries for weapons in particular. there has been a phenomenal reduction in jobs in the defence industries as well as in research and development. in addition, companies face fierce us competition which threatens their survival. this means that there has to be some restructuring of these industries across europe. with regard to the cfsp, if we want a common foreign and security policy in europe and we want that genuine choice, then we have to maintain a european defence infrastructure. i take exception to some of the comments both on my own side and from the greens with regard to this issue. we do not need any lectures about this, because it is quite clear that unless we maintain our own defence industries and defence infrastructure then all we will end up doing is buying american weapons and being totally dependent on the americans for our defence. secondly, it is important that we maintain this industry as well because it is an important technology driver which feeds into the civil markets and produces many valuable products, enabling us to enjoy a high standard of living in our western european union countries at the moment. what we need is a genuine single market in defence. we have to improve intra-community trade in this area so that we do not become more and more dependent on the united states. that means a common approach. it means a common armaments policy. this is not necessarily synonymous with the western european union coming into the european community's institutions, but it is synonymous with an approach of greater cooperation. we need a legally binding code of conduct so that we can move forward in this very important area. mr president, the excellent report that is before us reminds us that european arms policy is based on two principles: one good and one bad. the good principle is that this is an activity unlike any other and it requires a particular regime. the bad principle is that its particular nature has sidelined the european dimension and confined the activity to a national context. it is in fact a very special activity. arms are not products like any other products: they are products which cause death and bring independence at the same time. the buyers are not like other buyers: they are rather few and they are nation states. and then there is the political dimension. finally, because this is a sector, as we have said, experiencing profound crisis. but, on the other hand, the fact that arms production requires a particular regime does not mean the dimension of community cooperation must be rejected, quite the contrary. there will be no protection for national industries unless there is more cooperation at the european level. there will not be more cooperation at the european level unless there is a common definition of military needs. there will be no common definition of needs if there is no common defence policy and no common foreign policy. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, we are faced with a very serious problem. we must guard against two temptations. the first is market place trivialization which would eliminate the political dimension of the business and would subordinate us to our great ally, the united states. the second is nationalist withdrawal which would deliver the europeans one by one to the voracity of the american giant. mr president, a lot was said just now about the technological problems linked to the defence industry. i would like to speak very quickly on this point for the minute i am allowed. first of all, i would point out that the technologies are essentially linked to the capacity for deterrence, they are also linked to the capacity for disarmament, and hence the best contribution that the framework research and development programme can make to these two problems obviously depends on the development of generic technologies which are essentially dual technologies. however, that should not suggest that the framework programme for research constitutes a sufficient instrument. it represents very little in the research and development effort of the community as a whole, so the intergovernmental programmes must take up the slack. i would also like to remind the rapporteur and the commission that it will not suffice to open up the arms industry to competition, because competition is the short term. and where arms and disarmament are concerned, investment necessarily represents the long term. mr president, i should also like to congratulate the rapporteur most sincerely on his report. i appreciate that he has tried to present a sober and objective report, since this is unfortunately a subject which sometimes gives rise to heated debate. i should like to make four comments. firstly, i agree with the rapporteur that europe has been lagging behind developments in a number of areas, with the effect that it can no longer keep up with its competitors in this hightech sector. the gap between european and us defence technology has been steadily widening, and even europe's leading defence companies are scarcely half or a third of the size of their american counterparts. secondly, with regard to nato enlargement towards the east, it would appear that in several cases, europe has already missed the boat. some of our future partners in the alliance are already upgrading their military technology with non-european help. thirdly, i wish to stress that the question of export controls remains extremely important, but that controls alone are not enough. we need to combat the illegal trade in arms effectively, because we are implicated in that trade. let us just consider the conflict regions and crisis areas in the developing world, or in the former yugoslavia, where illegally acquired anti-personnel mines made in italy have been found, for example. fourthly, the european union accepts its role in conflict settlement and crisis prevention, but this also means ensuring the personal protection of the troops in question with coordinated and high-quality weaponry, so that they can carry out their tasks effectively. mr president, i should like to begin by thanking mr titley for the excellent work he has done over the past year on this report. i am grateful to him for supporting the approach set out in the commission communication and our efforts to establish an eu arms policy. i would stress once again, as mr tindemans also indicated, that the whole point of this discussion is not whether we need armaments, but how to obtain the armaments we need. it is also clear that the maastricht treaty requires us to work towards a common foreign and security policy and, in time, a defence policy, and i would point out that for the commission, this also includes an armaments industry policy and a policy to harmonize exports and imports. i would add straight away that the reductions in the defence budget are a welcome development made possible by the ending of the cold war. who could possibly object to that? but at the same time, these cutbacks mean that we are increasingly having to join forces at european level in order to maintain and afford the expensive technological innovations needed, which we have to do if we are to remain competitive on the international market. however difficult it may be to think of the armaments industry in purely economic terms, we cannot accept that the union should make itself too dependent on what other countries produce for this vital area of its activities, and in this context it has to be said that there is a severe imbalance in the transatlantic arms trade. establishing a european market in defence-related products will help to improve efficiency in the sector and thus bring costs down, which in turn will benefit the defence budget. europe needs to develop its operational capacity in the field of conflict prevention and management, unless we prefer to leave the whole issue of conflict management to non-union countries. supply and demand on the arms market are rightly governed by special rules which give governments an exclusive role, and those governments are principally guided by stringent requirements in terms of security and foreign policy. but the economic dimension, as i have already said, makes the provisions of the ec treaty relevant here too. the internal market rules already in force could therefore be used as a basis for devising rules for the armaments sector, or another possibility would be to apply the existing rules as they stand, but making allowance for the special nature of the sector. the commission communication describes the measures which the european union can take in the short term. it is vital that it should be possible to adapt these to take account of the special nature of the armaments sector by using procedures and instruments combining the first pillar on community policy with the second on the cfsp. there are already precedents here, such as the eu export rules on goods for dual use, which include a regulation based on the treaty of rome but also providing for community action on the basis of the cfsp. we support the dutch presidency's proposal to the igc specifically requiring the cfsp to be underpinned by an armaments policy. this should form the basis for the union's work on the various instruments based on the ec treaty. as we know, the weu's western european armaments group, to which 13 nato members belong, is responsible for cooperation on armaments, and this cooperation needs to be further encouraged. the commission's communication also discusses this. finally, just a brief word about exports. the rapporteur quite rightly stresses the complexity and importance of the arms exports issue. the member states have widely diverging interests and sensitivities in this field, and the national governments guard their sovereignty very jealously. community criteria have been laid down for arms exports, but responsibility for their implementation remains exclusively with the member states. no progress has been made on the alignment of policy and prices. the motion for a resolution calls on the commission to produce a white paper on this subject as the first step towards a legally binding code of conduct for arms exports, and we welcome this as a very constructive proposal. i should like to thank the rapporteur and all the other speakers for giving me the chance to take part in this debate, and i hope that the igc will produce a new constitutional basis for dealing with this issue on a more practical level. it is time to take action, and up to now, as far as the commission and the council are concerned, very little progress has been made. let us hope that this can be rectified. mr president, i really think something needs to be done here. if we are debating a report and the commissioner is speaking when people start to come into the chamber for the next debate, you cannot even hear what he is saying. could we not show a little more respect for each other in the house, please? thank you very much, mrs van putten. you were more successful than the president in doing that job because everyone has heard you now. the debate is closed. the vote will take place today at 12.00 noon. votes mr chairman, yet another translation error has appeared in the finnish translation. it uses the terms 'waste' and 'waste water' when referring to cattle dung and urine. i should like the correction of the mistake in the finnish language version to be noted in the minutes. this error occurs in at least three different proposals. (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) before we continue with the voting, mrs izquierdo rojo wishes to speak. thank you very much, mr president. i would like to alert parliament to the presence in the gallery of a group of algerian women candidates in the forthcoming algerian general election. they represent two causes strongly espoused by the european parliament: participation by women and democracy in algeria. (prolonged applause) mr president, i should like to ask that when this text is translated into all the official languages, particular care should be taken to make it clear in each language that the term 'practitioner' covers a range of people who are entitled to act in this capacity, and not just doctors. (parliament adopted the legislative resolution) mr president, i should just like to say a few words before we vote on amendments nos 2, 3 and 4. mr vyrynen tabled these in order to have the barents sea included in the baltic sea region, and i have found that a number of members do not agree with this. they say that there is not a common border, while others reply that there is cooperation. the issue has never been properly discussed. on the basis of the contacts i have had, i should therefore like to propose that we adopt the new amendment no 3, which puts the baltic sea region and the barents sea together, and that we reject amendments nos 2 and 4 in order to avoid putting too much emphasis on this. so we adopt no 3, but not nos 2 and 4 by the same author. i should like to propose this, and i think we should have a good majority in favour. (parliament adopted the resolution) it is extremely welcome that the conciliation committee has now succeeded in reaching an agreement on the guidelines for telecommunications networks. the disagreements between the institutions on procedure and the method of approach have been settled in a satisfactory way. i particularly wish to emphasize how important it is that the area of satellite communications has been included in the guidelines, not least thanks to the efforts of commissioner bangemann. i am quite sure that the new guidelines will provide a sound basis for the subsequent negotiations in this sector. on 7 june 1995, on the basis of article 129d of the treaty, the commission submitted the basic proposal for a series of guidelines for trans-european telecommunications networks. the aim is to establish the broad lines of the measures envisaged and to identify projects of common interest which will be eligible for financial assistance. on 1 february 1996 the european parliament adopted its opinion containing 35 amendments stressing the use of applications by the general public, social consequences of, for example, teleworking and the procedure to identify projects of common interest. neither the commission nor the council were ready to adopt the european parliament's view. the same happened in the second reading and the conciliation procedure was opened with the result laid down in the above-mentioned report. the agreement reached concerns by example: 18 ep amendments accepted by the council (wide use of applications, taking into account social consequences of new (tele)working conditions, language needs of regions); identification of projects of 'common interests' , which is now dealt with by annex 1 to the guidelines (and no more exclusively by the committee which is to be installed to advise the commission and is recruited by member state representatives); certain projects of particular importance (distance training, telematics for transport, environment and health). as greens we had proposed to incorporate strong provisions regarding the conditionality for employment-creating and social-targeted projects. likewise we had argued for a strong role for the european parliament, identifying projects of common interest, which is quite weak. we are, however, prepared to accept the conciliation text, because it contains at least some references to these subjects (including provisions to peripheral regions and employment creation; see article 3) and stipulates that the commission has to present an evaluation report to the european parliament every three years containing the social and societal consequences of the projects launched (article 14). i should like to stress again that the european parliament will be unable to fulfil its role in the democratic control of the transition to the information society, if this continues to be unduly sectoralized. what is necessary for this overdue democratic control will be a general transsectoral framework directive for the guiding regulating principles of this transition. barthet-mayer report (a4-0156/97) mr president, the report by our committee on agriculture on a regulation on organic production to include animal production is the result of extremely careful research by our rapporteur, mrs barthetmayer. as parliament's rapporteur on beekeeping in the member states, i am grateful to her for concentrating everything relating to organic beekeeping into a single amendment. in committee i tabled an amendment on point 4 on feeding, which did not find favour with the rapporteur. that is why i voted against the first two paragraphs of this point, that is, against a text which i regard as unenforceable. unfortunately, mr president, hardly anyone raised their hands when this passage was put to the vote. trying to force beekeepers to stop their bees gathering pollen from crops in flower which have been subjected to chemical treatment suggests the impossible, and no-one can be bound by it. even if the beekeeper positions his hives so as to ensure that there is no area of pollution within a radius 1.5 km around a hive, who is going to check whether a particular bee is not going off gathering pollen further away, because bees can easily move within a radius of 5 km? i also do not see how the ministry of agriculture in a small country like mine could designate regions or areas where organic beekeeping is practicable, because the fields are so split up that it is difficult to define the areas or regions where pollen is not collected or only collected from crops not being chemically treated. mr president, if we keep our feet on the ground we will avoid introducing unenforceable provisions which only complicate the lives of those who are still willing to practice organic beekeeping or farming and whose numbers are unfortunately shrinking in many member states, at least as regards beekeepers. i abstained on the report as a whole, because we have also voted for a whole series of amendments which the poor farmers are not going to be able to live with if they really want to practice organic farming. we would like to emphasise that we have voted for the proposal that road transport of animals should not exceed eight hours under any circumstances. the loading and unloading of animals should be carried out with care, and the use of allopathic tranquillising methods during the journey must be banned. we consider this to be a very important issue which must be taken further when the matter is discussed in the european union. any other way of managing the transport of animals, other than what has been proposed above, is unacceptable. we are dealing with the report by our colleague mrs barthet-mayer on a proposal for a council regulation supplementing regulation no 2092/91. at last, we might well say! the commission has not kept to the timetable, but it looks as if the bse crisis has accelerated the process. we can appreciate organic farming from a new angle, in the context of sustainable agriculture guaranteeing quality and safety for consumers. so i support the rapporteur on the many positive points she has added to the commission proposal. organic farming can take on the shape of innovative agriculture using renewable energy and materials, but all the same it must be surrounded by guarantees to assure its quality. so a number of imperative rules must be established, in terms of both controls and methods of production. genetic manipulation must be entirely banned and healthy animal feed guaranteed, thus avoiding the notorious consequences of industrial scientists, closer to mad scientists than nobel prizewinners. organic farming can represent a real alternative to intensive and industrial agriculture, which has sinned by excess. it should be given support and a framework for development at european union level. the principal concern of agriculture as a whole today must be not the quantity but the quality of its products. organic farming should be upgraded to a significant production method within the eu's agricultural policy as a whole. a growing number of people want better quality food produced in a more ethically sustainable way than is the case with present-day high- efficiency farming. in finland, organic farming has been enabled, thanks to eu environmental support, to grow rapidly to the point where it now represents 5 % of arable area. our next objective should be the 10 % achieved by austria, which is the result of a specially determined effort. unfortunately, the regulation on organic farming is too detailed for the widely differing conditions which occur in the union. the greens tried to make it more flexible in many respects, but the enthusiasm for hair-splitting detail won. in finland, the transition period for the changeover from mainstream to organic farming is three years. in the eu a much shorter transition period is going to be adopted, two years under the commission proposal, which parliament would like to shorten still further to one year. the greens consider that two years is the absolute minimum. the most important achievement in parliament's debate on the organic farming regulation was undoubtedly commissioner fischler's statement that he is prepared to approve parliament's demand for the banning of the use of genetically altered organisms in organic production. member states, including finland, as well as the organic farmers' organizations, have been very worried about the commission's unclear position on this point until now. the greens are in favour of increasing the parliament's decision-making powers in the common agricultural policy. the group proposed that the organic farming regulation should be adopted on the basis of article 100a (internal market) but a majority in parliament rejected this proposal. unfortunately, the commission's proposal has far too many shortcomings. the work by the european parliament's rapporteur and the committee responsible is, therefore, worthy of merit and i support it. in view of all the media reports on how animals are transported and fattened up i welcome this proposal. we must put a stop to the type of industrial handling of animals which currently prevails and which is totally unjustifiable. this is one of the reasons why it is important to encourage farmers to change to more environmentally friendly animal husbandry methods. but we must also be aware that the situation in the eu member states in this respect varies enormously. while austria, for example, has made a lot of progress, other countries have not done so well. i hope that this proposal will encourage these countries to finally take these issues seriously and to act accordingly. this report is also important as a precedent. it is the first time since i became a member of the european parliament that i have seen such a concrete and ambitious programme to change this part of the eu's agricultural policy for the better. it is inadequate but it is an important step in the right direction. finally, i hope that the majority in the european parliament will approve the amendment proposal which involves a ban on the use of genetic modified organisms in organic farming. it is up to us, in the wake of the extremely serious mad cow crisis and the absolutely scandalous failure to sanction the european officials responsible for it, to restore consumer confidence about food of animal origin. the development of organic farming can contribute to that, provided the rigorous efforts made for many years by certain countries like france are not undermined by the adoption of lax standards at european level. in fact, up to now organic farming has only been regulated for vegetable products at european level. this text extends the provisions of the 1991 regulation to animal products. in the absence of a community regulation some member states have brought in legislation and others have not. a certain number of countries, including france, are ahead of the rest: it is essential that they do not have lower standards imposed on them now than those they have already established, which have succeeded in gaining consumer confidence. france has been working for over five years on very strict specifications to guarantee the reliability of organic farming products to consumers. but this confidence would evaporate rapidly if the very demanding french market were to become awash, because of european policy, with organic products which were not really organic and which would not really differ in practice from traditional products because of very lax rearing standards. certain countries with highly intensive agriculture are putting on pressure in favour of lax standards. we refused to vote for the amendments they have inspired because if they had been adopted they would have prevented farmers who respect strict standards remaining competitive. we kept to mrs barthet-mayer's text and the agricultural committee's amendments, which in our view constitute a minimum basis for guaranteeing that the efforts made so far by rigorous national producers should not be undermined. it is also up to us to combat rural depopulation tirelessly and encourage any working methods likely to maintain a dense socio-economic fabric. organic farming can play a positive role in land management: it offers farmers, especially young farmers, an alternative which can maintain agricultural employment given the outlets demand for organic products could generate. organic products can be a significant development factor, notably in ecologically fragile zones, where the role of farmers in preserving ecosystems and biodiversity is particularly important. they respond to a demand from consumers, and especially tourists, who are hostile to genetically modified organisms, eager for healthy, diversified, quality food products, and concerned about respect for the environment. but it is essential for products originating from these sensitive regions to be backed by certification systems which are highly reliable in terms of quality and traceability, and which will facilitate the implementation of community preference and constitute so many poles of resistance against the clean slate process represented by the gatt negotiations. that is the path chosen by the barthet-mayer report and that is why our group supports it. amadeo report (a4-0146/97) given the major advances in the scientific and technical fields which have led to the appearance of new methods of diagnosis and treatment, and given that we know the benefits and dangers of the use of ionizing radiation, it has become imperative that the european community, within the scope of the powers attributed to it by the treaty on european union, namely article 129, should legislate in order to update directive 84/466/euratom. the changes must reflect the need: to limit the use of ionizing radiation to where it is strictly necessary, in other words when there is no other alternative means of diagnosis of treatment either more innocuous or offering the same guarantees in terms of benefit for the patient; -to demand that the member states carry out the necessary controls and take responsibility for them, not only of the quality of public or private installations but also the establishment of quality guarantee programmes, aimed at assessing doses received by patients; -to assume 'overall clinical responsibility' for individual radiological exposure (the number of and absolute need for examinations) by health professionals qualified to carry out these examinations or treatment in accordance with national legislation.these are the reasons why i voted for this proposal. mr president, i would like to take this opportunity to seek the support of the european parliament for european funding to carry out radon surveys and in particular to seek financial assistance for national authorities to carry out radon tests. it is vital that the european parliament and the commission recognize that radon exposure is a european-wide problem that merits the provision of eu funding. a recent national radon survey by the radiological protection centre of ireland revealed that parts of the country, including large areas of wicklow and the cooley peninsula in louth, have a greater than 10 % change of being exposed to an unacceptable level of radon gas. this is a major source of concern to the householders affected. however, the cost of remedying this problem is a major stumbling block for householders. it is my view that free radon measurements should be made available to householders living in high radon areas. it is my hope that the commission, perhaps through some of its research programmes, can make funding available to make this objective a reality. there are many schools located in the areas with elevated levels of radon. however, there is no national programme of radon monitoring for our schools. since children are generally considered to be at greater risk, i believe a national survey of radon in our schools should be initiated. additionally, there is as yet no monitoring of radon levels in workplaces in the worst affected areas. here again eu funding would be extremely beneficial. the irish government too has a crucial role to play and should carefully examine the localised grant scheme that exists in britain to help people measure their households for radon. k. collins report (a4-0109/97) although we are voting in favour of this report we do not share the views put forward in points 12 and 13 of the proposal for the report. we do not consider that issues concerning environmental legislation should be placed under the co-decision procedure. this would involve increased supranationality in the european union which we are against in principle. we do not think that the european parliament should be given more power. the work on progressive environmental legislation will almost certainly be improved if we give member states better guarantees than is currently the case that they may forge ahead with environmental reforms. the issue mr collins deals with in his report is of the first importance, because without verifiable monitoring of correct transposition and application of environmental legislation, and compliance with it, part of this parliament's work would be sterile given the flood of complaints received every year about unsatisfactory application of, or non-compliance with, environmental law. that is why this parliament, and i personally, have repeatedly and for many years pressed the need to create a system of inspection at european level, precisely to ensure the application and implementation of that same environmental legislation, because there is massive incongruity and indeed frustration of democracy in legislating only for that legislation to be afterwards ignored or not complied with on so many occasions? as the rapporteur makes very clear, in many respects the development of community environmental policy has lent significant impetus to the democratization of the community, as one of the union's most popular policies. this means our citizens participate actively in monitoring and shaping it. so in drafting such legislation it is essential for the commission to open a wide range of consultations to guarantee that it is fulfilled, and such legislation should always be the subject of co-decision procedure as called for in this important report. i end by congratulating mr collins and trusting that the intergovernmental conference will shoulder its responsibilities in this area. it is encouraging that the cause of the environment is gaining ground in all the eu institutions, but we must take care not to misuse this good cause by introducing unnecessary or bureaucratic rules without appreciating the possible consequences. the proposal that each member state should set up an environmental inspectorate, to be subject to monitoring and oversight by the commission, would not appear to have been thought out properly. most eu countries already have similar inspectorates at national level which work in harmony with the commission and other bodies. i would warn against such ineffectual gestures. the european environment agency in denmark already cooperates extensively with the national authorities in the member states. i see no evidence of the need for us to set up 15 new national environmental inspectorates alongside this, subject to monitoring and oversight by the commission. it is crucial for the environment that environmental legislation works, and that the environment is given priority. today, the environment generally loses out in competition with commercial interests, and the actual implementation of environmental law in the member states is very unimpressive. in the area of environmental legislation, as mr collins indicates, there is a need for codification of the law, openness and further checks on implementation, and both individuals and organizations should be able to bring legal actions in the national courts. the report seeks above all to raise the profile of the environment. i am therefore voting in favour of this extremely important report. todini report (a4-0148/97) the eu education programmes are amongst the best of the good news stories from brussels. when they started in 1984 six thousand students participated in erasmus and in 1996 this had increased to a massive one hundred and seventy thousand young people. i welcome this healthy trend and hope the numbers participating continue to increase. the biggest problems which have existed from the beginning, and still persist, are the additional costs of travel and subsistence which must be met from family budgets, as well as the differences between member states on the level of amounts paid. this means that the students whose families cannot afford to subsidise them continue to be excluded. this is unacceptable and impedes their mobility and the fairness of the whole programme. the commission and national education authorities must assess this discrepancy and provide us with comparative information from the member states so that we may be able to respond to the real needs of the students concerned and increase the uptake of erasmus grants amongst poorer students. the rapporteur has made an excellent list of the real problems faced by students, researchers, academics and others when they wish to realise their dreams in other eu countries. the commission has drawn a comparison saying that it is easier to move to the usa than within the eu which is why action is needed. but we do not think that this comparison is valid. there are many other reasons why so many swedes, for example, move to the usa. the comparison also shows that the usa and some eu countries have resolved the administrative problems involved through straightforward inter state cooperation which is why we think that these problems can be also resolved between eu countries through inter state co-operation alone and not by moving the issue up to the level of some supranational administration office in brussels. we do share the view that there are problems which must somehow be resolved. but we think it unnecessary for the solution to have to involve a list of legal guidelines, positions and so forth. we consider some of the points in the report to be unjustifiable. this includes point 23 where the requirement '.to facilitate repatriation of students and academics to their original countries following their stay abroad' appears to be unfounded and totally unnecessary. we also feel that there should be a section covering other countries in europe which do not belong to the eu region. we think it is extremely important to include these countries as well to make it easier for students and researchers from all countries in europe to live in other european countries. the danish social democrats in the european parliament have voted in favour of the report by mrs todini on the commission's green paper analysing the main obstacles to mobility within the eu in the field of education, training and research. we attach great importance to freedom of movement for both students and teachers in the education sector. we must emphasize, however, that we have some reservations concerning the report when it comes to harmonizing social security benefits, providing tax exemption for research grants and introducing a european status for trainees. we believe that it is important to dismantle the obstacles to mobility within the eu, but that this should only take place on a voluntary basis between the member states, and not through harmonization of the rules at eu level. i cannot support mrs todini's report on obstacles to student mobility within the european community. this does not mean that i cannot entirely support the idea of students being able to obtain training on a transnational basis. that has previously been and will continue to be possible - not merely within the eu, but across all national frontiers. exchanges between different countries and cultures need not be confined to a uniform area. the idea of exchanges is indeed precisely to gain a knowledge of different cultures and societies. i therefore cannot endorse the rapporteur's wish to press for harmonization of both training and social legislation in this context. this report and the green paper are another example of freedom of movement being used as a pretext for harmonization in the social sector. this gives the eu an authority which it does not and must not have. i would dissociate myself from the idea of a standard apprenticeship in the eu, and in any case this is quite unrealistic, since the labour markets are very different in the individual member states. i am therefore voting against the report, and nor can i support the green paper from the commission. the commission should be commended on an excellent piece of work in drawing up this green paper. employment market mobility depends on many things, but i am quite sure that the new lines of action which the commission is proposing will be a positive move in the right direction. it is good to see that several of the existing programmes have already been a great success. for example, the number of students able to supplement their studies in another eu country through erasmus has increased many times over. i therefore believe it is very important for the commission to use the proposals contained in the green paper without delay to create a european area of qualifications, so that we can develop the mutual recognition of academic courses by such means as greater use of credit transfer systems. tindemans report (a4-0162/97) sweden has made its position clear on the issue of a common eu foreign and security policy in the proposal which has been presented to the current intergovernmental conference in conjunction with finland. sweden is not prepared to relinquish its non aligned policy. this means that we are advocating: 1.that the eu does not develop the common defence position mentioned in articles j 4 in the treaty on the european union, and2.that the organisational distinction between the western european union and the european union is maintained but that the union's role in the context of the petersberg missions is strengthened. all missions carried out under this heading must however be based on a mandate from the un or osce.this position means that we cannot, for example, support statements such as that written in point 9, ' initially for petersberg missions' , nor point 37 which calls for a conference to be convened to discuss the content of a common defence policy (point a) or the implications of future integration between the weu and the eu (point b). we consider point 7, which alludes to the fact that those eu member states which are not members of nato or the weu will benefit from the security clauses of these organisations, to be totally incorrect. the report also includes several general statements which we cannot support. above all this concerns point 6 (the establishment of a european corps consisting of both military and civil units), point 8 (economic security) and point 10 a (territorial integrity). the treaty on european union has made some advances in common foreign and security policy possible, but they have tended to be theoretical and insufficiently practical. the european union should get past the stage of incantations and clearly define its foreign policy and its ideas on security and thus implement a real policy of prevention, or indeed intervention. this perspective is indispensable to the ultimate establishment of a european diplomacy. the union must speak with one voice on the big issues and be capable of overcoming the traditions of the national diplomacies, with a view to guaranteeing and expressing the higher interest of europeans as a whole. so it is right to specify our imperatives for external security. the obligatory counterpart of this external security policy is the strengthening of the third pillar, justice and home affairs, and it would be wrong to confuse the threats of various kinds with the interests of the union in acting in all these fields. it is also necessary to be able to anticipate crises outside the union which might have consequences for the union, and act accordingly with one voice, involving the member states as appropriate. this ambition is hard to achieve, but the intergovernmental conference must seize the opportunity it has available to provide the union with a real common foreign and security policy. the international credibility of the union is at stake. it is the only way the union can present the world with an image of more than a single market without any other cement. eriksson, seppnen, sjstedt and svensson (gue/ngl), holm, lindholm and schrling (v), lindqvist (eldr), bonde, lis jensen and sandbk (i-edn), in writing. (sv) the undersigned have voted against the report for the following principal reasons: 1.the report represents a narrow 'eurocentrist' point of view and lacks a view of current global reality. it is strongly marked by old fashioned power politics.2.realisation of the report's concepts of security policy would promote the division of the world into blocs and would develop a regional organisation in competition with the united nations.3.the report's proposal on the union's right to intervene in situations in other countries violates un regulations and constitutes a danger to peace, stability and national independence.4.the report's statement on protecting the union's 'interests and values' stands out as highly questionable. this represents an almost colonial attitude which places the union's values above those of others and means that other countries are at risk of pressure from the union if they hold different values. the word value is not even defined.5.the report demonstrates a serious lack of respect for the role and interests of the non aligned member states. the report's security model is an undisguised attempt to make the smaller countries subordinate to the larger ones.6.it is unrealistic for the union to speak with one voice in an international context, for this would involve suppressing free debate on foreign and security policy issues.7.there are no grounds for unified security and foreign policy in the union. each country has vastly different interests. this is demonstrated by the differing views which emerged over the years on the vietnam war, south africa, cyprus, turkey, the bombing of libya, croatia and iran for example, and by the different stances on nuclear weapons and nuclear free zones.8.there is no european 'identity' as such nor any european 'common destiny' . these are obscure, metaphysical terms.the countries of europe should work to strengthen the un and to promote a global perspective on security and stability. there are powerful forces at work which wish to turn the european union into a major power which would protect its interests in the world by force of arms. this would be done by amalgamating the western european union (weu) with the union to secure a common defence. now there is also a desire to add to this structure a common policy on the arms industry. the union, as an association, is unique in that it is not a state. its strength, vis--vis the outside world too, lies in peaceful, non-military cooperation. it would be a mistake to change the union into a military alliance. it has also become increasingly clear that changing the weu into the union's crisis management organization, as proposed by finland and sweden, would merely be a step towards a common defence. either its proponents were being naive or else they do not wish to tell the people about the underlying aspirations. a common policy on the arms industry would be liable to increase pressures to export arms even to countries which use them against their own people. in such circumstances even the smallest step towards a closer association of arms industries must be avoided. the greens consider it extremely regrettable that an attempt is being made to destroy the special character of the union through militarization. i have today also signed a statement by some of my nordic colleagues condemning the conversion of the union into a military alliance. the danish social democrats in the european parliament have voted against parliament's report on security and defence policy in the european union. we voted against the report because it contains a number of paragraphs concerning the extension of defence cooperation within the eu. this is not in keeping with the edinburgh agreement, whereby denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of actions of the union which have defence implications. moreover, we take the view that there is no need for a strengthening of the defence policy dimension of the eu. on the contrary, we believe that the eu member states should continue to coordinate their defence cooperation through nato. it should be emphasized that while we are unable to support the report as a whole, we believe that it contains a number of positive features. these are in particular the references to the advantages of establishing a european stability pact, and to the work of the osce and the council of europe. i think it was a good solution to divide the tindeman report into two sections. the section that i voted in favour of today was concerned only with foreign and security policy. i could support the bulk of the report but there were certain details which i, as a representative of a neutral scandinavian country, could not approve. for this reason i could not support the approval of the report as a whole either. our group has not voted for the own initiative report by mr tindemans because it does not really go to the heart of the very important subject it was supposed to deal with: european security. it just tiptoes round the essential point. mr tindemans is certainly realistic in his explanatory statement. the positions of member states of the european union on defence are still very divergent, and the european union ought to be able to use military force autonomously. but starting from there, the rapporteur only comes up with a very timid, very conventional resolution. mr tindemans is careful not to mention that the most enthusiastic rhetoric about integrated european defence very often emanates from those who make the least defence effort in their own countries. unfortunately many bad habits have taken root under the american nuclear umbrella and they are often persistent, such as leaving concern for defence to others, in return choosing american military equipment for their armed forces instead of european equipment which performs just as well and is no more expensive. the problem of european defence is not a question of setting up institutions, it is a question of will. there will be no real progress until everyone has recognized that we have to think about our defence needs in independence of the united states and that certain transatlantic reflexes inherited from a bygone age of international relations are out of place today. independence needs to be achieved at different levels. first of all at nato level, where the idea of a european defence identity now needs to given substance. the berlin summit is only a prelude to this, not its achievement. do the european member states really have the will, as they claim, to make nato european? we are waiting for them to demonstrate that they can back their words up with deeds, and that they know they must equip themselves to intervene without american participation. are the european members of nato ready to accept its extension to new member states, before that reform has even been carried out thoroughly? weu, a european body specialized in defence, should have its margin of manoeuvre increased and its powers taken more seriously, instead of trailing behind nato, as it so often has. nobody is stopping the ten european union member states which are also members of the weu doing that, but there again we await concrete expression of genuine will. finally, assuring our own security means making the necessary resources available, especially financial resources. we cannot call for european defence and give others lessons on the subject if at the same time we reduce national military expenditure all round. now, we know our weaknesses. they were highlighted by the gulf war and the intervention in bosnia. we are dependent on the united states, in terms of means of observation, means of communication and means of transport. is there a real will to cooperate in these areas of common interest so that we really have independent means of defence, allowing the member states who want it real autonomy in terms of intervention? nor is this search for independence incompatible with well-targeted transatlantic cooperation. thus the need for the european countries to provide themselves with an anti-missile defence system in view of the threat of ballistic proliferation, could be implemented by cooperating on research with the united states. the reason we have not voted for the tindemans report is because it pretends the problems lie somewhere else instead of dealing frankly with the heart of the matter. we consider that the division of the tindemans report into two parts was a good solution. the part on which we are voting today thus relates solely to foreign and security policy. we may have supported the majority of the report, but there are individual points in it with which we as representatives of neutral nordic countries cannot approve. for this reason we were also unable to give our support to the report as a whole. (the sitting was suspended at 1.25 p.m. and resumed at 3.00 p.m.) regional cooperation with former yugoslavia and contractual relations with south-east europe the next item is the debate on the report by mr cohn-bendit (a4-0127/97), on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on the report from the commission to the council 'prospects for the development of regional cooperation for the countries of the former yugoslavia and what the community could do to foster such cooperation' (sec(96)252 - c4-0274/96), and on the report from the commission to the council and the european parliament 'joint principles to govern contractual relations with certain countries in south-east europe' (sec(96)0252 - c4-0644/96). mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i could actually greet you all by name, such is the impressive level of attendance. but i am even more dismayed by the absence of the commission. the commission is supposed to be represented at this kind of debate, although i realize that with the arrival of spring and some warm weather at last, politics inevitably takes a back seat. twelve years after the second world war, the former warring parties put their signatures to the treaties of rome. those treaties were the first examples of regional cooperation in europe, and they led on to the creation of the european union as we know it today. of course, the united states had a role as guarantor of the process of peace and democratic reconstruction in post-war europe. but had it not been for that decisive step - had the politicians of the day not had the courage to develop regional cooperation in europe - we would not be where we are today. therefore, in our present discussions on the need for regional cooperation following the bloody wars which have taken place in southeastern europe, our conceptual model is that of the european union. regional cooperation is needed in southern europe, precisely because the conflicts there were so damaging. but regional cooperation will only work when there is a functioning bosnian state in bosnia. only when the states and forces which were parties to the conflict are prepared to regard bosnia as a state and to promote its statehood can regional cooperation begin the process of rapprochement among them. i believe that there is still a great deal to be done in this context, and the dayton peace agreement is not enough. however, if we take the view that we need to reconstruct bosnia, we cannot burden it with bureaucratic structures which basically fail to facilitate the process of reconstruction by the people who live there and those who are working on the ground. that is why i propose the creation of an institution - a foundation for democracy. neither the criteria of the european union nor its bureaucratic methods are applicable in a society like bosnia. attempting to apply them is ultimately futile, and in 1996 only ecu 3 million, out of a total of ecu 35 m available for investment in bosnia, was paid out. that is simply disgraceful. at the same time, this type of regional cooperation must not be regarded as reconstruction of the former yugoslavia. on the contrary, it is all about conceiving of south-eastern europe as south-eastern europe. in other words, the process of regional cooperation clearly includes not only the countries of the former yugoslavia, but also greece, bulgaria, hungary and turkey. that is the thinking behind the proposal for a southern european conference to consider ways of achieving economic, political and environmental stability, as a means of giving the countries involved a sense of mutual responsibility for peacekeeping and developing the scope for peace. if the region is to be seen as having any kind of political future, then - according to the barcelona model - the process has to develop independently from within south-eastern europe. let me welcome mr van den broek, from the commission. i am glad that he managed to find his way here on such a sunny afternoon. better late than never! in conclusion, i would say this: the people of southern europe will not understand, and cannot be expected to understand, if we play politics here on behalf of one government or another. our task as elected representatives is not to act as ambassadors for slovenia, croatia, serbia or bosnia. we are independent politicians whose job is to work to our own agenda. that is why we must promote the european concept of cooperation. finally, i have a request concerning our amendment. in the committee, we included military as well as civilian personnel in paragraph 24 of the motion for a resolution. this does not make sense. i have no objection to a military force, even in europe. but in this context, where we are referring to the ecmm, it is a nonsense. i would therefore ask you to vote in favour of our amendment, not on ideological grounds, but simply because it would be counterproductive not to do so, since the text as it stands is basically contradictory. mr president, i too should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the rapporteur. we in the rex committee, which i represent, wholeheartedly support the basic approach adopted in the report. there are just a few further comments i should like to make, however. the signing of the dayton agreement may well have finally restored peace in the balkans, but it has certainly not put an end to all the problems in the former yugoslavia and the rest of the region. on the contrary, ethnic tension in many places seems to be increasing rather than declining. enormous efforts are needed to bring stability to the balkans, not just from countries in the region, but also from the eu member states and the eu itself. the balkans will not be able to pull themselves out of trouble through their own efforts, so cooperation with the eu is crucial at both economic and socio-cultural levels. these are of course connected, since economic and financial development of the region also has a positive effect on social developments. the european union can also ensure that any future economic and financial agreements with countries in the region have certain conditions attached with regard to freedom of the press, ethnic tolerance and regional cooperation, in order to steer the social developments in the right direction. i have a further comment on this last point. we must not look at the current situation in the balkans in an oversimplified way. in presenting a list of demands from the european union, we must not forget the war and the underlying tensions which caused it. there is a great deal more involved in bringing about social and political changes that will produce strong democracies and stability in the region. for example, war criminals need to be punished and refugees allowed to return home. there must be cultural exchanges, projects under the phare democracy programme, international summer schools and so on. the european union needs to accept its responsibilities in these areas, now and in the future. however, it is also up to the individual countries themselves to try to help their own recovery, and here too there will be differences. so as well as promoting regional cooperation, we also need to adopt an individual approach to each country. it is impossible to try to turn the tide throughout an entire region by applying just one uniform policy. if the eu concentrates too much on the region as a whole and does not pay attention to individual differences, it will thwart its own aims and probably achieve the very opposite of what we actually wish to see. we cannot hope to solve all the problems in the balkans overnight. this is something we have to accept and make clear to the people we are talking to there. it took a long time for the member states of the union to heal their wounds after the last war, and the same is likely to be true in the balkans. but this does not mean that we do not support the proposed policy and mr cohn-bendit's proposals on behalf of parliament. we would simply point out that there must also be scope for an individual approach to each of the countries in question. mr president, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the idea of convening a conference on peace, democracy, sustainable development and stability in south-eastern europe under the aegis of the european union is certainly one that should be supported and pursued. the european union, which - unfortunately, but it must be said - has been a most notable absentee from the events that have convulsed the former yugoslavia, must now adopt an active policy directed towards the reconstruction of that region, to encourage the return of stability, peace and development to a region so close to our own. quite apart from our ideals, our self-interest demands it. our view of mr cohn-bendit's report is generally favourable, though we cannot agree with everything in it. for example, the suggestion that a pop music festival should be organized in bosnia, while certainly intriguing and charming, comes more under the heading of folklore than that of politics. there is one aspect, though, to which we feel we must call parliament's attention: not one of the various initiatives contained in the commission's report is currently accompanied by any plan for financing it, nor can any of them be financed between now and 1999 except at the expense of other projects. i should say at this point that the committee on budgets has asked the commission to put forward proposals, but no reply has ever been received. this seems to us to be the most serious aspect of the whole issue. the european union seems all too likely to continue to be the major absentee from the former yugoslavia: because all these proposals we are talking about are doomed to lack the funds to translate them into reality. but if that is how things are, it would surely be better to say so bluntly! mr president, i should like to tell mr cohn-bendit that i agree with him, and that my group will be voting in favour of his report, which we regard as positive and, unlike on other occasions, full of ideas for positive action. it is true that these ideas have yet to prove themselves, in terms of feasibility among other things, but it is very instructive for us to find that sometimes, debating things in committee and comparing opinions, we do have the possibility of putting forward practical proposals. this happens when we have a clear idea in mind, and i maintain that at the heart of this report there is the idea, the very clear idea, that we need to look at southeastern europe with a strategy slightly different from that we have pursued hitherto. when i say 'slightly' i am, of course, indulging in a little irony, in that the one thing that emerges from this report is the need for a european union policy as such rather than the sum of the policies of the individual member states. i should like to emphasize the link that exists between the two proposals that mr cohn-bendit puts forward in paragraph 5 of his report, where he rightly talks about this idea of a conference and says that 'at the same time, the european union would commit itself to an ambitious long-term programme of enhanced, concerted and multilateral economic assistance to the reconstruction of the region' . i maintain that these two things are closely interrelated. nothing is said here about who is immediately to start working on the preparation of this ambitious long-term programme. i think the invitation is indirectly addressed to the commission, or at any rate that it should be understood as being so, so that the conference on peace, democracy and sustainable development in two years' time will become a convincing objective if work goes ahead in the meantime on this ambitious long-term programme of reconstruction, which needs to have this regional slant as a political concept. one reason why this is urgently necessary is that, as we all know, the union's humanitarian presence is enormous - indeed, we are the major contributor - but at the same time there is a confused presence of international bodies in bosnia, as in other countries as well, and this is certainly no help to us. i am also in agreement with the proposed foundation for democracy. the idea is a good one, as indeed are the other two ideas contained in paragraphs 25 and 26, which we will be supporting. in conclusion, mr president, let me say that we will also be supporting amendment no 4, because it seems to me consistent with the whole approach of this report to delete this word, as mr cohn-bendit proposes in his amendment. mr president, there are numerous aspects of both the commission report and, unfortunately, mr cohn-bendit's report that cause me some difficulty, because it seems to me that they have both taken the wrong approach, at least as regards timing and also in terms of geography. however, i shall leave the geography to mr oostlander. it is clear that despite the bloody collapse of one-party rule in yugoslavia, too many europeans still fail to realize that any pressure in the direction of cooperation at the present time will simply be rejected because people will fear that it is a dressed-up attempt to create a new yugoslavia. how is it that we have ended up applying double standards? slovenia, which is also a successor state of the former yugoslavia, has enjoyed and continues to enjoy all kinds of preference and assistance, without being subject to the conditions set out in the report. i am sure that following the lifting of the greek boycott and the sanctions against serbia, macedonia will now at last be able to develop freely and resolve its albanian problem; and that croatia too, after the end of the illegal occupation of a third of its territory, will now be able to attend more effectively to developing its democratic structures and economy and, of course, repatriating refugees. however, just like slovenia, it must receive the necessary help from the european union to enable it to do this. it is obvious that some form of regional economic cooperation will then emerge. to that extent, i would endorse what mr cohn-bendit has said in recital e: that a regionally based approach must be more broadly based and does not imply the re-creation of the former yugoslavia, but should take into account the individual special features of each country, and the fact that one country might decline to cooperate must not be allowed to prevent any other country from effecting a rapprochement with the eu. all very impressive! unfortunately, mr cohn-bendit, your report fails to reflect that principle. and if the european union intends to reward what you yourself refer to as cumulation of product origin, then that will effectively mean a return to the former yugoslavia under the cover of trade. such a proposal is totally insensitive! we cannot put the cart before the horse. nor, by the same token, is it possible to compare what now needs to be done in this area with what we were able to do in europe long after the second world war. my point is that we must begin by ensuring that order is established in each country. we must ensure that refugees are able to return to their homelands, so that the experience of coexistence once again becomes part of national life in these countries. only then will it be time for cross-border cooperation. on the question of bosnia-herzegovina, i entirely agree on the need for consolidation, but ultimately that also needs to be worked for! and it is time for everyone who signed the dayton peace agreement to start putting it into action. i very much hope that we shall have the backing of the house for the inclusion of one minor point, namely support for the european schools. i believe that these schools, through their multi-ethnicity, have a long-term impact which an event like the pop festival - which i also support - cannot hope to have. the festival will encapsulate a moment in time, and that is worthwhile, but it will not lead young people in the direction that we have to lead them - along the road to multi-ethnic coexistence. to do that, we need curricula in the schools and teachers to do the work, and this is where we should deploy our manpower and our expertise. we should also learn the lesson of albania: that money alone is ineffective, the only effective way is to put people on the ground in the country. i share the belief that an institution such as the proposed foundation can achieve something positive. but i do not believe that it can be effective in isolation. we must also involve the ecmm and all the people on the ground, and work with them to rebuild the state. the fact is that there is precious little will to live together in bosniaherzegovina. very few people there genuinely wish to make coexistence a reality. the bodies that were elected last september lack a common civic identity. i very much regret that this should be so, and we must begin by helping them to develop such an identity before there can be any question of achieving cross-border cooperation. mr president, i must begin by thanking mr cohn-bendit for the excellent work he has put into this report. i too would like to place it on record that our starting point must be europe's political and moral responsibility for what it has failed to do for bosnia and for what has happened in bosnia as a result: slaughter and savagery, and the complete lack of any european presence. clearly, we now have an even greater responsibility to act so that, during this period of reconstruction in the former yugoslavia, we are able effectively to export the benefits of peace, democracy and stability - and, above all, liberty. i believe that the machinery for credible joint action is important, and this brings us back to the problem of the cfsp. on this point, clearly, there is a need for a general commitment, a need to reinforce and broaden the sfor mandate. for this reason, i believe it is essential that this parliament should bring pressure to bear on the commission and the council. our central aim must be to make bosnia independent of international aid, so that it can move ahead with its economic development by its own efforts. that is why i greatly appreciated certain passages in mr cohn-bendit's report: we very much appreciated the report not only for its remarks on the regional approach but also with regard to the overall political initiative, meaning the re-establishment of the rule of law, and a more generalized pact of stability for peace and development, which implies strict compliance with the peace commitments entered into with the dayton accords but also implies a free trade area, common airspace and favourable conditions for investment. peace and stability in bosnia will come not from piecemeal interventions in the form of aid, which will merely result in corruption, but from creating conditions that favour the independent development of that region. mr president, commissioner, i recently received a copy of the commission's first end-of-year report - for 1996 - on how the resources made available by parliament and the budgetary authority are being spent in the former yugoslavia. of the ecu 125 million in the essential aid programme, the proportion committed in 1996 was 66 %, and this gives no indication of what was actually paid out. precisely ecu 2.1 m was committed from the ecu 27.6 m available in reconstruction aid. in the area of aid for repatriation, which is so urgently needed to allow refugees to return home, ecu 8 m out of a total of ecu 25.7 m was committed, and of the ecu 35 m earmarked for 'europe for sarajevo' - to which the house attaches such importance - exactly ecu 3.2 m was committed in 1996: only committed, mind you, not paid out. is it any wonder that if you go to sarajevo - as i did two and a half weeks ago - you meet people who ask what the commission and the european union have actually done. what visible proof is there that the reconstruction aid is in fact getting through? in effect, the commission report for 1996 exposes the bureaucratic and inefficient approach which has been adopted here. i should like to ask the commission a question: why is it not possible to adopt a less bureaucratic approach? we managed it in mostar, so why not in other cities? and why is the img unable to act on our behalf on the ground? why, instead of continuing to administer the resources centrally from brussels, do we not cooperate with organizations such as the brbel bohley programme for 1000 homes in bosnia - a project with a minimum of red tape which has been able to put 3 million to good use? all these questions are of critical importance for the commission, and i hope that we shall manage to do rather better in 1997. thank you, mr president, but i thought i had two minutes, and that was the very least i needed to say that mr cohn-bendit's report seems to me full of good intentions. personally i am all in favour of considering regional cooperation with the countries of former yugoslavia and indeed beyond. in fact i think we should have noticed sooner, instead of encouraging each european country to choose a protege in the balkans, as europe did, that independence was as premature as it was illusory. we promised countries that we would guarantee their frontiers, which we did not do, and that we would allow them to join europe right away, which they are still waiting for, and instead of doing that there was another way to achieve solidarity and balance in yugoslav, through groupings which would no doubt have been reviewed: by explaining to the countries concerned that they would only come closer to europe by finding new ways of living together. we have seen the result: ethnic hatred, nationalism, religious tension, have all triumphed over the inclusive values the european union should have promoted. but we should not always expect the worst and cooperation is extremely necessary today. we must promote it and in particular speed up the financing, as has been mentioned. i just want to draw parliament's attention to one point, mr president. the european union has shown serious weakness, and i think it could make up for that if it decided to establish wholly european intervention forces in bosnia for the period after the council elections, which would be responsible in particular for preventing war breaking out again in brcko or mostar, as it unfortunately. (the president cut off the speaker) mr president, the independent members of the house welcome mr cohn-bendit's perceptive and courageous report which, by involving all the balkan countries, lends a new dimension to the difficult task of securing peace in the former yugoslavia. mr cohn-bendit, i agree with you that politicians certainly need vision in order to achieve ambitious goals. but there have been repeated instances in the past of major long-term projects, with a high degree of commitment, which have failed because - in the absence of short-term successes of the kind that people in the former yugoslavia would undoubtedly wish to see today - some of those involved lost faith in the project as a whole and did not see it through to its completion. therefore, we have to keep a sense of pragmatism alongside the vision, and be aware that what we are doing is like the work of a good football coach: it will not be judged on the basis of carefully thought-out and theoretically irreproachable game plans, but purely and simply on results. mr president, i am also very pleased with the cohn-bendit report, which strongly emphasizes the need to restore the rule of law in the area in question. this is a particularly important issue to which i shall return shortly. i am actually rather surprised that the commission should focus on such a limited area when it talks about regional cooperation in the former yugoslavia. there are several countries here which have just emerged from a terrible war with each other and still harbour various grievances. we have a situation where bosnia-herzegovina, for example, includes a number of groups which are more than happy to cooperate with the neighbouring states of croatia and serbia, and this is threatening unity in bosnia and peace in the entire region. so when we talk about regional cooperation, we must be very, very careful that this is not interpreted as giving encouragement to those who would like nothing better than to destroy bosnia-herzegovina altogether. i think it is absolutely vital that we should make it clear that this is not our intention. i also wonder why the commission is focusing on this small area, so that serbia-montenegro is the centre of attention once again. is that what we really want? i hardly think so. i would prefer to see the regional cooperation extended to include the rest of the balkans and some neighbouring countries, which may even include eu applicant countries or member states. we have the barcelona process, and i would be much more in favour of allowing something similar in the balkans, so that we can have a broader regional overview, rather than thinking that the emphasis is on the 'bad boys' once again. i would prefer to give romania a more prominent role, especially now that it has a more constructive government. it would also help to give countries in the balkans which have already taken various measures such as the black sea initiative greater self-respect and a better understanding of international responsibility. i think it is very important for them to realize that their contribution to international security and the rule of law is extremely important to us, and we should continue to develop this idea. i do not think we should bring pressure to bear by threatening to withhold financial aid if they do not cooperate in the way we want. we should leave things up to them. there should be more consultation between officials from the countries around yugoslavia and yourself, commissioner, and perhaps also members of the council. i also feel it is rather difficult to be calling for economic cooperation at a time when racist tendencies in bosnia-herzegovina are completely frustrating further economic development. i am thinking here of the east-west and north-south railways through bosnia-herzegovina which both head towards tuzla, but which the racist attitudes of the republika srpska are preventing from being extended. what sort of economic aid and development are we trying to promote with our cooperation models? i would therefore urge that we should vote for the section on this subject in the cohn-bendit report, as amended, since this is how we can genuinely promote the international rule of law. mr president, parliament's attention needs to be drawn to a particularly positive aspect of the cohn-bendit report: the regional approach and the quality of the bilateral relations between the countries which made up former yugoslavia. in fact there is no suggestion that countries wishing to associate with or join the union are all obsessed with europe and refusing to work together or show each other a minimum of solidarity. this necessary solidarity should be expressed economically and politically in a declaration containing specific commitments leading to a regional stability pact. but reassuring words are not enough; there must be practical consequences, with membership of the union subject to clear demands and penalty clauses suspending our commitments. mr president, reading the title here - which of course everybody has read, but i am simply repeating it - i see that the european parliament is considering a single resolution on two commission reports, one on 'prospects for the development of regional cooperation for the countries of the former yugoslavia' , and the other on 'joint principles for future contractual relations with certain countries in south-east europe' . i think this way of dealing with two reports on different issues led to the confusion created with the reading of the report by mr cohn-bendit, because the countries of former yugoslavia are covered by a special situation, the dayton agreement, they are involved in war, they have victims, they have the dead, and they have refugees, while the other countries of south-east europe are ones with enormous economic problems, i would say with huge internal problems and problems of democracy, but they continue struggling and fighting by peaceful means to overcome those problems. i say this because the report, as drawn up at present, does not make it possible to draw useful conclusions and can be no help either for the commission, or for the council. i accept, of course, the proposal made by mr cohnbendit in paragraph 5, where with reference to the well-known royaumont initiative, he speaks of a conference supported by the european union. this is an idea correct in principle. we must support it, but as for the remainder of the contents, i think it is a text which does no harm, but offers nothing. first of all, i should like to apologize to you and in particular to mr cohn-bendit for my late arrival, which was not out of any disrespect to the house, but was the result of a misunderstanding. mr president, i should like to begin by saying how pleased i am that this subject has been put on the agenda and examined in this report by mr cohn-bendit, even if there is limited time for dealing with such a complicated issue. the commission broadly agrees with the motion for a resolution, which clearly supports the european union's strategy on the countries of south-eastern europe. this strategy was developed by the council on the basis of recommendations from the commission, which had itself produced a report on conditionality and a regional approach. both concepts will enable us to make full use of the special relations which the european union has with the countries of south-eastern europe, including in particular those with which we do not yet have association agreements. on 29 april, the general affairs council also formulated conclusions on this subject which we believe mark an important step towards a coherent and transparent policy for the union in its future bilateral relations with these non-associated countries in the areas of economic and financial aid and contractual relations. i should like to put my written notes to one side for a moment, because i realized when i heard what mr sarlis said that the approach we have chosen is still apparently causing some misunderstanding. there were also comments from mr oostlander and mrs pack about the geographical area and in particular the conditions for entering into contractual relations with the union, such as those of good-neighbourliness or cross-border cooperation. what it really comes down to is 'do unto your neighbours as you would have the european union do unto you' . after everything people have been through in the balkans in recent years and all the european union has invested, however inadequately, in peace and reconstruction in the former yugoslavia - and here i entirely disagree with the very negative picture painted by mrs mller, but i will not go into that just for the moment - is it really so surprising that the time should come when we ask croatia, serbia and bosnia to normalize their own relations before they can hope to enter into contractual relations with the european union? or that when it comes to asking for certain trade concessions or preferences from the union, they should first be asked to agree to similar concessions for each other? i can assure mr oostlander that time and time again in talks with these countries - and i know how we have been criticized for this approach, not least from the capitals of the countries themselves - the european union has assured them that our policy must not be seen as an attempt to restore the old federal structure to yugoslavia. as well as the balkans, romania is included, which could well form the nucleus of regional cooperation in the black sea area. indeed, this is already the case, since romania is already involved in the black sea cooperation project. the commission is currently preparing a document on cooperation between the countries around the black sea, just as we did for the barents sea, the baltic states, the central europe initiative, the royaumont initiative and the balkans initiative, which is supported by greece. so let there be no misunderstanding: the regional approach is by no means a new concept for the european union, and demanding good-neighbourliness and promoting regional cross-border cooperation using political and financial means are in fact part of the european union's standard approach. let me move on now to the other conditions which apply as regards the former yugoslavia. the serbs have been told not to count on contractual cooperation with the european union if no solution is found to the kosovo problem. the croats have been told that there are various problems with their internal human rights, and improvements must be made before they can count on phare aid, apart from phare-democracy. i have just come back from bosnia with klaus kinkel. what did we find? as we have heard, groups like the croats who would like nothing better than to rejoin croatia, and the republika srpska which is contravening the dayton agreements by concluding new agreements with serbia. what should we do? should we now stand back and do nothing while a number of our member states - you will know who i mean - are bringing enormous pressure to bear to make it easier for refugees to return to the former bosnia? what we have said is that as things stand at present, there is simply no point in having contractual cooperation or proper trade and cooperation agreements with bosnia. bosnia first has to show greater cohesion, it must have a collective presidency which agrees on what it wants from the european union and agrees to abide by the dayton agreements, and we might also require it to cooperate with the war tribunal in the hague, since it would be madness to send bosnian refugees from germany back to the republika srpska, where mr karadzic is still active behind the scenes. mr president, i have gone well over my time, but it is such an exceptionally complicated situation in the balkans. i can only say that there are two quite different strands here. the first is our attempt to pursue a policy to bring stability to the balkans, which calls for a special approach after all the years of violent and bloody warfare that the region has gone through. but in addition, regional cooperation is a concept which also applies to regions that are fortunately not in such a complicated situation, but also wish to have a special relationship with the union. here too, the message is the same: that we would like them to play a constructive and positive role in their relations with their neighbours. these are the broad outlines of our approach which we now have to translate into a detailed policy for serbia, croatia and bosnia, and this is what we are working on at the moment. on mr cohn-bendit's proposal in his report to set up a foundation for democracy, i would say this. as you are certainly aware, the commission is already funding a large number of projects in this field in south-eastern europe, and particularly in the former yugoslavia, with the aim of establishing and strengthening democratic structures by providing aid for the development of a civil society, a culture of openness towards and freedom for the media, and a more robust judicial system. we would have to consider very carefully whether the proposed foundation would be a useful addition to the measures already being carried out by the community. i have no problem at all with the objectives that are set out. the only question is whether there is really any added value, or whether we are already doing enough in this field, so that if anything extra is to be done it should focus on a different area. this brings me to the end of what has been a rather fragmented speech, and i should simply like to congratulate mr cohn-bendit once again for showing such commitment in working through this very complicated issue. i agree with you entirely, commissioner, because you have made it clear that the first step has not yet been taken. we cannot demand regional cooperation if the people in these countries are still incapable of living together. nonetheless, we do have a duty and a responsibility to help them establish coexistence at national level: the next step will then follow by itself. i think i have already made that point quite clearly. mrs pack, surely you must see that regional cooperation is not an obligation in the sense that we have to take up arms to enforce it. for goodness sake, you have no trouble understanding plain german when it emanates from zagreb! now try reading some plain german which does not come from zagreb! cooperation is simply a political necessity, so that people learn to live together. and if we in europe do not treat that as a moral requirement, then we in europe will have failed. surely, for once, the ppe members of the house can grasp that! mr president, i do not wish to be the referee here, but i would simply repeat that it is still not our view that these people do not want to live together. it is the politicians who are trying to impose and assert their own nationalistic beliefs, and this is why i am by no means reluctant to impose conditions, and why i am also not particularly troubled by comments that our conditions are simply designed to restore yugoslavia to how it used to be. not at all. our goals are quite different and are designed to bring peace and stability, which is more than i can say for some of the leaders in the region. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at noon. improving the impact of joint actions the next item is the debate on the report by barn crespo (a4-0133/97), on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, on improving the impact of joint actions. mr president, i particularly want to express my satisfaction that this report has been able to reach the house barely a year and three-quarters after it was written. if you look carefully at the date you will see that this recommendation was made on 20 september 1995 in application of article j.11 of the treaty and rule 46.3 of our rules of procedure. and the recommendation has the added advantage of scarcely filling a page and a half, unlike most of the interminable litanies which constitute parliamentary reports. two battles have been joined here. one is the external battle. and i have to say that where we do not have problems with the council, which is currently practising the empty chair policy, or the commission, we put shackles on ourselves, we put spokes in the wheels, to the point that this recommendation has had to go to the committee on the rules and the conference of presidents before coming here today. so as regards the external side, the law, what is basically being said is that the intelligent use of a weapon like the recommendation allows us, with the immediateness international political problems require, to formulate how foreign policy is debated, and whether there are criteria, opinions, judgements, or guidelines to the commission. this is something that we are very much lacking in and we will shortly have the opportunity to see an analysis of it in the report mr spencer is preparing on behalf of the committee on foreign affairs, drawing up the full balance sheet of the unsatisfactory development of the common positions and joint actions which are the instruments of foreign policy we have available under the treaty on european union. to come to the nub of the matter, the content of the recommendation, the position over eighteen months ago still has a terrible topicality, especially at a time when - hopefully - the intergovernmental conference is reaching a conclusion, because this is one of the most delicate issues as regards reform and improvement of the treaties. and the substance of the proposal is four fundamental points based on our experience over the past few years. it is not enough to complain about how incapable we are in europe of developing foreign policy, we also have to do something to improve it and find the way forward. so to put it very briefly, the proposal is that the necessary measures be adopted to formulate and develop joint action based on the qualified majority principle, which this parliament has approved, moreover, and which should be the general principle which inspires our actions. secondly, another very important point for a parliament which shares budgetary power with the council is to state that costs generated by common actions under the treaty must be included in the non-compulsory section of the community budget involving democratic control by parliament and that specifically administrative expenditure should come under heading v and operational expenditure under heading iv. the principle of budgetary clarity is a basic principle of parliamentary and democratic responsibility. thirdly, we need to consider how to implement joint actions effectively and rapidly, and here i would recall a proposal made by parliament five years ago for a code of conduct and an interinstitutional framework agreement allowing us to develop and control our relations with the commission and the council correctly. finally, mr president, we must insist, as of right, that the treaty is applied, and parliament is consulted when decisions are taken and joint actions are planned. to illustrate our situation, i need only mention what has happened in the case of albania, where a problem arose with a neighbouring country in the union and it was decided, quite disgracefully in my opinion, that this was not a priority issue for the union. it was then left to parliament, after a series of countries decided to act, to ask the council for joint common action. therefore, mr president, and with this i conclude, i think this recommendation - albeit late, but better late than never - has arrived at the right moment and i hope ministers will read it before the amsterdam summit. mr president, i should like to express our opinion on a number of points. firstly, let me thank the rapporteur for including the key demand of the committee on budgets: that expenditure in this area should be non-compulsory. the current difficulty in getting this point across at the intergovernmental conference demonstrates how far-sighted we were when we drafted our opinion in january. i very much hope that an agreement is reached - and one to which the council representatives are also party - so that we do not experience a backlash which would be detrimental to this democratic institution. secondly, through the committee on budgetary control, i requested an opinion from the court of auditors on the functioning of the foreign and security policy to date. that opinion is now available. it is probably too late for this to be included in the preparatory discussions for the intergovernmental conference, and it contains a great many technical comments. however, i would ask for us to cooperate with the committee on foreign affairs in considering this opinion and looking at how the council, the commission and parliament can improve their performance in relation to joint actions in the future, for example in terms of rapidity, transparency and administrative obstacles. finally, i wish to issue a warning to the council. i believe that any temptation to misuse joint actions must be firmly resisted. an example of such misuse occurred when the committee on budgets received notice of a transfer of appropriations of ecu 5.5 million for participation in election preparations in bosnia-herzegovina. we had literally no time to consider whether parliament wished to lend its support or not. this was a decision of the council, a joint action at intergovernmental level. the member states dispatched their staff, then found that they could no longer manage to pay for them, so they came to the committee on budgets seeking finance from european coffers through the back door. if that is the way that joint actions are going to work in future in terms of relations between the council and parliament, then i can assure the council that the next time the going gets rough, there will be no more transfers of appropriations from the committee on budgets. mr president, my group supports the baron crespo report, shares his delight that it has finally made it to plenary and i echo all his comments in detail. the truth is that our joint actions are unimpressive. they are too few and where they have been crafted, they do not deal with fundamental issues. i find it literally amazing that the diplomats of our sophisticated, experienced and powerful nations, whose fathers and grandfathers ran the world, seem to have such trouble having any measurable impact on the rest of humanity. we have seen in recent weeks that there is little mutual solidarity amongst the foreign ministers of the european union and almost no principle that cannot be traded for commercial advantage at any particular moment. the problem may lie in the details of decision-making and implementation of joint actions, but i rather doubt that is the complete answer. i fear that the problem is more fundamental and it lies in the self-censoring reluctance to tackle big issues from a european perspective. it is the problem of diplomats who perhaps spend too much time in beautiful chancellories contemplating great national traditions. too much concentration on agincourt and not enough on asia and, if mr baron crespo will forgive me, too much concentration on trafalgar rather than trade. we should listen to the good sense of dr johnson, who said in relation to scotsmen that much could be done if you caught them young. the same applies to diplomats. i believe that until we have a european institute for foreign policy and defence studies modelled on the excellent european institute for public administration in maastricht, we will never have the critical mass of national diplomats trained to take a european as well as a national view. there are european interests in the world but as yet there are few advocates for those interests active in the diplomacy of the council. it seems to me that success in the joint actions of the cfsp, as in the other aspects of the cfsp, depends first and foremost on an extended intellectual effort to understand those 'important interests in common' that are referred to in the treaty. my group will support the baron crespo report. we have no difficulty whatsoever with the recommendations of the report by mr barn crespo. he knows that, because in the many exchanges we have had, either in former days in his capacity as chairman of the committee on foreign affairs, security and defence policy, or on a more individual basis, we have agreed with him and many members of this parliament about the necessity of improving the instruments of our common foreign and security policy. we agree that it is not only a matter of continuing to dwell on substance and on whether policies can be aligned, however important that is, but that if the european union does not provide itself with the necessary procedures and instruments, then the implementation of that policy will fail and we will not stimulate the necessary convergence of policy. it is against this background that the commission, even at this early stage of the intergovernmental conference, has made its contribution to that conference, making points that are very much in line with the recommendations of this report and of other resolutions adopted by the european parliament: the preparation of our common action through this joint planning analysis capacity; the question of the representation of the union in foreign policy by the new model of troika, which is still under discussion; the question of how we can change the decision-making procedures and whether some qualified majority could be introduced into the foreign policies, which is also still under discussion in the igc; the question of the defence component we discussed this morning in relation to the tindemans report on the common security policy; last, but not least, a matter which is attracting some attention today, and rightfully so, the whole question of how we finance of the common foreign and security policy. there again, you will find that the commission supports parliament in defending the thesis that expenses on these kinds of joint actions should be considered as non-obligatory expenditure. having said that - and i think the term 'interinstitutional agreement' came up - we do need something like an interinstitutional agreement. for on the one hand, given its budgetary responsibilities, parliament has certain prerogatives here which should be respected. but on the other hand, the european parliament must respect the fact that foreign policy is something that often requires swift action and cannot await very complex and lengthy procedures to ensure that the financing will be available. perhaps the solution would be to find a kind of interinstitutional agreement that would allow for swift procedures where required. these are my brief remarks today. they certainly will not be the last contribution that we make in the continuing debate about giving more substance to our common foreign and security policy. i would like to conclude by availing myself of this opportunity to express great admiration for the book that mr barn crespo has recently written, entitled 'europe at the dawn of the millennium' , or something similar. i find all that he says in that book about european aspirations, as he sees them, very worthwhile and inspiring. the debate is closed. the vote will be taken tomorrow at noon. common organization of the market in bananas the next item is the debate on the statements by the council and commission on the position of the wto panel concerning the com in bananas. mr president, i should like to make a brief statement on the market in bananas, in the light of recent events. the council has not yet determined its position on this issue, and will first have to hear the views of the commissioners responsible for the common commercial and agricultural policies. as the house will be aware, the wto panel on bananas concluded in its report that the european community's import regulations do not comply with its wto obligations. the panel recommended that the wto body responsible for the settlement of disputes should request the european community to bring its import regulations for bananas into line with its obligations under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, and in particular the agreement on administrative procedures during import and export. as the european parliament can imagine, this report by the panel could have far-reaching political and economic implications for the import regime for bananas, which we are currently examining. it is still too early to say what further action the union will take, since the wto procedure for approving the panel's report is still in progress, and we are not yet in a position to be able to give a formal response. that is my official statement, mr president. mr president, having heard the stance which the council is adopting - and, viewed objectively, it is the only one it could have been expected to take - namely that the first priority in this difficult issue is to examine the wto ruling, i have to say that i believe this ruling comes as a severe disappointment to the majority of members of this house. the panel is calling for the banana regime to be brought into line with obligations under the wto licensing agreement and gatt. to justify this requirement, the panel refers to article 16(4) of the marrakesh agreement under which the wto was set up. we are all quite clear that if the european union and its member states refuse to toe the line, this could constitute a breach of that agreement and possibly call into question important aspects of the wto - an organization which we promoted and helped to create. that is why it is very important for the european union that a solution should be found in the context of the wto. i would urge the commission to consider the possibility of reaching an agreement with the usa - as was done in relation to the helms-burton act - before we find ourselves on the losing side for a second time in a dispute settlement case. the european commission would be ill-advised to make its relationship - and parliament's relationship - with the wto dependent on the success or failure of any particular dispute proceedings: the party with the weaker case must be prepared to be a good loser. but whether our case is the weaker is still an open question. the possibility must also be considered that the wto ruling was one-sided, and legal steps should be taken to examine this. i am afraid, commissioner, that we may soon be discussing another similar ruling in the dispute over hormones in meat. in the present case, the wto panel maintains that regardless of whether they come from eu countries, acp countries, framework agreement countries or other third countries, bananas are products of the same description under gatt and must therefore be treated in the same way. we have to consider whether that view is correct. as regards the preferential tariff for acp bananas, this may well breach the basic principle of most-favoured nation status. however, this breach should be covered by the derogation allowing the eu to grant special treatment to acp countries until the year 2000. this means that the eu is also entitled in principle to grant a preferential tariff for non-traditional acp bananas. there has already been public speculation that the commission is considering seeking an alternative solution. our view is that the eu should not act in breach of the agreement. but we shall support any move that is necessary to establish whether this wto ruling has a clear legal basis, and we hope that it may yet prove possible to resolve these matters in a way that does not undermine all our expectations of the panel. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i have a number of comments concerning the banana panel report which we have been discussing. firstly, the final report of the wto special working group was forwarded to the parties involved on 29 april this year. it was an extremely long report, and we immediately set about analysing it in detail, not only in terms of its impact on the banana regime and the banana trade in the european union, but especially with regard to the various aspects of the report which have implications above and beyond the specific issue of bananas, requiring a study of possible consequences for trade within the european union in general. because this is a very complex subject, you will appreciate that it has not yet been possible to complete this analysis. however, i can tell you now that the panel took exception to a great many aspects of the eu banana regime. secondly, the licensing arrangements in particular - including the allocation of licences to market operators - were deemed incompatible with the provisions of the gatt and wto agreements on non-discrimination and national treatment. certain aspects of the preferential treatment that we accord to acp bananas, and of our framework agreement with four latin american countries, were also deemed to be incompatible with wto rules. thirdly, as i have already indicated, quite apart from its impact on the banana regime, the report has wider implications for the interpretation of a number of important wto provisions. we are now studying those implications carefully, so as to assess the possible effects on other community policies. fourthly, i would remind you that the report is to be forwarded to all the members of the wto in a few weeks' time. then in june, it is likely to be presented for approval to the wto's dispute settlement body. at this stage, the european community will have the opportunity of submitting an appeal to the wto appeals committee. on the basis of our analysis of the panel's arguments and conclusions, and in the light of what i said earlier, there would indeed appear to be good grounds for appealing against the report. the commission is particular concerned to see that the interests of the banana-producing regions of the european union and the acp group continue to be taken into account. mr president, several points come to mind following the commission statement. i know other members of the socialist group will raise aspects concerning production in the caribbean, perhaps my friend mr wynn, and mr medina on production within the community. so i will leave those points to be made better by other people. i will concentrate on what the commissioner said. concerning an appeal, i understand his caution, but he said that we can make an appeal. i would like to make it quite clear that the socialist group would like to insist that an appeal is made if the eventual judgment is adverse. we want to turn 'can make an appeal' into 'insist that an appeal is made' . secondly, we have some disagreement with the line taken by mr kittelmann. i do not think it would be helpful to link the question of concessions on bananas at the wto with other disputes which the european union has with the usa at the wto. we need to de-link issues. it is important that this house supports the principle that each case should be discussed and judged on its merits alone. we do not want to undermine the wto by having out-of-court settlements between the great and the good. it is important that transparent judgments are made which will then be universally applied. thirdly, the whole procedure of taking this case raises very important questions, not least the inability of small producer countries fully to present their case equitably and openly at the wto itself. the socialist group appreciates that eventually the commission will use its good offices to ensure that representatives from the small islands are admitted to that appeals panel. we would like, however, to insist that in future the small islands are allowed as of right to attend those appeals panels, represented by whosoever they wish, as is the norm in all other international arenas. mr president, as this parliament's rapporteur on the reform of the common organization of the market in bananas, i must first express my total dissatisfaction with the way in which the council has presented this serious problem before parliament - simply informing us that the panel does not agree with our common organization of the market and that the terms of the gatt have been violated. to be frank, i was hoping for some kind of explanation, some kind of justification, perhaps even some kind of argument that would help us to find the right way round this impasse. on the other hand, i note with satisfaction the remarks made by commissioner fischler, who has expressed a desire, not to say a commitment, to strive to overcome this obstacle to the advantage of community producers. because, basically, this is where the entire problem lies! i ask this house if we are in favour of the community's safeguarding and protecting those who work in the fields, sometimes on remote islands - i am thinking of guadeloupe, in particular - in pursuit of an activity which is not simply economic, commercial or agricultural but is, first and foremost, a social one: in those remote areas, bananas are often the only crop - the only form of employment to guarantee the survival of these people. bananas are not a source of wealth, not a surplus. i question whether we should still hesitate or blush when we say to any panel that we will defend this situation, this form of economic activity behind which so many other issues are at stake. in point of fact, the battle is always the same: a clash between community production and the big global business organizations. the three american giants that control 75-80 % of the world banana market, and 70 % even in europe, despite community production, are trying to get their hands on the rest. they are trying to deprive community producers of any possibility of staying in the game, least of all on equal terms. we - parliament and the european union - have a duty to say that any commercial argument must take second place to a specific and irrevocable commitment to the producers, especially producers in a minority situation, as i have pointed out. first and foremost, we must stand by the lom treaty, which lays down that no bananaproducing acp country may be put in a less favourable situation than it was before the common organization of the market was created. so we are not asking for anything more, or anything better. we are asking for the maintenance of the status quo - a situation that already existed. so i believe that when we talk about community preference not only have we no reason to blush - more than that, we must demand that the commission, council and parliament speak with a single voice and, especially, adopt common solutions that can be carried forward with conviction. mr president, as has already been said, the wto panel's ruling is still provisional, and my group too feels that the european union would be perfectly entitled to appeal against it. however, we also feel that it is entirely in the union's interests to have a trade system which operates smoothly, and we think that the existence of the panel as such should not be called into question. it was set up specifically to resolve trade problems, and we must give it a chance to do so. as far as we are concerned, the wto's provisional ruling does not say that we cannot meet our obligations under the lom convention, and we can also meet our obligations to banana producers in the european union itself. and that is how things should remain. we must insist on fulfilling our obligations. however, the main problem here is that the acp countries cannot meet their obligation to fulfil the quota and redistribute any surplus. that is where the real problem lies, and i would urge the commission to consider possible ways to get round this in the meantime, since we feel that the current system works to the disadvantage of european importers. my group believes that we need to give serious consideration to 'fair trade' bananas, produced using sustainable methods in countries which respect human rights and so on. and customers must be able to identify which these are. mr president, on a complaint from the united states, acting on behalf of their banana multinationals which dominate the world market, the world trade organization panel has just concluded that the common organization of the banana market does not conform to the rules of international trade. this decision is unacceptable. its application would be a terrible blow to the acp countries and community regions which produce bananas, like the french overseas territories. in addition, it would begin to undermine economic and social plans with serious consequences for member states of the european union. a few days after this conclusion by the panel on bananas there was another decision, equally unfavourable to community interests and the interests of consumers: in a preliminary report the world trade organization condemns the embargo imposed by the fifteen since 1 january 1997 on imports of meat treated with growth hormones from the united states. bananas, meat with hormones, the decisions come one after another and are alike in following the same logic, free trade unfettered by social, cultural, health or environmental considerations. the wto is turning into an instrument in the exclusive service of the united states and the spearhead of multinationals solely concerned with profit. the decisions from the wto are ringing alarm bells and call for a clear and firm response from the european union and the member states faced with this determination to dominate. i have to say i find it hard to understand the hesitation of the council and the commission on a matter with such major consequences. that is why i call on the european union to appeal the decision of the wto panel immediately and confirm the community banana regulation, in order to protect the vital interests of community and acp producers, in accordance with the commitments made under the lom convention. more generally i want to express, on behalf of my group, the absolute need to take social, cultural, health and environmental issues into account in any decision, . mr president, what is involved in this debate, and in the procedures that we are discussing here concerning bananas, is a battle between multinationals for market share. through the organization of the market in bananas, we strengthened the hand of european multinationals against their us counterparts, who then retaliated by resorting to the law. but as we have just heard, it is the acp countries, the small producers and countries, who are being left out of the picture, unable to intervene. as a general rule, where we have an organization of the market that falls within the scope of the wto, they too must be given access to the latter. for the acp countries, this means that the caribbean islands, the windward islands and others must have an opportunity of stating their position. we must support them in this respect. it is our duty under the lom convention to do so, and that is why it is right - as previous speakers have pointed out - that we should reach an agreement which gives these small islands access to appeal. i believe this is essential if we are to complete lom iv and have a post-lom period. we must ensure that social conditions continue to apply, because in many cases people are totally dependent on this crop, and we must also safeguard organic production and ensure that these producers can lodge an appeal. mr president, the wto panel's conclusions on the com for bananas certainly present formidable trading problems for european producers and traditional acp producers. with the banana market already in very serious disequilibrium through the extravagant quota favours granted to the multinationals in the 'dollar' area, the system for marketing the various quotas would be modified to the detriment of those who market barely a quarter of the bananas consumed in europe. this does not seem acceptable to me. but this new episode in an already lengthy trade war also bears witness to the existence of a conflict between two development concepts, one in the wto and one in the european union. there are those who want to protect producers, farmers, those who live by working the land, in the name of a balanced development. then there are those who want to favour international business, trade and speculation, in the name of liberalism and the great integrated world market, the group of the european radical alliance is firmly in the first camp. mr president, this afternoon i think commissioner fischler has caught parliament's frequently expressed spirit in defence of the common organization of the market for bananas. we are talking about reasonable organization, giving imports from the large banana producers a 70 % share of the community market, and keeping a small amount, 30 %, for community producers and traditional acp producers. i think the commissioner is right: the european community must appeal this world trade organization decision and, of course, we hope the council will uphold the guidelines the commission and the majority of the political groups of this parliament are currently establishing. i would like to draw attention to the fact that this banana panel throws doubt on the possibility of maintaining an international economic order because, if this international economic order is going to consist in a whole sector as important as bananas being virtually in the hands of just one multinational - which is what will happen if things go on like this - we will find ourselves unable to control our own consumer market. moreover, account must be taken of the vast damage flagged up both by the small acp countries which have no other means of survival apart from banana production, and by certain community regions where the destruction of this common organization of the market will have a massive impact. what we are trying to create, after all, mr commissioner and mr president of the council, is an international economic order, not an international economic disorder. if social clauses in trade agreements are ignored and everything is left to the free market - with its exclusive principles of profit, of economic benefit, of gain - we will end up with very serious problems, both within the community and in the world economic order. so i hope this debate in parliament will strengthen the commissioner's hand. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, from time to time european countries and regions as well as banana-producing acp countries experience particular difficulties in marketing this farm product as a result of interference from third countries defending interests differing from the european union's. despite the fact that the european community's court of justice recognized, recently even, the legal validity of the community banana scheme, the arbitration committee of the world trade organisation, taking an extremely discretionary and, in our view, intolerable position declared, at the end of april, that this regime was contrary to the rules of international trade. given that we are fighting and investing so that economic and social cohesion in the european union can be fully applied, this declaration by the world trade organisation - if it is maintained - could easily destroy once and for all the main farming production in economic terms of certain european union regions, in particular its islands and ultra-peripheral regions, which are already highly penalized by their very status. nor can we forget that the aims of the lom convention, in particular an explicit undertaking in protocol 5, on bananas, aimed to guarantee acp producers access to the european market and improve both the production and marketing conditions of bananas in acp countries. the community banana import regime defined by regulation 404/93 stipulates that the european union must respect its undertakings to banana-producing acp states. the recent decisions taken by the wto panel are unacceptable since they concentrate exclusively on free trade rules and ignore or dismiss the vital considerations of social, cultural, health and environmental orders. therefore, not only should we consider but in our opinion we absolutely must, commissioner, ensure that the commission appeals against these unfair conclusions of the arbitration committee of the world trade organisation. we fail to understand the position of certain member states which apparently have already declared their opposition to such an attitude by the commission which would fundamentally try to restore justice and keep alive the due solidarity between the european member states and various regions of those states. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, the banana market was in deep crisis even before the panel decision. over-supply of the community banana market from the dollar area has caused the price to collapse and acp bananas are bearing the brunt, under pressure from two main factors: higher production costs and weaker marketing. need i recall the many occasions we have spoken out in this hemicycle to express our disagreement with the commission on a number of points which we considered contrary to european interests and those of our allies? i myself pointed out to the commission that figures since the second half of 1995 showed that the proposed increase in volume reserved for third countries was unrelated to the consumption needs of the european union and therefore we were being asked to ratify the marketing of some 265, 000 tons of bananas surplus to the european union's capacity to absorb them. we also expressed concern about the new distribution of licences proposed to us a little while ago by the commission, because in our view, if it were to be applied, it would contribute to an imbalance in trade in bananas, leading to massive unemployment, a fall in export receipts and the collapse of certain economies with unprecedented social and political consequences in european regions and acp banana producing countries. some european union bodies have been nurturing this ambiguity in analysis and action for too long, determined to impose controversial attitudes which do not respect two fundamental principles, community preference and preferential access for our historical allies. this, with the blatant division established within the european union by favouring commercial interests outside the union to the detriment of our moral duty of solidarity, has contributed to helping our competitors and detractors profit from our weaknesses to attack us m ore effectively. ladies and gentlemen, our words on this dossier should be precise, and our speeches should express the ambition we set ourselves in constructing european union and also its political weight internationally. as we say in my country, there are not thirty-six truths, there is only one truth: the panel decision undermines a fundamental principle, the principle of european sovereignty. that is unacceptable, both in form and in content. the banana affair has overflowed its economic context and become a political issue, and the european authorities must now demonstrate their capacity to trade with the rest of the world while protecting their own interests and refusing to be dictated to about their relations with allies, relations prompted by a rich common history which cannot be denied. mr president, the situation created by the wto's ruling against the community banana regime must be appealed, as commissioner fischler has recognized. and the three community institutions must all be singing from the same hymn sheet. there are plenty of reasons for this: the first is the commission's duty to defend the principle of community preference and, as a corollary, all the standards that guarantee it; the second is the obligation to ensure fair market conditions for community producers with high production and transport costs, and for whom the loss of the european market would mean serious economic damage; the third is the duty to uphold the agreements with the acp countries. but also, and especially, there is the proof that the world trade organization is using an instrument to regulate markets for the benefit of the united states, as shown by the fact that its final decisions are entirely in harmony with the powerful interests of the agrifood industry of that country, not only in the report of the banana panel, but also in the other panel report which obliges the european union to accept hormone-treated meat. these two questions cannot be dissociated, and i share the view of the member who made that statement. finally, i want to point out that competition policy is not an end in itself, nor can it be seen only in commercial terms. considerations of a social and economic order also need to be taken into account, and above all health and environmental considerations. mr president, the green group in the european parliament has never regarded the organization of the market in bananas as an ideal solution, but it did at least provide an opportunity for supporting a type of agriculture based on small holdings. in the acp countries and the eu, bananas are cultivated mainly by small and medium-sized growers, not on vast plantations like those in honduras and guatemala. unfortunately, the organization of the market in bananas was used to trigger cut-throat competition between major fruit importers and corporate interests in europe and elsewhere. the quota system led to a situation in which quotas were being artificially inflated before deadlines and a flourishing trade in licences had sprung up. the government of ecuador was quite justified in complaining that the system of issuing licences cost banana growers in ecuador millions of dollars, because entitlements to import licences were being transferred to privileged multinational corporations. licences should not be issued to importers, but should go instead to the producer countries. we have often argued in favour of a 'fair-trade' quota for bananas. as part of the european community's organization of the market in bananas, a specific quota should be reserved for fruit that is grown under specific social and environmental conditions. in its resolution of november 1996 on trade and the environment, parliament took up this demand. now the wto has rejected the community regime. this verdict from the panel is only the first in a series of wto rulings that threaten environmental and consumer protection in the eu. in its next ruling, published at the end of last week, the wto rejected the import ban on hormone-treated meat from the usa. in that case, the usa was the main plaintiff - as with the organization of the market in bananas, even though us banana production amounts to no more than 8000 tonnes. the us corporate lobby drafted the complaint to the wto in detail and followed its progress through the panel negotiations in geneva. the wto must amend its rules so as to give a hearing to weaker parties, developing countries and the environmental lobby. i have almost finished, mr president. if it fails to do so, it will become - as sir leon brittan clearly admitted at yesterday's meeting of the committee on external economic relations - nothing more than a tool of the usa and the economically powerful countries against the rest of the world. and in fact, that is how it looks today. mr president, the result of the world trade organization's panel on bananas is unacceptable and, quite frankly, of dubious impartiality. not only did the panel fail to take into account the interests of the european union but more particularly - and much more importantly - it completely failed to listen to the producers, especially the small producers, representing the acp states. well, it really would be a serious matter if the world trade organization, in this matter and in other matters, too, were to continue to work and act not in the interests of a more balanced and freer world market, as laid down in the marrakesh agreements, but exclusively for the benefit of certain powerful interests, whether those interests be national or representative of multinational enterprises. the common organization of the market in bananas was difficult to achieve but, overall, the result was a balanced one, including the banana protocol to the lom convention, a fundamental contractual agreement which is, moreover, recognized by the marrakesh agreements and covering eleven traditional banana-supplying states which, if this decision were to be confirmed - would either be further impoverished or forced to abandon an opportunity for trade in favour of further forms of assistance. there was a slogan a few years ago, ' trade not aid' , but here we have a case where trade is being denied to those outside the sphere of the big multinationals. that is why the commission must use every possible means of recourse and appeal to the world trade organization in order to gain a just settlement. frankly, we are somewhat surprised, and saddened, by the terms in which the council has expressed itself in this chamber. in fact, the two great questions that arise today are these: whether the agricultural and commercial policies of the european union can have a future within the new world organization; and whether the actions of the european union in dealings with its partners in the developing countries can bring a new structure and a new framework to the machinery of international regulation, rather than being swept aside by the interests of a few big international undertakings. mr president, after so much bad news for community and acp banana producers, there is a ray of hope with the initiative from the european council and commission that has given rise to this debate and the resolution we will probably vote on tomorrow. as somebody said, the statement from the council representative was rather perplexing, but hearing the position of the commissioner, mr fischler, i am satisfied that he seems to have recognized the magnitude of the problem. the common organization of the banana market has not had a moment's peace in its short life: it has been subject to all kinds of attacks, both in the legal arena and in the battle for public opinion. no productive sector can thrive in such a climate. i do wonder what powerful enemies european banana producers have, that can mobilize and pressurize so persistently. regulation 404/93 has been an effective instrument for organizing the european banana market up to now. european producers have been satisfied, supplies to the markets have been guaranteed, prices have been maintained within the logical contingencies of the market and the european consumer has not suffered in any way since the regulation came into force. certainly latin american producers have not been negatively affected, as has already been said. in view of all this, why do we have to succumb to the interests of one of the powerful banana multinationals? the banana multinationals have a dark history of interference in latin american politics. can they have such a decisive influence on europe too? what will the commission do to maintain the standard of living in certain european producing regions for which the banana is the principal and sometimes the only source of wealth? if it were to agree to change the current system and make community production non-viable, i would not be able to explain that to the inhabitants of the island where i was born, which has survived on bananas alone for two centuries. mr president, commissioner, strange though it may seem - and knowing my mythology - i never thought that, in the european parliament, the apple of discord would be replaced by a banana of discord. in fact, this is an historic replacement and it will go down in the annals of the european parliament, especially now that the trade leviathan which exists worldwide succeeds in overcoming treaties, abolishing conventions, fighting against people unable to produce cheap bananas. why? because they earn more, because they have a better standard of living, because they have come closer to the standards of living of europe. but the leviathan does not want that to come about. it wants to monopolise all banana trade at european and world levels. we no longer have the excuse that, when the soviet union existed, it brought down colonel arbentz in guatemala, when he was a nuisance for united fruit. we no longer have that excuse! the only excuse we have now is that 'pax americana' wants to fight the whole world and conquer it. without referring to that almost archaeological entity which used to be known as 'community preference' , i should like to draw the commissioner's attention to the membership of the wto panel. who are they? the commission tell me that there are three people on that committee. one representative from hong kong, one representative from switzerland and one representative from australia. i do not want to judge them unfairly, but i have to say that these are three countries which do not exactly have very pro-european feelings, and they certainly would not be accepted without discussion by any court. i do not contest the existence of courts but i should at least like to see impartial judges sitting on them. mr president, i wish to begin by saying that the statement by commissioner fischler is indeed to be welcomed - with the rider given by mr hindley. i suggest that the message relayed by the commissioner be sent forthwith to the traditional producers, simply to give them some encouragement and hope for the future. during our visit to the windward islands last week, mrs kinnock, mr thomas and myself felt the enormous responsibility that the people of these islands were placing upon us. they are desperate for help to combat the wto ruling, an action that had the full might of the american government behind it. the gatt round was not concluded until the banana regime was in place - for those who can remember, a lot of hard work and delicate negotiations went into securing that agreement - and now we see it blown apart by the usa, a country that does not export bananas and suffers no job losses because of it. if the allegations in the american press are to be believed, then one multimillionaire can call in the chips to get the clinton administration to put the boot into small countries in the name of free trade. in our discussions last week, everyone from farmers to prime ministers gave us the same clear message: if the ruling from the wto prevailed, good governance and democracy in those countries would be at risk; economic disaster would prevail, followed by social unrest; and, of course, tourism flourish only in countries that stay out of the news headlines. bananas are the only crop that guarantee a regular weekly income. take that away and poverty would follow. but, above all, they said: we look to the european union to confront the usa on third world issues. an appeal is essential, but this can only be a first step. the countries of the eastern caribbean accept globalization and liberalization of trade, they are modernizing and diversifying, but they need help and they need time! the wto ruling gives neither, and that is why we have to confront it, and we definitely have to appeal. mr president, of course what we recognize in this debate is that the long-running banana drama actually crystalizes the elements of the debates in europe about the whole issue of preferential access. the special trade allowances which we give, as wealthy countries, to poorer countries as a ladder out of poverty are now being challenged by those who prescribe blanket liberalization as the only option. and as others have said, in the european union we have our very special and unique relationship with the acp countries. that relationship is based upon an understanding that trade is the engine of growth for developing countries. of course the very word banana produces an easy snigger and a laugh and the fashionable euro-sceptic banter we hear often relates to bananas. but as terry wynn said, when we were in the windward islands last week, we actually faced the stark realities that people in those islands are facing themselves, as they try to meet the challenge from dollar bananas. they are now depending upon the european union to buy them time. these people are not holding out a begging bowl - they are only asking for recognition that they have small landowning democracies in countries which have human rights and which protect workers' rights. these standards of course are not to be found in the feudal conditions which exist in latin american plantations. it is not as if these countries have a big share of the market. two-thirds of the bananas that we import are now from latin america. as terry wynn said, we have to ask why america lodged this complaint. was it because carl linden who heads chiquita brands began channelling $500 000 into the democratic campaign during the presidential elections? linden took coffee with president clinton and actually slept in lincoln's bedroom. the payoff for those favours, it seems, was a wto ruling which effectively threatens the entire social fabric of a region. finally, in his speech last friday in barbados, the president of st lucia said: ' bananas are to the caribbean what cars are to detroit' . i hope the european union will help bill clinton to understand that fact. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the findings of the preliminary report of the banana panel of the world trade organisation are contrary to the interests of the european community and in particular to those of portugal and the autonomous region of madeira, which is a part of my country, and even more to the traditional banana exporters of the acp countries. we all know what the findings of the wto banana panel report are but they coincide with positions taken by the united states and certainly seem to defend the interests of the chiquita multinational which markets latinamerican bananas throughout the world. the community has the right and obligation to defend community banana producers according to the principle of community preference and ensure that agreements which we have signed with acp countries in the framework of the lom convention are respected. mr president, commissioner, if the european union is forced to accept the findings of the wto banana panel report, that would call into question the defence of the principle of community preference and this would mean speeding up liberalization of the banana com, calling into question also the already precarious economic and social stability of banana-producing countries, as well as the ecological and environmental balance as a consequence of abandonment of these crops. commissioner, i should like here and now to remind you of the final part of your letter, in reply to mine, dated 20 may 1997, which said that you were aware of the importance of banana growing on the island of madeira from an economic, social and ecological point of view. that being so, i call on you and the commission to present a clear strategy on the banana market, bearing in mind the legitimate interests of community and acp banana country producers. mr president, as president-in-office of the council i have listened very carefully to what the honourable members have said. they have made clear their concern about the possible implications of the ruling, and they have spoken of their great concern for banana producers in the european union and also in particular for producers in the acp countries. we share their concern. we shall take account of the interests of these producers in our search for a solution, and we shall have to examine in detail how best we can protect them in the short and longer term. i would just add one point of a general political nature which has not yet been made in the debate. this trade dispute is taking place within the world trade organization's legal system, and i use that term advisedly. the european union and its member states have voluntarily agreed to abide by the wto's rules, and we ourselves were involved in setting up the wto panel procedure. we voted in favour of making the panel's rulings legally binding, and even urged that they should be made so. some honourable members have expressed severe criticism of these rulings, but i do not take this to mean that they feel we should disregard them altogether, since this would be tantamount to rejecting a very carefully constructed system of laws governing international trade. the council feels that this would not be in the interests of either the european union or the producers we are trying to protect. finally, the council will be examining the ruling in greater detail in close consultation with commissioner fischler and his services, and will draw its conclusions once it has considered all the various aspects. mr president, mr president-in-office, ladies and gentlemen, as mr medina ortega said earlier, today's debate has very clearly demonstrated the strength of feeling in the house concerning the banana issue. i should like to thank the many members who have spoken out in favour of lodging an appeal. all i can say at this stage is that the commission will exercise its full responsibility in that respect. however, we must also realize that we shall need to consider in detail and carefully prepare the grounds on which we base an appeal, because as you are well aware, an appeal will throw the case open once again. it would hardly be in your interest, i am sure, if the outcome of the appeal were to be a stiffening of the original ruling. that is why it is vital to prepare an appeal very carefully. another factor also has to be borne in mind: there have as yet been relatively few rulings under the new procedure. the fact is that with the establishment of the wto, the procedure was reorganized, and it could now be said that each case represents a precedent. these first cases will be the basis from which the wto develops its case-law. for that reason too, we must take particularly careful note of all the cases which are currently pending and being decided. therefore, i would also ask that we should keep quite clearly to our agreed procedures, taking one step at a time, and also debating one step at a time. i would almost go so far as to say that it is counterproductive to engage in a debate now on how we should react to one final ruling or another. the very last thing that it would be in our common interest to do would be to seek to influence the wto's final ruling in any way. indeed, this is also a reason why we should refrain from stating our positions in public in the final stage of the proceedings. nonetheless, one thing is clear: banana producers in the european union have the same rights as any other farmers in the european union - they are entitled to look to the objectives set out in article 39 of the treaty with regard to community preference and general solidarity with our agricultural producers. it is equally clear that we have a responsibility towards the acp countries, with whom we naturally also have a contractual agreement. and, as i see it, we can in any event continue to stand by that agreement in the interests of those concerned. bearing all this in mind, the commission will, as i said earlier, set about analysing the wto ruling in detail and then decide on the right way in which to proceed. thank you very much, mr fischler. i have received nine motions for resolutions pursuant to rule 37(2) of the rules of procedure. the debate is closed. the debate will take place on thursday at 12 noon. situation in zaire the next item is the statements by the council and the commission on the situation in zaire. mr president, the council remains extremely concerned at the developments in zaire, both in political and humanitarian terms. despite the recent face-to-face meeting between president mobutu and the adfl leader mr kabila, there are still no real negotiations taking place between the parties to the conflict. the refugees and displaced persons in eastern zaire are in an agonizing situation, and repatriation is still not taking place without difficulties. on 4 may, a meeting organized by the special representative of the united nations and the south african government took place between president mobutu and laurent kabila on board a south african naval vessel which bears a rather difficult name. this meeting - for which there had been pressure from many quarters, including the european union - did not bring the breakthrough which had been hoped for. no cease-fire was agreed between the parties, and nor was there any agreement on the transition process. shortly after this meeting, mr kabila announced that the capital, kinshasa, would be taken by force if president mobutu did not resign within a week. the most recent reports indicate that mr kabila's adfl is closing in on kinshasa. this has also led to an upturn in the fighting in the past few days, and the increased resistance from the zairean army over this period has resulted in a very large number of casualties. if the adfl were to proceed with an attack on the capital, this could lead to further serious bloodshed, with heavy casualties among the civilian population. in the meantime, on 10 may the transitional parliament in kinshasa - which i would point out has not been democratically elected - chose as its president the archbishop of kisangani, monsignor monsengwo. as president of the transitional parliament, mr monsengwo is also a possible successor to president mobutu, in the event of his death or resignation. in fact, both the political opposition led by the former prime minister mr tshisekedi and the adfl have reacted negatively to his appointment. it is also very doubtful whether mr monsengwo will accept the post. the council emphatically supports the recent mediation efforts by the president of south africa, mr mandela, and his vice-president. the report that president mobutu and the adfl leader mr kabila are to meet again today on the south african warship is therefore to be welcomed. the council hopes that these talks will involve genuine negotiations which will prevent further acts of violence and represent a first move towards a peaceful transition process in zaire. the council has already given detailed attention to the situation in zaire on several occasions, and has made its position clear. in february 1996, the council appointed a special representative for the great lakes region, mr aldo ajello, to assist the presidency in its efforts to mediate in the conflicts in the region. the starting-point here has always been that the european union primarily has a supporting role in the process of political dialogue and humanitarian assistance which is taking place under the auspices of the united nations and the organization of african unity. in this context, on 30 april this year, the council once again expressed its concern at the situation in zaire, called on the parties to avoid further bloodshed, and instructed its special envoy to take all possible measures. the council pointed to the need for a peaceful transition process and appealed to the parties to cooperate in free elections, to be held within twelve months. the council is deeply disturbed at the present lamentable situation of the refugees and displaced persons in eastern zaire. access for international humanitarian organizations to the areas captured by the adfl is still very limited. the european union has repeatedly protested at this to mr kabila. until recently, the office of the united nations high commissioner for refugees only had access to part of the area between kisangani and obundu where most of the refugees are hiding out in groups in woodland. this means that the organization is being hampered in carrying out the repatriation of the rwandan refugees to their native country. the loading of refugees onto trains and goods wagons did not take place under the control or protection of the unhcr and, as we know, these transports have had disastrous consequences. recent reports suggest that the unhcr has been able to extend somewhat the area in which it is active, but thousands of refugees are being found in a seriously weakened condition there. from 26 to 29 april, a mission to the region was carried out by the special representative, mr ajello, and a representative of the presidency. during this mission, the adfl leader, mr kabila, was strongly urged to allow unhcr assistance, and he promised to give the unhcr full access to the territory captured by the adfl. the council is urging him - and will continue to do so - to stand by this promise and provide the humanitarian organizations with all the help they need in carrying out their tasks. the council also rejects any time-limit as regards the repatriation of refugees. the council is very concerned at the refusal of mr kabila to allow the united nations commission on human rights to investigate allegations of human rights violations in the territory captured by the adfl. on 12 may, the un mission returned empty-handed from kigali. the council is convinced of the need for a thorough, independent inquiry into the accusations, and calls on the adfl to cooperate fully with the un mission. recent reports on continuing human rights violations in the area controlled by the adfl highlight the need for a rapid on-the-spot investigation. in connection with the recent reports, the presidency issued the following statement this afternoon, and i quote: ' the presidency is continuing to receive reports of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law committed in the area controlled by the alliance of democratic forces for the liberation of congo-zaire, the adfl. it expresses its serious concern, in particular at recent reports of massacres at mandaka and attacks on staff of humanitarian organizations working in the region. the presidency once again urges all the parties, including the adfl, to show respect for human rights, and calls on all those who are in a position to do so to convey this demand to the leadership of the adfl.' to sum up, the process of political transition in zaire has not so far been satisfactory. hitherto, the international efforts have had little success. the parties directly involved in the conflict are primarily to blame in this respect. against this background, the council nevertheless expresses the hope that the transition process in zaire will take place peacefully. it calls on the parties to engage in negotiations as quickly as possible, so as to arrive at a peaceful settlement and avoid further bloodshed. the council therefore continues to support the mediation efforts being made by the international community, in particular by south africa, but also by the united nations, the oau's special envoy mr sahnoun, and the european representative, mr ajello. the european union can only play a supporting role here in the process taking place under the auspices of the un and the oau. to this end, the union has repeatedly expressed its support for the peace plan drawn up by mr sahnoun, which has also been endorsed by the united nations security council. the council remains concerned at the humanitarian situation in eastern zaire - and also that of the refugees and displaced persons elsewhere in the country - and calls on the parties involved to cooperate fully with the unhcr and other humanitarian organizations, without restrictions or conditions being imposed. finally, mr president, i would assure you that the council is continuing to monitor developments very closely, and will do everything in its power to influence the situation positively, however difficult that has appeared so far. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, at the moment the progress of the negotiations and military action which will decide where power lies in zaire in the future is partially obscuring the human drama which continues to be played out virtually all over the country. i am thinking specifically and without exception of all those people in distress, whether displaced persons, or refugees from rwanda or burundi. i deliberately use the term 'partially obscuring' because the scale of the tragedy and the rare but atrociously inhuman pictures will have disturbed even those most preoccupied with the strategic, economic and geopolitical stakes implied by this change of power. it is now clear that zaire is moving towards a new stage in its history. i have no regrets about the stage which is coming to an end, but the power incarnate in this change causes me grave anxiety because up to now it has flouted every international humanitarian convention, as well as many human rights conventions. as regards the humanitarian situation, i have very little news to give you, unfortunately, as we cannot get access to the regions involved. you will have seen the television pictures when the crews accompany the humanitarian workers where they are allowed to go. for security reasons we are making every effort to get there with witnesses, hence also with certain media. but apart from that, i frankly do not have much to tell you about kivu and so on, because we have not been able to get access to that region. we have even been expelled from regions we had received authorization to go to. as you know, for once the entire humanitarian community has spoken with one voice and sent a report to the security council on 6 may 1997, through the united nations department of humanitarian affairs. not only have the united nations agencies, the red cross, the ngos, unanimously produced and published this single report on the situation, they have also made identical recommendations. i also want to comment on some of the background, and remind you that almost half of the 400, 000 rwandan refugees in zaire who did not return to their own country were located and helped a few weeks ago at tingi tingi. it is also important to remember that in december, when the multinational force was disbanded even before it arrived on the premise that all the refugees had returned to rwanda and that there were therefore no more refugees in zaire, few dared claim that about 400, 000 people were missing from the roll call. that was in december and by the end of january some 200, 000 of these 400, 000 refugees had been found in the tingi tingi area. hardly had assistance arrived than a new attack was launched against the camp and all these people were dispersed. 100, 000 of them were recently found in the kisangani and ubundu area. you know what happened in the kisangani region. you are aware of the interminable discussions about how to repatriate the refugees, with the fdl and the hcr at loggerheads. by the time these matters had been resolved 80, 000 to 100, 000 refugees in the camps were again being attacked. the next morning the refugees has disappeared.! finally, thanks to the pressure from mr ajello of the hcr, we were able to reach the area. the reports from the witnesses are pretty clear. what they saw was utterly intolerable. i must stress that although access to the 56th, 82nd and 94th km will probably be granted in the next few hours, so far we have not been able to get to the places we have been authorized to go to. in addition, the humanitarian agencies and the hcr in particular have been accused of inefficiency, indeed worse - we were blamed for the massacres and accused of killing the refugees. mrs ogata has already reacted advisedly to these accusations, but we think there is a strategy to distance the hcr and all the humanitarian organizations from the repatriation operations. this strategy has been tried and will be tried again. kigali - and this is official - has proposed organizing repatriation operations jointly with the fdl, through direct financing by donors, thereby relegating the international community and the hcr to the rank of mere observers. in the last few weeks, as the council has just said, the european union, the united states and the un have been putting on intense pressure through their special envoys to persuade the fdl to put an end to the systematic violations of human rights and allow humanitarian agents and in particular the hcr free access to the refugees. at last that pressure has made it possible to get the repatriation operations going in earnest. so far 22, 000 refugees have been helped. a period of sixty days had been granted to complete the operations, which constitutes a first at the international level. in fact this is the first time that a deadline has been imposed for ensuring the repatriation of the refugees, because if any logistic operation is forbidden after a certain deadline, then everything gets more complicated. two more points. first, through the humanitarian office, without discrimination or partiality, and respecting humanitarian principles, the commission has financed and is financing humanitarian aid to the most vulnerable, whether they are refugees, zairean displaced persons, or persons affected by the pillage and conflict that has been raging in this region for over seven months. it is neither our policy nor our custom to ask everyone for their passports, but it has to be recognized that the humanitarian area is extremely restricted or no longer exists in this zone. we are profoundly convinced that if this humanitarian situation is not dealt with at the highest political level without delay and if the consultations taking place with all the countries intervening either directly or indirectly in the region do not achieve their goal, the humanitarian disaster which is already taking shape could turn into total catastrophe. there is an immediate need for two measures to be adopted and implemented without delay. the military extremists apparently engaged in hunting the refugees should be replaced by a disciplined army which cooperates with the humanitarian agencies, and an unconditional agreement must be obtained for the un human rights committee to investigate the matter, as was originally planned. ladies and gentlemen, mr president, i myself have already been criticized in the context of this crisis for - i quote - taking a heterodox position, for mobutophilia, and lately, for being a psychopath. i am not going to waste my time responding to such accusations - it seems to me they fit the people who make them more than me, and damage their credibility. with the commission, i certainly intended to continue protesting and shouting if necessary, first because i am fulfilling the mandate that was entrusted to me, and secondly because i believe in it. i am convinced that no compromise is possible on matters of principle and violations of international law, and the international community has the right and duty to ensure that its members, and above all those who aspire to become members of it must respect those laws if they want to be credible. otherwise it will soon be back to the law of the jungle for everyone. but as this human tragedy draws to a close, we must acknowledge that the entire international community missed an opportunity to prevent butchery at the time of the aborted deployment of the multinational force. i cannot help noting, with bitterness, that more western soldiers are deployed in brazzaville today evacuating their compatriots from zaire than were to make up the multinational force it was envisaged sending in november, alongside the african forces. (applause) i also note that several member states have now rushed twice as many soldiers to the congo, ready to intervene, as they have nationals to be protected in kinshasa. i never want to hear it said in our capitals again that the lives of african refugees have the same value as the lives of our own citizens. i no longer believe it. and equally bitter considerations relate to europe's role in that decisive phase. despite the very laudable efforts of our special envoy mr ajello, it was quite clear that none of the main protagonists in the process, which was as lacking in transparency at the negotiating level as at the military level, wanted the european union fully involved. you know what this makes me think about the effectiveness of the cfsp, but still it is worth remembering that when it comes to rebuilding the country and paying for its reconstruction, mineral rights contracts will probably have been concluded in the wings of this transition without europe. i think that there is a lesson to be drawn. we were not able to prevent a human tragedy. and right at the end, how many lives are we trying to save? 20, 000, 30, 000? i hope we will not forget that however many lives we manage to save at the end of the day, it will be negligible by comparison with the 400, 000 lives already lost. (applause) mr president, i should first like to express my deepest and most sincere admiration for commissioner bonino. not only do i admire the way in which she, personally, is coming to grips with this tragedy, as she has with other tragedies that have left their mark on our world, but i would also thank her for an approach to this situation which is unorthodox - a term which others may well have levelled at her as an accusation but which i regard as more of a compliment in connection with the role of the international community and of the union in the events in zaire. as has already been said, the situation has probably reached a critical turning point, now that kabila's troops are preparing to enter kinshasa. there is no doubt that at this stage in the evolving situation - when we must continue to deploy all our negotiating powers to the very last moment in order to try to ensure that the political situation in zaire develops as peacefully, politically and diplomatically as possible - we cannot refrain from stressing the great bitterness and sorrow that exist for the serious errors and oversights of the past. perhaps, too, before long, someone will be able to add to those errors the crimes that have been committed, or at least tolerated - both old and historical crimes and more recent ones. in our motion for a resolution we have emphasized three key requirements. first, that the dictator mobutu should leave the stage; secondly, that an interim government should be set up which is broadly accepted and which will accept international mediation to set the country on the road to democracy and free elections; and, thirdly, that kabila and the faction he leads should immediately allow refugees and displaced persons free access to every region of the country. mr president, this is another situation in which we have not seen the european union playing a positive, highprofile political part, and we can only hope that things will improve in the future. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, everything has really been said, now that we have heard the council and the courageous speech by mrs bonino. however, i believe that we must continue to protest at what is intolerable, in order to preserve the honour of parliament in this immense tragedy. we are in fact approaching the end of a particularly troubled and dramatic period in zaire. nevertheless, we are still hearing fresh reports of massacres in zaire every day, as indeed we have just now. but this house has no reason to reproach itself. we spoke out clearly in favour of finding solutions to explosive problems such as that of the refugees. we were in favour of removing all military forces from eastern zaire, of maintaining the territorial integrity of the countries involved, of deploying a multinational intervention force, of holding an international conference of the countries around the great lakes, of defending human rights, of preparing for serious elections in zaire as a first practical move towards democratization, and of humanitarian aid. none of this has happened, apart from the humanitarian aid. and however extensive it may be, we know that humanitarian aid does not bring political solutions to conflicts. we are now witnessing the implosion of the zairean state. we are once again seeing how weapons talk, or as mao put it: power comes from the barrel of a gun. what system will now take the place of the disappearing regime in zaire? once again, the political groups in parliament have put their opinions into words. it is a good text. but it is hard to find words to protest at what we find so very sad, to give expression to our sense of bitterness. firstly, there is the capitulation of the international community, which has done nothing to prevent a murderous disgrace. through murders, the fait accompli in international politics, the principle that might is right, is once more being asserted. however, our protest is also directed - and it pains me to have to say this - at the passivity of the european union. we deplore the internal wrangling, the disagreements between member states, the indecision of the union. so far, it has all just been words and communiqus. europe has been unable to find a practical solution and to put an end to this conflict. a historian from zaire said three days ago on belgian television - and i thought of this automatically when i heard mrs bonino - that the life of a black african is now clearly worth much less than the life of a european from the former yugoslavia. anyone who was listening to him knew what he meant. perhaps you have forgotten, ladies and gentlemen, but we declared that 1997 was to be the year of combating racism. and what are we seeing now? during this year of combating racism, europe is standing by while in zaire, a kind of ethnic cleansing is being carried out on a massive scale. it is not the first time, unfortunately, that we have seen this kind of ethnic cleansing taking place in africa. but we thought that europe's sense of responsibility had since developed in such a way that it would never tolerate such a thing again. it is therefore more than hypocritical that in 1997 of all years, the year of combating racism, nothing is being done to prevent or put an end to such massacres, a word which was also used by mrs bonino. as you know, the expression 'having dirty hands' is often used in politics. i shall make no comment on that. but i would end by saying that you can also have dirty hands by doing nothing at critical moments. while we are talking here, tens or possibly hundreds of people are being murdered, and we are drawing up communiqus. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, today, even as we hold this debate, another meeting is taking place in the congolese port of point noir between president mobutu and laurent kabila, the leader of the rebels of the alliance of democratic forces for the liberation of congo-zaire, under the aegis of south africa, to try to reach a peaceful settlement. it would have been helpful if parliament and the union could have agreed a position in time to redouble their efforts to achieve a lasting solution to the conflict - a very difficult matter - to be based on a peace process geared to preparing for free and democratic elections for the zairean people. kinshasa is now a city under siege: the shops are closed, the streets are deserted, and, following yesterday evening's curfew imposed as a result of the arrival of kabila's rebels at the gates of the city, the population is living in fear of a blood bath. despite the calls for calm, the tension is mounting, partly as a result of the contradictory messages people are receiving, some asking them to stay indoors to avoid the worst and others calling upon them to resist by force of arms, while others again are accusing foreigners of planning to massacre the african population. the slaughter of refugees and displaced persons is continuing in zaire; the rebel forces are obstructing the distribution of aid and, despite the statements made for the benefit of the international community regarding a cessation of hostilities, the head of the rebel forces is still favouring the military opposition in the country. the united nations security council needs to adopt swift and energetic measures to put an end to these massacres and appalling violations of human rights, and especially to the inhuman treatment being meted out to the refugees from rwanda and burundi and people displaced from other areas. it is important that the union should agree upon a plan of action to help in the search for global political solutions in the great lakes region, combining with the un and the oau to organize a regional conference, something for which i have called in this house on several occasions. and, as we have said more than once, there is also a need for a commission of inquiry to be set up to shed light on the appalling abuses perpetrated by the rebels; and, finally, as a matter of urgency, the humanitarian aid really must reach those who need it, to try to put an end to a tragedy that is truly unworthy of humanity. mr president, i hope i will have enough time to express my group's solidarity with mrs bonino against the attacks that have been made on her and to congratulate her on her courage and the sharpness of her analysis. i also want to express regret that the council perhaps dealt rather rapidly with the conclusions of the agreement between the african heads of state and the declaration of libreville, which lays the foundations for a possible transition towards democracy, especially at a time when some of the forces are still operational and there could still be battles between the president of the congo's praetorian guard and kabila's troops. finally, i wonder if we can expect anything good from kabila, and i am afraid we may be facing a situation comparable to that of iran. twenty years ago, mr president, no-one supported the shah any more but khomeini has sometimes made us miss the previous regime. mr president, let us hope we do not find kabila makes us miss mobutu. mr president, i believe that, quite apart from the meetings now taking place, it can be assumed that kinshasa will fall to kabila's forces in the next few days. this is one of the most important political events that have happened in africa during the last twenty years, because it is destined to change the geopolitical balance of the entire african continent. what is happening in that region, i believe, is a kind of americanization of africa - i believe we are seeing the disappearance of any european policy towards that continent. politically, the council has been totally inert in the great lakes region, imprisoned by an ancient nation-state logic whose only result has been to deliver up large areas of africa into the hands of the americans - from southern africa to the great lakes region and from the horn of africa to the sudan and the whole of muslim north africa. this, as i see it, is the result of a senseless policy pursued by the council and by the member states themselves, which have supported dictatorial and tyrannical regimes to the bitter end. the zairean saga of recent weeks and the end of mobutu's regime are an object lesson in what not to do in terms of a european foreign policy. or, more accurately, it is another demonstration of the absence of any european foreign policy, and i hope that the council will finally take advantage of the opportunity provided by the revision of the treaty to arm itself with a common foreign and security policy which will avoid any future repetition of europe's recent humiliation in the great lakes region of africa. europe has been totally absent from the political scene, and, although i customarily tend to be rather hard on the commission, i must give it credit for having tried to play a positive role in this matter. that, however, was not a matter for the commission alone, and so the results have not been totally favourable. in conclusion, i have one final request, because i believe that we must now ask kabila, as the military victor, to take specific action in the field of human rights and the rule of law, and to organize a regional peace conference and free elections; i ask that the council and the commission should give a clear response and not hide behind the latest strong man, who on this occasion is no longer mobutu but kabila. mr president, not one organized body of the so-called international community has responded adequately to the crisis in the great lakes region. the facts of recent months show that the standing-down of the un intervention force has resulted in a humanitarian and political disaster. and in that context, the responsibility of the united states is overwhelming. i therefore found it simply disgraceful a few weeks ago to see the us envoy mr richardson stroking the head of a dying refugee child whose existence he had denied some months before. this kind of moral and political hypocrisy will destroy the international community. ultimately, however, the union and its member states have also limited themselves to what the president-in-office described in such fine words: giving attention, writing communiqus, sending whole teams of ordinary and special representatives - but where has been the coherent action? to my mind, the only person who has taken the lead with a view to implementing a european policy is mrs bonino. she has said throughout the world what europe should have done, but she did not have the means to do it. and the result is that we have once again had to restrict ourselves to humanitarian aid, which in this case has not even reached the people because of the many obstacles we have experienced on the ground. but what we are seeing in the meantime is that firms from those countries which made the un intervention force impossible - and i repeat: the united states and canada - are now reaping the fruits and picking up mining concessions at ridiculously low prices, which once again will do nothing for the zairean population. today, therefore, the second round of negotiations between mobutu and kabila is taking place. i hope that these will produce an agreement so as to avoid any bloodshed in kinshasa, because with the 50 000 soldiers of the zairean army from various factions, there really could be more casualties there than anywhere else. however, the fundamental long-term question still remains: what happens afterwards as regards the distribution of power? when i read in the newspaper today that mr kabila is saying that the dictator mobutu has to go, i say 'excellent' , but when he then adds that all the power is now going to the people from the alliance, my heart sinks when i see what this alliance has already allowed to happen in areas where it has assumed power. that is why i would appeal strongly to both the union and the member states that no outside power should say who is to be given power in zaire; it is the zairean people who should have the chance to say who is to be given power and how that power should be distributed. so no african power and no western one either, and i also hope that we shall apply strict conditionality with regard to aid for and recognition of the new regime, and make them dependent on whether the zairean people has a real say, yes or no. that must be the decisive factor. madam commissioner, we may have lost everything else, but you have possibly saved our honour, and for that you deserve our thanks. and you are right, the situation in zaire certainly warrants our interest. laurent-dsir kabila's troops have the capital within their grasp, and he is making demands in line with his military achievements; the major united nations agencies are denied access to a vast territory because of massacres of civilians; a corrupt dictator was set up and supported by successive governments of union states, bringing discredit on our whole union and its action; the united states has built up influence in the region, the political situation on the ground is extremely complex, power is effectively in the hands of a warlord not particularly inclined to make concessions. surely all this very much limits our opportunities for action on the ground? what can we demand? nothing, of course. what can we hope for? that the massacres will stop, the weapons will be laid down, free elections will reflect the popular will, and the union will regain its lost prestige, at least in part. if i may say so, mr president, we have our work cut out. mr president, as commissioner bonino has said, the situation is still deteriorating rapidly, and what concerns us most is that europe, after so much talk and so many debates, has proved incapable - as the commissioner has said - of even beginning to solve the problem. true, we have read with interest, and indeed enthusiasm, the statements made by super-commissioner bonino. true, we must give her credit for her commitment, which has been unfailing if sometimes exasperated. but the basic problem is that we are wondering what this europe, with a free hand, thinks it is doing in being absent from the scene at such an important time, when human beings - women and children - are being slaughtered and murdered, and yet we are trying to unload the responsibility onto other people. at all events, we cannot find the key to the problem and, in the absence of a common foreign policy, we cannot find any way of intervening or even generating those synergistic effects with other international forces that would allow effective intervention. this really is one of the reasons for discouragement, a reason which both leaves us perplexed and urges us to accept greater responsibility with a view to trying to find solutions for the future. the issue is a humanitarian one, but not only humanitarian: it is also about the acceptance of responsibility, because if we have had four or five or six or even seven debates on zaire, and on other situations too, in the last two or three or four months, and we read the denunciations printed in all the national and international newspapers, and yet we cannot find a solution, it is clear that something is going wrong. so we now call upon the intergovernmental conference to do something - and this call should be a loud and clear one from all the political groups. that is the message we want to give to the commissioner: that she is doing her duty, but that we would like her to do even more. i have received six motions for resolutions pursuant to rule 37(2) of the rules of procedure. mr president, much as we regret that it has come about through force of arms, we welcome the ending of the dictatorship in zaire. it was a dictatorship lasting over 30 years and it will remain an example of how terror can ruin an immensely rich country, subject its population to misery, encourage the brain drain, create a corrupt political class and destroy a society. looking to a democratic future, i think it is essential for mobutu, the chief representative of that dictatorship, to abandon power, and do so as soon as possible to avoid further fighting. and looking to a peaceful future, the new system needs to be capable of cementing the democratic forces around a consensus about the terms and timetable of transition until free elections can be held with their transparency guaranteed by the international community. and here i believe the united nations and above all the european union need to play a fundamental role, taking responsibility for the political and social reconstruction of zaire. all too frequently our european parliament regards its function of democratic control of the european union's relations as fulfilled with the despatch of observers to some initial legislative elections. i think the powers article 218 of the treaty confers on the european parliament, as well as the provisions of legal instruments where we have control over application - i am thinking, madam commissioner, of article 5 of the lom convention - should be used to their full extent. i therefore propose the creation in this parliament of a permanent service to monitor political conditions in states with which the eu intends to sign treaties requiring the consent of parliament. reconstructing zaire and bringing peace to the whole region also requires the solution of the problem of the refugees and displaced persons whom we cannot forget, as the commissioner has quite rightly said. i want to tell her that her action has been correct, although it has not been followed up as it should have been by the whole international community. the new government must guarantee humanitarian organizations free access to the victims of the conflict and, in turn, the european union must grant aid through echo - and we hope this will be the last time, but it is needed now if this population is to be helped. that will enable us, if not to undo the mistakes of the past, at least to contribute to shaping the peaceful and democratic future a country as rich as zaire should have. mr president, there is ultimately no point in us discussing zaire here today unless the european union can finally bring itself to do what a number of speakers have called for and adopt a clear position on the subject. simply exchanging one head of state for another will do nothing to improve the situation, either in zaire or in the neighbouring countries. as other speakers have said, the only way forward is a complete espousal of democracy. without a fundamental change, there is a danger that the third largest country in africa will fragment. the fact is that present-day zaire is an artificial creation of the nineteenth century, and the african countries - underrating in some respects their own history and culture - have agreed in the oau charter to respect the borders that were drawn by the colonial powers in the previous century. broadly speaking, that agreement has worked and succeeded in preventing wars between nations, despite numerous domestic conflicts. however, looking at zaire today, we have to say that it is one of those countries consisting of a number of ethnic groups where the only way to secure the future and prevent disintegration would seem to be through the adoption of a federal structure. with such a structure, individual ethnic groups can enjoy a certain measure of independence and, in my view, this is a country which can only be governed securely as a federation. at the moment, we cannot say whether kabila will prove to be another dictator or a statesman. he has not spelled out how, as the leader of an alliance of democratic forces, he envisages the transition to democracy, nor how he intends to set about holding the first democratic elections in a country beset by geographical and ethnic problems on such a scale. mr president, so the last-chance summit is being held today. no-one believes in it any more. it is a last lap leading zaire ineluctably towards a tragic destiny. there is open conflict. the alliance forces are advancing and it seems nothing can now prevent mr kabila entering kinshasa in triumph. mr kabila has the upper hand and will be the leader of tomorrow, for better or worse. what does he care about being the target for criticisms, condemnations and pressures from europe? france, belgium, and dare we say it, europe, not to mention the international community, have for too long abandoned that country to its sad fate. in this general chaos is it still possible to play any role other than that of humanitarian donor? i seriously wonder. the united states, with south africa, may succeed in organizing negotiations covering the transition period and the situation after mobutu. europe must support the talks with south african mediation and set everything in motion so that this zairean crisis ends with free elections being held. no doubt that will also be the last chance for us to be credible in the eyes of the african people and in the eyes of the world. mr president, the departure of mobutu, much as it was hoped for, is no cause for rejoicing. on the contrary, we should cry shame on laurent-dsir kabila, because alongside the 'liberation of the zairean people' he organized genocide against completely innocent women and children. i join my colleagues in recognizing mrs bonino's courage in denouncing that fact. what is going to happen now? the ball is also in the court of the european union and its governments. how are they going to recognize the kabila regime? what conditions are they going to put on? will they dare to tell him all the rwandan soldiers who committed massacres must leave zaire and cannot claim the title of members of the army of a country worthy of the name? are they going to demand the effective organization of a transitional government and the preparation of a more democratic order? are they going to dare to demand respect for human rights in zaire? i do not know, but we ask these questions, because perhaps this will be the role of the european union. perhaps at last the union will have a coherent policy towards zaire and its people. because it is the zairean people who matter here, those women, those children, those zairean men who have suffered under an iniquitous and predatory regime, and who may have to fear another dictator now. i want to end by saying this: che guevara spent six months in the congo when laurent-dsir kabila first opened a front in 1960. he came away discouraged, discouraged by many things, the complexity of the situation, perhaps also by kabila's attitude at the time, by the fact that rwandan soldiers were already accompanying him in his struggle. what would he say if he were still alive, in the name of the values i know he upheld? he would not be just discouraged, he would be disgusted, like all of us. but we cannot let this disgust remove our sense of responsibility. well done, mrs bonino! and mr patijn, we hope you will be able to shake up the european countries. mr president, i have been listening extremely carefully, not only to the statement by mrs bonino, but also and above all to the honourable members. i was struck by the sense of involvement which they all showed in this terrible political, humanitarian and indeed human tragedy. it brings it home to us that after the settling of what we used to call the great strategic conflicts and the east-west conflict, it is not true that, as the american writer fukayama put it, ' the end of ideology is the end of politics' , because there is still a world in which the member states, the union, the commission and the international organizations have to do everything they possibly can to prevent large groups of people from being deprived of their rights. in this conflict, the main political question has been whether the objective would have been achieved if western countries, the african countries or the international community had intervened militarily. not only the european union, but also the international community as a whole was faced with this question when the tragedy in eastern zaire unfolded, but i would also draw attention to the tragedy which had already taken place two years earlier. the issue was raised at a certain stage, and an international group was set up to organize matters, led by canada, under the auspices of the united nations. however, because of the lead time which this always involves, events on the ground developed in such a way that military intervention in the form envisaged was no longer a real option and would not have helped to solve the problems. i have to say to you that i personally - as a politician, a dutchman and a european - regret that the international community and the european union, at a certain point, were in fact obliged to watch the tragedy that was unfolding, once the military option had become unfeasible in political, military and logistical terms. we cannot turn back the clock, but given the intensity of the discussions we had in the council, and with the commission and the other players among the international community, i would warn against adopting an attitude of self-criticism too easily now and reproaching ourselves for not having intervened militarily. i worked for many years in the ministry of defence. for years, i worked with generals in the dutch defence ministry, and i was constantly impressed by the sense of responsibility shown by military leaders, with generals always asking the right questions when the policy of using the military apparatus was being discussed. just think about this, and about the consequences. are you ready to accept them, and also the losses? can you justify this to your parliament? and are you prepared to accept that military intervention as such has its own political dynamic? that is the kind of question that was discussed. as the conflict developed, the international community, the united nations and the permanent members of the security council judged that military intervention in this humanitarian tragedy was not the appropriate course of action, because these questions were asked. it was because those advising on the matter took an unfavourable view of the relationship between the possibility of achieving the objective on the one hand, and the risks and resources on the other. i can understand the frustration which is emerging from this debate - it is the frustration which we, as responsible politicians in the council, have also felt over the past days, weeks and months because we could no longer stem the tide of events on the ground, where at a certain point reason was overtaken by the gun. we must go further. naturally, at the next council meeting, we must try to gear our objectives to the following priorities in order to bring this human tragedy to an end. i believe that the council intends firstly - and it will certainly use its special representative and its diplomacy to this effect - to aim for a cessation of hostilities and the opening of negotiations and, when these are under way, to help them succeed in bringing about a peaceful transfer of power in zaire. secondly, this must be linked to the right of international organizations to do their work in the areas and for the people that are in need of it. when there is a cease-fire, and when a political agreement exists in principle on a transition which is clearly imminent in zaire, every effort must then be directed towards establishing a minimum of stability in this vast country, where so many people are having a hard time of it at present. this must happen according to the rules of the game: the establishment of an interim regime which will prepare elections, the holding of elections which produce a credible result, and then the establishment of a government with a legitimate authority after the elections - a legitimate authority which is worthy of receiving every support from the west to bring about stability, freedom and peace in this long-suffering country. the council is ready to work along these lines in terms of the action that is required of us, without further discussion. from this position, i would once again express my special appreciation of the efforts of the commission, and in particular mrs bonino - against all the political odds - to make the best of things and, through her tenacity, which all of us admire in her, to do the little which could still be done. are we becoming any wiser as a result of this tragedy? we are aware of the political limits as regards the extent to which the member states in the west can shape the order of things in central africa. we recognize the domestic political constraints on influencing these kinds of events militarily; and we know the limitations of the common foreign and security policy, with its present inadequate range of instruments, when it comes to playing a preventive and remedial role in this kind of tragedy, but that is now being discussed within the intergovernmental conference. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, i shall be fairly brief. i want to thank you for your support, but i do not think i have done any more than my duty as commissioner responsible for humanitarian aid. you asked me to do my best to ensure respect for the humanitarian conventions and one of their provisions is specifically freedom of access to victims. addressing the council because the question does in fact arise, i can say that neither i nor the commission have any colonial, military or other ambitions in the region, but there is a real problem. we felt aid through military intervention was probably not the most effective option and it presented political risks - i shall come back to this point because i agree with your analysis - and that it was better to intervene with humanitarian aid. the problem we faced was that humanitarian aid was blocked from a certain point, in that we were not allowed access to those who needed help. that constituted a flagrant violation of the humanitarian conventions, and without any other resources, we were not in a position to force access. that is actually what happened. aid to people in distress was no longer possible. also we still had humanitarian personnel on the ground. so we were forced to keep quiet for several weeks, for fear of reprisals. you can see what a difficult position we were in. however, on 6 may the humanitarian community went public. after weeks and months of trying to calm the situation through prudent negotiation, we all decided jointly that decency demanded we break our silence. another point i want to stress is that i often wonder, when we are considering possible military intervention wherever it may be, whether european opinion would be prepared to accept the loss of human life involved. perhaps it is easier to envisage than to implement. but the fact is that while questions are raised about loss of human life resulting from military intervention and the problems this might cause as far as public opinion is concerned, aid workers are increasingly being killed too. now it would seem that aid workers losing their lives, whether they are mdecins du monde, red cross or human rights observers, does not present a problem. it is a bit of a topsy turvy world when the international community reacts to the killing of specialized career soldiers whose job is to go into difficult or risky situations - and who are not there in the present case for understandable reasons - but does not really react to a massacre of aid workers. there is a general sense of impunity and, frankly, a kind of return to barbarism. i had the slight impression that it was accepted in the treaties and humanitarian conventions that humanitarian aid was sacrosanct. we did not think anyone would fire on the red cross. well in the area we are talking about that no longer applies: in fact people do shoot at the red cross and there is no appropriate reaction. this hardly encourages people to stay put and i think the aid workers are owed a debt of thanks for their commitment and their determination. thank you very much, mrs bonino. would the people in the gallery please refrain from any public demonstration. our rules strictly prohibit that. i would be very sorry to have people removed from the gallery, but if there are any more outbursts that is what i will have to do. so please maintain the silence our rules require. the debate is closed. the vote will take place on thursday at 12.00 noon. i suggest we move on without delay to question time to the council. you will appreciate, ladies and gentlemen, that discussion of the very important statement by the council and the commission on zaire has affected the timetable for questions to the council. question time (council) the next item is question time to the council (b4-0165/97). question no 1 by juan izquierdo collado (h-0293/97) subject: cohesion fund what is the council's view of the continuity of the cohesion fund post-1999? mr president, before i answer the question by mr izquierdo collado, i have a point of order. because we have overrun to some extent, i have a serious problem with the rest of my schedule. my flight is due to leave at 9 p.m., and before then i also have an important discussion planned with a delegation from the european parliament in connection with the intergovernmental conference. i would ask you - though i put myself entirely in your hands - to limit question time to an hour and allow me to answer the remaining questions in writing. mr patijn, you put me in a difficult position, because as i said just now this has been a day when the timetable has been changed - to meet everyone's needs. as president, i have to respect the time we have available, but i cannot force the council representative to do the impossible. we will therefore begin question time and when you think you have run out of time, i will try to close question time. that is rather reversing the burden of proof, mr president. you determine the procedure here. i have explained to you that i have a problem with my schedule. i am asking for question time to be curtailed and you are saying: well, just see how long you can go on for, and leave when you are ready. no, i should like to reach an agreement with you on the procedure. my proposal is therefore that i answer questions until 7.20 p.m., and if you are in agreement with that, i should like you to give it your approval. i will suspend question time to the council at 7.20 p.m., and i wish the european union every success in the meetings you are going to hold. you have the floor to reply to mr izquierdo collado. in reply to the question by mr izquierdo collado on the cohesion fund post-1999, i must point out that the provisions concerning the cohesion fund and its tasks are included in the treaty, namely in article 130d, second paragraph. moreover, article 16 of the regulation establishing the fund stipulates that the council must review that regulation, on a proposal from the commission, before the end of 1999. since the commission has not yet submitted a proposal on the subject, the council takes the view that, for the time being, it is unable to adopt a position on the future of the cohesion fund. for the sake of completeness, i can also report that this matter has not yet been discussed at all within the council. i can tell honourable members that the commission organized a conference at the end of april on the economic and social cohesion of the european union, called the forum on cohesion. this gathering, which was of an informal kind, addressed the union's structural policy in general, and we are naturally waiting to see what conclusions the commission will draw from this. lastly, i would also remind the house that the european council in madrid requested the commission to carry out a thorough analysis as soon as possible of the european union's system of financing, with a view to presenting - immediately after the conclusion of the intergovernmental conference - a communication on the future financial framework of the european union after 31 december 1999, taking account of the prospect of enlargement. since this communication from the commission is of course not yet available, i think that as a representative of the council, it is inappropriate for me to prejudge it. mr president-in-office of the council, my question was not about whether the council had taken any decision, but about your own opinion on a most important issues, the cohesion fund. in view of the importance of this fund for certain regions and countries of the union, and without waiting for proposals from the commission, does the council think it should include the continuity of the cohesion fund in the financial perspectives as from 1999? i think the honourable member is right in referring to the political and economic importance of the cohesion fund. but it is impossible to form a judgement on this in isolation from the other challenges facing the european union in terms of economic policy and the financial support for it. that involves the question of how the european union copes with enlargement in the coming years, particularly in the next century, taking account of the fact that the candidates for future membership of the european union are well below the eu average in terms of both their general level of prosperity and the development of their physical and technological infrastructure. in this broader context, we also have to answer questions such as: what is the future of the common agricultural policy and what will be the costs of further restructuring, if we are to absorb the agricultural sector of eastern europe? that is why, in my view, the european council in madrid was right to ask the commission to outline for us - quickly and before any decisions on enlargement - the problems and the options which are facing us in this broader context, so that when decisions come to be taken on enlargement, the member states and their national parliaments can see how this broader context might develop in the first five or six years of the next century. we are now waiting for this analysis from the commission. before that, it is necessary for us to conclude the intergovernmental conference without delay. if we succeed in doing this at the european council meeting in amsterdam in june, i would expect that the commission will produce this analysis of the future financial framework very quickly, from which we shall then see the possibilities as regards the future of the cohesion fund. question no 2 by felipe camisn asensio (h-0298/97) subject: ban in certain transit regions of the eu on movement of heavy vehicles by road on sundays what is the council's view of decisions by certain national governments of the eu to ban goods vehicles from travelling through transit regions on sundays? this question by mr camisn asensio concerns the banning of goods traffic on sundays in certain transit areas. it is important to establish from the outset here that the authority to impose any restrictions on goods traffic on sundays within a member state lies in principle with the member state in question, provided such restrictions are in accordance with the general principles of community law, especially those of proportionality and non-discrimination. i would point out that, under the terms of article 155 of the ec treaty, it is the task of the commission to ensure that the provisions of the treaty and the measures taken pursuant thereto are applied and respected. in this case, the commission is monitoring the development of the situation on the ground on a daily basis, and it is responsible for identifying and correcting any possible distortions in this sector. it would therefore seem advisable for the honourable member to seek specific details from the commission. furthermore, i would stress that the member state at which his question is directed, namely france, is not the only country where restrictions of this kind are applied to goods traffic on sundays. there are similar restrictions in austria, germany, italy and portugal. also, one area of the honourable member's own country - the basque country - has recently adopted provisions aimed at limiting goods traffic on sundays and public holidays. mr president-in-office of the council, i am glad you broadly share our concern about this. it certainly is a basic issue and we also wanted to know the council's opinion, separately from the commission's, to put on record that the proposals to ban movement of goods vehicles on sundays, in certain countries of the union and in certain regions, may have harmful effects. this is true of france, amongst others, which may damage certain countries with this ban. in particular it will be prejudicial to the transit of spanish goods. in addition, a measure of this kind would restrict freedom of movement of goods and services through a region of the union, irrespective of which, and that could constitute a violation of the treaty of rome. does the president-in-office of the council not think that the solution might be to create land corridors so that, in case of conflict in a country, it would be possible to travel by these emergency routes and vehicles would not be affected by conflicts in a country which was not their own? in any case, something has to be done and the council should express an opinion. i believe that the honourable member is right to ask for attention to be given to this kind of phenomenon, but i repeat - and this is an established part of the whole political and legal system of the community - that member states have the freedom - and i would add on behalf of the council that they must have it - to adopt measures in certain sectors, including goods traffic, which they regard as being in the interest of public order and the safety of their citizens. i have already pointed out that community law does of course lay down strict accompanying conditions in respect of such measures. for instance, there must be a clear proportionality between the effect of the measures in terms of public order and any adverse consequences they may have for freedom of movement or the economy as a whole. above all, it is important that these measures do not turn out to be a form of discrimination against the nationals or interests of other member states. this is precisely the balance that we must seek to achieve in order to establish a sound basis on which to proceed. it is extremely important to safeguard the principles of the free movement of goods and persons, and also the freedom of transport within the community, not least in terms of political acceptance. i would repeat that the commission, as guardian of the treaty, must give particular attention to the principles of balance, proportionality and non-discrimination. if these boundaries are properly observed, then i would say that under the political and constitutional system of the european union, it is very difficult to intervene radically in the internal arrangements of the member states. question no 3 by mr wibe (h-0305/97) subject: secret consultants' report on the volvo works at ume the swedish press has reported that the commission intends to prohibit the swedish transport subsidy to the volvo works at ume. this would threaten the existence of the factory and with it about 1000 jobs in the area. the commission's attitude is based on a consultants' report, the contents of which are, however, being kept secret, even from representatives of the swedish government. does the comission not consider that it is unreasonable for a crucial consultants' report to be kept secret from the general public, and especially from the swedish government? can the council, in its capacity as the union's highest decision-making body, oblige the commission to disclose the report, at least to the swedish government? in reply to the question by mr wibe concerning an allegedly secret report on the volvo works at ume, i must emphasize that the council is not aware of and has never discussed the issue to which the honourable member's question refers. however, the council wishes to draw mr wibe's attention to the fact that the competition rules in general and state aid in particular are among the specific areas for which the treaty has granted competence to the commission. it may well be pointed out in this context that, under the terms of article 93(2) of the ec treaty, the council may decide in exceptional circumstances, on application by a member state, that aid granted by a state shall be considered to be compatible with the common market. in the present situation - let us be quite clear - the council is totally unable to adopt a position on this matter, and still less so to oblige the commission to disclose the report in question, even if only to the swedish government. consequently, it would seem advisable to me for the honourable member to approach the commission with a view to possibly obtaining further information. i would like to thank the council representative for their answer. yesterday i asked the same question of the commission which maintained its refusal to publish this report. i consider this remarkable in view of the fact that it affects the jobs of so many people. it is also remarkable that it is even being kept secret from the swedish government. i would like to point out that my question is not concerned with whether this factory is entitled to aid or not. my question is very tangible and consists of two parts. firstly: does the council president consider it reasonable that a crucial report be kept secret in this way even from the governments of the different countries involved, in this case the swedish government? if the council cannot force the commission to publish this report, i would like to rephrase the second part of my question as follows: will you be urging the commission, in the name of openness and transparency, to make this report available to the swedish government? this is the very least that can be expected in this case. we are indeed dealing with something of a question of principle here, namely how a body of the european community should handle information. i have to tell you, mr wibe, that i do not know whether the commission possesses this report, but then the main point we are discussing here is whether the commission, if it holds confidential business information relating to a competition issue, should be forced to disclose that information because of other reasons - for political reasons, or reasons connected with an internal political debate within a member state. i think that if we make a practice of this, we shall reach a point where the commission, in carrying out its duties as guardian of the rules on competition, finds itself in an extremely difficult position when it comes to obtaining accurate information from firms. i think that in the case of confidential business information - and i gather that what is involved here is a report produced by a consultancy for volvo, in other words entirely within the private sector - it is unwise to insist on publication of a report which the commission has in its charge because of its responsibilities for competition law. in my view, this would in fact cause problems in terms of managing and implementing competition law. like mr wibe i would also like to thank the council representative for their answer. i can tell you that yesterday the commission confirmed that the report exists. it was said at the time that the reason that the report cannot be made public is because it may contain confidential business information. the company involved, volvo, has since said in the swedish press that they would like the report to be passed to the swedish government. the company is urging the eu to pass on the report. so the obstacle preventing the report being passed on, which the commission cited, is no longer there. i think it would be good if the council urged the commission into maximum openness on this issue. it is important that openness is not just a theory but that it is applied in practice as well. many people in northern sweden view this, the fact that regional aid is banned without an explanation, as very arrogant. so i appeal to you to urge the commission to the greatest possible openness on this issue. with this council presidency, you will find no reservations when it comes to seeking openness. but i would repeat that what is involved here is the application of the competition rules within the european union, in which context the commission has certain well-regulated powers to obtain business information from firms on a confidential basis, naturally with this information and the associated interests being protected. i think that here the commission is bound by its own rules, which have been established by the council and the commission itself. once again, i would regard it as unwise if we were to make any protected business information held by the commission available for public discussion, other than on the basis of the rules for publishing this kind of protected information. in my view, to do so would make it very difficult for the commission to perform its role in this area of competition law. sweden is one of those countries in the eu which has some of the longest transport distances. we usually reckon to have an export disadvantage of between 700 and 1000 kilometres. this is why for many years there has been a system of transport aid in order to even out competition within the country, which is a point worth emphasising. this was a form of transport aid which was in fact accepted by the eu when sweden became a member but now it has been scrutinised once again by the commission. now that the eu wants to change this system, reference is made to a report marked secret. i am prepared to state quite clearly that this cloak of secrecy, where not even the government in the country concerned has immediate access to a report, shows up one of the truly worst aspects of the eu. so i appeal to the council representative to take the necessary initiative to have this report made public and to help to reassure all those people who are already suffering extremely hard in a region which even now has very, very high unemployment. i can really only repeat what i have said twice before. the council, at least this presidency of the council, is a committed supporter of maximum openness. at the intergovernmental conference, the whole question of providing a better basis for the principles of transparency and openness is a high priority for many member states, and that has very much been promoted by the presidency. but i would repeat once more that even with the maximum degree of openness, industries which make confidential business information available to european union institutions, either voluntarily or because they are obliged to do so, enjoy a certain amount of protection in terms of whether or not such confidential information is published. i do not know if these rules apply specifically in this case, but once again, i understand that you discussed this here yesterday with the commission. the commission explained the reasons why it does not wish to release this report at present, and i do not think it is a matter for the council, not least with the limited legal means at our disposal, to force the commission to do something which it has good reasons for not doing. question no 4 by mrs izquierdo rojo (h-0306/97) subject: vocational training and euromediterranean policy among the measures on the development of human resources included in the barcelona declaration, as adopted at the first euromediterranean conference, was the holding of a regular dialogue on education policy, focusing initially on vocational training and involving, in particular, the european training foundation in turin. to date, the council has issued guidelines concerning measures by the european training foundation for the countries of central and eastern europe but not for the associated mediterranean countries. given the needs of the mediterranean region and the crucial importance of these training policies, when does the council plan to issue guidelines concerning such measures for the meda countries and what form will they take? in answer to these questions by mrs izquierdo rojo on vocational training and euromediterranean policy, i would point out that the council was one of the parties which adopted the barcelona declaration and the programme of work in november 1995, and that it therefore fully supports the aim of holding a regular dialogue on education policy, including vocational training, within the framework of the euromediterranean partnership. this is restated in the conclusions of the second euromediterranean conference which took place in malta on 15 and 16 april. in adopting the guidelines for the meda indicative programmes on 6 december 1996, the council also agreed that assistance for the union's mediterranean partners should be particularly focused on developing human resources through improved supervision, targeting and quality of vocational and management training. a number of activities are already under way in this area. at multilateral level, an exchange of views was held at a tripartite conference in catania on 24 and 25 may 1996 on a whole range of interrelated subjects in the social sector, including vocational training. also, financial assistance from meda resources is being used to support measures at both subregional and bilateral level to improve the quality of vocational training. if the honourable member wishes to have more detailed information on specific activities, i suggest that she approaches the commission, which is responsible for the implementation of this programme. mr president-in-office of the council, the council has answered this question like a bureaucrat, with meaningless words. it did not answer my specific question, which is how and when the regulation is going to be approved. it did that for the central and eastern european countries. mr president-in-office of the council, a young czech, rumanian or hungarian can get skills training and benefit from the programmes. a young person from the maghreb cannot. we have an association policy with the southern mediterranean countries based on equilibrium, based on free trade and based on working together. how we are going to be able to work with them with the enormous imbalance that there is today as regards skills qualifications? how can europeans do this, open markets and close doors to training people? mr president-in-office of the council, you have not answered my question. this is a serious responsibility. we are discriminating against the poorest countries, the countries of the southern mediterranean. very briefly, mrs izquierdo rojo is putting the question to the wrong institution, because these are not council measures, but commission rules for implementing a programme which it is responsible for executing. i would leave it at that. mrs izquierdo, you are only entitled to ask one supplementary question, and you have already done that. mr president, i just want to point out that up to now the council has been governing the activities of the european foundation for the development of skills training as far as the ceecs are concerned, but it is also the responsibility of the council to govern the activities of the same foundation for the mediterranean countries, as agreed in barcelona. as they deal with similar issues, questions nos 5, 6, 7 and 8 will be taken together. question no 5 by mr newens (h-0308/97) subject: cuba and the helms-burton act would the council make a statement on the estimated effects of the helms-burton act on trade between the european union and cuba to-date and what steps are envisaged to prevent further damage which could result if the act were to be fully implemented? question no 6 by mr bontempi (h-0310/97) subject: cuba and the helms-burton act would the council make a statement about progress in resolving the dispute between the european union and the government of the united states of america over the helms-burton act which is currently being heard by a panel of the world trade organization?question no 7 by mr morris (h-0315/97) subject: cuba and the helms-burton act would the council make a statement about recent developments in cuba, including a comment on the news that the cnn tv company has been allowed by the cuban and us authorities to establish a bureau there and how this action relates to the helms-burton act which seeks to tighten the us trade embargo against cuba?question no 8 by mr medina ortega (h-0345/97) subject: the us helms-burton law does the council believe that there is now adequate protection for european businessmen who have invested or who are intending to invest in cuba following the commission's recent decision to halt the proceedings it brought before the world trade organization against the united states regarding the helms-burton law? i should like to give a combined answer to the questions by mr newens, mr bontempi, mr morris and mr medina ortega, because they all concern the helms-burton act and cuba. following intensive bilateral discussions between the commission and the american authorities, an agreement on the helms-burton act was reached on 11 april 1997, and consequently also to some extent on the d'amato act. the agreement relates to a specific code of conduct for both sides. to prevent any worsening of the conflict over the helms-burton act, the council held a discussion on the matter on 18 april and adopted the following conclusions, to which i now refer: in the light of the agreement reached between the commission and the united states and the undertaking entered into by the latter, the council has agreed that the wto panel procedures under way in respect of the helms-burton act will now be suspended; if action is taken against eu businesses or individuals on the basis of the libertad act or the sanctions legislation concerning iran and libya, or if the waivers described in the agreement are not granted but are withdrawn, the commission will request the wto to restart or reconstitute the panel, after which the panel will follow its normal procedures. the commission is also requested by the council to keep it informed of any developments. the council points out that the european union, like the united states, sets itself the goal of promoting democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms where these are under threat and, like the united states, has committed itself to combating terrorism. however, the council reiterates its strong resistance to the imposition of extra-territorial legislation as a means of pursuing these objectives. it regards such legislation as unacceptable both in principle and in law. in this context, the council draws particular attention to the deep concern which it expressed in its conclusions of 15 july 1996 regarding the extra-territorial consequences of the helms-burton and d'amato acts, and nothing in the agreement with the united states should be interpreted as in any way prejudicing its continuing stance on this issue, as set out in those conclusions. the council believes that the negotiations in the context of the multilateral agreement on investment, the mai, should continue in accordance with the procedures agreed for these talks and on the basis of the relevant mandate. this mandate can be amended by the council in accordance with its rules of procedure. those are the conclusions which the council itself has drawn from the commission's agreement with the united states administration. as regards the question by mr newens, many businesses from the member states of the european union have suffered damage as a result of the helms-burton act. however, no figures are available on the overall impact on the european union's trade with cuba. the council has nevertheless repeatedly emphasized that, in its view, this legislation is in breach of international law, has been damaging to the rights and interests of the european union in the areas of trade and investment, and has had a discouraging effect on trade between the union and cuba. finally, on the question by mr morris, the council takes the view that the fact that the television company cnn has been authorized by the cuban and american authorities to open an office in cuba is a matter between the united states and cuba, and does not have any consequences for relations between the european union and these countries. i would like to thank the president-in-office for his reply. i am glad that he recognizes that some european countries which trade in the united states have been intimidated by the very possibility of legal action being taken against them and that there are other american laws which have been used against law-abiding europeans citizens. in these circumstances, does he accept that any impression that the european union is weakening its approach - and that impression to some extent has been given by withdrawing the complaint in the wto - will in fact damage our trade? will he therefore reaffirm our determination, not only to ask for the world trade organization panel to be reconstituted if required, but to take whatever other steps are necessary to prevent the extra-territorial provisions of the helms/burton act being exercised in any way against our traders. i can assure mr newens that the council will do everything possible to counter third-country legislation with extra-territorial effect which is damaging to the interests of firms and individuals in the european union. in this particular case, we were facing a special political dilemma, namely that the united states would have been obliged, for internal political reasons, to invoke the national security exception because of the wto panel procedure which was under way, so that the wto would have automatically had to stop the procedure. this would in fact have meant that, as regards the conflict over the helms-burton act, not only would there have been no ruling, but the domestic political circumstances obliging the us administration to invoke the national security exception would have resulted in the wto panel procedure set up under the uruguay round suffering an extraordinary loss of credibility with regard to settling this kind of trade dispute. all in all, the commission and the american administration have tried in this agreement to steer a course which prevents the conflict from being aggravated unnecessarily, with the effects on the wto which i have described. however, the us administration is undertaking to try to limit the adverse effects of the helms-burton and d'amato acts in terms of their impact on the interests of european union nationals, and to eliminate them through changes in the law or waivers. we are now waiting to see the results of this undertaking by the us administration, and if the commission and the council in any way have the impression that the american administration will not be able to fulfil the agreements, then we shall not hesitate to restart the wto panel. mr president-in-office, there is something i should like to ask you: don't you feel that the application of this agreement is very tricky, in view of the difficulties and even ambiguities that it contains? and most of all, doesn't it seem to you, as it does to me, that there is a risk that this agreement might, in part, produce precisely the same effects as the law did? i recognize the difference, but we have heard about disincentives to companies and even to non-governmental organizations already working in co-operation with cuba as a result of the application and interpretation of this agreement. i should like to ask what you think about this, and what information you have on it. the aim of this agreement with the commission, which has now been endorsed by the council, although subject to the strict conditions which i have just described to you, is to lead the american administration to enter into discussions with its independent legislature, namely the congress, with a view to interpreting and, where necessary, amending the law in such a way as to remove precisely those extra-territorial effects which are damaging to european economic interests, not least established economic interests. if it should appear that, either in law or in practice, the american administration is being obliged to continue to take extra-territorial action against european interests with regard to economic contacts with cuba, then the commission and the council will not hesitate to draw the conclusions i have just mentioned, in other words to restart the wto panel. it appears to me that the us is, in fact, lashing out against everyone and everybody. apart from the fact that this is adversely virtually affecting cuba itself, it is also having an adverse effect on american business because they are losing out by billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. would not the council agree that the helms/burton act, which opposes cuba's admission to the world bank, the imf and the oas until there is a post-castro government, is very much an infringement of cuba's sovereignty? does the council intend to take action to make certain that cuba has access to these agencies so that it can build up its own economy to the advantage of its own people? i would agree in principle with the honourable member - and i think this reflects the views of the council as a whole - when he says that if we wish to promote democracy and human development in cuba, then isolating and boycotting it as the american administration has done since 1959 is no longer an appropriate means of doing so, especially now that cuba is no longer a threat to the national security of the united states. only the american government and the us congress take a different view, and in this respect we have agreed to disagree. when it comes to legislation containing a ban on cuba's admission to the bretton woods institutions, for example, i can only say that it is for the rules of the bretton woods institutions themselves to determine how that is to be handled. it cannot be that one member country is able to dictate such matters unilaterally to institutions which are respected on a multilateral basis. mr president-in-office of the council, the united states is a country i admire, a country i love, and a country i have had extensive relations with. it is one of the oldest democracies but one characteristic of its democracy, based on the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, is the tremendous rigour with which the law and sanctions are applied. at this very moment a community citizen, mr ferreiro, is in prison in the united states for running a business supplying food and other basic necessities to cuba. my fear is that the european union's surrender over the helms-burton law will make the american government think it has a free hand to apply internal american legislation with maximum rigour, which may mean that not just european businessmen, but their children and relatives as well, are faced with this legislation, which they assume does not apply to them but which harms or can harm them very directly i can only reaffirm to mr medina ortega that the council and the member states, together with the commission, quite simply reject such laws as the helms-burton act on grounds of principle. that is also why, when this act was signed in 1996, the council adopted relatively quickly, on a proposal from the commission, a variety of counter-measures or retaliatory legislation, so as to be able to respond if european interests were unduly affected when the act was implemented. however, it must be said that such important trading partners as the united states and the european union - if you will allow me to use the metaphor - are talking here like two elephants which have to walk very carefully through a china shop, where we hope that as little china as possible will be broken in the process. what i really regret is in fact that both the united states and the european union, whose views are clearly shared on the desirability of new political and economic developments in cuba, have still not begun to reach agreement after so many years on the question of how this is to happen, and disagree fundamentally on the matter. we regret that the united states is continuing to isolate the developments in cuba, instead of encouraging them. as a good liberal, i believe that democracy is very much facilitated by overseas investment, and the blocking of such investment will not encourage the development of cuba or its political development in this respect. question no 9 by mr papayannakis (h-0322/97) subject: synthetic drugs following the european council in dublin, where it was decided to adopt a joint action for the approximation of legislation and the procedures followed by the police, customs authorities and courts in combating drug addiction and illegal trafficking in drugs and, given the popularity among young people of synthetic drugs produced in the eu member states, central and eastern europe and the balkan countries, constituting a serious threat to public health and society, can the council say what progress has been made to date concerning the harmonization of member states' legislation in combating illegal drugs trafficking? have the dangers arising from the development of synthetic drugs been evaluated and do european mechanisms exist to deal with the unexpected appearance of such drugs on the market? i should like to answer this question by mr papayannakis in the following way. the policy which is being developed within the european union to combat drugs is a wide-ranging one, including preventive measures on the one hand - and here we are talking in particular about devoting our attention to public health, information and education - and repressive aspects on the other, such as cooperation between the courts, police and customs services to combat drugs and drug trafficking. the question by mr papayannakis relates in particular to this second aspect, namely international cooperation in terms of criminal law to combat the drugs trade and drug crime. the question refers more specifically to the extent of the progress made during the dutch presidency on implementing the joint action for the approximation of the legislation and procedures of the member states of the european union in combating drug addiction and to prevent and combat illegal trafficking in drugs. this long title is often shortened to that of the joint action on drugs. the action was confirmed by the european council in dublin in december 1996. the member states and institutions of the union are currently engaged in implementing this joint action, part of which covers the harmonization of legislation. a progress report on its implementation is to be produced for the european council meeting in luxembourg. to enable as clear a report as possible to be presented in luxembourg in december 1997, work is now being done on a reporting model, and it is planned to submit an interim report to the european council in amsterdam. the question by mr papayannakis concerning synthetic drugs is also related to the joint action on drugs. with regard to this aspect, the member states and institutions of the european union are working on the development of an early warning system. this is a mechanism for exchanging information quickly and effectively on new substances entering the market for synthetic drugs. the exact details of this mechanism are still under discussion, and a report on this too will be presented to the amsterdam european council. in this context, i would also draw your attention to the european monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction, the emcdda. this institute is based in lisbon and has at its disposal the reitox system, for example, which is used to exchange information between the member states on synthetic drugs, amongst other things. through this existing channel, new developments can already be exchanged between the relevant services and organizations. mr president-in-office, thank you for the details in your answer, but i did not come here to indulge in polemics between us. i want to help, and i think there is a problem: these new synthetic drugs have some new characteristics. they cannot be dealt with by traditional methods. they are manufactured quickly, they circulate quickly, they circulate very easily, and they are constantly becoming cheaper. and they are becoming more and more attractive because it is difficult to distinguish between proscribed and dangerous substances and playthings. in that sense, mr president-in-office, i am told that this warning system you mentioned takes a very long time. it takes two years for a substance to be entered on the list of proscribed substances. in two years, the manufacturer will have made millions, that pill will no longer exist, and a different one will have taken its place. what i was asking you then, is what you intend to do about some much more rapid system better adapted to the situation. and it is not a question of suppression. europol is intergovernmental. it is up to you to tell us what can be done to create such a system. i think that mr papayannakis is quite right to point to the special problems caused by synthetic drugs for our whole policy on criminal law and for all police action, because these are developments which move as quickly as those in the chemical industry in general. precisely because of this, it is extremely important that information which is available in member states - for instance on new substances which in principle fall under drugs legislation - is analysed and exchanged as quickly as possible, so that these new substances can also be outlawed in the legislation of the various member states and the judicial and police authorities then have a legal basis for responding to them quickly. that is why so much emphasis is being placed on improving the systems for collecting and exchanging information. this also applies especially to the so-called precursors, the raw materials which are used to make synthetic and illegal drugs, because the monitoring of flows of raw materials and the exchange of information between criminal investigation services can provide an important indication as to how crime in this area is developing. in this respect, the collection and exchange of information is the first and absolutely crucial step in being able to take vigorous action. as the author is not present, question no 10 falls. question no 11 by mr sjstedt (h-0330/97) subject: the interception of telecommunications the eu has been working with the american fbi for a year on the development of a joint system for the interception of telecommunications, on which a resolution was adopted at a meeting of the justice and home affairs council on 17 january 1995. a memorandum of understanding was subsequently concluded between the signatories of the agreement and other states. in spite of this, the general public and media have been given very little information about this matter. will common rules and agreements in this area require harmonization of national legislation, e.g. as regards persons whose telecommunications may be intercepted, the offences of which they must be suspected before such action may be taken and the length of sentences involved. is there any link between the union's activities in this field and echelon? in answer to the question by mr sjstedt on the interception of telecommunications, i would first of all point out that it is not the case that the european union is working with the fbi on the development of a joint interception system. experts from the eu member states have indeed been holding discussions for a number of years with other countries, such as the united states, on the requirements which need to be placed on the industry to ensure that in the design of telecommunications equipment, specific provision is made for interception via this equipment by law enforcement authorities. these have led to a set of international user requirements, the importance of which was highlighted by the council in its resolution of 17 january 1995, to which the questioner has referred. other countries from outside the european union such as the united states, canada, australia and norway have also endorsed these requirements. the application of the requirements to telephone systems is a task imposed on operators and service providers by the relevant national telecommunications authorities, on the basis of national legislation. the way in which the technical facilities can subsequently be used for interception is determined by national law, which in the case of the european countries must be in accordance with the european convention on human rights. i would like to thank the council president for the answer i received. the new satellite telecommunication systems, which are becoming more prevalent, make it more difficult to use national boundaries as a basis for looking at this question. we are also discussing an agreement at eu level on whether conversations between different countries may be monitored. this creates a number of problems where national legislation in different countries is not the same. for example, what legislation should be used to decide if a person may be put under surveillance or not. there are also strong integration aspects here. is it true to say that such extensive cooperation at eu level will require some form of harmonisation in the future when we decide who may be placed under surveillance for example, and establish the penalties for an alleged crime involving surveillance? is this what eu co-operation really means? we are dealing here with the area of activity of national intelligence and security services. in this context, i would say that the european union has powers under the third pillar to facilitate harmonization. of course, cooperation at intergovernmental level is possible, but at this stage i see little support within the european union for using these powers to bring about harmonization through conventions, not least from a political point of view. i must draw a distinction here, because your first question related to the agreements on telecommunications technology. this involves making it impossible to use modern coding and scrambler technology in such a way that intelligence and security services are no longer able to do anything. that is regarded by the guardians of our internal state security as a serious shortcoming. i think it is very important for individual member states - and certainly those which sign the international conventions on the protection of privacy and human rights - to continue to ensure through national legislation and national supervisory procedures that intelligence and security services adhere strictly to certain rules of conduct laid down in national law. the fact that this may of course also involve international communications does little to affect the principle of national responsibilities. it is a matter for our governments and our parliaments to produce legislation, and it is for our supervisory bodies in the member states to ensure that intelligence and security services behave according to the law. mr president, i assume that what we are talking about here is not primarily intelligence services, but rather the need to combat large-scale, international organized crime. i would therefore ask you to indicate what steps the council intends to take next in tackling large-scale organized crime. are there any specific proposals, either in the area of telecommunications or as regards forthcoming measures to be taken? on the question of what the council is doing to combat internationally organized crime, more particularly in terms of intelligence operations by police or intelligence services, i would point out that the european council in dublin set up a group of senior representatives from the member states to carry out a specific study of the phenomenon of organized crime, and to produce recommendations for taking firm action to combat this by means of cooperation. under the dutch presidency, this group of senior representatives began work energetically in january, and in april delivered a report which has since also been considered by the ministers of justice and home affairs at another meeting at the end of april. this report contains a number of political recommendations and a long series of technical ones, and will no doubt provide - soon after it has been considered and released by the european council in amsterdam - an important stimulus for cooperation between the member states under the third pillar to combat organized crime. as the time available for question time to the council has run out, questions nos 11 to 29 will be answered in writing. mr president, on a point of order. i just wish to show my dissent about that decision. my question was next. i have sat here for almost an hour and a half and waited patiently for my question. given the importance of this issue for the united kingdom, particularly the north-east of scotland, which is mr macartney's constituency - he would have asked a supplementary question -, it is a pity that we did not get to it. i would like an assurance that we shall not have a repetition of this in the future. mr patijn, ladies and gentlemen, because of the timetable difficulties we have had today and the work commitments mr patijn informed us of at the beginning of the session, we are going to close question time to the council here, but i want you to know that in future i shall make sure that any changes in timetable do not interfere with the time we devote to questions. i think we have had an exceptional situation today, but at the same time, ladies and gentlemen, i make that undertaking. (the sitting was suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 9.00 p.m.) the sitting is resumed. mr macartney wishes to raise a point of order. mr president, on the souchet report: i want to have an assurance that the legal base amendments which i have tabled and which have been referred to the legal affairs committee will be given ample time to be examined. this is fundamental to the whole question of the cfp and therefore i require an assurance that the necessary time and resources will be given to the legal affairs committee to examine these amendments before they come back for discussion. the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights will verify that before the vote tomorrow at noon. straddling stocks - fishing off sao tom - international fisheries agreements - nafo regulatory area - fisheries and acquaculture the next item is the joint debate on the following reports: a4-0151/97 by mr varela suanzes-carpegna on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on the proposal for a council decision on the ratification by the european community of the agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the united nations convention on the law of the sea of 10 december 1982 relating to the conservation and management of straddling stocks (fish which are found both inside and outside exclusive economic zones) and highly migratory fish stocks (com(96)0472 - c4-0551/96-96/0238(cns)); -a4-0145/97 by mr macartney, on behalf of the committee on fisheries on the proposal for a council regulation on the conclusion of the protocol defining, for the period from 1 june 1996 to 31 may 1999, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the agreement between the european community and the democratic republic of sao tom and principe on fishing off sao tom and principe (com(96)0394 - c4=0485/96-96/0199(cns)); -a4-0149/97 by mr crampton, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on the international fisheries agreements; -a4-0150/97 by mr teverson, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on the proposals for council regulations amending: i regulation (eec) no 189/92 adopting provisions for the application of certain control measures adopted by the northwest atlantic fisheries organization (nafo) (com(96)0684 - c4-0034/97-96/0309(cns)), ii regulation (ec) no 3069/95 establishing a european community observer scheme applicable to community fishing vessels operating in the regulatory area of the northwest atlantic fisheries organization (nafo) (com(96)0685 - c4-0035/97-96/0310(cns)); a4-0144/97 by mr souchet, on behalf of the committee on fisheries, on the proposal for a council regulation (ec) amending regulation (eec) no 3760/92 establishing a community system for fisheries and aquaculture (com(96)0350 - c4-0538/96-96/0183(cns)). mr president, mr commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there is a clear common denominator in today's important joint debate on fisheries. all the reports relate in one way or another to essential foreign waters and their different forms of access and regulation, either through traditional fisheries agreements with third countries - like sao tom and principe, in the macartney report, regional multilateral agreements like nafo, referred to in the teverson report, or the new york agreement on straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks, for which i am rapporteur. all deal with different problems but all highlight a common complaint, which is now becoming habitual, about the still minor role conferred on the european parliament in the face of the european commission's competitive eagerness for excessive regulations with a dubious, or at the very least an inadequate, legal basis. this is taken up in the souchet report and my own, with specific reference, in both cases, to community action in the context of international organizations defining future changes in international maritime law. because of all this, mr president, it was felt worthwhile for the european parliament to prepare an own initiative report on the international fisheries agreements which are vital to the european union. this is mr crampton's report, which is being debated today in this house, after important discussions and amendments in the committee on fisheries where he achieved unanimity. in view of their importance i want to highlight the following points from his report: the international fisheries agreements and fishing in international waters account for 25 % of total community production. imports from third countries are essential for the community market, as catches in our waters are far exceeded by our consumption. so these agreements are essential for the community fleet, the market and community consumers, for our industry and, consequently, for employment, which, as the report also shows, is concentrated in peripheral objective 1 regions which are very dependent on fisheries, without other clear employment alternatives, but with a world-class competitive fishing sector, which needs to be supported against third fishing powers seeking access to the same fishing grounds, and not always applying such strict technical conservation measures as the european union. finally, it needs to be highlighted that this policy, so beneficial to the european union's interests, takes under 30 % of total community resources allocated to fishing, a mere 0.31 % of the total union budget. so we need to pursue this international fisheries agreements policy in the future, allocating a larger budget to it, always balancing the respective mutual interests, negotiating agreements suitable to both parties, improving existing ones where necessary or adapting them to current circumstances and different legal typologies, applying traditional agreements where appropriate and creating mixed companies or temporary associations of companies where possible. this is the context, mr president, in which we are examining the new york convention of 4 august 1995, on conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks. its ratification is subject to consultation of this european parliament and i am responsible for the report. we are dealing with a profound and historic agreement which must be supported because it seeks to improve management and conservation in international waters through multilateral cooperation on a regional basis. it comes down to cooperating on stocks conservation in international waters, by contrast to the position and aims of certain coastal countries which advocate a unilateral widening of their prerogatives, contravening international law, the convention on the law of the sea in particular, and the rules governing the high seas and 200-mile exclusion zones. further, and exclusively for the straddling stocks and highly migratory stocks at least for the moment, if the present new york convention succeeds in coming into force, it should be applied in the future, but it needs to be stressed that this does not provide grounds or refuge for national extraterritorial laws, like the disgraceful canadian fisheries law of 25 may 1994, or the new draft law c-62 - and we take this opportunity to denounce it once again. so in our report we call on the commission to ensure, before final ratification of the agreement, that all the signatory states are interpreting it in the same way and if necessary to take the appropriate legal precautions in the form of reservations and interpretative statements, for the avoidance of doubt, such as authorizing the use of force in certain circumstances, which require clear and uniform interpretation, as there might otherwise be conflict. secondly, but very important, there is the question of responsibility, and several member states have already objected in the council to the european commission's position. the agreement affects powers that are shared between the member states and the commission. the commission has responsibility for conservation and management of marine resources, but the member states retain powers as flag states under international law. these exclusive powers, which the member states continue to maintain, authorize them, under international law, to adopt their own legal positions and their own jurisdictional defence within the scope of their own recognized powers. so it is logical if there is to be reasonable commission-states cooperation, that there should be dual legal protection by the member state and the commission in accordance with the respective competence of each. that is why article 3.2 of the commission's proposal seems excessive and without legal basis, and was unanimously rejected by the committee on fisheries. it is extremely ambiguous and inappropriate in seeking to have the states virtually handing over their defence responsibilities to the commission and, as the committee on legal affairs of the european parliament points out in its opinion included in our report, the commission has not provided arguments to sustain that provision. the european parliament's committee on legal affairs points out - and i shall end here, mr president - in its conclusions 5 and 6 that the arrangements in article 3.2 are likely to pose problems, and that there is still no welldefined community case law in the area of international agreements of a mixed nature. so codes of conduct between the community and the member states would be better than legal rules. for these reasons, while the committee on fisheries is in favour of ratification of the agreement, it is nevertheless unanimously opposed to point 3.2 of the proposal. mr president, on the face of it, the sao tom and principe accord seems something of little significance to this parliament. yet in many ways it symbolizes some of the problems and the possibilities which arise from our fisheries agreements with third countries. sao tom and principe is one of the poorest countries in the world and it is heavily dependent on the income which it receives from the fisheries agreement with the european union to make ends meet. it is in a rather unusual position in that the fishing possibilities for the sao tom and principe fishermen themselves are very limited because of the peculiarities of the waters around the islands. they are of more use as a base for tuna fishermen coming from europe than they are to the local people, and so they are a very special resource in the sense of forming an exclusive economic zone, an eez, but, are not rich fishing grounds like those in some other parts of africa, for example off the namibian coast. this gives them a very special perspective. i am happy to support this report. there have been many occasions when i have been critical of fisheries policy but i think most of this particular report is commendable. it proposes a reasonably generous settlement with the government of sao tom and principe. if i were to nit-pick about some of the details, i would say that it is rather weak to use the phrase 'shall endeavour to do' in a legal document. to any lawyer that means that it is not binding. therefore that sort of language should have been toughened-up. there are two cases: one concerns bycatches, which is rather a sore point with both conservationists and the local fish-consuming community; the other concerns the desirability of hiring sao tom and principe crew on the fishing boats. this is stated as something to be striven for rather than something which is a requirement. when this comes up for review these points should be toughened-up. this is a pretty weak compromise between saying nothing and saying something and it is not binding. in other words, the agreement is not brilliant, but it is reasonably satisfactory. we come back time and time again, in this parliament, to two criticisms. one is that these agreements are not specifically tools of development for the country concerned, but are seen as commercial fisheries agreements. that is the nature of the beast. time and time again, in the committee on development and cooperation and in the committee on fisheries, we have said that this is not the best way to achieve results, which are supposed to be based not just on the commercial interests of the european union and its member states, but on those of the people concerned. i have visited some of these countries, as have many other members. we have talked to the local people. they appreciate having some government revenue, but a lot more could be done to achieve sustainable fisheries and also to achieve sustainable development in the broader sense. this issue of development tools will not go away until we have changed the basic approach and have a hybrid between the two considerations: the commercial fishing interests of the eu and the development aspect. my final point concerns consultation. this parliament loves to be consulted, but we would much rather be consulted before something has taken effect than afterwards. people criticise us for various things. they do not usually criticise us for giving opinions when it is too late for them to have any effect. that is what they should be criticizing. it is high time that we changed the regime so that parliament could give its opinion before an agreement comes into force, rather than the other way around. we are always passing judgement on agreements that have been decided and hoping that the commission or the council will then take note of our points the next time round. that is not the best way of doing things. having said that, the commission proposals have my support and that of the committee on fisheries. we commend the report and all the committee's amendments which have been put forward. mr president, my report concerns the nafo area. however, i will talk about it for only a short time because although it is an important report, it is not contentious and is primarily concerned with detail. i welcome the changes put forward in the nafo agreement which have now been implemented. these involve the greater use of observers. these people are already on board fishing vessels and we should use them to maximum advantage to understand the characteristics of those fisheries and in particular the area of discards. this concerns everybody involved in fisheries and will provide greater understanding of wastage and how that system can be improved, also in terms of the hail system and declaring the target species to be caught. in reality, there is a sub-plot, primarily in shrimp-fishing. this is an area which is being opened up, in particular by icelandic vessels and it needs greater control. that is what has stimulated the amendments which seek to ensure that shrimp-fishing remains sustainable over a longer period. we are asking parliament that it be looked at and further reports made. however, important though nafo is, the international fisheries agreements are far more important. one thing that is clear - and which the commissioner tells us as do the council of ministers very regularly - is that there is severe over-capitalization of fishing fleets, not only in europe but worldwide. in fact, something like two-thirds of worldwide fish stocks are estimated to be over-exploited. it does not require a great understanding of economics to see that the cheaper you make it to enter a particular market, the more the capacity will be and the more that supply in terms of capital or vessels and equipment will outstrip the availability of resource. what is happening is that the european union, with its international fisheries agreements, is contributing to this global problem, namely the over-subsidization of the fishing fleet worldwide. in fact, the fao has estimated that there is a very large and unacceptable total subsidy to fishing fleets worldwide. because of this there is overfishing, further depletion of stocks and the need for nations to buy more fishing rights elsewhere. then we get into a competitive and spiralling problem leading to further depletion of stocks. we have to stop this process somewhere. i believe that the european parliament should be a world leader in environmental protection and that we should be spearheading the cessation of subsidies to international fishing agreements. the liberal group is suggesting that we take a very radical approach to conservation and in general to the future of fishing worldwide. we should decide that this is an area where it is very easy to tie up private costs with actual costs so that the costs of fishing agreements should be borne by the boat owners and the fleet operators. in that way we will start to bring capacity into line with global fish stocks. that is only a start but it is an essential one. we are not for a moment saying that should be a unilateral decision by the european union. we must negotiate with the other major fishing nations - japan, korea, and what used to be the russian federation, although they are not major players now. we need to start to get some agreement internationally to stop this subsidy and this depletion of stocks in the world's oceans. if those negotiations are unsuccessful then we should take the process to the world trade organization and have that body police this area and treat the subsidy of international fishing agreements as unfair methods of competition. only in this way can we begin to get the marine ecology in some sort of global balance. the policy itself is not necessarily expensive in terms of the european union as a whole but the commission appears to want to expand this area. yet the cost to the community in this area is approximately ecu 280m per annum and peter crampton's report suggests that only 1, 300 vessels benefit from this policy. that is a subsidy per annum of around ecu 200, 000 per vessel. surely we can spend that money more effectively elsewhere in the european union, for example in the peripheral regions, and i would suggest my own constituency. there have to be better ways of spending that money and targeting it in terms of structural funding. the liberal group says that we should stop this folly, strike a positive note for conservation globally and the commission's message to us as member states should also be taken globally. we must stop this kind of subsidy. mr president, i am speaking for the first five minutes as rapporteur for the fisheries committee which passed my report a little while ago. for the remaining time i will express some of my own personal views and question marks about fisheries agreements in general. the european union has 26 fisheries agreements with third countries, 15 with countries in africa and the indian ocean and 10 in the north atlantic countries with 1 in latin america. they fall into five main categories: reciprocal agreements, access to surplus stocks, access to stocks in exchange for financial compensation, access in exchange for compensation and market access and second generation agreements involving the constitution of joint enterprises. many of these agreements operate with few problems and the main concern with fisheries agreements is with the financial compensation type. these are mainly signed with developing countries. the commissioner, and i quote her, recently said 'we arrive, fish, pay almost nothing and leave with zero control' . it is for this reason that the report concentrates on the financial compensation type of agreements. the european union obviously has to balance its own immediate interests and the future survival of its fleet while at the same time acknowledging that the sustainability of global fishstocks is in everybody's long-term interest. in the report, i refer to this as enlightened self-interest. this entails a measure of forward planning which the present so-called policy does not have. the fisheries committee welcomes the commission communication 'fisheries agreements - current situation and agreements' as an initial first step. a clear, coherent approach to fisheries agreements is essential to ensure the successful conclusion of future agreements. the signs are already there that the waters are, if not yet stormy, turbulent. the difficulties of signing a new agreement with senegal and the indications from morocco that it will not sign a further agreement when this one comes to an end in 1999 are significant. a whole body of opinion is now saying that a fresh approach needs to be adopted, not just for reasons of fair fisheries agreements and development, but also to ensure the survival of these agreements for the future. at a recent fisheries council meeting, the commission stated that global fisheries sources had become squeezed and that a new set of priorities was needed. this report aims to assist in that process. it sets out a series of principles. these principles include the sustainable use of marine resources, prevention of depletion, that all parties must cooperate on things like stock assessment, monitoring, cohabitation of industrial and artisanal fisheries, and so on. it also stresses the coherence that is necessary between fishing policy as represented by these agreements and development policy. this is particularly important. moreover, we should ensure that we abide by the codes of conduct, e.g. the food and agricultural organization's code of conduct for responsible fisheries, and many others that we have signed, and strive to ensure that all other nations do the same. mr teverson just referred to the food and agriculture organization. they have also said, in addition to what he said, that 70 % of the world's fish are being harvested near or beyond what is sustainable. apart from these principles, we lay down in the report a set of guidelines for a uniform procedure which must be gone through when we are negotiating fisheries agreements: the acquisition of the fullest possible information on stock levels; consultation with the representatives of the local fishing industry; a cost- benefit analysis; a mechanism to report back on the results of research; and the education and training programmes which are funded as part of these agreements by the community. then we mention in the report the role of the european parliament. we are not satisfied with the role of the european parliament. it is very much marginalized in the area of fisheries. parliament has repeatedly said that we should be much more fully involved in the process of agreements, including being consulted on the negotiating mandate that the council gives to the commission, and for the fisheries agreements to be concluded with parliament's assent procedure. for the remaining time, just a few personal points. it was a long and complicated vote in the committee. as a result, when we actually saw the printed report, i noticed that there were a number of contradictions, there were a few inaccuracies and the balance of the report had altered somewhat significantly. the party of european socialists' amendments seek to remedy some of these defects. i have to ask some questions. can we really say that the european union's present main objective is the maintenance of existing structures in the fishing industry? that would seem strange. can we really say that the european union should be responsible for shipowners' profitability? we do not say this about the steel industry or the car industry. why about the fishing industry? we should certainly be creating the conditions under which they can be profitable but we are not responsible. should these agreements be fully funded by the european union? in the directorate's newsletter pesca the commission writes that concerns about limiting cost may result in shipowners or even member states taking a greater share. we have to consider, i submit, what the court of auditors tells us and what the european taxpayer would tell us if he knew exactly what was happening. can we seriously consider, as is mentioned in this report, fish as a perishable resource? fish swimming about the ocean are a perishable resource? i ask you to think about that. can we say that exporting the european union's fleets' excess capacity to third country waters is a valid option for the future? the commission has already stated that these agreements are not a long-term solution. we have to tackle our problem in our waters ourselves. this is a good report. i hope people will support it. i have personal difficulties with it but this is the fisheries committee's decision and i think it is an advance on what we have had before. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, under the consultation procedure, parliament has been asked for its opinion on a commission proposal for a partial amendment of regulation no 3760/92 of december 1992 establishing a community system for fisheries and aquaculture. the proposal has three objectives. the first is to authorize powers to be conferred on the commission for incorporating, without consultation, in the community legal order provisions concerning technical measures on fishing gear and its method of use adopted by international fisheries organizations to which the community is a contracting party. the second amendment is aimed at determining the fishing opportunities which the council may allocate to third countries, within the limit of the annual total allowable catches, and technical conditions under which such catches may be made within community waters. finally, the third amendment proposes to confer powers on the council to determine technical resource conservation measures of a temporary nature relating to the conditions under which the quotas may be fished. it seemed to our committee that the second and third amendments proposed by the commission represent a technical improvement of regulation 3760/92 aimed at incorporating into community legislation a group of measures on resource exploitation which will improve the rational management of fishery stocks. given that the sole aim of these two proposals is to create a specific legal basis to enable the objectives i have just mentioned to be achieved, our committee has made no objection to these partial amendments to the regulation. on the contrary, it welcomes this improvement to the community fisheries and aquaculture system. on the other hand, our committee had strong reservations about the possibility of delegating powers to the commission to transpose directly into the community legal system binding acts adopted by international organizations under the terms set out in the commission proposal. article 4, paragraph 1 of regulation 3760/92, provides that the council acting, except where otherwise provided, in accordance with the procedure laid down in article 43 of the treaty, shall establish community measures laying down the conditions of access to waters and resources and the pursuit of exploitation activities. these measures shall be drawn up in the light of the available biological, socio-economic and technical analyses and in particular of the reports drawn up by the committee provided for in article 16: the scientific, technical and economic fisheries committee. the reference to the procedure under article 43 of the treaty means that, in order for decisions to be adopted in this field, the european parliament must be consulted. under the current decision-making procedure on fisheries within the european union, authorizing powers to be conferred on the commission to incorporate binding legal acts adopted by international organizations to which the community belongs, as proposed here, means parliament, and moreover the council, would be cut off from the decision-making process in respect of acts relating to a significant part of the common fisheries policy. in fact, the role of regional and sub-regional fisheries management organizations would be considerably strengthened. so we do not think it is good democracy for a technical body to have exclusive responsibility for the whole decisionmaking process, from negotiation to integration into the community legal system, without any control of any kind at any stage. the consultation procedure under article 43 of the treaty is practically the only means whereby the european parliament can be given adequate knowledge of the decisions adopted in organizations such as the international baltic sea fisheries commission, the north-west atlantic fisheries organization, the north-east atlantic fisheries commission, the convention for the conservation of antarctic marine living resources, which are all organizations with a major role in the fisheries sector. moreover, the implementation of the provisions arising from the recent united nations agreement on straddling stocks and stocks of highly migratory species, adopted on 4 august 1995, makes it more than ever important that parliament should be consulted on decisions adopted in international commissions and organizations, which are tending to become the main protagonists in the drafting of the law of the sea. in view of these various considerations, mr president, our committee proposes that the conferring of powers on the commission for the adoption of technical measures, as provided for in the proposal before us, should be rejected, but that the other two proposals for amendment relating to the exploitation of resources should be accepted. i would end by making it clear that the draft legislative resolution before you was unanimously adopted by the committee on fisheries and the two amendments tabled by our committee which accompany it, nos 1 and 2, are merely amendments to improve the proposal. mr president, ladies and gentlemen, commissioner, the debate on the future of international fisheries agreements must take into account certain basic ideas or principles. first of all, the fact that the european union is a world power in the fishing sector which is registering a growing trade deficit, a deficit which means more imports of fish which someone other that the european union is continuing increasingly to fish - without it being less-developed countries. secondly, the fact that the sector directly or indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of people, including those in the processing and preserves industry, which therefore gives it a social weight which is far greater than its direct economic importance, further worsened by the fact that many local communities depend on fishing activities. thirdly, the fact that there is a growing need to combat techniques which ravage fishing stocks, calling for growing internal controls which are both efficient and transparent, which must also be extended, in equal ways, to highly competitive third country fleets without failing to respect those which rationally and responsibly develop their activity. fourthly, the fact that where it is applicable, we must try and find ways of developing the own capacities of lessdeveloped third countries, preserving the respective territorial waters and only gaining access to the respective excess resources situated in exclusive economic areas, principles which should also be applied to neighbouring countries of the european union. fifthly, setting up as a principle the maintenance and extension of various types of existing fisheries agreements, without any attempt to privilege any one of them, therefore attending to the various financial and economic characteristics and capacities of european union fleets. in accordance with these five principles, we can state that the report considers these guidelines without detriment to the initial perspectives which were diverse and some of the contradictions which still exist. we should also reassert the fact that certain attempts to focus any future negotiation on the exclusive basis of 'third generation' agreements, aimed only at the creation of mixed companies, cannot and must not be accepted exclusively, since they can result in the relocations of companies, not only of production but also preservation and processing, with direct effects on unemployment, making it worse, and the social and cultural devastation of many regions of the european union, apart from the effects of increasing fish imports and the fact that these agreements will actually only be accessible to anyone who has large financial dimension and capacity, which could easily lead to the bankruptcy or disappearance of a huge number of smes in the european union. mr president, commissioner, the international fisheries agreements certainly have an economic and commercial value, there is no getting away from that, but they must also be compatible with cooperation and development policies. rightly, we are moving towards the second-generation agreements between states, and away from a somewhat exclusive and, if you like, eurocentric dimension to international agreements. we are considering the problems of employment, processing and the maintenance of environmental balances, but especially we are thinking about the consistency that our fisheries agreements must exhibit with the international conventions, which are a very important reference base as far as we are concerned. these agreements are also important because they are designed to eliminate the pirate vessels which, as you all know, are looting fish stocks from international waters. above all, though, the agreements look towards a concept of co-operation and development, while at the same time helping to establish hygienic and sanitary practices in the countries concerned. of course we must pay due heed to the traditional cultures of these peoples, but the fact remains that in the acp regions and in the sgp states these agreements fulfil an important function. i should add that we must also take account of the fact that the fisheries agreements focus not only on the aspect of quotas - something which would not have existed previously - but also on the economic aspect. there are still some third countries which are not always making the best use of these agreements, and in some cases they are serving to enrich the local ruling cliques, thus creating a problem of democracy originating from the administration of european resources, which are not all that extensive. by contrast, other countries have begun to make dynamic moves into the international market, becoming nothing less than competitors of the european union. take the case of morocco, which despite having negotiated an extremely favourable agreement with the european union is trying to reposition itself in the market, negotiating agreements with other countries. this creates a problem, partly because the agreements signed by us were not solely connected with fisheries but also extended to other important sectors such as agriculture and the opening of the market to certain specific moroccan products. from this point of view, then, we must be very vigilant, remembering that we cannot withdraw but that, on the other hand, an excessively liberal view, such as mr teverson would like to see, would not work. we must remember that, even if we have a problem with the self-sufficiency of the food supply in the european union, which is a very important point, and even if these agreements help to improve that self-sufficiency, liberalization would be likely to be harmful and would naturally result in the deterioration of those quality mechanisms and hygienic and sanitary standards that we have worked to bring about, while also creating conditions in which the workforce in third countries would be exploited, something which we do not like to see today. for example, the second-generation international agreements also attach great importance to social guarantees, a not insignificant point, although we must be alert, since there are a lot of unscrupulous people who, once embarked on the high seas, make use of fishing licences under international agreements to indulge in smuggling. for this reason, we must take steps to ensure meticulous controls. i believe it is important to continue along this road, and to improve things further, but also that it is important to move forward to a further stage, going beyond the concept of bilateral international agreements. i would hope that the european union would negotiate more and more with other associations of states, or, to put it another way, that the acp or sgp states, for example, were to set up their own delegations for fisheries with which the european union could conduct specific negotiations. with this in mind, we could try some experimental approaches in some areas, especially areas which are environmentally and geographically homogeneous and comprise groups of states; in areas like those it would be useful to talk to some of these associations on a more than just bilateral basis. so i believe that a good job has been done. i thank the rapporteur, and i also believe that the amendments that will be adopted will prove their value. one final point, if i may, mr president: i would like to thank the commissioner for the co-operative way in which she has worked with parliament on the international agreements. nevertheless, commissioner, the time has now come for us to join battle: we need a new legal base for the parliamentary assent, which is a fundamental matter for us: your goodwill is important, but we now need to move on from this stage and obtain that legal basis. mr president, i should like to use today's debate on fisheries as an opportunity to highlight the importance of the legislative work we do in the committee on fisheries, and the value and status of that work within the policy of the european union. fishing is a long-established and traditional occupation which also has a future. it includes key aspects such as the area of international policy, based on international fisheries agreements - as described by mr crampton - and on the european union's involvement in various international organizations, for example nafo. this means that, in a sense, fisheries are part of the european union's common foreign and security policy, and its policy on development. however, one of the failings of the maastricht treaty was that it did not take account of our efforts to ensure that future international fisheries agreements were subject to the assent procedure. that would have had the effect of strengthening the rights of the european parliament, both in this area and more generally. to that extent, we believe that by bringing our action concerning the fisheries agreement with mauritania before the court of justice pursuant to article 228 of the eec treaty, the committee on fisheries is promoting the further institutional development of the eu. moreover, fisheries policy is also part of structural and employment policy. an estimated 20 000 people are employed directly on fishing vessels operating under fisheries agreements. to that number should be added between 25 000 and 50 000 shore-based jobs. and that leaves aside downstream employment in the processing industry. i cannot overemphasize the point that these jobs are being maintained in structurally weak areas which depend on fishing and offer no alternative employment. fisheries policy is also part of environment policy, because of the significant impact which it has on marine ecosystems. and, last but not least, fishing is part of food policy. as a rich source of protein, fish provides one of the basic nutritional building-blocks. our task over the next few years is to reformulate europe's common fisheries policy to meet the needs of the period after 2002 - in other words, the very near future. so what is to be done? the commission must draw up guidelines for the evaluation of protocols which are about to expire, as well as future protocols. amongst other things, these must contain the most reliable information possible on the state of fish stocks, an element of coordination with other community activities, and an informed cost-benefit assessment. the working atmosphere in the committee on fisheries is good, and allowed us to reach a workable consensus on the crampton report. i hope the conclusions of the report will also be supported by the commission and the council, and i would therefore ask you to vote in favour of the crampton report, and all the other reports. mr president, after 20 years, it is indeed high time that a detailed evaluation was made of the fisheries agreements, and this is what i should like to discuss in my few minutes' speaking time this evening. any such evaluation must take account of budgetary, social and environmental aspects. the fisheries agreements are designed to ease the pressure on stocks in the union's waters, but they have not done anything to help resolve our overcapacity problem. ad hoc solutions and short-term thinking cannot and must not be used to eliminate the problem of structural overfishing in our waters. we must not simply try to shift this problem onto other countries, and we certainly must not make the mistake of exporting our system of poor fisheries management. the commission says that these agreements do not affect development policy because it is only surplus stocks that are fished, but i find this hard to believe. it is difficult enough for the union to estimate its own stocks, let alone for the developing countries who have to do this without the benefit of the west's advanced technology. we need to solve our overfishing problems internally within the union instead of exporting them to other countries. the only solution that we in the liberal group can see is to reduce fleet capacity, because tighter controls do not provide sufficient guarantees. restructuring is what is needed, and the funding currently earmarked for the agreements could be used to finance this instead. finally, i entirely agree with mr teverson when he says that the escalating costs of the agreements are unjustified and european taxpayers' money should no longer be used to pay for them. such heavy subsidies simply encourage overcapacity, which in turn leads to further depletion of stocks. i fear that we liberals are still alone in supporting our amendments, but i am sure that in a few years' time the majority in parliament will come to share our views. mr president, let me reassure mr eisma that as far as the green group is concerned, we have long been calling for us to stop exporting overfishing, because this is effectively what we are doing. there is no point in saying that we want to prevent this from happening: it is already happening now, and it has frequently caused problems in the past in connection with the fisheries agreements with the acp countries in particular. we have seen it with morocco, which is not an acp country of course, and also with mauritania, where ecu 52 million are on offer in return for permission to fish a certain quota, and when you think that this represents 6 % of their gross national product, you can well understand that there is a certain amount of pressure involved and that considerations such as the accurate monitoring of fish stocks and so on are easily pushed into the background. we have had serious talks on the subject with senegal and namibia, which led to the setting-up of a fisheries working party under the acp-eu joint assembly. this is still in operation, but the conflict between our interests and theirs is becoming increasingly obvious. as far as today's problems are concerned, i would say, particularly in relation to mr crampton's report, that what we were originally told and what the explanatory statement says is much better than the actual text of the resolution, which has been greatly watered down, presumably by those who are determined to protect our interests. i know that mr crampton is here, and that is why i should like to draw attention to two of our amendments, nos 3 and 4, which are designed to ensure that fish stocks are managed at a regional level. this goes a step further than what is said in one of the recitals, all of which we can accept. but if the principle of a regional approach is to be applied in practice by saying that any agreements with various countries on one type of fish stock must be dealt with on a regional basis, the committee on fisheries cannot agree with that, and we hope that the plenary will now amend it accordingly. mr president, i have to clear up a confusion about the point of order i raised earlier. you said that we would vote on this tomorrow. if you check, you will find that is not the case. what i was looking for was an assurance that we would not come back to this matter until the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights had a chance to debate it properly. if you could confirm that when i have sat down it would be helpful. the whole question of the souchet reports is fraught with difficulties about the proper legal basis. mrs souchet has gone half-way in rejecting what the commission is trying to do. but there is a very dangerous precedent being set here, if the commission is allowed to get away with evading the provisions of the acquis commaunitaire and the provisions of the various fundamental treaties which set up the common fisheries policy. that is why this issue of going to the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights is so important. let me make it quite plain that i am not against reviewing the common fisheries policy. on the contrary. i have - as the commissioner well knows - been well to the forefront in urging a review of the cap, but it has to be a review in the context of 2002. we all have to work together to have a properly worked out amendment rather than one achieved by some circuitous back door route. that is why this whole issue of the souchet report is not important so much for the content as for the procedure. so i am raising this as a fundamental question. once we can get the procedural legal point out of the way, then let us discuss the technical measures. but this has to be done on a proper, sound, legal basis. mr macartney, i already indicated at the start that the vote will only take place once we have the report from the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights on the legal basis. it is quite impossible to vote on this report without it. mr president, international fisheries agreements are extremely important for employment in the european fishing sector, so the union must try to keep rich fishing grounds outside the union open to european fishermen. but this has its limits. international fisheries face the same problem as do the union's own waters: a catch capacity which is too large for fish stocks to be maintained. in negotiating fisheries agreements, the union must not only assert its rights under the un convention on the law of the sea, it must also fulfil its obligations, and this is why it cannot allow itself to export unlimited overcapacity to international fishing grounds. according to the fao, many commercial fish species are currently under threat. there is certainly a large question mark against the figures they use, but the signs are clearly there, particularly since local fishermen in various developing countries are having to contend with dwindling catches. some of the statements in the crampton report calling for access for community fishermen not only to be maintained, but also expanded simply go too far. where there is overfishing and the local industry is developing, the union must give precedence to the local fishermen. the union must also ensure that the fisheries agreements are consistent with development policy. we need to move away from the first-generation agreements in which the governments of the coastal states concerned gave european fishermen fishing rights in return for a sizeable sum of money. the local populations obtained very little benefit from this arrangement. i therefore agree with the rapporteur that we must try to replace these agreements with second or third-generation agreements, under which the financial aid goes to benefit research, training, monitoring systems and other activities in the domestic fishing sector. where necessary, the exclusion zone for local fishermen must also be extended. in short, what we need is a long-term fisheries policy which guarantees that fish stocks are maintained and supports development policy. thank you very much, mr president. madam commissioner, everyone who has followed fishing issues closely knows the argument which tends to surround the agreements policy, and as you see, this report's passage through committee has also aroused lively debate. but although the outcome does not meet everyone's expectations of course, to be fair, the report is balanced and places the agreements in a more realistic context. it recognizes, first of all, the importance of the agreements for the community economy, and not just for the countries which benefit because their fleets are in third countries' waters, but also - this point is often forgotten - for other countries with important processing industries which can be supplied with community raw materials as a result and not have to rely massively on imports which would be much more expensive without the fishing agreements. the same argument applies to consumers, who continue to have access to a market for good quality products at reasonable prices. but there is concern about other aspects which are still not functioning entirely satisfactorily and the document takes this up. there is concern that community fleets should set an example of respect for resources for other fleets operating in third countries' waters, that local fishermen should receive proper information about what the various agreements mean, and that there should be transparency and control over financial compensation paid by the european union and its shipowners. finally, the report seeks to clarify another point of confusion: the fisheries agreements are fisheries policy, not development policy. yet it would be wrong to forget the important role they play in the development of local communities, thanks to the financing and experience provided by the community fleets, to the point that - and this is another little-known aspect - in many cases it is third countries themselves which ask the european union for fisheries agreements. the most recent case - and here i am correcting some of my colleagues - is senegal, where pressure to renew the agreement has come not just from community interests, but also from the senegalese sector itself because its processing depends on community catches in its waters and some industries risked paralysis if the agreement was not renewed immediately. as you know, some were already complaining before the agreement was renewed. so taking all these factors into account, i must support mr crampton's report as it stands and i cannot agree with the amendments tabled by others. finally, i would like to congratulate all the rapporteurs, but i want to highlight the souchet report, madam commissioner, regarding parliament's loss of power in the consultation procedure, and we obviously have to oppose your proposed reform of article 4 of the basic regulation. you will appreciate that it is our right and our duty to defend the powers of this parliament, and article 43 is considerably diminished by your proposal, so we shall continue to whittle away at it. mr president, i am speaking mainly to the opinion of the committee on legal affairs and citizen's rights in relation to mr varela suanzes-carpegna's report on the proposal for a council decision on ratification by the european community of the agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the united nations convention on the law of the sea relating to the conservation and management of fish stocks found both inside and outside exclusive economic zones and highly migratory fish stocks. the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights and the committee on fisheries share a common position, adopted unanimously in both committees moreover, to the effect that the proposal to introduce a new article 3.2 establishing mixed or joint procedure by the states and the commission is not proper. personally i would favour the community assuming full responsibility for this matter, but at the moment we know that the second title and the external powers of the community are not recognized. given that the community does not have full competence in matters of external policy, it seems to me very dangerous to introduce a dual procedure, and i think it is preferable to wait until jurisdiction develops in accordance with united nations law rather than introduce this ambiguous situation. on the other reports on fisheries agreements, i would like to mention that all of them - like mr varela suanzescarpegna's - were unanimously approved by the committee on fisheries, reflecting the magnificent atmosphere in the committee under the present chairman. the opinions of the various committees were unanimously approved as well. so we have a solid package. and i especially want to congratulate my good friend, mr crampton, for his work as rapporteur. listening to him last night, i was reminded of characters in english literature, characters he must know well, created by a great british writer, mr robert louis stevenson: dr jekyll and mr hyde. i am totally in agreement with dr jekyll, that is, mr crampton the rapporteur, and his magnificent report, unanimously approved by the committee on legal affairs and citizens' rights, and i do not agree with mr crampton as mr hyde, criticizing his own report as rapporteur in the committee on fisheries. account needs to be taken of the fact that the fisheries agreements represent only 0.003 % of the total community budget. and when mr teverson said that the percentage per ship was very high, he did not explain that the reason it is so high is that community policy has been and is to reduce the number of ships. and as we reduce the number of ships and the community fishing effort, we have to apply the amounts needed to maintain fishing capacity. i find the commission's current budget proposals quite alarming and, frankly, i do not think the european parliament should second those proposals, and i hope it does not. when the resources allocated to fisheries are so limited and the intention is to reduce them further, that seems irresponsible to me because of the tremendous effects they are going to have on people and even on maintaining the quality and quantity of fish in the sea. i think we must hold out strongly against it. i would like to end with a comparison: the poorest regions of the community are generally island regions - for example, the azores and corsica - and the only community region called an island which is above the community average is the ile de france and i do not think there is much fishing in the ile de france because it is some way from the sea. community fisheries policy has a lot to do with the island location of many regions dependent on fishing and that usually goes hand in hand with a level of poverty requiring an economic contribution from the community, based on type of region and the maintenance of ecological balance. mr president, allow me to begin by congratulating mr crampton on his report. for one thing, it sets out our fisheries policy priorities. for another, it offers a brisk reminder as regards the proper application of the code of conduct of 12 december 1996. and that is surely necessary, because the council is continuing to circumvent us in our capacity as one arm of the budgetary authority - not least as happened in relation to the fisheries agreement with mauritania. i find myself wondering why we actually agreed a code of conduct at all. similarly, the commission blithely disregards the fact that it is now obliged under the code of conduct to inform us fully and in good time of the current state of the negotiations on international fisheries agreements - in other words, actually during the negotiations. this was confirmed only recently when mrs bjerregaard addressed the house during the debate on the fisheries agreements with guinea and angola. the fisheries agreement with so tom and principe which we are discussing here today provides yet another example of how important it is for the commission and the council to apply the code of conduct systematically. in this case, the council decided on the provisional application of the protocol on 25 october last year, so that the commission could immediately proceed with the payments. in the council's eyes, that was more important than consulting parliament in good time. in fact, we were consulted for the first time on 20 september - four months after the protocol had been initialled and barely six weeks before the first payment was due to be made. surely that is no way for democratic institutions to deal with one another! let me remind the house that if in fact the code of conduct was rigorously applied, it would put an end to this disgraceful practice of provisionally implementing international fisheries agreements. moreover, we are already faced with another similar case - i refer to the agreement with senegal which was initialled on 26 march. this time, the first payment is due on 31 july. this means that we face another instance of provisional application because, as usual, the council has not bothered to consult us. however, the guilty party this time is the commission. i should like to take this opportunity of emphasizing once again that the last commission official in charge of negotiating fisheries agreements with third countries was, like his predecessors, made fully aware of the importance of observing the democratic procedure for ratifying an international fisheries agreement - even if negotiations on such an agreement go on until three in the morning - and was told that agreeing deadlines for payment three or four months after the initialling of an agreement would simply no longer be acceptable. the crampton report also backs our repeated demand for the question of the application of the assent procedure to be clarified as part of the continuing negotiations on the revision of the maastricht treaty. therefore, as the member of the committee on budgets with permanent responsibility for reporting on fisheries issues, i welcome the decision that was taken by the committee on legal affairs on 17 april this year to finally make an example of the agreement with mauritania and contest the council's chosen legal basis for that agreement in the court of justice. mr president, one of the reports we are going to pass is the report on the international fisheries agreements. first i want to congratulate mr crampton on this report, because many of us opposed the initial proposal and yet, by an exercise of flexibility, mr crampton has been able to achieve a compromise which is undoubtedly positive for the community fishing sector. our fishing fleet has obvious socio-economic importance. it generates activity and employment in areas where there are usually few economic alternatives. so when our fishing grounds in community waters cannot supply the catches required by the capacity of the european fishing fleet, we must look for alternatives in waters of other third countries. it is a social obligation. but we must also bear in mind that the community runs a deficit in fish, so the needs of our own trade balance impel us to look for and promote this type of alternative for our fleet. that is clearly stated in this report, which is why it deserves our full support. the report also states that these fisheries agreements are perfectly compatible with cooperation policies for developing countries and actually make a contribution to them by dynamizing those economies. so the fisheries agreements themselves can actually be active instruments of the cooperation policies, in addition, of course, to serving the interests of the community fishing sector. and the report underlines another sad reality. the resources intended for these fisheries agreements, which must be financed by the community budget, are not sufficient. year after year, the budget of the european union increases and yet the amounts devoted to fishing in general, and to the fisheries agreements in particular, are not growing to the same extent but are diminishing in relative and indeed absolute terms - from ecu 278 million to ecu 273 million last year. i think this is very difficult to accept, especially when the total of community resources earmarked for the fishing sector accounts for only 0.9 % of the budget and the part intended for financing fishing rights is only 0.31 % of the budget of the european union. how can we justify to our fishermen the fact that while agriculture, the other primary sector, has 45 % of the community budget devoted to it - ensuring that it has an income support policy - fishing, on the other hand, only receives 0.9 %? this is also denounced in one way or another in this report. and as the european parliament is a budgetary authority, logically this should give us food for thought too. the report gives a realistic description of the community fleet's ever-increasing difficulties of direct access to the fishing grounds of other third countries. those are the facts. and they mean we have to try to find alternatives in second and third generation fisheries agreements. and i want to close with one thought, mr president: we increasingly need a genuine european foreign policy to back up all our policies, including our socio-economic policies, and including our fisheries policies. that is a thought the commissioner has had many times. for example, in agreements with russia our cod fleet needs to be able to obtain compensation to access arctic resources, and the enormous advantages norway gains from our markets ought to mean greater opportunities for the community fishing sector. in the future a common foreign policy which also covers trade policy, economic policy and cooperation policy may facilitate the development of international fisheries agreements. the crampton report underlines the need for coherence between the various community policies. mr president, commissioner, for the foreseeable future, the european union's international fisheries agreements will have to balance two conflicting sets of interests: on the one hand, there is the need to secure access for the eu fleet to the marine resources of third-country waters; on the other, there is the vital interest of developing countries in improving the exploitation of their own marine resources in order to supply their growing populations. the rapporteur, mr crampton, has tried to tackle problems and set out demands which are geared to the future, and he deserves particular thanks for doing so, because one thing must be understood quite clearly: a strategy which is based on 'more of the same' will be a non-starter. indeed, the problems are already too urgent for that. the capacity of the world's fishing fleet has doubled over the last 20 years, and the pressure on fisheries resources is steadily increasing. the competition for fish as a declining source of food has intensified, with the result that it is becoming more and more expensive to exploit marine resources. tackling these problems requires transparency, a coherent approach and, above all, honesty. one of the requirements of a transparent approach to international fisheries agreements is to consider who benefits from such agreements and on the basis of what criteria access to third-country waters is granted. if the benefits of fisheries agreements are to be assessed in a comprehensible way, we must insist on a cost-benefit analysis - which must also consider the possible consequences of not having such agreements. in particular, we wish to see the commission adopting an integrated approach in this area, instead of the present ad hoc way of dealing with things. under article 130v of the ec treaty, the community is already legally required to adopt a coherent approach to its various policies and to take account of their impact on developing countries. clearly, however, it is also in the union's own interest to seek to achieve a balance of interests with the developing countries, framing bilateral fisheries agreements in such a way that these also play a part in developing the local economy and improving supplies for the indigenous population. we expect second-generation agreements to further consolidate the element of cooperation with those countries that wish to have it. finally, an honest approach to international fisheries agreements also means admitting - to our own fishermen as much as anyone - that the long-term solution to the problem of overcapacity in the community fleet does not lie in ever more intensive fishing of third-country waters. other mechanisms must be brought into play here, because this is a regional, rather than a sectoral problem. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there has often been a lack of will within the european union over international fisheries agreements despite the fact that they are part and parcel of the common fisheries policy. old arguments are trotted out, old chestnuts, such as budgetary costs, balance in the use of resources or the supposed contradiction between these agreements and the european union's cooperation policy with acp countries. access by the european union's fishery fleets to the waters of third countries only has a raison d'tre if it is in the interest of both parties. therefore no country, including those in the acp, will sign these agreements with us unless its own interests, be they material, economic or social, are looked after. therefore, i fail to understand certain paternalistic positions calling into question the sovereignty and legitimacy of those countries in reaching international agreements. on the other hand, it is a known fact that the european union has an approximate 55 % deficit in fish supplies for its market. we also know that 25 % of community fishery production is guaranteed by international fisheries agreements. it is also a fact that these agreements maintain around 50, 000 jobs in the european union. in the face of these facts and circumstances, i think that we have every justification and can say that the current 270 million ecu spent annually on international fisheries agreements is money well spent. if we demand, as some people wish, an analysis of costs and benefits, then the same will have to be true for all community policies, beginning with the one which costs the most - the common agricultural policy or cap. as far as agreements with developed countries in particular are concerned, it is regrettable that the european union should not have considered it a priority to look at the fisheries sector in economic trade negotiations with those countries. i am thinking in particular of north america, where millions of tonnes of fish in international waters have been exclusively handed over for exploitation by norway, iceland, canada and russia, something which is very revealing. then there is the agreement with greenland, for which quotas were attributed to member states of the european union which do not use them, including countries such as portugal, which until it joined the european union historically used to fish in those waters. i should like to begin by thanking mr crampton for the work which he has carried out on his report. but i must say, with every respect, that his report often confuses economic and commercial questions bound up with the common fisheries policy with questions which are more related to cooperation policy and tends in general to overestimate the problems of others compared with our own problems which are very many, especially in this area. i therefore hope that the amendments tabled by the committee on fisheries will be approved, to make this report a balanced, realistic one serving the interests of the european union. mr president, there are a hundred million people in developing countries who depend for their very basic survival on fishing - not just for their livelihood but their survival. there are another ten million people in developing countries who are employed in the fishing industry full-time; that is their source of employment. another ten million people are employed part-time in developing countries and fishing is one of their activities. these are extraordinary statistics. a hundred million people is more than twice the populations of spain and portugal put together. it is almost twice the population of the united kingdom. and these people depend for their basic survival on fishing. the crampton report is a good report in that it points out certain parameters and certain principles which we should be basing our fishing and development policy on. we need a new european fisheries development policy. it must go beyond the framework of commercial agreements. these are costing the community budget about 30 % of the fisheries budget. this cannot be right. for next year's budget we are going to be reducing the pesca projects by 50 %. and here in our own union, where there are tremendous problems of decommissioning and areas suffering from unemployment because of constraints and the need to conserve stocks, we are reducing expenditure while at the same time we are spending a third of our budget on commercial agreements. the community has its priorities wrong and we need a new fisheries policy. there are problems with the crampton report. some unhelpful amendments were tabled at the final meeting of the committee on fisheries. there are some small difficulties, which result in the kind of mishmash which mr cunha mentioned. but the report offers a way forward and we have to seize the opportunity for a new development in the fisheries area. concerning mr macartney's amendment to the souchet report, if we are going to have reform of the cfp, it should look to the year 2002 as agreed and we should have discussions. it should not be slipped in by the back door, as some people appear to be trying to do. then there is the matter of the un convention on the law of the sea, in the suanzes-carpegna report. i cannot understand amendment no 2. i thought the whole emphasis of the european union was to settle disputes with the commission and the member states. but some people on the committee on fisheries seem to think otherwise. mr president, mr commissioner, i want to add my congratulations to those received by the rapporteurs for their reports in this joint debate and i want to concentrate particularly on the international agreements, especially thanking mr crampton, in his dr jekyll incarnation, for the valuable work he has done and also for the flexibility he has shown in achieving compromise solutions in the committee on fisheries, even if the result was not entirely to his liking. this is also a good time to think about the future of the community fisheries agreements, which have frequently been attacked from myopic political positions based on partial analysis of the relative participation of the member states, sometimes on imaginary conflict with development policy, and occasionally on dubious reasoning associated with fairly unsound cost-benefit analysis. these are all attempts to undermine a policy which is not only vital to maintaining the activity in an important sector of the community fleet, but - as the chairman of the committee on fisheries has mentioned - also for regular supply of the community fish products processing industry at reasonable prices and high quality. because there is no getting away from it, the european union is faced with a clear dilemma: either to abandon its current policy of negotiation or to make it more effective. if it abandons it, there are two possibilities: either the field would be left open to fleets of third countries filling the gap left by the european union, or we would be witness to a partial renationalization of fisheries policy, because the member states themselves or their economic agents would negotiate more useful agreements. i think the actual interests of coastal third countries counsel continuing with this policy, because the european union negotiates fishing opportunities based on a rigorous analysis of the state of the fishing grounds, establishes appropriate technical measures, and contributes to the promotion of fishing control activities with the states with which it negotiates, and to the development of the national fishing sectors in those countries. what is the best option, negotiating fisheries agreements with a responsible political body like the european union or the anarchy the free play of economic forces would lead to? i think the answer is obvious. as a parliament committed to respect for the environment in all its facets, driving development policy forward, concerned about keeping our fishing fleets active and our processing industries regularly supplied, we must continue to support a community policy of fisheries agreements which has proved its worth both to member states and third countries. and we must do so without abandoning the necessary improvement in the institutional procedures which will sharpen parliament's protagonism in the context of this policy. it is very easy to criticize, but there are few alternatives. so i encourage you, madam commissioner, coolly and rationally, to press ahead with this policy, which is difficult but has produced such good results so far. mr president, i too would like to congratulate mr crampton for his skill, especially as he succeeded in getting an initial draft report that was perhaps a little extreme in its demands approved unanimously in the committee on fisheries by incorporating the amendments that were passed. as this own initiative report deals with the international fisheries agreements, which are so important for the community fishing fleet and arouse such genuine passion, his achievement was all the greater. i want to highlight three points from the report: first, the preservation of fisheries resources, a principle underpinned by community and international rules and which is so fundamental for assuring the future of the european fleet. secondly, as a socialist, i am pleased the crampton report acknowledges the importance of preserving existing employment, both on the sea and in the processing industry. even if it does not have great incidence on the whole community, fishing is a vital economic activity for the development of certain peripheral regions with income levels below the community average and high levels of unemployment, regions where fishing is the principal activity and whose socio-economic structure would fall apart if they could not count on the international fisheries agreements. and thirdly, the report records that, in spite of their commercial nature, the fisheries agreements provide certain benefits for developing countries contracting with the european union. claiming that they are not commercial agreements, but are geared to the development of the acp countries, would mean these fisheries agreements would have to be financed by the european development fund and not by the slim budget of the common fisheries policy. but anyway, that idea does not relate to reality. as mr crampton has already mentioned, over half the 26 agreements have been signed with acp countries, but our fleet principally operates in the waters of other countries. i think we should stop thinking international trade is sinful. the development of these countries is helped by giving them an outlet to the market and buying their products and hence collaborating economically in their development. the european union could survive without a fisheries agreement with sao tom, but that country would be deprived of a principal source of income if it did not have an agreement with the european union. trade benefits both parties and so do the international fisheries agreements. mr president, all the very valuable reports before us tonight deal with agreements and treaties on how best to regulate and control fishing in national and international waters at a time when there are very considerable concerns about over fishing and reduction of fish-stocks. the report by mr varela suanzes-carpegna contains a reference to the duty of the country under whose flag a vessel is flying to exercise jurisdiction and take action if that vessel infringes the regulations. i should like to draw to the commissioner's attention the difficulties being experienced in exercising that duty in relation to some socalled quota-hoppers. i have been told of recent cases of non-british vessels sailing under the british flag, which were prosecuted in a british court, found guilty and fined, simply sailing away to another member state leaving the fines unpaid. some system must be found to ensure that all vessels sailing under a particular national flag are made accountable to the courts of that state, and the member state of which the captain and crew are nationals must cooperate in ensuring that this blatant flouting of conservation measures is stopped. very many fishermen, all over the eu, from communities like grimsby in my own constituency, have become unemployed as a result of conservation measures. vessel owners have received eu compensation; but the people who worked on the decommissioned boats in the uk did not even receive statutory redundancy pay, let alone eu compensation, because they were designated casual workers even if they worked on the same ship for many years. this is a serious injustice which continues to cause great resentment against the european union in general as well as the common fisheries policy. i would ask the commissioner to ensure that future decommissioning is done in such a way as to ensure that not just the vessel owners, but also those who worked and risked their lives at sea, receive some sort of appropriate compensation for the loss of their livelihood. a fishing set-aside to compensate for reduced days at sea is also a measure that possibly could be taken. mr president, commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this report reflects the duality and political tension raised by this subject. on one hand, we point out the costs, and the benefits, with the commission itself stating that the current budgetary situation is such that with the cost of current agreements we have very little room for manoeuvre when negotiating new agreements or renegotiating existing ones. from the point of view of cooperation and development, we emphasize the option for local fleets of third countries, where the community fleet is already fishing, such as the example of the fisheries development plan concerning the kingdom of morocco. on the other hand, the member states are systematically confronted with fleets and fishermen depending on international fisheries agreements. i can detect a certain amount of anti-europeanism here, with calls for progressive extensions and increases for fishery rights of third countries, emphasizing the virtues of a hypothetical bilateral negotiation of fishery rights to renationalize fisheries policies. our real challenge is defence of the community fleet without taking anti-environmental or anti-european positions. in my opinion, all of these budgetary discussions about costs and benefits are all part of the scheme to try to transfer available financial resources to other objectives and this in the end reflects an incomplete picture in the whole approach to the european project, in a sector of huge political relevance and with enormous impact on employment in certain coastal regions of the european community. apart from that, the international fisheries agreements represent only 0.31 % of the whole community budget and there is no doubt that a policy without agreements, at 1996 costs, would result in an increase in the sea-product trade deficit of at least 1, 400 million ecu a year, whereas extra direct unemployment in this sector would come to something like 450 million ecu per year in unemployment benefit. on the other hand, any proposals bearing in mind a controversial and complex shareout of costs between shipowners and the commission or a freeze on community financial contributions would lead to a strengthening of the aforementioned trend towards 're-nationalizing' fisheries policies. that was the appeal i wanted to make because the political cost of such an option would be incalculable as well as the economic impact on fishery areas. finally, it is in particular from the viewpoint of resources management that we must assess the future of international fisheries agreements. sea resource management is the keystone for sustainable fishing and initially it will be for coastal states to see to this management without discrimination between national and community fleets. there is now a new international legal framework in the fishery sector confirmed by the united nations convention on maritime law, and i should also like to point out the code of conduct for responsible fishing. the resources we are talking about are finite and only sustainable fishing will allow the sector to continue, as well as international fisheries agreements. mr president, in reply i shall say a few brief words about each of the reports, leaving until last a number of comments on the own-initiative report by mr crampton regarding the international fisheries agreements, which have been at the focus of this evening's debate, and to which all the speeches made have in any case referred. taking them in order, i look first at the report by mr varela. the commission played an active part in achieving the ratification of the united nations convention relating to the conservation and management of straddling stocks, which the commission believes represents a concrete step towards the protection and sustainable exploitation of resources. i am of course fully aware of the problems that arise, and especially of the need to prevent certain partners from continuing to undertake unilateral initiatives, canada in particular, and i should like to reassure mr varela that action is being taken, through diplomatic letters and all other available means, to try to prevent or at any rate put a stop to this kind of behaviour, which is not acceptable either to parliament or to the commission. as far as the amendments are concerned, the commission's position is as follows: amendments nos 1 and 3 relate to various concerns regarding the provisions on the distribution of powers between the community and the member states and regarding the need for the agreement to be interpreted in accordance with the convention of the law of the sea, but the commission considers that these concerns have already been taken into account in the declarations annexed to the proposal or in the agreement itself. furthermore, with regard to amendment no 2, the commission considers this unacceptable in that it supports the idea of unified representation of the european commission in disputes with international bodies. although i understand the underlying philosophy, mr varela, i would not want to see the same situation arising with the fisheries as has arisen with the cfsp, because hitherto - like it or not - at least the community has spoken with a single voice. if each member state were to defend its own interests we should, i think, have a repeat of the second pillar situation in the matter of foreign policy, where the cacophonous cries and conflicting interests of the member states would not, it seems to me, provide us with a more effective instrument. moving on to mr macartney's report, the commission thanks the rapporteur for his excellent work; in fact the annex to the protocol has been amended to give the competent authorities of so tom e principe better control over the fishing activities of foreign fleets in the exclusive economic zone. the commission agrees with the spirit of amendments nos 3 and 5, and agrees that it is indeed necessary to improve the provision of information. it cannot accept amendment no 6, because the council lays down the directives which are negotiated once only for each agreement and not for the renewal of the agreements and the various protocols. in this case the commission, whose task it is to conduct the negotiations, also ensures compliance with the directives that have been submitted by the council. with regard to the other amendments, the commission has always believed that the fisheries agreements concluded with the acp states are eminently commercial in nature even though, as emphasized in the subsequent report by mr crampton, those agreements do very often contain development aspects, which also apply to third countries, for example with regard to the signing-on of crews or the landing of catches for on-board processing. in any event, pursuant to article 130b of the treaty of union regarding cohesion, the commission intends that the appropriations in favour of these countries should reinforce the fisheries sector synergistically with development policy. i must say, though, at this point, that it is frustrating for the commission, having listened to you for two hours, not to be able to reply to mrs aelvoet because she is not here. i do want to reply to her, anyway, because i feel that this house nourishes a number of stereotypes and, frankly, i no longer know what words to use to clear them up. i cannot accept time and time again the example of senegal, because this is not correct. the senegal agreement was finalized at the request of, and pressure from, the senegal authorities, including the fisheries sector of senegal. secondly, we had a joint action with dg xiv and dg viii so it was a development and fishery agreement. third, following our pressure, we received a letter from the authorities of dakar saying that they have finally decided to allocate 50 % of the total amount of the agreement to the fisheries sectors. this simply proves that we are trying to take your concern into account. i cannot listen again to the claim that we are competing with the local fishery. this is not true. our fleet is fishing in high seas 200 meters deep. local senegalese fishermen cannot fish 200 meters deep. they do not have the tools and equipment. we are competing with the japanese fleet. so let us tell it as it is so that what can be corrected can be corrected. let us face the real problem and not some stereotype. i do not really know how i can overcome that. i will leave the crampton report to the end because it deserves more comment and turn now to the report by mr teverson. with regard to mr teverson's report on multilateral co-operation in the nafo area, the european community, as you know, being a contracting party, is required to incorporate into community legislation all the recommendations made by the nafo fisheries committee, which is why the two proposals for regulations in question lay down certain monitoring measures, as indeed you mentioned, including observers, which follow up the recommendations made by the fisheries committee of the nafo. the commission welcomes the fact that these proposals have been the subject of favourable comment in the teverson report. i have of course taken note of the anxieties you have expressed, which are reflected in the proposed amendments, but i cannot for formal reasons introduce them into the proposal for a council regulation amending regulation 189. in any case, the commission undertakes from now on to pass to the chairman of the committee on fisheries a copy of the report drawn up by the nafo scientific council on the fish stocks situation. the problem is that the stocks are analysed and evaluated by the nafo scientific committee, in which the european commission participates, but there are no specific reports; what i can do is to make the results of that scientific report available immediately. as regards the final report, by mr souchet, the commission has to say frankly that, having examined the european parliament's report on the modification of this fundamental system, it cannot accept amendments nos 1 and 2. the reason, mr souchet, is that in order to comply with the undertakings given at international level, all that is needed is to incorporate the technical measures into the community legal system. the scope of those measures is extremely limited, in that they relate to the determination of fishing gear and its methods of use, and they are adopted by the management committee on the basis of article 18. well, in this context, the commission really does not think it is appropriate to apply the article 43 procedure, after the measure in question has been adopted by the international organization concerned, since the union does not in any case have a margin of discretion regarding the content of the measures. the commission, furthermore, cannot accept amendments nos 3 and 4, because they go beyond the legal framework of the proposal under consideration. having said all that, let me give you just one or two thoughts on the fisheries agreements. i told you already that i feel a great amount of frustration because even the debate tonight showed that the opinions in this house are completely divided. that means that the only thing i can do is stick to the final report, which apparently reflects the consensus after a long debate, and try to be as pragmatic as i can. let me take this occasion to say that you cannot simply transfer the overcapacity to third countries. for seven months the commission has tried to push through a capacity reduction of 30 % of our fleet. it took me seven months to achieve this result.this was achieved in a spirit of compromise - my original request was higher. i am simply underlining that we are trying to work in every way we can which includes a reduction in capacity or fishing effort in our waters and not simply a 'transfer of over-capacity elsewhere.' this is not correct. it is quite astonishing that member states who have never reduced their capacity in previous years or which have even increased their capacity in that time, not only create the major resistance in the council to my proposal but there is also criticism because i am 'simply transferring over-capacity.' maybe you are not referring to the commission but to your member states or governments. when you talk about decomissioning, mr mcmahon, your country, rightly or wrongly, did not use the decomissioning scheme with commission financing over the past ten years! (interruption by mr mcmahon) i am sorry, but that is not my problem. everybody has his own responsibility. i assume mine but i am not the scapegoat for everything including hiroshima! i was not born then. so, britain lost 12, 000, 000 by not using the decomissioning scheme and its fishermen were obliged to sell their boats and their licences. and others bought them. and i cannot prevent that. i cannot prevent people buying if you do not know how to prevent people selling. if you can tell me how to prevent people from selling, i will probably learn how to prevent people from buying. as far as compensation, not only to owners but to workers, is concerned, that was the proposal of the commission but several member states - i will not name them but you know very well which - did not accept that proposal. that is the same as the use of structural funds. the proposal of the commission which finally got through consisted of an invitation - not an obligation because it was not possible - to use part of the structural fund for social benefits to the fishermen. the proposal is not binding but it went through. some governments, including one you know well, are not using that possibility and i cannot enforce it. so let us apportion responsibility where it should be. secondly, on financial compensation, what do we mean? do we mean developing countries or to all agreements? if we are referring to all agreements can we just have a look to the greenland agreement which is ecu 50 million for no fish. so please take an initiative. i did and made no progress in the council. so, why do we not try? and i hope you will be as tough when we talk about tomatoes, which are paid for, or strawberries or other commercial agreements. so, if your proposal is that we should not pay for any agreement, i hope you will be coherent on other agreements and also when solidarity is called for in the case of epidemics. here we are talking about ecu 280m, of which ecu 180m are for acp countries. all the others are northern agreements, some of which have no fish. thirdly, you have to take account of the 20, 000 people working on this agreement when we talk about employment. this relates to the provision of resources for which we are 50 % dependent and if we simply had to buy 50 % of the fish which is needed for our consumption, we would pay anyway. (interruption from mr teverson: we do not do this for any other sector, do we?) i do not want to compare agricultural funds with the fisheries fund. if we are to be coherent we have to stick at some point. it cannot be that we have two different ways of dealing with things. or if we do, it does not make a lot of sense, mr teverson. not even when we pay subsidies for faults or mistakes made in some member states out of solidarity. the fisheries agreements are of commercial value. that is the point. we can try to evaluate it, if you want. the commission is not in a position to make a cost-effective evaluation, but we can have an external body do so if you want, for the sake of accountability to the taxpayer. maybe there are several issues we have to take into account. i have tried to make some points. i realise that this is not the final debate we will have on fisheries and international agreements. but i want to tell you how frustrated i am. i received no recognition from this house for the progress and changes we have made in the fisheries agreement. mr crampton mentioned that i declared that the time in which we come, we fish, we pay a little, is over. that is what i have been trying to achieve. the new agreements are second or third generation agreements. mr mcmahon referred to the many people depending on the fishery industry in the third world. maybe he was just counting the fish, for that is not exactly the truth. take namibia, for example. it wants to develop its own fisheries sector. it has the fish but it does not have the boats. so there is room for a balanced agreement with namibia, on the basis of joint enterprise. otherwise it will build its own fleet and the overall global fleet will simply increase. what is wrong in putting together its fish and our boats and our know-how? what is wrong with that? mozambique is in the same position. it has neither the know-how nor the boats nor the fleet to fish its own waters. that is the reason why they are selling to the japanese and to others. so more in-depth knowledge of the countries with which we have international fisheries agreements could be of some value and give us a better understanding of what is going on. it does not mean we are perfect, but we should recognize that we have made major changes in this dossier. (applause) mr president, i would like to congratulate the commissioner on what she said, 90 % of which i agree with. i share her frustrations with many of the member states, especially, perhaps, in recent times, my own. we recognize that the commission has come a long way. indeed, in this report from the committee on fisheries we congratulate the commission on one of their latest documents: ' fisheries agreements: current situation and agreements' . i think they are moving in the right direction. my report is supposed to try and help. mr president, the commissioner asked that the blame be placed where it belonged. she is right to do so. in particular she is right to blame the uk government, although she did not single it out for its failure on decommissioning. but equally, as the guardian of community law, she has the responsibility for the legal competence of the subject of the souchet report. i hope that she will go back to look at the legal base which we are examining in this parliament. the two go together. if we uphold the correct legal base and assign blame where it belongs, then let us be consistent there too. the debate is closed. the vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 noon. (the sitting was closed at 11.00 p.m.)